Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16479

requirements of this AD. For engines that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe

condition has not been eliminated, the

request should include specific proposed

actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent cylinder head separation,

inflight loss of power, possible engine failure,

and fire, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 5 hours Time in Service (TIS)

after the effective date of this AD, for engines

with 300 or more hours TIS since installation

of the affected cylinder assemblies on the

effective date of this AD, remove from service

affected cylinder assemblies and replace with

serviceable parts.

(b) Within 5 hours TIS after the effective

date of this AD, for engines with 245 hours

but less than 300 hours TIS since installation

of the affected cylinder assemblies on the

effective date of this AD, accomplish the

following:

(1) Perform an initial dye penetrant

inspection for cracks in accordance with

Superior Air Parts, Inc. Mandatory Service

Bulletin (MSB) No. 96–002, Revision A,

dated December 17, 1996, or remove and

replace with a serviceable part.

(2) Thereafter, perform repetitive dye

penetrant inspections for cracks at intervals

not to exceed 25 hours TIS since last

inspection, in accordance with Superior Air

Parts, Inc. MSB No. 96–002, Revision A,

dated December 17, 1996, or remove and

replace with a serviceable part.

(3) Prior to further flight, remove from

service cylinder assemblies found cracked

during dye penetrant inspections and replace

with serviceable parts.

(4) Upon accumulating 300 hours TIS since

installation of the affected cylinder

assemblies, prior to further flight remove

from service affected cylinder assemblies and

replace with serviceable parts.

(c) For engines with less than 245 hours

TIS since installation of the affected cylinder

assemblies on the effective date of this AD,

accomplish the following:

(1) Upon accumulating 250 hours TIS since

installation of the affected cylinder

assemblies, perform an initial dye penetrant

inspection for cracks in accordance with

Superior Air Parts, Inc. MSB No. 96–002,

Revision A, dated December 17 , 1996, or

remove and replace with a serviceable part.

(2) Thereafter, perform repetitive dye

penetrant inspections for cracks at intervals

not to exceed 25 hours TIS since last

inspection, in accordance with Superior Air

Parts, Inc. MSB No. 96–002, Revision A,

dated December 17 , 1996, or remove and

replace with a serviceable part.

(3) Prior to further flight, remove from

service cracked cylinder assemblies and

replace with serviceable parts.

(4) Upon accumulating 300 hours TIS since

installation of the affected cylinder

assemblies, prior to further flight remove

from service affected cylinder assemblies and

replace with serviceable parts.

(d) For the purpose of this AD, a

serviceable part is defined as a cylinder

assembly other than a Superior Air Parts, Inc.

PMA part number SL54000 –A1, –A2, –A2P,

–A20P, and A21P replacement cylinder

assembly, with serial numbers 001 through

650.

(e) 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, Special

Certification Office. The request should be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Special Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Special

Certification Office.

(f) Special flight permits in accordance

with Sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) may not be issued.

(g) The actions required by this AD shall

be accomplished in accordance with the

following Superior Air Parts, Inc. MSB:

Document No. Pages Revision Date

96–002 ............................................................................................................................................... 1–4 A December 17, 1996.

Total pages 4.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Superior Air Parts, Inc., 14280 Gillis

Road, Dallas, TX 75244–3792; telephone

(800) 400–5949, fax (972) 702–8723. Copies

may be inspected at the FAA, New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,

MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(h) This amendment becomes effective

April 22, 1997, to all persons except those

persons to whom it was made immediately

effective by priority letter AD 97–01–04,

issued December 27, 1996, which contained

the requirements of this amendment.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

March 26, 1997.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8476 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 4

[T.D. ATF–388; Ref. Notice Nos. 581, 749

and 793]

RIN 1512–AB08

Gamay Beaujolais Wine Designation

(92F–042P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Department of the

Treasury.

ACTION: Treasury Decision, Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

wine labeling regulations to allow use of

the term ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on

American wine labels for a period of 10

years. From the time this final rule takes

effect until the end of the phase-out

period, a wine which derives not less

than 75 percent of its volume from Pinot

noir grapes, Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’)

grapes, or a combination of both

varieties, may use ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

as a type designation of varietal

significance. However, from January 1,

1999, until the end of the phase-out

period, brand labels using the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ must

also bear in direct conjunction

therewith the varietal names Pinot noir

and/or Valdiguie ́, along with the

following statement on the brand or

back label: ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais is made

from at least 75 percent Pinot noir and/

or Valdiguie ́ grapes.’’ After the

expiration of the phase-out period, the

term ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ will no longer

be recognized as a designation for

American wines.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective May 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas B. Busey, Wine, Beer and

Spirits Regulation Branch, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20226, Telephone:

(202) 927–8230.
16480 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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, ATF, 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). Section 4.23(b) provides

that the name of a single grape variety

may be used as the type designation of

a grape wine if the wine is labeled with

an appellation of origin, and 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.

Section 4.23(d) provides that the names

of two or more grape varieties may be

used as the type designation for a wine

if all of the grapes used to make the

wine are of the labeled varieties, and the

percentage of the wine derived from

each variety is shown on the label (with

a tolerance of plus or minus 2 percent).

Further rules are mandated for the use

of varietal designations for wines

labeled with multicounty or multistate

appellations of origin.

Section 4.28 of the regulations was

added by T.D. ATF-370, 61 FR 522

(1996). This section contains a category

of type designations of varietal

significance for American wines. These

names designate wines which have

some varietal basis, but which do not

meet the requirements for use of a single

varietal designation. These designations

apply to wines which are composed of

a mixture of specific grape varieties.

ATF believes these wines demonstrate

characteristics of the grape varieties

used to produce them and their names

imply some grape variety source. This

type designation was established in

regulations first promulgated in 1996.

Section 4.34(a) requires that the class

and type be stated in conformity with

the standards of identity in Subpart C,

and in the case of still wine, there may

appear in lieu of the class designation

any varietal (grape type) designation,

type designation of varietal significance,

semigeneric geographic designation, or

geographic distinctive designation to

which the wine is entitled.

Additionally, § 4.34(b)(1) provides that

an appellation of origin disclosing the

true origin of the wine shall appear in

direct conjunction with and in lettering

substantially as conspicuous as the class

and type designation if a grape type

(varietal) designation is used under the

provisions of § 4.23 or a type

designation of varietal significance is

used under the provisions of § 4.28.

History of Gamay Beaujolais Name

Beaujolais is a region in France

known for producing a distinctive type

of wine. The ‘‘Gamay noir a jus blanc’’

(otherwise known as the ‘‘Gamay’’) is

the predominant grape variety used in

the production of Beaujolais wine.

In the 1940s, a grape grown in

California was identified by researchers

at the University of California at Davis

(UCD) as the ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ grape.

At that time, it was mistakenly thought

that this was the same Gamay grape

grown in Beaujolais, France. For

decades, American wines made from

this grape were labeled as ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais.’’

In the late 1960’s, researchers at UCD

decided that the grape known as ‘‘Napa

Gamay’’ was the true Gamay grape, and

that the ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ vine was

actually a clone of Pinot noir. The

Foundation Plant Material Service

(FPMS) at UCD (a service operated in

cooperation with UCD which makes

virus-free, true type plant material

available to the industry), identified the

Gamay Beaujolais vine as a clonal

selection of the Pinot noir variety.

Notwithstanding the conclusion that

the ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ grape was not

related to the true Gamay grape variety,

ATF’s predecessor agency decided to

allow wines produced from both the

Napa Gamay and Pinot noir grape

varieties to be labeled as ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ pending a final resolution

of the many controversies related to the

names of grape varieties which had been

erroneously identified in the United

States. In the 1980s, ATF began the

process of evaluating many of these

varietal names, in order to formulate an

authoritative list of grape varieties used

to produce American wines.

Winegrape Varietal Names Advisory

Committee

In 1982, ATF established the

Winegrape Varietal Names Advisory

Committee (referred to as the

‘‘Committee’’) to conduct an

examination of the hundreds of grape

variety names and synonyms in use in

the United States. (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 the names of grapes used in

producing American wines. The

Committee’s final report, presented to

the Director in September 1984,

contained the Committee’s findings

regarding use of the most appropriate

names for domestic winegrape varieties.

The final report of the Winegrape

Varietal Names Advisory Committee

concluded as follows:

At present, there are substantial plantings of

two varieties which include the name

Gamay. Neither are the true Gamay (or one

of its several clones) grown in Europe. Gamay

Beaujolais is a clone of Pinot Noir, and Napa

Gamay is an as yet unidentified variety,

which is neither Gamay nor Pinot noir.

The Committee accepted the

recommendation of its subcommittee

that the names ‘‘Napa Gamay’’ and

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ should be phased

out. They noted that since Napa Gamay

and Gamay Beaujolais (Pinot noir) were

two distinctively different varieties,

wine made from a blend of both grapes

should not be labeled with one varietal

designation. Id. at 27–29. The

Subcommittee on Gamay Beaujolais

actually recommended that ‘‘the wine

known as ‘Gamay Beaujolais’ be

considered a limited semi-generic wine

produced from the grape variety Pinot

noir and the grape currently known as

‘Napa’ Gamay, either singly or in

combination with each other.’’ The

Committee’s Final Report stated that the

Committee had ‘‘considered a

suggestion that the term Gamay

Beaujolais be allowed for use on

domestic wine labels as a ‘semi-generic’

non-varietal designation,’’ but made no

recommendation on that issue due to

the conclusion that ‘‘the suggestion is

outside the mandate of the Committee,

which is limited solely to varietal

names.’’ The Committee did, however,

note this suggestion for ‘‘possible

consideration’’ by ATF.

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). That

notice proposed the addition of subpart

J, American Grape Variety Names to part

4. The new subpart was to contain a list

of every grape varietal name authorized

for use in the production of American

wines. ATF received 156 written

comments in response to this notice.

With respect to use of the name

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais,’’ Notice No. 581

proposed that it should be permitted as

an alternate grape variety name for

future use only for a period of five years.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16481

During the period of its continued use,

Notice No. 581 proposed that the actual

name of the grape, either Pinot noir or

Napa Gamay, should appear on the label

in direct conjunction with the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais.’’ After

the passage of five years, Gamay

Beaujolais could no longer be used as a

label designation.

Comments to Notice No. 581

The proposal to phase out use of

Gamay Beaujolais proved controversial.

Only a few respondents concurred with

ATF’s proposal, while 27 respondents

objected to some part of the proposal.

Many commenters suggested that

Gamay Beaujolais was well known to

consumers as a light, red, young, fruity

wine, and that consumers did not view

it as a varietal wine. Some commenters

stated that consumer recognition of

Gamay Beaujolais was good; that the

wine was popular; that consumers knew

what they were buying, and that

elimination of the designation would

serve no consumer purpose. Winery

proprietors and grape growers cited the

large market for this wine and argued

that elimination of the designation

would have a severe economic impact

on their businesses.

Louis P. Martini, a member of the

Winegrape Names Advisory Committee,

submitted a comment in opposition to

the proposed 5-year phase-out period.

He suggested that ‘‘[t]o remove this

name from wine labels would

effectively remove this wine from the

market.’’ Other industry members

advocated a longer phase-out period, or

objected to the phase-out altogether. On

the other hand, one consumer advocate

suggested that five years was too long a

phase-out period, and the French

Government opposed any recognition of

the term ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ in the

regulations.

Notice No. 749

Because the comments on Notice No.

581 varied widely in their approach to

the proposals, and because a lengthy

period of time had passed since the

issuance of Notice No. 581, ATF

decided to open the issue of grape

varietal names to additional public

comment. Thus, on September 3, 1992,

ATF issued Notice No. 749 (57 FR

40380), seeking comment on new and

revised proposals relating to grape

variety names.

By this time, UCD had determined

that the grape known as ‘‘Napa Gamay’’

was not the Gamay grape of France. The

‘‘Napa Gamay’’ grape variety was

positively identified by the FPMS as

Valdiguie ́, although it is not widely

known by this name in the United

States. In Notice No. 749, ATF proposed

that ‘‘Napa Gamay’’ be considered a

synonym for the prime name Valdiguie ́

and requested comments on whether

Napa Gamay should be phased out in

the future. ATF also announced that the

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ issue would be the

subject of a separate notice of proposed

rulemaking.

Notice No. 793

On April 5, 1994, ATF published

Notice No. 793 (59 FR 15878) in the

Federal Register proposing specific

conditions for the use of Gamay

Beaujolais as a wine label designation.

The 90-day comment period closed on

July 5, 1994.

ATF stated that the evidence

considered by ATF established that

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ was not a true

varietal name, and that the two grape

varieties which have been called

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ in this country are

not Gamay grapes. Thus, ATF

concluded that Gamay Beaujolais

should not be listed in subpart J of 27

CFR part 4 as a grape variety name. On

the basis of the comments to Notice Nos.

581 and 749 and current trade and

consumer recognition of the name, ATF

stated that many consumers viewed

Gamay Beaujolais as a type of red wine

which may be described as light and

fruity. However, ATF also believed that

many consumers associated the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ with a

wine produced from the Pinot noir or

Napa Gamay grape varieties. Therefore,

instead of phasing out the use of the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ as

proposed in Notice No. 581, ATF

proposed in Notice No. 793 to

specifically allow the continued use of

Gamay Beaujolais under § 4.34, relating

to class and type designations. Section

4.34 was selected for placement of the

Gamay Beaujolais designation because

§ 4.28 and the type designations of

varietal significance it established did

not exist in 1994.

As previously discussed, existing

regulations provided that a wine was

not entitled to a varietal type

designation unless 75 percent of its

volume is derived from grapes of that

variety. Accordingly, ATF proposed to

allow the use of the designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ only where the wine

derived not less than 75 percent of its

volume from Pinot noir grapes or Napa

Gamay grapes. Wine labels bearing the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ would

also have been required to bear a

varietal type designation (Pinot noir or

Napa Gamay) and an appellation of

origin. Furthermore, the proposed

amendment to § 4.34 specified that the

optional designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ must appear in direct

conjunction with the varietal type

designation and the appellation of

origin, and must appear in lettering of

substantially the same size and kind.

T.D. ATF–370

On January 8, 1996, ATF issued T.D.

ATF–370 (61 FR 522), a final rule on the

issue of grape variety names for

American wines. ATF issued a

comprehensive list of grape variety

names approved for use on American

wine labels. The final rule took effect on

February 7, 1996. The name ‘‘Napa

Gamay’’ is listed as a synonym for

‘‘Valdiguie ́ ’’; however, ‘‘Napa Gamay’’

may only be used on labels of wines

bottled prior to January 1, 1999. The

name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ was not

listed as an approved varietal name.

Instead, the preamble noted that ATF

has made Gamay Beaujolais the subject

of a separate rulemaking proceeding.

The preamble also stated that ‘‘[i]n 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.’’ 61 FR

at 532.

Comments to Notice No. 793

There were 237 comments submitted

in response to Notice No. 793. 211

comments were in favor of allowing the

continued use of the designation

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on wine labels,

while 26 were opposed to any use of

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on American wine

labels.

Comments in Favor of Proposal

The Wine Institute, American

Vintners Association, winegrape

growers associations, wine grape

growers, wine producers, and wine

wholesalers submitted comments in

favor of allowing continued use of

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on American wine

labels. However, many of these

commenters took issue with some of

ATF’s proposals.

Some commenters suggested that the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ had

lost any varietal significance, and it

should not be restricted to wines made

from Pinot noir or Napa Gamay grapes.

Thus, for example, the American

Vintners Association suggested that any

light, red, young, fruity wine should be

allowed the designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ as long as the actual grape

variety is shown on the label.

The vast majority of comments

received by ATF came from

wholesalers, vineyard proprietors, and

wineries who supported the recognition
16482 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ in the

regulations. However, these commenters

opposed ATF’s proposal that a wine

labeled with the designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ must derive 75 percent of its

volume from either the Napa Gamay or

Pinot noir grape variety. The comments

noted that the longstanding industry

practice was to blend the two grape

varieties in the production of ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ wine, and that the blend of

the two distinct grape varieties should

be considered as meeting the 75 percent

requirement found in the regulations.

Most of the comments in favor of

allowing a blend of Pinot noir and

‘‘Napa Gamay’’ grapes also brought up

the issue of whether varietal percentages

should be required on the label. ATF

did not propose such a requirement in

Notice No. 793, because the regulations

at § 4.23 do not require a listing of

percentages where 75 percent of the

wine is derived from a single grape

variety. However, under § 4.23(d),

percentages must be listed on the label

whenever two or more grape varieties

are used as the type designation for a

wine.

The commenters who raised this issue

were opposed to listing the percentage

of grape varieties on the label. Instead,

they suggested that the varietal names

‘‘Pinot noir’’ and ‘‘Napa Gamay’’ be

listed on the label in descending order

by volume, without requiring that the

percentages be shown. The Wine

Institute suggested that this option

would allow ‘‘the broadest amount of

winemaking flexibility in achieving the

Gamay Beaujolais style and minimizing

consumer confusion that could result

from a multiple varietal label.’’

While many commenters in favor of

retention of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ stated that consumer

recognition of this wine was good, none

of the comments offered specific

evidence, such as consumer surveys, on

what consumers understood to be the

varietal significance of the term. The

Wine Institute submitted a label dating

back to at least 1950, showing that the

use of this name on American wine

labels went back several decades, and

submitted evidence tending to show

that consumers had positive views

about ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines.

However, some of this evidence actually

tended to support the conclusion that

some American consumers consider

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ to be a style of

wine similar to French Beaujolais

wines. This evidence did not support

ATF’s premise in Notice No. 793 that

American consumers were aware that

wines labeled as ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

were made from Pinot noir or Valdiguie ́

grapes.

Comments in Opposition to Use of

Gamay Beaujolais

Of the 26 comments received in

opposition to the continued use of

Gamay Beaujolais on wine labels, 13

were from importers and 4 from foreign

producers-exporters. The remaining 9

comments are discussed in more detail

below.

Most of these commenters strongly

opposed the use of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

on American wine labels, stating that

American wineries were continuing to

use the term because they wanted to

take unfair advantage of the Beaujolais

name. Secondly, these commenters

believed that use of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ even when modified with a

geographical appellation of origin and a

varietal type designation, was highly

misleading and confusing to consumers,

since it was being used to describe a

wine that was not made from Gamay

grapes, and did not originate in

Beaujolais, France. However, like the

comments supporting the proposal,

none of the opposing comments

provided specific evidence, such as

consumer surveys, on the consumer’s

perception of the term. Finally, it was

argued that continued use of the term

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on American wine

labels constituted a violation of ATF

regulations and the United States

Government’s commitment to prevent

any erosion of protected appellations of

origin.

The Delegation of the Commission of

the European Communities (now the

European Union) commented that the

proposal would confuse and mislead

consumers, since it allows ‘‘the use of

the optional designation ‘Gamay

Beaujolais’ for wine which is recognized

by BATF as originating neither from a

true ‘Gamay’ grape variety nor from the

‘Beaujolais’ area of France.’’ Their

comment also argued that any

recognition of the designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ for American wines would

violate Item III of the Exchange of

Letters between the EC and the United

States dated July 26, 1983, as well as

provisions of the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property (TRIPS). This

argument was based on the premise that

the proposed rule would erode

protection of the nongeneric designation

‘‘Beaujolais.’’ Instead, the comment

suggested implementing the shortest

possible transition period for allowing

the term pending its outright

prohibition. The Comite Vins, the

European Community association

representing the Community’s entire

wine industry and trade, and the

Federation des Exportateurs de Vins et

Spiritueux de France (FEVS) filed

similar comments in opposition to the

proposed rule.

The Agricultural Attache from the

French Embassy also made similar

arguments, and suggested that the

proposed rule would essentially create a

new semigeneric designation to the

detriment of a French appellation of

origin already recognized by U.S.

regulations.

Separate comments from the Union

Viticole du Beaujolais (representing

French Beaujolais growers) and the

Federation Des Syndicats de

Negociants-Eleveurs de Grande

Bourgogne (representing Beaujolais and

Burgundy wine merchants) strongly

opposed the proposed rule as

misleading to consumers and in

violation of U.S. international

commitments.

A comment on behalf of the Deutscher

Weinfonds (DW), stated that while the

DW had no direct interest in this matter,

it felt strongly, ‘‘as a matter of principle,

that distinctive geographical

designations, and distinctive grape

varietals, particularly those recognized

by BATF in its regulations, should in no

way be diluted or compromised.’’

The National Association of Beverage

Importers, Inc. (NABI), a trade

association representing importers of

wine, beer, and distilled spirits, filed a

comment representing the views of the

majority of its members. NABI stated

that the Brown-Forman Beverage

Company and Heublein, Inc. did not

agree with its comment. NABI stated

that use of the designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ in accordance with the

proposed rule was misleading to

consumers, since it would be used to

designate a wine produced from grapes

which were not Gamay grapes, and

since the product had nothing to do

with the protected geographical

designation ‘‘Beaujolais.’’ NABI argued

that the proposed erosion of the term

‘‘Beaujolais’’ was in violation of

international agreements, as well as

ATF’s own regulations, since

‘‘Beaujolais’’ is recognized as a

distinctive designation in 27 CFR

4.24(c). NABI recommended that ATF

adopt its earlier proposal to phase out

the use of the term over a five-year

period commencing with the

publication of the final rule.

Finally, the law firm of Ropes & Gray

submitted a comment on behalf of its

clients the Institut National des

Appellations d’Origine (‘‘INAO’’) and

the Union Interprofessionelle des Vins

du Beaujolais (‘‘UIVB’’). Shortly prior to

publication of Notice No. 793, the INAO

and UIVB had petitioned ATF to

eliminate recognition of the designation
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16483

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on American wine

labels. Their comment in response to

Notice No. 793 argued that recognition

of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ as a labeling

term would erode the protection of the

distinctive designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ and would essentially

create a new semigeneric wine

designation. The INAO and UIVB

argued that there is no objective

evidence that establishes that

consumers are not misled by use of the

labeling designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais.’’ They suggested that even if

an accurate appellation of origin and

varietal designation appeared on the

label in conjunction with the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais,’’

consumers might still erroneously

believe that the wine is made from a

combination of, for example, Pinot noir

and Gamay grapes, or that consumers

will still be misled into believing that

the wine is similar to French Beaujolais

wines.

The INAO and UIVB also argued that

ATF’s recognition of the name ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ is in violation of the

international obligations of the United

States, and stated that such recognition

would undermine the protection

accorded the distinctive name

‘‘Beaujolais,’’ and create a new

semigeneric name.

Discussion of Comments

In Notice No. 793, ATF proposed the

continuance of the name ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ on American wine labels,

premised on the belief that American

consumers had come to associate this

term with a wine made from Pinot noir

and Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’) grapes.

ATF recognized that the use of this term

to designate these grapes arose from an

initial classification error; however,

ATF reasoned that if consumer

recognition of the term was based on its

new secondary meaning in the United

States, then the term would not mislead

the American consumer if used in direct

conjunction with an appellation of

origin, as well as a varietal type

designation. Thus, the most important

issue in determining whether the

regulations should continue to authorize

use of the name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on

American wine labels was whether

American consumers were aware that

the term has a secondary meaning

referring to wines made from Pinot noir

and Valdiguie ́ grapes.

Many of the commenters in

opposition to Notice No. 793 challenged

ATF’s assumption that consumers

understood the true varietal basis of

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines. While the

commenters in favor of continuing the

use of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ stated that

there was good consumer recognition of

the term, they did not provide evidence

that many American wineries had

voluntarily disclosed the true grape

varieties in ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines

on the label. Without this labeling

information, the fact that the

designation had appeared on American

wine labels for decades did not establish

that consumers knew that the wines

were actually made from Pinot noir or

Napa Gamay grapes.

Upon careful consideration of the

comments, ATF has concluded that

none of the commenters were able to

provide any competent and reliable

consumer perception evidence showing

that the average American consumer

was knowledgeable enough to recognize

that ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ was a wine

made from the Pinot noir and ‘‘Napa

Gamay’’ grape varieties. In fact, some of

the commenters in favor of the proposed

rule (such as the American Vintners

Association) actually took a contrary

position on this matter, and argued that

American consumers did not associate

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ with a particular

grape variety or varieties. These

commenters suggested that the

American consumer actually associated

the designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

with a style of wine making.

While the comments (of both those

supporting and opposing the proposal)

did not provide direct evidence of

consumer understanding of the varietal

significance of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ ATF believes that there is

a legitimate basis for its belief that the

wine industry and knowledgeable

consumers associate the term with a

wine produced from Pinot noir and/or

Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’) grapes. It is

ATF’s understanding that the term

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ is not used to

designate French Beaujolais wines or

other French wines made from Gamay

noir grapes. While wine experts thus

immediately know that the term

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ is used to refer to

a wine which is not made from Gamay

grapes, it is not apparent whether the

average American consumer is as

knowledgeable on this issue. For

example, in Jancis Robinson’s Vines,

Grapes, and Wines, (Alfred A. Knopf,

New York 1986) at 227, under the listing

of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais,’’ the true

meaning of this name is explained in a

forthright manner, although the author

goes on to state that ‘‘these facts are not

widely known among ordinary wine

drinkers.’’

Because the comments did not shed

much light on the issue of consumer

perception, ATF reviewed articles in the

popular press to see whether these

articles provided consumers with

accurate information about the identity

of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines. Many of

these articles indicated that

knowledgeable wine writers were aware

of the varietal composition of ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ wines. For example, an

article by Gerald Boyd in the July 15,

1992 edition of the San Francisco

Chronicle entitled ‘‘Lighten Up with

Young Gamays and Pinots’’ states that

‘‘[l]ong thought the true grape of

Beaujolais, Gamay Beaujolais is in fact

a clone of Pinot Noir.’’ Frank Prial of the

New York Times stated as follows in an

article entitled ‘‘Wine Talk’’ dated

January 16, 1991: ‘‘Gamay beaujolais

and Napa gamay are fairly popular

California grapes, but neither is actually

gamay; gamay beaujolais is an inferior

clone of the pinot noir grape, and Napa

gamay is probably a little-used grape

from the South of France called

valdiguie.’’

These examples reflect that there is a

fairly widespread knowledge among

knowledgeable wine writers that

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines are not made

from Gamay noir grapes. On the other

hand, some of these articles suggested

that the labeling of these wines was

confusing. For example, in the March

28, 1990 edition of the Washington Post,

in an article entitled ‘‘All-American

Beaujolais,’’ Ben Giliberti explained the

true identity of the ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

and ‘‘Napa Gamay’’ grapes, and then

stated ‘‘Regardless of grape variety, most

domestic bottlings are labeled gamay

beaujolais—a confusing situation that

one hopes will be rectified by labeling

authorities in the near future.’’ In an

article entitled ‘‘French Beaujolais

Needn’t Fear that California Clone,’’ in

the July 18, 1991 edition of the Atlanta

Constitution, writer Bruce Galphin

explains that ‘‘it has been widely known

for years that gamay Beaujolais is a

clone (mutated form) of pinot noir’’ but

also states that the situation is

‘‘confusing to Americans learning about

wine.’’

Conclusion

After carefully reviewing the

comments, as well as commentary by

wine experts such as Jancis Robinson,

and articles in the popular press such as

the ones cited above, ATF has

concluded that the industry and wine

experts understand the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ to have varietal significance

when used on American wine labels,

even though the term initially arose

from a classification error. However,

ATF has concluded that while the term

has thus acquired a secondary meaning

in the United States to refer to a wine

made from Pinot noir and/or ‘‘Napa

Gamay’’ grapes, the average consumer
16484 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

may not understand this varietal

significance of the term unless

additional information is provided.

Thus, ATF has concluded that the

unqualified use of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ on wine labels may tend to

mislead consumers as to the varietal

identity of the wine. In Notice No. 793, ATF proposed

permanently to allow use of the term

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ in conjunction with

a true varietal designation—either Pinot

noir or Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’).

However, there were several good points

that were raised in opposition to this

proposal. Several commenters suggested

that ATF was merely codifying a

historical error, and that erroneous

varietal designations should not be

allowed merely because such

designations were supplemented with

additional truthful information. The

INAO and UIVB suggested that the

juxtaposition of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ with ‘‘Pinot noir,’’ for

example, might further confuse the

consumer, and mislead the consumer

into believing that the wine was a blend

of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ and Pinot noir

grapes. ATF has reevaluated its proposal in

light of these comments. While ATF still

believes that the name ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ has consumer recognition in

the United States, we also recognize that

it is not the correct name for these two

grape varieties, and that the average

consumer should not be expected to

have technical knowledge about grape

classification issues in order to

understand a wine label.

Since the establishment of the

Winegrape Varietal Names Advisory

Committee in 1982, it has been ATF’s

goal to eliminate the use of incorrect

grape variety names in the labeling of

American wines, even where those

names have been used on a

longstanding basis in the United States.

The final rule on varietal names

eliminated the usage of many names

that had been used in the United States

for a long time, where those names did

not accurately reflect the recognized

names of the grape varieties in question.

See T.D. ATF–370 (61 FR 522). This

same logic dictates that use of the name

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ should be phased

out in the United States.

Thus, ATF has decided that the

regulations should not provide

permanent recognition of the labeling

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais.’’ The

original classification and naming errors

made with respect to the ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ (Pinot noir) and ‘‘Napa

Gamay’’ (Valdiguie ́ ) grapes should not

be compounded by allowing the name

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ to be used

indefinitely to designate wines made

from two separate grape varieties,

neither of which is a true Gamay grape.

The purpose of the rulemaking project

on varietal names was to rectify the

errors made in the past with respect to

classification of American wine grape

varieties, and to ensure that American

consumers were not misled as to the

true identity of American varietal wines.

This is all the more important since

varietal names have assumed increasing

importance in the marketing of wines.

Accordingly, ATF has decided that it

will terminate recognition of the

labeling designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ within 10 years. During this

phase-out period, interim labeling

requirements will ensure that

consumers are adequately informed as

to the varietal content of the wine. ATF

has concluded that it is necessary to

allow a period of time in which

wineries can continue to use the

labeling designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ as long as this designation

is qualified in a manner that will allow

consumers to be educated as to what the

varietal significance of the term really

is.

Interim Labeling Requirements

This final rule provides that ATF will

temporarily recognize the name ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ as a type designation of

varietal significance. This means that

the name has varietal significance, but

it does not fit the requirements for a

varietal designation. In this case, the

name is used to designate a wine where

not less than 75 percent of the volume

of the wine is derived from Pinot noir

grapes, Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’)

grapes, or a combination of both.

As previously explained, § 4.28,

relating to type designations of varietal

significance, did not exist in 1994, at the

time Notice No. 793 was published.

Upon consideration of the comments

received in response to this notice and

the regulatory structure adopted as a

result of the varietal name rulemaking,

ATF has determined that the type of

wine described as Gamay Beaujolais is

a better fit in § 4.28, rather than as a

separate class and type designation in

§ 4.34.

ATF will allow a period of 10 years

from the issuance of this final rule for

wineries to phase out the use of the term

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais.’’ To the extent that

consumers have formed a loyalty to or

preference for the wine that they know

as ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais,’’ this transition

period will allow them time to learn

more information about the varietal

content of the wine. It will also allow

wineries and grape growers time to

make any necessary changes in their

planting and marketing plans.

Pursuant to the existing regulations,

an appellation of origin must also

appear in direct conjunction with any

type designation of varietal significance.

This will ensure that consumers are not

misled as to the origin of the wine.

However, ATF also believes that some

further information on the label is

necessary in order to ensure that the

consumer is not misled as to the varietal

content of the wine. These requirements

will be discussed in further detail

below.

Interim Definition of ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’

In Notice No. 793, ATF proposed that

the designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

could only be used where the wine met

the requirements for use of either the

Pinot noir or Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’)

varietal designation. In that case, the

designation would have to be qualified

by the use of a single varietal

designation, signifying that 75 percent

of the wine was derived from either

Pinot noir or Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’)

grapes. However, the comments

received from American wholesalers,

growers of Pinot noir and Valdiguie ́

grapes, and American wineries who

produced ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines

were overwhelmingly opposed to this

proposal. These comments pointed out

that it had been ATF’s longstanding

policy to allow the Pinot noir and

Valdiguie ́ grape varieties to be

combined to make up the regulatory 75

percent requirement. Many comments

stressed that it was important for

wineries to have the flexibility to adjust

percentages in order to arrive at the

most desirable blend. For example, the

California Association of Winegrape

Growers stated that restricting the term

to only one of these grape varieties

would ‘‘unduly restrict(s) the

winemakers ability to creatively blend

to consumer taste.’’

Since the use of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ is being phased out over the

next 10 years, and since the comments

establish that the term is well

recognized in the wine industry as

referring to wines made from a

combination of Pinot noir and Valdiguie ́

(‘‘Napa Gamay’’) grapes, ATF has

decided to define the term in a way that

incorporates the status quo over the past

several decades. Thus, ATF is defining

the term ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ to mean

an American wine which derives at

least 75 percent of its volume from Pinot

noir grapes, Valdiguie ́ grapes, or a

combination of both. However, since the

term will refer to a blend of two separate

unrelated grape varieties, ATF believes

that it is all the more important to

ensure that there is sufficient
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16485

information on the brand label, in direct

conjunction with the designation

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ to ensure that

consumers are not misled as to the

varietal content of the wine. These

requirements are discussed below. It should be noted that there were a

few comments questioning ATF’s

exclusion of wines made with true

Gamay noir grapes from the definition

of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais.’’ The evidence

clearly indicates that American ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ wines have been made from

grapes that were not true Gamay grapes.

In T.D. ATF–370, ATF noted that it was

listing the true Gamay grape as ‘‘Gamay

noir,’’ in order to distinguish it from

other wines which were labeled

‘‘Gamay’’ in the past. 61 FR 532. The

true Gamay grape is a relative newcomer

to the United States, and there is no

reason to create any confusion between

the wine known as ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

and wines made from the true ‘‘Gamay

noir’’ grape. Accordingly, wineries

producing wines from the true Gamay

noir grape and meeting the applicable

percentage requirements for use of a

single varietal type designation, may

designate their wines as ‘‘Gamay noir’’

but not as ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais.’’ Finally, wineries producing wine that

meets the requirements for a single

varietal designation of either Pinot noir

or Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’) may of

course choose to use these varietal

designations in lieu of the type

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais.’’

However, in accordance with the

regulations at § 4.23, the name ‘‘Napa

Gamay’’ will no longer be accepted for

wines bottled on or after January 1,

1999; instead, the varietal name

‘‘Valdiguie ́’’ must be used to designate

these wines.

Interim Labeling Statements

The final rule will allow the use of the

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ designation where

there appears on the brand label, in

direct conjunction therewith, the names

of the grape variety or grape varieties

used to satisfy the regulatory definition

of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ (i.e., Pinot noir

and/or Valdiguie ́). These varietal names

must appear on a separate line from the

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ designation, and

must be separated from ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ by the required appellation

of origin. Where two varietal names are

listed, they shall appear on the same

line, in order of predominance. The appellation of origin shall appear

either on a separate line between the

name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ and the grape

variety name(s), or on the same line as

the grape variety name(s) in a manner

that qualifies the grape variety name(s).

Furthermore, the following statement

shall also appear on the brand or back

label: ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais is made from

at least 75 percent Pinot noir and/or

Valdiguie ́ grapes.’’

In Notice No. 793, ATF proposed a

rule that would allow the name ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ only where the wine met

the standards for use of either the Pinot

noir varietal designation, or the

Valdiguie ́ (‘‘Napa Gamay’’) varietal

designation, and where the type

designation ‘‘Pinot noir’’ or Valdiguie ́

(‘‘Napa Gamay’’) appeared in direct

conjunction with the designation

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais.’’ As previously

discussed, ATF has now concluded that

during the 10-year phase-out period, it

is reasonable to allow the existing

industry practice of blending Pinot noir

and ‘‘Napa Gamay’’ grapes to make up

the 75 percent requirement for use of

the ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ designation.

This is in accordance with the

longstanding trade practice and industry

understanding of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ as well as the longstanding

policy of ATF and its predecessor

agency.

However, since the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ is now being defined to

include a blend of two separate grape

varieties, ATF believes that it is

necessary to require more than just the

appearance of one or two grape varieties

on the brand label, in direct conjunction

with the designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais.’’ The INAO and UIVB

suggested that the use of two names

such as ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ and ‘‘Pinot

noir’’ on a brand label might confuse

consumers into believing that these two

names represented separate grape

varieties which had gone into the wine.

ATF believes that this comment has

merit. In other words, ATF is concerned

that the appearance of the designations

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais,’’ ‘‘Pinot noir,’’ and

‘‘Valdiguie ́’’ together on a brand label

might confuse some consumers, and

tend to create a misleading impression

that these three names each represented

grape varieties that had been used in the

production of the wine.

Thus, the final rule will require that

the varietal designations Pinot noir and/

or Valdiguie ́ appear on the brand label

in direct conjunction with the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais,’’ but on

a separate line from ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ and separated from ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ by the required appellation

of origin. The appellation of origin shall

appear either on a separate line between

the name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ and the

grape variety name(s), or on the same

line as the grape variety name(s) in a

manner that qualifies the grape variety

name(s). This will ensure that the

consumer is not misled into believing

that Gamay Beaujolais represents just

one of two or three grape varieties used

in producing the wine.

Where the wine is made from both

Pinot noir and Valdiguie ́ grapes, the two

grape varieties shall appear on the same

line, in order of predominance. Below

are four examples of type designations

on brand labels that will be allowed

under the requirements of the final rule:

GAMAY BEAUJOLAIS, 1992 CALIFORNIA,

PINOT NOIR/VALDIGUIE ́

GAMAY BEAUJOLAIS, NAPA VALLEY

VALDIGUIE ́

1994 GAMAY BEAUJOLAIS, SONOMA

COUNTY PINOT NOIR

GAMAY BEAUJOLAIS, CALIFORNIA,

VALDIGUIE ́ & PINOT NOIR

This requirement should leave no room

for confusion on the part of the

consumer as to the varietal content of

the wine.

Additional Labeling Statement

Notwithstanding the above, ATF

believes that because ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ wines are in something of a

unique category, the consumer should

be provided with more specific

information as to the meaning of this

designation. The vast majority of

comments received in response to

Notice No. 794 were in opposition to

any requirement that grape variety

percentages be listed on labels. These

commenters cited the need for

flexibility in the blending of grapes.

ATF recognizes that if the regulations

require wineries to list the percentage of

each grape variety used in the blend,

wineries will have to obtain new labels,

as well as new certificates of label

approval, for each different blend of

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wine.

In response to these comments, ATF

is not requiring wineries to put grape

percentages on the brand label, as they

would be required to do if the wine

were labeled with more than one grape

variety under section 4.23(d). ATF

recognizes that the Gamay Beaujolais

designation is not a multiple varietal

designation, but is instead a type

designation of varietal significance,

which is indicative of a certain varietal

content. The regulations will define

what that varietal content is, and

knowledgeable industry members and

consumers are already aware of these

requirements.

However, in order to ensure that

consumers are more specifically

informed as to the varietal significance

of the term ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais,’’ the

final rule will require the following

statement to appear on the brand or

back label: ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais is made

from at least 75 percent Pinot noir and/
16486 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

or Valdiguie ́ grapes.’’ ATF believes that

this statement adequately informs the

consumer as to the traditional meaning

of the term ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ as used

on American wine labels for the past

several decades. Wineries may use this

statement without having to receive new

certificates of label approval each time

the percentages of grape varieties in

their blends change.

ATF believes that these new

requirements will ensure that during the

period of the phase-out, consumers will

be adequately informed about the

varietal content of the wine.

Furthermore, ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines

will continue to be labeled with an

appellation of origin to ensure that

consumers are adequately informed as

to the origin of the grapes. ATF believes

that knowledgeable consumers are

already on notice that ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ wines are not made from the

‘‘Gamay noir’’ grape. The interim

labeling requirements will, however,

help to educate all consumers as to the

meaning of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ and ensure that consumers

have sufficient information as to what

that term means.

Length of Phase-Out Period

Since ATF did not specifically

propose the option of phasing out use of

the name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ in Notice

No. 793, we did not solicit comments on

the issue of the appropriate length of a

phase-out period. However, when ATF

first proposed to phase out use of this

term in 1986, many wineries and grape

growers suggested that this proposal

would impose an undue economic

burden on growers of Napa Gamay

grapes. It was suggested that American

consumers had come to know the term

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ as referring to a

particular type of wine, and that the

market for this wine would be severely

impacted if it were not labeled under

the ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ designation.

ATF’s statutory mandate under the

FAA Act is to regulate the use of terms

on wine labels so as to avoid misleading

the consumer. ATF recognizes that

wineries who produce ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ wines may have to make

some marketing and labeling changes in

connection with the phasing out of this

term. ATF also recognizes that some

wineries may have relied upon ATF’s

previous recognition of this term in

making economic decisions regarding

the planting of grapes and the marketing

of wines. Many of the commenters to

Notice No. 581 suggested that a 5-year

phase-out period would impose an

undue economic burden on growers and

wineries, due to the necessary

adjustments with respect to planting

and marketing decisions. Although a

phase-out was not even proposed in

Notice No. 793, ATF received one

comment from a grape grower

discussing the substantial investment in

‘‘Napa Gamay’’ grapes, and the cost and

time that is involved in replanting

vineyards.

Accordingly, ATF has decided to

allow the use of the term ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ on wine labels for 10 years

from the date of publication of this final

rule. On the one hand, wineries and

grape growers have been on notice since

the formation of the Advisory

Committee in 1982 that the continued

use of the name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

was in doubt. Thus, even though ATF

did not specifically propose a phase-out

in Notice No. 793, that issue has

certainly been aired sufficiently to put

all interested parties on notice that the

future of the designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ was uncertain.

On the other hand, since ATF

proposed to continue to allow the use of

this name in 1994, many domestic

wineries may have relied upon this

proposal in deciding to continue

production of this wine, as have grape

growers in the cultivation of the grapes

used to make this wine. ATF wants to

ensure that any such wineries and grape

growers are given sufficient time to

make any necessary changes required by

this final rule. Many comments to the

1986 notice expressed concern that the

market for ‘‘Napa Gamay’’ grapes would

be severely affected by the elimination

of the ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ designation.

ATF believes a reasonable phase-out

period is necessary to avoid these

economic consequences.

Accordingly, American wineries may

continue to use this term for a period of

ten years, subject to the requirements

previously discussed, in order to afford

them adequate time to make any

necessary changes in the marketing of

their wines and the planting of their

vineyards. ATF believes that this

interim position will ensure that

consumers who read the label will not

be misled as to the true varietal

composition or geographic origin of the

wines in question. In fact, the interim

rule will ensure that American

consumers receive a great deal of

information as to the meaning of the

term ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on American

wine labels. By the end of the ten-year

period, consumers who enjoy ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ wines will have sufficient

information about the product that they

will be able to make an educated choice

about the product once the labeling

terminology changes.

Effective Date

The regulatory definition of ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ as a type designation of

varietal significance, which essentially

codifies the past agency practice on this

issue, will take effect May 7, 1997. Since

this definition does not involve any

change in past administrative practice,

ATF does not believe that the new

definition, in and of itself, will

necessitate any labeling changes.

However, the new requirements

imposed by the final rule with respect

to additional information on labels will

necessitate labeling changes. These

requirements are effective for wines

bottled on or after January 1, 1999. This

will provide wineries with ample time

to make any necessary changes to the

labeling of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines.

Furthermore, this effective date will

coincide with the date on which the

name ‘‘Napa Gamay’’ will no longer be

authorized on wine labels. Pursuant to

T.D. ATF–370, the name ‘‘Napa Gamay’’

is listed as a synonym for the prime

name ‘‘Valdiguie ́;’’ however, the name

‘‘Napa Gamay’’ may only be used for

wines bottled prior to January 1, 1999.

Since this final rule will require

wineries to make changes to existing

labels, ATF believes that it would be

unduly burdensome to require industry

members to change their labels twice.

Accordingly, the final rule will allow

wineries to begin compliance with the

interim labeling requirements for

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ at the same time

that the term ‘‘Napa Gamay’’ must be

phased out.

Geographic Name Issues

ATF would like to clarify that it does

not agree with those commenters who

suggested that use of the ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ designation is misleading as

to the origin of the wine, or that ATF’s

prior or interim policy with respect to

this name is in violation of the

international obligations of the United

States.

Two separate issues were raised with

respect to the incorporation of the

geographic name ‘‘Beaujolais’’ into the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais.’’ On the

one hand, as previously noted,

commenters opposed to the use of

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ and commenters in

favor of the use of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

have separately suggested that

recognition of this term would

constitute the authorization of a new

semigeneric designation for American

wines. Commenters opposed to use of

the term ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ have also

suggested that use of the term is in

violation of the FAA Act and its

implementing regulations, because the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16487

United States has already recognized the

term ‘‘Beaujolais’’ as a nongeneric

distinctive designation for wines, and

thus the term ‘‘Beaujolais’’ may not

appear anywhere on the label of a wine

originating anywhere outside of

Beaujolais, France. These issues will be

addressed separately.

Regulations

ATF regulations at 27 CFR 4.24

provide several different categories of

names of geographic significance.

Section 4.24(a) provides that certain

names, such as Vermouth and Sake, are

generic names which originally had

geographic significance, but which are

also designations of a class or type of

wine. Such names may be used to label

wines coming from any geographic area.

Section § 4.24(b) also establishes

semigeneric names of geographic

significance which are also designations

of a class or type of wine. Semigeneric

designations may be used to designate

wines of an origin other than that

indicated by the name only if there

appears in direct conjunction an

appropriate appellation of origin

disclosing the true place of origin of the

wine, and if the wine so designated

conforms to the standard of identity, if

any, for such wine contained in the

regulations, or to the trade

understanding of such class or type.

Examples of semigeneric names which

are also type designations are burgundy,

champagne, and sherry.

Finally, § 4.24(c) provides that if a

name of geographic significance has not

been found by the Director to be generic

or semigeneric, it may be used only to

designate wines of the origin indicated

by such name. Furthermore, if the

Director finds that such a name is

known to the consumer and to the trade

as the designation of a specific wine of

a particular place or region,

distinguishable from all other wines,

then the name shall be deemed a

distinctive designation of a wine. The

names ‘‘American’’ and ‘‘French’’ are

nongeneric names that are not

distinctive designations of specific

grape wines. The names ‘‘Bordeaux

Blanc’’ and ‘‘Medoc’’ are nongeneric

names that are also distinctive

designations of specific grape wines.

In 1990, ATF issued a new part 12 in

the regulations, listing examples of

foreign nongeneric names of geographic

significance. In keeping with the policy

of the past several decades, the name

‘‘Beaujolais’’ was recognized as a foreign

nongeneric name of geographic

significance which has also been

recognized as a distinctive designation

of a specific grape wine. See 27 CFR

12.31(b).

Semigeneric Name Issue

The name ‘‘Beaujolais’’ has long been

recognized by the United States as a

nongeneric name that is also a

distinctive designation of a specific

grape wine. This means that the name

‘‘Beaujolais,’’ standing alone, can only

be used to designate a wine that is

produced in Beaujolais, France.

However, certain commenters have

suggested that ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ has

become a semigeneric name that

represents that a wine is made using the

same production methods that are used

in the production of Beaujolais wines.

The suggestion has thus been made that

ATF should authorize ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ as a semigeneric name.

ATF has never sanctioned the use of

the name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ as a

semigeneric designation. The

geographic designation ‘‘Beaujolais,’’

standing on its own, is a distinctive

designation that has been recognized by

American regulations for decades. There

is no evidence that this term, standing

alone, has lost its meaning as a

distinctive, nongeneric geographic

designation. To the extent that many

comments in opposition to recognition

of the name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ are

based on the premise that the name

would constitute a new semigeneric

designation, ATF has concluded that

such criticism is unfounded. The

incorporation of a geographic name as

part of a varietal designation, or as part

of a designation of varietal significance,

is completely different from the

recognition of a geographical name in

and of itself as a type of wine which has

lost its geographical significance. If ATF

decided to allow the designation

‘‘Beaujolais’’ to appear by itself on

labels of wines originating outside of

Beaujolais, France, then that would be

a change in the status of the designation

‘‘Beaujolais’’ as a nongeneric, distinctive

designation of geographic significance.

However, the incorporation of the name

‘‘Beaujolais’’ as part of a varietal

designation, or as part of a designation

of varietal significance, does not mean

that a new semigeneric designation has

been created. This final rule in no way

changes the recognition accorded the

designation ‘‘Beaujolais’’ as a

nongeneric name under § 4.24(c).

Use of Geographic Names in Varietal

Designations

Many comments to Notice No. 793

suggested that the incorporation of

geographic names in varietal

designations is somehow in violation of

the regulations governing the use of

such geographic names on wine labels.

ATF does not agree with these

comments.

Many European geographic terms

were originally incorporated into

American varietal names for the

purpose of conveying to the American

consumer that these were the same

grape varieties that were grown in the

European geographic area referenced by

the name. While our historical records

are not clear on this issue, it seems

likely that the distinctive designation

‘‘Beaujolais’’ was allowed as part of the

original ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

designation only as a descriptive term

similar to ‘‘French Colombard’’ or

‘‘Johannisberg Riesling.’’ In other words,

it was meant to convey one meaning—

that this was the same ‘‘Gamay’’ grape

as was grown in Beaujolais, just as the

‘‘French Colombard’’ was the same

Colombard grape grown in France, and

the ‘‘Johannisberg Riesling’’ was the

same Riesling grape grown in

Johannisberg.

It should be noted that ATF has never

taken the position that the incorporation

of a geographic name in a varietal name

is contrary to the regulations in § 4.24

which govern the use of names of

geographic significance. For example,

§ 4.24(c)(2) specifically recognizes that

the word ‘‘French’’ is a nongeneric

name; it cannot be used on a wine label

to designate a wine that originates

outside of France. However, ‘‘French

Colombard’’ is different from the single

word ‘‘French,’’ in the same way that

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ is different from

the single word ‘‘Beaujolais.’’ Thus,

ATF does not agree with those

commenters who suggested that ATF

would be violating its own regulations

by authorizing the use of a name of

varietal significance that incorporated

the name of a distinctive designation.

The incorporation of a geographic name

as part of a varietal name or a

designation of varietal significance is

different from the use of that same

geographical name standing alone on a

wine label.

When ATF first proposed the

establishment of Part 12, to list

examples of foreign nongeneric names

of geographic significance, it took the

position that certain foreign

denominations of origin that were

identical to or similar to American grape

varietal designations should not be

published as examples of nongeneric

names. When ATF promulgated these

regulations in T.D. ATF–296, however,

we concluded as follows:

After consideration of the comments, ATF

agrees that names of bonafide geographically

demarcated areas or names which are used to

designate a wine product from a particular

country should be recognized as nongeneric
16488 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

even if they are similar or identical to varietal

names. In this regard, ATF believes that any

potential for consumer confusion concerning

the origin of the wine is obviated by the fact

that the wine labeling regulations provide

that the names of grape varieties may be used

as a type designation of a wine only if the

wine is also labeled with an appellation of

origin. 27 CFR 4.23a. In addition, any

questions concerning the potential for

consumer confusion as to the identity of the

wine that may arise when a foreign

nongeneric name is similar or identical to a

varietal name will be resolved by ATF on a

case-by-case basis.

55 FR at 17966

This same issue was presented when

various foreign producers and

governments objected to the use of

foreign geographical terms in American

grape varietal names. In T.D. ATF–370,

ATF specifically rejected any blanket

prohibition of foreign geographical

terms in grape variety names, stating

that it had already announced in Notice

No. 749 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.’’ 61 FR at

534. ATF noted that the requirement to

use an appellation of origin in direct

conjunction with a grape variety name

would prevent confusion between an

American varietal wine and a wine

labeled with a foreign appellation of

origin. Finally, ATF restated its position

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-bycase basis.’’ 61 FR at 534.

In the final rule on grape variety

names, ATF announced that it was

phasing out use of the term

‘‘Johannisberg Riesling,’’ since that

grape variety was known by two other

names which did not incorporate

geographical references—‘‘Riesling’’ and

‘‘White Riesling,’’ and these names were

more correct than ‘‘Johannisberg

Riesling.’’ 61 FR at 530. On the other

hand, since the name French Colombard

had become well known to the

American consumer, it was retained as

a synonym for the prime name

‘‘Colombard.’’ ATF did not believe that

this name would mislead consumers as

to the origin of the wine, as long as an

appellation of origin appeared in direct

conjunction with the name, in

compliance with the requirements of

§ 4.34(b).

When ATF’s predecessor agency

originally allowed American wineries to

use the name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on

labels, the decision was not made with

the intention to thereby create a new

semigeneric designation or to imply that

the wine made from these grapes was

somehow the same as wine coming from

Beaujolais, France. Furthermore, since

an appellation of origin has always been

required to appear in direct conjunction

with the varietal name, we do not

believe that consumers have been

misled about the origin of the wine.

ATF does not agree that it is

precluded by the FAA Act or its

implementing regulations from

approving the use of a grape varietal

name or a type designation of varietal

significance which incorporates a

geographic reference, as long as that

name is an accurate designation for the

grape variety, or is a recognized name of

varietal significance, and is known to

the consumer. However, we agree that

varietal names and type designations of

varietal significance which incorporate

geographic terms must be evaluated on

a case-by-case basis to determine

whether there is a potential for

consumer confusion. In the case at

hand, since there is no evidence that

French wines are labeled as ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais,’’ and since it appears that

American consumers associate this

name with American wines, ATF does

not believe that the name causes

confusion as to the geographic origin of

the wine.

International Issues

It should be noted that while ATF has

decided to phase out use of the name

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais,’’ we do not believe

that either our past policy on this issue

or our interim policy during the ‘‘phaseout’’ period is in violation of the

international obligations of the United

States.

The provisions in TRIPS on

geographical indications do afford

certain protections for names of wines

and distilled spirits in Articles 22 and

23. However, those protections are

subject to the provisions in Article 24

that address and sanction the continued

use of names in existence on or after the

effective dates of the TRIPS provisions.

Article 24(4) states as follows:

Nothing in this Section shall require a

Member to prevent continued and similar use

of a particular geographical indication of

another Member identifying wines or spirits

in connection with goods or services by any

of its nationals or domiciliaries who have

used that geographical indication in a

continuous manner with regard to the same

or related goods or services in the territory

of that Member either (a) for at least ten years

preceding the date of adoption of the Final

Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay

Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations or

(b) in good faith preceding that date.

Under this paragraph, an industry

member that has been using the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ under

the prescribed conditions is entitled to

continue that use on the ‘‘same or

related’’ wines after the effective date

contained in the TRIPS provision.

Additionally, Article 24(6) provides as

follows:

Nothing in this Section shall require a

Member to apply its provisions in respect of

a geographical indication of any other

Member with respect to goods or services for

which the relevant indication is identical

with the term customary in common

language as the common name for such goods

or services in the territory of that Member.

Nothing in this section shall require a

Member to apply its provisions in respect of

a geographical indication of any other

member with respect to products of the vine

for which the relevant indication is identical

with the customary name of a grape variety

existing in the territory of that Member as of

the date of entry into force of the Agreement

Establishing the MTO.

This paragraph is not restricted to the

continued use by a particular person or

entity. Thus, under the provisions of the

first sentence, since the designation

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ is the term

customary in the common language of

the United States to describe the wine

at issue, ATF’s interim maintenance of

the status quo with respect to the

definition of ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines

does not violate TRIPS. It is also

arguable that the second sentence in

Article 24(6), which allows the

continued use of grape variety names

existing as of January 1, 1995, applies to

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ since ATF has

determined that this name is a type

designation of varietal significance.

Furthermore, the final rule does not

change the definition of ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ which has been applied by

the agency since well before January 1,

1995.

Finally, even if the general

application of Article 24(6) were

disregarded for a moment, the proposal

does not contradict the provision of

Article 24(3) which provides that a

Member shall not diminish the

protection of geographical indications

that existed in that member immediately

prior to the date of entry into force of

the agreement establishing the World

Trade Organization. ATF’s maintenance

of the status quo constitutes an interim

continuance of the existing practices

governing the production of the wine

bearing the designation Gamay

Beaujolais. Thus, no protection has been

diminished. Accordingly, ATF’s

maintenance of the status quo with

respect to Gamay Beaujolais is

consistent with the obligations of the

United States under the TRIPS

provisions.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16489

The Wine Accord

Several commenters suggested that

the continued use of the designation

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ is contrary to the

commitment in Item III of the United

States-European Economic Community

Wine Accord of 1983. In relevant part,

that item states:

The EEC also notes with satisfaction the

willingness of the U.S. to work within the

regulatory framework of 27 CFR § 4.24(c)(3)

to prevent erosion of non-generic

designations of geographic significance

indicating a wine-growing area in the EEC.

The United States fulfilled the letter and

spirit of this commitment in the

promulgation of 27 CFR Part 12—

Foreign Nongeneric Names of

Geographic Significance Used in the

Designation of Wines in T.D. ATF–296,

55 FR 17967, April 30, 1990.

Furthermore, at the time the

commitment was made in the Wine

Accord of 1983, the use of the

designation ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ on

wines originating from other than the

Beaujolais region of France was clearly

established. Finally, even if the name

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ were considered to

be a nongeneric designation of

geographic significance indicating a

wine-growing area in the European

Union, nothing in ATF’s policy with

respect to this designation erodes the

Beaujolais appellation of origin in

France since ATF’s actions have merely

maintained the status quo use of this

designation, with further restrictions,

pending the termination of the 10-year

phase-out period. Thus, ATF’s actions

have not violated the commitments of

the Wine Accord of 1983.

Miscellaneous Labeling Issues

Several commenters suggested that

American producers of Gamay

Beaujolais are deliberately trying to

create an association between their

wines and French Beaujolais wines by

using the descriptive term ‘‘Nouveau’’ to

modify the designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais.’’ The term ‘‘Beaujolais

Nouveau’’ is used to designate the

Beaujolais wine first released from each

year’s vintage, prior to any aging.

French law prohibits the release of

Beaujolais Nouveau wine until the third

Thursday in November of each year, and

the release of these wines on the third

Thursday in November is an occasion

which receives much publicity and

attention throughout the world.

Commenters such as INAO and UIVB

suggested that the promotion of

American ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais Nouveau’’

wines, often released on the same day

in November as the French Beaujolais

Nouveau wines, is evidence of an

attempt by American wineries to create

a false association with true Beaujolais

wines. A comment from Georges

Duboeuf, who exports French Beaujolais

wines to the American market, made a

similar argument with respect to the use

of the term ‘‘Nouveau’’ to describe

American Gamay Beaujolais wines. Mr.

Duboeuf suggested that the popularity of

French Beaujolais Nouveau wines had

been skyrocketing in the United States,

and that American wineries were trying

to ‘‘perpetrate [a] hoax on the American

consumer to improve their sales’’ of

Gamay Beaujolais wines by

appropriating the term ‘‘Nouveau’’ to

describe their products. Mr. Duboeuf

stated that ‘‘[w]ine produced in

California can never be Beaujolais

Nouveau though they may try to

appropriate the name.’’

ATF believes that these comments

have raised valid issues regarding

individual labels approved by ATF for

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wines. For

example, some wineries have labeling

statements that compare their wines to

Beaujolais wines from France. Other

wines are labeled as ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais

Nouveau,’’ in an apparent attempt to

create a comparison to ‘‘Beaujolais

Nouveau’’ wines.

In general, ATF allows additional

information on wine labels that is

truthful, accurate and specific. Thus, it

is not misleading for a winery to

truthfully explain the type of

production method used to make the

wine at issue. Nor is it generally

misleading to use a descriptive term

such as ‘‘Nouveau’’ on a wine label.

However, ATF will examine each

application for label approval for

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ wine received in

the next 10 years to ensure that the

label, taken as a whole, does not create

the misleading impression that the wine

is somehow the same as or similar to

Beaujolais or ‘‘Beaujolais Nouveau’’

wines.

Litigation

It should be noted that on February

21, 1996, the INAO and UIVB filed a

complaint in the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia. The

two plaintiffs are organizations

chartered under French law, and they

allege that ATF’s approval of domestic

wine labels bearing the designation

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ is contrary to the

FAA Act and its implementing

regulations. Plaintiffs also argue that

ATF’s approval of this term violates the

international obligations of the United

States. It is ATF’s belief that the issues

raised by the plaintiffs have also been

raised in the comments submitted in

this rulemaking proceeding, and are

comprehensively addressed in this final

rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this final

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This final rule

will allow domestic wineries to

continue to use the labeling designation

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ for a period of 10

years, although additional information

on labels will be required. ATF believes

that this phase-out period provides

ample time for affected wineries to

make any necessary labeling and

marketing changes, especially in view of

the fact that ATF first proposed in 1986

to phase out use of the name ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais.’’ Thus, by the time that the

phase-out period will have expired,

American wineries will have had over

20 years from the first phase-out

proposal to make any necessary

adjustments to the labeling and

marketing of their wines. Furthermore,

even after use of the name is phased out,

wineries will still be able to produce the

same wine, using the Pinot noir and/or

Valdiguie ́ name(s). By that time,

consumers will have learned (if they do

not already know) that the name

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ has been used to

designate a wine made from Pinot noir

and Valdiguie ́ grapes. Presumably,

consumer loyalty to this product will

continue even after it is marketed under

a different name. Thus, the final rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required because the

final rule is not expected (1) to have

significant secondary or incidental

effects on a substantial number of small

entities, or (2) to impose, or otherwise

cause, a significant increase in

reporting, recordkeeping, or other

compliance burdens on a substantial

number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information

contained in this final regulation has

been previously reviewed and approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under

control number 1512–0482. An agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it

displays a valid control number

assigned by OMB.
16490 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this

regulation is not a significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866. Accordingly, this final rule is not

subject to the analysis required by this

Executive Order.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

is Thomas Busey, Wine, Beer and

Spirits Regulations Branch, 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 4.28 is amended by adding

a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 4.28 Type designations of varietal

significance.

* * * * *

(e)(1) Gamay Beaujolais. An American

wine which derives at least 75 percent

of its volume from Pinot noir grapes,

Valdiguie ́ grapes, or a combination of

both.

(2) For wines bottled on or after

January 1, 1999, and prior to [10 years

from date of publication], the name

‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’ may be used as a

type designation only if there appears in

direct conjunction therewith, but on a

separate line and separated by the

required appellation of origin, the

name(s) of the grape variety or varieties

used to satisfy the requirements of

paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Where

two varietal names are listed, they shall

appear on the same line, in order of

predominance. The appellation of origin

shall appear either on a separate line

between the name ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais’’

and the grape variety name(s) or on the

same line as the grape variety name(s)

in a manner that qualifies the grape

variety name(s). The following

statement shall also appear on the brand

or back label: ‘‘Gamay Beaujolais is

made from at least 75 percent Pinot noir

and/or Valdiguie ́ grapes.’’

(3) The designation ‘‘Gamay

Beaujolais’’ may not be used on labels

of American wines bottled on or after

April 9, 2007.

Signed: February 21, 1997.

John W. Magaw,

Director.

Approved:

Dennis M. O’Connell,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary

(Regulatory, Tariff & Trade Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 97–8808 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 915

[SPATS No. IA–009–FOR]

Iowa Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Iowa regulatory

program (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Iowa program’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Iowa proposed revisions

to its rules pertaining to the prompt

repair or compensation for material

damage caused by subsidence to noncommercial buildings and occupied

residential dwellings and related

structures and the replacement of

drinking, domestic and residential water

supplies that have been adversely

impacted by underground coal mining

operations. The amendment is intended

to revise the Iowa program to be

consistent with the corresponding

Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael C. Wolfrom, Regulatory

Program Specialist, Office of Surface

Mining, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center, Alton Federal

Building, 501 Belle Street, Alton,

Illinois 62002. Telephone: (618) 463–

6460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Iowa Program

II. Submission of the Program Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Iowa Program

On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of

Interior conditionally approved the

Iowa program, effective April 10, 1981.

General background information on the

Iowa program, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

and the conditions of approval of the

Iowa program can be found in the

January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46

FR 5885). Subsequent actions

concerning Iowa’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

915.10, 915.15, and 915.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated December 4, 1996

(Administrative Record No. IA–424),

and pursuant to SMCRA, Iowa

submitted a proposed amendment. The

amendment was in response to a May

20, 1996, letter (Administrative Record

No. IA–420) that OSM sent to the State

in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c).

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the December

26, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR

67967), and in the same document

opened the public comment period and

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing on the adequacy of the proposed

amendment. The public comment

period closed on January 27, 1997.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns relating to

Iowa Administrative Code (IAC)

40.4(10), Definitions for ‘‘material

damage’’ and ‘‘occupied residential

dwelling and structures related thereto’’;

IAC 40.38(3)(a), Pre-subsidence survey;

IAC 40.38(3)(b), Subsidence control

plan; IAC 40.64(7), Repair of damage;

and IAC 40.64(8), Drinking, domestic, or

residential water supply. OSM notified

Iowa of these concerns by telephone

facsimile (fax) on January 10, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IA–431),

and by telephone on February 20, 1997

(Administrative Record No. IA–434).

By letters dated February 3 and 24,

1997 (Administrative Record Nos. IA–

430 and IA–433, respectively), Iowa

responded to OSM’s concerns by

submitting additional explanatory

information and/or revisions to its

proposed program amendment.

Iowa proposed additional revisions to

IAC 40.4(10), Definitions for ‘‘material

damage’’ and ‘‘occupied residential

dwelling and structures related thereto’’;

IAC 40.38(3)(a), Pre-subsidence survey;

IAC 40.38(3)(b), Subsidence control

plan; IAC 40.64(7), Repair of damage;

and IAC 40.64(8), Drinking, regulation,

IAC 40.64(9), pertaining to subsidence

control. These additional revisions

concerned the correction of citation

references, cross-references, and

typographical errors. Therefore, the

public comment period was not

reopened.