Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16671 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

Executive Order 13563 

The Department of State has 

considered this rule in light of 

Executive Order 13563, dated January 

18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation 

is consistent with the guidance therein. 

Executive Order 13175 

The Department has determined that 

this rulemaking will not have tribal 

implications, will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and will not 

preempt tribal law. Accordingly, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 126 

Arms and munitions, Exports. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter 

M, part 126 is amended as follows: 

PART 126—GENERAL POLICIES AND 

PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 126 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. 

L. 90–629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 

2780, 2791, and 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 

4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 

2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 

28205; 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; Sec. 1225, 

Pub. L. 108–375; Sec. 7089, Pub. L. 111–117; 

Sections 7045 and 7046, Pub. L. 112–74. 

■ 2. Section 126.1 is amended by 

revising paragraph (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 126.1 Prohibited exports, imports, and 

sales to or from certain countries. 

* * * * * 

(n) Sri Lanka. It is the policy of the 

United States to deny licenses or other 

approvals for exports or imports of 

defense articles and defense services 

destined for or originating in Sri Lanka, 

except that a license or other approval 

may be issued, on a case-by-case basis, 

for humanitarian demining and aerial or 

maritime surveillance. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 13, 2012. 

Rose E. Gottemoeller, 

Acting Under Secretary, Arms Control and 

International Security, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6822 Filed 3–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 4 

[Docket No. TTB–2010–0007; T.D. TTB–101; 

Re: Notice No. 110] 

RIN 1513–AB58 

Labeling Imported Wines With 

Multistate Appellations 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau is amending the wine 

labeling regulations to allow the 

labeling of imported wines with 

multistate appellations of origin. This 

amendment provides treatment for 

imported wines similar to that currently 

available to domestic wines bearing 

multistate appellations. It also provides 

consumers with additional information 

regarding the origin of these wines. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective April 23, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and 

Rulings Division; telephone (202) 453– 

1039 ext. 275, or email 

WineRegs@ttb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Wine Labeling 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

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

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

requires that these regulations, among 

other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels, and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the regulations 

promulgated under the FAA Act. 

Use of Appellations of Origin on Wine 

Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) sets forth standards promulgated 

under the FAA Act for the labeling and 

advertising of wine. Section 4.25 of the 

TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25) sets forth 

rules regarding the use of appellations 

of origin. An appellation of origin for an 

American wine is defined in § 4.25(a)(1) 

as: 

• The United States; 

• A State; 

• Two or no more than three States 

which are all contiguous; 

• A county; 

• Two or no more than three counties 

in the same State; or 

• A viticultural area as defined in 

§ 4.25(e). 

Section 4.25(b)(1) states that an 

American wine is entitled to an 

appellation of origin other than a 

multicounty or multistate appellation, 

or a viticultural area, if, among other 

requirements, at least 75 percent of the 

wine is derived from fruit or agricultural 

products grown in the appellation area 

indicated. Use of an appellation of 

origin comprising two or no more than 

three States which are all contiguous is 

allowed under § 4.25(d) if: 

• All of the fruit or other agricultural 

products were grown in the States 

indicated, and the percentage of the 

wine derived from fruit or other 

agricultural products grown in each 

State is shown on the label with a 

tolerance of plus or minus 2 percent; 

• The wine has been fully finished 

(except for cellar treatment pursuant to 

27 CFR 4.22(c) and blending that does 

not result in an alteration of class or 

type under 27 CFR 4.22(b)) in one of the 

labeled appellation States; and 

• The wine conforms to the laws and 

regulations governing the composition, 

method of manufacture, and designation 

of wines in all the States listed in the 

appellation. 

An appellation of origin for imported 

wine is defined in § 4.25(a)(2) as: 

• A country; 

• A state, province, territory, or 

similar political subdivision of a 

country equivalent to a state or county; 

or 

• A viticultural area (which is 

defined in § 4.25(e)(1)(ii) in the case of 

imported wine). 

Section 4.25(b)(2) states that an 

imported wine is entitled to an 

appellation of origin other than a 

viticultural area if: ‘‘(1) At least 75 

percent of the wine is derived from fruit 

or agricultural products grown in the 

area indicated by the appellation of 

origin; and (2) the wine conforms to the 

requirements of the foreign laws and 

regulations governing the composition, 

method of production, and designation 

of wines available for consumption 

within the country of origin.’’ There is 

no provision in the current TTB 

regulations for the use of multistate 

appellations on imported wines. 

The existing regulations regarding 

appellations of origin, including the 

provisions permitting multistate 

appellations for American wines, were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

16672 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

promulgated by TTB’s predecessor 

agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms (ATF), in T.D. ATF–53 (43 

FR 37672), published August 23, 1978. 

The preamble of T.D. ATF–53 stated 

that the regulations provided ‘‘a 

comprehensive scheme for appellation 

of origin labeling’’ resulting in ‘‘more 

accurate information being provided to 

consumers about wine origin.’’ 

According to T.D. ATF–53, multistate 

appellations were suggested by 

domestic wine industry members. ATF 

decided to allow multistate appellations 

‘‘in order to permit greater flexibility in 

appellation of origin labeling,’’ provided 

that all the grapes come from the named 

States, that the percentage of grapes 

from each State be shown on the label, 

and that the wine conform to the laws 

and regulations governing the 

composition, method of manufacture, 

and designation of wines in all of the 

States listed in the appellation. There 

was no discussion in T.D. ATF–53 

regarding multistate appellations for 

foreign wines, including why multistate 

appellations were limited to American 

wines. 

Australian Petition 

The Australian Wine and Brandy 

Corporation (AWBC), a quasigovernmental authority responsible for, 

among other activities, regulating the 

exportation of Australian wine, 

submitted a petition to TTB to amend 

§ 4.25(a)(2) to permit the labeling of 

Australian wines with multistate 

appellations. This proposal would allow 

an Australian wine imported into the 

United States to bear an appellation 

comprised of two or three Australian 

States, such as ‘‘Victoria-New South 

Wales-South Australia.’’ According to 

the AWBC petition, Australian 

regulations allow wines to be labeled 

with up to three Geographical 

Indications (officially defined wine 

regions) provided that 95 percent of the 

product is from the listed regions, the 

regions are listed in descending order of 

their proportions in the blend, and a 

minimum of 5 percent of the wine is 

from each listed region. Australian 

Geographical Indications include 

Australian States, which are roughly 

equivalent to American States. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

On November 3, 2010, TTB published 

Notice No. 110 in the Federal Register 

at 75 FR 67663 proposing to amend 

§ 4.25 to permit the use of multistate 

appellations for imported wines. The 

notice proposed, among other 

requirements, that the regions named in 

multistate appellations be contiguous 

and that 100 percent of the wine be 

derived from fruit or other agricultural 

products grown in those regions. These 

requirements mirror the current 

requirements, discussed above, for 

multistate appellations on American 

wines. 

TTB received four comments in 

response to Notice No. 110. The 

commenters were: (1) An Australian 

winery; (2) the Australian Department of 

Foreign Affairs and Trade; (3) New 

Zealand Winegrowers, a trade 

organization; and (4) the Government of 

New Zealand. All four commenters 

generally support the proposal to allow 

multistate appellation labeling on 

imported wines. However, three of the 

commenters express concerns about 

certain aspects of the proposal. 

The Australian Department of Foreign 

Affairs and Trade expresses concern 

about the requirement that all the 

named areas be contiguous, a 

requirement that duplicates that for 

American wine contained in 27 CFR 

4.25(d). The commenter states that this 

requirement would preclude Tasmania, 

an island, from being included in a 

multistate appellation. Further, in 

contrast to the 100 percent rule 

proposed by TTB, the commenter notes 

that Australian regulations allow up to 

three Australian States and Territories 

to be included on a label so long as 95 

percent of the product is from the listed 

regions and at least 5 percent of the 

wine is from each listed region. This 

commenter suggests that the United 

States engage in further discussion on 

this issue. 

The New Zealander Winegrowers 

states that contiguity would be a 

difficult requirement for them due to 

their geography because large islands 

constitute most of the country. 

Finally, the Government of New 

Zealand notes the absence of a 

‘‘contiguous’’ requirement in New 

Zealand law and also points out that its 

rules for appellations of more than one 

region require that only 85 percent of 

the wine be from the named regions 

rather than 100 percent as proposed by 

TTB. The commenter states that their 

preferred approach is that foreign wines 

with multistate appellations be labeled 

according to the rules of the country of 

origin. 

TTB Analysis 

In Notice 110, TTB stated its intention 

to provide treatment for imported wines 

bearing multistate appellations similar 

to that which is currently available for 

domestic wines bearing multistate 

appellations. The Bureau believes that 

the proposed regulatory amendments 

would achieve that goal and provide for 

fair and equitable treatment of imported 

and domestic wines, including the 

requirement questioned by some 

commenters that multistate appellations 

be contiguous for foreign wines. 

Contiguity is already required for 

domestic wines; therefore TTB is 

requiring it for foreign wines in this rule 

as well. 

The Bureau and its predecessor have 

long interpreted the term ‘‘contiguous,’’ 

as it appears in 27 CFR 4.25(a)(1)(iii), to 

include two States which actually touch 

at a point along a common boundary, or 

three States which are connected 

throughout in an unbroken sequence. 

See ATF Ruling 91–1 (1991), http:// 

www.ttb.gov/rulings/2001-2.htm. For 

example, North Dakota and South 

Dakota are contiguous, as are South 

Dakota and Nebraska. North Dakota, 

South Dakota and Nebraska are also 

contiguous for the purpose of using 

three States in a multistate appellation 

on a wine label, even though North 

Dakota and Nebraska, without South 

Dakota, are not contiguous with one 

another and could not be used together 

on a wine label. A similar interpretation 

of the term contiguous will be applied 

to foreign appellations, where two 

states, territories or other applicable 

political subdivisions should actually 

touch at a point along a common 

boundary and where three such 

subdivisions are connected throughout 

in an unbroken sequence. 

For land boundaries, TTB expects the 

contiguous requirement to operate 

equally for foreign and domestic wines. 

However, as some commenters point 

out, island geography and maritime 

borders present additional 

considerations for determining whether 

or not two states, territories or other 

applicable political subdivisions are 

contiguous. 

In the domestic context under existing 

regulations, TTB still looks for the two 

States separated by water to actually 

touch at a point along their common 

maritime border. For example, the 

States of Rhode Island and New York 

are considered contiguous (although 

separated by water and sharing no 

common land boundary), because they 

actually touch at a point along a 

common maritime border in Block 

Island Sound; whereas the States of 

Indiana and Wisconsin are not 

considered contiguous, even though 

also separated by a body of water 

common to both (Lake Michigan). In the 

latter example, Indiana and Wisconsin 

are not contiguous because they do not 

actually touch at a point along a 

common maritime border within Lake 

Michigan, as the maritime borders of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16673 

States of Illinois and Michigan intervene 

instead. 

In the international context, after 

consultation with the U.S. Department 

of State, TTB recognizes that maritime 

borders within the territorial seas of a 

nation are determined by the domestic 

laws of that nation and that subnational 

(e.g., state) borders are delineated by 

other nations in myriad ways or for a 

variety of purposes that may differ from 

how maritime borders are delineated in 

the United States. (The United States 

grants to its coastal States a right to the 

territorial seas of the United States to a 

certain limit, thereby establishing 

common maritime borders between 

States similar to those on land). TTB 

believes it would be inappropriate to 

strictly apply its interpretation of the 

term contiguous for domestic wines, 

particularly as to the issue as to what 

constitutes a common maritime border, 

to foreign wines without considering the 

position of the foreign nation 

concerning its own subnational 

maritime borders. Therefore, foreign 

states, territories, or other applicable 

political subdivisions may be 

considered contiguous, for purposes of 

this rule, so long as the label applicant, 

in conjunction with the government of 

the country of origin, can demonstrate 

to TTB that the political subdivisions 

sharing a common maritime border 

actually touch at a point along such 

border for a nationally- and/or 

internationally-recognized purpose (e.g., 

a common maritime border for fishing 

or mineral rights jurisdiction). 

TTB will consider the facts and 

evidence submitted by the label 

applicant and government of the 

country of origin on a case-by-case basis 

to establish whether the multiple 

appellations are contiguous. Foreign 

governments are also encouraged to 

provide TTB with information 

demonstrating the contiguity of their 

various states, territories, or other 

applicable political subdivisions, in 

order to assist TTB with its label review 

in advance of TTB’s receipt of label 

applications that would be subject to 

this requirement. Lack of information 

supporting the contiguity of a multistate 

appellation could result in TTB having 

to reject a label application. 

TTB Finding 

For the reasons set forth above, TTB 

believes it would be appropriate to 

adopt the proposed regulatory changes 

contained in Notice 110. In addition, 

TTB has noted a technical error in 

§ 4.25(a)(1)(v): The word ‘‘States’’ 

should be singular, not plural. 

Accordingly, this document removes the 

second ‘‘s’’ from ‘‘States’’ to correct the 

error. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

TTB certifies under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.) that this final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The amendments merely provide 

optional, additional flexibility in wine 

labeling decisions. Accordingly, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

This final rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 

Drafting Information 

Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this 

document. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 4 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Customs duties 

and inspection, Imports, Labeling, 

Packaging and containers, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Trade 

practices, Wine. 

Amendments to the Regulations 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB amends 27 CFR part 4, 

Labeling and Advertising of Wine, as set 

forth below: 

PART 4—LABELING AND 

ADVERTISING OF WINE 

■ 1. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 4 continues to read as follows: 

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

noted. 

■ 2. Section 4.25 is amended: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1)(v), by removing 

the word ‘‘States’’ and adding in its 

place the word ‘‘State’’; 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(2), the 

introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), 

and paragraph (d); and 

■ c. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), by removing 

the words ‘‘(other than an appellation 

defined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or 

(a)(2)(ii))’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘(other than an appellation 

defined in paragraph (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), 

or (a)(2)(iii))’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 4.25 Appellations of origin. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Imported wine. An appellation of 

origin for imported wine is: 

(i) A country; 

(ii) A state, province, territory, or 

similar political subdivision of a 

country equivalent to a state or county; 

(iii) Two or no more than three states, 

provinces, territories, or similar political 

subdivisions of a country equivalent to 

a state which are all contiguous; or 

(iv) A viticultural area (as defined in 

paragraph (e) of this section). 

(b) * * * 

(2) Imported wine. An imported wine 

is entitled to an appellation of origin 

other than a multistate appellation, or a 

viticultural area, if: 

* * * * * 

(d) Multistate appellations. (1) 

American wine. An appellation of origin 

comprising two or no more than three 

States which are all contiguous may be 

used, if: 

(i) All of the fruit or other agricultural 

products were grown in the States 

indicated, and the percentage of the 

wine derived from fruit or other 

agricultural products grown in each 

State is shown on the label with a 

tolerance of plus or minus 2 percent; 

(ii) The wine has been fully finished 

(except for cellar treatment pursuant to 

§ 4.22(c), and blending that does not 

result in an alteration of class or type 

under § 4.22(b)) in one of the labeled 

appellation States; and 

(iii) The wine conforms to the laws 

and regulations governing the 

composition, method of manufacture, 

and designation of wines in all of the 

States listed in the appellation. 

(2) Imported wine. An appellation of 

origin comprising two or no more than 

three states, provinces, territories, or 

similar political subdivisions of a 

country equivalent to a state which are 

all contiguous may be used if: 

(i) All of the fruit or other agricultural 

products were grown in the states, 

provinces, territories, or similar political 

subdivisions of a country equivalent to 

a state indicated, and the percentage of 

the wine derived from fruit or other 

agricultural products grown in each 

state, province, territory, or political 

subdivision equivalent to a state is 

shown on the label with a tolerance of 

plus or minus 2 percent; and 

(ii) The wine conforms to the 

requirements of the foreign laws and 

regulations governing the composition, 

method of production, and designation 

of wines available for consumption 

within the country of origin. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

16674 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Signed: July 27, 2011. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: September 29, 2011. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6930 Filed 3–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2011–0007; T.D. TTB–102; 

Re: Notice No. 121] 

RIN 1513–AB82 

Establishment of the Wisconsin Ledge 

Viticultural Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury Decision. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau establishes the 

approximately 3,800 square-mile 

‘‘Wisconsin Ledge’’ viticultural area in 

northeast Wisconsin. TTB designates 

viticultural areas to allow vintners to 

better describe the origin of their wines 

and to allow consumers to better 

identify wines they may purchase. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 23, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; 

phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

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

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

provides that these regulations should, 

among other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels, and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the FAA Act 

pursuant to section 1111(d) of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The 

Secretary has delegated various 

authorities through Treasury 

Department Order 120–01 (Revised), 

dated January 21, 2003, to the TTB 

Administrator to perform the functions 

and duties in the administration and 

enforcement of this law. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) allows the establishment of 

definitive viticultural areas and the use 

of their names as appellations of origin 

on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth 

standards for the preparation and 

submission of petitions for the 

establishment or modification of 

American viticultural areas and lists the 

approved American viticultural areas. 

Definition 

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

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

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region having 

distinguishing features as described in 

part 9 of the regulations and a name and 

a delineated boundary as established in 

part 9 of the regulations. These 

designations allow vintners and 

consumers to attribute a given quality, 

reputation, or other characteristic of a 

wine made from grapes grown in an area 

to its geographic origin. The 

establishment of viticultural areas 

allows vintners to describe more 

accurately the origin of their wines to 

consumers and helps consumers to 

identify wines they may purchase. 

Establishment of a viticultural area is 

neither an approval nor an endorsement 

by TTB of the wine produced in that 

area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations outlines the procedure for 

proposing an American viticultural area 

and provides that any interested party 

may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area. 

Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 

CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for 

petitions for the establishment or 

modification of American viticultural 

areas. Such petitions must include the 

following: 

• Evidence that the area within the 

proposed viticultural area boundary is 

nationally or locally known by the 

viticultural area name specified in the 

petition; 

• An explanation of the basis for 

defining the boundary of the proposed 

viticultural area; 

• A narrative description of the 

features of the proposed viticultural area 

that affect viticulture, such as climate, 

geology, soils, physical features, and 

elevation, that make the proposed 

viticultural area distinctive and 

distinguish it from adjacent areas 

outside the proposed viticultural area 

boundary; 

• A copy of the appropriate United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) 

showing the location of the proposed 

viticultural area, with the boundary of 

the proposed viticultural area clearly 

drawn thereon; and 

• A detailed narrative description of 

the proposed viticultural area boundary 

based on USGS map markings. 

Wisconsin Ledge Petition 

TTB received a petition from Steven 

J. DeBaker of Trout Springs Winery in 

Green Leaf, Wisconsin, to establish the 

‘‘Wisconsin Ledge’’ American 

viticultural area. The proposed 

viticultural area contains approximately 

3,800 square miles, with approximately 

320 acres of vineyards in at least 14 

commercially-producing vineyards and 

wineries, and an additional 70 acres 

projected to be planted within the next 

two years. A map that was submitted 

with the petition shows that the 

commercial vineyards and wineries are 

geographically dispersed throughout the 

proposed viticultural area. The 

proposed Wisconsin Ledge viticultural 

area lies in Door, Kewaunee, 

Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, 

Washington, Dodge, Fond du Lac, 

Calumet, Outagamie, and Brown 

Counties of northeast Wisconsin and 

does not overlap, or otherwise involve, 

any existing or proposed viticultural 

area. 

The proposed Wisconsin Ledge 

viticultural area is largely surrounded 

by water, including Lake Winnebago, 

the Fox River, Green Bay, and Lake 

Michigan. According to the petition, the 

region is heavily affected by the lasting 

effects of ancient glacial activity and the 

moderating marine influence of the 

surrounding bodies of water. 

TTB published Notice No. 121 in the 

Federal Register on October 14, 2011 

(76 FR 63852), proposing to establish 

the Wisconsin Ledge viticultural area. In 

the notice, TTB summarized the 

evidence from the petition regarding the 

name, boundary, and distinguishing 

features for the proposed viticultural 

area. The distinguishing features of the 

proposed area are its geology, 

geography, climate, hydrology, and 

soils. The notice also included a 

comparison of the distinguishing 

features to the surrounding area. For a 

description of the evidence relating to 

the name, boundary, and distinguishing 

features of the proposed viticultural 

area, see Notice No. 121. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES