Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47429 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

Leonardo S.p.a.: Docket No. FAA–2021– 

0695; Project Identifier MCAI–2021– 

00096–R. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) by October 12, 

2021. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model 

A109E helicopters, certificated in any 

category, with an affected part as identified 

in European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD 2021–0031, dated January 22, 

2021 (EASA AD 2021–0031) installed. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6520, Tail Rotor Gearbox. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports that 

certain tail rotor gearbox assemblies were 

installed on Model A109E helicopters and 

those parts are not approved for installation 

on that helicopter model. Because tail rotor 

gearbox assembly part number (P/N) 109– 

0440–01–115 is not part of the type design 

for Model A109E helicopters, there are no 

overhaul or life limits included in the 

applicable maintenance manuals. The FAA is 

issuing this AD to address installation of tail 

rotor gearbox assembly P/N 109–0440–01– 

115 on Model A109E helicopters that do not 

have overhaul or life limits for that part. If 

a tail rotor gearbox is not properly 

maintained it could fail, resulting in reduced 

control of the helicopter. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Requirements 

Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this 

AD: Comply with all required actions and 

compliance times specified in, and in 

accordance with, EASA AD 2021–0031. 

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021–0031 

(1) Where EASA AD 2021–0031 requires 

compliance in terms of flight hours, this AD 

requires using hours time-in-service. 

(2) Where EASA AD 2021–0031 requires 

compliance from its effective date, this AD 

requires using the effective date of this AD. 

(3) This AD does not require the 

‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD 2021–0031. 

(i) No Reporting Requirement 

Although the service information 

referenced in EASA AD 2021–0031 specifies 

to submit certain information to the 

manufacturer, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the International Validation 

Branch, send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR730-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For EASA AD 2021–0031, contact 

EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 

000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; internet 

www.easa.europa.eu. You may view this 

material at the FAA, Office of the Regional 

Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood 

Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. 

For information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

This material may be found in the AD docket 

at https://www.regulations.gov by searching 

for and locating Docket No. FAA–2021–0695. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, 

COS Program Management Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & 

Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart 

Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

telephone (516) 228–7330; email 

andrea.jimenez@faa.gov. 

Issued on August 18, 2021. 

Ross Landes, 

Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18257 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 5 

[Docket No. TTB–2021–0008; Notice No. 

205] 

RIN 1513–AC61 

Proposed Addition of Singani to the 

Standards of Identity for Distilled 

Spirits 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to 

amend the regulations that set forth the 

standards of identity for distilled spirits 

to include Singani as a type of brandy 

that is a distinctive product of Bolivia. 

This proposal follows a joint petition 

submitted by the Plurinational State of 

Bolivia and Singani 63, Inc., and 

subsequent discussions with the Office 

of the United States Trade 

Representative. TTB invites comments 

on this proposed amendment to its 

regulations, including comments on its 

proposal to authorize a minimum 

bottling proof of 35 percent alcohol by 

volume (or 70° proof) for Singani. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may electronically 

submit comments to TTB on this 

proposal, and view copies of this 

document, its supporting materials, and 

any comments TTB receives on it within 

Docket No. TTB–2021–0008 as posted at 

https://www.regulations.gov. A direct 

link to that docket is available on the 

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

distilled-spirits/notices-of-proposedrulemaking under Notice No. 205. 

Alternatively, you may submit 

comments via postal mail to the 

Director, Regulations and Ruling 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 

12, Washington, DC 20005. Please see 

the Public Participation section of this 

document for further information on the 

comments requested regarding this 

proposal and on the submission, 

confidentiality, and public disclosure of 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trevar D. Kolodny, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; 

telephone 202–453–2226. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47430 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Background on the Labeling of Distilled 

Spirits 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), codified 

in the United States Code at 27 U.S.C. 

205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the 

Treasury (the Secretary) to prescribe 

regulations relating to the packaging, 

marking, branding, labeling, and size 

and fill of containers of alcohol 

beverages that will prohibit consumer 

deception and provide consumers with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. Section 

105(e) of the FAA Act also generally 

requires bottlers and importers of 

alcohol beverages to obtain certificates 

of label approval (COLAs) prior to 

bottling or importing alcohol beverages 

for sale in interstate commerce. 

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 December 10, 2013 (superseding 

Treasury Department Order 120–01, 

dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB 

Administrator to perform the functions 

and duties in the administration and 

enforcement of this law. 

Part 5 of title 27 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (27 CFR part 5) sets 

forth the regulations implementing 

those provisions of section 105(e) of the 

FAA Act as they pertain to distilled 

spirits. 

Certificates of Label Approval 

TTB regulations at 27 CFR 5.51 

prohibit the release of bottled distilled 

spirits from customs custody for 

consumption unless the person 

removing the distilled spirits has 

obtained and is in possession of a COLA 

covering the product. The bottles must 

bear labels identical to the labels 

appearing on the face of the certificate, 

or labels with changes authorized by 

TTB. The TTB regulations at 27 CFR 

5.55 also generally prohibit the bottling 

or removal of distilled spirits from a 

distilled spirits plant unless the 

proprietor possesses a COLA covering 

the labels on the bottle. 

Classes and Types of Spirits 

The TTB regulations at 27 CFR 5.22 

establish standards of identity for 

distilled spirits products and categorize 

these products according to various 

classes and types. As used in § 5.22, the 

term ‘‘class’’ refers to a general category 

of spirits. Currently, there are 12 

different classes of distilled spirits set 

out in § 5.22, such as whisky, rum, gin, 

and brandy. As used in § 5.22, the term 

‘‘type’’ refers to a subcategory within a 

class of spirits. For example, ‘‘Cognac’’ 

and ‘‘Pisco’’ are types of brandy, and 

‘‘Cachac ̧a’’ is a type of rum. 

The TTB labeling regulations at 27 

CFR 5.32(a)(2) and 5.35 require that the 

class and type of distilled spirits appear 

on the product’s label. These regulations 

provide that the class and type must be 

stated in conformity with § 5.22 of the 

TTB regulations if defined therein. 

Otherwise, § 5.35 requires that the 

product must be designated in 

accordance with trade and consumer 

understanding thereof, or, if no such 

understanding exists, by a distinctive or 

fanciful name, and in either case (with 

limited exceptions), followed by a 

truthful and adequate statement of 

composition. 

Classification of Singani 

‘‘Singani’’ is a term recognized by the 

Plurinational State of Bolivia (Bolivia) 

as a designation for an alcohol beverage 

product that is distilled from grape wine 

or grape pomace and produced in 

certain delimited parts of Bolivia. Under 

current TTB distilled spirits labeling 

regulations, Singani products are 

generally classified as brandies. Section 

5.22(d) sets forth the standard of 

identity for brandy as follows: 

Class 4; brandy. ‘‘Brandy’’ is an alcoholic 

distillate from the fermented juice, mash, or 

wine of fruit, or from the residue thereof, 

produced at less than 190° proof in such 

manner that the distillate possesses the taste, 

aroma, and characteristics generally 

attributed to the product, and bottled at not 

less than 80° proof. Brandy, or mixtures 

thereof, not conforming to any of the 

standards in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of 

this section shall be designated as ‘‘brandy’’, 

and such designation shall be immediately 

followed by a truthful and adequate 

statement of composition. 

In § 5.22, paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) 

categorize the specific types of brandy. 

As described by petitioners Singani 63, 

Inc. (Singani 63) and Bolivia, Singani 

may meet the criteria of several of these 

types of brandy, such as ‘‘fruit brandy’’ 

under paragraph (d)(1), or ‘‘pomace 

brandy’’ (including ‘‘grappa brandy’’) 

under paragraph (d)(5), depending on 

the amount of pomace used. 

In § 5.22, paragraph (d)(1) states that 

fruit brandy, derived from grapes, shall 

be designated as ‘‘grape brandy’’ or 

‘‘brandy.’’ That regulation also generally 

requires brandies derived from grapes 

(other than neutral brandy, pomace 

brandy, marc brandy, grappa brandy, 

Pisco, Pisco Peru ́, or Pisco Chileno) that 

have been aged in oak barrels for less 

than two years to be labeled as 

‘‘immature.’’ The Bolivian standards 

submitted by petitioners contain no 

aging requirements, and petitioners’ 

submissions suggest that, unlike many 

grape brandies, Singani is generally not 

aged in wood. Accordingly, under 

current TTB regulations, a Singani 

product classified as a grape brandy 

under paragraph (d)(1) would need to be 

labeled as an immature brandy unless it 

was aged in oak barrels for at least two 

years. 

According to information submitted 

by the petitioners, under the standards 

set forth by Bolivia, certain categories of 

Singani may have a minimum alcohol 

content by volume of as low as 35 

percent. However, under § 5.22(d), all 

brandy must be bottled at not less than 

80° proof, or 40 percent alcohol by 

volume. Thus, under TTB’s current 

regulations, only Singani products 

bottled at a minimum alcohol content 

by volume of 40 percent may be labeled 

as any of the types of brandy 

specifically defined under the standard 

of identity in § 5.22(d). A Singani 

product bottled at less than 40 percent 

alcohol by volume could be labeled as 

a ‘‘diluted’’ brandy in accordance with 

Ruling 75–32 of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) (TTB’s 

predecessor agency), or as a distilled 

spirits specialty product bearing a 

statement of composition and fanciful 

name as required under § 5.35(a). 

Possible statements of composition for 

such a specialty product could include 

‘‘spirits distilled from grapes’’ or ‘‘grape 

spirits.’’ 

Singani Petitions and Letters 

Petitions and Related Letters 

TTB received a petition from Singani 

63, a distilled spirits importer, dated 

November 18, 2014, proposing that TTB 

amend its regulations to recognize 

Singani as a type of brandy that is a 

distinctive product of Bolivia. In 

support of this petition, Bolivia 

submitted letters to TTB in December 

2015 and January 2017. Singani 63 also 

submitted a letter to TTB in June 2017 

that provided additional information 

related to the petition. 

In its petition, Singani 63 stated that 

TTB’s recognition of Singani as a 

distinctive product would benefit 

consumers by informing them that the 

product was produced and labeled in 

compliance with Bolivia’s laws. It also 

asserted that Singani is a product that is 

distinct from other types of brandy. 

Furthermore, both Singani 63 and 

Bolivia indicated that Bolivia had 

established a legal standard for Singani 

as an exclusively Bolivian product. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47431 

In response to these submissions, TTB 

issued letters in February and October 

of 2017, in which TTB addressed the 

petitioner’s request for rulemaking and 

identified several deficiencies in the 

petition and its supporting documents. 

For instance, TTB noted that the 

submitted documents lacked 

substantiating information regarding 

Bolivia’s standards for the production of 

Singani. Accordingly, TTB did not 

undertake rulemaking at that time to 

amend its regulations as proposed in 

Singani 63’s petition. 

TTB subsequently received a joint 

petition from Singani 63 and Bolivia in 

November 2018, again proposing that 

TTB recognize Singani as a type of 

brandy that is a distinctive product of 

Bolivia. The 2018 joint petition 

contained additional information in 

support of its regulatory proposal, 

including official translations of 

Bolivian laws and decrees governing the 

production of Singani. 

2020 U.S.-Bolivian Exchange of Letters 

on Unique Distilled Spirits 

Following discussions between 

officials of Bolivia and the Office of the 

United States Trade Representative 

(USTR), and after consultations between 

USTR and TTB, the United States Trade 

Representative and Bolivia’s Minister of 

Foreign Affairs exchanged letters on 

January 6, 2020. The exchange of letters 

agreed upon a procedure that could 

potentially lead each party to recognize 

as distinctive certain distilled spirits 

products produced in the other party’s 

territory. 

The exchange of letters provides that 

the United States shall endeavor to 

publish a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to promulgate a regulation 

that would provide that Singani is a 

type of brandy that is a distinctive 

product of Bolivia. The exchange of 

letters further provides that if, following 

this proposed rule, the United States 

publishes a final rule announcing the 

promulgation of a regulation 

establishing Singani as a type of brandy 

that is a distinctive product of Bolivia, 

then Bolivia shall, within thirty (30) 

days thereafter, recognize Bourbon 

Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey as 

distinctive products of the United 

States. Following such recognition, 

Bolivia shall prohibit the sale within 

Bolivia of any product as Bourbon, 

Bourbon Whiskey, or Tennessee 

Whiskey, if it has not been 

manufactured in the United States in 

accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the United States 

governing the manufacture of Bourbon 

Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey. These 

protections also apply to products 

spelled as ‘‘Bourbon Whisky’’ or 

‘‘Tennessee Whisky.’’ 

Singani Production 

The Bolivian decrees and regulations 

submitted with the 2018 joint petition, 

which are included in the rulemaking 

docket, establish that Bolivia defines 

‘‘Singani’’ as a brandy product of 

Bolivia. Of the Bolivian decrees and 

regulations submitted, Bolivian 

Standard NB 324001 contains the most 

specific standards for Singani. Among 

other requirements, NB 324001 requires 

that Singani be obtained exclusively 

from vitis vinifera grapes grown in the 

traditional ‘‘zones of origin’’ at a 

minimum altitude of 1,600 meters above 

sea level. NB 324001 lists several 

different categories of Singani, some of 

which have more specific requirements, 

such as requiring the product to be 

made from Muscat of Alexandria grapes 

specifically. NB 324001 classifies 

Singani in the group ‘‘Brandies and 

liquors.’’ 

In a prior rulemaking, TTB has 

distinguished Singani from Pisco, which 

is a type of grape brandy manufactured 

in Peru or Chile in accordance with the 

laws and regulations of those countries. 

In 2013, TTB updated its labeling 

regulations to add Pisco as a type of 

brandy that is manufactured only in 

Peru and Chile. In regard to brandy 

produced in Bolivia, TTB determined 

that it would not recognize Pisco as a 

type of brandy produced in that 

country. See T.D. TTB–113 (78 FR 

28739, May 16, 2013). TTB stated that 

Bolivia maintains standards for Singani 

but not for Pisco, and cited other 

evidence suggesting that Pisco and 

Singani are different products. 

TTB Regulatory Proposal 

After reviewing the petitions, the 

regulations on the standards of identity 

in 27 CFR part 5, TTB’s Certificate of 

Label Approval (COLA) database, the 

exchange of letters between USTR and 

Bolivia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, 

and the relevant laws and regulations of 

Bolivia, TTB has determined that 

amending the standards of identity 

regulations at § 5.22 to recognize 

Singani as a distinctive product of 

Bolivia merits consideration and public 

comment, as invited in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

TTB believes that Singani generally 

meets the U.S. standard for brandy and 

should be classified as a type of brandy. 

TTB also believes that evidence suggests 

that the generally recognized 

geographical limits of the Singaniproducing areas do not extend beyond 

the boundaries of Bolivia, and that 

Singani production is not associated 

with any areas outside of Bolivia. 

Moreover, the results of a search of 

TTB’s COLA database did not show any 

approved COLAs that use the term 

‘‘Singani’’ as the brand name or fanciful 

name, or as part of the brand name or 

fanciful name, for distilled spirits 

produced outside Bolivia. 

Therefore, this document proposes to 

amend the standard of identity in 

§ 5.22(d) by adding Singani as a type of 

brandy derived from grapes that is 

manufactured in Bolivia in compliance 

with the laws and regulations of Bolivia 

governing the manufacture of Singani 

for consumption in that country. If TTB 

recognizes Singani as a type of brandy 

as proposed, it would be permissible for 

Singani imported and sold within the 

United States to simply be labeled as 

‘‘Singani’’ without the term ‘‘brandy’’ on 

the label, in the same way that products 

labeled with such type designations as 

‘‘Cognac’’ or ‘‘Pisco’’ are not required to 

also bear the designation ‘‘brandy.’’ 

The other geographically distinctive 

types of brandy defined in § 5.22(d), 

Cognac and Pisco, are defined as grape 

brandies distinct to their respective 

places of origin. However, given that 

Singani could also meet the criteria of 

other types of brandies (such as pomace 

brandy under § 5.22(d)(5), depending on 

the amount of pomace used), the 

proposed regulatory language describes 

Singani as ‘‘brandy derived from 

grapes’’ rather than as a ‘‘grape brandy.’’ 

TTB notes that the Bolivian standard 

allows products designated as Singani 

to have an alcohol content ranging from 

35 to 45 percent alcohol by volume, 

depending on the type of Singani 

produced. Because the Bolivian 

standard allows Singani to have an 

alcohol content as low as 35 percent 

alcohol by volume (or 70° proof), TTB 

is proposing to exempt Singani from the 

general requirement that brandy be 

bottled at not less than 80° proof (40 

percent alcohol by volume) and is 

instead proposing a standard for Singani 

that would include products bottled at 

not less than 70° proof (35 percent 

alcohol by volume) in accordance with 

the laws and regulations of Bolivia. TTB 

regulations have not previously 

authorized bottling proofs for a type of 

product that are below the minimum 

prescribed for the product’s class 

designation, even when a foreign 

standard permits a lower proof, so TTB 

is soliciting comment on authorizing 

this standard for Singani. 

In addition, the regulation at 

§ 5.22(d)(1) generally requires that 

brandy derived from grapes that has 

been stored in oak containers for less 

than two years must be labeled with the 

word ‘‘immature.’’ However, it also lists 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47432 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

several types of brandy (specifically 

neutral brandy, pomace brandy, marc 

brandy, grappa brandy, Pisco, Pisco 

Peru ́, and Pisco Chileno) that are 

exempt from this requirement. Because 

the Bolivian standards for Singani 

contain no specific aging requirements, 

TTB is proposing to amend § 5.22(d)(1) 

to clarify that Singani is likewise 

exempt from the requirement that it be 

labeled with the word ‘‘immature.’’ 

Effect on Currently Approved Labels 

If finalized, this amendment to the 

TTB regulations would revoke by 

operation of regulation any COLA that 

uses the term ‘‘Singani’’ as a designation 

for a distilled spirits product that was 

not manufactured in Bolivia in 

accordance with the laws and 

regulations of Bolivia governing the 

manufacture of Singani for consumption 

in that country. TTB has searched its 

COLA database and does not believe 

that this rulemaking will affect any 

existing labels. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

TTB invites comments from interested 

members of the public on this proposed 

rule, including on whether the proposed 

amendment would have an adverse 

impact on owners of U.S. trademarks 

and on the extent to which distilled 

spirits labeled as ‘‘Singani’’ are 

produced outside Bolivia. Although 

information currently before TTB 

suggests that all distilled spirits 

currently sold in the United States with 

‘‘Singani’’ on the label are produced in 

Bolivia, comments on the extent of 

production of Singani outside Bolivia, 

and on whether any existing labels will 

be affected by this proposal, will assist 

TTB in determining whether Singani 

should be recognized as a distinctive 

product of Bolivia. 

TTB is also soliciting comments on its 

proposal to authorize a minimum 

bottling proof of 35 percent alcohol by 

volume (or 70° proof) for Singani. 

Because Bolivian standards authorize 

this 70° proof minimum, TTB is 

proposing to authorize the same 

minimum for purposes of the TTB 

regulations, even though § 5.22(d) 

generally requires that brandies be 

bottled at not less than 80° proof. 

Submitting Comments 

You may submit comments on this 

proposal as an individual or on behalf 

of a business or other organization via 

the Regulations.gov website or via 

postal mail, as described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. 

Your comment must reference Notice 

No. 205 and must be submitted or 

postmarked by the closing date shown 

in the DATES section of this document. 

You may upload or include attachments 

with your comment. You also may 

submit a comment requesting a public 

hearing on this proposal. The TTB 

Administrator reserves the right to 

determine whether to hold a public 

hearing. If TTB schedules a public 

hearing, it will publish a notice of the 

date, time, and place for the hearing in 

the Federal Register. 

Confidentiality and Disclosure of 

Comments 

All submitted comments and 

attachments are part of the rulemaking 

record and are subject to public 

disclosure. Do not enclose any material 

in your comments that you consider 

confidential or that is inappropriate for 

disclosure. 

TTB will post, and you may view, 

copies of this document, its supporting 

materials, and any comments TTB 

receives about this proposal within the 

related Regulations.gov docket. In 

general, TTB will post comments as 

submitted, and it will not redact any 

identifying or contact information from 

the body of a comment or attachment. 

Please contact TTB’s Regulations and 

Rulings division by email using the web 

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

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

2265, if you have any questions 

regarding comments on this proposal or 

to request copies of this document, its 

supporting materials, or the comments 

received in response. 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

chapter 6), TTB certifies that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed rule only amends the 

standards of identity for brandy at 27 

CFR 5.22(d) and imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirements. Therefore, 

no regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this 

proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993. Therefore, no regulatory 

assessment is required. 

Drafting Information 

Trevar D. Kolodny of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division, Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted 

this notice of proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 5 

Advertising, Alcohol and alcoholic 

beverages, Consumer protection, 

Customs duties and inspection, Imports, 

Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and 

containers, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 

27, chapter I, part 5, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 5—LABELING AND 

ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 5 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5301, 7805, 27 U.S.C. 

205. 

Subpart C—Standards of Identity for 

Distilled Spirits 

■ 2. Section 5.22 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(1), revising the 

third sentence; and 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (d)(10). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 5.22 The standards of identity. 

* * * * * 

(d) Class 4; brandy. ‘‘Brandy’’ is an 

alcoholic distillate from the fermented 

juice, mash, or wine of fruit, or from the 

residue thereof, produced at less than 

190° proof in such manner that the 

distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and 

characteristics generally attributed to 

the product, and bottled at not less than 

80° proof except as otherwise provided 

in paragraph (d)(10) of this section. 

Brandy, or mixtures thereof, not 

conforming to any of the standards in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this 

section shall be designated as ‘‘brandy’’, 

and such designation shall be 

immediately followed by a truthful and 

adequate statement of composition. 

(1) * * * Fruit brandy, derived from 

grapes, shall be designated as ‘‘grape 

brandy’’ or ‘‘brandy’’, except that in the 

case of brandy (other than neutral 

brandy, pomace brandy, marc brandy, 

grappa brandy, Pisco, Pisco Peru ́, Pisco 

Chileno, or Singani) distilled from the 

fermented juice, mash, or wine of 

grapes, or the residue thereof, which has 

been stored in oak containers for less 

than 2 years, the statement of class and 

type shall be immediately preceded, in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47433 

the same size and kind of type, by the 

word ‘‘immature’’. * * * 

* * * * * 

(10) ‘‘Singani’’ is brandy derived from 

grapes that is manufactured in Bolivia 

in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of Bolivia governing the 

manufacture of Singani for consumption 

in that country, and includes Singani 

bottled at not less than 70° proof in 

accordance with such laws and 

regulations. 

* * * * * 

Signed: July 21, 2021. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: July 23, 2021. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2021–18205 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0344] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Piscataqua River Turning 

Basin Dredge Project, Portsmouth, NH 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish two temporary safety zones 

for the navigable waters of the 

Piscataqua River in Portsmouth Harbor. 

The first safety zone will be a 100-yard 

radius around any vessel, barge, or 

dredging equipment engaged in 

dredging operations. The second safety 

zone will be a 500-yard radius around 

any vessel, barge, or dredging 

equipment engaged in blasting 

operations and any blasting worksites. 

The safety zones are necessary to protect 

persons and vessels from hazards 

associated with dredging, drilling, and 

blasting operations for overall widening 

of the uppermost turning basin of the 

Piscataqua River. This proposed 

rulemaking would prohibit persons and 

vessels from being in the safety zone 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Northern New England or a 

Designated Representative. We invite 

your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before September 24, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2021–0344 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email LT Shaun Doyle, Sector Northern 

New England Waterways Management 

Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

207–347–5015, email Shaun.T.Doyle@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

COTP Captain of the Port Northern New 

England 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On February 12, 2021, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers notified the Coast 

Guard of plans to fund dredging 

operations on the uppermost turning 

basin of the Piscataqua River in 

Portsmouth Harbor. The project consists 

of widening the uppermost turning 

basin of the Piscataqua River from 800 

feet to 1,200 feet to improve navigation 

maneuverability and safety. 

The project includes dredging 

approximately 12–14 million cubic 

yards of silt, blue clay, till and 

weathered rock from the uppermost 

turning basin of the Piscataqua River in 

Portsmouth Harbor. The project will 

include mechanical dredging, drilling, 

and blasting operations. The extent of 

drilling and blasting operations will not 

be known until the top material has 

been removed and contractors can 

locate hard rock spots. The Captain of 

the Port Northern New England (COTP) 

has determined that potential hazards 

associated with dredging operations 

would be a safety concern for anyone 

within a 100-yard radius around any 

vessel, barge, or dredging equipment 

engaged in dredging operations. 

Additionally, the COTP has determined 

that potential hazards associated with 

the explosives to be used in this 

operation would be a safety concern for 

anyone within a 500-yard radius around 

any vessel, barge, or dredging 

equipment engaged in blasting 

operations and any blasting worksites. 

The Coast Guard is proposing this rule 

to be effective, and enforceable, from 

October 15, 2021, through April 15, 

2022. If the project is completed prior to 

April 15, 2022, enforcement of the 

safety zone will be terminated and 

notice given via Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or 

both. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

ensure the safety of vessels and the 

navigable waters within a 100-yard 

radius around any vessel, barge, or 

dredging equipment engaged in 

dredging operations and within a 500- 

yard radius around any vessel, barge, or 

dredging equipment engaged in blasting 

operations and any blasting worksites. 

The Coast Guard is proposing this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP is proposing to establish 

two safety zones from October 15, 2021, 

through April 15, 2022. The first safety 

zone will be a 100-yard radius around 

any vessel, barge, or dredging 

equipment actively engaged in dredging 

operations. The second safety zone will 

be a 500-yard radius around any vessel, 

barge, or dredging equipment engaged 

in blasting operations and any blasting 

worksites. The 500-yard safety zone will 

be enforced during active blasting 

operations and will be suspended once 

successful detonation has been 

confirmed and blasting operations have 

been secured. The Coast Guard will 

notify the public and local mariners of 

the 500-yard safety zone through 

appropriate means, which may include, 

but are not limited to, publication in the 

Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine 

channel 16 in advance of any 

enforcement. No vessel or person would 

be permitted to enter the safety zone 

without obtaining permission from the 

COTP or a designated representative. 

The regulatory text we are proposing 

appears at the end of this document. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This NPRM has not been designated a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS