Proposed Establishment of the Rancho Guejito Viticultural Area, 70149-70156 [2024-19415]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
The hearing may be moved to a different
place and may be continued from day to
day or recessed to a later date without
notice other than announcement thereof
by the presiding officer at the hearing.
21 CFR 1316.53.
ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling
of notification, please reference ‘‘Docket
No. DEA–1362’’ on all correspondence.
• Electronic notification should be
sent to nprm@dea.gov.
• Paper notification sent via regular
or express mail should be sent to Drug
Enforcement Administration, Attn:
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive,
Springfield, Virginia 22152.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section,
Diversion Control Division, Drug
Enforcement Administration;
Telephone: (571) 362–3249. Email:
nprm@dea.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Background
On May 21, 2024, the Department of
Justice published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to transfer
marijuana from schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to
schedule III of the CSA, consistent with
the view of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) that
marijuana has a currently accepted
medical use, has a potential for abuse
less than the drugs or other substances
in schedules I and II, and that its abuse
may lead to moderate or low physical
dependence or high psychological
dependence.1 The CSA requires that
such actions be made through formal
rulemaking on the record after
opportunity for a hearing. 21 U.S.C.
811(a).
The NPRM stated that if the transfer
to schedule III is finalized, the
regulatory controls applicable to
schedule III controlled substances
would apply, as appropriate, along with
existing marijuana-specific
requirements and any additional
controls that might be implemented,
including those that might be
implemented to meet U.S. treaty
obligations. If marijuana is transferred
into schedule III, the manufacture,
distribution, dispensing, and possession
of marijuana would remain subject to
the applicable criminal prohibitions of
the CSA. Any drugs containing a
substance within the CSA’s definition of
‘‘marijuana’’ would also remain subject
to the applicable prohibition in the
1 Schedules of Controlled Substances:
Rescheduling of Marijuana, 89 FR 44597 (May 21,
2024).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Aug 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA).
The NPRM invited interested parties
to submit requests for hearing on or
before June 20, 2024. DEA received
numerous requests for a hearing in
response to the NPRM.
Upon review of the requests for a
hearing, I am authorizing a hearing to be
conducted in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551–559), the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811, et
seq.) and the DEA regulations.
Hearing Notification
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21
CFR 1308.41, DEA will convene a
hearing on the NPRM. The hearing will
commence on December 2, 2024, at 9
a.m. ET at the DEA Hearing Facility, 700
Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
The hearing will be conducted pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and
557, and 21 CFR 1308.41–1308.45, and
1316.41–1316.68. DEA is committed to
conducting a transparent proceeding.
Regarding the methods of public access,
DEA will provide updates on the DEA
website, https://www.dea.gov.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 and
812, the purpose of the hearing is to
‘‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert
opinion regarding’’ whether marijuana
should be transferred to schedule III of
the list of controlled substances. 21 CFR
1308.42.
Every interested person (defined in 21
CFR 1300.01(b) as ‘‘any person
adversely affected or aggrieved by any
rule or proposed rule issuable’’ under 21
U.S.C. 811), who wishes to participate
in the hearing shall file a written notice
of intention to participate for review by
the Agency. Electronic filing may be
made as a PDF attachment via email to
the Drug Enforcement Administration,
Attn: Administrator at nprm@dea.gov,
on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
September 30, 2024. If filing by mail,
written notice must be filed with the
Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn:
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive,
Springfield, VA 22152, and must be
postmarked on or before September 30,
2024. Paper requests that duplicate
electronic submissions are not necessary
and are discouraged.
Each notice of intention to participate
must conform to 21 CFR 1308.44(b) and
in the form prescribed in 21 CFR
1316.48. Among those requirements,
such requests must:
(1) State with particularity the interest
of the person in the proceeding;
(2) State with particularity the
objections or issues concerning which
the person desires to be heard; and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70149
(3) State briefly the position of the
person regarding the objections or
issues.
Any person who has previously filed
a request for hearing or to participate in
a hearing need not file another request;
the request for hearing is deemed to be
a notice of appearance under 21 CFR
1308.44(b).
After the deadline to request to
participate in the hearing, I will assess
the notices submitted and make a
determination of participants. Following
that assessment, I will designate a
presiding officer to preside over the
hearing. The presiding officer’s
functions shall commence upon
designation, as provided in 21 CFR
1316.52. The presiding officer will have
all powers necessary to conduct a fair
hearing, to take all necessary action to
avoid delay, and to maintain order. Id.
The presiding officer’s authorities
include the power to hold conferences
to simplify or determine the issues in
the hearing or to consider other matters
that may aid in the expeditious
disposition of the hearing; require
parties to state their position in writing;
sign and issue subpoenas to compel the
production of documents and materials
to the extent necessary to conduct the
hearing; examine witnesses and direct
witnesses to testify; receive, rule on,
exclude, or limit evidence; rule on
procedural items; and take any action
permitted by the presiding officer under
DEA’s hearing procedures and the APA.
Id.
Comments on or objections to the
proposed rule submitted under 21 CFR
1308.43(g) will be offered as evidence at
the hearing, but the presiding officer
shall admit only evidence that is
competent, relevant, material, and not
unduly repetitive. 21 CFR 1316.59(a).
Anne Milgram,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024–19370 Filed 8–26–24; 4:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
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
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
70150
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
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-proposedrulemaking 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:
SUMMARY:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Aug 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 grapegrowing 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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 Cañada de Paloma land grant, which
the Mexican Governor issued to José
Marı́a 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
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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
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
70151
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.
TABLE 1—ELEVATION AND SLOPE ANGLES OF VINEYARDS 7
Elevation
(feet)
Vineyard name
Average slope angle
(percent)
Established Vineyards
Rockwood Hillside .....................................................................................................................................
Rockwood Canyon .....................................................................................................................................
Coates ........................................................................................................................................................
Anderson Flats ...........................................................................................................................................
Vineyard West ...........................................................................................................................................
Vineyard East ............................................................................................................................................
Chimney Flats ............................................................................................................................................
617–758
426–437
1,507–1,522
1,950–1,989
2,045–2,055
2,107–2,127
2,951–2,987
39
1.88
3.33
4.23
1
3.92
7.90
1,741–1,812
2,607–2,613
4.35
1.05
Planned Vineyards
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Bull .............................................................................................................................................................
Twin Flats ..................................................................................................................................................
1 https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/
rancho-guejito-8212-southern-californias-land-thattime-forgot.
2 Originally accessed at https://
library.escondido.org/rancho-guejito-revisited-atthe-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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Aug 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
3 https://www.times-advocate.com/articles/u-s-agsecretary-tours-rancho-guejito-avo-farm.
4 https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2019/
mar/25/ranch-guejito-opens-doors-san-diegomountain-biker.
5 https://escondidocreek.org/news/an-eagle-eyeview-of-rancho-guejito.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6 https://sandiegowineries.org/directory/ranchguejito-vineyard.
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.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
70152
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—ELEVATION AND SLOPE ANGLES OF VINEYARDS 7—Continued
Elevation
(feet)
Vineyard name
Bear Springs ..............................................................................................................................................
Pine Mountain ............................................................................................................................................
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,
2,907–2,917
4,136–4,156
Average slope angle
(percent)
3.15
6.06
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.
TABLE 2—GROWING DEGREE DAY ACCUMULATIONS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Weather station location
(direction from proposed AVA)
Elevation
(feet mean sea level)
Pine Mountain (within) .................................................................................................................
Cienega Flats (within) ..................................................................................................................
Vineyard Ranch (within) ..............................................................................................................
Anderson Flats (within) ................................................................................................................
Rockwood (within) .......................................................................................................................
San Pasqual (south) ....................................................................................................................
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Aug 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3,680
3,020
2,080
1,830
430
400
GDD aAccumulation
3,216
3,422
3,624
3,528
3,741
3,493
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.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
70153
TABLE 2—GROWING DEGREE DAY ACCUMULATIONS—Continued
Weather station location
(direction from proposed AVA)
Elevation
(feet mean sea level)
Ramona Airport (southeast) ........................................................................................................
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
1,390
GDD aAccumulation
9 3,470
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.
TABLE 3—AVERAGE MONTHLY GROWING SEASON MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES
[degrees fahrenheit]
Anderson flats
(proposed AVA)
Month
April ..................................................................................................................................................
May ..................................................................................................................................................
June .................................................................................................................................................
July ...................................................................................................................................................
August ..............................................................................................................................................
September .......................................................................................................................................
October ............................................................................................................................................
Ramona airport
(Ramona Valley AVA)
71
73
79
83
87
85
79
73
75
84
89
91
88
81
TABLE 4—AVERAGE MONTHLY GROWING SEASON MINIMUM TEMPERATURES
[degrees fahrenheit]
Anderson flats
(proposed AVA)
Month
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
April ..................................................................................................................................................
May ..................................................................................................................................................
June .................................................................................................................................................
July ...................................................................................................................................................
August ..............................................................................................................................................
September .......................................................................................................................................
October ............................................................................................................................................
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
10 The
period of record is 2010–2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Aug 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
47
50
53
59
63
62
56
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43
48
52
58
58
55
48
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
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.
PO 00000
Ramona Valley AVA
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
70154
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
46
50
54
60
59
56
49
45
50
54
59
58
55
49
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
April ..................................................................................................................................................
May ..................................................................................................................................................
June .................................................................................................................................................
July ...................................................................................................................................................
August ..............................................................................................................................................
September .......................................................................................................................................
October ............................................................................................................................................
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.
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.
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.
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.
14 See Figure 6 to the petition in Docket No. TTB–
2024–0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
15 See Figure 8 to the petition in Docket No. TTB–
2024–0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
16 See Figure 4 to the petition in Docket No. TTB–
2024–0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Aug 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 § 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Aug 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70155
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:
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
70156
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Subpart C is amended by adding
§ 9.___ to read as follows:
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 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 2,218foot 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Aug 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R01–RCRA–2023–0612; FRL 11619–
01–R1]
Rhode Island: Final Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions and Corrections
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed action.
AGENCY:
Rhode Island has applied to
EPA for final authorization of revisions
to its hazardous waste program under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA
proposes to grant final authorization to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
]]>Agencies
[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
