Opinion ID: 2597548
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal and California regulations issued after passage of the FAA Act

Text: As noted above, prior to adoption of the FAA Act, California had in place, by December 1934, specific and detailed wine regulations restricting, among other things, the use of place names on wine labels. (See ante, pt. II.B.1.e.) In bulletins and reports issued in the years immediately thereafter, the California Department of Public Health touted its enforcement of those state regulations, which it described as requiring the honest labeling of wines. [47] In late December 1935, four months after adoption of the FAA Act, and one year after California's adoption of its own post-Prohibition-repeal wine labeling regulations, valid federal wine labeling regulations were approved, and those regulations became effective on March 1, 1936. (U.S. Dept. Treas., Fed. Alcohol Admin., Regs. No. 4 Relating to Labeling and Advertising of Wine (Dec. 30, 1935), arts. I-VII, 1 Fed.Reg. 83 (Apr. 1, 1936) (hereafter Regulations No. 4); see, generally, Controls Over Labeling, supra, 7 Law Contemp. Probs. 645, 652, fn. 25 et seq.) The federal labeling regulations, as amended in 1938 (see 3 Fed.Reg.2093 (Aug. 26, 1938)) and thereafter, presently are designated 27 Code of Federal Regulations, sections 4.20 through 4.39. One key provision  Code of Federal Regulations section 4.25(b)(1)(i) and (iii)  states that a wine is entitled to be described with an appellation of origin if [a]t least 75 percent of the wine is derived from fruit . . . grown in the appellation area indicated and it conforms to the laws and regulations of the named appellation area governing the composition, method of manufacture, and designation of wines made in such place. (Italics added.) [48] Soon after the adoption of this federal provision in 1938, a California statute was enacted, and two regulations were adopted, all three of which imposed more stringent California wine labeling requirements. First, in 1939, the Legislature amended the state ABC Act (Bus. Prof. Code, 23000 et seq.) to prohibit the use on wine labels of the phrase California Central Coast counties dry wine, unless the wine was in fact made entirely from grapes grown in specified Central Coast counties. (Stats.1939, ch. 1033, §§ 1-4, p. 2838; see Bus. Prof.Code, §§ 25236-25238.) Second, by 1942, a regulation had been adopted imposing a similar 100 percent grape origin requirement for any wine labeled as `California' or any geographical subdivision thereof. (See Cal. Dept. of Pub. Health, Regs. Establishing Stds. of Identity, Quality, Purity and Sanitation and Governing the Labeling and Advertising of Wine in Calif. (May 23, 1942), art. I, § 2(aa) [49] (hereafter 1942 Regulations), presently found at Cal.Code Regs., tit. 17, § 17015, subd. (a)(1).) Third, by 1942 a California regulation barred the sale of wines labeled with so-called coined (or semi-generic) brand names if the brand designation resembles an established wine type name such as . . . Madeira, . . . Port, . . . Claret, [or] Burgundy, etc. . . . . (See 1942 Regs., supra, art. II, § 8.) Under this and subsequent versions of the same regulation, a label such as Burgundy brand was long barred in California. [50] The first two California labeling rules described above plainly imposed (and still impose) a more stringent standard than the 75 percent requirement set forth in the federal appellation of origin regulation. (Regs. No. 4, § 25, as revd. 3 Fed.Reg. 2093, 2096 (Aug. 26, 1938), presently found at 27 C.F.R. § 4.25(b)(1)(i).) The third provision described above prohibited name types that the federal regulations have permitted since 1941 upon a proper showing. (See 27 C.F.R § 4.33(b), as revd. 6 Fed.Reg. 2874 (June 13, 1941) [disallowing such a geographic name unless a federal officer finds the name, either qualified by word brand or otherwise, conveys no erroneous impressions as to the . . . origin . . . of the product].) Although the parties dispute whether the first two state rules cited above are sanctioned by title 27 Code of Federal Regulations section 4.25(b)(1)(iii)  the federal provision that expressly authorizes state regulation concerning the composition (the grape ingredients) or designation of wine (the class or type of wine, as distinct from its source or origin)  the third California regulation, the coined brand-name provision, cannot be so distinguished. That state regulation plainly controlled, more strictly than the federal rules, not the mere composition or designation of wines, but the brand-name labeling of wines. In any event, there is no indication that any question previously has arisen concerning the authority or enforceability of the California statute [51] or of either regulation. Indeed, since mid-1939, the California Legislature has authorized state wine regulations that are stricter than federal wine regulations, [52] and for nearly the past 35 years, the Legislature expressly has authorized state wine regulations to  differ from or be inconsistent with  federal wine regulations (Health & Saf.Code, § 110525, italics added); [53] yet there is no indication the federal government has taken issue with this long-standing assertion of broad state authority. [54] The history of the early post-Prohibition-repeal California and federal wine labeling regulations reveals no evidence of any clear or manifest intent on the part of Congress, or the regulatory agency charged with executing the relevant law, to preempt state wine labeling regulation such as section 25241. This history suggests, instead, the opposite.