59820 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Commission is therefore reopening the 

comment period for the safeguarding 

rule proposal so that commenters may 

consider the proposed modifications to 

the audit provision in light of rule 

206(4)–10. The Commission is 

reopening the comment period for 

Release No. IA–6240 Safeguarding 

Advisory Client Assets until October 30, 

2023. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: August 23, 2023. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18667 Filed 8–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2023–0007; Notice No. 

225] 

RIN 1513–AD03 

Proposed Establishment of the San 

Luis Rey Viticultural Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to 

establish the 97,733-acre ‘‘San Luis 

Rey’’ American viticultural area (AVA) 

in San Diego County, California. The 

proposed AVA is located entirely within 

the existing South Coast AVA. TTB 

designates viticultural areas to allow 

vintners to better describe the origin of 

their wines and to allow consumers to 

better identify wines they may 

purchase. TTB invites comments on 

these proposals. 

DATES: TTB must receive your 

comments on or before October 30, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may electronically 

submit comments to TTB on this 

proposal and view copies of this 

document, its supporting materials, and 

any comments TTB receives on it within 

Docket No. TTB–2023–0007 as posted 

on Regulations.gov (https://

www.regulations.gov), the Federal erulemaking portal. Please see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ section of this 

document below for full details on how 

to comment on this proposal via 

Regulations.gov or U.S. mail, and for 

full details on how to obtain copies of 

this document, its supporting materials, 

and any comments related to this 

proposal. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; 

phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

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

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

provides that these regulations should, 

among other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the FAA Act 

provisions pursuant to section 1111(d) 

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

as codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In 

addition, the Secretary of the Treasury 

has delegated certain administrative and 

enforcement authorities to TTB through 

Treasury Order 120–01. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) authorizes TTB to establish 

definitive viticultural areas and regulate 

the use of their names as appellations of 

origin on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth 

standards for the preparation and 

submission of petitions for the 

establishment or modification of 

American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 

lists the approved AVAs. 

Definition 

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

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

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region having 

distinguishing features as described in 

part 9 of the regulations and, once 

approved, a name and a delineated 

boundary codified in part 9 of the 

regulations. These designations allow 

vintners and consumers to attribute a 

given quality, reputation, or other 

characteristic of a wine made from 

grapes grown in an area to the wine’s 

geographic origin. The establishment of 

AVAs allows vintners to describe more 

accurately the origin of their wines to 

consumers and helps consumers to 

identify wines they may purchase. 

Establishment of an AVA is neither an 

approval nor an endorsement by TTB of 

the wine produced in that area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines 

the procedure for proposing an AVA 

and allows any interested party to 

petition TTB to establish a 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 

and distinguish it from adjacent areas 

outside the proposed AVA boundary; 

• The appropriate United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) 

showing the location of the proposed 

AVA, with the boundary of the 

proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; 

• If the proposed AVA is to be 

established within, or overlapping, an 

existing AVA, an explanation that both 

identifies the attributes of the proposed 

AVA that are consistent with the 

existing AVA and explains how the 

proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct 

from the existing AVA and therefore 

appropriate for separate recognition; 

and 

• A detailed narrative description of 

the proposed AVA boundary based on 

USGS map markings. 

Petition To Establish the San Luis Rey 

AVA 

TTB received a petition from Rebecca 

Wood, managing member of Premium 

Vintners, LLC, proposing to establish 

the ‘‘San Luis Rey’’ AVA. Premium 

Vintners, LLC, operates Fallbrook 

Winery and farms several vineyards 

within the proposed AVA. The petition 

was submitted on behalf of Fallbrook 

Winery and other local vineyard owners 

and winemakers. The proposed AVA is 

located in San Diego County, California, 

and is entirely within the existing South 

Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.104). Within the 

proposed AVA, there are approximately 

44 commercial vineyards, which cover a 

total of approximately 256 acres, as well 

as an additional 29 acres of planned 

vineyards. There are also 23 wineries 

within the proposed AVA. The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 59821 

1 Duhat-Cilly, A.B. Duhat-Cilly’s Account of 

California in the Years 1827–28. Retrieved 

November 2, 2022 from American Journeys at 

https://www.americanjourneys.org/aj-098. 

2See Exhibit R to the petition in Docket No. TTB– 

2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

3See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture 

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 

pages 61–64. In the Winkler climate classification 

system, annual heat accumulation during the 

growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines 

climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each 

degree Fahrenheit that a day’s mean temperature is 

above 50 degrees F, the minimum temperature 

required for grapevine growth. 

4See Exhibit H to the petition in Docket No. TTB– 

2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

5See Exhibit I to the petition in Docket No. TTB– 

2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

San Luis Rey AVA are its topography, 

climate, and soils. 

Proposed San Luis Rey AVA 

Name Evidence 

The proposed San Luis Rey AVA 

takes its name from the San Luis Rey 

River watershed, which includes most 

of the proposed AVA. According to the 

petition, the topography of the San Luis 

Rey River valley has a major effect on 

the climate of the proposed AVA. The 

river is named for the Mission San Luis 

Rey de Francia, which was established 

by Franciscan monks on a hill 

overlooking the valley in 1798. The 

petition states that the monks 

established a tradition of growing wine 

grapes in the region, with one 

contemporary noting in his memoires 

that the monks’ ‘‘gardens produce the 

best olives and the best wine in all 

California.’’ 1

One of the USGS quadrangle maps 

used to create the boundary of the 

proposed AVA is titled ‘‘San Luis Rey, 

CA.’’ ‘‘San Luis Rey’’ also appears on 

that map as the name of a community 

within the proposed AVA. The petition 

provides a printout from a real estate 

website showing homes for sale within 

the proposed AVA under the heading 

‘‘San Luis Rey Real Estate.’’ Finally, the 

petition includes examples of several 

business within the proposed AVA that 

use the name ‘‘San Luis Rey,’’ including 

the San Luis Rey Bakery and Restaurant, 

the San Luis Rey Training Center, and 

the San Luis Rey Equine Hospital. 

Boundary Evidence 

The proposed San Luis Rey AVA is 

located within the San Luis Rey River 

valley. According to the petition, 

Interstate Highway 5 forms the western 

boundary and separates the proposed 

AVA from a narrow strip of densely 

populated land that is not suitable for 

commercial viticulture. West of this 

strip of land is the Pacific Ocean. The 

boundary of the Marine Corps Base 

Camp Pendleton, which is unavailable 

for commercial viticulture, forms the 

northwest portion of the proposed AVA 

boundary. The shared San DiegoRiverside County line forms the 

northern boundary of the proposed 

AVA, and Interstate Highway 15 forms 

the eastern boundary. Both of these 

boundaries exclude lands with higher 

mean annual temperatures than those 

found in the proposed AVA. The 

proposed southern boundary follows 

State Highway 78 to exclude lands with 

higher mean annual temperatures and 

different soils than are found in the 

proposed AVA. 

Distinguishing Features 

According to the petition, the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

San Luis Rey AVA are its topography, 

climate, and soils. The Pacific Ocean is 

to the west of the proposed AVA, so 

distinguishing feature information was 

not provided for that region. 

Topography 

The petition states that the proposed 

San Luis Rey AVA is a mostly hilly 

region along the San Luis Rey River 

valley. Elevations increase from 5 feet to 

1,796 feet as one moves farther from the 

coast. The mean elevation within the 

proposed AVA is 563 feet. Slope angles 

within the proposed AVA average 10 

degrees. 

According to the petition, the low 

elevations allow cool marine air from 

the Pacific Ocean to flow through the 

proposed AVA, moderating 

temperatures. Afternoon breezes also 

help prevent fungal diseases such as 

powdery mildew by reducing the 

moisture on the vines caused by 

morning low cloud cover. Finally, the 

petition notes that the low elevations 

and a terrain consisting of gently rolling 

hills open to marine air almost 

eliminate the risk of spring frosts, which 

can affect vine growth at the beginning 

of the growing season. See the following 

Climate section for supporting evidence. 

To the north of the proposed San Luis 

Rey AVA, within the established 

Temecula Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.50), 

elevations are higher, ranging from 575 

to 2,831 feet with a mean elevation of 

1,508 feet. The slopes are similar to 

those in the proposed AVA, with a 

mean slope angle of 10 degrees. To the 

south, within the established San 

Pasqual Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.25), the 

minimum elevation is higher than 

within the proposed AVA, at 304 feet, 

and the maximum elevation is lower at 

725. However, the mean elevation 

within the San Pasqual Valley AVA is 

lower than that of the proposed AVA, at 

408 feet. The mean slope angle within 

the San Pasqual Valley AVA is also 

shallower, at 6 degrees. To the southeast 

of the proposed AVA, within the 

established Ramona Valley AVA (27 

CFR 9.191), elevations are higher, 

ranging from 680 to 3,133 feet, with a 

mean elevation of 1,766 feet. The slope 

angles within the Ramona Valley AVA 

are also steeper, with a mean of 12 

degrees. The petition did not provide an 

exact range of elevations for the region 

to the east of the proposed AVA but did 

include a graphic showing elevations 

within the southern portion of 

California, indicating higher elevations.2

Climate 

According to the petition, the 

proximity of the proposed San Luis Rey 

AVA to the Pacific Ocean moderates the 

temperature extremes, generally 

resulting in mild winters and summers 

with lower maximum temperatures than 

regions farther inland. As evidence of 

the milder temperatures, the petition 

included information on the average 

annual mean temperature, average 

annual maximum temperature, average 

peak ripening and harvest season 

maximum temperature, and growing 

degree day 3 (GDD) for the proposed 

AVA and the surrounding regions. The 

information is set forth in the following 

tables and was gathered from the 1981– 

2010 climate normal dataset from 

PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State 

University. 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE ANNUAL MEAN AND MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT (F) 4 5

Location 

(direction from proposed AVA) 

Average annual 

mean temperature 

Average annual 

maximum 

temperature 

Proposed AVA ............................................................................................................................................. 63.11 74.20 

Temecula Valley AVA (north) ...................................................................................................................... 64.39 77.65 

San Pasqual Valley AVA (south) ................................................................................................................. 64.55 77.75 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
59822 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

6See Exhibit J to the petition in Docket No. TTB– 

2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

7See Exhibit L to the petition in Docket No. TTB– 

2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

9See Appendix 1 to the petition in Docket No. 

TTB–2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

10See Exhibit K to the petition in Docket No. 

TTB–2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE ANNUAL MEAN AND MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT (F) 4 5—Continued 

Location 

(direction from proposed AVA) 

Average annual 

mean temperature 

Average annual 

maximum 

temperature 

Ramona Valley AVA (southeast) ................................................................................................................. 61.91 76.76 

TABLE 2—AVERAGE PEAK RIPENING AND HARVEST SEASON MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES IN DEGREES F 6

Location 

(direction from proposed AVA) 

Temperature 

July August September October 

Proposed AVA ................................................................................................................. 82.89 84.22 82.78 78.24 

Temecula Valley AVA (north) .......................................................................................... 93.46 94.50 88.18 80.53 

San Pasqual Valley AVA (south) ..................................................................................... 88.25 89.62 87.42 82.39 

Ramona Valley AVA (southeast) ..................................................................................... 90.66 92.02 88.90 80.72 

TABLE 3—GROWING DEGREE DAYS 7

Location 

(direction from proposed AVA) 

Growing degree days 

Minimum Maximum Mean 

Proposed AVA ......................................................................................................................................... 3,250 4,139 3,849 

Temecula Valley AVA (north) .................................................................................................................. 3,844 4,537 4,218 

San Pasqual Valley AVA (south) ............................................................................................................. 3,946 4,234 4,122 

Ramona Valley AVA (southeast) ............................................................................................................. 3,570 3,938 3,740 

As shown in the preceding tables, the 

proposed San Luis Rey AVA has a lower 

average annual mean temperature, lower 

average annual maximum temperature, 

lower peak ripening and growing season 

temperatures, and fewer GDDs than the 

regions to the north and south. The 

proposed AVA has a higher average 

annual mean temperature and a greater 

number of mean GDDs than the region 

to the southeast. However, the 

maximum and minimum GDDs for the 

proposed AVA are still lower than those 

of the region to the southeast, as are the 

average annual maximum temperature 

and average peak ripening and harvest 

season temperatures. The petition notes 

that mild temperatures, particularly 

during peak ripening and harvest 

season, affect viticulture, as prolonged 

temperatures over 90 degrees F can 

cause loss of flavor and aroma 

compounds in grapes. 

As noted above, the petition states 

that the proposed AVA experiences very 

little frost that occurs early in the season 

or late in autumn. Consequently, frost 

does not affect grape vine growth or 

ripening consistency in the proposed 

AVA. As evidence, the petition 

included the average number of days 

from 1981–2010 with temperatures at or 

below 32 degrees F for two locations 

within the proposed AVA, ranging from 

0.8 to 4.7 days.8 The data were collected 

using the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration climate 

normal dataset. 

The petition also includes 

information about diurnal temperature 

variation, which it describes as the 

average monthly minimum temperature 

subtracted from the average monthly 

maximum temperature.9 The data, 

shown in the following table, provide 

the temperature difference for the peak 

growing and harvest season and show 

that the proposed San Luis Rey AVA 

has smaller temperature differences 

than the surrounding regions. The 

petition states that temperature 

differences help preserve the balance of 

sugar and natural fruit acidity in grapes. 

TABLE 4—DIURNAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION IN DEGREES F 10

Location 

(direction from proposed AVA) 

Temperature variation 

July August September October 

Proposed AVA ................................................................................................................. 21.9 22.5 23.0 23.4 

Temecula Valley AVA (north) .......................................................................................... 32.2 32.5 28.3 26.3 

San Pasqual Valley AVA (south) ..................................................................................... 27.1 27.6 27.6 28.5 

Ramona Valley AVA (southeast) ..................................................................................... 33.6 33.8 33.5 31.0 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 59823 

11See Exhibit M to the petition in Docket No. 

TTB–2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 12See Exhibit Q to the petition in Docket No. 

TTB–2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

13See id. 

14See Exhibit H to the petition in Docket No. 

TTB–2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

15See Exhibit I to the petition in Docket No. TTB– 

2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

16See Exhibit Q to the petition in Docket No. 

TTB–2023–0007 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Finally, the petition compared annual 

precipitation amounts in the proposed 

San Luis Rey AVA to those of the 

surrounding regions. The proposed 

AVA has lower annual precipitation 

amounts than the regions to the north 

and southeast and slightly higher 

amounts than the region to the 

southeast. According to the petition, 

high amounts of rainfall during the 

spring and the grape ripening season 

can disrupt bloom formation, split fruit, 

and disrupt the ripening process. 

TABLE 5—ANNUAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES 11

Location 

(direction from proposed AVA) 

Inches 

Maximum Minimum Mean 

Proposed AVA ......................................................................................................................................... 16.97 11.48 14.27 

Temecula Valley AVA (north) .................................................................................................................. 22.58 13.51 17.34 

San Pasqual Valley AVA (south) ............................................................................................................. 14.79 13.30 13.69 

Ramona Valley AVA (southeast) ............................................................................................................. 22.86 15.34 17.87 

Soils 

According to the petition, nearly 50 

percent of the soils in the proposed San 

Luis Rey AVA belong to the Alfisols soil 

taxonomy order. Soils in this order have 

relatively high native fertility and high 

concentrations of calcium, magnesium, 

potassium, and sodium, which are 

essential plant nutrients. The soils of 

the proposed AVA are also relatively 

low in organic carbon. The petition 

states that soils with low levels of 

organic carbon decrease grapevine vigor, 

leading to smaller canopies, clusters and 

berries. The smaller clusters and berries 

enhance the flavor concentration in the 

grapes and increase the skin-to-juice 

ratio during fermentation, while fewer 

leaves on the vines lead to improved 

fruit color and a reduction in ‘‘green’’ 

flavors. Approximately 69 percent of the 

soils in the proposed AVA are sandy 

loams, which the petition describes as 

an even mixture of soil separates that 

can hold water while draining and 

aerating well, and is easily worked with 

agricultural tools. Sandy loams also 

have low cation exchange capacity, 

which reduces the ability of vines to 

absorb nutrients from the soil and 

prevents overly vigorous growth. The 

main soil series within the proposed 

AVA are the Las Posas, Fallbrook, and 

Cieneba series, and the primary parent 

materials of these soils are granite and 

granodiorite (28.85 and 19.54 percent, 

respectively).12

To the north of the proposed San Luis 

Rey AVA, within the established 

Temecula Valley AVA, the majority of 

soils are also within the Alfisols soil 

taxonomy order (48 percent). However, 

the region also has more soils in the 

Entisols and Mollisols orders than are 

found within the proposed AVA. The 

primary parent materials of the soils are 

granite and sandstone. To the south of 

the proposed AVA, within the 

established San Pasqual AVA, the soils 

are primarily within the Alfisols order, 

but lower amounts than the proposed 

AVA (33 percent). Entisols and 

Mollisols also occur with greater 

frequency within the San Pasqual AVA. 

The primary parent material is granite 

(77.48 percent), followed by 

granodiorite (13.45 percent). To the 

southeast of the proposed AVA, in the 

established Ramona Valley AVA, there 

are slightly fewer soils in the Alfisols 

order (46 percent) and more soils in the 

Entisols order (26 percent) than are 

found in the proposed AVA. The 

primary parent materials are granite and 

granodiorite, which are found in greater 

numbers than within the proposed AVA 

(36.60 and 35.23 percent, 

respectively).13

Comparison of the Proposed San Luis 

Rey AVA to the Existing South Coast 

AVA 

T.D. ATF–218, published in the 

Federal Register on November 21, 1985 

(50 FR 48084), established the South 

Coast AVA. It describes the primary 

feature of the South Coast AVA as the 

‘‘substantial coastal influence’’ on the 

climate. The proposed San Luis Rey 

AVA shares the marine-influenced 

climate of the larger South Coast AVA. 

For example, the petition notes that the 

mean average annual temperature for 

the proposed AVA is 63.11 degrees F, 

which is the same as the entire South 

Coast AVA.14 Additionally, the average 

annual maximum temperature is 74.20 

degrees F for the proposed AVA and 

74.99 degrees F for the South Coast 

AVA.15 However, due to its much 

smaller size, the proposed AVA is more 

uniform in its other distinguishing 

features than the large, multi-county 

South Coast AVA. The petition states, 

for example, that the proposed AVA is 

hilly with a lower mean elevation and 

more consistent terrain than the South 

Coast AVA, which ranges from the 

Pacific Ocean to mountainous 

elevations northeast and southeast. Only 

about one third of the soil series that 

exist within the South Coast AVA are 

also present within the proposed San 

Luis Rey AVA. Furthermore, the three 

most common soil series in the 

proposed AVA—Las Posas, Fallbrook, 

and Cieneba—make up 34.9 percent of 

the total soils in the proposed AVA, but 

only comprise 20.3 percent of the South 

Coast AVA soils.16

TTB Determination 

TTB concludes that the petition to 

establish the 97,733-acre ‘‘San Luis 

Rey’’ AVA merits consideration and 

public comment, as invited in this 

document. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative boundary 

descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA 

in the proposed regulatory text 

published at the end of this document. 

Maps 

The petitioner provided the required 

maps, and they are listed below in the 

proposed regulatory text. You may also 

view the proposed San Luis Rey AVA 

boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on 

the TTB website, at https://www.ttb.gov/ 

wine/ava-map-explorer. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. For a 

wine to be labeled with an AVA name 

or with a brand name that includes an 

AVA name, at least 85 percent of the 

wine must be derived from grapes 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
59824 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

grown within the area represented by 

that name, and the wine must meet the 

other conditions listed in 27 CFR 

4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for 

labeling with an AVA name and that 

name appears in the brand name, then 

the label is not in compliance and the 

bottler must change the brand name and 

obtain approval of a new label. 

Similarly, if the AVA name appears in 

another reference on the label in a 

misleading manner, the bottler would 

have to obtain approval of a new label. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing an AVA name 

that was used as a brand name on a 

label approved before July 7, 1986. See 

27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. 

If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, 

its name, ‘‘San Luis Rey,’’ will be 

recognized as a name of viticultural 

significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the 

TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The 

text of the proposed regulation clarifies 

this point. Consequently, wine bottlers 

using ‘‘San Luis Rey’’ in a brand name, 

including a trademark, or in another 

label reference as to the origin of the 

wine, would have to ensure that the 

product is eligible to use the viticultural 

area’s name, ‘‘San Luis Rey.’’ The 

approval of the proposed San Luis Rey 

AVA would not affect any existing 

AVA, and any bottlers using ‘‘South 

Coast’’ as an appellation of origin or in 

a brand name for wines made from 

grapes grown within the San Luis Rey 

AVA would not be affected by the 

establishment of this new AVA. If 

approved, the establishment of the 

proposed San Luis Rey AVA would 

allow vintners to use ‘‘San Luis Rey’’, 

‘‘South Coast’’, or both AVA names as 

appellations of origin for wines made 

from grapes grown within the proposed 

AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility 

requirements for the appellation. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

TTB invites comments from interested 

members of the public on whether TTB 

should establish the proposed San Luis 

Rey AVA. TTB is interested in receiving 

comments on the sufficiency and 

accuracy of the name, boundary, 

topography, and other required 

information submitted in support of the 

AVA petition. In addition, because the 

proposed San Luis Rey AVA would be 

within the existing South Coast AVA, 

TTB is interested in comments on 

whether the evidence submitted in the 

petition regarding the distinguishing 

features of the proposed AVA 

sufficiently differentiates it from the 

existing AVA. TTB is also interested in 

comments on whether the geographic 

features of the proposed AVA are so 

distinguishable from the South Coast 

AVA that the proposed San Luis Rey 

AVA should not be part of the 

established AVA. Please provide any 

available specific information in 

support of your comments. 

Because of the potential impact of the 

establishment of the proposed San Luis 

Rey AVA on wine labels that include 

the term ‘‘San Luis Rey,’’ as discussed 

above under Impact on Current Wine 

Labels, TTB is particularly interested in 

comments regarding whether there will 

be a conflict between the proposed area 

names and currently used brand names. 

If a commenter believes that a conflict 

will arise, the comment should describe 

the nature of that conflict, including any 

anticipated negative economic impact 

that approval of the proposed AVA will 

have on an existing viticultural 

enterprise. TTB is also interested in 

receiving suggestions for ways to avoid 

conflicts, for example, by adopting a 

modified or different name for the 

proposed AVA. 

Submitting Comments 

You may submit comments on this 

notice by using one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You 

may send comments via the online 

comment form posted with this notice 

within Docket No. TTB–2023–0007 on 

‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal erulemaking portal, at https://

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available under Notice 

No. 225 on the TTB website at https:// 

www.ttb.gov/wine/notices-of-proposedrulemaking. Supplemental files may be 

attached to comments submitted via 

Regulations.gov. For complete 

instructions on how to use 

Regulations.gov, visit the site and click 

on the ‘‘FAQ’’ link at the bottom of the 

page. 

• U.S. Mail: You may send comments 

via postal mail to the Director, 

Regulations and Rulings Division, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, 

Washington, DC 20005. 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this notice. 

Your comments must reference Notice 

No. 225 and include your name and 

mailing address. Your comments also 

must be made in English, be legible, and 

be written in language acceptable for 

public disclosure. TTB does not 

acknowledge receipt of comments, and 

TTB considers all comments as 

originals. 

In your comment, please clearly state 

if you are commenting for yourself or on 

behalf of an association, business, or 

other entity. If you are commenting on 

behalf of an entity, your comment must 

include the entity’s name, as well as 

your name and position title. If you 

comment via Regulations.gov, please 

enter the entity’s name in the 

‘‘Organization’’ blank of the online 

comment form. If you comment via 

postal mail or hand delivery/courier, 

please submit your entity’s comment on 

letterhead. 

You may also write to the TTB 

Administrator before the comment 

closing date to ask for a public hearing. 

The TTB Administrator reserves the 

right to determine whether to hold a 

public hearing. 

Confidentiality and Disclosure of 

Comments 

All submitted comments and 

attachments are part of the rulemaking 

record and are subject to public 

disclosure. Do not enclose any material 

in your comments that you consider 

confidential or that is inappropriate for 

disclosure. 

TTB will post, and you may view, 

copies of this document, the related 

petition and selected supporting 

materials, and any comments TTB 

receives about this proposal within the 

related Regulations.gov docket. In 

general, TTB will post comments as 

submitted, and it will not redact any 

identifying or contact information from 

the body of a comment or attachment. 

Please contact TTB’s Regulations and 

Rulings division by email using the web 

form available at https://www.ttb.gov/ 

contact-rrd, or by telephone at 202–453– 

2265, if you have any questions about 

commenting on this proposal or to 

request copies of this document, the 

related petition and its supporting 

materials, or any comments received. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

TTB certifies that this proposed 

regulation, if adopted, would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed regulation imposes no 

new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of a viticultural 

area name would be the result of a 

proprietor’s efforts and consumer 

acceptance of wines from that area. 

Therefore, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required. 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 59825 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we propose to amend title 27, 

chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 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. Add § 9.ll to read as follows: 

§ 9.ll San Luis Rey. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘San 

Luis Rey’’. For purposes of part 4 of this 

chapter, ‘‘San Luis Rey’’ is a term of 

viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The 8 United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the 

viticultural area are as follows: 

(1) Oceanside, CA, 2018; 

(2) San Luis Rey, CA, 2018; 

(3) San Marcos, CA, 2018; 

(4) Valley Center, CA, 2018; 

(5) Bonsall, CA, 2018; 

(6) Temecula, CA, 2018; 

(7) Fallbrook, CA, 2018; and 

(8) Morro Hill, CA, 2018. 

(c) Boundary. The San Luis Rey 

viticultural area is located in San Diego 

County, California. The boundary of the 

San Luis Rey viticultural area is 

described as follows: 

(1) The beginning point is on the 

Oceanside map at the intersection of 

Interstate 5 and the Marine Corps Base 

(MCB) Camp Pendleton boundary. From 

the beginning point, proceed northeast 

for a total of 11.21 miles along the MCB 

Camp Pendleton boundary, crossing 

over the San Luis Rey map and onto the 

Morro Hill map, and continuing along 

the MCB Camp Pendleton boundary to 

its intersection with the Naval Weapons 

Station (NWS) Seal Beach Fallbrook 

California boundary; then 

(2) Proceed east along the NWS Seal 

Beach Fallbrook California boundary for 

a total of 6.85 miles, crossing onto the 

Bonsall map and continuing north, then 

west along the boundary, and crossing 

back onto the Morro Hill map and 

continuing northerly along the 

boundary, crossing onto the Fallbrook 

map, and continuing along the 

boundary as it becomes concurrent with 

the MCB Camp Pendleton boundary, 

and continuing along the boundary to 

its intersection with De Luz Road; then 

(3) Proceed east along De Luz Road for 

0.38 mile to its intersection with Sandia 

Creek Drive; then 

(4) Proceed northerly along Sandia 

Creek Drive for a total of 3.98 miles, 

crossing onto the Temecula map and 

continuing along Sandia Creek Drive to 

its intersection with an unnamed road 

known locally as Rock Mountain Road; 

then 

(5) Proceed east along Rock Mountain 

Road for 0.21 mile to its intersection 

with the San Diego County line; then 

(6) Proceed south then east along the 

San Diego County line for 6.72 miles to 

its intersection with an unnamed road 

known locally as Old Highway 395; 

then 

(7) Proceed south along Old Highway 

395 for a total of 14.9 miles, crossing 

onto the Bonsall map and continuing 

south along Old Highway 395 to its 

intersection with an unnamed road 

known locally as Old Castle Road; then 

(8) Proceed east on Old Castle Road 

for a total of 0.59 mile, crossing onto the 

San Marcos map and continuing east 

along Old Castle Road to its intersection 

with Gordon Hill Road; then 

(9) Proceed southeasterly along 

Gordon Hill Road for 0.92 mile to its 

intersection with the 800-foot elevation 

contour; then 

(10) Proceed east along the 800-foot 

elevation contour for a total of 2.5 miles, 

crossing onto the Valley Center map and 

continuing east along the 800-foot 

elevation contour to its intersection 

with Canyon Country Lane; then 

(11) Proceed northwest and then 

south along Canyon Country Lane for 

0.83 mile to its intersection with the 

1,240-foot elevation contour; then 

(12) Proceed east along the 1,240-foot 

elevation contour for 2.90 miles to its 

intersection with Cougar Pass Road; 

then 

(13) Proceed west then south along 

Cougar Pass Road for 0.4 mile to its 

intersection with Meadow Glen Way 

East; then 

(14) Proceed south along Meadow 

Glen Way East for 0.46 mile to its 

intersection with Hidden Meadows 

Road; then 

(15) Proceed southwest along Hidden 

Meadows Road for 0.73 mile to its 

intersection with Mountain Meadow 

Road; then 

(16) Proceed southwest along 

Mountain Meadow Road for a total of 

1.44 miles, crossing onto the San 

Marcos map and continuing along 

Mountain Meadow Road to the point 

where Mountain Meadow Road becomes 

known as Deer Springs Road just west 

of Interstate 15; then 

(17) Proceed southwest along Deer 

Springs Road for 2.42 miles to its 

intersection with an unnamed road 

known locally as North Twin Oaks 

Valley Road; then 

(18) Proceed south along North Twin 

Oaks Valley Road for 3.01 miles to its 

intersection with an unnamed road 

known locally as West Mission Road; 

then 

(19) Proceed northwest along West 

Mission Road (which becomes South 

Santa Fe Avenue) for a total of 3.9 miles 

to its intersection with Robelini Drive; 

then 

(20) Proceed southwest along Robelini 

Drive (which becomes Sycamore 

Avenue) for a total of 0.55 mile to its 

intersection with State Highway 78; 

then 

(21) Proceed northwest, then westerly 

along State Highway 78 for a total of 

9.09 miles, crossing onto the San Luis 

Rey map and continuing westerly along 

State Highway 78 to its intersection 

with Interstate 5; then 

(22) Proceed northwest along 

Interstate 5 for a total of 3.14 miles, 

crossing onto the Oceanside map and 

returning to the beginning point. 

Signed: August 21, 2023. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: August 22, 2023. 

Thomas C. West, Jr., 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2023–18587 Filed 8–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1903 

[Docket No. OSHA–2023–0008] 

RIN 1218–AD45 

Worker Walkaround Representative 

Designation Process 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to amend 

its Representatives of Employers and 

Employees regulation to clarify that the 

representative(s) authorized by 

employees may be an employee of the 

employer or a third party; such thirdparty employee representative(s) may 

accompany the OSHA Compliance 

Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) when 

they are reasonably necessary to aid in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1