[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