Proposed Establishment of the San Luis Rey Viticultural Area
| Court | Alcohol And Tobacco Tax And Trade Bureau |
| Citation | 88 FR 59820 |
| Published date | 30 August 2023 |
| Record Number | 2023-18587 |
Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59820-59825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18587]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2023-0007; Notice No. 225]
RIN 1513-AD03
Proposed Establishment of the San Luis Rey Viticultural Area
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
establish the 97,733-acre ``San Luis Rey'' American viticultural area
(AVA) in San Diego County, California. The proposed AVA is located
entirely within the existing South Coast AVA. TTB designates
viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of
their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may
purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.
DATES: TTB must receive your comments on or before October 30, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this
proposal and view copies of this document, its supporting materials,
and any comments TTB receives on it within Docket No. TTB-2023-0007 as
posted on Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov), the Federal e-
rulemaking portal. Please see the ``Public Participation'' section of
this document below for full details on how to comment on this proposal
via Regulations.gov or U.S. mail, and for full details on how to obtain
copies of this document, its supporting materials, and any comments
related to this proposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
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 provides that these regulations should, 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 FAA Act
provisions pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, as codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In addition, the Secretary of the
Treasury has delegated certain administrative and enforcement
authorities to TTB through Treasury Order 120-01.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate 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) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
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 having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of
the regulations and, once approved, a name and a delineated boundary
codified 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 the
wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA 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 (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2))
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and allows any interested
party to petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA.
Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards
for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an
AVA must include the following:
Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
A narrative description of the features of the proposed
AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon;
If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or
overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the
attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing
AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the
existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Petition To Establish the San Luis Rey AVA
TTB received a petition from Rebecca Wood, managing member of
Premium Vintners, LLC, proposing to establish the ``San Luis Rey'' AVA.
Premium Vintners, LLC, operates Fallbrook Winery and farms several
vineyards within the proposed AVA. The petition was submitted on behalf
of Fallbrook Winery and other local vineyard owners and winemakers. The
proposed AVA is located in San Diego County, California, and is
entirely within the existing South Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.104). Within the
proposed AVA, there are approximately 44 commercial vineyards, which
cover a total of approximately 256 acres, as well as an additional 29
acres of planned vineyards. There are also 23 wineries within the
proposed AVA. The
[[Page 59821]]
distinguishing features of the proposed San Luis Rey AVA are its
topography, climate, and soils.
Proposed San Luis Rey AVA
Name Evidence
The proposed San Luis Rey AVA takes its name from the San Luis Rey
River watershed, which includes most of the proposed AVA. According to
the petition, the topography of the San Luis Rey River valley has a
major effect on the climate of the proposed AVA. The river is named for
the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia, which was established by
Franciscan monks on a hill overlooking the valley in 1798. The petition
states that the monks established a tradition of growing wine grapes in
the region, with one contemporary noting in his memoires that the
monks' ``gardens produce the best olives and the best wine in all
California.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Duhat-Cilly, A.B. Duhat-Cilly's Account of California in the
Years 1827-28. Retrieved November 2, 2022 from American Journeys at
https://www.americanjourneys.org/aj-098.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the USGS quadrangle maps used to create the boundary of the
proposed AVA is titled ``San Luis Rey, CA.'' ``San Luis Rey'' also
appears on that map as the name of a community within the proposed AVA.
The petition provides a printout from a real estate website showing
homes for sale within the proposed AVA under the heading ``San Luis Rey
Real Estate.'' Finally, the petition includes examples of several
business within the proposed AVA that use the name ``San Luis Rey,''
including the San Luis Rey Bakery and Restaurant, the San Luis Rey
Training Center, and the San Luis Rey Equine Hospital.
Boundary Evidence
The proposed San Luis Rey AVA is located within the San Luis Rey
River valley. According to the petition, Interstate Highway 5 forms the
western boundary and separates the proposed AVA from a narrow strip of
densely populated land that is not suitable for commercial viticulture.
West of this strip of land is the Pacific Ocean. The boundary of the
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, which is unavailable for commercial
viticulture, forms the northwest portion of the proposed AVA boundary.
The shared San Diego-Riverside County line forms the northern boundary
of the proposed AVA, and Interstate Highway 15 forms the eastern
boundary. Both of these boundaries exclude lands with higher mean
annual temperatures than those found in the proposed AVA. The proposed
southern boundary follows State Highway 78 to exclude lands with higher
mean annual temperatures and different soils than are found in the
proposed AVA.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the
proposed San Luis Rey AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. The
Pacific Ocean is to the west of the proposed AVA, so distinguishing
feature information was not provided for that region.
Topography
The petition states that the proposed San Luis Rey AVA is a mostly
hilly region along the San Luis Rey River valley. Elevations increase
from 5 feet to 1,796 feet as one moves farther from the coast. The mean
elevation within the proposed AVA is 563 feet. Slope angles within the
proposed AVA average 10 degrees.
According to the petition, the low elevations allow cool marine air
from the Pacific Ocean to flow through the proposed AVA, moderating
temperatures. Afternoon breezes also help prevent fungal diseases such
as powdery mildew by reducing the moisture on the vines caused by
morning low cloud cover. Finally, the petition notes that the low
elevations and a terrain consisting of gently rolling hills open to
marine air almost eliminate the risk of spring frosts, which can affect
vine growth at the beginning of the growing season. See the following
Climate section for supporting evidence.
To the north of the proposed San Luis Rey AVA, within the
established Temecula Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.50), elevations are higher,
ranging from 575 to 2,831 feet with a mean elevation of 1,508 feet. The
slopes are similar to those in the proposed AVA, with a mean slope
angle of 10 degrees. To the south, within the established San Pasqual
Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.25), the minimum elevation is higher than within
the proposed AVA, at 304 feet, and the maximum elevation is lower at
725. However, the mean elevation within the San Pasqual Valley AVA is
lower than that of the proposed AVA, at 408 feet. The mean slope angle
within the San Pasqual Valley AVA is also shallower, at 6 degrees. To
the southeast of the proposed AVA, within the established Ramona Valley
AVA (27 CFR 9.191), elevations are higher, ranging from 680 to 3,133
feet, with a mean elevation of 1,766 feet. The slope angles within the
Ramona Valley AVA are also steeper, with a mean of 12 degrees. The
petition did not provide an exact range of elevations for the region to
the east of the proposed AVA but did include a graphic showing
elevations within the southern portion of California, indicating higher
elevations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Exhibit R to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007 at
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate
According to the petition, the proximity of the proposed San Luis
Rey AVA to the Pacific Ocean moderates the temperature extremes,
generally resulting in mild winters and summers with lower maximum
temperatures than regions farther inland. As evidence of the milder
temperatures, the petition included information on the average annual
mean temperature, average annual maximum temperature, average peak
ripening and harvest season maximum temperature, and growing degree day
\3\ (GDD) for the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. The
information is set forth in the following tables and was gathered from
the 1981-2010 climate normal dataset from PRISM Climate Group, Oregon
State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64. In the Winkler
climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the
growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines climatic regions.
One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean
temperature is above 50 degrees F, the minimum temperature required
for grapevine growth.
\4\ See Exhibit H to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007 at
https://www.regulations.gov.
\5\ See Exhibit I to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007 at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Table 1--Average Annual Mean and Maximum Temperatures in Degrees
Fahrenheit (F) \4\ \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Location (direction from proposed Average annual maximum
AVA) mean temperature temperature
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed AVA...................... 63.11 74.20
Temecula Valley AVA (north)....... 64.39 77.65
San Pasqual Valley AVA (south).... 64.55 77.75
[[Page 59822]]
Ramona Valley AVA (southeast)..... 61.91 76.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Average Peak Ripening and Harvest Season Maximum Temperatures in Degrees F \6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature
Location (direction from proposed AVA) ---------------------------------------------------
July August September October
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed AVA................................................ 82.89 84.22 82.78 78.24
Temecula Valley AVA (north)................................. 93.46 94.50 88.18 80.53
San Pasqual Valley AVA (south).............................. 88.25 89.62 87.42 82.39
Ramona Valley AVA (southeast)............................... 90.66 92.02 88.90 80.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Growing Degree Days \7\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growing degree days
Location (direction from proposed --------------------------------------
AVA) Minimum Maximum Mean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed AVA..................... 3,250 4,139 3,849
Temecula Valley AVA (north)...... 3,844 4,537 4,218
San Pasqual Valley AVA (south)... 3,946 4,234 4,122
Ramona Valley AVA (southeast).... 3,570 3,938 3,740
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in the preceding tables, the proposed San Luis Rey AVA has
a lower average annual mean temperature, lower average annual maximum
temperature, lower peak ripening and growing season temperatures, and
fewer GDDs than the regions to the north and south. The proposed AVA
has a higher average annual mean temperature and a greater number of
mean GDDs than the region to the southeast. However, the maximum and
minimum GDDs for the proposed AVA are still lower than those of the
region to the southeast, as are the average annual maximum temperature
and average peak ripening and harvest season temperatures. The petition
notes that mild temperatures, particularly during peak ripening and
harvest season, affect viticulture, as prolonged temperatures over 90
degrees F can cause loss of flavor and aroma compounds in grapes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Exhibit J to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007 at
https://www.regulations.gov.
\7\ See Exhibit L to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007 at
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the petition states that the proposed AVA
experiences very little frost that occurs early in the season or late
in autumn. Consequently, frost does not affect grape vine growth or
ripening consistency in the proposed AVA. As evidence, the petition
included the average number of days from 1981-2010 with temperatures at
or below 32 degrees F for two locations within the proposed AVA,
ranging from 0.8 to 4.7 days.\8\ The data were collected using the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate normal dataset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Appendix 1 to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007
at https://www.regulations.gov.
\10\ See Exhibit K to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007
at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition also includes information about diurnal temperature
variation, which it describes as the average monthly minimum
temperature subtracted from the average monthly maximum temperature.\9\
The data, shown in the following table, provide the temperature
difference for the peak growing and harvest season and show that the
proposed San Luis Rey AVA has smaller temperature differences than the
surrounding regions. The petition states that temperature differences
help preserve the balance of sugar and natural fruit acidity in grapes.
Table 4--Diurnal Temperature Variation in Degrees F \10\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature variation
Location (direction from proposed AVA) ---------------------------------------------------
July August September October
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed AVA................................................ 21.9 22.5 23.0 23.4
Temecula Valley AVA (north)................................. 32.2 32.5 28.3 26.3
San Pasqual Valley AVA (south).............................. 27.1 27.6 27.6 28.5
Ramona Valley AVA (southeast)............................... 33.6 33.8 33.5 31.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59823]]
Finally, the petition compared annual precipitation amounts in the
proposed San Luis Rey AVA to those of the surrounding regions. The
proposed AVA has lower annual precipitation amounts than the regions to
the north and southeast and slightly higher amounts than the region to
the southeast. According to the petition, high amounts of rainfall
during the spring and the grape ripening season can disrupt bloom
formation, split fruit, and disrupt the ripening process.
Table 5--Annual Precipitation in Inches \11\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches
Location (direction from proposed --------------------------------------
AVA) Maximum Minimum Mean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed AVA..................... 16.97 11.48 14.27
Temecula Valley AVA (north)...... 22.58 13.51 17.34
San Pasqual Valley AVA (south)... 14.79 13.30 13.69
Ramona Valley AVA (southeast).... 22.86 15.34 17.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soils
According to the petition, nearly 50 percent of the soils in the
proposed San Luis Rey AVA belong to the Alfisols soil taxonomy order.
Soils in this order have relatively high native fertility and high
concentrations of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium, which are
essential plant nutrients. The soils of the proposed AVA are also
relatively low in organic carbon. The petition states that soils with
low levels of organic carbon decrease grapevine vigor, leading to
smaller canopies, clusters and berries. The smaller clusters and
berries enhance the flavor concentration in the grapes and increase the
skin-to-juice ratio during fermentation, while fewer leaves on the
vines lead to improved fruit color and a reduction in ``green''
flavors. Approximately 69 percent of the soils in the proposed AVA are
sandy loams, which the petition describes as an even mixture of soil
separates that can hold water while draining and aerating well, and is
easily worked with agricultural tools. Sandy loams also have low cation
exchange capacity, which reduces the ability of vines to absorb
nutrients from the soil and prevents overly vigorous growth. The main
soil series within the proposed AVA are the Las Posas, Fallbrook, and
Cieneba series, and the primary parent materials of these soils are
granite and granodiorite (28.85 and 19.54 percent, respectively).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Exhibit M to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007
at https://www.regulations.gov.
\12\ See Exhibit Q to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007
at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the north of the proposed San Luis Rey AVA, within the
established Temecula Valley AVA, the majority of soils are also within
the Alfisols soil taxonomy order (48 percent). However, the region also
has more soils in the Entisols and Mollisols orders than are found
within the proposed AVA. The primary parent materials of the soils are
granite and sandstone. To the south of the proposed AVA, within the
established San Pasqual AVA, the soils are primarily within the
Alfisols order, but lower amounts than the proposed AVA (33 percent).
Entisols and Mollisols also occur with greater frequency within the San
Pasqual AVA. The primary parent material is granite (77.48 percent),
followed by granodiorite (13.45 percent). To the southeast of the
proposed AVA, in the established Ramona Valley AVA, there are slightly
fewer soils in the Alfisols order (46 percent) and more soils in the
Entisols order (26 percent) than are found in the proposed AVA. The
primary parent materials are granite and granodiorite, which are found
in greater numbers than within the proposed AVA (36.60 and 35.23
percent, respectively).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of the Proposed San Luis Rey AVA to the Existing South Coast
AVA
T.D. ATF-218, published in the Federal Register on November 21,
1985 (50 FR 48084), established the South Coast AVA. It describes the
primary feature of the South Coast AVA as the ``substantial coastal
influence'' on the climate. The proposed San Luis Rey AVA shares the
marine-influenced climate of the larger South Coast AVA. For example,
the petition notes that the mean average annual temperature for the
proposed AVA is 63.11 degrees F, which is the same as the entire South
Coast AVA.\14\ Additionally, the average annual maximum temperature is
74.20 degrees F for the proposed AVA and 74.99 degrees F for the South
Coast AVA.\15\ However, due to its much smaller size, the proposed AVA
is more uniform in its other distinguishing features than the large,
multi-county South Coast AVA. The petition states, for example, that
the proposed AVA is hilly with a lower mean elevation and more
consistent terrain than the South Coast AVA, which ranges from the
Pacific Ocean to mountainous elevations northeast and southeast. Only
about one third of the soil series that exist within the South Coast
AVA are also present within the proposed San Luis Rey AVA. Furthermore,
the three most common soil series in the proposed AVA--Las Posas,
Fallbrook, and Cieneba--make up 34.9 percent of the total soils in the
proposed AVA, but only comprise 20.3 percent of the South Coast AVA
soils.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Exhibit H to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007
at https://www.regulations.gov.
\15\ See Exhibit I to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007
at https://www.regulations.gov.
\16\ See Exhibit Q to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2023-0007
at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 97,733-acre ``San
Luis Rey'' AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in
this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA
in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed
San Luis Rey AVA boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website,
at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer.
Impact on Current 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 an AVA name or with a
brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine
must be derived from grapes
[[Page 59824]]
grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet
the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not
eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the
brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must
change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if
the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading
manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name
that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986.
See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``San Luis Rey,''
will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under Sec.
4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the
proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers
using ``San Luis Rey'' in a brand name, including a trademark, or in
another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to
ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's
name, ``San Luis Rey.'' The approval of the proposed San Luis Rey AVA
would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using ``South
Coast'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made
from grapes grown within the San Luis Rey AVA would not be affected by
the establishment of this new AVA. If approved, the establishment of
the proposed San Luis Rey AVA would allow vintners to use ``San Luis
Rey'', ``South Coast'', or both AVA names as appellations of origin for
wines made from grapes grown within the proposed AVA, if the wines meet
the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on
whether TTB should establish the proposed San Luis Rey AVA. TTB is
interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the
name, boundary, topography, and other required information submitted in
support of the AVA petition. In addition, because the proposed San Luis
Rey AVA would be within the existing South Coast AVA, TTB is interested
in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding
the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently
differentiates it from the existing AVA. TTB is also interested in
comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so
distinguishable from the South Coast AVA that the proposed San Luis Rey
AVA should not be part of the established AVA. Please provide any
available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed San Luis Rey AVA on wine labels that include the term ``San
Luis Rey,'' as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB
is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be
a conflict between the proposed area names and currently used brand
names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment
should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated
negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on
an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in
receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by
adopting a modified or different name for the proposed AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the
following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the
online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2023-
0007 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available
under Notice No. 225 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/notices-of-proposed-rulemaking. Supplemental files may be attached to
comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on
how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``FAQ''
link at the bottom of the page.
U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 225 and include your
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English,
be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public
disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB
considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for
yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If
you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include
the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you
comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the
``Organization'' blank of the online comment form. If you comment via
postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's
comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the TTB Administrator before the comment
closing date to ask for a public hearing. The TTB Administrator
reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality and Disclosure of Comments
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the rulemaking
record and are subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any
material in your comments that you consider confidential or that is
inappropriate for disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, the
related petition and selected supporting materials, and any comments
TTB receives about this proposal within the related Regulations.gov
docket. In general, TTB will post comments as submitted, and it will
not redact any identifying or contact information from the body of a
comment or attachment.
Please contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings division by email
using the web form available at https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by
telephone at 202-453-2265, if you have any questions about commenting
on this proposal or to request copies of this document, the related
petition and its supporting materials, or any comments received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived
from the use of a viticultural area name would be 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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory
assessment.
[[Page 59825]]
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend
title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Add Sec. 9.__ to read as follows:
Sec. 9.__ San Luis Rey.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``San Luis Rey''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``San Luis Rey'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The 8 United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
viticultural area are as follows:
(1) Oceanside, CA, 2018;
(2) San Luis Rey, CA, 2018;
(3) San Marcos, CA, 2018;
(4) Valley Center, CA, 2018;
(5) Bonsall, CA, 2018;
(6) Temecula, CA, 2018;
(7) Fallbrook, CA, 2018; and
(8) Morro Hill, CA, 2018.
(c) Boundary. The San Luis Rey viticultural area is located in San
Diego County, California. The boundary of the San Luis Rey viticultural
area is described as follows:
(1) The beginning point is on the Oceanside map at the intersection
of Interstate 5 and the Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton
boundary. From the beginning point, proceed northeast for a total of
11.21 miles along the MCB Camp Pendleton boundary, crossing over the
San Luis Rey map and onto the Morro Hill map, and continuing along the
MCB Camp Pendleton boundary to its intersection with the Naval Weapons
Station (NWS) Seal Beach Fallbrook California boundary; then
(2) Proceed east along the NWS Seal Beach Fallbrook California
boundary for a total of 6.85 miles, crossing onto the Bonsall map and
continuing north, then west along the boundary, and crossing back onto
the Morro Hill map and continuing northerly along the boundary,
crossing onto the Fallbrook map, and continuing along the boundary as
it becomes concurrent with the MCB Camp Pendleton boundary, and
continuing along the boundary to its intersection with De Luz Road;
then
(3) Proceed east along De Luz Road for 0.38 mile to its
intersection with Sandia Creek Drive; then
(4) Proceed northerly along Sandia Creek Drive for a total of 3.98
miles, crossing onto the Temecula map and continuing along Sandia Creek
Drive to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Rock
Mountain Road; then
(5) Proceed east along Rock Mountain Road for 0.21 mile to its
intersection with the San Diego County line; then
(6) Proceed south then east along the San Diego County line for
6.72 miles to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as
Old Highway 395; then
(7) Proceed south along Old Highway 395 for a total of 14.9 miles,
crossing onto the Bonsall map and continuing south along Old Highway
395 to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Old
Castle Road; then
(8) Proceed east on Old Castle Road for a total of 0.59 mile,
crossing onto the San Marcos map and continuing east along Old Castle
Road to its intersection with Gordon Hill Road; then
(9) Proceed southeasterly along Gordon Hill Road for 0.92 mile to
its intersection with the 800-foot elevation contour; then
(10) Proceed east along the 800-foot elevation contour for a total
of 2.5 miles, crossing onto the Valley Center map and continuing east
along the 800-foot elevation contour to its intersection with Canyon
Country Lane; then
(11) Proceed northwest and then south along Canyon Country Lane for
0.83 mile to its intersection with the 1,240-foot elevation contour;
then
(12) Proceed east along the 1,240-foot elevation contour for 2.90
miles to its intersection with Cougar Pass Road; then
(13) Proceed west then south along Cougar Pass Road for 0.4 mile to
its intersection with Meadow Glen Way East; then
(14) Proceed south along Meadow Glen Way East for 0.46 mile to its
intersection with Hidden Meadows Road; then
(15) Proceed southwest along Hidden Meadows Road for 0.73 mile to
its intersection with Mountain Meadow Road; then
(16) Proceed southwest along Mountain Meadow Road for a total of
1.44 miles, crossing onto the San Marcos map and continuing along
Mountain Meadow Road to the point where Mountain Meadow Road becomes
known as Deer Springs Road just west of Interstate 15; then
(17) Proceed southwest along Deer Springs Road for 2.42 miles to
its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as North Twin Oaks
Valley Road; then
(18) Proceed south along North Twin Oaks Valley Road for 3.01 miles
to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as West Mission
Road; then
(19) Proceed northwest along West Mission Road (which becomes South
Santa Fe Avenue) for a total of 3.9 miles to its intersection with
Robelini Drive; then
(20) Proceed southwest along Robelini Drive (which becomes Sycamore
Avenue) for a total of 0.55 mile to its intersection with State Highway
78; then
(21) Proceed northwest, then westerly along State Highway 78 for a
total of 9.09 miles, crossing onto the San Luis Rey map and continuing
westerly along State Highway 78 to its intersection with Interstate 5;
then
(22) Proceed northwest along Interstate 5 for a total of 3.14
miles, crossing onto the Oceanside map and returning to the beginning
point.
Signed: August 21, 2023.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: August 22, 2023.
Thomas C. West, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2023-18587 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
