Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3425 

approximately 0.2 mile, returning to the 

point of beginning. 

Signed: December 5, 2008. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: December 19, 2008. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. E9–990 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2008–0005; T.D. TTB–72; 

Re: Notice No. 85] 

RIN 1513–AB47 

Expansion of the Paso Robles 

Viticultural Area (2008R–073P) 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: This Treasury decision 

expands by 2,635 acres the existing 

609,673-acre Paso Robles American 

viticultural area in San Luis Obispo 

County, California. The expanded Paso 

Robles viticultural area lies entirely 

within San Luis Obispo County and the 

multicounty Central Coast viticultural 

area. We designate viticultural areas to 

allow vintners to better describe the 

origin of their wines and to allow 

consumers to better identify wines they 

may purchase. 

DATES: Effective Dates: February 20, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. 

Sutton, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 

158, Petaluma, CA 94952; phone 415– 

271–1254. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

requires that these regulations, among 

other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels, and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the regulations 

promulgated under the FAA Act. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) allows the establishment of 

definitive viticultural areas and the use 

of their names as appellations of origin 

on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the 

list of approved viticultural areas. 

Definition 

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines 

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region 

distinguishable by geographical 

features, the boundaries of which have 

been recognized and defined in part 9 

of the regulations. These designations 

allow vintners and consumers to 

attribute a given quality, reputation, or 

other characteristic of a wine made from 

grapes grown in an area to its 

geographical origin. The establishment 

of viticultural areas allows vintners to 

describe more accurately the origin of 

their wines to consumers and helps 

consumers to identify wines they may 

purchase. Establishment of a viticultural 

area is neither an approval nor an 

endorsement by TTB of the wine 

produced in that area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations outlines the procedure for 

proposing an American viticultural area 

and provides that any interested party 

may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area. 

Petitioners may use the same procedure 

to request changes involving existing 

viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the 

TTB regulations requires the petition to 

include— 

• Evidence that the proposed 

viticultural area is locally and/or 

nationally known by the name specified 

in the petition; 

• Historical or current evidence that 

supports setting the boundary of the 

proposed viticultural area as the 

petition specifies; 

• Evidence relating to the 

geographical features, such as climate, 

soils, elevation, and physical features 

that distinguish the proposed 

viticultural area from surrounding areas; 

• A description of the specific 

boundary of the proposed viticultural 

area, based on features found on the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

maps; and 

• A copy of the appropriate USGS 

map(s) with the proposed viticultural 

area’s boundary prominently marked. 

Paso Robles Expansion Petition 

Background 

Previous Petitions 

On October 4, 1983, the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) 

published a final rule, T.D. ATF–148 (48 

FR 45239), to establish the ‘‘Paso 

Robles’’ American viticultural area 

(AVA) in northern San Luis Obispo 

County, California (see 27 CFR 9.84). As 

established, the Paso Robles AVA was 

entirely within the Central Coast AVA 

(27 CFR 9.75) and, to the west, it 

bordered the much smaller York 

Mountain AVA (27 CFR 9.80). In 1983, 

the Paso Robles AVA contained 

approximately 5,000 acres of vineyards. 

As established, the Paso Robles AVA 

was defined by the San Luis ObispoMonterey county line in the north, the 

Cholame Hills to the east, and the Santa 

Lucia Mountains to the south and west. 

According to T.D. ATF–148, the Santa 

Lucia Mountains largely protect the 

Paso Robles AVA from the intrusion of 

marine air and fog from the Pacific 

Ocean, giving the Paso Robles AVA a 

drier and warmer summertime climate 

than regions to the west and south. 

However, in T.D. ATF–216 establishing 

the Central Coast AVA, 50 FR 43128 

(October 24, 1985), ATF recognized that 

there was, to a lesser degree, marine 

influence on the climate in Paso Robles. 

The Paso Robles AVA also is 

characterized by day to night 

temperature changes of 40 to 50 degrees, 

annual rainfall of 10 to 25 inches, 600 

to 1,000 foot elevations, and welldrained, alluvial soils in terrace 

deposits. 

Lacking a feasible way to use physical 

features, such as ridge lines, to define 

the boundary of the Paso Robles AVA, 

the original petitioner largely used a 

series of township and range lines and 

point-to-point lines to delineate the 

AVA’s boundary. The southernmost 

portion of the Paso Robles AVA was 

delineated to the south by the east-west 

T29S/T30S township boundary line and 

to the east by the north-south R13E/ 

R14E range line. 

On June 13, 1996, ATF published a 

final rule, T.D. ATF–377 (61 FR 29952), 

expanding the Paso Robles AVA along 

a portion of its western boundary. This 

expansion added approximately 52,618 

acres of land similar to that contained 

in the original AVA. The expansion 

added to the AVA seven vineyards 

containing 235 acres of grapes planted 

after the 1983 establishment of the Paso 

Robles AVA. The Paso Robles AVA, as 

expanded, remained entirely within San 

Luis Obispo County and the Central 

Coast AVA, and this westerly expansion 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
3426 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

did not extend into the York Mountain 

AVA or change the AVA’s original 

southern boundary. 

Current Southern Expansion Petition 

In 2007, the Paso Robles AVA 

Committee (PRAVAC) submitted a 

petition to TTB requesting a 2,635-acre 

expansion of the Paso Robles AVA. The 

petition states that the PRAVAC 

represents a broad cross section of the 

Paso Robles wine industry and notes 

that its 59 grape grower and winery 

members collectively own or manage 

over 10,000 acres of vineyards within 

the Paso Robles AVA. 

The proposed expansion area is 

immediately south of the current 

southernmost boundary of the Paso 

Robles AVA, which boundary is 

delineated by the T29S/T30S township 

line, as shown on the 1:250,000-scale 

USGS San Luis Obispo map used to 

define the AVA’s boundary. As noted in 

the petition, the Paso Robles AVA’s 

current southernmost boundary line 

bisects the southern portion of the Santa 

Margarita Valley, leaving a significant 

portion of the valley’s southern end 

outside the AVA boundary as currently 

defined. The proposed expansion 

would, therefore, bring most of the 

remainder of the Santa Margarita Valley 

within the AVA, as shown on the 

1:24,000 USGS Lopez Mountain map 

submitted with the petition. (TTB notes 

that, while not used to formally define 

the AVA’s boundary in the proposed 

regulatory text, the Lopez Mountain 

map provides significantly more 

geographical detail regarding the 

expansion area due to its smaller scale.) 

The proposed southern expansion 

also lies totally within San Luis Obispo 

County and the existing Central Coast 

AVA, and it would not overlap or 

otherwise affect any other established or 

currently proposed new AVA. 

According to the petition, the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

expansion area, including its geological 

history, geomorphology, soils, 

topography, and climate, are similar to 

those found in the southern region of 

the original Paso Robles AVA. 

Name Evidence 

The petition states that the ‘‘Paso 

Robles’’ geographical name applies to 

the proposed southern expansion of the 

Paso Robles AVA due to the historic, 

geographic, commercial, and cultural 

ties between the Santa Margarita Valley 

and the Paso Robles region of San Luis 

Obispo County. These ties resulted from 

the northward orientation of the valley, 

which is enclosed to the south and west 

by the Santa Lucia Mountains. 

Historically, travel was easier going 

northward through the valley to the city 

of Paso Robles than it was going 

southward over the mountains to the 

city of San Luis Obispo. The petition 

also states that, because of the stated 

historic and other ties, local residents 

and members of the Paso Robles wine 

industry have assumed that the entire 

Santa Margarita Valley was within the 

original Paso Robles AVA boundary line 

and have referenced the area as such. 

According to the petition, other 

sources also show the entire Santa 

Margarita Valley as falling within the 

Paso Robles region. For example, the 

Paso Style Living real estate Web site 

(http://www.pasostyleliving.com/pages/ 

pasoarea.htm) describes the Santa 

Margarita area as ‘‘the Southern edge of 

Paso wine country.’’ A 1928 soil survey 

map of the Paso Robles area submitted 

with the petition also shows the entire 

Santa Margarita Land Grant as being 

within the Paso Robles region. In 

addition, the ‘‘1978 General Soil Map of 

the Paso Robles Area—San Luis Obispo 

County,’’ published by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service, University of 

California Agricultural Experiment 

Station, includes the proposed Paso 

Robles AVA expansion area within the 

Paso Robles region of the county. 

Boundary Evidence 

The proposed triangle-shaped 

expansion of the Paso Robles AVA 

would move its southernmost point 

approximately 2.6 miles south to 

encompass most of that portion of the 

Santa Margarita Valley currently not 

included within the AVA. Also, the 

proposed expansion area would 

lengthen by the same distance the 

portion of the eastern boundary 

commonly shared by the Paso Robles 

and Central Coast AVAs. 

The petition describes the proposed 

expansion area as part of the ‘‘cohesive 

geographical unit’’ of the Santa 

Margarita Valley. Nestled between the 

Santa Lucia Range and the Salinas 

River, the Santa Margarita Valley lies on 

both sides of the existing southern 

boundary line of the Paso Robles AVA. 

The petition describes the southernmost 

boundary line of the original Paso 

Robles AVA, which boundary line 

follows the T29S/T30S township line 

and bisects the Santa Margarita Valley, 

as an ‘‘imaginary, indiscernible 

boundary in the landscape, not defined 

by any topographic or other 

environmental parameters.’’ 

As explained in T.D. ATF–148, the 

Paso Robles AVA is bounded on the 

west and south by the Santa Lucia 

Mountain range. The proposed southern 

expansion, the petition explains, would 

more closely align the southernmost 

boundary of the Paso Robles AVA with 

the Santa Lucia Range by encompassing 

most of the portion of the Santa 

Margarita Valley that is currently 

outside the AVA. The petition explains 

that beyond the proposed expansion 

area to the south is the narrowed 

terminus of the Santa Margarita Valley, 

with steep terrain on three sides and 

inadequate groundwater and warmth to 

sustain commercial viticulture. 

According to the petition, the 

viticultural history of the Santa 

Margarita Valley began with the arrival 

of Spanish missionaries, who, among 

other things, brought grapes and 

winemaking to the Paso Robles area 

over 200 years ago. Near present-day 

Santa Margarita, the missionaries built 

the Santa Margarita de Cortona 

Asistencia in 1787, which functioned as 

an outpost of the mission located at San 

Luis Obispo and which served as a 

chapel, farmstead, and storehouse for 

grain grown in the valley. See page 39 

of the ‘‘History of San Luis Obispo 

County, California, with Illustrations 

and Biographical Sketches of its 

Prominent Men and Pioneers,’’ by 

Myron Angel, Thompson & West, 1883, 

reprinted by Howell-North Books, 1966, 

which was included with the petition. 

According to the Angel publication, 

in 1861 the land surrounding the 

Asistencia site was purchased by Mary 

and Martin Murphy, who also owned 

portions of other land grants within the 

Paso Robles region. Under their 

ownership, the petition states, the Santa 

Margarita area developed a strong 

attachment to the more commercialized 

Paso Robles area to its north. By 1889, 

the petition explains, an extension of 

the Southern Pacific Railroad ran south 

from Paso Robles along the Salinas 

River to the small settlement of Santa 

Margarita. See pages 34 and 75 of ‘‘Rails 

Across the Ranchos,’’ by Loren 

Nicholson, Valley Publishers, 1993. The 

USGS San Luis Obispo regional map 

shows the Southern Pacific Railway 

running south from the city of Paso 

Robles across the relatively flat valley to 

the town of Santa Margarita, where it 

begins a twisting climb up and over the 

Santa Lucia Mountains to the city of San 

Luis Obispo. 

In 2000, the petition explains, the 

Robert Mondavi Winery leased more 

than 1,000 acres in the southern Santa 

Margarita Valley for commercial 

vineyard development. This acreage is 

bisected by the current southernmost 

boundary of the Paso Robles AVA. At 

the time of the petition, vineyards 

covered 800 of the 1,000 acres, with 

plantings located on both sides of the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3427 

existing Paso Robles AVA boundary 

line, according to the petition. 

Distinguishing Features 

The proposed expansion of the Paso 

Robles AVA relies on the Santa 

Margarita Valley’s uniform topography, 

climate, soils, geologic history, and 

geomorphology. These geographical 

features, the petition notes, are the same 

throughout the valley, which is 

currently bisected by the southernmost 

boundary line of the existing Paso 

Robles AVA. The Santa Margarita 

Valley, which makes up the portion of 

the Salinas River Valley containing 

Santa Margarita and Rinconada Creeks, 

extends south from the city of 

Atascadero, through the town of Santa 

Margarita, and continues southsoutheastward through the proposed 

expansion area, according to the USGS 

San Luis Obispo regional map and the 

petition. 

Professor Deborah L. Elliott-Fisk, 

Ph.D, of the University of California, 

Davis, an expert on the geography and 

terroir of California and viticultural area 

designations, researched and provided 

the data for the distinguishing features 

discussed in the petition. According to 

the petition, Dr. Elliott-Fisk also 

coordinated the data and analyses 

supplied by meteorologist Donald 

Schukraft, Western Weather Group, 

LLC, and other experts. 

Climate 

The climate of the Paso Robles AVA 

as a whole, according to Dr. Elliott-Fisk, 

has smaller monthly temperature ranges 

and less continental influence than the 

inland areas further to the east, but is 

less influenced by Pacific marine air 

and fog than the coastal regions to the 

west due to the blocking effect of the 

Santa Lucia Mountains. As part of the 

larger Paso Robles region, the Santa 

Margarita Valley has climatic conditions 

similar to the Paso Robles AVA, Dr. 

Elliott-Fisk notes, and these conditions 

exist on both sides of the existing 

southernmost boundary of the AVA, 

which passes from west to east through 

the valley. Dr. Elliott-Fisk adds that 

other climate similarities found within 

the valley on either side of the existing 

AVA boundary include cold air 

drainage, cold air ponding under 

temperature inversions, and similar 

frost patterns, especially early in the 

growing season. Also, annual 

precipitation in the valley averages 29 

inches, while regions to the east are 

drier and the coastal mountains to the 

west are wetter. 

These climatic similarities also are 

evidenced by various climate 

classification systems. For example, the 

petition states, the global scale climate 

classification system of Koppen, Geiger 

and Pohl (1953) labels the great majority 

of the Paso Robles region as a 

Mediterranean warm summer climate 

(Csb), while the region to the east has a 

Mediterranean hot summer climate 

(Csa). 

Dr. Elliott-Fisk states that the climate 

of the Santa Margarita Valley is 

classified as a cool region II climate of 

approximately 2,900 degree days under 

the Winkler climate classification 

system, which is based on the heat 

accumulation during the growing 

season. This classification is found on 

both sides of the existing southernmost 

Paso Robles AVA boundary. (As a 

measurement of heat accumulation 

during the growing season, 1 degree day 

accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit 

that a day’s mean temperature is above 

50 degrees, which is the minimum 

temperature required for grapevine 

growth. In the Winkler system, climatic 

region I has less than 2,500 degree days 

per year; region II, 2,501 to 3,000; region 

III, 3,001 to 3,500; region IV, 3,501 to 

4,000; and region V, 4,001 or more. See 

pages 61–64 of ‘‘General Viticulture,’’ by 

Albert J. Winkler, University of 

California Press, 1974.) 

Regarding the southern end of the 

Santa Margarita Valley that lies beyond 

the proposed expansion, Dr. Elliott-Fisk 

explains that the steep topography east, 

south, and west of the narrow valley 

floor causes increases in relief 

precipitation and evening settling of 

cold, dense air at the valley’s terminus. 

Local farmers, the petition explains, 

state that air temperatures at the far 

southern end of the valley are too cold 

to produce quality wine grapes. 

Geology 

The geological features that 

characterize the southern region of the 

Paso Robles AVA continue across the 

southernmost boundary line of the 

viticultural area and are found 

throughout the Santa Margarita Valley, 

including the proposed expansion area. 

Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains that the Salinas 

River originally formed the Santa 

Margarita Valley through a process of 

soil erosion and deposition, while the 

complex faulting of the Santa Lucia 

Range formed a graben basin that 

extends along the valley floor and 

crosses the existing Paso Robles AVA 

southernmost boundary line. Later, Dr. 

Elliott-Fisk notes, the Salinas River 

carved a new channel to the east 

through the soft Monterey Formation 

shales along the Rinconada Fault as the 

San Andreas Fault zone became more 

active. Rinconada Creek, a primary 

tributary of the Salinas River in the 

Santa Margarita Valley area, then 

deposited a series of broad alluvial fans 

and terraces across the older Salinas 

River alluvial fill, Dr. Elliott-Fisk 

explains. She notes that these alluvial 

terraces extend north and south of the 

current Paso Robles AVA boundary line 

and exist throughout the proposed 

expansion area. 

To the east, south, and west of the 

proposed Paso Robles AVA expansion, 

Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains, the geology of 

the landscape is unsuitable for 

commercial production of wine grapes. 

She states that, to the east, granitic rocks 

on the mountainsides make the area 

difficult to farm, and the weathering and 

failure of near-surface rock make road 

building difficult. Also, to the south, 

and at the narrowed southern terminus 

of the Santa Margarita Valley, 

Franciscan conglomerate rock underlies 

the shallow alluvium creating an 

environment lacking in adequate 

groundwater. To the west, the landscape 

includes massive units of the late 

Cretaceous Franciscan and Great Valley 

formations, consisting of hard marine 

sandstones and conglomerates on steep 

mountain slopes, making the terrain 

unsuitable for viticulture. 

Soils 

Similar soils exist on both sides of the 

current Paso Robles AVA southern 

boundary line, according to the current 

USDA soil survey for the Paso Robles 

Area of San Luis Obispo County 

(Lindsey, 1978). Climate, parent 

material, topography, and time, Dr. 

Elliott-Fisk states, all contribute to the 

soil type similarities that extend the 

length of the Santa Margarita Valley. 

The soils of the Santa Margarita Valley, 

Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains, include the 

deep gravelly loam soils of late midQuaternary age, grading into shallower 

clay loam soils against bedrock on the 

hillsides. Also, younger alluvial 

deposits dominate the flood plains of 

the valley’s creeks. 

The soils and terrain to the south, 

east, and west of the proposed southern 

expansion of the Paso Robles AVA are, 

however, unsuitable for commercial 

viticulture, Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains. To 

the south, the soils of the valley floor 

include clay loams with low water 

permeability, high water capacity, and 

moderate shrink-swell potential, while 

the mountain slopes to the east and west 

have a shallow topsoil, small rooting 

zones for grapevines, and an erosion 

potential, making those areas unsuitable 

for viticulture. 

Evidence Summary 

The PRAVAC petition, including Dr. 

Elliott-Fisk’s discussion of the proposed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
3428 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

expansion area’s distinguishing features 

and a detailed letter from vineyard 

developer and manager Neil Roberts, 

emphasizes that similar geological, 

geographical, and climatic conditions 

extend through the Santa Margarita 

Valley, which encompasses a portion of 

the existing Paso Robles AVA as well as 

the proposed expansion area. The 

landforms, topography, and geology 

features that form the Santa Margarita 

Valley, the petition explains, are similar 

both north and south of the existing 

Paso Robles AVA southernmost 

boundary line. Also, the valley’s 

climate, as reflected by Winkler’s 

degree-day values, and its soil types, as 

documented in the 1978 USDA soil 

survey for the Paso Robles Area of San 

Luis Obispo County, show strong 

similarities on both sides of the current 

Paso Robles AVA southernmost 

boundary line. The petition adds that 

vineyards are farmed the same way 

north and south of the current Paso 

Robles AVA boundary line through the 

valley and that these vineyards grow the 

same varietals. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

TTB published Notice No. 85 

regarding the proposed expansion of the 

Paso Robles viticultural area in the 

Federal Register (73 FR 40474) on July 

15, 2008. In that notice, TTB invited 

comments by September 15, 2008, from 

all interested persons. We expressed 

particular interest in receiving 

comments concerning the similarity of 

the proposed expansion area to the 

currently existing Paso Robles 

viticultural area. 

TTB received eight comments in 

response to Notice No. 85. Seven of the 

comments supported the expansion of 

the Paso Robles viticultural area as 

proposed. One commenter, Justin 

Kahler, supported a southern expansion 

of the Paso Robles viticultural area, but 

disagreed with the eastern portion of the 

proposed new boundary line. 

Mr. Kahler requested that the 

proposed expansion of the Paso Robles 

viticultural area continue eastward 

approximately 2.5 miles generally along 

Las Pilitas Road, incorporating sections 

6, 5, 4, and 33, Township 30 South and 

Range 14 East, of the Lopez Mountain 

and Santa Margarita Lake USGS 

quadrangle maps. Mr. Kahler stated in 

his request that the additional 

expansion area was entirely within the 

multi-county Central Coast viticultural 

area. Upon review of Mr. Kahler’s 

request for an expansion larger than 

originally proposed for the Paso Robles 

viticultural area, TTB found that the 

additional area that Mr. Kahler 

proposed extends eastward beyond the 

Central Coast viticultural area boundary 

line. In contrast, the current Paso Robles 

viticultural area and the southern 

expansion area covered by the PRAVAC 

petition are entirely within the Central 

Coast viticultural area. Moreover, the 

eastern boundary line of the PRAVACproposed southern expansion area 

shares a portion of, but does not cross 

over, the eastern boundary line of the 

Central Coast viticultural area. 

TTB notes that in the final rule that 

established the Central Coast 

viticultural area, T.D. ATF–216, the 

‘‘Geographical Features Which Affect 

Viticultural Features’’ section states that 

‘‘the eastern boundary of the Central 

Coast viticultural area is drawn at the 

approximate inland limit of the marine 

influence on climate.’’ This finding 

regarding the Central Coast AVA is 

relevant because it also addressed the 

Paso Robles viticultural area within it. 

T.D. ATF–216 explains that the marine 

influence traveling south from Monterey 

Bay, through the Salinas River Valley, 

reaches the Paso Robles area but to a 

lesser degree. Thus, the Paso Robles area 

is still under marine influence and 

possesses microclimates characteristic 

of coastal valleys, especially in 

comparison to areas that are farther 

inland (such as the area identified by 

Mr. Kahler in his request to further 

expand the Paso Robles AVA). 

In his comment and request on this 

proposed rulemaking action, Mr. Kahler 

did not address the issue that his 

proposed further expansion area 

extends beyond the current boundary of 

the Central Coast viticultural area and 

outside the determined approximate 

inland limit of the marine influence on 

climate. Thus, TTB has concluded, after 

careful consideration, that it does not 

have sufficient information to establish 

the eastward expansion requested by 

Mr. Kahler in this final rule. Such 

expansion may be the subject of a future 

rulemaking action. 

TTB Finding 

After careful review of the petition 

and comments received, TTB finds that 

the evidence submitted supports the 

expansion of the viticultural area as 

proposed by the PRAVAC. Therefore, 

under the authority of the Federal 

Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 

of our regulations, we amend our 

regulations to expand the Paso Robles 

viticultural area in San Luis Obispo 

County, California, effective 30 days 

from the publication date of this 

document. 

Boundary Description 

See the modified narrative boundary 

description reflecting the expanded 

viticultural area in the regulatory text 

amendment published at the end of this 

document. 

Maps 

The petitioner provided the required 

map pertaining to the expansion, and 

we list it below in the amended 

regulatory text. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

The expansion of the Paso Robles 

viticultural area does not affect any 

currently approved wine labels. The 

approval of this expansion may allow 

additional vintners to use ‘‘Paso Robles’’ 

as an appellation of origin on their wine 

labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations 

prohibits any label reference on a wine 

that indicates or implies an origin other 

than the wine’s true place of origin. For 

a wine to be labeled with a viticultural 

area name or with a brand name that 

includes a viticultural area name or 

other term identified as being 

viticulturally significant in part 9 of the 

TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of 

the wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name or other term, and the wine 

must meet the other conditions listed in 

27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply 

if a wine has a brand name containing 

a viticultural area name or other 

viticulturally significant term that was 

used as a brand name on a label 

approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 

CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this regulation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This regulation imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of a viticultural 

area name is the result of a proprietor’s 

efforts and consumer acceptance of 

wines from that area. Therefore, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 

Drafting Information 

N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and 

Rulings Division drafted this notice. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3429 

The Regulatory Amendment 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we amend title 27 CFR, 

chapter 1, part 9, as follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

■ 2. Section 9.84 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (b), (c)(7), and (c)(8), 

redesignating paragraphs (c)(9) and 

(c)(10) as (c)(10) and (c)(11), and adding 

a new paragraph (c)(9). The revisions 

and addition read as follows: 

§ 9.84 Paso Robles. 

* * * * * 

(b) Approved Map. The appropriate 

map for determining the boundary of 

the Paso Robles viticultural area is the 

United States Geological Survey 

1:250,000-scale map of San Luis Obispo, 

California, 1956, revised 1969, shoreline 

revised and bathymetry added 1979. 

(c) Boundaries. * * * 

* * * * * 

(7) Then in an easterly direction along 

the T.29S. and T.30S. line for 

approximately 3.1 miles to its 

intersection with the eastern boundary 

line of the Los Padres National Forest; 

(8) Then in a southeasterly direction 

along the eastern boundary line of the 

Los Padres National Forest for 

approximately 4.1 miles to its 

intersection with the R.13E. and R.14E. 

line; 

(9) Then in a northerly direction along 

the R.13E. and R.14E. line for 

approximately 8.7 miles to its 

intersection with the T.28S. and T.29S. 

line; 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 5, 2008. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: December 16, 2008. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. E9–994 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION 

29 CFR Parts 1601, 1603, 1605, 1610, 

1611, 1612, 1614, 1615, 1621 and 1626 

RIN 3046–AA86 

Change of Address for Headquarters 

and Washington Field Office 

AGENCY: Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

existing EEOC regulations by changing 

two office addresses and one post office 

box. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 21, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal 

Counsel, (202) 663–4668, or Erin N. 

Norris, Attorney, (202) 663–4876, Office 

of Legal Counsel, 131 M St., NE., 

Washington, DC 20507. Copies of this 

final rule are available in the following 

alternate formats: Large print, braille, 

electronic computer disk, and audiotape. Requests for this notice in an 

alternative formal should be made to the 

Publications Center at 1–800–699–3362 

(voice), 1–800–800–3302 (TTY), or 703– 

821–2098 (FAX—this is not a toll free 

number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

November and December of 2008, the 

Commission’s Headquarters relocated 

from 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20507 to 131 M Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20507, and the 

Commission’s Washington Field Office 

relocated from 1801 L Street, NW., Suite 

100, Washington, DC 20507 to 131 M 

Street, NE., Fourth Floor, Suite 

4NW02F, Washington, DC 20507. 

Telephone numbers for Commission 

employees have not changed. In 

addition, the Commission’s Office of 

Federal Operations began using a new 

post office box effective December 1, 

2008: P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 

20013. The previous post office box 

address will remain in effect 

temporarily, but individuals wishing to 

file appeals, petitions, notice, etc. under 

29 CFR Parts 1603 and 1614 with the 

Office of Federal Operations via mail 

should begin using the new post office 

box address now. This Final Rule 

modifies 29 CFR Parts 1601, 1603, 1605, 

1610, 1611, 1612, 1614, 1615, 1621, and 

1626 to reflect the change of address. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866 

This action pertains to agency 

organization, management or personnel 

matters and therefore is not a rule 

within the meaning of section 3(d)(3) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This regulation contains no new 

information collection requirements 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Commission certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because it does not affect any small 

business entities. The regulation affects 

only the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. For this 

reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis 

is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This final rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Congressional Review Act 

This action pertains to the 

Commission’s management, personnel 

and organization and does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties and, 

accordingly, is not a ‘‘rule’’ as that term 

is used by the Congressional Review Act 

(Subtitle E of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the 

reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 

does not apply. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1601, 

1603, 1605, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1614, 

1615, 1621, 1626 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Equal Employment 

Opportunity. 

For the Commission. 

Dated: January 13, 2009. 

Naomi C. Earp, 

Chair. 

■ Accordingly, the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission amends 29 

CFR parts 1601, 1603, 1605, 1610, 1611, 

1612, 1614, 1615, 1621, and 1626 as 

follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES