[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70149-70156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19415]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2024-0004; Notice No. 233]
RIN 1513-AC98


Proposed Establishment of the Rancho Guejito Viticultural Area

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

[[Page 70150]]


ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to 
establish the 32,360-acre ``Rancho Guejito'' American viticultural area 
(AVA) in San Diego County, California. The proposed AVA is located 
entirely within the existing South Coast AVA and would partially 
overlap the existing San Pasqual Valley 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 28, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this 
proposal using the comment form for this document as posted within 
Docket No. TTB-2024-0004 on the ``Regulations.gov'' website at https://www.regulations.gov. Within that docket, you also may view copies of 
this document, its supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives 
on this proposal. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB 
website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/notices-of-proposed-rulemaking 
under Notice No. 233. Alternatively, you may submit comments via postal 
mail to the Director, Regulations and Ruling Division, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW. Box 12, Washington, DC 
20005. Please see the Public Participation section below for further 
information on the comments requested regarding this proposal and on 
the submission, confidentiality, and public disclosure of comments.

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 
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
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 a name and a delineated boundary, as 
established 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 
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 provides that any 
interested party may 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 Rancho Guejito AVA

    TTB received a petition from Rancho Guejito Vineyard, Inc., 
proposing to establish the ``Rancho Guejito'' AVA. The proposed AVA is 
located in San Diego County, California, and is entirely within the 
existing South Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.104) and, if established, would 
partially overlap the established San Pasqual Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.25). 
Within the proposed AVA, there are seven commercial vineyards which 
cover a total of 49.5 acres. At the time the petition was submitted, an 
additional four new vineyards and the expansion of three existing 
vineyards were planned. The distinguishing features of the proposed 
Rancho Guejito AVA are its topography, geology, and climate. The 
petition also included information about the soils of the proposed AVA. 
However, because the petition did not include information about the 
soils of the surrounding regions for comparison, TTB was unable to 
determine if soils are a distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA.

Proposed Rancho Guejito AVA

Name Evidence

    The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA takes its name from the Rancho 
Guejito y Ca[ntilde]ada de Paloma land grant, which the Mexican 
Governor issued to Jos[eacute] Mar[iacute]a Orozco in 1845. According 
to the petition, the land grant's name translates to ``ranch with a 
stream in a glen of the dove.'' The petition notes that of the 800 
ranchos recognized by the U.S. Government, Rancho Guejito is the only 
one whose boundaries remain intact. The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA 
will encompass the entire original land grant and the adjacent slope 
areas that contribute to Guejito Creek. The petition included a copy of 
an 1882

[[Page 70151]]

newspaper advertisement for 100 tons of grapes for sale by the Vineyard 
Ranch, which was located within the rancho, showing that commercial 
grape growing within the proposed AVA dates to the late 19th century.
    The petition included evidence that the region of the proposed AVA 
is currently known as ``Rancho Guejito.'' For instance, a 2007 
newspaper article about the region of the proposed AVA is titled 
``Rancho Guejito-Southern California's land that time forgot.'' \1\ In 
2013, the Escondido Public Library held a talk about ``the historic 
Rancho Guejito,'' which was described as ``the last undeveloped Mexican 
land grant rancho in San Diego County * * *.'' \2\ A 2019 newspaper 
article about the visit of then-Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue 
to an avocado farm within the proposed AVA is titled ``U.S. Ag 
Secretary tours Rancho Guejito avo [sic] farm.'' \3\ A 2019 story about 
the San Diego Mountain Bike Association's ``Ride the Rancho'' event is 
titled ``Rancho Guejito opens doors to San Diego mountain bikers.'' \4\ 
The Escondido Creek Conservancy website states that ``Rancho Guejito is 
imbedded in our cultural history, but is also a critical part of our 
natural history * * *.'' \5\ Finally, the San Diego County Vintners 
Association lists the Rancho Guejito Vineyard as a member.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/rancho-guejito-8212-southern-californias-land-that-time-forgot.
    \2\ Originally accessed at https://library.escondido.org/rancho-guejito-revisited-at-the-escondido-public-library.aspx. A copy of 
the article is included in the appendix to the petition in Docket 
No. TTB-2024-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \3\ https://www.times-advocate.com/articles/u-s-ag-secretary-tours-rancho-guejito-avo-farm.
    \4\ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2019/mar/25/ranch-guejito-opens-doors-san-diego-mountain-biker.
    \5\ https://escondidocreek.org/news/an-eagle-eye-view-of-rancho-guejito.
    \6\ https://sandiegowineries.org/directory/ranch-guejito-vineyard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boundary Evidence

    The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA is located in San Diego County and 
is entirely within the established South Coast AVA. The proposed AVA 
encompasses the Rancho Guejito land grant, and its boundaries largely 
correspond with those of the land grant. The proposed boundary, in 
part, is concurrent with the boundary of the La Jolla Indian 
Reservation, which is omitted from the proposed AVA due to its status 
as Tribal land. The proposed eastern boundary separates the proposed 
AVA from the Cleveland National Forest and the Mesa Grande Indian 
Reservation. The southern boundary separates the proposed Rancho 
Guejito AVA from the majority of the established San Pasqual Valley 
AVA. The proposed western boundary separates the proposed AVA from the 
San Pasqual Indian Reservation, and farther to the west, the heavily 
urbanized city of Escondido.
    The southernmost region of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA overlaps 
a small portion of the San Pasqual Valley AVA known as Rockwood Canyon. 
The overlapping area comprises 308 acres of the approximately 9,000-
acre established San Pasqual Valley AVA. The petition requests 
retaining the partial overlap for reasons discussed later in this 
rulemaking document.

Distinguishing Features

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the 
proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are its topography, geology, and climate.
Topography
    The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA is situated approximately 33 miles 
northeast of the city of San Diego. Although the proposed AVA is not 
immediately adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, the petition states that 
there are no hills between the proposed AVA and the ocean. The flatter, 
lower terrain west of the proposed AVA allows for marine air to reach 
the proposed AVA, which has a moderating effect on its climate. By 
contrast, the neighboring established Ramona Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.191), 
to the southeast of the proposed AVA, is farther inland and surrounded 
by higher elevations. As a result, the Ramona Valley AVA receives less 
marine air than the proposed AVA. The petition states that because of 
the marine influence, the proposed AVA generally has cooler year-round 
high temperatures and warmer year-round low temperatures than regions 
farther inland.
    The petition describes the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA as a region 
of diverse topography, with varied elevations and landforms. Elevations 
within the proposed AVA range from 420 feet to 4,210 feet. The northern 
portion of the proposed AVA is characterized by high elevations, rugged 
mountains, and steep canyons complimented with lush meadows. The 
southern portion of the proposed AVA is characterized by lower 
elevations with gently rolling hills and large expanses of grasslands. 
Although the proposed AVA includes areas with steep slopes, the 
petition notes that 33 percent, or 10,540 acres, within the proposed 
AVA are 15 percent or less in slope angle. The following table shows 
the elevation and slope angles of the existing and planned vineyards 
within the proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a map showing the specific locations of the established 
and planned vineyards within the proposed AVA, see Figure 2 of the 
petition, which is included in Docket TTB-2024-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.

          Table 1--Elevation and Slope Angles of Vineyards \7\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Elevation     Average slope angle
          Vineyard name                (feet)            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Established Vineyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwood Hillside................         617-758                     39
Rockwood Canyon..................         426-437                   1.88
Coates...........................     1,507-1,522                   3.33
Anderson Flats...................     1,950-1,989                   4.23
Vineyard West....................     2,045-2,055                      1
Vineyard East....................     2,107-2,127                   3.92
Chimney Flats....................     2,951-2,987                   7.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Planned Vineyards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull.............................     1,741-1,812                   4.35
Twin Flats.......................     2,607-2,613                   1.05

[[Page 70152]]

 
Bear Springs.....................     2,907-2,917                   3.15
Pine Mountain....................     4,136-4,156                   6.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition states that the diversity of the topography within the 
proposed AVA affects the climate and precipitation and allows a large 
variety of grape varietals to grow successfully. At the time the 
petition was submitted, 24 different varieties of grapes were grown in 
the proposed AVA, including the cool-climate chardonnay and the warm-
climate syrah and cabernet sauvignon varietals.
    Unlike the proposed AVA, the topography of the surrounding regions 
is less diverse. To the immediate north of the proposed AVA, the 
elevations drop sharply into the San Luis Rey watershed, and the slope 
angles are steeper and unsuitable for viticulture. To the southeast of 
the proposed AVA is the established Ramona Valley AVA, which is 
described as a broad, flat valley ringed by hills. The petition states 
that the Ramona Valley AVA has less variation in elevations than the 
proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, and the average vineyard elevation is 
1,400 feet. South of the proposed AVA is the established San Pasqual 
Valley AVA, which is a large alluvial valley with elevations less than 
500 feet. To the west of the northern part of the proposed AVA, 
elevations drop sharply into Hellhole Canyon, within the Hellhole 
Canyon Preserve. Farther west beyond the canyon is the San Diego Zoo 
Safari Park and the largely residential suburbs of San Diego. The 
petition states that the largely man-made character of this region 
distinguishes it physically from the largely undeveloped terrain of the 
proposed AVA.
Geology
    According to the petition, the primary geologic formation 
underlying the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA is Middle Jurassic to Late 
Cretaceous tonalite, which is an igneous, plutonic rock with a coarse 
texture. The northern portion of the proposed AVA also contains Early 
Proterozoic to Late Cretaceous plutonic rock and Triassic to Cretaceous 
gabbro, while the southern region also contains a small amount of 
Pliocene to Holocene alluvium. The decomposition of the plutonic rock 
contributes to the formation of soils. The primary soil series of the 
proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are Fallbrook, Ramona, Visalia, and 
Placentia loams. These soils are described as coarse, well-drained, 
moderately deep to deep sandy loams. However, because the petition did 
not include a comparison of the soils of the surrounding regions, TTB 
is unable to determine if soils are a separate distinguishing feature 
of the proposed AVA.
    The petition also states that the decomposition of these geologic 
features over millennia contributes minerals that are important to the 
health of grapevines. For example, gabbro is rich in magnesium and 
iron, which play important roles in chlorophyll formation and 
photosynthesis as well as cell strengthening. The plutonic rocks in 
tonalite decompose into soils that are generally sandy, coarse, and 
drain well and are desirable for growing grape varietals such as 
Grenache, Claret Blanc, and Rousanne.
    To the north and east of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, Middle 
Jurassic to Late Cretaceous tonalite is also present, but geologic 
formations consisting of gabbro and schist are more common than within 
the proposed AVA. South of the proposed AVA, in the established San 
Pasqual Valley AVA, the most common geologic feature is Pliocene to 
Holocene alluvium. To the west of the proposed AVA, Middle Jurassic to 
Late Cretaceous tonalite is also the most common geologic feature, but 
the urban nature of this region makes it less suitable for commercial 
viticulture.
Climate
    The petition describes the overall climate of the proposed Rancho 
Guejito AVA as a Mediterranean climate, meaning that the region 
experiences dry, mild summers and precipitation is limited to the 
winter months, generally between October and April. Due to the 
diversity of elevations within the proposed AVA, temperatures are also 
diverse, with the higher elevations in the north of the proposed AVA 
typically having cooler temperatures and smaller growing degree day 
(GDD) \8\ accumulations than the lower elevations in the southern 
portion. Although GDD accumulations vary within the proposed AVA, the 
petition states that the same varietals of grapes can be grown 
throughout, but ripening takes longer in the portions that have lower 
accumulations. The following table shows the average GDD accumulations 
from 2010 to 2020 from multiple locations within the proposed AVA and 
the regions to the southeast and east. The petition did not provide 
climate data from the regions to the north, west, or due east of the 
proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 2nd Ed. 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.
    \9\ GDD data from the Ramona Airport taken from TTB Notice No. 
38, which proposed establishing the Ramona Valley AVA. See 70 FR 
16459, March 31, 2005.

                                    Table 2--Growing Degree Day Accumulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Elevation (feet mean sea
      Weather station location (direction from proposed AVA)                level)            GDD aAccumulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Mountain (within)...........................................                     3,680                3,216
Cienega Flats (within)...........................................                     3,020                3,422
Vineyard Ranch (within)..........................................                     2,080                3,624
Anderson Flats (within)..........................................                     1,830                3,528
Rockwood (within)................................................                       430                3,741
San Pasqual (south)..............................................                       400                3,493

[[Page 70153]]

 
Ramona Airport (southeast).......................................                     1,390            \9\ 3,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GDD accumulations in the highest elevations of the proposed AVA 
are lower than those of the regions to the south and southeast of the 
proposed AVA, which have lower elevations. The lowest and middle-range 
elevations of the proposed AVA have higher GDD accumulations than the 
regions to the south and southeast. The petition attributes the lower 
GDD accumulations in the San Pasqual Valley AVA to the fact that the 
AVA is a valley that acts as a cold sink, trapping the cool air that 
drains from the higher elevations of the proposed AVA at night. The 
petition states that the Ramona Valley AVA is farther inland than the 
proposed Rancho Guejito AVA and thus temperatures are less moderated by 
the marine air, resulting in a more continental climate with cooler 
nighttime temperatures that can reduce GDD accumulations.
    To further demonstrate the impact of the marine influence on 
climate within the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, the petition included 
average monthly growing season maximum and minimum temperatures from 
within the proposed AVA and from within the Ramona Valley AVA.\10\ The 
Anderson Flats location within the proposed AVA sits at elevations 
similar to those found within the Ramona Valley AVA, yet due to marine 
influence, has lower maximum temperatures and warmer minimum 
temperatures than the Ramona Valley AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The period of record is 2010-2020.
    \11\ See Figure 1B to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2024-0004 
at https://www.regulations.gov for an illustration of the 
overlapping region.

                          Table 3--Average Monthly Growing Season Maximum Temperatures
                                              [degrees fahrenheit]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Anderson flats     Ramona airport (Ramona
                               Month                                   (proposed AVA)          Valley AVA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April..............................................................                  71                       73
May................................................................                  73                       75
June...............................................................                  79                       84
July...............................................................                  83                       89
August.............................................................                  87                       91
September..........................................................                  85                       88
October............................................................                  79                       81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table 4--Average Monthly Growing Season Minimum Temperatures
                                              [degrees fahrenheit]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Anderson flats
                               Month                                   (proposed AVA)       Ramona Valley AVA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April..............................................................                  47                       43
May................................................................                  50                       48
June...............................................................                  53                       52
July...............................................................                  59                       58
August.............................................................                  63                       58
September..........................................................                  62                       55
October............................................................                  56                       48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison of the Proposed Rancho Guejito AVA to the Existing South 
Coast AVA

    The South Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-218, which 
published in the Federal Register on November 21, 1985 (50 FR 48083). 
According to T.D. ATF-218, the primary feature of the South Coast AVA 
is climate affected by coastal influence.
    The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA shares the coastal climate of the 
larger South Coast AVA. However, the proposed AVA's smaller size means 
that its geographic features, while varied, are more uniform than those 
of the much larger, multi-county South Coast AVA. Additionally, 
although the proposed AVA receives marine air from the Pacific Ocean, 
it does not receive as much as portions of the South Coast AVA that are 
adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.

Partial Overlap With the Existing San Pasqual Valley AVA

    The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA would, if established, partially 
overlap 308 acres of the established San Pasqual Valley AVA in a region 
known as Rockwood Canyon. The overlapping region is in the southern 
portion of the proposed AVA and the eastern portion of the San Pasqual 
Valley AVA.\11\ The petition requests retaining the partial overlap 
because the Rockwood Canyon region has characteristics of both the 
proposed Rancho Guejito AVA and the established San Pasqual Valley AVA.

Name Evidence

    The ``Rancho Guejito'' name applies to the overlapping region, as 
it does to the proposed AVA. For example, Guejito Creek runs through 
both the

[[Page 70154]]

overlapping area and the rest of the proposed AVA. A 2007 article about 
the sale of Rockwood Ranch, located within the overlapping region, 
notes that the ranch ``connects the San Pasqual Valley with Rancho 
Guejito.'' \12\ A 2005 report from the Conservation Biology Institute 
on the ecological and cultural resources of Rancho Guejito notes that 
``[u]pper Rockwood Canyon likely contains many large prehistoric 
villages,'' including the village of Puk-ke-dudl, which was ``located 
on the east slope of Rockwood Canyon. . .''.\13\ Finally, the canyon 
property is currently under the ownership of Rancho Guejito Vineyards, 
LLC, and grapes grown in the overlapping region are bottled under the 
``Rancho Guejito Vineyards'' name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ www.sohosandiego.org/reflections/2007-1/guejito_rockwood.htm.
    \13\ Jerre Ann Stallcup et. al., ``Conservation Significance of 
Rancho Guejito--the jewel of San Diego County,'' (2005), 
Consbio.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/RanchoGuejito_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison to Existing San Pasqual Valley AVA and Proposed Rancho 
Guejito AVA

    According to the petition, in the overlapping area, the climate 
transitions between the middle elevations of the proposed Rancho 
Guejito AVA and the San Pasqual Valley AVA and shares characteristics 
of both regions. For example, the average monthly minimum temperatures 
within the overlapping area are similar to those in the established San 
Pasqual Valley AVA. Cool nighttime air draining from the higher 
elevations in the northern portion of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA 
flow south and into lower elevations of the overlapping area and the 
San Pasqual Valley AVA. The following table shows the average monthly 
minimum temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit for Rockwood Canyon, within 
the overlapping area, and for a location solely within the San Pasqual 
Valley AVA.

                                  Table 5--Average Monthly Minimum Temperatures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Month                                   Rockwood Canyon    San Pasqual Valley AVA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April..............................................................                  46                       45
May................................................................                  50                       50
June...............................................................                  54                       54
July...............................................................                  60                       59
August.............................................................                  59                       58
September..........................................................                  56                       55
October............................................................                  49                       49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the petition notes that the cool nighttime air remains 
longer in the San Pasqual Valley AVA because the east-west oriented 
valley acts as a cold sink to trap the cooler air, while the north-
south orientation of the overlapping region allows the cold air to pass 
through the canyon and into the valley. As a result, nighttime 
temperatures in the San Pasqual Valley AVA remain cooler for more 
hours, reducing annual GDD accumulations. As discussed earlier in the 
climate section of this document, GDD accumulations in the middle and 
low elevations of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are greater than 
those of the San Pasqual Valley AVA.
    The geology of the overlapping area also shares the traits of both 
the proposed AVA and the established San Pasqual Valley AVA.\14\ The 
overlapping area is a combination of Pliocene to Holocene alluvium and 
Middle Jurassic to Late Cretaceous tonalite. Tonalite is the most 
common geologic feature in the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA. Although 
small amounts of tonalite also exist along the edges of the San Pasqual 
Valley AVA, the primary geologic feature of the valley is Pliocene to 
Holocene alluvium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Figure 6 to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2024-0004 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Rancho Guejito AVA petition stated that the proposed 
AVA receives between 13 and 24 inches of rain a year. Because the 
petition did not adequately describe the effects of precipitation on 
viticulture, TTB does not consider precipitation to be a distinguishing 
feature of the proposed AVA. However, the petition did include a map 
illustrating mean annual precipitation amounts for the San Pasqual 
Valley AVA and the proposed AVA,\15\ including the overlapping Rockwood 
Canyon region. The map supports the petition's claim that the 
overlapping region shares characteristics of both the proposed AVA and 
the San Pasqual Valley AVA. The overlapping region averages 14 inches 
of rain a year, which is the same as the easternmost portion of the San 
Pasqual Valley AVA and the southernmost portion of the proposed Rancho 
Guejito AVA that is outside the overlapping area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Figure 8 to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2024-0004 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition also included information about the specific soils of 
the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, but it did not provide sufficient 
evidence about the soils of the surrounding regions or the viticultural 
effects of soil for TTB to designate soils as a distinguishing feature. 
However, the petition did include a map of the hydrologic soils groups 
of the proposed AVA and the eastern portion of the San Pasqual Valley 
AVA.\16\ The map supports the petition's claim that the overlapping 
region contains characteristics of both the proposed AVA and the 
established AVA. The hydrologic soil group map shows soil groups A 
(high water infiltration rate) and B (moderate water infiltration rate) 
are the dominant groups in the San Pasqual Valley AVA. Group B soils 
also appear throughout the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA. The overlapping 
region contains both soil groups A and B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Figure 4 to the petition in Docket No. TTB-2024-0004 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 32,360-acre 
``Rancho Guejito'' 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 
Rancho Guejito AVA boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, 
at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer.

[[Page 70155]]

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 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, ``Rancho Guejito,'' 
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 ``Rancho Guejito'' 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 AVA name as an 
appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule. 
The approval of the proposed Rancho Guejito 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 Rancho Guejito AVA would not be affected by the establishment of 
this new AVA. If approved, the establishment of the proposed Rancho 
Guejito AVA would allow vintners to use ``Rancho Guejito,'' ``South 
Coast,'' or both AVA names as appellations of origin for wines made 
from grapes grown within the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA, if the wines 
meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. Vintners would 
be able to use ``San Pasqual Valley,'' ``Rancho Guejito,'' ``South 
Coast,'' or a combination of the three AVA names as appellations of 
origin on wines made primarily from grapes grown within the overlapping 
portion of the proposed Rancho Guejito 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 Rancho Guejito AVA. TTB is 
interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the 
name, boundary, topography, geology, soils, and climate, and other 
required information submitted in support of the AVA petition. In 
addition, because the proposed Rancho Guejito 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 South Coast AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether 
the geographic features of the proposed Rancho Guejito AVA are so 
distinguishable from the South Coast AVA that the proposed AVA should 
not be part of the established AVA. Finally, TTB is interested in 
comments on whether the geographic features of the portion of the 
established San Pasqual Valley AVA that overlap the proposed AVA are so 
distinguishable from the rest of the established AVA that the 
overlapping area should no longer be part of the San Pasqual Valley 
AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of 
your comments.
    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the 
proposed Rancho Guejito AVA on wine labels that include the term 
``Rancho Guejito'' 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 proposal as an individual or on 
behalf of a business or other organization via the Regulations.gov 
website or via postal mail, as described in the ADDRESSES section of 
this document. Your comment must reference Notice No. 233 and must be 
submitted or postmarked by the closing date shown in the DATES section 
of this document. You may upload or include attachments with your 
comment. You also may submit a comment requesting a public hearing on 
this proposal. 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, 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 regarding comments 
on this proposal or to request copies of this document, its supporting 
materials, or the 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

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant 
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 
1993, as amended. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

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:

[[Page 70156]]

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. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec.  9.___ to read as follows:


Sec.  9.___   Rancho Guejito.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``Rancho Guejito''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, 
``Rancho Guejito'' is a term of viticultural significance.
    (b) Approved maps. The 5 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the 
viticultural area are titled:
    (1) San Pasqual, CA, 2018;
    (2) Rodriguez Mountain, CA, 2018;
    (3) Boucher Hill, CA, 2018;
    (4) Palomar Observatory, CA, 2018; and
    (5) Mesa Grande, CA, 2018.
    (c) Boundary. The Rancho Guejito viticultural area is located in 
San Diego County in California. The boundary of the Rancho Guejito 
viticultural area is as described as follows:
    (1) The beginning point is on the San Pasqual map at the 
intersection of State Route 78 (locally known as San Pasqual Valley 
Road) and Santa Ysabel Creek. From the beginning point, proceed 
northwest, then west, then southwest along State Route 78 to its 
intersection with the western boundary of Section 35, T12S/R1W; then
    (2) Proceed northwest in a straight line to the 992-foot elevation 
point in Section 27, T12S/R1W; then
    (3) Proceed northwest in a straight line to the 1,480-foot 
elevation point in Section 27, T12S/R1W; then
    (4) Proceed northwest in a straight line to the intersection of the 
western boundary of Section 22, T12S/R1W, and the 1,100-foot elevation 
contour; then
    (5) Proceed north along the western boundary of Section 22, T12S/
R1W, to the northern boundary of Section 22; then
    (6) Proceed east along the north boundary of Section 22, T12S/R1W, 
to the 1,798-foot elevation point; then
    (7) Proceed northeasterly in a straight line for 2,300 feet, 
crossing onto the Rodriguez Mountain map, to the 2,218-foot elevation 
point in Section 15, T12S/R1W; then
    (8) Proceed north in a straight line for 3,100 feet to the 2,237-
foot elevation point in Section 15, T12S/R1W; then
    (9) Proceed northerly in a straight line for 5,900 feet to the 
intersection of Old Melrose Ranch Road and New Moon Lane in Section 3, 
T12S/R1W; then
    (10) Proceed northwest in a straight line, crossing the peak of 
French Mountain and over Escondido Creek, to the 1,520-foot elevation 
contour in section 34, T12S/R1W; then
    (11) Proceed northeasterly along the 1,520-foot elevation contour 
for 1,300 feet to its intersection with Escondido Creek; then
    (12) Proceed easterly along Escondido Creek to its easternmost 
point in Section 25, T12S/R1W; then
    (13) Proceed northerly in a straight line for 8,100 feet to the 
2,300-foot elevation contour north of Sierra Verde Road in Section 24, 
T12S/R1W; then
    (14) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 13,000 feet to the 
peak of Rodriguez Mountain with an elevation of 3,846 feet in Section 
8, T12S/R1W; then
    (15) Proceed northeasterly in a straight line for 9,500 feet, 
crossing onto the Boucher Hill map, to the northern boundary of Section 
4, T11S/R1E, which is also concurrent with the boundary of the La Jolla 
Indian Reservation; then
    (16) Proceed east along the northern boundary of Section 4 for 
15,900 feet, crossing onto the Palomar Observatory map, and continuing 
along the northern boundaries of Sections 3, 2, and 1, T11S/R1E, to the 
second intersection of the northern boundary of Section 1 and the 
3,200-foot elevation contour; then
    (17) Proceed due south in a straight line for 6,500 feet, crossing 
onto the Mesa Grande map, to the intersection of an unnamed road known 
locally as Pine Mountain Road and the 3,500-foot elevation contour in 
Section 12, T11S/R1E; then
    (18) Proceed southeasterly along Pine Mountain Road for 3,800 feet 
to its intersection with the 3,440-foot elevation contour in Section 
12, T11S/R1E; then
    (19) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line for 6,910 feet to the 
northeast corner of Section 23, T11S/R1E; then
    (20) Proceed due south along the eastern boundary of Section 23 for 
4,600 feet to its intersection with Temescal Creek; then
    (21) Proceed southwesterly along Temescal Creek for 6,800 feet to 
its intersection with the northern boundary of Section 35, T11S/R1E; 
then
    (22) Proceed west along the northern boundary of Sections 35 and 
34, crossing onto the Rodriguez Mountain map, to the northwestern 
corner of Section 34; then
    (23) Proceed south along the western boundary of Section 34, T11S/
R1E, to the northeastern corner of Section 4, T12S/R1E; then
    (24) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of Section 4 to its 
intersection with the 1,600-foot elevation contour; then
    (25) Proceed northwest in a straight line to the northernmost point 
of an unnamed pond in Section 4, T12S/R1E; then
    (26) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the intersection of 
the eastern boundary of Section 8, T12S/R1E, and the Guejito Truck 
Trail; then
    (27) Proceed southwesterly along the Guejito Truck Trail, crossing 
onto the San Pasqual map, to its intersection with the northern 
boundary of Section 10, T12S/R1E; then
    (28) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line to the 1,880-foot 
elevation point in Section 20; then
    (29) Proceed southwest in a straight line for 3,650 feet to the 
1,937-foot elevation point in Section 29, T12S/R1E; then
    (30) Proceed southwest in a straight line for 5,400 feet to the 
southern boundary of Section 30, T12S/R1E; then
    (31) Proceed west along the southern boundaries of Sections 30 and 
25 to the southwestern corner of Section 25, T12S/R1E; then
    (32) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line to the beginning 
point.

    Signed: August 16, 2024.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
    Approved: August 19, 2024.
Aviva R. Aron-Dine,
Acting Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2024-19415 Filed 8-28-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P