Proposed Revision of American Viticultural Area Regulations (2006R-325P), 65261-65275 [E7-22717]

Agencies

• Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
• DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65261-65275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22717]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Parts 4, 9, and 70

[Notice No. 78]
RIN 1513-AB39


Proposed Revision of American Viticultural Area Regulations 
(2006R-325P)

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 
amend its regulations concerning the establishment of American 
viticultural areas (AVAs). The proposed changes address the effect that 
the approval of an AVA may have on established brand names. In 
addition, the proposed changes provide clearer regulatory standards for 
the establishment of AVAs within AVAs. The proposed amendments also 
clarify the rules for preparing, submitting, and processing 
viticultural area petitions. Finally, we propose to add to the 
regulations statements regarding the viticultural significance of 
established viticultural area names, or key portions of those names, 
for wine labeling purposes.

DATES: We must receive written comments on or before January 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on this notice to one of the following 
addresses:
     E-mail: https://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking 
portal; follow the instructions for submitting comments);
     U.S. mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, 
DC 20044-4412; or
     Hand Delivery/Courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco 
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 
20005.
    See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific 
instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for 
information on how to request a public hearing.
    You may view copies of this notice and any comments we receive 
about this proposal at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
2007-0068. You also may view copies of this notice and any comments we 
receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information 
Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an 
appointment, call 202-927-2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita D. Butler, Regulations and 
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 
Street, NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20220; telephone: 202-927-
1608, fax: 202-927-8525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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 
regulations promulgated under the FAA Act.
    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) provides for the 
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and for 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) 
prescribes the standards for submitting a petition to establish a new 
American viticultural area (AVA) and contains a list with descriptions 
of all approved AVAs. Part 70 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 70) 
includes provisions regarding rulemaking petition procedures.

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 distinguishable by geographic features, the boundaries 
of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the TTB 
regulations. These AVA 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 viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more 
accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers 
to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural 
area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine 
produced in that area.

Current AVA Petition Process

    Section 9.3 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.3) sets forth the 
procedure and standards for the establishment of AVAs. Paragraph (a) of 
that section states that TTB will use the rulemaking process based on 
petitions received in accordance with Sec. Sec.  4.25(e)(2) and 
70.701(c) to establish AVAs. Paragraph (b) of Sec.  9.3 states that a 
petition for the establishment of an AVA must contain the following:
     Evidence that the name of the viticultural area is locally 
and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in the 
application;
     Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the 
viticultural area are as specified in the application;
     Evidence relating to the geographical features (climate, 
soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) that distinguish the 
viticultural features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;
     The specific boundaries of the viticultural area, based on 
features that can be found on United States Geological Survey 
(U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
     A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the 
boundaries prominently marked.

The Need for Regulatory Changes

    For a number of reasons, TTB and Treasury believe that a 
comprehensive review of the AVA program is warranted in order to 
maintain the integrity of the program. First, we are concerned that 
because the establishment of an AVA can limit the use of existing brand 
names, approval of an AVA can have a deleterious effect on established

[[Page 65262]]

businesses, can limit competition, and can be used by petitioners to 
adversely affect a competitor's business. We note in this regard that 
where a conflict exists between a proposed AVA name and an established 
brand name used on a wine label approved by TTB, a choice must be made 
between competing commercial interests; we do not believe that, in the 
context of the labeling provisions of the FAA Act, it is an appropriate 
governmental role to make choices that undermine the commercial 
interests of particular entities, if such choices can be avoided.
    In addition, we note that over the years there has been an increase 
in the number of petitions for the establishment of new AVAs within 
already existing AVAs. Because the idea behind the recognition of an 
AVA is that it is a unique area for viticultural purposes with 
reference to what is outside it, we believe that preserving the 
integrity of the AVA program mandates clarifying the standards for AVAs 
to foster greater scrutiny on the establishment of new AVAs within 
existing AVAs.
    Finally, there is a need to explain and clarify the AVA petition 
submission and review process and to clearly state the existing 
authority to deny, and the grounds for denying, an AVA rulemaking 
petition.

AVA Name and Brand Name Conflict

    The designation of a new AVA can create a conflict with existing 
brand names. This conflict can arise because a brand name that includes 
an approved AVA name may not be used unless at least 85 percent of the 
wine is derived from grapes grown within the boundaries of the AVA. 
Moreover, TTB prohibits the use of misleading brand names (27 CFR 
4.33), and also prohibits brand names that tend to create the 
impression that the wine is entitled to bear a designation recognized 
by TTB unless the wine meets the requirements for that designation (27 
CFR 4.39(a)(8)). The establishment of a new AVA could give rise to a 
misleading impression regarding the provenance of a wine that carries a 
known brand name similar to the AVA name but that does not meet the 85 
percent requirement that applies to AVA name usage, thereby not 
providing the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and 
quality of the wine and creating confusion for consumers and 
jeopardizing the producer's continued use of the wine label in 
question.
    The effect of the current regulatory provisions is to give 
precedence to the establishment of an AVA over the use of a brand name 
on a previously approved label. If a wine is not eligible for labeling 
with the viticultural area name and that name appears in the brand 
name, then the label would not be in compliance and TTB would require 
the bottler to obtain approval of a new label with a new brand name. In 
effect, vintners are on notice that continued use of a brand name 
having geographical significance could be jeopardized by the subsequent 
establishment of an AVA using an identical or similar name. In 
practice, however, TTB works with petitioners to amend petitions in 
order to limit the adverse impact on established brand names.
    For several reasons, we believe it is important to dispel any 
misconceptions that AVA petitions will be approved without regard to 
their impact on established brands. First, we do not wish to discount 
the commercial and informational value of an established brand name, 
which often is built up over a period of time by substantial 
investments in capital and hard work. Second, we do not wish to 
overlook the possibility that, contrary to the purpose of the FAA Act, 
the use of the new AVA name on a label could be misleading to those 
consumers who have associated that name with wine bearing an identical 
or similar brand name but produced from grapes grown outside the new 
AVA. Finally, we do not believe it to be sound public policy to allow 
an AVA petitioner to use a petition not for purposes consistent with 
the FAA Act but rather as a means to limit competition from holders of 
established brands.

AVAs Within AVAs

    In recent years, TTB has received an increasing number of petitions 
that propose a boundary change to an existing AVA, the establishment of 
an AVA entirely or partially within an existing AVA, or the 
establishment of a new, larger AVA that would encompass all of one or 
more existing AVAs. TTB has come to recognize that such petitions can 
create the appearance of a conflict or inconsistency because, with 
reference to the criteria set forth in Sec.  9.3(b), the new petition 
might draw into question the accuracy and validity of the evidence 
presented in support of the establishment of the existing AVA or the 
legitimacy of the justification for establishing the AVA. For example, 
with reference to the boundary description and the geographical 
features criteria, a change in an existing AVA boundary, or the 
adoption of a new AVA within an existing AVA, could suggest that the 
original boundary was improperly drawn or that there is no unity or 
consistency in the features of the existing AVA that give it a unique 
and distinctive identity in a viticultural sense.
    When a new AVA was established entirely within an existing AVA, TTB 
traditionally took the position that a wine that meets the 85 percent 
standard for the new, smaller AVA would automatically meet the 85 
percent standard for the larger AVA. However, depending on the facts 
involved, we recognize that this position could run counter to the 
principle that an AVA is unique with reference to what is outside its 
boundary for viticultural purposes. In other words, depending on the 
unique facts presented in each AVA petition, an argument could be made 
that the smaller AVA is, by its very existence, distinct from the AVA 
that surrounds it, with the result that wine produced within it could 
not be labeled with the name of the larger AVA.
    We believe that in order to preserve the integrity of the AVA 
program, the above considerations demonstrate a need for greater 
clarity for, and closer scrutiny of, petitions for the establishment of 
new AVAs and for changes to existing AVAs. The petitioner should be 
expected to dispel any apparent inconsistency or to explain why it is 
acceptable.

Petition Submission and Review Process

    Under TTB's current AVA petition process, we process all AVA 
petitions that are submitted to us. TTB's practice is to work with the 
petitioner both before and after submission of the petition to ensure 
that it contains all necessary information. TTB specialists spend 
considerable time reviewing the petition, contacting the petitioner, 
and requesting missing evidence from the petitioner. In some cases, 
deficient petitions are returned to the petitioner for revision and 
resubmission. Only after the petition is perfected (that is, it appears 
to contain all of the information required under Sec.  9.3) do we 
proceed with preparation of an appropriate rulemaking document. As a 
general rule, the practice of TTB has been to accept the information 
provided by the petitioner in a perfected petition with the assumption 
that the information provided is true and correct. TTB does not conduct 
a detailed, separate investigation of the validity of the petition 
evidence at that point. TTB relies on comments provided in response to 
the published notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), to confirm or 
refute the information provided by the petitioner.
    We also note that whereas the TTB regulations in part 9 speak in 
terms of

[[Page 65263]]

what an AVA petition must contain, they do not clearly reflect the 
fundamental administrative principle that the authority to grant 
carries a concomitant authority to deny an AVA petition. We have come 
to realize that some believe that all that is necessary to successfully 
petition for the establishment of an AVA is to submit a petition with 
evidence under the terms of Sec.  9.3(b).
    Our view, however, is that under the current regulatory framework 
approval of an AVA petition is totally discretionary, because TTB 
already has authority not to initiate rulemaking, or not to approve the 
petitioned-for AVA action after publication of a proposal, for any one 
of a number of reasons, such as:
     The evidence submitted with the petition does not 
adequately support use of the name proposed for a new AVA;
     The evidence of distinguishing features submitted with the 
petition does not support drawing or redrawing the AVA boundary as 
proposed;
     The extent of viticulture within the proposed boundary is 
not sufficient to constitute a grape-growing region within the 
intendment of the AVA program; or
     Approval of a proposed new AVA would be inconsistent with 
the purpose of the FAA Act, contrary to another statute or regulation, 
or otherwise not in the public interest.
    We believe, however, that the part 9 regulations should more 
completely describe the submission and review process, including the 
various actions that TTB may take at each stage of the AVA petitioning 
procedure.

Overview of Proposed Changes

    Based on the above considerations, TTB believes that the present 
regulations require further clarification of the regulatory basis for 
the most effective administration of the AVA program. To help clarify 
this situation, this document proposes to amend three provisions within 
part 4 of the TTB regulations that concern AVAs, to revise subparts A 
and B of part 9 of the TTB regulations, to amend various sections 
within subpart C of part 9, and to amend one provision within part 70 
of the TTB regulations.

Part 4 Amendments

    At the beginning of the AVA program, TTB's predecessor agency and 
Treasury issued 27 CFR 4.39(i), which permits the continued use of 
brand names that had been used in certificates of label approval 
(COLAs) issued before July 7, 1986, subject to application of any one 
of three conditions. The first two conditions refer to existing 
appellation of origin labeling requirements, and the third condition 
provides for labeling the wine with some other statement that TTB finds 
to be sufficient to dispel the impression that the geographic area 
suggested by the brand name is indicative of the origin of the wine.
    This ``grandfather'' approach was intended to protect brand names 
that had existed prior to the development of the AVA program. This 
solution, however, was not forward-looking and, therefore, does not 
address conflicts between AVAs and brand names in COLAs that came into 
existence after July 7, 1986. Since July 1986, more than 100 AVAs have 
been established in response to petitions from industry members and 
grape growers, reflecting the increased interest in, and spread of, 
viticulture throughout the United States. In addition, in recent years 
an increasing number of petitions have been submitted that, if the AVA 
were to be established with the petitioned-for name, would affect 
established brand names. As noted above, our intent in administering 
the AVA program, consistent with the intent behind the original 
``grandfather'' approach, is to recognize established grape-growing 
regions while avoiding interference with established brand names.
    While TTB will continue to work with future AVA petitioners to 
limit the adverse impact on established brand names, we recognize that 
sometimes it will not be possible to amend a petition to achieve this 
result. In such cases, we believe that application of a new prospective 
``grandfather'' approach would achieve the most balanced result. 
Accordingly, we are proposing to amend Sec.  4.39(i) by adding a new 
``grandfathering'' standard that would apply in the case of AVAs 
established after adoption of the final rule in this matter and that 
would be based on a specified number of years that a COLA was issued, 
and whether the brand label was in actual commercial use, before 
receipt by TTB of a perfected AVA petition. This approach would permit 
the establishment of the AVA and at the same time afford appropriate 
protection of existing labels.
    In addition, we propose to update two provisions within Sec.  
4.25(e) and conform them to the proposed changes to part 9, as 
explained below.

Part 9 Amendments

    The proposed changes to subparts A and B of part 9 are intended to 
clarify the operation of the AVA petition and rulemaking process by 
explaining how a petitioner must submit an AVA petition to TTB, by 
setting forth with considerably greater specificity what information a 
petition must contain, and by explaining how TTB will process these 
petitions. The amended regulations would also clearly state that TTB 
may, at its discretion, decide not to proceed with rulemaking after 
receipt of a petition but that TTB will provide an explanation to the 
petitioner in such a case.
    Further, the proposed amendments to subparts A and B of part 9 
specifically address the requirements for proposed boundary and name 
changes to existing AVAs, in order to ensure that an AVA proposal 
published by TTB to change an existing AVA (for example, a boundary 
expansion) has adequate supporting evidence. The specification of 
requirements for boundary changes will ensure that TTB receives 
petitions that conform to AVA regulatory standards rather than to 
considerations that are not central to the AVA concept, such as the 
desire to bring an individual vineyard into an existing AVA.
    We also propose to clarify in the subpart A and B regulatory texts 
that TTB has the discretion to decide whether or not to proceed with 
rulemaking with regard to any submitted and perfected AVA petition, 
provided the reasons are communicated to the petitioner in writing. In 
addition, the proposed amendments reflect the authority of TTB to 
decide not to proceed with approval of the petitioned-for AVA action 
after publication of the NPRM. To these ends, the proposed regulatory 
amendments attempt to make a clear distinction between the petition 
process and the rulemaking process, because a decision not to go 
forward may be made at either stage.
    The proposed amendments in subpart C are intended to draw the 
attention of the reader to the viticultural significance of names of 
previously established AVAs, or notable portions of those names, for 
wine labeling purposes under part 4 of the TTB regulations. These 
amendments are consistent with the practice employed by TTB over the 
past several years of including a second sentence in paragraph (a) of 
each section covering a new AVA, to specify what is viticulturally 
significant as a result of the establishment of the AVA. While in most 
cases only the full name of the AVA is specified in each of the subpart 
C amendments contained in this document, in some instances a portion of 
the name is also identified as viticulturally significant if, based on 
TTB's label approval practice, its use on a label could be taken to 
represent the full AVA name. While we have attempted to avoid 
specifying a part of an AVA name where such action might

[[Page 65264]]

jeopardize the continued use of an approved label, we specifically 
invite comments on whether any existing labels would be at risk if the 
proposed amendments are adopted as a final rule.

Part 70 Amendment

    Finally, we propose a conforming amendment to Sec.  70.701(c) of 
the TTB regulations (27 CFR 70.701(c)), which concerns petitions to 
change TTB's rules.
    Additional points regarding the proposed regulatory amendments are 
set forth in the section-by-section discussion below.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes

Section 4.25

    We are proposing to revise the definition of viticultural area for 
American wine contained in Sec.  4.25(e)(1)(i) to conform it to the new 
definition of ``American viticultural area'' proposed for part 9. In 
addition, we are proposing to revise Sec.  4.25(e)(2) to conform it to 
the restructuring of part 9 and to correct a wording error in the 
present text.

Section 4.39(i)

    We are proposing to add a new paragraph (3) to Sec.  4.39(i) to set 
forth the new grandfather provision, with a consequential redesignation 
of present paragraph (3) as (4). The new provision would apply to AVAs 
and terms used in AVA names established as viticulturally significant 
under part 9 after the effective date of the final rule on this 
rulemaking action. As in the case of the present paragraph (2) 
grandfather provision, the new text would require the use of dispelling 
information regarding the origin of the wine.
    The proposed new regulatory text refers to brand names that were 
used in COLAs issued prior to the 5-year period immediately preceding 
receipt of the perfected petition for establishment of the new AVA and 
that were in actual commercial use on labels for at least 3 years 
during that 5-year period as demonstrated by the COLA holder. We 
decided to propose two different periods of time because COLA issuance 
often precedes entry of a product into the marketplace by a year or 
more. We chose the 5-year period for COLA issuance because we believe 
that this is a reasonable period of time for the establishment of an 
ongoing viticultural enterprise, and we chose the 3-year period for 
actual commercial use because we believe that this is a reasonable 
period of time for achieving consumer recognition and loyalty. Under 
the proposed regulatory text, the mere possession of a COLA for 5 years 
or more would not be sufficient to trigger the new ``grandfather'' 
clause--it also would have to be established that the product in fact 
had a presence in the marketplace for at least 3 years during the 5-
year period. We would not consider the mere placement of a label on a 
wine bottle to be actual commercial use because more would be required, 
that is, actual entry into the marketplace.
    In addition to new paragraph (3), we are proposing to amend Sec.  
4.39(i) by revising paragraphs (1) and (2) to better express the cross-
references and to simplify the text of paragraph (2) by removing 
paragraph (2)(i), which repeats a rule stated in paragraph (1) and thus 
is redundant. These proposed changes are purely editorial and do not 
affect the substance of the texts.

Section 9.0

    We are proposing to add a new Sec.  9.0 before subpart A to define 
the scope of the part 9 regulations. This new section replaces, and 
slightly expands upon the wording of, present Sec.  9.1. We believe 
that this scope section is more appropriately placed before subpart A 
since it is intended to operate more as a reader's aid than as a 
substantive regulation.

Section 9.1

    This proposed definitions section would replace present Sec.  9.11 
and would be the first section under subpart A. We believe that it is 
better regulatory practice to have a definitions section as the first 
substantive section within a part rather than following other sections 
that use the terms defined in it. The text is divided into paragraphs 
(a) and (b), with paragraph (a) containing the various definitions and 
paragraph (b) containing the ``use of other terms'' recitation in the 
present text, which is more substantive than definitional in nature.
    Within paragraph (a) of new Sec.  9.1, we propose to add new 
definitions covering ``appropriate TTB officer,'' ``AVA,'' ``perfected 
petition,'' ``person,'' ``petition,'' ``petitioner,'' ``term of 
viticultural significance,'' and ``TTB.'' In addition, we propose to 
combine the present definitions for ``American'' and ``viticultural 
area'' into one definition of ``American viticultural area.'' Finally, 
we propose a nonsubstantive wording change to the definition of 
``approved map.''

Section 9.3

    We are proposing to add a new Sec.  9.3 to describe the delegations 
of the Administrator's authorities for the administration of part 9. 
This is consistent with the practice under other parts of the TTB 
regulations.

Section 9.11

    This new section would be the first section under subpart B, is 
intended to cover in more detail the petition submission process, and 
essentially reflects current practice as described above. It also 
clarifies both TTB's authority to decide whether to take action in 
response to a petition and the fact that mere receipt of a petition 
does not compel the publication of a rulemaking document in the Federal 
Register.

Section 9.12

    This new section sets forth significantly elaborated AVA petition 
content standards to address a number of the concerns outlined earlier 
in this document. The proposed text distinguishes between petitions for 
the establishment of a new AVA and petitions for changes to an existing 
AVA. It also sets forth specific additional standards for petitions 
proposing the establishment of a new AVA entirely within, or 
overlapping, an existing AVA, or proposing the establishment of a new, 
larger AVA encompassing all of one or more existing AVAs. In the case 
of an AVA entirely within another AVA, the text states that in some 
cases TTB may determine that the smaller AVA will not be considered to 
be part of the larger AVA because of its particular distinctiveness; 
such a determination would be made only in connection with rulemaking 
involving a new AVA and therefore would only be applied prospectively. 
In addition, in the case of changes to existing AVAs, the text 
distinguishes between boundary changes and name changes. TTB believes 
that these distinctions are necessary to maintain the integrity of the 
AVA program, because different evidence or other information may be 
necessary to support a petition depending on the specific petitioned-
for action.

Section 9.13

    This new section covers the initial processing of an AVA petition 
after receipt by TTB, and it largely reflects TTB's present practice. 
The proposed text clarifies that the mere receipt of a perfected 
petition does not necessarily mean that TTB will proceed with 
rulemaking, and that the reasons for not proceeding with rulemaking 
will be set forth in writing to the petitioner. Thus, it is the intent 
of TTB to maintain a

[[Page 65265]]

clear distinction between the processing of a petition and the 
initiation of rulemaking, which is the subject of the next section. If 
TTB decides to proceed with rulemaking, the new section also provides 
that TTB will advise the petitioner of the date of receipt of the 
perfected petition and will place a notice on the TTB Web site that the 
petition has been accepted for rulemaking.

Section 9.14

    This new section covers the rulemaking process, which commences 
only after a decision is made under Sec.  9.13 to proceed to rulemaking 
(preparation and publication of the NPRM). It includes a description of 
various final actions that TTB might take after the close of the public 
comment period and review of the comments submitted and any other 
relevant information that comes to the attention of TTB that might have 
a bearing on the action taken by TTB.
    Among the proposed final actions that TTB might take is publication 
of a notice withdrawing the proposal to establish the AVA. In addition 
to a failure of a petition to identify an actual grape-growing region 
or to provide adequate name, boundary, and distinguishing features 
evidence, a proposed basis for such a withdrawal could be that adoption 
of the proposal would be inconsistent with a purpose of the FAA Act or 
any other Federal statute or regulation or would be otherwise contrary 
to the public interest. TTB believes that the latter grounds for 
withdrawing a proposal are appropriate based on the principle that 
administrative practice should always be consistent with, and never 
contrary to, law and public policy. As in the case of a withdrawal 
based on insufficient petition evidence, the Federal Register document 
announcing the withdrawal would explain the specific considerations 
upon which the withdrawal is based.

Subpart C

    The proposed amendments within subpart C (in paragraphs 6 through 
166) are consistent with the practice employed by TTB, which is to 
include a sentence in paragraph (a) to specify what is viticulturally 
significant as a result of the establishment of the AVA. The 
specification of a portion of an AVA name is based on TTB's label 
approvals as reflected in the TTB Public COLA Registry.

Section 70.701(c)

    The amendment to Sec.  70.701(c) involves the addition of a 
reference to part 9 regarding a petition to establish a grape-growing 
region as a new AVA or to modify an existing AVA.

Public Participation

Comments Invited

    We invite comments from interested members of the public on this 
proposed rulemaking, including the proposed regulatory text.
    In addition, we invite comment on the following specific questions:
    1. Whether additional or different standards should apply to the 
establishment of an AVA; for example, whether there should be a 
requirement that a specified percentage of the land mass of the 
proposed AVA be involved in viticultural activities.
    2. Whether in some or all cases the establishment of a smaller AVA 
located within the boundaries of a larger AVA should result in a 
prohibition against the use of the larger AVA name on wine labels.
    3. Whether the use of a ``grandfather'' provision to avoid 
conflicts between an established brand name and the establishment of a 
proposed AVA is appropriate.
    4. Whether the terms of the proposed ``grandfather'' provision are 
appropriate and, if so, what time periods should apply to establish 
commercial use of the brand name involved in a conflict.
    5. Whether it would be more appropriate to adopt an alternative to 
the ``grandfather'' provision proposed that would apply to brand names 
that have longstanding commercial use under one or more existing 
certificates of label approval without specifying a time period.
    6. What type of dispelling information would prevent consumers from 
being misled as to the origin of the wine when a ``grandfather'' 
provision applies. Other comments for a requirement on dispelling 
information are encouraged.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this notice by one of the following 
methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To submit a comment on this 
notice using the online Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit https://
www.regulations.gov and select ``Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau'' from the agency drop-down menu and click ``Submit.'' In the 
resulting docket list, click the ``Add Comments'' icon for Docket No. 
2007-0068 and complete the resulting comment form. You may attach 
supplemental files to your comment. More complete information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing open and closed 
dockets and for submitting comments, is available through the site's 
``User Tips'' link.
     Mail: You may send written comments to the Director, 
Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
     Hand Delivery/Courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco 
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 
20005.
    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this 
notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and 
mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language 
acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of 
comments, and we consider all comments as originals.
    If you are commenting on behalf of an association, business, or 
other entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as 
your name and position title. If you comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the 
``Organization'' blank of the comment form. If you comment via mail, 
please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing 
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right 
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public 
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your 
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for 
public disclosure.

Public Disclosure

    On the Federal e-rulemaking portal, we will post, and you may view, 
copies of this notice and any electronic, mailed, or hand-delivered 
comments we receive about this proposal. To view a posted document or 
comment, go to https://www.regulations.gov and select ``Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau'' from the agency drop-down menu and click 
``Submit.'' In the resulting docket list, click the appropriate docket 
number, then click the ``View'' icon for any document or comment posted 
under that docket number.
    All submitted and posted comments will display the commenter's 
name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of 
mailed or hand-delivered comments, all address

[[Page 65266]]

information, including e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous 
attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting.
    You also may view copies of this notice and any electronic, mailed, 
or hand-delivered comments we receive about this proposal by 
appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 
11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address 
or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to 
request copies of comments or other materials.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as 
defined by Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule merely clarifies 
existing regulatory standards and imposes no new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirements. Therefore, it 
requires no regulatory assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that these proposed regulations, if adopted, would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As the submittal of a petition to TTB to establish a new AVA 
or change an existing AVA is voluntary, we believe that the proposed 
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
administrative requirement. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility 
analysis is required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should 
be sent to OMB at Alexander--T.--Hunt@omb.eop.gov, or by paper mail to 
Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the 
Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. A copy should also be sent to the 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau by any of the methods 
previously described. Because OMB must complete its review of the 
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication, 
comments on the information collection should be submitted not later 
than December 20, 2007. Comments are specifically requested concerning:
     Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Alcohol 
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, including whether the information 
will have practical utility;
     The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the 
proposed collection of information (see below);
     How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
     How to minimize the burden of complying with the proposed 
collection of information, including the application of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
     Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of 
operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide 
information.
    The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in 27 
CFR 9.11 and 9.12. This information is required to petition TTB to 
establish a new AVA or to change an existing AVA. This information will 
be used to verify evidence sources and to determine whether the 
information is sufficient to begin the rulemaking process (that is, 
proceed to a notice of proposed rulemaking). The collection of 
information is required to obtain a benefit. The likely respondents are 
non-profit institutions and small businesses or organizations.
     Estimated total annual reporting and/or recordkeeping 
burden: 2,398 hours.
     Estimated average annual burden hours per respondent: 218 
hours.
     Estimated number of respondents: 11 per year.
     Estimated annual frequency of responses: 1.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid 
control number assigned by OMB.

Drafting Information

    Rita D. Butler of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this 
document.

List of Subjects

27 CFR Part 4

    Advertising, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Labeling, 
Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Trade practices, and Wine.

27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

27 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Excise taxes, 
Freedom of information, Law enforcement, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Surety bonds.

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend 27 
CFR, chapter I, parts 4, 9, and 70, as follows:

PART 4--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF WINE

    1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec.  4.25, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  4.25  Appellations of origin.

* * * * *
    (e) Viticultural area--(1) Definition--(i) American wine. A 
delimited grape growing region having distinguishing features as 
described in part 9 of this chapter and a name and a delineated 
boundary as established in part 9 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (2) Establishment of American viticultural areas. A petition for 
the establishment of an American viticultural area may be made to the 
Administrator by any interested party, pursuant to part 9 and Sec.  
70.701(c) of this chapter. The petition must be made in written form 
and must contain the information specified in Sec.  9.12 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  4.39, paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) are revised, 
paragraph (i)(3) is redesignated as paragraph (i)(4), and a new 
paragraph (i)(3) is added, to read as follows:


Sec.  4.39  Prohibited practices.

* * * * *
    (i) Geographic brand names. (1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(i)(2) or (3) of this section, a brand name of viticultural 
significance may not be used unless the wine meets the appellation of 
origin requirements for the geographic area named.
    (2) For brand names used in existing certificates of label approval 
issued prior to July 7, 1986:
    (i) The wine shall be labeled with an appellation of origin in 
accordance with Sec.  4.34(b) of this chapter as to location and size 
of type of either:

[[Page 65267]]

    (A) A county or a viticultural area, if the brand name bears the 
name of a geographic area smaller than a state; or
    (B) A state, county or a viticultural area, if the brand name bears 
a state name; or
    (ii) The wine shall be labeled with some other statement which the 
appropriate TTB officer finds to be sufficient to dispel the impression 
that the geographic area suggested by the brand name is indicative of 
the origin of the wine.
    (3) Brand names that do not meet the requirements of paragraph 
(i)(2) of this section and that contain the name of a viticultural area 
or other term of viticultural significance established under part 9 of 
this chapter on or after [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] may be 
used in conjunction with information which the appropriate TTB officer 
finds to be sufficient to dispel the impression that the geographic 
area suggested by the brand name is indicative of the origin of the 
wine, provided that the brand name:
    (i) Was used in an existing certificate of label approval issued 
prior to the 5-year period immediately preceding receipt of the 
perfected petition for establishment of the viticultural area; and
    (ii) Was in actual commercial use on labels for at least 3 years 
during that 5-year period.
* * * * *

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

    4. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

    5. A new Sec.  9.0 is added before Subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  9.0  Scope.

    The regulations in this part relate to American viticultural areas 
created under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act 
and referred to in Sec.  4.25(e) of this chapter.
    6. Subparts A and B are revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--General Provisions


Sec.  9.1  Definitions.

    (a) General. For purposes of this part, and unless the specific 
context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the meanings 
indicated:
    Administrator. The Administrator, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
    American viticultural area. A viticultural area as defined in Sec.  
4.25(e)(1)(i) of this chapter.
    Appropriate TTB officer. An officer or employee of the Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau authorized to perform any functions 
relating to the administration or enforcement of this part by TTB Order 
1135.9, Delegation of the Administrator's Authorities in 27 CFR Part 9, 
American Viticultural Areas.
    Approved map. The U.S.G.S. map(s) used to define the boundary of an 
approved AVA.
    AVA. An American viticultural area.
    Perfected petition. A petition containing all of the evidence 
meeting the requirements of Sec.  9.12 and containing sufficient 
supporting information for TTB to decide whether or not to proceed with 
rulemaking to establish a new AVA or to change an existing AVA.
    Person. An individual, partnership, association, corporation, or 
other entity.
    Petition. A written request to establish a new AVA or to change an 
existing AVA, signed by the petitioner or an authorized agent of the 
petitioner, and submitted in accordance with this part and Sec.  
70.701(c) of this chapter.
    Petitioner. An individual or entity that submits a petition to TTB.
    Term of viticultural significance. A term recognized under Sec.  
4.39(i)(3) of this chapter.
    TTB. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of 
the Treasury, Washington, DC.
    U.S.G.S. The United States Geological Survey.
    (b) Use of other terms. Any other term defined in the Federal 
Alcohol Administration Act and used in this part shall have the same 
meaning assigned to it by that Act.


Sec.  9.2  Territorial extent.

    This part applies to the several States of the United States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.


Sec.  9.3  Delegations of the Administrator.

    Most of the regulatory authorities of the Administrator contained 
in this part are delegated to appropriate TTB officers. Those TTB 
officers are specified in TTB Order 1135.9, Delegation of the 
Administrator's Authorities in 27 CFR Part 9, American Viticultural 
Areas. You may obtain a copy of this order by accessing the TTB Web 
site (https://www.ttb.gov) or by mailing a request to the Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, National Revenue Center, 550 Main Street, 
Room 1516, Cincinnati, OH 45202.

Subpart B--AVA Petitions


Sec.  9.11  Submission of AVA petitions.

    (a) Procedure for petitioner. Any person may submit an AVA petition 
to TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a new AVA, to change the 
boundary of an existing AVA, or to change the name of an existing AVA. 
The petitioner is responsible for including with the petition all of 
the information specified in Sec.  9.12. The person submitting the 
petition is also responsible for providing timely and complete 
responses to TTB requests for additional information to support the 
petition.
    (b) How and where to submit an AVA petition. The AVA petition may 
be sent to TTB using the U.S. Postal Service or a private delivery 
service. A petition sent through the U.S. Postal Service should be 
addressed to: Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 
and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. A petition 
sent via a private delivery service should be directed to: Regulations 
and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Suite 
200E, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    (c) Purpose and effect of submission of AVA petitions. The 
submission of a petition under this subpart is intended to provide TTB 
with sufficient documentation to propose the establishment of a new AVA 
or to propose changing the name or boundary of an existing AVA. After 
considering the petition evidence and any other relevant information, 
TTB shall decide what action to take in response to a petition and 
shall so advise the petitioner. Nothing in this chapter shall, or shall 
be interpreted to, compel any Department of the Treasury official to 
proceed to rulemaking in response to a submitted petition.


Sec.  9.12  AVA petition requirements.

    (a) Establishment of an AVA in general. A petition for the 
establishment of a new AVA must include all of the evidentiary 
materials and other information specified in this section. The petition 
must stand on its own and require no independent verification or 
research by TTB.
    (1) Name evidence. The name identified for the proposed AVA must be 
currently and directly associated with an area in which viticulture 
exists. All of the area within the proposed AVA boundary must be 
nationally or locally known by the name specified in the petition, 
although the use of that name may extend beyond the proposed AVA 
boundary. The name evidence must conform to the following rules:

[[Page 65268]]

    (i) Name usage. The petition must completely explain, in narrative 
form, the manner in which the name is used for the area covered by the 
proposed AVA.
    (ii) Source of name and name evidence. The name and the evidence in 
support of it must come from sources independent of the petitioner. 
Appropriate name evidence sources include, but are not limited to, 
historical and modern government or commercial maps, books, newspapers, 
magazines, tourist and other promotional materials, local business or 
school names, and road names. Whenever practicable, the petitioner must 
include with the petition copies of the name evidence materials, 
appropriately cross-referenced in the petition narrative. Although 
anecdotal information by itself is not sufficient, statements taken 
from local residents with knowledge of the name and its use may also be 
included to support other name evidence.
    (2) Boundary evidence. The petition must explain in detail the 
basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA as set forth in the 
petition. This explanation must have reference to the name evidence and 
other distinguishing features information required under this section. 
In support of the proposed boundary, the petition must outline the 
commonalities or similarities within that boundary and must explain 
with specificity how those elements are different in the adjacent areas 
outside that boundary.
    (3) Distinguishing features. The petition must provide, in 
narrative form, a description of the common or similar features of the 
proposed AVA affecting viticulture that make it distinctive. The 
petition must also explain with specificity in what way these features 
affect viticulture and how they are distinguished viticulturally from 
features associated with adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA 
boundary. For purposes of this section, information relating to 
distinguishing features affecting viticulture includes the following:
    (i) Climate. Temperature, precipitation, wind, fog, solar 
orientation and radiation, and other climate information;
    (ii) Geology. Underlying formations, landforms, and such 
geophysical events as earthquakes, eruptions, and major floods;
    (iii) Soils. Soil series or phases of a soil series, denoting 
parent material, texture, slope, permeability, soil reaction, drainage, 
and fertility;
    (iv) Physical features. Flat, hilly, or mountainous topography, 
geographical formations, bodies of water, watersheds, irrigation 
resources, and other physical features; and
    (v) Elevation. Minimum and maximum elevations.
    (4) Maps and boundary description--(i) Maps. The petitioner must 
submit with the petition, in an appropriate scale, the U.S.G.S. map(s) 
showing the location of the proposed AVA. The exact boundary of the AVA 
must be prominently and clearly drawn on the maps without obscuring the 
underlying features that define the boundary line. U.S.G.S. maps may be 
obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Distribution. If 
the map name is not known, the petitioner may request a map index by 
State.
    (ii) Boundary description. The petition must include a detailed 
narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on U.S.G.S. 
map markings. This description must have a specific beginning point, 
must proceed unbroken from that point in a clockwise direction, and 
must return to that beginning point to complete the boundary 
description. The boundary description must refer to easily discernable 
reference points on the U.S.G.S. maps. The proposed AVA boundary 
description may rely on any of the following map features:
    (A) State, county, township, forest, and other political entity 
lines;
    (B) Highways, roads (including unimproved roads), and trails;
    (C) Contour or elevation lines;
    (D) Natural geographical features, including rivers, streams, 
creeks, ridges, and markedelevation points (such as summits or 
benchmarks);
    (E) Human-made features (such as bridges, buildings, windmills, or 
water tanks); and
    (F) Straight lines between marked intersections, human-made 
features, or other map points.
    (b) AVAs within AVAs. If the petition proposes the establishment of 
a new AVA entirely within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, the 
evidence submitted under paragraph (a) of this section must include 
information 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. If the petition proposes the 
establishment of a new AVA that is larger than, and encompasses, all of 
one or more existing AVAs, the evidence submitted under paragraph (a) 
of this section must include information addressing whether, and to 
what extent, the attributes of the proposed AVA are consistent with 
those of the existing AVA(s). In any case in which an AVA would be 
created entirely within another AVA, whether by the establishment of a 
new, larger AVA or by the establishment of a new AVA within an existing 
one, the petition must dispel any apparent inconsistency or explain why 
it is acceptable. When a smaller AVA has name recognition and features 
that so clearly distinguish it from a larger AVA that surrounds it, TTB 
may determine in the course of the rulemaking that it is not part of 
the larger AVA and that wine produced from grapes grown within the 
smaller AVA would not be entitled to use the name of the larger AVA as 
an appellation of origin or in a brand name.
    (c) Modification of an existing AVA--(1) Boundary change. If a 
petition seeks to change the boundary of an existing AVA, the 
petitioner must include with the petition all relevant evidence and 
other information specified for a new AVA petition in paragraphs (a) 
and (b) of this section. This evidence or information must include, at 
a minimum, the following:
    (i) Name evidence. If the proposed change involves an expansion of 
the existing boundary, the petition must show how the name of the 
existing AVA also applies to the expansion area. If the proposed change 
would result in a decrease in the size of an existing AVA, the petition 
must explain the extent to which the AVA name does not apply to the 
excluded area.
    (ii) Distinguishing features. The petition must demonstrate that 
the area covered by the proposed change has, or does not have, 
distinguishing features affecting viticulture that are essentially the 
same as those of the existing AVA. If the proposed change involves an 
expansion of the existing AVA, the petition must demonstrate that the 
area covered by the expansion has the same distinguishing features as 
those of the existing AVA and has different features from those of the 
area outside the proposed, new boundary. If the proposed change would 
result in a decrease in the size of an existing AVA, the petition must 
explain how the distinguishing features of the excluded area are 
different from those within the boundary of the smaller AVA. In all 
cases the distinguishing features must affect viticulture.
    (iii) Boundary evidence and description. The petition must explain 
how the boundary of the existing AVA was incorrectly or incompletely 
defined or is no longer accurate due to new evidence or changed 
circumstances, with reference to the name evidence and distinguishing 
features of the existing

[[Page 65269]]

AVA and of the area affected by the proposed boundary change. The 
petition must include the appropriate U.S.G.S. maps with the proposed 
boundary change drawn on them and must provide a detailed narrative 
description of the changed boundary.
    (2) Name change. If a petition seeks to change the name of an 
existing AVA, the petition must establish the suitability of that name 
change by providing the name evidence specified in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section.


Sec.  9.13  Initial processing of AVA petitions.

    (a) TTB notification to petitioner of petition receipt. The 
appropriate TTB officer will acknowledge receipt of a submitted 
petition. This notification will be in a letter sent to the petitioner 
within 30 days of receipt of the petition.
    (b) Acceptance of a perfected petition or return of a deficient 
petition to the petitioner. The appropriate TTB officer will perform an 
initial review of the petition to determine whether it is a perfected 
petition. If the petition is not perfected, the appropriate TTB officer 
will return it to the petitioner without prejudice to resubmission in 
perfected form. If the petition is perfected, TTB will decide whether 
to proceed with rulemaking under Sec.  9.14 and will advise the 
petitioner in writing of that decision. If TTB decides to proceed with 
rulemaking, TTB will advise the petitioner of the date of receipt of 
the perfected petition. If TTB decides not to proceed with rulemaking, 
TTB will advise the petitioner of the reasons for that decision.
    (c) Notice of pending petition. When a perfected petition is 
accepted for rulemaking, TTB will place a notice to that effect on the 
TTB Web site.


Sec.  9.14  AVA rulemaking process.

    (a) Notice of proposed rulemaking. If TTB determines that 
rulemaking in response to a petition is appropriate, TTB will prepare 
and publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 
Register to solicit public comments on the petitioned-for AVA action.
    (b) Final action. Following the close of the NPRM comment period, 
TTB will review any submitted comments and any other available relevant 
information and will take one of the following actions:
    (1) Prepare a final rule for publication in the Federal Register 
adopting the proposed AVA action, with or without changes;
    (2) Prepare a notice for publication in the Federal Register 
withdrawing the proposal and setting forth the reasons for the 
withdrawal. Reasons for withdrawal of a proposal must include at least 
one of the following:
    (i) The extent of viticulture within the proposed boundary is not 
sufficient to constitute a grape-growing region as specified in Sec.  
9.11(a); or
    (ii) The name, boundary, or distinguishing features evidence does 
not meet the standards for such evidence set forth in Sec.  9.12; or
    (iii) The petitioned-for action would be inconsistent with one of 
the purposes of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act or any other 
Federal statute or regulation or would be otherwise contrary to the 
public interest;
    (3) Prepare a new NPRM for publication in the Federal Register 
setting forth a modified AVA action for public comment; or
    (4) Take any other action deemed appropriate by TTB.


Sec.  9.22  [Amended]

    7. Section 9.22 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Augusta' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.23  [Amended]

    8. Section 9.23 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Napa' and `Napa Valley' are terms of viticultural 
significance.''


Sec.  9.24  [Amended]

    9. Section 9.24 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Chalone' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.25  [Amended]

    10. Section 9.25 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `San Pasqual' and `San Pasqual Valley' are terms of 
viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.26  [Amended]

    11. Section 9.26 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Guenoc' and `Guenoc Valley' are terms of viticultural 
significance.''


Sec.  9.27  [Amended]

    12. Section 9.27 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Lime Kiln Valley' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.28  [Amended]

    13. Section 9.28 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Santa Maria Valley' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.29  [Amended]

    14. Section 9.29 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Sonoma' and `Sonoma Valley' are terms of viticultural 
significance.''


Sec.  9.30  [Amended]

    15. Section 9.30 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `North Coast' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.31  [Amended]

    16. Section 9.31 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Santa Cruz' and `Santa Cruz Mountains' are terms of 
viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.32  [Amended]

    17. Section 9.32 is amended by revising the sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Carneros' and `Los Carneros' are terms of viticultural 
significance.''


Sec.  9.33  [Amended]

    18. Section 9.33 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Fennville' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.34  [Amended]

    19. Section 9.34 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Finger Lakes' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.35  [Amended]

    20. Section 9.35 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Edna Valley' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.36  [Amended]

    21. Section 9.36 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `McDowell Valley' is a term of viticultural significance.''

[[Page 65270]]

Sec.  9.37  [Amended]

    22. Section 9.37 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Shenandoah', `Shenandoah Valley', and `California Shenandoah 
Valley' are terms of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.38  [Amended]

    23. Section 9.38 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Cienega' and `Cienega Valley' are terms of viticultural 
significance.''


Sec.  9.39  [Amended]

    24. Section 9.39 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Paicines' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.40  [Amended]

    25. Section 9.40 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Leelanau' and `Leelanau Peninsula' are terms of viticultural 
significance.''


Sec.  9.41  [Amended]

    26. Section 9.41 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Lancaster Valley' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.42  [Amended]

    27. Section 9.42 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Cole Ranch' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.43  [Amended]

    28. Section 9.43 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Rocky Knob' is a term of viticultural significance.''


Sec.  9.44  [Amended]

    29. Section 9.44 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: ``For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, `Solano Co