issue-1996-01-08•Federal Register final rules — 1996-01-08
Federal Register final rules — 1996-01-08
issue-1996-01-08Federal Register final rules — 1996-01-08Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-230 Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Change of Sponsor
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 514-515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-230]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 510 and 558
Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Change of Sponsor
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor for new animal drug
applications (NADA's) from Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc., to A. L.
Pharma, Inc.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 1996.
[[Page 515]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. McKay, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc., 19 North
Railroad St., Myerstown, PA 17067, has informed FDA that it has
transferred the ownership of, and all rights and interests in, approved
NADA's 10-285 (Carbarsone), 39-646 (Carbarsone + Bacitracin Methylene
Disalicylate) and 38-879 (Carbarsone + Zoalene) to A. L. Pharma, Inc.,
One Executive Dr., Fort Lee, NJ 07024. Accordingly, the agency is
amending 21 CFR 510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) to remove the sponsor name
Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc., because the firm no longer is the holder
of any approved NADA's. The agency is also amending 21 CFR 558.55,
558.95, and 558.120 to reflect the transfer of ownership.
List of Subjects
21 CFR Part 510
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 558
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and
558 are amended as follows:
PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 512, 701, 721 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 360b, 371, 379e).
Sec. 510.600 [Amended]
-2. Section 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of
sponsors of approved applications is amended in the table in paragraph
(c)(1) by removing the entry for ``Whitmoyer Laboratories,'' and in the
table in paragraph (c)(2) by removing the entry for ``011794''.
PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 512, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b, 371).
Sec. 558.55 [Amended]
4. Section 558.55 Amprolium is amended in the table in paragraph
(d)(2), under the entry (iv), appearing under the heading
``Limitations'' at the ``Carbarsone 227 to 340.5'' entry, by removing
``011794'' and adding in its place ``046573''.
Sec. 558.95 [Amended]
5. Section 558.95 Bambermycins is amended in paragraph
(b)(3)(iv)(b) by removing ``011794'' and adding in its place
``046573''.
Sec. 558.120 [Amended]
6. Section 558.120 Carbarsone (not U.S.P.) is amended in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) by removing ``011794'' and adding in its place
``046573''.
Dated: December 22, 1995.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-230 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F------
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-220 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Page, AZ
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-220]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-36]
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Page, AZ
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace area at Page, AZ. The
development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 15 has made this action
necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide adequate
controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
Page Municipal Airport, Page, AZ.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC February 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Speer, Airspace Specialist,
System Management Branch, AWP-530, Air Traffic Division, Western-
Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation
Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261, telephone (310) 725-6533.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 3, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by amending the Class E
airspace area at Page, AZ (60 FR 55813). This action would provide
adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at Page Municipal Airport, Page, AZ.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
this Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Page, AZ. The intended
effect of this action is to provide adequate airspace for aircraft
executing the GPS RWY 15 SIAP at Page Municipal Airport, Page, AZ.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 10034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AWP AZ E5 Page AZ [Revised]
Page Municipal Airport, AZ
(Lat. 36 deg.55'34'' N, long. 111 deg.26'54'' W)
Page VOR/DME
(Lat. 36 deg.55'41'' N, long. 111 deg.27'02'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Page Municipal Airport, and within 3
miles either side of the Page VOR 340 deg. radial, extending from
the 6.5-mile radius to the 10 miles northwest of the Page VOR/DME.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 36 deg.56'49'' N, long.
111 deg.18'57'' W; to lat. 36 deg.35'00'' N, long. 111 deg.09'30''
W; to lat. 36 deg.35'00'' N, long 111 deg.30'00'' N; to lat.
36 deg.41'00'' N, long. 111 deg.32'00'' W; to lat. 36 deg.44'43'' N,
long. 111 deg.35'20'' W; to lat. 37 deg.09'11'' N, long.
111 deg.46'30'' W; to lat. 37 deg.10'49'' N, long. 111 deg.40'55''
W; to lat. 37 deg.22'00'' N, long. 111 deg.46'00'' W; to lat.
37 deg.26'00'' N, long. 111 deg.35'00'' W; to lat. 37 deg.19'30'' N,
long. 111 deg.20'30'' W; to lat. 37 deg.10'22'' N, long.
111 deg.25'04'' W; to lat. 36 deg.58'37'' N, long. 111 deg.19'45''
W, thence to the point of beginning.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on December 14, 1995.
Richard R. Lien,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
FR Doc. 96-220 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-219 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Globe, AZ
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 513-514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-219]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-35]
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Globe, AZ
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace area at Globe, AZ. The
development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 27 has made this action
necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide adequate
controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
Globe-San Carlos Regional Air Facility Airport, Globe, AZ.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC February 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Speer, Airspace Specialist, System Management Branch, AWP-530,
Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation
Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261,
telephone (310) 725-6533.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 1, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by amending the Class E
airspace area at Globe, AZ (60 FR 55502). This action would provide
adequate controlled airspace to accommodate a GPS SIAP to RWY 27 at
Globe-San Carlos Regional Air Facility Airport, Globe, AZ.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated be referenced in 14 CFR 71.1. The E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Globe, AZ. The
development of a GPS SIAP to RWY 27 has made this action necessary. The
intended effect of this action is to provide adequate airspace for
aircraft executing the GPS RWY 27 SIAP at Globe-San Carlos Regional Air
Facility Airport, Globe, AZ.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 10034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
[[Page 514]]
September 16, 1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AWP NV E5 Globe, AZ [Revised]
Globe-San Carlos Regional Air Facility Airport, AZ
(lat. 33 deg.21'10'' N, long. 110 deg.39'51''
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 5-mile radius of the Globe-San Carlos Regional Air
Facility Airport. That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 33 deg.26'00''
N, long. 110 deg.36'00''W; to lat. 33 deg.24'00'' N, long.
110 deg.09'00'' W; to lat. 33 deg.09'00'' N, long. 110 deg.09'00''
N; to lat. 33 deg.12'00'' N, long. 110 deg.36'00'' W, thence to the
point of beginning.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on December 14, 1995.
Richard R. Lien,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 96-219 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-205 Regulated Navigation Area Regulations; Fort Pierce, FL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 544-545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-205]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD07-95-073]
RIN 2115-AE84
Regulated Navigation Area Regulations; Fort Pierce, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated
navigation area at the Peter P. Cobb bridge in Fort Pierce, Florida.
This regulated navigation area is needed to protect all vessels from a
safety hazard created by damage to the Peter P. Cobb bridge and
associated debris in the surrounding area. Entry into this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Miami,
Florida.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This regulation is effective at 8 p.m. on December 27,
1995 and terminates at 12 p.m. on February 24, 1996.
[[Page 545]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BMC J.L. Belk, USCG Marine Safety Office, Miami, Florida at (305) 536-
5693.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Drafting Information
The drafters of this regulation are BMC J.L. Belk, Project Officer,
USCG Marine Safety Office, and LTJG J. Diaz, Project Attorney, Seventh
Coast Guard District Legal Office.
Background and Purpose
At approximately 4 p.m. on November 7, 1995, a vessel collided with
the east side of the fender system of the Peter P. Cobb Bridge (also
known as the South Bridge) on the Indian River South Section at Fort
Pierce, Florida. The center section of the east fender system was
destroyed leaving the bridge support piling unprotected. The concrete
pilings of the center section of the fender system extend into the
channel, creating a safety hazard. Construction crews are replacing the
fender system which was destroyed.
A regulated navigation area has been established on the Indian
River South Section which includes the area under the main span of the
bridge extending 100 feet either side of the bridge within the main
channel. This area has the following restrictions and conditions for
vessel traffic.
All barge traffic must obtain permission from the Captain of the
Port or his designated representative prior to transiting. Any barges
allowed to transit the zone by the Captain of the Port will be required
to meet the following conditions: the barge must be assisted by two
tugs made fast fore and aft; tugs must be of adequate horsepower to
fully maneuver the barge; and the zone shall be transited by barge
traffic at slack water only. All other vessel traffic shall stay clear
of the damaged section of the bridge and the repair work underway.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of proposed rulemaking
was not published for this regulation and good cause exists for making
it effective in less than 30 days after Federal Register publication.
Publication of notice of proposed rulemaking and delay of effective
date would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is
necessary to prevent vessels from colliding with the bridge support
pilings, causing potential danger to the public.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include independently owned and operated businesses that are
not dominant in their field and that otherwise qualify as ``small
business concerns'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no information collection requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
This action has been analyzed under the principles and criteria
contained in executive order 12612 and has determined that the
rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
action and has determined pursuant to Section 2.B.2.e(34)(g) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B that this action is categorically
excluded from further environmental documentation. A categorical
exclusion checklist and categorical exclusion determination have been
completed and are available for inspection and copying.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (waters), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety measures, Waterways.
Regulations
For the reasons set out in the preamble the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and 49 CFR 1.46.
2. A new temporary Sec. 165.T07-073 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T07-073 Regulated Navigation Area; Indian River South
Section, Peter P. Cobb Bridge, Fort Pierce, FL.
(a) Location: The following area is a regulated navigation area:
All waters under the main bridge span extending 100 feet either side of
the bridge within the main channel.
(b) Regulations: In accordance with general regulations in
Sec. 165.11 of this part, no vessel may operate within the regulated
navigation area contrary to this regulation. All barge traffic must
obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative prior to transiting. Any barges allowed to transit the
zone by the Captain of the Port will be required to meet the following
conditions: the barge must be assisted by two tugs made fast fore and
aft; tugs must be of adequate horsepower to fully maneuver the barge;
and the zone shall be transited by barge traffic at slack water only.
All other vessel traffic shall stay clear of the damaged section of the
bridge and repair work underway. The Captain of the Port will notify
the public of changes in the status of this zone by Marine Safety Radio
Broadcast on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 22 (157.1 MHz).
(c) Effective dates: This section is effective at 8 p.m. on
December 27, 1995 and terminates at 12 p.m. on February 24, 1996.
Dated: December 27, 1995.
Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-205 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-202 Conduct on the Pentagon Reservation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 541-544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-202]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Parts 40b and 234
Conduct on the Pentagon Reservation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises DoD policy concerning conduct on the
Pentagon Reservation. The revisions are intended to ensure that DoD
regulations are consistent with the statutory authority on which they
are based, and to promote the safer, more efficient, and more secure
operation of the Pentagon Reservation.
DATES: This rule is effective January 8, 1996. Comments are requested
by March 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Forward comments to Washington Headquarters Services, Office
of General Counsel, 1155 Defense Pentagon Room 1D197, Washington, DC
20301-1155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas R. Brooke, (703) 693-7374.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The current regulations governing conduct on
the Pentagon Reservation were promulgated following the transfer of
control of the Pentagon Reservation from the General Services
Administration to the Department of Defense. Based on enforcement
experience gained since that time, the Department of Defense now seeks
to revise those regulations to ensure their consistency with the
statutory authority on which they are based, and to promote the safer,
more efficient, and more secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
This rule is not a significant rule as defined under section
3(f)(1) through 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601)
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it affects only those
entities and persons who are on the Pentagon Reservation.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Ch. 44)
It has been certified that this rule does not impose any reporting
or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Parts 40b and 234
Alcohol abuse, Drug testing; Federal buildings and facilities,
Security measures, Traffic regulations.
Accordingly, chapter I of title 32 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 301, is amended by
removing part 40b and adding part 234 to read as follows:
[[Page 542]]
PART 234--CONDUCT ON THE PENTAGON RESERVATION
Sec.
234.1 Definitions.
234.2 Applicability.
234.3 State law applicable.
234.4 Admission to property.
234.5 Trespassing.
234.6 Interfering with agency functions.
234.7 Disorderly conduct.
234.8 Preservation of property.
234.9 Explosives.
234.10 Weapons.
234.11 Alcoholic beverages and controlled substances.
234.12 Restriction on animals.
234.13 Soliciting, vending, and debt collection.
234.14 Posting of materials.
234.15 Use of visual recording devices.
234.16 Gambling.
234.17 Vehicles and traffic safety.
234.18 Enforcement of parking regulations.
234.19 Penalties and effect on other laws.
Authority: 10 U.S.C. 131 and 2674(c).s
Sec. 234.1 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Authorized person. An employee or agent of the Defense Protective
Service, or any other Department of Defense employee or agent who has
delegated authority to enforce the provisions of this part.
Firearm. A loaded or unloaded pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other
weapon which is designed to, or may be readily converted to, expel a
projectile by the ignition of a propellant.
Operator. A person who operates, drives, controls, otherwise has
charge of, or is in actual physical control of a mechanical mode of
transportation or any other mechanical equipment.
Pentagon Reservation. Area of land and improvements thereon,
located in Arlington, Virginia, on which the Pentagon Office Building,
Federal Building Number 2, the Pentagon heating and sewage treatment
plants, and other related facilities are located, including all
roadways, walkways, waterways, and all areas designated for the parking
of vehicles.
Permit. A written authorization to engage in uses or activities
that are otherwise prohibited, restricted, or regulated.
Possession. Exercising direct physical control or dominion, with or
without ownership, over property.
State law. The applicable and nonconflicting laws, statutes,
regulations, ordinances, and codes of the state(s) and other political
subdivision(s) within whose exterior boundaries the Pentagon
Reservation or a portion thereof is located.
Traffic. Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, and other
conveyances, either singly or together, while using any road, path,
street, or other thoroughfare for the purposes of travel.
Vehicle. Any vehicle that is self-propelled or designed for self-
propulsion, any motorized vehicle, and any vehicle drawn by or designed
to be drawn by a motor vehicle, including any device in, upon, or by
which any person or property is or can be transported or drawn upon a
highway, hallway, or pathway; to include any device moved by human or
animal power, whether required to be licensed in any state or
otherwise.
Weapons. Any firearm, compressed gas, or spring-powered pistol or
rifle, bow and arrow, crossbow, blowgun, spear gun, hand-thrown spear,
slingshot, irritant gas device, explosive device, or any other
implement designed to discharge missiles; or a weapon, device,
instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used
for or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury,
including any weapon the possession of which is prohibited under the
laws of the state in which the Pentagon Reservation or portion thereof
is located; except that such term does not include a pocket knife with
a blade of less than 2\1/2\ inches in length.
Sec. 234.2 Applicability.
The provisions of this part apply to all areas, lands, and waters
on or adjoining the Pentagon Reservation and under the jurisdiction of
the United States, and to all persons entering in or on the property.
They supplement those penal provisions of Title 18, United States Code,
relating to crimes and criminal procedures and those provisions of
State law that are federal criminal offenses by virtue of the
Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13.
Sec. 234.3 State law applicable.
Unless specifically addressed by regulations in this part, traffic
and the use of vehicles within the Pentagon Reservation are governed by
State law.
Sec. 234.4 Admission to property.
(a) Access to the Pentagon Reservation or facilities thereon shall
be restricted in accordance with Department of Defense Administrative
Instruction Number 30 \1\ in order to ensure the orderly and secure
conduct of Department of Defense business. Admission to facilities or
restricted areas shall be limited to employees and other persons with
proper authorization.
\1\ Forward written requests for copies of the document to the
Directorate for Freedom of Information and Security Review, Rm
2C757, Pentagon, Washington DC 20301-1400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) All persons entering or upon the Pentagon Reservation shall,
when required and/or requested, display identification to authorized
persons.
(c) All packages, briefcases, and other containers brought into,
on, or being removed from facilities or restricted areas on the
Pentagon Reservation are subject to inspection and search by authorized
persons. Persons entering on facilities or restricted areas who refuse
to permit an inspection and search will be denied entry.
(d) Any person or organization desiring to conduct activities
anywhere on the Pentagon Reservation shall file an application for
permit with the applicable Building Management Office. Such application
shall be made on a form provided by the Department of Defense and shall
be submitted in the manner specified by the Department of Defense.
Violation of the conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this
section is prohibited and may result in the loss of access to the
Pentagon Reservation.
Sec. 234.5 Trespassing.
(a) Trespassing, entering, or remaining in or upon property not
open to the public, except with the express invitation or consent of
the person or persons having lawful control of the property, is
prohibited. Failure to obey an order to leave under paragraph (b) of
this section, or reentry upon property after being ordered to leave or
not reenter under paragraph (b) of this section, is also prohibited.
(b) Any person who violates a Department of Defense rule or
regulation may be ordered to leave the Pentagon Reservation by an
authorized person. A violator's reentry may also be prohibited.
Sec. 234.6 Interfering with agency functions.
The following are prohibited:
(a) Interference. Threatening, resisting, intimidating, or
intentionally interfering with a government employee or agent engaged
in an official duty, or on account of the performance of an official
duty.
(b) Violation of a lawful order. Violating the lawful order of a
government employee or agent authorized to maintain order and control
public access and movement during fire fighting operations, search and
rescue operations, law enforcement actions, and emergency operations
that involve a threat to public safety or government resources, or
other activities where the control of public movement
[[Page 543]]
and activities is necessary to maintain order and public health or
safety.
(c) False information. Knowingly giving a false or fictitious
report or other false information:
(1) To an authorized person investigating an accident or violation
of law or regulation; or
(2) On an application for a permit.
(d) False report. Knowingly giving a false report for the purpose
of misleading a government employee or agent in the conduct of official
duties, or making a false report that causes a response by the
government to a fictitious event.
Sec. 234.7 Disorderly conduct.
A person commits disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence, or knowingly or
recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person commits any of the
following prohibited acts:
(a) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent behavior.
(b) Uses language, an utterance, or gesture, or engages in a
display or act that is obscene, physically threatening or menacing, or
done in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an
immediate breach of the peace.
(c) Makes noise that is unreasonable, considering the nature and
purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, and
other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent
person under the circumstances.
(d) Creates or maintains a hazardous or physically offensive
condition.
(e) Impedes or threatens the security of persons or property, or
which disrupts the performance of official duties by Department of
Defense employees, or which obstructs the use of areas such as
entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, concourses, offices, elevators,
stairways, roadways, driveways, walkways, or parking lots.
Sec. 234.8 Preservation of property.
The destruction of, or damage to, private property is prohibited.
The creation of any hazard to persons or things, the throwing of
articles of any kind from or at buildings or persons, improper disposal
of rubbish, and open fires are prohibited.
Sec. 234.9 Explosives.
(a) Using, possessing, storing, or transporting explosives,
blasting agents or explosive materials is prohibited, except pursuant
to the terms and conditions of a permit issued by the applicable
Building Management Office. When permitted, the use, possession,
storage and transportation shall be in accordance with applicable
Federal and State laws.
(b) Using or possessing fireworks or firecrackers is prohibited,
except in designated areas under such conditions as may be established
by the applicable Building Management Office or pursuant to the terms
and conditions of a permit issued by the applicable Building Management
Office, and in accordance with applicable State law.
(c) Violation of the conditions established by the applicable
Building Management Office or of the terms and conditions of a permit
issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in
the loss of access to the Pentagon Reservation.
Sec. 234.10 Weapons.
(a) Except as otherwise authorized under this section, the
following are prohibited:
(1) Possessing a weapon.
(2) Carrying a weapon.
(3) Using a weapon.
(b) This section does not apply to any agency or Department of
Defense component that has received prior written approval from the
Defense Protective Service to carry, transport, or use a weapon in
support of a security or law enforcement purpose while on the Pentagon
Reservation.
Sec. 234.11 Alcoholic beverages and controlled substances.
(a) Alcoholic beverages.
The use of alcoholic beverages or the possession of an open
container of an alcoholic beverage within the Pentagon Reservation is
prohibited unless authorized by the Director, Washington Headquarters
Services, or his designee, or the Heads of the Military Department, or
their designees. Written notice of such authorizations shall be
provided to the Defense Protective Service.
(b) Controlled substances.
The following are prohibited:
(1) The delivery of a controlled substance, except when
distribution is made by a Licensed physician or pharmacist in
accordance with applicable law. For the purposes of this paragraph,
delivery means the actual, attempted, or constructive transfer of a
controlled substance.
(2) The possession of a controlled substance, unless such substance
was obtained by the possessor directly from, or pursuant to a valid
prescription or order by, a licensed physician or pharmacist, or as
otherwise allowed by Federal or State law.
(c) Presence on the Pentagon Reservation when under the influence
of alcohol, a drug, or a controlled substance to a degree that may
endanger oneself or another person, or damage property is prohibited.
Sec. 234.12 Restriction on animals.
Animals, except guide dogs for persons with disabilities, shall not
be brought upon the Pentagon Reservation for other than official
purposes.
Sec. 234.13 Soliciting, vending, and debt collection.
Commercial or political soliciting, vending of all kinds,
displaying or distributing commercial advertising, collecting private
debts or soliciting alms upon the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited.
This does not apply to:
(a) National or local drives for funds for welfare, health, or
other purposes as authorized by 5 CFR parts 110 and 950, Solicitation
of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Services Personnel for Contributions
to Private Voluntary Organizations, issued by the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management under Executive Order 12353, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p.
139, as amended.
(b) Personal notices posted on authorized bulletin boards, and in
compliance with building rules governing the use of such authorized
bulletin boards, advertising to sell or rent property of Pentagon
Reservation employees or their immediate families.
(c) Solicitation of labor organization membership or dues
authorized by the Department of Defense under the Civil Service Reform
Act of 1978.
(d) Licensees, or their agents and employees, with respect to space
licensed for their use.
(e) Solicitations conducted by organizations composed of civilian
employees of the Department of Defense or members of the uniformed
services among their own members for organizational support or for the
benefit of welfare funds for their members, after compliance with the
requirements of Sec. 234.4(d).
Sec. 234.14 Posting of materials.
Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or
fliers on the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited except as provided by
Sec. 234.13(b) or when conducted as part of activities approved by the
applicable Building Management Office under Sec. 234.4(d).
Sec. 234.15 Use of visual recording devices.
The use of cameras or other visual recording devices in restricted
areas or in internal offices must be approved by the Department of
Defense component occupying the space. Photographs for advertising or
commercial purposes may only be taken with the permission of the Office
of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
[[Page 544]]
Sec. 234.16 Gambling.
Gambling in any form, or the operation of gambling devices, is
prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to the vending or exchange
of chances by licensed blind operators of vending facilities for any
lottery set forth in a State law and authorized by the provisions of
the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.).
Sec. 234.17 Vehicles and traffic safety.
(a) Open container of alcoholic beverage.
(1) Each person within a vehicle is responsible for complying with
the provisions of this section that pertain to carrying an open
container. The operator of a vehicle is the person responsible for
complying with the provisions of this section that pertain to the
storage of an open container.
(2) Carrying or storing a bottle, can, or other receptacle
containing an alcoholic beverage that is open or has been opened, or
whose seal is broken, or the contents of which have been partially
removed, within a vehicle on the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited.
(3) This section does not apply to:
(i) An open container stored in the trunk of a vehicle or, if a
vehicle is not equipped with a trunk, to an open container stored in
some other portion of the vehicle designed for the storage of luggage
and not normally occupied by or readily accessible to the operator or
passengers; or
(ii) An open container stored in the living quarters of a motor
home or camper.
(4) For the purpose of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, a
utility compartment or glove compartment is deemed to be readily
accessible to the operator and passengers of a vehicle.
(b) Operating under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled
substances.
(1) Operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle is
prohibited while:
(i) Under the influence of alcohol, a drug or drugs, a controlled
substance or controlled substances, or any combination thereof, to a
degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or
(ii) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is
0.08 gram or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 gram
or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided, however, that if
State law that applies to operating a vehicle while under the influence
of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration
in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits
specified in this paragraph (b).
(2) The provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall also
apply to an operator who is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol
or another drug.
(3) Tests.
(1) At the request or direction of an authorized person who has
probable cause to believe that an operator of a vehicle within the
Pentagon Reservation has violated a provision of paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, the operator shall submit to one or more tests of the
blood, breath, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining blood
alcohol, drug, and controlled substance content.
(ii) Refusal by an operator to submit to a test is prohibited and
may result in detention and citation by an authorized person. Proof of
refusal may be admissible in any related judicial proceeding.
(iii) Any test or tests for the presence of alcohol, drugs, and
controlled substances shall be determined by and administered at the
direction of an authorized person.
(iv) Any test shall be conducted by using accepted scientific
methods and equipment of proven accuracy and reliability operated by
personnel certified in its use.
(4) Presumptive levels.
(i) The results of chemical or other quantitative tests are
intended to supplement the elements of probable cause used as the basis
for the arrest of an operator charged with a violation of this section.
If the alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath at the
time of the testing is less than the alcohol concentration specified in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, this fact does not give rise to
any presumption that the operator is or is not under the influence of
alcohol.
(ii) The provisions of paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section are not
intended to limit the introduction of any other competent evidence
bearing upon the question of whether the operator, at the time of the
alleged violation, was under the influence of alcohol, a drug or drugs,
or a controlled substance or controlled substances, or any combination
thereof.
Sec. 234.18 Enforcement of parking regulations.
Parking regulations for the Pentagon Reservation shall be enforced
in accordance with Department of Defense Administrative Instruction
Number 88 \2\ and State law. A vehicle parked in any location without
authorization, or parked contrary to the directions of posted signs or
markings, shall be subject to removal at the owner's risk and expense,
in addition to any penalties imposed. The Department of Defense assumes
no responsibility for the payment of any fees or costs related to such
removal which may be charged to the owner of the vehicle by the towing
organization. This section may be supplemented from time to time with
the approval of the Director, Washington Headquarters Services, or his
designee, by the issuance and posting of such parking directives as may
be required, and when so issued and posted such directive shall have
the same force and effect as if made a part thereof.
\2\ See footnote 1 to Sec. 234.4(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 234.19 Penalties and effect on other laws.
(a) Whoever shall be found guilty of willfully violating any rule
or regulation enumerated in this part is subject to the penalties
imposed by Federal law for the commission of a Class B misdemeanor
offense.
(b) Whoever violates any rule or regulation enumerated in this part
is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than
$1,000.
(c) Nothing in this part shall be construed to abrogate any other
Federal laws.
Dated: January 3, 1996.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-202 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-188 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 511-513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-188]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 511]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-260-AD; Amendment 39-9480; AD 96-01-04]
Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B series
airplanes. This action requires revising the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) to require verification that the auto-ignition system is
operational; to define icing conditions at higher ambient temperatures;
and to provide the flight crew with limitations and procedures to aid
in the avoidance of engine power interruptions. This amendment is
prompted by a report of complete power loss of the left engine and
power fluctuations on the right engine as a result of build up of ice
and/or slush in the engine inlet and subsequent ingestion into the
engines; the auto-ignition system of the left engine had failed, which
prevented automatic restart of the engine following power interruption.
The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the
auto-ignition system to re-light the engine in the event of power
interruptions due to the ingestion of ice and/or slush into the engine,
which could result in engine flameout and subsequent shutdown, and to
provide the flight crew with guidance to aid in avoidance of such
occurrences.
DATES: Effective January 23, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before March 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-260-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The information concerning this amendment may be obtained from or
examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth E. Harder, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-1721; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has received a report indicating
that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Saab Model SAAB SF340A
and SAAB 340B series airplanes. Recently, an incident occurred on a
Model SAAB 340B series airplane during which, shortly after exiting
icing conditions, the left engine of the airplane shut down abruptly
and the right engine experienced multiple power interruptions.
Subsequent investigation revealed that shutdown of the left engine
occurred due to ingestion of ice and/or slush into the engine from the
inlet. In addition, the auto-ignition system had failed on that engine;
therefore, engine re-light did not occur. Failure of the auto-ignition
system, which is a component of the engine Digital Electronic
Controller (DEC), was the result of a broken fuse. This fuse failure
also caused the engine turbine (or Np) overspeed protection system to
be inoperative.
The interruptions of power to the right engine also were caused by
ingestion of ice and/or slush into the engine; however, the auto-
ignition system for the right engine was operational and engine re-
light occurred. In addition, failure of the auto-ignition system can
exist concurrently such that engine re-light does not occur. These
conditions, if not corrected, could result in engine flameout and
subsequent shutdown.
Although single event power interruptions have occurred previously
on this airplane type, recent occurrences of multiple power
interruptions demonstrate a need to increase the safety margin for
flight in icing conditions. Activation of the engine anti-icing system
at higher ambient temperatures will reduce the ice/slush build-up
within the engine inlet and will improve the engine surge margin.
In light of the information discussed previously, the FAA finds
that certain limitations and procedures should be included in the FAA-
approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to:
--provide the flight crew with procedures to verify that the auto-
ignition system is operational;
--expand the current definition of icing conditions by increasing the
temperature at which those conditions exist from +5 degrees Celsius to
+10 degrees Celsius; and
--alert the flight crew to certain icing conditions during which power
to an engine may be interrupted, and provide the flight crew with
guidance to aid in avoidance of such occurrences.
The FAA has determined that such limitations and procedures
currently are not defined adequately in the AFM for these airplanes.
This airplane model is manufactured in Sweden and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the Luftfartsverket (LFV), which is
the airworthiness authority for Sweden, has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
LFV, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of the
auto-ignition system to re-light the engine in the event of power
interruptions due to the ingestion of ice and/or slush into the engine,
which could result in engine flameout and subsequent shutdown; and
[[Page 512]]
to provide the flight crew with guidance to aid in avoidance of such
occurrences.
This AD requires the following:
--revising the Limitations Section of the AFM to require verification
that the auto-ignition system is operational;
--revising the Limitations Section of the AFM to define icing
conditions at higher ambient temperatures;
--revising the Normal Procedures Section of the AFM to alert the flight
crew to certain icing conditions during which power to an engine may be
interrupted, and to provide the flight crew with limitations and
procedures to aid in avoidance of interruptions of power to an engine.
For Model SAAB 340B series airplanes having an auto-ignition system
that is found to be inoperative, this AD requires a test of the Np
overspeed system to ensure that it is operative, and repair, if
necessary.
This is considered to be interim action until final action is
identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-260-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-01-04 SAAB Aircraft AB: Amendment 39-9480. Docket 95-NM-260-AD.
Applicability: Model SAAB SF340A series airplanes, serial
numbers 004 through 159 inclusive; and Model SAAB 340B series
airplanes, serial numbers 160 and subsequent; certificated in any
category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (c) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the auto-ignition system to re-light the
engine in the event of power interruptions due to the ingestion of
ice and/or slush into the engine, which could result in engine
flameout and subsequent shutdown; and to provide the flight crew
with guidance to aid in avoidance of such occurrences; accomplish
the following:
(a) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the text
contained in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this
AD, as applicable. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of
this AD into the AFM.
(1) For Model SAAB SF340A series airplanes: Insert the following
sub-section in the Limitations Section of the AFM:
``IGNITION SYSTEM
Prior to each flight, before engine start, perform a check of
the auto-ignition system.
Select batteries ON (external power ON or OFF).
Check that IGN switches are in NORM position.
Advance PLs above FLT IDLE and verify the IGN lights in
the Flight Status Panel (FSP) illuminate. In bright sunlight, shade
FSP to ensure IGN lights are visible when illuminated.
Retard PLs to GND IDLE. (IGN lights should go out.)
If an IGN light fails to illuminate when PLs are above
FLT IDLE, the auto-ignition system is considered to be inoperative.
If the auto-ignition system is inoperative:
BEFORE ENTERING ICING CONDITIONS, SET IGNITION TO CONT.
Maintain ignition in CONT until touchdown, even if icing conditions
cease to exist.''
[[Page 513]]
(2) For Model SAAB 340B series airplanes: Insert the following
sub-section in the Limitations Section of the AFM:
``IGNITION SYSTEM
After each engine shutdown, perform a check of the auto-ignition
system.
Adjust Ng to approximately 75%-77%; minimum is 75%.
Shut down the engines (CL to FUEL OFF).
Verify the IGN lights in the Flight Status Panel (FSP)
illuminate while Ng is above 62%. In bright sunlight, shade the FSP
to ensure that lights are visible when illuminated.
If an IGN light fails to illuminate, the auto-ignition
system is considered to be inoperative.
Retard PLs to GND IDLE.
If the auto-ignition system is inoperative:
BEFORE ENTERING ICING CONDITIONS, SET IGNITION TO CONT.
Maintain ignition in CONT until touchdown, even if icing conditions
cease to exist.''
(3) For all airplanes: Insert the following in the Limitations
Section of the AFM, under Icing Conditions:
``Icing conditions exist when visible moisture in any form is
present (such as clouds, fog with visibility of one mile or less,
rain, snow, sleet, ice crystals) or standing water, slush, or snow
(hard packed snow excluded) is present on the ramps, taxiways, or
runways and the OAT or SAT is +10 degrees C and below during ground
and flight operation.''
(4) For all airplanes: Insert the following in the Normal
Procedures Section of the AFM, under Operation in Icing Conditions:
``CAUTION
Engine power interruptions may occur at ISA to ISA +20 degrees
Celsius temperature and in light (or undetected) icing conditions,
or shortly after exiting these conditions. Engine function will
normally be recovered by the auto-ignition system before any serious
loss of power. To aid in avoidance of these occurrences:
Engine anti-ice systems must be activated prior to
entering icing conditions, and maintained ON for at least 5 minutes
after exiting icing conditions.''
(b) For Model SAAB 340B series airplanes: If an auto-ignition
system is found to be inoperative, prior to further flight, perform
an Np overspeed test to ensure that the Np overspeed system is
operative, in accordance with the procedures specified in General
Electric Maintenance Manual SEI-576. If the Np overspeed system is
found to be inoperative, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with the procedures specified in General Electric
Maintenance Manual SEI-576.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
-Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on January 23, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 2, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-188 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-178 Hedging Transactions by Members of a Consolidated Group
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 517-522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-178]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Parts 1 and 602
[TD 8653]
RIN 1545-AS75
Hedging Transactions by Members of a Consolidated Group
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations relating to the
character and timing of gain or loss from certain hedging transactions
entered into by members of a consolidated group. These regulations
apply when one member of the group hedges its own risk, hedges the risk
of another member, or enters into a risk-shifting transaction with
another member. The regulations are needed to provide appropriate rules
for these transactions. The regulations provide guidance for
corporations that are members of consolidated groups.
DATES: These regulations are effective February 7, 1996.
For dates of applicability of these regulations, see Sec. 1.446-
4(e)(9)(iv) and Sec. 1.1221-2(g) (4), (5), and (6).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo Lynn Ricks of the Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products),
telephone (202) 622-3920 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collections of information contained in these final regulations
have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under
control number 1545-1480. Some responses to these collections of
information are mandatory, and others are required to obtain the
benefit of the separate-entity election or of applying single-entity
treatment in taxable years prior to the general effective date of the
regulations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid control number.
The estimated annual burden per respondent or recordkeeper varies
from 1.0 to 40.0 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an
estimated average of 5 hours.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and
suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal
Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, T:FP, Washington,
DC 20224, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk
Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.
Books or records relating to this collection of information must be
retained as long as their contents may become material in the
administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Background
On July 18, 1994, the IRS published in the Federal Register (59 FR
36394) a notice of proposed rulemaking (FI-34-94) relating to the
character and timing of gain or loss from certain risk-shifting
transactions entered into by members of a consolidated group. Comments
were received on the proposed regulations, and a public hearing was
held on October 18, 1994. Most commentators believe that the proposed
regulations provide a sensible and flexible set of rules to deal with
hedging operations by the members of a consolidated group of
corporations.
The most significant comment on the regulations relates to their
effective date. Almost all of the commentators requested a transition
rule permitting consolidated groups to elect to apply the proposed
character rules retroactively. The final regulations adopt this
suggestion, generally allowing consolidated groups to elect to apply
the single-entity approach of the proposed regulations to all open
years. Section 1.1221-2, concerning the character of hedging
transactions, was made retroactive for all open years to permit the IRS
to resolve fairly and consistently controversies involving transactions
that were entered into prior to the publication date of those
regulations. It is appropriate that these regulations, as an integral
part of Sec. 1.1221-2, also apply retroactively. To prevent any adverse
consequences, however, retroactivity is elective.
The proposed regulations, with new effective date provisions, are
adopted as final regulations. The new provisions, and several comments
that were not adopted, are discussed below.
Explanation of Provisions
Character Regulations
The final regulations retain the single-entity approach of the
proposed regulations. That is, they treat the risk of one member of the
group as the risk of the other members, as if all the members were
divisions of a single corporation. Thus, a member of a consolidated
group that hedges the risk of another member by entering into a
transaction with a third party may receive ordinary gain or loss
treatment on that transaction if the transaction otherwise qualifies as
a hedging transaction.
Under this single-entity approach, intercompany transactions are
neither hedging transactions nor hedged items. Because they are treated
as transactions between divisions of a single corporation, intercompany
transactions do not reduce the risk of that single corporation and,
therefore, fail to qualify as hedging transactions.
Some commentators requested that the IRS extend the single-entity
approach to apply the hedging rules to a taxpayer's transactions that
hedge the
[[Page 518]]
risk of a related party that is not a member of the taxpayer's
consolidated group. The IRS and Treasury, however, do not believe that
this approach is appropriate where the parties file different tax
returns. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this
suggestion.
The final regulations also retain the separate-entity election of
the proposed regulations, permitting a consolidated group to treat its
members as separate entities when applying the hedging rules. The
election is made by attaching a statement to the group's federal income
tax return.
For a group that elects separate-entity treatment, an intercompany
transaction is treated as a hedging transaction if and only if: (1) it
would qualify as a hedging transaction if entered into with an
unrelated party; and (2) it is entered into with a member that, under
its method of accounting, marks its position in the intercompany
transaction to market. If these requirements are satisfied, the member
with respect to which it is an intercompany hedging transaction must
account for its position in the transaction under Sec. 1.446-4, and, if
that member properly identifies the transaction as a hedging
transaction, each member treats the gain or loss from its position in
the transaction as ordinary.
In response to comments, the final regulations clarify that, even
when these two requirements are met, these regulations supplant only
the character and timing rules of Sec. 1.1502-13. Other aspects of the
transaction, such as the source of the gain or loss, are unaffected by
these regulations and thus may be governed by Sec. 1.1502-13.
As noted above, commentators pointed out that taxpayers frequently
enter into transactions to transfer their business risk to related
parties that do not qualify as members of a consolidated group. Some
commentators argued that, even if risk reduction in these circumstances
is not analyzed using a single-entity perspective, the relationship
between the parties to the risk transfer justifies a rule under which
the party receiving the risk has ordinary gain or loss on its position
in the transaction. That is, they wanted to apply one part of the
separate-entity rules to taxpayers that are not part of the same
consolidated group.
The IRS and Treasury, however, do not believe that additional,
special character rules are appropriate for risk- shifting transactions
outside the context of a consolidated group. Accordingly, the final
regulations do not adopt these comments.
The final regulations expand upon the effective date provision of
the proposed regulations. The final regulations generally apply to
transactions entered into on or after March 8, 1996.
In response to comments, the final regulations permit a
consolidated group to apply the single-entity approach of the
regulations retroactively. The group may elect to begin to apply the
single-entity approach for all transactions entered into in any taxable
year (the election year) beginning prior to March 8, 1996. The election
may be made, however, only if the election year and each subsequent
taxable year are still open for assessment under section 6501 on July
1, 1996, or such earlier date as the Commissioner may allow. Once made,
the single-entity election applies to all transactions entered into in
the election year and in all subsequent consolidated return years until
the date as of which the group makes a separate-entity election. The
Service will publish guidance on the manner, and the time, for making
the single-entity election.
Further, the regulations also permit a consolidated group to apply
the separate-entity approach to all transactions entered into in
taxable years subject to the election. The taxpayer may choose, as the
first year under the election, any taxable year beginning on or after
July 12, 1995. This ability to apply the election to taxable years
beginning before March 8, 1996 allows a consolidated group to apply the
separate-entity approach to all intercompany transactions that are
subject to new Sec. 1.1502-13 (which is effective for taxable years
beginning on or after July 12, 1995). Thus, by electing separate-entity
treatment for all transactions entered into in a taxable year beginning
on or after July 12, 1995, a consolidated group can determine the
character and timing of its intercompany hedging transactions under
Sec. 1.446-4 and Sec. 1.1221-2, rather than under Sec. 1.1502-13.
If the group makes the single-entity election or elects to apply
the separate-entity approach retroactively, special identification
rules apply.
First, the members of the group are required to identify
transactions that were entered into prior to March 8, 1996, that are
still in existence on that date, and that become hedging transactions
as a result of one of these elections. The members are also required to
identify the hedged item for these transactions.
Second, the final regulations extend the time period for making the
additional identifications that are referred to in the preceding
paragraph.
Third, if the taxpayer's consolidated group has elected the single-
entity approach, the regulations nullify all hedge identifications
under Sec. 1.1221-2(e)(i) that had been made for intercompany
transactions. In this situation, the regulations determine the
character of each intercompany transaction as if it had never been
identified as a hedging transaction. Thus, the character and timing of
the intercompany transaction are determined under the otherwise
applicable regulations, and the transaction is not subject to the
ordinary-gain, capital-loss rule that generally applies to transactions
that are incorrectly identified as hedging transactions. The
identification may, however, serve to identify the hedged item.
In order to ensure that consolidated groups do not improperly use
hindsight in making these identifications, the regulations provide a
consistency requirement. Under this requirement, the group members must
treat similar or identical transactions consistently within the same
year and from year to year. If a member of the consolidated group fails
to identify a hedging transaction as a hedging transaction, but has
identified similar or identical hedging transactions in the same or a
subsequent year, then, for purposes of Sec. 1.1221-2(f)(2)(iii), the
member entering into the transaction is treated as having no reasonable
grounds for treating the transaction as other than a hedging
transaction. Thus, the member is generally subject to the ordinary-
gain, capital-loss rules for taxpayers who fail to identify
transactions as hedging transactions.
Timing regulations
The final regulations clarify the general rule that was provided in
the proposed regulations for the timing of the gain or loss from
hedging transactions that are entered into by members of a consolidated
group. Under the final regulations, a member of a consolidated group
must account for its hedging transactions as if all the members were
separate divisions of a single corporation (the single-entity
approach). Thus, the timing of the income, deduction, gain, or loss on
the hedging transaction must match the timing of the income, deduction,
gain, or loss from the item, items, or aggregate risk being hedged.
These regulations make clear that a member must account for all of its
hedging transactions, not just those that hedge the risk of another
member, under the single-entity approach.
[[Page 519]]
Since all of the members are treated as divisions of a single
corporation, intercompany transactions are neither hedging transactions
nor hedged items. Thus, under the single-entity approach, the timing of
the gain or loss from intercompany transactions is not determined under
the rules of Sec. 1.446-4.
The final regulations also clarify the rule in the proposed
regulations on accounting for the gain or loss on hedging transactions
by members of a group that has made a separate-entity election. If a
group makes the separate-entity election, the members do not account
for their hedging transactions (including their intercompany hedging
transactions) as if they were divisions of a single corporation.
Rather, each member accounts for its hedging transactions on a member-
by-member basis. For example, if an intercompany transaction is treated
as a hedging transaction, the gain or loss on the transaction is
accounted for under the rules of Sec. 1.446-4 rather than under the
timing rules of the intercompany transaction regulations, Sec. 1.1503-
13. As was stated above, even when a separate-entity election is in
place, Secs. 1.1221-2 and 1.446-4 affect only the timing and character
of intercompany hedging transactions. Other aspects of the intercompany
hedging transaction remain subject to the rules of Sec. 1.1502-13.
These final timing regulations are effective for transactions
entered into on or after March 8, 1996.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that
these regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on
the fact that these regulations will primarily affect affiliated groups
of corporations that have elected to file consolidated returns, which
tend to be larger businesses. The regulations do not significantly
alter the reporting or recordkeeping duties of small entities.
Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to
section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed
rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Small
Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Jo Lynn Ricks, Office
of Assistant Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products), IRS.
However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department
participated in their development.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 602
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by
removing the entry for Sec. 1.1221-2 and by adding entries in numerical
order to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.446-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
Section 1.1221-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502 and 6001. * *
*
Par. 2. Section 1.446-4 is amended by adding the text of paragraph
(e)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.446-4 Hedging transactions.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(9) Hedging by members of a consolidated group--(i) General rule:
single-entity approach. In general, a member of a consolidated group
must account for its hedging transactions as if all of the members were
separate divisions of a single corporation. Thus, the timing of the
income, deduction, gain, or loss on a hedging transaction must match
the timing of income, deduction, gain, or loss from the item or items
being hedged. Because all of the members are treated as if they were
divisions of a single corporation, intercompany transactions are
neither hedging transactions nor hedged items for these purposes.
(ii) Separate-entity election. If a consolidated group makes an
election under Sec. 1.1221-2(d)(2), then paragraph (e)(9)(i) of this
section does not apply. Thus, in that case, each member of the
consolidated group must account for its hedging transactions in a
manner that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
For example, the income, deduction, gain, or loss from intercompany
hedging transactions (as defined in Sec. 1.1221-2(d)(2)(ii)) is taken
into account under the timing rules of Sec. 1.446-4 rather than under
the timing rules of Sec. 1.1502-13.
(iii) Definitions. For definitions of consolidated group, divisions
of a single corporation, intercompany transaction, and member, see
section 1502 and the regulations thereunder.
(iv) Effective date. This paragraph (e)(9) applies to transactions
entered into on or after March 8, 1996.
Par. 3. Section 1.1221-2 is amended by adding the text of
paragraphs (d), (e)(5), (f)(3), and (g)(4), and by adding the text and
headings of paragraphs (g) (5) and (6) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1221-2 Hedging transactions.
* * * * *
(d) Hedging by members of a consolidated group--(1) General rule:
single-entity approach. For purposes of this section, the risk of one
member of a consolidated group is treated as the risk of the other
members as if all of the members of the group were divisions of a
single corporation. For example, if any member of a consolidated group
hedges the risk of another member of the group by entering into a
transaction with a third party, that transaction may potentially
qualify as a hedging transaction. Conversely, intercompany transactions
are not hedging transactions because, when considered as transactions
between divisions of a single corporation, they do not reduce the risk
of that single corporation.
(2) Separate-entity election. In lieu of the single-entity approach
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, a consolidated group may
elect separate-entity treatment of its hedging transactions. If a group
makes this separate-entity election, the following rules apply.
(i) Risk of one member not risk of other members. Notwithstanding
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the risk of one member is not treated
as the risk of other members.
(ii) Intercompany transactions. An intercompany transaction is a
hedging transaction (an intercompany hedging transaction) with respect
to a member of a consolidated group if and only if it meets the
following requirements--
(A) The position of the member in the intercompany transaction
would qualify as a hedging transaction with respect to the member
(taking into account paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section) if the member
had entered into the transaction with an unrelated party; and
(B) The position of the other member (the marking member) in the
transaction
[[Page 520]]
is marked to market under the marking member's method of accounting.
(iii) Treatment of intercompany hedging transactions. An
intercompany hedging transaction (that is, a transaction that meets the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) (A) and (B) of this section) is
subject to the following rules--
(A) The character and timing rules of Sec. 1.1502-13 do not apply
to the income, deduction, gain, or loss from the intercompany hedging
transaction; and
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, the
character of the marking member's gain or loss from the transaction is
ordinary.
(iv) Making and revoking the election. Unless the Commissioner
otherwise prescribes, the election described in this paragraph (d)(2)
must be made in a separate statement saying ``[Insert Name and Employer
Identification Number of Common Parent] HEREBY ELECTS THE APPLICATION
OF SECTION 1.1221-2(d)(2) (THE SEPARATE-ENTITY APPROACH).'' The
statement must also indicate the date as of which the election is to be
effective. The election must be signed by the common parent and filed
with the group's federal income tax return for the taxable year that
includes the first date for which the election is to apply. The
election applies to all transactions entered into on or after the date
so indicated.
(3) Definitions. For definitions of consolidated group, divisions
of a single corporation, group, intercompany transactions, and member,
see section 1502 and the regulations thereunder.
(4) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (d):
General Facts. In these examples, O and H are members of the
same consolidated group. O's business operations give rise to
interest rate risk ``A,'' which O wishes to hedge. O enters into an
intercompany transaction with H that transfers the risk to H. O's
position in the intercompany transaction is ``B,'' and H's position
in the transaction is ``C.'' H enters into position ``D'' with a
third party to reduce the interest rate risk it has with respect to
its position C. D would be a hedging transaction with respect to
risk A if O's risk A were H's risk.
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR08JA96.000
BILLING CODE 4830-01-C
Example 1. Single-entity treatment--(i) General rule. Under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, O's risk A is treated as H's risk,
and therefore D is a hedging transaction with respect to risk A.
Thus, the character of D is determined under the rules of this
section, and the income, deduction, gain, or loss from D must be
accounted for under a method of accounting that satisfies
Sec. 1.446-4. The intercompany transaction B-C is not a hedging
transaction and is taken into account under Sec. 1.1502-13.
(ii) Identification. D must be identified as a hedging transaction
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and A must be identified as the
hedged item under paragraph (e)(2) of this section. Under paragraph
(e)(5) of this section, the identification of A as the hedged item can
be accomplished by identifying the positions in the intercompany
transaction as hedges or hedged items, as appropriate. Thus,
substantially contemporaneous with entering into D, H may identify C as
the hedged item and O may identify B as a hedge and A as the hedged
item.
Example 2. Separate-entity election; counterparty that does not
mark to market. In addition to the General Facts stated above,
assume that the group makes a separate-entity election under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If H does not mark C to market
under its method of accounting, then B is not a hedging transaction,
and the B-C intercompany transaction is taken into account under the
rules of section 1502. D is not a hedging transaction with respect
to A, but D may be a hedging transaction with respect to C if C is
ordinary property or an ordinary obligation and if the other
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section are met. If D is not
part of a hedging transaction, then D may be part of a straddle for
purposes of section 1092.
Example 3. Separate-entity election; counterparty that marks to
market. The facts are the same as in Example 2 above, except that H
marks C to market under its method of accounting. Also assume that B
would be a hedging transaction with respect to risk A if O had
entered into that transaction with an unrelated party. Thus, for O,
the B-C transaction is an intercompany hedging transaction with
respect to O's risk A, the character and timing rules of
Sec. 1.1502-13 do not apply to the B-C transaction, and H's income,
deduction, gain, or loss from C is ordinary. However, other
attributes of the items from the B-C transaction are determined
under Sec. 1.1502-13. D is a hedging transaction with respect to C
if it meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) * * *
(5) Identification of hedges involving members of a consolidated
group--(i) General rule: single-entity approach. A member of a
consolidated group must satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (e)
as if all of the members of the group were divisions of a single
corporation. Thus, the member entering into the hedging transaction
with a third party must identify the hedging transaction under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Under paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, that member must also identify the item, items, or aggregate
risk that is being hedged, even if the item, items, or aggregate risk
relates primarily or entirely to other members of the group. If the
members of a group use intercompany transactions to transfer risk
within the group, the requirements of paragraph (e)(2) of this section
may be met by identifying the intercompany transactions, and the risks
hedged by the intercompany transactions, as hedges or hedged items, as
appropriate. Because identification of the intercompany transaction as
a hedge serves solely to identify the hedged item, the identification
is timely if made within the period required by paragraph (e)(2) of
this section. For example, if a member transfers risk in an
intercompany transaction, it may identify under the rules of this
paragraph (e) both its position in that transaction and the item,
items, or aggregate risk being hedged. The member that hedges the risk
outside the group may identify under the rules of this paragraph (e)
both its position with the third party and its position in the
intercompany transaction. Paragraph (d)(4) Example 1 of this section
illustrates this identification.
[[Page 521]]
(ii) Rule for consolidated groups making the separate-entity
election. If a consolidated group makes the separate-entity election
under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, each member of the group must
satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (e) as though it were not a
member of a consolidated group.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Transactions by members of a consolidated group--(i) Single-
entity approach. If a consolidated group is under the general rule of
paragraph (d)(1) of this section (the single-entity approach), the
rules of this paragraph (f) apply only to transactions that are not
intercompany transactions.
(ii) Separate-entity election. If a consolidated group has made the
election under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, then, in addition to
the rules of paragraphs (f) (1) and (2) of this section, the following
rules apply.
(A) If an intercompany transaction is identified as a hedging
transaction but does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)
(A) and (B) of this section, then, notwithstanding any contrary
provision in Sec. 1.1502-13, each party to the transaction is subject
to the rules of paragraph (f)(1) of this section with respect to the
transaction as though it had incorrectly identified its position in the
transaction as a hedging transaction.
(B) If a transaction meets the requirements of paragraphs
(d)(2)(ii) (A) and (B) of this section but the transaction is not
identified as a hedging transaction, each party to the transaction is
subject to the rules of paragraph (f)(2) of this section. (Because the
transaction is an intercompany hedging transaction, the character and
timing rules of Sec. 1.1502-13 do not apply. See paragraph
(d)(2)(iii)(A) of this section.)
(g) * * *
(4) Effective date and transition rules for hedges by members of a
consolidated group. Paragraphs (d), (e)(5), and (f)(3) of this section
apply to transactions entered into on or after March 8, 1996.
(5) Elections to accelerate the effective date of the regulations--
(i) Election to apply the single-entity approach retroactively. A
consolidated group may elect to begin to apply paragraphs (d)(1) and
(3), (e)(5)(i), and (f)(3)(i) of this section to all transactions
entered into in any taxable year (the election year) beginning prior to
March 8, 1996. This election must be made in the manner, and at the
time, prescribed by the Commissioner. A group may make the election
only if the election year, and each subsequent taxable year, are still
open for assessment under section 6501 on July 1, 1996 (or such earlier
date as the Commissioner may allow). The election applies to all
transactions entered into in the election year and in all subsequent
consolidated return years until the date, if any, as of which the group
makes a separate-entity election under paragraph (d)(2) of this
section. The rules of paragraph (g)(6) of this section apply to all
transactions that were entered into before March 8, 1996 in taxable
years subject to an election under this paragraph (g)(5)(i). The
election may be revoked only with the consent of the Commissioner.
(ii) Ability to apply the separate-entity approach retroactively.
Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the separate-entity
election described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section may be made for
any taxable year beginning on or after July 12, 1995. If that election
is made for a taxable year beginning before March 8, 1996, then
paragraphs (d)(2) and (3), (e)(5)(ii), and (f)(3)(ii) of this section
apply to all transactions entered into on or after the beginning of
that taxable year and while the election is in effect, and the rules of
paragraph (g)(6) of this section (other than paragraph (g)(6)(i)) apply
to all transactions that were entered into on or after the first day of
the first year for which the election is made and before March 8, 1996.
(6) Transitional identification rules. To allow a consolidated
group to conform to paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section, this
paragraph (g)(6) nullifies certain hedge identifications and permits a
member of a consolidated group to add certain hedge identifications.
This paragraph (g)(6) applies only to the extent provided in paragraph
(g)(5) of this section.
(i) Intercompany transactions previously identified.
Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, if, for purposes
of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a member identified as a hedging
transaction an intercompany transaction (or a transaction that would
qualify as an intercompany transaction under Sec. 1.1502-13(b)(1) if
the taxable year in which the transaction was entered into were
described in Sec. 1.1502-13(l)), the character of the gain on the
intercompany transaction is determined as if it had not been identified
as a hedging transaction. The identification may, however, serve to
identify the hedged item under paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section.
(ii) Additional identifications of hedging transactions. A member
of a consolidated group must identify under paragraph (e)(5) of this
section a transaction that--
(A) Was entered into before March 8, 1996,
(B) When entered into was not a hedging transaction (as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section),
(C) Solely as a result of the group's election under paragraph
(g)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, is a hedging transaction (as defined
in paragraph (b) of this section), and
(D) Remains in existence on March 8, 1996.
(iii) Additional identification of hedged items. In the case of
transactions described in paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section, the
hedging member must identify under paragraph (e)(5) of this section the
item, items, or aggregate risk being hedged.
(iv) Consistency requirement for hedge identifications. In
identifying transactions as hedging transactions under paragraph
(g)(6)(ii) of this section, all of the members of the group must treat
similar or identical transactions consistently within the same year and
from year to year. If paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section requires a
member to identify a transaction, and the member fails to identify a
transaction as a hedging transaction, but it or another member of the
group identifies similar or identical hedging transactions in the same
or a subsequent year, then for purposes of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and
(3) of this section, the member entering into the transaction is
treated as having no reasonable grounds for treating the transaction as
other than a hedging transaction.
(v) Extension of time for making additional identifications. If an
identification of a hedging transaction would not be required but for
the rules of paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section, the identification
is timely for purposes of paragraph (e)(1) of this section if made
before the close of business on May 7, 1996. If an identification of a
hedged item would not be required but for the rules of paragraph
(g)(6)(iii) of this section, it is timely for purposes of paragraph
(e)(2) of this section if made before the close of business on the
later of May 7, 1996 or the last day of the period specified in
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
PART 602--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Par. 4. The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
[[Page 522]]
Par. 5. In Sec. 602.101, paragraph (c) is amended by adding entries
in numerical order to the table to read as follows:
Sec. 602.101 OMB Control numbers.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OMB
CFR part or section where identified and described control number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
1.1221-2(d)(2)(iv)...................................... 1545-1480
1.1221-2(e)(5).......................................... 1545-1480
1.1221-2(g)(5)(ii)...................................... 1545-1480
1.1221-2(g)(6)(ii)...................................... 1545-1480
1.1221-2(g)(6)(iii)..................................... 1545-1480
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: December 20, 1995.
Cynthia G. Beerbower,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 96-178 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-164 Removal of Final and Temporary Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 515-517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-164]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 1, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 33, 38, 301, and 602
[TD 8655]
Removal of Final and Temporary Regulations
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Removal of final and temporary regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document removes final and temporary regulations as part
of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Bennet, (202) 622-3926.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
As part of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, the
Treasury Department and the IRS identified obsolete regulations that
relate to prior law, provide elections for prior years, or are
otherwise outdated due to changes in the underlying statutory
provisions.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Parts 20, 23, and 24
Estate taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 25
Gift taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 27
Estate taxes, Gift taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Parts 33 and 38
Employment taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 301
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income
taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 602
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, 26 CFR parts 1,
20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 33, 38, 301, and 602 are amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. Part 1 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by removing the
entry for Sec. 1.1303-1.
Sec. 1.32-1 [Removed]
2. Section 1.32-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.103-12 [Removed]
3. Section 1.103-12 is removed.
Sec. 1.110-1 [Removed]
4. Section 1.110-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.114-1 [Removed]
5. Section 1.114-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.115-1 [Removed]
6. Section 1.115-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.116-1 [Removed]
7. Section 1.116-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.116-2 [Removed]
8. Section 1.116-2 is removed.
Sec. 1.367(a)-7T [Removed]
9-10. Section 1.367(a)-7T is removed.
11. The undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 1.383-1A is
removed.
Sec. 1.383-1A [Removed]
12. Section 1.383-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.383-2A [Removed]
13. Section 1.383-2A is removed.
Sec. 1.383-3A [Removed]
14-15. Section 1.383-3A is removed.
[[Page 516]]
Sec. 1.804-1 [Removed]
16. Section 1.804-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.804-2 [Removed]
17-18. Section 1.804-2 is removed.
Sec. 1.805-1 [Removed]
19. Section 1.805-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.805-2 [Removed]
20. Section 1.805-2 is removed.
Sec. 1.805-3 [Removed]
21. Section 1.805-3 is removed.
Sec. 1.805-4 [Removed]
22. Section 1.805-4 is removed.
Sec. 1.805-5 [Removed]
23. Section 1.805-5 is removed.
Sec. 1.805-6 [Removed]
24. Section 1.805-6 is removed.
Sec. 1.805-7 [Removed]
25-26. Section 1.805-7 is removed.
Sec. 1.805-8 [Removed]
27. Section 1.805-8 is removed.
Sec. 1.820-1 [Removed]
28. Section 1.820-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.820-2 [Removed]
29. Section 1.820-2 is removed.
Sec. 1.820-3 [Removed]
30. Section 1.820-3 is removed.
Sec. 1.824-1 [Removed]
31. Section 1.824-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.824-2 [Removed]
32. Section 1.824-2 is removed.
Sec. 1.824-3 [Removed]
33. Section 1.824-3 is removed.
34. Section 1.907-0 is amended as follows:
a. The introductory text is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.907-0 Outline of regulation provisions for section 907.
This section lists the paragraphs contained in Secs. 1.907(a)-0
through 1.907(f)-1.
* * * * *
b. The undesignated center heading preceding the entry for
Sec. 1.907(a)-0 is removed and the entry for Sec. 1.907(e)-1 is
removed.
c. The undesignated center heading preceding the entry for
Sec. 1.907(a)-0A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(a)-0A [Removed]
d. The entry for Sec. 1.907(a)-0A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(a)-1A [Removed]
e. The entry for Sec. 1.907(a)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(b)-1A [Removed]
f. The entry for Sec. 1.907(b)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(b)-2A [Removed]
g. The entry for Sec. 1.907(b)-2A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(c)-1A [Removed]
h. The entry for Sec. 1.907(c)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(c)-2A [Removed]
i. The entry for Sec. 1.907(c)-2A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(c)-3A [Removed]
j. The entry for Sec. 1.907(c)-3A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(d)-1A [Removed]
k. The entry for Sec. 1.907(d)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(e)-1A [Removed]
l. The entry for Sec. 1.907(e)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(f)-1A [Removed]
m. The entry for Sec. 1.907(f)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(e)-1 [Removed]
35. Section 1.907(e)-1 is removed.
36. The undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 1.907(a)-0A is
removed.
Sec. 1.907(a)-0A [Removed]
37. Section 1.907(a)-0A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(a)-1A [Removed]
38. Section 1.907(a)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(b)-1A [Removed]
39. Section 1.907(b)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(b)-2A [Removed]
40. Section 1.907(b)-2A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(c)-1A [Removed]
41. Section 1.907(c)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(c)-2A [Removed]
42. Section 1.907(c)-2A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(c)-3A [Removed]
43. Section 1.907(c)-3A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(d)-1A [Removed]
44. Section 1.907(d)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(e)-1A [Removed]
45. Section 1.907(e)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.907(f)-1A [Removed]
46. Section 1.907(f)-1A is removed.
Sec. 1.995-7 [Removed]
47. Section 1.995-7 is removed.
49. The undesignated center heading ``INCOME AVERAGING'' preceding
Sec. 1.1301-0 is removed.
Sec. 1.1301-0 [Removed]
50. Section 1.1301-0 is removed.
Sec. 1.1301-1 [Removed]
51. Section 1.1301-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.1302-1 [Removed]
52. Section 1.1302-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.1302-2 [Removed]
53. Section 1.1302-2 is removed.
Sec. 1.1302-3 [Removed]
54. Section 1.1302-3 is removed.
Sec. 1.1303-1 [Removed]
55-56. Section 1.1303-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.1304-1 [Removed]
57. Section 1.1304-1 is removed.
Sec. 1.1304-2 [Removed]
58. Section 1.1304-2 is removed.
Sec. 1.1304-3 [Removed]
59. Section 1.1304-3 is removed.
Sec. 1.1304-4 [Removed]
60. Section 1.1304-4 is removed.
Sec. 1.1304-5 [Removed]
61. Section 1.1304-5 is removed.
Sec. 1.1304-6 [Removed]
62. Section 1.1304-6 is removed.
PART 20--ESTATE TAX; ESTATES OF DECEDENTS DYING AFTER AUGUST 16,
1954
Sec. 20.2035-1 [Removed]
Par. 2. Section 20.2035-1 is removed.
PART 23--[REMOVED]
Par. 3. Part 23 is removed.
PART 24--[REMOVED]
Par. 4. Part 24 is removed.
PART 25--GIFT TAX; GIFTS MADE AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1954
Sec. 25.2517-1 [Removed]
Par. 5. Section 25.2517-1 is removed.
PART 27--[REMOVED]
Par. 6. Part 27 is removed.
PART 33--[REMOVED]
Par. 7. Part 33 is removed.
PART 38--[REMOVED]
Par. 8. Part 38 is removed.
PART 301--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
Par. 9. Part 301 is amended as follows:
Sec. 301.6676-1 [Removed]
1. Section 301.6676-1 is removed.
[[Page 517]]
Sec. 301.7424-1 [Removed]
2. Section 301.7424-1 is removed.
PART 602--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Par. 10. In Sec. 602.101, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the
following entries from the table:
Sec. 602.101 OMB Control numbers.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OMB
CFR part or section where identified and described control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
1.820-2................................................. 1545-0128
* * * * *
1.824-1................................................. 1545-1027
1.824-3................................................. 1545-1027
* * * * *
1.1304-1................................................ 1545-0074
1.1304-3................................................ 1545-0074
1.1304-5................................................ 1545-0074
* * * * *
20.2035-1............................................... 1545-0015
* * * * *
27.642-1................................................ 1545-0020
* * * * *
38.6302-1............................................... 1545-0257
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: December 18, 1995.
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 96-164 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-148 Grape Variety Names for American Wines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 522-541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-148]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Part 4
[T.D. ATF-370; Ref. Notice Nos. 749, 581]
RIN 1512-AA67
Grape Variety Names for American Wines
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is issuing a
final rule containing a list of approved prime grape variety names
which may be used as the designation for American wines. This rule
contains two other lists of alternative names which may be used as
grape wine designations until January 1, 1997, or January 1, 1999. This
rule also contains a procedure by which interested persons may petition
the Director for the addition of names to the list of prime grape
names.
ATF believes the listing of approved names of grape varieties for
American wines will help standardize wine label terminology and prevent
consumer confusion by reducing the large number of synonyms for grape
varieties currently used for labeling American wines.
DATES: This final rule is effective February 7, 1996. Alternative names
listed at Sec. 4.92(a) may be used as designations for American wines
bottled prior to January 1, 1997. Alternative names listed at
Sec. 4.92(b) may be used as designations for American wines bottled
prior to January 1, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles N. Bacon, Wine, Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Forearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20226; Telephone (202) 927-8230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Federal Alcohol Administration Act
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), vests broad authority in the Director, as a delegate
of the Secretary of the Treasury, to prescribe regulations intended to
prevent deception of the consumer, and to provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product.
Regulations which implement the provisions of section 105(e) as they
relate to wine are set forth in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 4 (27 CFR part 4).
Wine Varietal Labeling
Under Sec. 4.34(a), still grape wine may be designated by labeling
the wine with the predominant grape(s) from which the wine is produced.
Since 1983, labeling rules at Sec. 4.23a have provided for the use of a
grape variety name as the type designation of the wine if not less than
75 percent of the wine is derived from the labeled grape variety (less
in the case of wine made from certain Vitis labrusca grapes), and if
the wine is labeled with an appellation of origin. Wine may also be
labeled with the names of two or more grape varieties if all of the
grapes used to make the wine are of the labeled varieties, and the
percentage of wine derived from each variety is shown on the label.
In recent years, ATF has noted a trend among domestic and foreign
wineries to label wines using a grape variety designation. Increasing
use of hundreds of grape variety names and synonyms prompted ATF to
examine the correctness of using these names in order to insure that
grape variety names used are truthful, accurate, and not misleading.
Winegrape Varietal Names Advisory Committee
In 1982, ATF established the Winegrape Varietal names Advisory
Committee (``Committee'') to conduct an examination of the hundreds of
grape variety names and synonyms in use [47 FR 13623, March 31, 1982].
According to its charter, the Committee was to advise the Director of
the grape varieties and subvarieties which are used in the production
of wine, to recommend appropriate label designations for these
varieties, and to recommend guidelines for approval of names suggested
for new grape varieties. Their recommendations were restricted to grape
names used in the production of American wines. The Committee's final
report, presented to the Director in September 1984, contained their
findings regarding use of the most appropriate names for domestic
winegrapes varieties. ATF announced that the Committee's report was
available to the public in Notice No. 548 [49 FR 44049], published on
November 1, 1984.
Notice No. 581
On the basis of the recommendations contained in the Committee's
final report, ATF issued Notice No. 581 on February 4, 1986 [51 FR
4392]. This notice proposed the addition of Subpart J, American Grape
Variety Names, to Part 4. Within this subpart, Sec. 4.91 contained the
list of prime grape names which the Committee had found to be the most
appropriate names for grape varieties. Sections 4.92 and 4.93 contained
alternative names which could be used in conjunction with the prime
name (Sec. 4.92), or for five years, in lieu of the prime name
(Sec. 4.93). Section 4.94 contained guidelines for adding new grape
variety names to the list of prime names.
In addition to the recommendations included in the Committee
report, Notice No. 581 contained other proposals. One was to prohibit
the modification of grape variety names with color or style descriptive
terms or with proprietary names. This notice also proposed to make
obsolete certain IRS and ATF rulings relating to grape wine
designations. The comment period for Notice No. 581 was extended until
July 7, 1986, by the publication of Notice No. 589, April 8, 1986 [51
FR 11944].
Written Comments
ATF received 156 comments from 146 different respondents prior to
the end of the comment period on July 7, 1986. Comments were received
from: 76 consumers; the American Wine Society; 38 American wineries;
the Wine Institute; the Association of American Vintners; the
Washington Wine Institute; six grape growers; the California Farm
Bureau Federation; the California Association of Winegrape Growers; the
North Carolina Grape Growers Association; the Oregon Winegrowers
Association; two United
[[Page 523]]
States Congressmen; the Embassy of France; the Embassy of the Federal
Republic of Germany; four foreign wine producing or exporting companies
or associations; the publication Wine East; a wine writer; four persons
involved in academic research or classification of wine; and four
members of the Winegrape Varietal Names Advisory Committee.
Eleven respondents commented generally in favor of Notice No. 581,
and the proposal to establish a list of wine grape variety names for
domestic use. Conversely, a large number of respondents opposed the
concept of establishing a list of grape varieties, while many objected
to specific proposals such as the elimination of certain varietal
names, and the proposal to prohibit use of color or style descriptors
in conjunction with grape variety names. Because of the general
opposition to the proposals made in Notice No. 581, ATF decided to
reopen comment on the subject of grape variety names. At the same time,
ATF modified certain proposals made in that notice.
Notice No. 749
Background
ATF issued Notice No. 749 on September 3, 1992 [57 FR 40380].
Although the comment period for this notice was to have closed on
October 5, 1992, several respondents requested its extension. Notice
No. 762, October 26, 1992 [57 FR 48487], reopened the comment period
until December 28, 1992. The proposals in Notice No. 749 differed from
those made in Notice No. 581 in the following respects.
One List of Alternative Names
ATF reduced the two lists of alternative grape variety names to a
single list. This list proposed at Sec. 4.92 contained grape names
which would be phased out by January 1, 1997. A few alternative grape
names listed in Notice No. 581 were proposed as prime grape names, or
as synonyms for prime names.
Synonyms for Prime Names
The proposed list of prime names of grape varieties contained
synonyms for some prime names. These synonyms, such as ``Fume blanc''
(a synonym for Sauvignon blanc), would be acceptable designations for
wine as long as they appeared in direct conjunction with an appellation
of origin on a wine label.
Additional Grape Variety Names
ATF proposed additional grape names for inclusion on the list of
prime names. These names represent newly developed varieties as well as
some European vinifera grapes introduced into viticultural use in the
United States since publication of the Committee report.
Changes to the List of Prime Names
ATF proposed certain changes to the list of prime names, through
the deletion of names which are not the true names of grape varieties,
and through the addition of certain grape names which were previously
proposed as alternative names.
Approval of New Grape Names
ATF proposed minor changes to the method of approving new grape
names, primarily to provide more flexibility for grape breeders in
naming new varieties.
Gamay Beaujolais
No regulatory proposals were made for Gamay Beaujolais. ATF stated
that Gamy Beaujolais would be the subject of future rulemaking. In the
interim, domestic wineries and bottlers could continue to use Gamay
Beaujolais on wine labels. ATF made proposals regarding the use of
Gamay Beaujolais in Notice No. 793 [59 FR 15878, April 5, 1994].
Color and Style Descriptors
ATF eliminated the proposal to prohibit the use of descriptive or
proprietary terms with grape variety names.
Type Designations of Varietal Significance
Notice No. 749 proposed a new type designation for American wines.
These names would designate wines which have some varietal basis, but
are not composed of a specified grape variety such as Muscatel which
could be produced using any Muscat grapes.
Respondents to Notice No. 749
ATF received 55 written comments from 43 respondents. The following
is a list of respondents, their general interest in the proposals in
the notice, and, when appropriate, an abbreviation or acronym. For the
purpose of brevity, these abbreviations or acronyms are used throughout
this document to identify respondents. Following the list of
respondents are organizations and terms which are also used in this
document. Abbreviations and acronyms accompany these names as well.
1. H.P. Olmo, Professor Emeritus, University of California at
Davis, and Committee member.
2. William F. Doering, a Committee member.
3. Carole P. Meredith, Associate Professor, Department of
Viticulture and Ecology, University of California at Davis.
4. Bruce Reisch, Associate Professor, New York State
Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University at Geneva.
5. R.P. Lane, Associate Professor, Georgia Agricultural
Experiment Stations, University of Georgia at Griffin.
6. Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities
(``EC'').
7. The Agricultural Counselor, Embassy of France, Washington,
DC.
8. The Ambassador, Federal Republic of Germany, Washington, DC.
9. The Counselor for Economic and Commercial Affairs, the
Embassy of Spain, Washington, DC.
10. Deutscher Weinfonds, a German quasi-governmental authority
(``DW'').
11. Verband Deutscher Weinexporteure e.V., and Deutscher
Weinbauverband e.V., trade associations representing exporters of
German wine, and German wine growers.
12. Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, an international
trade association for wine (``OIV'').
13. Union Interprofessionelle des Vins du Beaujolais.
14. Federation des Exportateurs de Vins et Spiritueux de France,
a French trade association (``FEVS'').
15. Institut National des Appellations d'Origine, a French
organization concerned with recognition of controlled appellations
of origin (``INAO'').
16. American Vintners Association, a trade association
representing bonded wineries (``AVA'').
17. National Association of Beverage Importers, a trade
association representing importers of alcoholic beverages
(``NABI'').
18. Wine Institute, a trade association representing California
wineries.
19. Washington Wine Commission, a trade association representing
Washington wineries and winegrape growers.
20. Oregon Winegrower's Association, a trade association
representing Oregon winegrape growers.
21. California Association of Winegrape Growers, a trade
association representing California winegrape growers.
22. Richard Mansfield, Umpqua Valley Chapter, Oregon Winegrowers
Association, a trade association.
23. The U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC.
24. Chicago Wine School, Chicago, IL.
25. Raymond Kelly, a consumer, Alexandria, Virginia.
26. H. Sichel Sohne, Inc., a wine import company.
27. Eagle Ridge Winery, a California winery.
28. Lockwood, a California wine producer.
29. Mt. Palomar Winery, a California winery.
30. Cain Cellars, a California winery.
31. Wine World Estates, owner of four California wineries.
32. Stimson Lane Wine & Spirits, Ltd., owner of wineries in
Washington State and California (``Stimson Lane'').
33. Daniel Gehrs Wines, a California wine producer (``Gehrs'').
34. Millbrook Winery, a New York winery.
35. Robert Mondavi Winery, a California winery (``Mondavi'').
[[Page 524]]
36. Long Vineyards, a California wine producer.
37. Martin Brothers Winery, a California winery.
38. Amity Vineyards, an Oregon winery.
39. Guenoc Winery, a California winery.
40. Brown-Forman Corporation, a wine and distilled spirits
producer and importer (``Brown-Forman'').
41. Heublein Inc., a wine and distilled spirits producer and
importer.
42. General Vineyard Services, a California winegrape grower.
43. San Lucas Vineyards, a California winegrape grower.
Organizations and References
A. Winegrape Varietal Names Advisory Committee (``Committee'').
B. Foundation Plant Materials Service (``FPMS''), a service of
the University of California at Davis which lists registered grape
selections. The November 1, 1993, California Grape Register is used
as reference.
C. A Practical Ampelography, Grapevine Identification, by Pierre
Galet, c. 1979, Cornell University Press (``Galet'').
D. Vines, Grapes and Wines, by Jancis Robinson, c. 1986, Alfred
A. Knopf (``Robinson'').
General Comments to Notice No. 749
Sixteen respondents specifically stated their support for the
proposals made in Notice No. 749. Other respondents commented on
specific proposals by requesting changes to particular aspects of the
proposals. No respondents generally opposed the proposed regulations.
NABI stated their support of ATF's intentions to prevent consumer
confusion by reducing the number of synonyms for grape varieties
currently used in labeling American wines. The EC likewise concurred
with ATF's decision to standardize wine grape names and to eliminate
incorrect or misnamed varieties. The Embassy of France expressed their
support of ATF's objective to prevent confusion or misunderstanding for
consumers by reducing the number of synonyms for grape variety names,
and for requiring the accurate use of those names. NABI favored ATF's
stated goal that grape variety names used by domestic wineries be
truthful, accurate, and not misleading.
Wine Institute supported ATF's attempt to issue regulations which
strike a balance between ampelography (the study and classification of
grape vines), scientific terms, and consumer understanding. The Oregon
Winegrower's Association stated they were supportive of ATF's approach
to regulation of varietal names and acknowledged the problems of
regulating such names for the first time. Stimson Lane cited ATF's
concern for ampelographic accuracy and consumer awareness, while
Mondavi stated their overall support of improving labeling terminology
and preventing consumer deception and confusion.
Conclusion: Issuance of a Final Rule on Grape Variety Names
Based on the overall favorable comments to the proposals made in
Notice 749, ATF is issuing these final regulations on grape variety
names. These regulations are intended to provide specific and accurate
labeling of grape wines labeled with grape variety names. They are
intended to prevent consumer deception by eliminating misnamed grape
variety names, and by eliminating the use of many synonyms for prime
grape names. They are expected to aid in the identification of grape
wines by consumers and to make labels easier to understand through the
use of more meaningful labeling terms. Finally, ATF believes these
regulations will enable consumers to be better informed about wines and
the grape varieties used to produce them.
There are changes made in this final rule from the regulations
proposed in Notice No. 749 and from those first proposed in Notice No.
581. The changes are a result of comments made by respondents over a
lengthy period of time. These changes recognize certain marketing
realities, and take into consideration past and present recognition of
names used and known by consumers and industry. Following is a summary
of the proposals, written comments, and changes made as a result of
those comments.
Prime Names and Synonyms listed in Sec. 4.91
General
Notice No. 749 contained a list of prime grape names and synonyms
listed in alphabetical order in Sec. 4.91. Either the prime name or a
synonym listed could be used standing alone on a label as the
designation for a wine. ATF received many comments concerning the
listing of prime grape names in Sec. 4.91. Comments requesting that new
or additional names be added to the list are discussed under the ``New
grape variety names'' section of the preamble. Comments addressing the
use of synonyms for the prime names listed in Sec. 4.91 are discussed
below.
Melon/Muscadet
Three respondents requested that Muscadet be listed as a synonym
for the prime name Melon. A fourth respondent requested that the full
name ``Melon de Bourgogne'' be listed as the prime name for this grape
variety.
Daniel Gehrs Wines commented that California has many acres of
grapes historically identified as ``Pinot blanc.'' Wine made from these
grapes has been marketed as Pinot blanc wine. Gehrs noted that wine
produced from these grapes does not resemble wine made from Pinot blanc
grapes; thus, this wine receives poor consumer recognition due to
consumers' expectation of a white burgundy-type wine.
Recent ampelographic identification of these so-called Pinot blanc
grapes has revealed them to be the variety Melon. In the interest of
accurately identifying their wines, winemakers are now faced with the
task of marketing wine made from these so-called Pinot blanc grapes as
Melon wine. Gehrs, the Wine Institute, and General Vineyard Services
objected to using the variety name Melon to label a grape wine. They
noted that consumers are not familiar with the name Melon, and that
consumers do not associate this term with a grape wine; rather
consumers equate the word Melon with a fruit. These respondents
requested that Muscadet be listed as a synonym for Melon. They stated
that Melon is the grape of the Loire region used to produce Muscadet
wines and that millions of cases of Melon wine are sold each year under
the Muscadet designation. Thus, there would be better consumer
understanding of wine made with Melon grapes if it were labeled
Muscadet since consumers are familiar with the type of wine now labeled
Muscadet. Gehrs stated that Muscadet used as a variety name would
convey useful information to consumers about the style and taste of the
wine while Melon would not.
Furthermore, Gehrs noted that California wineries must redesignate
their existing ``Pinot blanc'' grapes, a process which will impose an
economic burden on producers. By authorizing Muscadet as a synonym for
Melon, it would be easier for them to phase out the name Pinot blanc
and switch to Muscadet. The Wine Institute noted that Muscadet is
unlike other similar-sounding designations such as Muscatel or
Muscadine, that Muscadet does not resemble these wines, and that
Muscadet is not likely to be sold under the same circumstances as these
other wines. Thus, consumer confusion among these names would be
minimal.
ATF finds that Galet uses the names Melon and Muscadet
interchangeably in his Practical Ampelography, and that other
ampelographic sources list them as synonyms. However, ATF can find no
evidence of use of the name Muscadet to designate wine made from this
grape in the United States. While its use might avoid some of the
problems inherent
[[Page 525]]
with a wine designated Melon, historical past usage does not support
the name Muscadet for domestic wines. Thus, ATF is not listing Muscadet
as a synonym for Melon in Sec. 4.91.
In their comment, Eagle Ridge Winery requested that the full name
``Melon de Bourgogne'' be listed as the prime name for this grape
variety. ATF finds that Melon de Bourgogne is the actual name of this
variety which reflects the origin of this grape in Burgundy. Although
modern wine labeling seldom incorporates the full name of this grape,
it is entirely accurate to use the full name. Furthermore, ATF believes
that consumers are less likely to associate a wine labeled as Melon de
Bourgogne with the fruit melon. Although this variety incorporates the
geographic place name ``Bourgogne,'' the required use of an appellation
of origin with a grape variety name would serve to dispel any erroneous
impression about the true origin of the wine which might otherwise
arise, provided the appellation of origin is in strict compliance with
the requirements of Sec. 4.34(b).
Thus, subject to the condition that the requirements of
Sec. 4.34(b) are strictly complied with, ATF is listing the name Melon
de Bourgogne as the prime name for this grape variety in the list of
prime names in Sec. 4.91. Melon is listed as a synonym which may also
be used for designating domestic wines.
Sauvignon Blanc/Fume Blanc
Fume blanc and Blanc Fume were both proposed as synonyms for
Sauvignon blanc in Notice No. 581. On the basis of written comments,
ATF concluded that Fume blanc was a valid synonym for Sauvignon blanc;
however, there was no support expressed for the name Blanc Fume.
Comments also indicated that ``Fume'' is a descriptive term meaning
smoky, and is used to describe the smoky or ``flinty'' flavor of
Sauvignon blanc wines produced in the Loire region and labeled with the
French appellation of origin ``Blanc Fume de Pouilly.''
Based on these comments, ATF proposed Fume blanc (but not Blanc
Fume) as a synonym for the prime name Sauvignon blanc in Notice No.
749. ATF also noted that Fume could be used as a descriptive term with
any grape variety name.
Three respondents favored listing Fume blanc as a synonym for
Sauvignon blanc. Wine World Estates, Mondavi, and the AVA favored it
because of the widespread use of Fume blanc and its recognition by
industry and consumers as a synonym for Sauvignon blanc. Based on these
favorable comments, ATF is listing Fume blanc as a synonym for the
prime name Sauvignon blanc in Sec. 4.91.
Each of these respondents requested that ATF prohibit the term
``Fume'' from being used with any other grape variety name. The AVA
stated that Fume blanc has gained wide consumer acceptance, but that
allowing ``Fume'' to be used with other grape varieties would lead to
unintended consumer confusion with Fume blanc. They stated this action
would hurt wineries that have invested time and money establishing
consumer recognition for Fume blanc. Mondavi concurred that permitting
``Fume'' to be used with other grape varieties would lead to consumer
confusion. They stated that Fume blanc must be viewed as a whole,
indivisible term meaning Sauvignon blanc. Mondavi cited its financial
commitment in building the success of Fume blanc wines, and stated that
introduction of other varieties labeled with the term ``Fume'' would
destroy the level of consumer recognition of the name Fume blanc and
impose significant financial harm on Mondavi and other wineries.
ATF agrees in part. ``Fume'' is a descriptive term which, through
industry use and consumer acceptance of the product, has acquired a
particular meaning. We agree that certain uses of the term Fume have
potential to be confusing to consumers. Specifically, we believe that
use of the term ``Fume'' in conjunction with another grape variety name
containing the term ``blanc,'' or with another grape variety name to
which the descriptive term ``blanc'' is being used, could be confusing
to consumers and possibly misleading. Thus, ATF will not approve any
certificates of label approval (COLA's) for a domestic wine (other than
``Fume blanc'') which contain both the terms ``Fume'' and ``blanc;''
e.g., COLA's will not be approved for a wine designated as ``Pinot
blanc Fume,'' ``Fume Seyval blanc,'' and so forth.
However, ATF is not convinced that the use of ``Fume'' in every
other instance would be misleading or confusing; e.g., wine designated
``Fume Chardonnay'' is unlikely to be confused with Sauvignon blanc or
Fume blanc. Thus, ATF will examine on a case by case basis any
application for a COLA which contains a grape variety name and the term
``Fume'' to see if the overall name is potentially misleading.
Zinfandel/Primitivo
Notice No. 749 proposed Zinfandel and Primitivo as separate grape
varieties in Sec. 4.91. Primitivo, an Italian grape, was added to the
list of prime names at the request of Cypress Valley Winery, a Texas
winery which requested the addition of ``Primitivo de Gioia'' to the
list. ATF proposed Primitivo rather than a name incorporating one of
the many clones or regional names for this grape in order not to
introduce foreign place names as part of a grape variety name used in
the United States.
Information available to ATF at the time Notice No. 749 was
published indicated that Primitivo and Zinfandel were separate grape
varieties rather than different names for the same grape although ATF
sought additional information on this issue. Five respondents commented
on the relationship between these two grape names.
Carol P. Meredith, of the Department of Viticulture and Enology at
the University of California at Davis, commented that DNA examination
of these two varieties showed them to have the identical
``fingerprint.'' This technique is currently being utilized as an aid
in identifying grapes since each grape variety reveals a unique DNA
``fingerprint.'' She commented that UC Davis research on Primitivo is
limited to two accessions of Primitivo grapes from Italy, and that
these may not represent the full range of Primitivo cultivars.
Furthermore, she commented that Primitivo may be a generic term which
actually includes more than one grape cultivar in Italy; i.e., the
Italian Primitivo may encompass grapes which are not identical to
Zinfandel.
Eagle Ridge Winery and William F. Doering both commented that
Primitivo and Zinfandel are the same variety but that Zinfandel is the
name used for this grape in California for more than 150 years.
Wine World Estates and the California Association of Winegrape
Growers commented that there is no conclusive evidence that Primitivo
and Zinfandel are the same grape. Wine World Estates further stated
that Primitivo is used in Europe to identify a number of grape
varieties and thus, a grape called Primitivo may not be identical to
Zinfandel. ATF notes that the FPMS lists Primitivo as a distinct grape
variety and not as a synonym for Zinfandel.
ATF concludes that the comments support listing Primitivo and
Zinfandel as separate grape varieties. Although it is possible that
Zinfandel may be identical to some Primitivo grapes, it appears that
the term Primitivo may represent other grape cultivars as well;
consequently, the two terms cannot be used interchangeably. Thus,
Primitivo and Zinfandel are listed as prime grape names in Sec. 4.91
and are not listed as synonyms for each other.
[[Page 526]]
Cabernet/Cabernet Sauvignon
ATF Ruling 74-25, 1974 ATF C.B. 48, permits the labeling of wine as
``Cabernet'' if 75 percent of its volume (51 percent prior to January
1, 1983) is derived from Cabernet Sauvignon grapes. This ruling was
intended to prevent consumer deception through the use of less
expensive grapes such as Ruby Cabernet in a wine labeled ``Cabernet.''
Notice No. 581 proposed to make this ruling obsolete which would
preclude the labeling of Cabernet Sauvignon or any other wine as
``Cabernet.'' Notice No. 749 proposed listing ``Cabernet'' as a synonym
for Cabernet Sauvignon.
Five respondents commented. World Wide Estates supported the
proposal to permit ``Cabernet'' to be used as a synonym for Cabernet
Sauvignon. The OIV noted that ``Cabernet'' does not correspond to the
actual grape variety name, and the name ``Cabernet'' is not specific as
to the actual grape variety it indicates.
Eagle Ridge Winery and Brown-Forman objected to listing
``Cabernet'' as a synonym. Eagle Ridge stated that other variety names
contain the word Cabernet and it is incorrect to assume that the label
term ``Cabernet'' by itself would not confuse consumers. Brown-Forman
commented that permitting ``Cabernet'' to stand only for Cabernet
Sauvignon is prejudicial to producers of other varieties such as
Cabernet Franc or Cabernet Pfeiffer. They stated that there is
absolutely no consumer confusion if each of the three Cabernet grapes
is labeled with its full name.
Cain Cellars commented that ATF has permitted the term ``Cabernet''
to include Cabernet Franc, but offered no evidence of such use. They
further suggested that this term should be permitted to refer to the
entire family of Cabernet varieties including Cabernet Sauvignon,
Cabernet Franc, Merlot, Malbec, and Petit Verdot. Accordingly,
``Cabernet'' would become a designation of varietal significance to
include any of these grape varieties.
ATF agrees with the respondents who oppose use of ``Cabernet'' as a
synonym for Cabernet Sauvignon. As noted by the OIV, ``Cabernet'' does
not correspond to an actual grape variety name, nor is this term
specific as to the grape variety to which it refers. While ``Cabernet''
has been used for some years to label Cabernet Sauvignon wines, other
``Cabernet'' grapes exist, and consumers could be confused as the
actual grape variety intended. Conversely, there can be no consumer
confusion as to the grape variety if the actual variety name appears on
the label.
In the interest of providing accurate grape variety identification,
ATF is not listing ``Cabernet'' as a synonym for Cabernet Sauvignon.
However, due to its past use, ATF is listing ``Cabernet'' as an
alternative name in Sec. 4.92(b) for use until January 1, 1999.
Concurrently, ATF Ruling 74-25 is declared obsolete as of the effective
date of this final rule.
Durif/Petite Sirah
These names were proposed as synonyms in Notice No. 749. Three
respondents commented on this proposal.
The OIV commented that the officially recognized OIV name for this
grape is Durif, and not Petite Sirah. Wine World Estates concurred with
the proposal to list ``Duriff'' as a synonym for Petite Sirah unless
evidence is presented to the contrary.
Carole P. Meredith, the University of California, Agricultural
Experiment Station at Davis, stated that the University's examination
of Petite Sirah and Durif holdings show their Petite Sirah vines to be
two or more different grape varieties. Furthermore, the Experimental
Station's recent DNA research shows that the grape called Petite Sirah
and the Durif grape have different DNA ``fingerprints,'' and are
therefore probably different cultivars rather than the same grape.
Consequently, ATF is listing both Durif and Petite Sirah as prime names
in Sec. 4.91 and not as synonyms. We will continue to seek evidence
regarding the true identity of the grape called Petite Sirah.
Thompson Seedless/Sultanina
This grape variety is one of two the Committee recognized as having
synonyms which could be equally accepted as the prime name.
Consequently ATF proposed the use of both names as prime names, with
either name permitted without qualification. In doing so, ATF noted
that neither name is commonly used in wine labeling although Thompson
Seedless is well known to consumers as a table grape.
Brown-Forman commented these names should not be used
interchangeably. They argued that Thompson Seedless is an inferior
grape which makes poor quality wine, and that use of the name Sultanina
would mislead consumers. The EC commented that Sultanina is used for
table grapes and raisins, but rarely used in wine production. They
argued that its use for designating wine would be misleading and that
ATF should phase out use of this name.
ATF finds few wines are designated with either name although this
grape has been extensively used in producing non-varietal wines and
blends. However, we note that the purpose of the list of grape names in
Sec. 4.91 is to provide accurate identification of grape varieties used
in producing wine. The listing of a grape name there does not denote
``quality''; it merely reflects recognition of the grape variety name.
Since ATF finds that both names are equally valid for this grape
variety, both Thompson Seedless and Sultanina are listed as prime grape
names and as synonyms.
Pinot Gris/Pinot Grigio
ATF proposed Pinot gris as a prime name in Sec. 4.91 and Rulander
as an alternative name in Sec. 4.91 be phased out by 1996. Pinot Grigio
was not proposed in either section.
Long Vineyards and Martin Brothers Winery both requested that Pinot
Grigio be listed as a synonym for Pinot gris. Long Vineyards stated
they are disadvantaged when selling their Pinot gris versus Italian
wines labeled as Pinot Grigio. Furthermore, they stated that due to
worldwide sales of the Italian wine, consumers are more familiar with
the varietal designation Pinot Grigio than they are with the name Pinot
gris or Rulander. Martin Brothers also cited the popularity of Italian
Pinot Grigio wines in requesting this name be made a synonym for Pinot
gris.
Based on the evidence that some United States wineries are labeling
their Pinot gris as Pinot Grigio, and the fact that this term has
gained consumer acceptance due to the large number of Italian Pinot
Grigio imported into the United States, ATF is listing Pinot Grigio as
a synonym for the prime name Pinot gris in Sec. 4.91. ATF notes that
this grape is known by many names throughout winegrowing regions of the
world, but that Pinot gris and Pinot Grigio appears to be the most
commonly used names for this grape in the United States.
Colombard/French Colombard
On the basis of strong support for continued use of the name French
Colombard, this name was proposed in Notice No. 749 as a synonym for
the prime name Colombard.
Three respondents commented on the use of French Colombard as a
synonym. Wine World Estates supported the proposal to list it as a
synonym. William F. Doering supported this proposal because of the
economic and marketing importance of French Colombard. Eagle Ridge
Winery commented that consumers would not be misled if the
[[Page 527]]
word ``French'' was deleted as part of the name.
Based on historical usage and consumer recognition of this term,
ATF is listing French Colombard as a synonym for the prime name
Colombard, provided that an appellation of origin appears in direct
conjunction with French Colombard, in strict compliance with the
requirement of Sec. 4.34(b).
Mourvedre/Mataro
ATF proposed the name Mourvedre as a synonym for Mataro due to use
of this name in labeling domestic wines. Wine World Estates supported
this proposal while EC commented that Mataro is a geographic name in
Spain and should be phased out in favor of Monstrell.
ATF finds that ampelographers such as Galet list Mataro and
Mourvedre as synonyms. It is difficult to establish one prime name
since these different names reflect the Spanish and the French name for
this grape. However, ATF finds that Mourvedre enjoys greater use in
labeling wine in the United States. For this reason, ATF is listing
Mourvedre as the prime name in Sec. 4.91. As stated in Notice No. 749,
ATF does not believe there is any reason to deny use of a grape variety
name to United States winemakers simply because that name bears a
resemblance to a foreign name of geographic significance. Thus, Mataro
is retained as a synonym for the grape variety Mourvedre in Sec. 4.91,
provided that when Mataro is used to indicate the grape variety, an
appellation of origin appears in direct conjunction with Mataro in
strict compliance with the requirements of Sec. 4.34(b).
Cynthiana/Norton
Bruce Reisch, Cornell University Department of Horticultural
Science at Geneva, submitted evidence that these grapes are the same
variety. Reisch indicated that his examination of cultivars of
Cynthiana and Norton vines, taken from wineries and nursery stock in
Arkansas and Missouri, revealed them to be identical based on isozyme
and ampelographic characteristics. He further stated that these grapes
are of Vitis aestivalis ancestry, but that vines were introduced using
different names in Virginia and Arkansas in the last century. Reisch
also cited an 1891 report to the Missouri State Horticultural Society
indicating that these varieties were actually the same grape. ATF notes
that horticulturists have debated this question for more than a
century.
Based on Reisch's comment and the evidence contained in the isozyme
of these two cultivars, ATF concludes that they are indeed the same
grape variety. Consequently, ATF is listing them as synonyms in the
list of prime grape names in Sec. 4.91. Due to the long-standing use of
both names, their consumer recognition, and the impossible task of
ascribing ``one prime name'' to this grape, each name is listed
alphabetically in this section with the other name following in
parentheses as a synonym.
ATF notes that other synonyms exist for this grape variety and that
Norton Seedling and Virginia Seedling are listed as alternative names
for Norton in Sec. 4.92.
Vignoles/Ravat 51
ATF proposed Vignoles as a synonym for the prime name Ravat 51 in
Notice No. 749. Bruce Reisch, Cornell University Department of
Horticultural Science at Geneva, and William F. Doering supported this
proposal, and it is adopted.
ATF notes that Ravat 51 is the prime name for this grape but that
other numbered Ravat hybrids exist. Consequently, ATF will not approve
labels showing only ``Ravat'' as the grape variety; labels must specify
the Ravat hybrid number or use an approved synonym.
Campbell Early/Island Belle
Island Belle was proposed as an alternative grape name to be phased
out by 1996 in favor of the prime name Campbell Early. While no
comments were submitted regarding the use of either name, ATF has
received additional information concerning this grape. The Island Belle
grape was developed about 1898 by Adam Eckert in western Washington
State. This grape is believed to be either a clone of Campbell Early or
a hybrid derived from a Concord. The Island Belle grape is currently
used in winemaking in Washington State and the wine enjoys a degree of
consumer recognition.
Due to the current use of the name Island Belle in winemaking, and
the fact that the true identity of this grape is uncertain, ATF is
retaining the name by listing Island Belle as a synonym for the prime
name Campbell Early in Sec. 4.91. ATF would take action to list Island
Belle as a prime name in this section should future research indicate
that it is a distinct variety rather than a clone of Campbell Early.
Valdepenas and Tempranillo
Valdepenas was proposed as a prime name in Sec. 4.91. While there
were no comments addressed to this name in response to Notice No. 749,
ATF has received information indicating that this grape is the
Tempranillo, a Vitis vinifera native to Spain and used in producing
Rioja wines. While well known and cultivated in Spain, Portugal,
France, and Argentina as Tempranillo, this grape is known as Valdepenas
only in California. ATF notes that the FAMS listing of registered grape
selections shows Tempranillo as a synonym for Valdepenas.
In the interest of correctly identifying grape varieties, ATF is
listing Tempranillo as the prime name of this grape variety in
Sec. 4.91. Valdepenas is listed as a synonym for Tempranillo in this
section. ATF will give future consideration to phasing out the name
Valdepenas.
Miscellaneous Synonyms
Lemberger was proposed as an alternative spelling for Limberger in
proposed Sec. 4.91. William F. Doering noted that the name Lemberger
has long-recognized viticultural and commercial usage, and he concurred
with the proposal to list it as a spelling variation for the prime name
Limberger. Because of its commercial use in the United States, ATF is
listing Lemberger as a synonym for the prime grape name Limberger.
Eagle Ridge Winery commented that Green Hungarian is actually
Sylvaner, and that the term Green Hungarian is not used except by a few
domestic producers. No evidence was submitted in support of this
comment.
While the origin or identification of Green Hungarian remains
uncertain, ATF has no information which supports Eagle Ridge Winery's
comment that Green Hungarian is actually Sylvaner; therefore, this
comment is not adopted.
The OIV commented that several prime names in Sec. 4.91 are not the
official OIV names. Names identified by the OIV include Black Malvoisie
which they list as Cinsaut, Burger which they list as Monbadon, and
Charbono which they list as Corbeau.
ATF acknowledges that although these grapes are known by the names
suggested by the OIV, the names proposed in Sec. 4.91 are more commonly
employed in winemaking in the United States. Therefore, ATF is not
changing these names as requested. In the case of Black Malvoisie and
Cinsaut, both are listed in Sec. 4.91, with Cinsaut listed as the prime
name and Black Malvoisie as a synonym.
Wine World Estates commented favorably on the proposed listing of
Gewurztraminer and Traminer as separate prime names in Sec. 4.91. Eagle
Ridge Winery commented that Gewurztraminer is a spicy version of
[[Page 528]]
Traminer and that only Gewurztraminer should be listed.
Evidence is mixed on whether Gewurztraminer and Traminer are
distinct grape varieties. The FPMS lists them as separate registered
grape selections while the OIV lists these names as synonyms. Because
the evidence is inconclusive, ATF is listing each as a prime name in
Sec. 4.91 and not as synonyms for the same grape.
Eagle Ridge Winery commented that Kleinberger is actually Ebling
and is known by that name in Germany. ATF concurs with this comment but
finds that this grape is well known by the name Kleinberger as well as
by other synonyms. In view of the limited use of the name Ebling in the
United States, ATF is not authorizing it as a synonym for this
Kleinberger.
Orther Synonyms
ATF received no comments regarding the following prime names and
synonyms proposed in Sec. 4.91: Muscat Hamburg/Black Muscat; Meunier/
Pinot Meunier; Rkatziteli/Rkatsiteli; Seyval/Seyval blanc; Shiraz/
Syrah; Ugni blanc/Trebbiano. Therefore, these names are adopted as
prime names and synonyms.
Prime Names and Synonyms
ATF has reorganized Sec. 4.91 by listing only one prime name for
each grape variety. ATF has drawn the distinction between prime names
and synonyms primarily on the basis of the final Committee report but
with some exceptions Synonyms and authorized spelling variants appear
in parentheses following the prime name, but have no separate
alphabetical listing except in the case of Thompson Seedless and
Sultanina, and Cynthiana and Norton. In the Case of the Riesling grape,
Riesling is listed as the prime name and White Riesling appears as a
synonym. Synonyms and spelling variants may be used, standing alone, as
the designation of a wine.
Alternative Names for Grape Varieties, Sec. 4.92
Background
The final Committee report acknowledged that many grape varieties
are known by more than one name, some by several names. As part of its
deliberations, the Committee selected a preferred ``prime name'' for
each variety and considered alternative names and synonyms. It then
recommended two lists of alternatives names. The first contained
synonyms which, if used on a label, would be required to appear in
direct conjunction with the prime name. These alternative names
referred to some older European grape varieties which were known by
local or regional names, and which have received a degree of consumer
acceptance. The Committee noted that these alternative names, due to
regulatory precedent and commercial history, should be the exception to
the general finding that, whenever possible, synonyms should be
eliminated in the shortest practical time. No time period was given for
phasing out these synonyms.
The Committee report also noted that some grape varieties are
misnamed or incorrectly identified, but that these names have received
a degree of consumer acceptance. In order to prevent economic hardship
to growers and winemakers, the Committee recommended these names be
phased out over a five-year period. This second list contained 52
alternative names.
Notice No. 581
ATF proposed two lists of alternative grape variety names, one
containing names to be used only in conjunction with the prime name and
one containing names to be phased out at a future date. Respondents
submitted many written comments on this issue, and as a result, ATF
modified this proposal.
Notice No. 749
In this notice ATF proposed only one list of alternative names. ATF
proposed phasing out these 54 names, appearing at Sec. 4.92, as of
January 1, 1996. Other names were removed from the list of alternative
names and proposed as synonyms to prime names in Sec. 4.91; i.e., they
could stand alone on a label as a designation and would not be phased
out in the future.
General Comments on Alternative Names
ATF received only three comments addressing the issue of permitting
alternative names. William F. Doering concurred with the proposal for a
single list of alternative names to be phased out in the future. Wine
World Estates agreed with the concept to phase out these alternative
names over time, but due to the economic consequences, stated that the
proposed date of January 1, 1996, did not allow a long enough
transition period.
NABI opposed the proposal. They supported the Committee
recommendation to eliminate synonyms in labeling and to use only the
prime name as a designation. NABI stated that permitting alternative
names would lead to consumer confusion due to the large number of
synonyms and alternative names, and would be contrary to ATF's intent
to standardize grape variety names. NABI favored the original proposal
to permit alternative names to be used only in conjunction with the
prime name on the label, and favored phasing out these alternative
names after a period of time.
We are adopting the list of alternative names proposed at Sec.
4.92. While ATF wishes to reduce the number of alternative names and
synonyms, we find it is impossible to phase out use of these names
immediately. Many of them have been used for decades in labeling wines
and consumers are familiar with them. Wineries have large investments
in labels, packaging material, and advertising which utilize these
names. Wineries also have substantial ``goodwill'' associated with some
of these variety names.
With respect to Wine World Estate's comment that the January 1,
1996, date is too short a transition period, ATF notes that it first
proposed phasing out most of these names in Notice No 581, published in
1986. That proposal would have terminated use of most of these names
within five years. We believe that the wine industry has been given
ample notice that these names would be phased out. However, because of
the delay in publishing this final rule, ATF is adopting January 1,
1997 as the termination date for all names proposed for inclusion in
Sec. 4.92(a) by Notice No. 749.
In this final rule, ATF is adding new names to the list of
alternative names. In order to provide an adequate transition period
for phasing out these new names, ATF is permitting their use until
January 1, 1999.
Specific Comments on Alternative Names
Several respondents commented that specific alternative names be
made synonyms for prime grape names in order to prevent them from being
phased out.
Gutedel
Gutedel was proposed as an alternative name for Chasselas Dore.
Eagle Ridge Winery commented that Gutedel is the correct name in its
homeland of Germany, that Chasselas Dore is not as commonly used, and
requested that Gutedel be listed as a synonym in Sec. 4.91.
According to the OIV listing of grape variety names, Gutedel is the
name commonly used in Germany and Switzerland, while Chasselas Dore is
listed as the primary name in Canada, Chile, France, Romania, and Italy
(Chasselas Dorato). The FPMS lists Chasselas Dore but not Gutedel as a
[[Page 529]]
registered grape selection, while the State of Oregon authorizes
Chasselas Dore as the only varietal designation for wine made from this
grape.
Based on this evidence, ATF finds that the name Chasselas Dore is
more commonly used in the United States. Thus, ATF is not adopting this
comment to list Gutedel as a synonym for Chasselas Dore. Gutedel
remains listed in Sec. 4.92(a) as an alternative name to be phased out
by January 1, 1997.
Pineau de la Loire
This name was proposed as an alternative name for Chenin blanc.
Three respondents, the Embassy of France, Brown-Forman and Wine World
Estates, supported this proposal citing the fact that a grape should
not contain a ``Pinot'' or ``Pineau'' designation unless it is a true
Pinot grape. Since Chenin blanc is not a true Pinot grape, ATF is
continuing to list Pineau de la Loire as an alternative name in
Sec. 4.92(a) to be phased out as of January 1, 1997.
Pinot Chardonnay
This name was proposed as an alternative name for Chardonnay.
William F. Doering and Wine World Estates both supported this proposal
because this grape is not a true Pinot grape. ATF continues to list
Pinot Chardonnay as an alternative name in Sec. 4.92(a) to be phased
out by January 1, 1997.
Muscadelle
Notice No. 749 listed Muscadelle as an alternative name for the
prime grape name Sauvignon vert. In their comment, the OIV noted that
the official OIV recognized name for this grape is Muscadelle. Wine
Institute commented that California uses Muscadelle as the prime name
for this grape in its annual grape crush report.
The FPMS lists both Sauvignon vert and Muscadelle (du Bordelais) as
registered grape selections while Oregon only permits Muscadelle to be
used for varietal labeling of this wine. Furthermore, examination of
wine literature indicates that the grape which is called Sauvignon vert
in California is actually the Muscadelle grape.
Based on this evidence and the comments received on this issue, ATF
is listing Muscadelle as the prime name for this grape in Sec. 4.91.
Concurrently, we are removing Sauvignon vert from that list and
according it alternative name status. It is added to the new listing of
names in Sec. 4.92(b) which may be used until January 1, 1999.
Refosco
Refosco was proposed as an alternative name for Mondeuse. Four
respondents requested that Refosco be made the prime name of this
grape. Lockwood, a California company which produces a varietal Refosco
wine, stated that this wine is nationally recognized as Refosco, and
that to eliminate this name would cause them economic hardship. Wine
Institute noted that the California grape crush report uses Refosco and
Mondeuse as synonyms. They further stated that several wineries are
releasing a varietal Refosco wine and that consumers understand this
term. San Lucas Vineyards stated they have sold Refosco grapes for
years to several wineries. They also cited Refosco as a more pleasant
and marketable name than Mondeuse. Wine World Estates noted that the
FPMS lists Refosco rather than Mondeuse as the name of their registered
grape selections.
The difference between these names is attributable to place of
cultivation, with Refosco being the Italian name and Mondeuse being the
French name for this grape. ATF finds no prejudice toward use of either
name, and both have received a degree of consumer recognition in the
United States. ATF is, therefore, adopting these comments by listing
Refosco as a synonym for Mondeuse in Sec. 4.91.
Other Alternative Names
Other names proposed in Sec. 4.92 are retained as alternative names
except as noted above. Names appearing at Sec. 4.92(a) may be used for
wine designations until January 1, 1997. See also the preamble
discussion of names similar to appellations of origin for comments on
Saint Emilion, and the preamble section entitled ``Riesling issues''
for a discussion of Franken Riesling.
Riesling Issues
Background
The final report of the Winegrape Varietal Names Advisory Committee
focused extensively on Riesling issues. It noted that Johannisberg
Riesling has long been recognized as an American term in order to
distinguish the White Riesling from other grape varieties which are not
true Rieslings. The Committee recommended that White Riesling and
Johannisberg Riesling be permitted as equal synonyms for this grape.
Furthermore, it recommended that the term Riesling not be permitted to
stand alone as the name of an American grape variety, but gave no
explanation for this position. The final Committee report made
recommendations regarding the use of other grape variety names which
incorporate the term Riesling.
Riesling as a Prime Name
ATF proposed White Riesling and Johannisberg Riesling as prime
names in Notice Nos. 581 and 749, but did not propose to permit use of
the name Riesling. Notice No. 749 stated that this proposal was
intended to create a clear distinction between those grapes which in
the past were labeled as ``Riesling'' but which were not the true
Riesling grape and the true White Riseling grape. Accordingly, the term
``Riesling'' would no longer be used to label grapes made from Emerald
Riesling or other so-called Riesling grapes.
ATF received comments from 19 respondents regarding Riesling
issues. Sixteen of them favored permitting the term ``Riesling'' (with
or without synonyms) as a prime name, or as a type designation of
varietal significance.
Thirteen respondents stated that Riesling is the true name of this
grape, and that ATF should not prohibit American winemakers from using
it to label their wines. Respondents supported this position by stating
that it is unacceptable for the United States to deny American
winemakers use of the accepted world-wide name for the Riesling grape
and cited the fact that German wines are labeled simply Riesling. The
Federal Republic of Germany commented that consumers would be confused
or misled if other names are used to designate a Riesling wine. The
Oregon Winegrowers Association commented that without use of the term
Riesling, U.S. winemakers would be at a competitive disadvantage
against German wines. Amity Vineyards stated that consumers might think
that German Riesling is a wine different from an American Riesling. The
increasing acceptance of American wines in the international wine
community was cited by H. Sichel Sohne as an important reason to allow
the designation Riesling to be used on American wines.
The Washington Wine Commission stated that consumers identify
strongly with the Riesling name and that wineries have worked hard to
cultivate a positive image for Riesling among consumers. Moreover, the
prohibition of Riesling as a prime name would exclude the ability to
market a ``Dry Riesling'' or ``Blush Riesling'' wine, a position also
endorsed by Stimson Lane, and by the Oregon Winegrowers Association.
This association cited Oregon law which prohibits use of Johannisberg
Riesling on a wine label, thus requiring Oregon wineries to market
either a Riesling or
[[Page 530]]
White Riesling wine. They stated that denial of the ability to market a
Riesling wine would cause Oregon wineries severe economic hardship.
Other respondents favoring listing Riesling as a prime name included
the EC, the OIV, the DW, NABI, the AVA, Eagle Ridge Winery, and Umpqua
Valley Chapter, Oregon Winegrowers Association.
Three respondents including Wine Institute, Heublein, and Wine
World Estates favored listing Riesling in Sec. 4.28 as a type
designation of varietal significance rather than as a grape variety
name. According to Wine Institute, ATF has permitted winemakers to use
the term ``Riesling'' to designate a wine which derives 75 percent of
its volume from any combination of White Riesling or Emerald Riesling
grapes. They stated that consumers have come to associate the term
Riesling as a descriptive term used by a specific producer rather than
as a specific varietal designation. Thus, Wine Institute argued that
Riesling should be a general term which shows merely use of various
Riesling grapes rather than designating the White Riesling grape. They
further commented that to eliminate this practice would require
wineries to label wines with the actual percentage of various grape
varieties, action which would be costly and would confuse consumers.
Wine World Estates and Heublein supported making Riesling a type
designation of varietal significance, similar to the proposed
designations for Muscatel, Muscadine, and Scuppernong.
Brown-Forman supported the proposal to list White Riesling and
Johannisberg Riesling as prime names, and to prohibit the term
``Riesling'' from standing alone. The Verband Deutscher Weinexporteure
and the Deutscher Weinbauverband commented that White Riesling should
be the only designation for American Riesling wine, and that Riesling
should not be used as a prime name for American wines.
Conclusion
All comments clearly indicate that the worldwide name for this
grape is Riesling. ATF particularly notes two quotations from the
Statement of Principles in the Committee report: ``Accuracy has been
the Committee's primary objective'' and ``the key question has in every
case been `What is correct?' '' On the basis of all evidence, ATF finds
no valid reason to exclude Riesling from the list of prime names in
Sec. 4.91.
ATF rejects the position advanced by three respondents to make
Riesling a type designation of varietal significance, and thus permit
its use for designating wines composed of a number of so-called
Riesling grapes. This would be a misleading use of the name since
Riesling is accepted world-wide, as well as within the United States,
as representing a specific, identified grape variety. Due to the
enormous preponderance of wines labeled Riesling and made from the
White Riesling grape, ATF believes it would be deceptive to permit
wines made from Emerald Riesling, Grey Riesling, or other so-called
Riesling grapes to be labeled simply ``Riesling.'' Thus, ATF is not
adopting the comment to list Riesling as a type designation of varietal
significance, and is instead listing Riesling as a grape variety name.
Riesling is added to the list of prime grape names in Sec. 4.91. As
of the effective date of this final rule, any American wine labeled
``Riesling'' must be made from a minimum of 75 percent Riesling (White
Riesling) grapes. Wines now made from Emerald Riesling or other so-
called Riesling grapes will need to be relabeled to show the actual
grape varieties used.
Discussion of White Riesling and Johannisberg Riesling
The Winegrape Varietal Names Advisory Committee recognized White
Riesling (the literal translation of ``Weisser Riesling,'' the
botanical name of the grape) as the prime grape name. The Committee
also recommended listing Johannisberg Riesling as a synonym since they
found this name had been in use for many years in the United States,
and that it was used to distinguish the White Riesling grape from other
so-called Riesling grapes. Many comments addressed the listing of both
names in Sec. 4.91.
Many respondents objected to permitting ``Johannisberg Riesling''
as a synonym for the Riesling grape. Respondents stated that
``Johannisberg'' is a geographic term and a registered trademark; thus,
under German law, only wine from Schloss Johannisberg in Germany is
entitled to the designation Johannisberg Riesling.
ATF received fewer comments addressed to use of White Riesling as a
synonym. The DW commented that while this is the scientific term, White
Riesling is never used to label German wines. The Oregon Winegrowers
Association commented in favor of allowing Riesling as the prime name,
but noted that the State of Oregon permits either Riesling or White
Riesling to be used in labeling.
The Verband Deutscher Weinexporteure and the Deutscher
Weinbauverband favored authorizing White Riesling as the only
designation for American Riesling wine. H. Sichel Sohne favored
retaining White Riesling as an alternative name. NABI supported
Riesling as the prime name but favored permitting White Riesling as an
alternative. Brown-Forman supported the proposal to list White Riesling
and Johannisberg Riesling as prime names, and to prohibit the term
Riesling from standing alone. Wine World Estates commented in favor of
permitting both White Riesling and Johannisberg Riesling as synonyms.
Conclusion
ATF finds the term White Riesling is well known to consumers. This
term is used internationally as a designation for this wine. White
Riesling is also the botanical name of this grape (a translation of
``Weisser Riesling''). ATF is, therefore, listing White Riesling as a
synonym for Riesling in Sec. 4.91.
Although the term Johannisberg Riesling has long been used in the
United States to distinguish true [White] Riesling wine from wine made
with other so-called Riesling grapes, the evidence is clear that
Johannisberg Riesling is not the correct name of this grape variety.
Moreover, as noted by several respondents, ``Johannisberg'' is a German
geographic term, and the name of a specific winegrowing region within
Germany.
Since this final rule authorizes use of the name Riesling, standing
by itself, as the prime name for wine made from this grape, ATF finds
that there is no longer the necessity to distinguish wine made from the
true Riesling grape by use of the term ``Johannisberg Riesling.'' Based
on this fact, and in the interest of implementing the Committee's
charter to provide accurate and correct grape variety names, ATF has
concluded that the name Johannisberg Riesling should no longer be
permitted as a grape variety designation. Accordingly, Johannisberg
Riesling is removed as a synonym for Riesling in Sec. 4.92 and made an
alternative name. Owing to its current use and the necessity to prepare
new packaging and marketing materials, Johannisberg Riesling is listed
in Sec. 4.92(b) which permits its use in labeling wines prior to
January 1, 1999.
Other Riesling Names
Several other grape variety names contain the word ``Riesling,''
but are not the true Riesling grape. Grey Riesling, Emerald Riesling,
Missouri Riesling, and Walschriesling (and synonym Welschriesling) were
proposed as prime names in Notice Nos. 581 and 749.
[[Page 531]]
General Comments
Fourteen respondents favored the removal of these Riesling names
from the list of prime names. The consensus was that none of these
grape varieties are the true Riesling grape, and that any use of a
Riesling name to identify non-Riesling grapes is misleading and
confuses the public. The Oregon Winegrowers Association noted that
United States wineries' varietal labeling of these misnamed
``Riesling'' varieties is declining. All of these respondents requested
that ATF take action to phase out the use of Grey Riesling, Emerald
Riesling, Missouri Riesling, and Walschriesling over a period of time.
Grey Riesling/Trousseau Gris
The final Committee report stated that the Grey Riesling grape had
not been conclusively identified but that it was not a true Riesling.
It recommended that ATF replace the incorrect name Grey Riesling with
the correct grape variety name when positive ampelographic
identification of this grape was made. Grey Riesling was proposed as
the prime name in Notice No. 581 since no definitive identification of
this grape had been made. However, when Notice No. 749 was published in
September 1992, this grape had been identified as Trousseau gris which
was proposed as a synonym for Grey Riesling.
The Federal Republic of Germany comment confirmed this
ampelographic finding. Their comment stated that findings of the German
Federal Institute for Cultivation Research in Vintage Culture and
Horticulture, Institute for Grapevine Breeding Geilweilerhof, supports
the recent ampelographic study showing Grey Riesling to be the variety
Trousseau gris.
Twelve respondents commented that ATF should phase out the name
Grey Riesling in favor of the correct name Trousseau gris. Respondents
included both European and international interests, one Committee
member, and American wineries and grape growers. Only one respondent,
Wine World Estates, commented in favor of retaining Grey Riesling as a
prime name, although as a synonym for Trousseau gris. ATF notes that
five respondents favored retaining Grey Riesling as a prime name in
their comments to Notice No. 581, prior to positive identification of
the grape. Reasons advanced at that time included the fact that this
variety had been grown in California for over 100 years and had
received wide public acceptance as Grey Riesling. Other respondents
noted that the name Grey Riesling was preferable to an unknown European
grape variety name with no consumer recognition.
ATF finds the evidence for removal of Grey Riesling from the list
of prime names to be very strong. This grape is not related to the
Riesling, but has been positively identified as Trousseau gris. The
FPMS lists ``Trousseau'' as a synonym for Grey Riesling. Moreover, as
noted by the Oregon Winegrowers Association, the use of the name Grey
Riesling for labeling varietal wines is declining. ATF is, therefore,
removing Grey Riesling from the list of prime names in Sec. 4.91, and
is listing Trousseau gris as the prime grape name. In order to give
American wineries sufficient time to make the name change to Trousseau
gris, ATF is listing Grey Riesling as an alternative name in
Sec. 4.92(b) which may be used until January 1, 1999.
Missouri Riesling
This grape has been cultivated in the United States for over a
century, always as Missouri Riesling. It is not a Riesling, but is a
native American grape, probably a cross of Vitis ripara and Vitis
labrusca. Historical evidence indicates this grape was developed by
Nicholas Grein in Hermann, Missouri in 1870. Due to the lack of any
alternative name, the Committee report recommended Missouri Riesling be
included in the list of prime names. It was proposed as a prime name in
Notice Nos. 581 and 749.
ATF received eight comments addressing Missouri Riesling. All
respondents requested that since it is not a true Riesling, and because
it contains a place name, ATF remove it from the list of prime grape
names. Respondents suggested that the name be replaced either with
``Grein'' or ``Grein Grape'' in honor of Nicholas Grein who developed
the grape, or with ``Missouri Grape,'' and that Missouri Riesling be
listed as an alternative name for a short period of time.
ATF acknowledges that the Missouri Riesling is not a true Riesling
grape. Nevertheless, it has been used as a wine designation for a long
period of time. Since there is no evidence which indicates that this
grape has any other known name, ATF is retaining the prime name
Missouri Riesling in Sec. 4.91.
Emerald Riesling
The Committee report noted that this grape is widely planted, but
that it is a crossbred variety and not the true Riesling grape. In the
absence of an accepted alternative name, the Committee recommended its
continued use as a prime name. Emerald Riesling was proposed as a prime
name in Notice Nos. 581 and 749.
This grape was developed by Professor H. P. Olmo at the University
of California, Davis in 1948, and is identified as ``Emerald Riesling
(Olmo 1948).'' It is a cross between the Riesling grape and Muscadelle
(Sauvignon vert).
Eight respondents commented on this proposal. Seven noted that
Emerald Riesling is not a true Riesling grape and this name should be
listed as an alternative name and phased out in the future. These
respondents suggested that this grape be named ``Olmo'' in honor of its
developer, ``Emerald'' or ``Emerald Grape,'' or be given a new
commercial name. Wine World Estates supported retaining Emerald
Riesling as a prime grape name.
ATF is listing Emerald Riesling as a prime grape name for two
reasons. First, there is no other known name which has been used; it is
known to industry and consumers only as Emerald Riesling. ATF also
retains this name because, unlike other misnamed Riesling varieties,
this grape is directly related to the Riesling. Thus, ATF is listing
Emerald Riesling as a prime name for this grape in Sec. 4.91.
Walschriesling and Welschriesling
On the basis of the final Committee report, both names were
proposed as prime names and synonyms in Notices Nos. 581 and 749.
Nine respondents commented on this. Eight agreed that this grape is
not a true Riesling, and that the prime name should be changed. The
German Federal Republic noted that the naming of this grape is
primarily a European problem since it is widely cultivated in
Southeastern Europe under various names including ``Laski Rizling,''
``Olasz Rizling,'' ``Rakusky Rizling,'' and ``Rizling Vlassky.'' One
respondent suggested that the name should be standardized as
Welschriesling while five others suggested using the European name
Welsch Rizling.
ATF is not aware that this grape has been used in the United States
to make a varietal wine designated as Walschriesling or Welschriesling;
thus consumers are unfamiliar with either name. ATF is thus adopting
the suggestion to use the name for this grape commonly used in Europe,
Welsch Rizling. We believe this action will help avoid consumer
confusion since consumers will be unlikely to confuse wine labeled
Welsch Rizling with wine made from the White Riesling grape.
Thus, ATF is listing Welsch Rizling as a prime name in Sec. 4.91.
Walschriesling and Welschriesling are listed in Sec. 4.92(a) as
alternative names to be phased out by January 1, 1997. This short phase
out
[[Page 532]]
period is provided due to lack of use of either name at the present
time.
Other Riesling Names
The final Committee report noted that a few other grape varieties
include the name Riesling. Since none of these are the true Riesling
grape, it recommended these other names be eliminated, and specified
Okanagon Riesling and Siegfried Riesling as misleading names for grapes
which are not Rieslings. ATF notes that Siegfried Riesling was released
in 1958 under the name Siegfried which is included in the list of prime
grape names. We are not aware of any other name by which Okanagon
Riesling has been called.
ATF did not propose Okanagon Riesling, Siegfried Riesling, or any
other grape variety names which includes the term ``Riesling'' as a
prime grape name in Notice Nos. 581 or 749. Franken Riesling was
proposed as an alternative name for Sylvaner, to be phased out by
January 1, 1997.
Twelve respondents commented on the use of other so-called Riesling
names. These respondents unanimously supported excluding any other
Riesling grape names from the list of prime names in Sec. 4.91, and
supported ATF's proposal to phase out Franken Riesling in favor of
Sylvaner by January 1, 1997. These proposals are adopted.
Gamay Issues
Napa Gamay
This grape has a long history of cultivation in California but its
origin is unclear. During the 1960's, the University of California at
Davis determined that this grape was the French Gamay grape (Gamay
noir). More recent ampelographic studies have disclosed that the grape
called Napa Gamay grape is not related to the French Gamay.
The Committee report recommended that Napa Gamay be proposed as an
alternative name to be phased out when the grape's true identity was
established. Notice No. 581 proposed Napa Gamay as a prime grape name,
but noted that work was underway to establish its true identity. Recent
ampelographic study has identified this grape as Valdiguie, a French
grape. Due to the long-standing use of the name, ATF proposed Napa
Gamay as a synonym for Valdiguie in Notice No. 749. ATF solicited
comments on whether Napa Gamay should be retained as a synonym for
Valdiguie, or whether the name Napa Gamay should be phased out in the
future.
Respondents submitted mixed comments on this issue. Wine World
Estates and the California Association of Winegrape Growers commented
that Napa Gamay should be retained as a synonym for Valdiguie due to
its historical use and consumer recognition. The Embassy of France and
the INAO favored the phase out of Napa Gamay as a prime name in favor
of the correct name Valdiguie. The OIV commented in favor of phasing
out the term Napa Gamay in order to remove a geographic term from a
grape variety name. Amity Vineyards pointed out that the Napa Gamay
grape is unrelated to Gamay noir, and thus, ``imposters'' gain a
marketing advantage over persons selling true varietal Gamay noir wine.
Based on the comments and the recent identification of this grape
variety, ATF has decide
FR Doc. 96-148 Grape Variety Names for American Wines
d to phase out the name Napa Gamay. ATF finds
that Napa Gamay is seldom used for labeling a varietal wine; more often
it is used in producing Gamay Beaujolais and other non-varietal wines.
Moreover, it is not a Gamay grape; thus any use of the name ``Gamay''
for this grape is incorrect. This grape now has been positively
identified as Valdiguie, although it is not widely known by this name.
In the interests of accuracy in labeling, ATF is adopting Valdiguie as
the prime name in Sec. 4.91, and Napa Gamay as an alternative name in
Sec. 4.92(b) which may be used for labeling wine until January 1, 1999.
Gamay Noir
The Committee recommended that the grape variety Gamay be included
as a prime name in anticipation that wine from the true Gamay grape
would be produced in the United States in the future. Gamay was
proposed as a prime name in Notice No. 581. On the basis of a comment
submitted by the Oregon Winegrowers Association, ATF proposed Gamay
noir, a shortened form of the name Gamay noir a jus blanc, as its prime
name in Notice No. 749. In that notice, ATF stated that use of Gamay
noir would help distinguish wine made from the true Gamay grape from
other wines which were labeled ``Gamay'' in the past.
ATF received no comments addressed to the name Gamay noir, and it
is included in the list of prime grape names. ATF further notes that we
will no longer approve American wine labels which show only ``Gamay''
as a designation. Future labels must show Gamay noir if produced from
the true Gamay grape, or Napa Gamay if produced from Valdiguie and
bottled prior to January 1, 1999.
Gamay Beaujolais
ATF did not address the term Gamay Beaujolais in Notice No. 749.
That notice stated that ATF had insufficient information either to
propose eliminating use of the term Gamay Beaujolais or to authorize
its continued use on a permanent basis.
Wine World Estates favored the decision to defer action on use of
the term Gamay Beaujolais. The California Association of Winegrape
Growers supported ATF's current policy to permit wine to be designated
Gamay Beaujolais if it is derived from not less than 75 percent Pinot
noir or Valdiguie (Napa Gamay) grapes. Several other respondents
requested that ATF specify a date by which use of the term Gamay
Beaujolais would be phased out in favor of labeling these wines with
the actual grape variety. These respondents included the Agricultural
Counselor, Embassy of France, the Union Interprofessionnelle des Vins
du Beaujolais, the FEVS, the INAO, and NABI.
ATF has made Gamay Beaujolais the subject of a separate rulemaking
proceeding. See Notice No. 793, 59 FR 15878, April 5, 1994. In the
interim, ATF will permit domestic wineries to use Gamay Beaujolais as a
designation. Such wine must derive at least 75 percent of its volume
from Pinot noir, from Valdiguie (Napa Gamay), or from a mixture of
these grapes.
New Grape Variety Names
General
Five respondents requested the inclusion of additional grape
variety names to the list of prime names in Sec. 4.91. Two of them are
newly-developed grape varieties; others are European vinifera grapes
which have been introduced into viticultural use in the United States.
In Notice No. 749, ATF also solicited information on a number of grape
varieties which were not proposed as prime names.
Chardonel
Bruce Reisch, Department of Horticultural Sciences, The New York
State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University at Geneva,
requested that Chardonel be added to the list of prime names. He stated
that Chardonel is a cross between Seyval and Chardonnay first made in
1953 at Geneva. It was propagated in 1960 as ``NY 45010'' and later
renamed ``Geneva White 9.'' The grape was named Chardonel by Cornell
University in 1990, and has received U.S. Plant Patent No. 7860, dated
May 5, 1992.
According to Reisch, growers in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
and Missouri have expressed satisfaction with the viticultural and
[[Page 533]]
winemaking characteristics of Chardonel. Wine was first made from this
grape in 1966. Currently, the grape is cultivated in Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Arkansas, and vines are available from the New York State
Fruit Testing Cooperative Association, Geneva, and from commercial
nurseries. ATF has given certificates of label approval to wineries in
several States for a Chardonel wine. Accordingly, ATF is adding
Chardonel to the list of prime grape names in Sec. 4.91.
Golden Isles
R.H. Lane, Associate Professor of Horticulture, the University of
Georgia, Agricultural Experiment Station, requested that Golden Isles,
another newly-developed grape variety, be included on the list of prime
names. Golden Isles is a bronze Muscadine (Muscadinia rotundifolia)
grape developed at the University of Georgia Agricultural Experiment
Station, and is a cross between Fry and Georgia 19-6 made in 1969.
According to the literature, Golden Isles produces a high quality wine
with less pronounced Muscadine flavor than other bronze Muscadine
wines. Golden Isles vines are commercially available.
ATF is adopting this comment and adding Golden Isles to the list of
prime names in Sec. 4.91.
Sereksiya
ATF requested information about the variety ``Sereksia.'' This
grape, a Vitis vinifera, is a native of Russia, but has been introduced
into the United States for viticultural use.
Bruce Reisch commented that Sereksiya Chernaya is a blue grape from
the Soviet Union. He noted that it has many old world synonyms
(Bobyaska Nyagra, Cheryi Redkii, Koldaursha, Sassar, Stropatyi,
Tsotlyar), but that the correct name is ``Sereksiya.'' This grape has
been used by at least one New York winery to make a varietal wine.
Based on this evidence, ATF is adding Sereksiya to the list of prime
grape names in Sec. 4.91.
Other Grape Varieties
Three respondents sought the inclusion of other grape varieties on
the list of prime names. These varieties are Vitis vinifera grapes
which have been introduced into viticultural use in the United States
in recent years and which are now being used to make varietal wines.
The Millbrook Winery, Mount Palomar Winery, and Guenoc Winery requested
inclusion of the following vinifera varieties: ``Arneis,''
``Carmenere,'' ``Cortese,'' ``Corvina,'' Fernao Pires,'' ``Freisa,''
``Gros Verdot,'' ``Roussanne,'' ``Teroldego,'' ``Tocai Friulano,'' and
``Verdelho.''
Arneis is a white wine grape native to Italy's Piedmont region.
According to the OIV, it has no synonyms in general use. ATF has
granted label approval to at least one California winery for a varietal
Arneis wine. Due to its introduction in the United States and use in
making wine, ATF is listing Arneis as a prime grape name in Sec. 4.91.
Carmenere is a red wine variety native to Bordeaux. The OIV lists
no synonyms in general use. It is listed as a grape variety name for
use under the rules of the Oregon Liquor Commission. Carmenere is a
Bordeaux grape which is also used in Bordeaux-style blends produced in
the United States. Due to its use in winemaking, ATF is listing
Carmenere as a prime grape name in Sec. 4.91.
Cortese is a white wine variety grown in the Piedmont region of
Italy. The OIV lists no synonyms which are in worldwide use. Mt.
Palomar Vineyards commented they currently grow two acres of Cortese in
their vineyard in Temecula, CA, and will produce varietal wine in the
future. Due to its introduction in the United States and use in making
wine, ATF is adding Cortese to the list of prime grape names in
Sec. 4.91.
Corvina, a red wine grape, is native to the Ventio region of Italy
where it is a common element in Bardolino and Valpolicella wines. In
Italy this grape is also known as ``Corvina Veronese.'' Corvina
Veronese is a FPMS registered grape selection, and is available for
commercial use in the United States. Based on the use of this grape in
winemaking in the United States, ATF is listing Corvina as a prime name
in Sec. 4.91, but without the geographic term ``Veronese'' which refers
to the region in Italy where the Corvina grape is commonly grown.
Fernao Pires is a white grape native to Portugal, but also grown in
South Africa. It is listed as a FPMS registered grape selection.
According to Millbrook Winery, a small amount of Fernao Pires has been
planted in the United States. ATF believes this grape variety is being
used in producing wine in the United States, or will be used in the
near future. Thus, ATF is listing Fernao Pires as a prime grape name in
Sec. 4.91.
Freisa is an Italian black grape. According to the OIV, there are
no synonyms in worldwide usage. Freisa is listed as a FPMS registered
grape selection. Millbrook Winery commented that a small amount of
Freisa has been planted in at least two vineyards, and they have
produced wine from these grapes. Due to its availability in the United
States and its use in making wine, ATF is adding Freisa to the list of
prime names in Sec. 4.91.
Gros Verdot is another red wine variety native to Bordeaux. It is
not currently listed as an FPMS registered grape selection although
Guenoc Winery stated they are growing this grape. ATF believes that
this grape will be used in producing varietal wines. Consequently, ATF
is listing Gros Verdot as a prime grape name in Sec. 4.91.
Roussanne is a white wine variety native to the Rhone. The OIV
lists use of the synonym ``Bergeron'' in France. Roussanne is not
listed as an FPMS registered grape selection, although it has been used
to produce wine in California where plantings are as yet limited. ATF
has granted a certificate of label approval to a California winery for
their Roussanne wine. Due to its introduction in the United States and
use in making wine, ATF is listing Roussanne as a prime name in Sec.
4.91.
Teroldego is a red wine variety indigenous to Italy's northeast
Trento-Alto Adige region where it is grown almost exclusively on the
Campo Rotaliano plain north of Trento. The OIV lists no synonyms in
general use. Teroldego is not listed as an FPMS registered grape
selection, although there are small plantings in the United States.
Millbrook Winery has stated that they are producing a wine using
Teroldego grapes. Based on this evidence of usage, ATF is adding
Teroldego to the list of prime names in Sec. 4.91.
Tocai Friulano as its name implies is a white wine grape native to
the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region of extreme northwest Italy. The OIV
lists several synonyms including ``Tokai,'' ``Tokay,'' and
``Sauvignonasse.'' Tocai Friulano is listed as an FPMS registered grape
selection and there are small plantings in the United States. At least
one winery has been given a certificate of label approval for a
varietal Tocai Friulano wine.
Due to its cultivation in the United States and its use in
winemaking, ATF is including Tocai Friulano in the list of prime grape
names in Sec. 4.91.
Verdelho is a white wine grape native to Portugal which is widely
used in producing Port and Maderia wines. It is also grown in Australia
where it is used in producing table wines. Verdelho is listed as a
registered grape selection by the FPMS and is commercially available at
nurseries in the United States. Based on this evidence, ATF is adding
Verdelho to the list of prime grape names in Sec. 4.91.
Pinotage, a red grape variety, is a cross between Pinot noir and
Cinsaut.
[[Page 534]]
This grape is widely planted in South Africa and in recent years small
amounts have been planted in the United States. It is listed as a
registered grape variety by the FPMS, and is commercially available.
Pinotage is currently used to make wine and ATF has granted
certificates of label approval for varietal Pinotage wines. Although no
respondents requested the inclusion of Pinotage in the list of prime
grape names, ATF is adding this grape to the list based on its current
use.
Early Muscat. Early Muscat is a vinifera grape grown on the west
coast primarily as a table grape. Although seldom employed in
winemaking, a number of wineries have produced a varietal Early Muscat
wine over the last several years. The State of Oregon lists Early
Muscat as a permitted grape variety designation, and this grape is
available through commercial nurseries.
Although no written comments were received regarding variety, ATF
is including Early Muscat in the list of prime grape names in Sec.
4.91 on the basis of its use in winemaking.
Fredonia is an older Vitis labrusca grape. It has fallen out of
favor in producing a varietal wine in recent years, but still enjoys
use in winemaking. ATF notes that it has granted label approval
recently to wineries producing varietal Fredonia wine. Although no
respondents to Notice No. 749 requested its inclusion, ATF is including
Fredonia in the list of prime grape names in Sec. 4.91.
Grape Variety Names Identical or Similar to Appellations of Origin or
Foreign Geographic Terms
Backgound
Included in proposed Sec. 4.91 were 13 grape variety names which
six respondents identified as being similar or identical to recognized
appellations of origin within the European Community. These respondents
including the EC, the Embassy of Spain (Spain), the Embassy of the
Republic of France (France), the OIV, the FEVS, and INAO identified the
following proposed grape variety names as being identical or similar to
recognized appellations of origin within Europe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appellation of Origin
Wine Grape Variety (Nation)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alicante Bouschet......................... Alicante (Spain).
Aligote................................... Bourgogne Aligote (France).
Carignane................................. Carinena (Spain).
Fume blanc................................ Blanc Fume de Pouilly
(France).
Johannisberg Riesling..................... Johannisberg (Germany).
Muscat Pantelleria........................ Moscato di Pantelleria
(Italy).
Rosette................................... Rosette (France).
Pinot Saint George........................ Saint-Georges Saint-Emilion
(France).
St. Croix................................. Ste.-Croix Du-Mont (France).
Saint Macaire............................. Cotes de Bordeaux Saint-
Macaire (France).
Tinta Madeira............................. Madeira (Portugal).
Valdepenas................................ Valdepenas (Spain).
Vivant.................................... Romanee Saint-Vivant
(France)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These respondents objected to the proposal to list these as prime
grape variety names on the basis that their use on American wine labels
would: (1) be confusing and misleading to consumers since the wines
would not be produced in the designated areas and would not meet the
appellation of origin requirements; (2) comprise an erosion of the
foreign appellation of origin name; and (3) be in violation of the
exchange of letters between the EC and United States of July 26, 1983,
which were intended to prevent erosion of non-generic designations of
geographic significance. Several respondents rejected ATF's argument
made in Notice No. 749 that use of these names was not likely to result
in consumer confusion since the grape variety name would always appear
in direct conjunction with an appellation of origin on a wine label.
Spain commented that the authorization of three grape variety names,
``Alicante Bouschet,'' ``Carignane,'' and ``Valdepenas,'' would hinder
future ATF recognition of well established appellations of origin, and
would negatively impact the sale of Spanish wines in the U.S. market.
The EC, France, and the INAO did not object to the use of Aligote
as a grape variety name provided ATF prohibited winemakers from using
the terms Aligote and Burgundy (a semigeneric designation under
Sec. 4.24(b)) together on American wine labels. These respondents
believed this labeling could be confused with the French appellation of
origin ``Bourgogne Aligote.''
The EC and OIV further noted that some grape variety names in
Sec. 4.91 contain geographic terms which could be confusing to
consumers as to the origin of wines. These names were in addition to
those cited as resembling approved appellations of origin, and included
the following: Early Burgundy, Flame Tokay, Green Hungarian, Muscat of
Alexandria, Muscat Canelli, Mataro, Napa Gamay, and Naples. The OIV
suggested synonyms for these grapes which do not contain geographic
terms and which they believe would be less likely to confuse consumers.
Discussion
ATF set forth its position concerning the use of grape variety
names which may be similar to foreign appellations of origin in Notice
No. 749. ATF stated that there is no reason to deny use of a grape
variety name to American winemakers simply because that name bears a
resemblance to a foreign name of geographic significance. ATF believes
the requirement to use an appellation of origin in direct conjunction
with a grape variety name will prevent confusion between an American
varietal wine and a wine labeled with a foreign appellation of origin.
ATF believes this requirement makes foreign wines distinctive from
American wines bearing a grape variety name. We further stated that any
questions concerning the potential for consumer confusion as to the
identity of wine which may arise when a foreign geographic term is
similar or identical to a varietal name would be resolved by ATF on a
case-by-case basis.
ATF's position on this matter has not changed. Thus, ATF is not
removing any grape variety names from the lists in Secs. 4.91 and 4.92
merely because they are similar to foreign appellations of origin or
contain geographic terms. The following names proposed in Sec. 4.91 are
adopted: Alicante Bouschet, Aligote, Carignane, Early Burgundy, Flame
Tokay, Fume blanc, French Colombard, Green Hungarian, Mataro, Muscat of
Alexandria, Muscat Canelli, Naples, Rosette, St. Croix, Saint Macaire,
Tinta Madeira, Valdepenas, and Vivant.
Specific Actions
The EC, France, FEVS, and the INAO supported the proposal to
eliminate use of the name Saint Emilion, and to phase out use of the
names Franken Riesling, Pineau de la Loire, and Muscat Frontignan.
In Notice No. 749 ATF noted that the name Saint Emilion is not in
widespread use in the United States and that this grape is well known
by other names. Thus, Saint Emilion is not included in the lists of
grape names in Secs. 4.91 or 4.92. Trebbiano is listed in Sec. 4.91 as
the prime name and Ugni blanc as a synonym for this grape in Sec. 4.92.
The alternative names Pineau de la Loire and Franken Riesling
remain in the list at Sec. 4.92(a) to be phased out by 1997 in favor of
the names Chenin blanc and Sylvaner.
ATF proposed Muscat blanc as a prime name in Sec. 4.91 while Muscat
Frontignan was proposed as an
[[Page 535]]
alternative name to be phased out in 1996. Heublein commented that
their Beaulieu Vineyard facility has produced Muscat Frontignan since
1920 and stated that it was important to the company to retain this
designation. Wine World Estates also commented in favor of retaining
Muscat Frontignan as a grape variety name.
ATF agrees that this name has been used in labeling wines for
decades in the United States, and it has received a degree of consumer
recognition. Nevertheless, ATF finds that the name Muscat Canelli is in
far more widespread use at the present time for labeling domestic
wines. Moreover, one goal of this rulemaking is to reduce the large
number of synonyms in use. Thus, ATF is phasing out the name Muscat
Frontignan as proposed in Notice No. 749. However, in view of its
longstanding use and the time required to change labels and advertising
to Muscat blanc or Muscat Canelli, ATF has decided to permit the use of
Muscat Frontignan as a grape variety designation for an additional
period of time. Thus, Muscat Frontignan is added to the list of
alternative names appearing at Sec. 4.92(b). It may be used as a
designation until January 1, 1999.
On review of the comments and literature concerning the proposed
prime grape name Pinot St. George, ATF finds that a more accurate name
for this grape is Negrette. Moreover, this grape is not a Pinot
although it was once misidentified as Pinot noir. Consequently, ATF
finds that Pinot St. George is an incorrect name for this grape. As a
result, we are removing this name from Sec. 4.91 and replacing it with
the prime name Negrette. Pinot St. George is listed in Sec. 4.92(b) as
an alternative name to be phased out by January 1, 1999.
On examination of the proposed prime grape name Muscat Pantelleria,
ATF finds no evidence that this is a distinct grape variety. Instead,
all evidence indicates this is a Muscat wine associated with the island
of Pantelleria off of Sicily and well known as ``Moscato di
Pantelleria.'' The grape from which Moscato di Pantelleria wines are
made is actually the Zibibbo or Muscat of Alexandria grape. Therefore,
Muscat Pantelleria is removed from the list of prime grape names in
Sec. 4.91 and added to Sec. 4.92(b) as an alternative name for Muscat
of Alexandria to be phased out by January 1, 1999.
Type Designations of Varietal Significance
In Notice No. 749, ATF proposed a new category for designating
American wine, type designations of varietal significance. These
designations apply to wines which are composed of a mixture of specific
grape varieties, but which do not contain enough of a single variety to
qualify for a varietal designation (75 percent). Nevertheless, these
wines demonstrate characteristics of the grape varieties used to
produce them and their names imply some grape variety source. For
example, under proposed Sec. 4.28, a wine labeled Muscatel is required
to derive at least 75 percent of its volume from any Muscat grape
source and otherwise conform to the definition for Muscatel at
Sec. 4.21(a)(3). Wine designations in Sec. 4.28 may stand alone on a
label as the class and type designation of a grape wine. ATF also
proposed amending Sec. 4.34 to require that an appellation of origin
appear in direct conjunction with these type designations.
Three designations were proposed. In addition to Muscatel,
Scuppernong was proposed as an American wine deriving not less than 75
percent of its volume from bronze Muscadinia rotundifolia grapes, and
Muscadine was proposed as an American wine deriving at least 75 percent
of its volume from any Muscadinia rotundifolia grape source.
William F. Doering and Wine World Estates commented in favor of
these proposals. Since there were no other comments, ATF is adopting
Sec. 4.28 containing these designations.
Several respondents requested that Riesling be added to this
category to designate a wine made with any ``Riesling'' grapes. ATF is
not adopting this comment. See the discussion under ``Riesling
issues.''
The EC commented that ATF should not permit variety names for
Muscat grapes which incorporate foreign geographic terms. Specifically,
they requested that ATF not list the names Muscat Canelli, Muscat du
Moulin, Muscat Hamburg, Muscat of Alexandria, Muscat Pantelleria, and
Muscat Ottonel. In lieu of these grape variety names, the EC requested
that the full name of the grape ``Muscat blanc a petit grains'' be
used, or that the general label term ``Muscat'' be permitted.
This final rule authorizes Muscat variety names which incorporate
foreign geographic terms since we find these names are recognized as
distinct grape varieties. ATF is, however, responding to the EC request
by permitting use of the term ``Muscat'' or ``Moscato'' as a labeling
designation. ATF believes these terms have widespread consumer
recognition as a wine derived from Muscat grapes. We further find that
many domestic wine labels exist which use the designations Muscat or
Moscato to indicate a Muscat grape source but not a specific Muscat
grape variety.
ATF is amending Sec. 4.28 to include Muscat and Moscato as type
designations of varietal significance to designate a wine which derives
75 percent of its volume from any Muscat grape source. Wines designated
Muscat or Moscato under this section are not required to meet the
additional requirements imposed on Muscatel wines by Sec. 4.21(a)(3).
An appellation of origin must appear in direct conjunction with the
designation Muscat or Moscato.
Proprietary Names and Descriptive Terms
Notice No. 581
In its final report, the Committee noted that certain wines, which
to the uninformed would appear to be varietal wines, are in fact,
labeled with registered proprietary names. The Committee suggested that
ATF should decline to approve such labels in the future, and should
phase out existing approvals of these labels. This suggestion was
incorporated into Notice No. 581 which proposed that only the approved
grape variety name could be used as a varietal designation, without
modification. Accordingly, proprietary names and color descriptors
would need to be shown separately on the label. This proposal would
have prohibited the use of a designation such as ``White Zinfandel,''
but would have permitted a label reading ``Zinfandel'' on one line with
the description ``A White Wine Made From Zinfandel Grapes'' on a
separate line.
Written Comments
This proposal was the most controversial issue raised in Notice No.
581. Ninety-five respondents objected to it and in doing so, most
respondents objected to Notice No. 581 in its entirety.
Consumers and wineries alike commented that the use of color or
style descriptors is a significant aid to consumers in selecting wines.
Qualifiers such as ``white,'' ``blush,'' ``blanc,'' ``noir,''
``nouveau,'' or ``rose'' describe the style of wine and enable
consumers to differentiate between wines of the same varietal origin
but produced in different styles. Wineries cited the economic
importance of ``blush wines.'' Some respondents stated that adoption of
this proposal would severely damage the market for Zinfandel grapes. As
a consequence, respondents claimed the proposal would have a far
reaching and devastating impact on grapegrowers, wineries and
consumers. A few respondents cited the lack of need or
[[Page 536]]
justification for this proposal, and the lack of consumer confusion
over use of such terms.
Similarly, respondents objected to the proposal to prohibit the use
of strictly proprietary terms with grape variety names. Proprietary
names, unlike descriptive terms, consist of a registered name used to
differentiate a winemaker's varietal wine from similar wines made by
other winemakers.
Notice No. 749
In view of the preponderance of comments opposing a prohibition on
the use of proprietary and descriptive terms in conjunction with
varietal designations, ATF did not include this proposal in Notice No.
749. ATF stated that we would take the position that label designations
which incorporate proprietary or descriptive terms are misleading if
their use results in consumer deception.
Comments to Notice No. 749
Only six respondents commented on the use of proprietary and
descriptive terms with grape variety names. The Wine Institute, NABI,
Wine World Estates, and Cain Cellars fully supported ATF's position not
to prohibit their use. William F. Doering stated that the proposal is
sensible, but that some existing proprietary names are misleading and
that ATF should deal with these names on a case-by-case basis. The Wine
Institute requested that ATF seek to secure acceptance of some of these
terms, such as White Zinfandel, on a worldwide basis to assist the
international sales of American wines. This aspect of their comment is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Professor H.P. Olmo, The University of California, Davis, and a
Committee member, objected to the proposal to permit use of descriptive
terms with variety names. He stated that to allow such use would
nullify the concept of grape variety classification, and would confuse
grape variety names with a wine type. He further stated that to permit
them would cause the multiplication and falsification of grape variety
names and cause the mistrust of grape variety names.
Conclusion
Respondents to this notice as well as to Notice No. 581 have
demonstrated the value of proprietary names and descriptive terms in
providing the consumer with useful information. ATF further
acknowledges the economic importance that wines labeled with
descriptive terms such as ``blush'' or ``White Zinfandel'' have to the
American wine industry. Finally, ATF is not aware of any consumer
confusion or deception resulting from the use of descriptive terms with
grape variety names on labels, and ATF does not believe that consumers
need to be protected from such labeling.
Thus, ATF will continue to permit the use of descriptive and
proprietary names on labels in conjunction with grape variety names.
ATF will, however, examine labels to ensure that such terms are not
used in a manner that is deceptive or misleading.
Approval of Future Variety Names
One part of the Committee's charter was to recommend guidelines for
the wine industry and ATF to follow in determining the appropriateness
of names suggested in the future for new grape varieties. The
Committee's recommended guidelines were incorporated into Notice No.
581.
As proposed, a letterhead application to the Director would be
sufficient to request approval of a new grape variety name. Evidence
regarding the name, its use in winemaking, and its cultivation in the
United States would be submitted as part of the application. Supporting
evidence such as a plant patent, acreage information, and scientific
references would also be required.
In addition to outlining the procedure for applying for a grape
variety name, the Committee made recommendations regarding suitability
of new names. As proposed in Notice No. 581, a new grape variety name
could not contain words of geographical significance; could not have
been previously used for another variety; could not contain foreign
words; could not contain misleading names; and could not contain
``Riesling'' as part of the name.
On the basis on comments made to Notice No. 581, ATF made certain
changes in the procedures for approval of new grape variety names.
These were incorporated in proposed Sec. 4.93 in Notice No. 749. Since
there were no comments directed to this section, it is adopted as
proposed.
Paragraph (a) gives the procedure used to petition the Director for
approval of a grape variety name. This procedure applies in the case of
newly-developed grape varieties as well as for existing varieties which
come into use for wine production in the United States.
Paragraph (b) sets forth evidence necessary to document a newly-
developed grape variety.
Paragraph (c) sets forth standards for the approval of any grape
name. Names will not be approved if they have previously been used for
a different grape variety, if they are misleading under Sec. 4.39, or
if they contain the word ``Riesling.''
Paragraph (d) gives the Director the authority to make a case-by-
case determination whether a requested grape variety name would be
misleading. Under this paragraph, the Director has authority to make a
determination whether grape variety names containing words of
geographic significance, place names, or foreign words are misleading
under Sec. 4.39. Variety names found to be misleading would not be
approved by the Director. This section does not prohibit use of such
terms in grape variety names if their use is found by the Director not
to be misleading.
ATF notes that it is not the intent of Sec. 4.93(d) to prohibit the
use of established grape variety names which may contain terms of
geographic significance, place names, or foreign words, but rather to
discourage the use of these kinds of terms in naming new grape
varieties. This paragraph applies to grape varieties developed in the
United States, but does not apply to existing grape varieties growing
in foreign countries and which are introduced into viticultural use in
the United States.
Paragraph (e) provides that the Director will publish the list of
approved names annually in the Federal Register. This publication will
inform consumers and wineries of periodic changes to the list of
approved names without formally amending Secs. 4.91 or 4.92 every time
a name is added. From time to time, ATF will incorporate published
changes to the list into Secs. 4.91 or 4.92. ATF will not use Federal
Register publication as a means to avoid rulemaking on names which may
be controversial.
Text of Regulations
List of Prime Names, Sec. 4.91
Section 4.91 contains the list of approved prime grape variety
names. These names may be used as the label designation of American
wines. Only the prime grape name appears in the alphabetical listing
while approved synonyms and spelling variants appear in parentheses
following the prime name of the grape. Synonyms and spelling variants
may, however, be used standing alone on a label as the designation for
American grape wines. For example, ``Riesling'' is a listed as a prime
name, with the synonym ``White Riesling'' following in parentheses.
Either name may be used as a label designation for wine made from White
Riesling grapes.
[[Page 537]]
Section 4.23
Notice No. 749 contained the full text of a new Sec. 4.23, Varietal
(grape type) labeling. This text was included because ATF is removing
existing Sec. 4.23 which does not apply after December 31, 1982, and
replacing it with a new section applicable after that date. This new
section formerly appeared at Sec. 4.23a. The only significant change
between existing Sec. 4.23a and the new Sec. 4.23 is the incorporation
of a reference to new Sec. 4.28, Type designations of varietal
significance. The use on a label of a type designation of varietal
significance will require an appellation of origin to appear in direct
conjunction with it such as ``Georgia Scuppernong'' or ``California
Muscatel.''
Section 4.34, Class and Type
This section is amended to permit a type designation of varietal
significance listed in Sec. 4.28 to be used as a class and type
designation for American wine.
Spelling, Capitalization and Punctuation
The Chicago Wine School submitted a comment correcting certain
diacritical marks as they appeared in the list of prime names in
Sec. 4.91. Based on this comment, ATF has corrected the diacritical
marks for Alvarelhao and Mourvedre in Sec. 4.91.
With the effective date of this final rule, bottlers are required
to spell grape variety names as they appear in the lists in Secs. 4.91
and 4.92 since this rulemaking is intended to standardize grape variety
names to the maximum extent possible. When a variant spelling is
recognized, that spelling appears in parentheses following the prime
name. Other variant spellings will not be permitted unless approved by
the Director.
Wine World Estates supported ATF's proposal not to require upper or
lower case type for grape variety names. This position is reflected in
this section which permits wine variety names to appear either
capitalized or in lower case, and to appear in any style or type which
is conspicuous and meets the minimum type size requirements. Grape
variety names may be spelled with or without diacritical marks
(umlauts, accent marks, hyphens, or tildes). ATF believes these
policies, incorporated in the text of Sec. 4.91, will afford bottlers
maximum flexibility when designing labels.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Issues
Thomas P. Kerester, Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (``SBA''), submitted two comments to Notice No.
749. The first stated that ATF's certification under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 605, did not contain a succinct
statement explaining the reasons for the certification as required by
the Act. His second comment expressed concerns the SBA found with the
proposed rule, and he stated that adoption of a final rule could be
disadvantageous to small wineries.
Kerester noted that phasing out of some alternative grape variety
names would prohibit their continued use by small wineries. However,
some of these names are available for use by winemakers in other
nations. Hence, he stated that consumers accustomed to use of these
names would seek imported wines bearing the familiar names, to the
detriment of large and small domestic wine producers.
Next, he stated that some wineries may be forced to make
operational changes in response to the proposals. For some small
wineries, he stated this would require a $300,000 to $500,000
investment and require three to five years time. This would
disadvantage small wineries which have invested in certain grape
varieties, while larger wineries could more easily adapt to the
changes.
Finally, Kerester requested that ATF consider the extent to which
the changes would inhibit creativity and innovation, and whether the
restricting of names would constitute a precedent which could be
detrimental to small producers. As a result of these concerns, Kerester
suggested that ATF prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis before
issuing the final regulations.
ATF does not believe that consumers will be driven to the purchase
of imported wines simply because certain grape variety names are not
available to domestic wineries. There are thousands of grape variety
names used in producing wines worldwide. The current OIV list contains
71 pages of grape names and synonyms which are in use in 27 winemaking
nations. ATF believes it would be hopelessly confusing to consumers to
permit domestic winemakers to use all available synonyms for labeling
wines. Through the Committee's work and this rulemaking effort, ATF has
selected the most appropriate prime name for each specific grape used
in winemaking; the majority of other names are to be phased out. For
the most part, the names being phased out are little used by domestic
wineries and have limited consumer recognition. Some alternative names
apply to American grape varieties for which there is no imported
competition. Furthermore, due to written comments in response to both
notices, we have authorized synonyms for some grape varieties because
these names are widely used by domestic wineries and have received a
degree of consumer acceptance.
ATF has provided a lengthy period for phasing out the use of
alternative grape variety names. ATF first proposed their elimination
in Notice No. 581, published in September 1986. These names are phased
out in 1996. Names newly added to the list of alternative names may be
used until 1999. Thus, ATF has provided ample time for the conversion
of labeling and advertising to the prime grape variety names listed in
Sec. 4.91.
ATF is aware that domestic wineries compete against foreign
wineries and that grape variety names used in labeling are a factor in
such competition. In this final rule, ATF lists Riesling as a prime
grape name. This action is made in part because nearly all imported
wines are labeled simply Riesling rather than Johannisberg Riesling or
White Riesling. By listing Riesling as a prime name, ATF is placing
domestic wineries on an equal footing with foreign wineries in the
labeling of this important worldwide varietal wine. ATF has also
authorized a few other synonyms such as Pinot Grigio which is the name
used in labeling certain wines produced in foreign nations and which
compete directly against American wines made from the same grapes.
As a result of these actions, ATF does not believe that large or
small domestic wineries will lose sales of varietal wines to foreign
wineries simply because certain names are not available for use in
labeling.
No other respondents to Notice No. 749 commented that small
wineries would need to make any operational changes in response to
those proposals, nor did any other respondents allege that small
wineries would bear exorbitant costs associated with the phase out of
certain grape variety names. In conjunction with one proposal made in
Notice No. 581, numerous respondents stated they would incur large
costs and suffer market share loss due to the proposed prohibition on
use of descriptive or proprietary terms with grape variety names. ATF
removed this proposal from Notice No. 749.
Respondents to Notice No. 749 cited only one issue as raising
Regulatory Flexibility Act concerns. ATF, however, does not believe
that issue is a result of the proposals concerning grape variety names.
As documented elsewhere, growers in California have long grown a grape
identified as ``Pinot blanc.''
[[Page 538]]
Recent ampelographic evidence reveals that this grape is actually the
variety Melon. Thus, these grapes are improperly identified; moreover,
the use of the name Pinot blanc for Melon grapes is misleading to
consumers since the true Pinot blanc grape is now grown in the United
States and is used to label varietal wines. To provide accurate
identification of wine for consumers, ``Pinot blanc'' grapes in
California must be redesignated with their proper name, Melon or Melon
de Bourgogne. Redesignation of these grapes is an enforcement issue and
not a result of this rulemaking. While there are costs associated with
redesignating these grapes, ATF does not believe that these costs are a
result of this final rule.
ATF does not agree with the SBA comment that the changes in this
notice would restrict creativity and innovation in labeling wines, to
the extent such labeling is truthful and accurate. As noted elsewhere,
ATF is not restricting or prohibiting use of descriptive or proprietary
terms in conjunction with grape variety names. ATF believes use of
these terms is a primary method of innovative labeling of grape variety
names.
For the reasons elaborated above, ATF does not believe this final
rule will have a substantial economic effect on small entities. Thus,
ATF is not preparing an initial or final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
Effective Dates
With the effective date of this final rule, the name of a grape
variety may not be used as a type designation for an American wine
unless it is approved by the Director and listed in Secs. 4.91 or 4.92,
or listed in an annual Federal Register listing of grape variety names.
Grape variety names appearing on the list of alternative names at
Sec. 4.92(a) may be only used as the type designations for American
wines bottled before January 1, 1997. Grape variety names appearing at
Sec. 4.92(b) may only be used as type designations for American wines
bottled before January 1, 1999.
The procedure at Sec. 4.93 for petitioning the Director to approve
additional grape variety names is effective 30 days after publication
of this final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, this final rule will not
impose recordkeeping or reporting burdens on small entities. The
standardization of grape variety names will affect labeling and
marketing of wines both by large and small wineries, but is not
projected to have a substantial economic impact on small wineries. This
final rule will not: (1) impose, or otherwise cause, a significant
increase in the reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens
on a substantial number of small entities, or (2) have significant
secondary or incidental effects on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action, because (1) It will not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in this final rule has been
reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in
accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3504(h)) under control number 1512-0513. The estimated
annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden is 4 hours. Estimated
total annual burden per record-keeper is 2 hours. The estimated number
of respondents is two. The estimated annual frequency of responses is
one.
This final rule creates a new letterhead notice to be used by
respondents in petitioning ATF to add grape variety names to the list
of approved prime grape names in Sec. 4.91. The collection of
information in this regulation is in the following section: 27 CFR
4.93. This information is used by ATF in order to verify that the grape
variety name petitioned for is the name of the identified grape, that
the grape is a available for viticultural use in the United States, and
that the name to be used will not be misleading or deceptive. The
likely respondents are businesses and other for-profit institutions,
non-profit institutions, and small businesses or organizations.
In response to Notice No. 749, no comments regarding the proposed
information collection requirement were received either by the Chief,
Information Programs Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
or by the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate should be
directed to the Chief, Information Programs Branch, Room 3400, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20226, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503;
Attention: Desk Officer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is Charles N. Bacon, Wine,
Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, Regulatory Enforcement, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 4
Advertising, Consumer protection, Customs duties and inspections,
Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Wine.
Authority and Issuance
Accordingly, 27 CFR Part 4, Labeling and Advertising of Wine, is
amended as follows:
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for Part 4 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Par. 2. Section 4.23 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4.23 Varietal (grape type) labeling.
(a) General. The names of one or more grape varieties may be used
as the type designation of a grape wine only if the wine is also
labeled with an appellation of origin as defined in Sec. 4.25a.
(b) One variety. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, the name of a single grape variety may be used as the type
designation if not less than 75 percent of the wine is derived from
grapes of that variety, the entire 75 percent of which was grown in the
labeled appellation of origin area.
(c) Exceptions. (1) Wine made from any Vitis labrusca variety
(exclusive of hybrids with Vitis labrusca parentage) may be labeled
with the variety name if:
(i) Not less than 51 percent of the wine is derived from grapes of
the named variety;
(ii) The statement ``contains not less than 51 percent (name of
variety)'' is shown on the brand label, back label, or
[[Page 539]]
a separate strip label, (except that this statement need not appear if
75 percent or more of the wine is derived from grapes of the named
variety); and
(iii) The entire qualifying percentage of the named variety was
grown in the labeled appellation of origin area.
(2) Wine made from any variety of any species found by the Director
upon appropriate application to be too strongly flavored at 75 percent
minimum varietal content may be labeled with the varietal name if:
(i) Not less than 51 percent of the wine is derived from grapes of
that variety;
(ii) The statement ``contains not less than 51 percent (name of
variety)'' is shown on the brand label, back label, or a separate strip
label (except that this statement need not appear if 75 percent or more
of the wine is derived from grapes of the named variety); and
(iii) The entire qualifying percentage of the named variety was
grown in the labeled appellation of origin area.
(d) Two or more varieties. The names of two or more grape varieties
may be used as the type designation if:
(1) All of the grapes used to make the wine are of the labeled
varieties;
(2) The percentage of the wine derived from each variety is shown
on the label (with a tolerance of plus or minus 2 percent); and
(3)(i) If labeled with a multicounty appellation of origin, the
percentage of the wine derived from each variety from each county is
shown on the label; or
(ii) If labeled with a multistate appellation of origin, the
percentage of the wine derived from each variety from each state is
shown on the label.
(e) List of approved variety names. Effective February 7, 1996, the
name of a grape variety may be used as a type designation for an
American wine only if that name has been approved by the Director. A
list of approved grape variety names appears in Subpart J of this part.
Sec. 4.23a [Removed]
Par. 3. Section 4.23a is removed.
Par. 4. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 4.28 to read as
follows:
Sec. 4.28 Type designations of varietal significance.
The following are type designations of varietal significance for
American wine. These names may be used as type designations for
American wines only if the wine is labeled with an appellation of
origin as defined in Sec. 4.25a.
(a) Muscadine. An American wine which derives at least 75 percent
of its volume from Muscadinia rotundifolia grapes.
(b) Muscatel. An American wine which derives its predominant taste,
aroma, characteristics and at least 75 percent of its volume from any
Muscat grape source, and which meets the requirements of
Sec. 4.21(a)(3).
(c) Muscat or Moscato. An American wine which derives at least 75
percent of its volume from any Muscat grape source.
(d) Scuppernong. An American wine which derives at least 75 percent
of its volume from bronze Muscadinia rotundifolia grapes.
Par. 5. Section 4.34 is amended by revising the second sentence of
paragraph (a); by revising paragraph (b)(1); by redesignating
paragraphs (b) (2), (3), and (4), as paragraphs (b) (3), (4), and (5),
respectively; and by adding a new paragraph (b)(2), to read as follows:
Sec. 4.34 Class and type.
(a) * * * In the case of still grape wine there may appear, in lieu
of the class designation, any varietal (grape type) designation, type
designation of varietal significance, semigeneric geographic type
designation, or geographic distinctive designation, to which the wine
may be entitled. * * *
(b) * * *
(1) A varietal (grape type) designation is used under the
provisions of Sec. 4.23;
(2) A type designation of varietal significance is used under the
provisions of Sec. 4.28;
* * * * *
Par. 6. Subpart J is added to read as follows:
Subpart J--American Grape Variety Names
Sec.
4.91 List of approved prime names.
4.92 Alternative names permitted for temporary use.
4.93 Approval of grape variety names.
Subpart J--American Grape Variety Names
Sec. 4.91 List of approved prime names.
The following grape variety names have been approved by the
Director for use as type designations for American wines. When more
than one name may be used to identify a single variety of grape, the
synonym is shown in parentheses following the prime grape names. Grape
variety names may appear on labels of wine in upper or in lower case,
and may be spelled with or without the hyphens or diacritic marks
indicated in the following list.
Agwam
Albemarle
Aleatico
Alicante Bouschet
Aligote
Alvarelhao
Arneis
Aurore
Bacchus
Baco blanc
Baco noir
Barbera
Beacon
Beclan
Bellandais
Beta
Black Pearl
Blanc Du Bois
Blue Eye
Bonarda
Bountiful
Burdin 4672
Burdin 5201
Burdin 11042
Burgaw
Burger
Cabernet franc
Cabernet Pfeffer
Cabernet Sauvignon
Calzin
Campbell Early (Island Belle)
Canada Muscat
Captivator
Carignane
Carlos
Carmenere
Carmine
Carnelian
Cascade
Castel 19-637
Catawba
Cayuga White
Centurion
Chambourcin
Chancellor
Charbono
Chardonel
Chardonnay
Chasselas dore
Chelois
Chenin blanc
Chief
Chowan
Cinsaut (Black Malvoisie)
Clairette blanche
Clinton
Colombard (French Colombard)
Colobel
Cortese
Corvina
Concord
Conquistador
Couderc noir
Cowart
Creek
Cynthiana (Norton)
Dearing
De Chaunac
Delaware
Diamond
Dixie
Dolcetto
Doreen
Dulcet
Durif
[[Page 540]]
Dutchess
Early Burgundy
Early Muscat
Edelweiss
Eden
Ehrenfelser
Ellen Scott
Elvira
Emerald Riesling
Feher Szagos
Fernao Pires
Fern Munson
Flame Tokay
Flora
Florental
Folle blanche
Fredonia
Freisa
Fry
Furmint
Gamay noir
Garronet
Gewurztraminer
Gladwin 113
Glennel
Gold
Golden Isles
Golden Muscat
Grand Noir
Green Hungarian
Grenache
Grignolino
Grillo
Gros Verdot
Helena
Herbemont
Higgins
Horizon
Hunt
Iona
Isabella
Ives
James
Jewell
Joannes Seyve 12-428
Joannes Seyve 23-416
Kerner
Kay Gray
Kleinberger
LaCrosse
Lake Emerald
Lambrusco
Landal
Landot noir
Lenoir
Leon Millot
Limberger (Lemberger)
Madeline Angevine
Magnolia
Magoon
Malbec
Malvasia bianca
Marechal Foch
Marsanne
Melody
Melon de Bourgogne (Melon)
Merlot
Meunier (Pinot Meunier)
Mish
Mission
Missouri Riesling
Mondeuse (Refosco)
Montefiore
Moore Early
Morio-Muskat
Mourvedre (Mataro)
Muller-Thurgau
Munch
Muscadelle
Muscat blanc (Muscat Canelli)
Muscat du Moulin
Muscat Hamburg (Black Muscat)
Muscat of Alexandria
Muscat Ottonel
Naples
Nebbiolo
Negrette
New York Muscat
Niagara
Noah
Noble
Norton (Cynthiana)
Ontario
Orange Muscat
Palomino
Pamlico
Pedro Ximenes
Petit Verdot
Petite Sirah
Peverella
Pinotage
Pinot blanc
Pinot gris (Pinot Grigio)
Pinot noir
Precoce de Malingre
Pride
Primitivo
Rayon d'Or
Ravat 34
Ravat 51 (Vignoles)
Ravat noir
Redgate
Regale
Riesling (White Riesling)
Rkatziteli (Rkatsiteli)
Roanoke
Rosette
Roucaneuf
Rougeon
Roussanne
Royalty
Rubired
Ruby Cabernet
St. Croix
Saint Macaire
Salem
Salvador
Sangiovese
Sauvignon blanc (Fume blanc)
Scarlet
Scheurebe
Semillon
Sereksiya
Seyval (Seyval blanc)
Siegerrebe
Siegfried
Southland
Souzao
Steuben
Stover
Sugargate
Sultanina (Thomspon Seedless)
Summit
Suwannee
Sylvaner
Symphony
Syrah (Shiraz)
Swenson Red
Tarheel
Taylor
Tempranillo (Valdepenas)
Teroldego
Thomas
Thompson Seedless (Sultanina)
Tinta Madeira
Tinto cao
Tocai Friulano
Topsail
Touriga
Traminer
Trousseau
Trousseau gris
Ugni blanc (Trebbiano)
Valdiguie
Valerien
Van Buren
Veeblanc
Veltliner
Ventura
Verdelet
Verdelho
Vidal blanc
Villard blanc
Villard noir
Vincent
Viognier
Vivant
Welsch Rizling
Watergate
Welder
Yuga
Zinfandel
Sec. 4.92 Alternative names permitted for temporary use.
The following alternative names shown in the left column may be
used as the type designation for American wine in lieu of the prime
name of the grape variety shown in the right column. Alternative names
listed in the left column may only be used for wine bottled prior to
the date indicated.
(a) Wines bottled prior to January 1, 1997.
Alternative Name/Prime Name
Baco 1--Baco noir
Baco 22A--Baco blanc
Bastardo--Trousseau
Black Spanish--Lenoir
Burdin 7705--Florental
Cayuga--Cayuga White
Chancellor noir--Chancellor
Chasselas--Chasselas dore
Chevrier--Semillon
Chelois noir--Chelois
[[Page 541]]
Couderc 71-20--Couderc noir
Couderc 299-35--Muscat du Moulin
Foch--Marechal Foch
Franken Riesling--Sylvaner
Gutedel--Chasselas dore
Ives Seedling--Ives
Jacquez--Lenoir
Joannes Seyve 26-205--Chambourcin
Landot 244--Landal
Landot 4511--Landot noir
Millot--Leon Millot
Moore's Diamond--Diamond
Norton Seedling--Norton
Pfeffer Cabernet--Cabernet Pfeffer
Pineau de la Loire--Chenin blanc
Pinot Chardonnay--Chardonnay
Ravat 262--Ravat noir
Rulander--Pinot gris
Seibel 128--Salvador
Seibel 1000--Rosette
Seibel 4986--Rayon d'Or
Seibel 5279--Aurore
Seibel 5898--Rougeon
Seibel 7053--Chancellor
Seibel 8357--Colobel
Seibel 9110--Verdelet
Seibel 9549--De Chaunac
Seibel 10878--Chelois
Seibel 13053--Cascade
Seibel 14596--Bellandais
Seyve-Villard 5-276--Seyval
Seyve-Villard 12-309--Roucaneuf
Seyve-Villard 12-375--Villard blanc
Seyve-Villard 18-283--Garronet
Seyve-Villard 18-315--Villard noir
Seyve-Villard 23-410--Valerien
Sweetwater--Chasselas dore
Verdelet blanc--Verdelet
Vidal 256--Vidal blanc
Virginia Seedling--Norton
Walschriesling--Welsch Rizling
Welschriesling--Welsch Rizling
(b) Wines bottled prior to January 1, 1999.
Alternative Name/Prime Name
Cabernet--Cabernet Sauvignon
Grey Riesling--Trousseau gris
Johannisberg Riesling--Riesling
Muscat Frontignan--Muscat blanc
Muscat Pantelleria--Muscat of Alexandria
Napa Gamay--Valdiquie
Pinot Saint George--Negrette
Sauvignon vert--Muscadelle
Sec. 4.93 Approval of grape variety names.
(a) Any interested person may petition the Director for the
approval of a grape variety name. The petition may be in the form of a
letter and should provide evidence of the following--
(1) acceptance of the new grape variety,
(2) the validity of the name for identifying the grape variety,
(3) that the variety is used or will be used in winemaking, and
(4) that the variety is grown and used in the United States.
(b) For the approval of names of new grape varieties, documentation
submitted with the petition to establish the items in paragraph (a) of
this section may include--
(1) reference to the publication of the name of the variety in a
scientific or professional journal of horticulture or a published
report by a professional, scientific or winegrowers' organization,
(2) reference to a plant patent, if so patented, and
(3) information pertaining to the commercial potential of the
variety, such as the acreage planted and its location or market
studies.
(c) The Director will not approve a grape variety name if:
(1) The name has previously been used for a different grape
variety;
(2) The name contains a term or name found to be misleading under
Sec. 4.39; or
(3) The name of a new grape variety contains the term ``Riesling.''
(d) For new grape varieties developed in the United States, the
Director may determine if the use of names which contain words of
geographical significance, place names, or foreign words are misleading
under Sec. 4.39. The Director will not approve the use of a grape
variety name found to be misleading.
(e) The Director shall publish the list of approved grape variety
names at least annually in the Federal Register.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control
Number 1512-0513)
Signed: January 5, 1995.
Daniel R. Black,
Acting Director.
Approved: November 24, 1995.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff & Trade Enforcement).
Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on January 2, 1996.
[FR Doc. 96-148 Filed 1-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.