[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2122-2134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-624]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

27 CFR Parts 4, 5, 7, 13, and 19

[TD ATF-406 Re: Notice No. 815 and Notice No. 819]
RIN: 1512-AB34


Procedures for the Issuance, Denial, and Revocation of 
Certificates of Label Approval, Certificates of Exemption From Label 
Approval, and Distinctive Liquor Bottle Approvals (93F-029P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is issuing 
regulations setting forth the procedures for the issuance, denial, and 
revocation of certificates of label approval (COLAs), certificates of 
exemption from label approval, and distinctive liquor bottle approvals. 
The denial and revocation regulations are new, whereas the issuance 
regulations merely amend current regulations. The new regulations also 
codify procedures for administratively appealing the denial or 
revocation of certificates of label approval, exemptions from label 
approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approvals.

DATES: These regulations are effective March 15, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed regulation and written comments are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at: ATF 
Reading Room, Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure, Room 6480, 650 
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward A. Reisman, Jr., Product Compliance Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20226 (202-927-8140).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act, 27 U.S.C. 205(e), 
provides ATF, as the delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, with 
authority to promulgate regulations with respect to the bottling, 
packaging, and labeling of distilled spirits, wine, and malt beverages 
in order to prohibit deception of the consumer, and provide the 
consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of 
the product.
    In order to carry out such requirements, domestic bottlers and 
producers are prohibited from bottling distilled spirits, wines, or 
malt beverages, and importers are prohibited from removing bottled 
distilled spirits, wines, or malt beverages from customs custody unless 
they have in their possession a certificate of label approval covering 
such products, ``issued by the Secretary in such manner and form as he 
shall by regulations prescribe.'' 27 U.S.C. 205(e). The law provides an 
exemption from these requirements for products that are not to be sold, 
offered for sale, or shipped or delivered for shipment, or otherwise 
introduced, in interstate or foreign commerce.
    The regulations implementing these statutory provisions provide 
that no person shall bottle or pack wine, distilled spirits, or malt 
beverages unless application is made to the Director and an approved 
certificate of label approval, ATF Form 5100.31, is issued. 27 CFR 
4.50(a), 5.55(a), and 7.41. The regulations also provide that no 
bottled wines, distilled spirits, or malt beverages shall be released 
from customs custody for consumption unless an approved certificate of 
label approval, ATF Form 5100.31, is deposited with the appropriate 
customs officer at the port of entry. 27 CFR 4.40(a), 5.51(a), and 
7.31(a).
    A bottler of wine or distilled spirits who can show to the 
satisfaction of the Director that the product is not to be sold, 
offered for sale, or shipped or delivered for shipment or otherwise 
introduced in interstate or foreign commerce, must make application for 
exemption from the labeling requirements of the FAA Act on ATF Form 
5100.31 in accordance with the instructions on the form. If the 
application is approved, a certificate of exemption from label approval 
will be issued on the same form. 27 CFR 4.50(b) and 5.55(b). 
Certificates of exemption from label approval are not issued for malt 
beverages.
    Finally, the ATF Form 5100.31 is also used to obtain approval for 
distinctive liquor bottles, pursuant to the regulations appearing at 27 
CFR 19.633(a). ATF's authority to regulate liquor bottles is derived 
from section 5301 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 5301. 
However, the approval of a distinctive liquor bottle also includes the 
approval of the label on that bottle, pursuant to the FAA Act.

Revocation of COLAs

    ATF reviews approximately 60,000 applications for certificates of 
label approval, exemptions from label approval, and distinctive liquor 
bottle

[[Page 2123]]

approvals every year. Because errors occasionally occur in the approval 
process, there is a need for some type of revocation procedure.
    Since the enactment of the FAA Act in 1935, ATF and its predecessor 
agencies have taken the position that the statutory authority to issue 
certificates of label approval includes the implied statutory authority 
to cancel or revoke the certificates if they were approved in error. 
However, there have never been formal procedures in the regulations for 
denial or revocation of certificates of label approval. Instead, ATF 
has utilized informal procedures for denials and revocations, where 
applicants or certificate holders who wished to contest a denial or 
revocation are given an opportunity to do so in writing, or through 
informal meetings with Bureau officials.
    The certificate of label approval was never intended to convey any 
type of proprietary interest to the certificate holder. On the 
contrary, Paragraph 1 of Form 5100.31 provides that ``This certificate 
is issued for ATF use only. This certificate does not constitute 
trademark protection.'' Paragraph 2 of this form reminds applicants 
that the ``certificate does not relieve any person from liability for 
violations of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.'' The certificate 
of label approval is a statutorily mandated tool used to help ATF in 
its enforcement of the labeling requirements of the FAA Act.
    ATF's informal procedures for revocation of COLAs were subject to 
challenge in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of 
California. In Cabo Distributing Co. v. Brady, 821 F. Supp. 601 (N.D. 
Cal. 1992), the court set aside ATF's revocation of labels for ``Black 
Death'' vodka on several grounds. The court held that there was no 
express statutory or regulatory authority for the Bureau to cancel 
certificates of label approval, and that the Bureau had implied 
authority to reverse its actions only in limited circumstances. The 
court thus concluded that ``[w]ithout statutory authority or regulatory 
authority, the BATF cannot cancel a certificate of label approval.'' 
821 F. Supp. at 612. The court also held that the Bureau's informal 
procedures for revoking the ``Black Death'' certificates of label 
approval had not afforded the certificate holders their constitutional 
right to procedural due process. 821 F. Supp. at 612.
    AFT does not agree with the court's decision on either of these two 
holdings. ATF believes that a right to cancel certificates of label 
approval is implied from the authority granted by the statute to the 
Secretary to issue certificates of label approval ``in such manner and 
form as he shall by regulations prescribe * * *'' The statute 
explicitly authorizes ATF, as a delegate of the Secretary, to issue 
regulations governing the procedure for the issuance of certificates of 
label approval. There is also implicit statutory authority to issue 
regulations governing the procedures for denying and revoking 
certificates of label approval.
    Furthermore, ATF believes that the procedures that it has been 
using for revoking certificates of label approval, although not 
codified in the regulations, have provided certificate holders with due 
process of law. However, ATF determined that rulemaking was appropriate 
in order to clarify its authority and procedures for revocation of 
label approvals.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On September 13, 1995, ATF published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (Notice No. 815, 60 FR 47506-47512) to solicit public 
comment on regulations setting forth procedures for the issuance, 
denial, and revocation of certificates of label approval, certificates 
of exemption from label approval, and distinctive liquor bottle 
approvals. The comment period closed on December 12, 1995, and was 
reopened until February 21, 1996, by notice dated January 22, 1996 
(Notice No. 819, 61 FR 1545-1546).
    Notice No. 815 proposed to make existing regulations covering 
issuance of certificates of label approval, certificates of exemption 
from label approval, and distinctive liquor bottle approvals more 
specific and proposed new regulations to codify existing informal 
procedures for denial of applications and revocation of certificates. 
The notice also proposed the codification of procedures for 
administratively appealing the denial or revocation of certificates of 
label approval, exemptions from label approval, and distinctive liquor 
bottle approvals. In the notice, ATF restated its position that the 
proposed regulations would afford applicants and certificate holders 
due process of law, and that the codification of these procedures in 
the regulations would eliminate any question as to ATF's authority to 
revoke certificates of label approval, exemptions from label approval, 
and distinctive liquor bottle approvals.
    Under current regulations, the authority to approve certificates of 
label approval, exemptions from label approval, and distinctive liquor 
bottle applications rests with the Director and has been delegated to 
the labeling specialists in the Product Compliance Branch. The proposed 
regulations described the process of approval, denial, and 
administrative appeal in a new part 13. Proposed revisions to parts 4, 
5, 7, and 19 added cross-references to the new part 13.
    With respect to revocations of certificates of label approval, 
certificates of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor 
bottle approvals, and administrative appeals of such actions, the 
proposed regulations set forth a procedure based on ATF's informal 
practices.
    In response to Notice 815, ATF received comments from the following 
organizations:

    Government Liaison Services, Inc.;
    Presidents' Forum of the Beverage Alcohol Industry (Presidents' 
Forum);
    American Brandy Association (ABA);
    Wine Institute;
    Federation Internationale des Vins et Spiriteux (FIVS);
    Federation des Exportateurs de Vins & Spiriteux de France 
(FEVS);
    National Assocaition of Beverage Importers, Inc. (NABI). Five 
importers, Remy Amerique, Inc., Austin Nichols & Co. Inc., Dribeck 
Importers, Inc., Guinness Import Company, Kobrand Corporation, and 
two associations, The Scotch Whisky Association and the Associacion 
de Criadores Exportadores de Sherry, wrote to endorse the comments 
of NABI;
    The Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS). Jim Beam 
Brands Co., a distiller, wrote to express agreement with the DISCUS 
comments;
    Beer Institute filed comments on behalf of its senior members: 
The Anheuser Busch Companies, Miller Brewing Company, Coors Brewing 
Company, Stroh Brewery Company, and G. Heileman Brewing Company;
    Ropes & Gray filed comments on behalf of the Institut Nationale 
des Appellations d'Origine (INAO) of France, an entity responsible 
for protecting French appellations of origin;
    The U.S. Department of Commerce transmitted comments from the 
European Commission (EC); and
    The Embassy of Mexico Trade Office forwarded comments from 
Mexico's Direccion General De Normas concerning labeling of tequila 
and mezcal. This last comment suggests regulatory changes that are 
beyond the scope of Notice Number 815, but may be considered as part 
of a future rulemaking.

Analysis of Comments

    The majority of the commenters expressed support for ATF's effort 
to promulgate regulations covering issuance, denial, and revocation of 
certificates of label approval, certificates of exemption from label 
approval, and distinctive liquor bottle approvals, though most had 
comments on specific proposals.

[[Page 2124]]

Proposals and Comments on Application, Approval and Denial

    In Notice No. 815, ATF set forth proposed regulations describing in 
detail the steps in applying for a certificate of label approval, 
certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor 
bottle approval, including issuance of approved certificates, denial of 
applications, and appeal of such denials. A number of comments 
addressed specific items in these proposed regulations.
    In its comment, Government Liaison Services, Inc. expressed concern 
at the use of the word ``send'' in proposed Sec. 13.11, which they 
interpreted to preclude hand delivery of applications for label 
approval. A clarifying change is made to this section, now designated 
as Sec. 13.21. ATF did not intend to prohibit hand-delivered 
applications.
    In the proposed rule, ATF described the approval process, including 
the noting of any qualifications to the approval in the appropriate 
space on the form. The proposed rule further provided that if an 
application is denied for any reason, the applicant is sent an ATF Form 
5190.1, ``ATF F 5100.31 Correction Sheet,'' with the reasons for the 
denial briefly noted on the form. The proposed regulations afforded the 
applicant an opportunity to file an administrative appeal of the denial 
of an application for a certificate of label approval, certificate of 
exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval, 
with the Chief, Labeling Section, Product Compliance Branch, who would 
make a final decision on the denial of the application.
    Government Liaison Services, Inc., the President's Forum, NABI and 
DISCUS all commented that the initial correction notice and informal 
discussion of technical issues arising from the application that often 
occurs between applicants and ATF representatives should be kept 
separate from a formal appeal process. DISCUS, in its comment, noted 
``these informal consultations and contacts have served and do serve 
the interests of all parties, with commensurate savings in expenditures 
and manpower for both the government and the industry.''
    In practice, applicants and ATF representatives often informally 
resolve issues related to a qualified approval or a denied application. 
ATF does not wish to create the impression that all qualifications or 
denials must be formally appealed. Accordingly, we have added a new 
subsection Sec. 13.25(b) to confirm that the applicant has the option 
of pursuing informal resolution of a labeling issue by requesting an 
informal conference with the Product Compliance Branch Specialist or 
the Chief, Product Compliance Branch.
    Government Liaison Services, Inc. also noted that the proposed 
regulations did not incorporate ATF's practice of allowing voluntary 
withdrawal of applications. A new Sec. 13.22 has been added to cover 
withdrawal of applications.
    Beer Institute, DISCUS and Government Liaison Services, Inc. 
questioned ATF's proposal to authorize the Chief of the Labeling 
Section to make final decisions on appeals of denials of applications 
for certificates of label approvals, exemptions from label approvals 
and distinctive liquor bottles. They suggested review by either a 
higher level officials within the Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division 
or by someone outside the Division. Pursuant to these comments, a 
second level of appeal has been added in Sec. 13.27 for qualifications 
or denials of applications for label approval. The final rule provides 
that the first appeal will be decided by the Chief, Product Compliance 
Branch, and the second appeal will be decided by the Chief, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Programs Division.

Appeal of Qualifications

    The final rule expands the formal and informal resolution and 
appeal procedures for denials to include resolution of disagreements 
concerning qualifications on approved certificates. For these purposes, 
a qualification is treated like a partial denial, since it limits the 
use of the COLA.

Comments on Revocation and Appeal

    With respect to revocations of certificates of label approval, 
certificates of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor 
bottle approvals, the proposed regulations divided revocations into two 
categories, revocation of specific labels and revocation by operation 
of law or regulation. The two types of revocation will be discussed 
separately in this background material.
    The proposed regulations on revocation of specific approvals gave 
the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, authority to issue a notice of 
proposed revocation and gave the certificate holder 45 days to present 
written arguments as to why the revocation should not occur. In the 
proposed rule, the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, was authorized to 
decide whether to revoke the certificate. If a label or distinctive 
liquor bottle approval were revoked, the certificate holder would have 
45 days to file a written appeal with the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco 
Programs Division. In the proposed rule, the decision of the Chief, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, was the final decision of the 
Bureau.

ATF's Authority To Revoke Label Approvals

    Most commenters who addressed the issue agreed that ATF had 
authority to revoke certificates of label approval, although there was 
disagreement on the circumstances where revocation would be 
appropriate. DISCUS argued, however, that in the absence of a specific 
statutory provision authorizing revocations of approved labels, ATF 
lacked authority to take such actions.
    ATF does not agree that it lacks statutory authority to revoke 
certificates of label approval. Many courts have recognized ``an 
implied authority in other agencies to reconsider and rectify errors 
even though the applicable statute and regulations do not expressly 
provide for such reconsideration.'' Gun South, Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d 
858, 862 (11th Cir. 1989). For example, in concluding that the 
Interstate Commerce Commission could order a refund to correct a prior 
error, the Supreme Court stated that ``[a]n agency, like a court, can 
undo what is wrongfully done by virtue of its order.'' United Gas 
Improvement Co. v. Callery Properties, 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1965). See 
also Kudla v. Modde, 537 F. Supp. 87, 89 (E.D. Mich. 1982) (``[t]he 
power of the state to require a license implies the power of the state 
to revoke a license which has been improperly issued.''), aff'd without 
opinion, 711 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1983); Century Arms, Inc. v. Kennedy, 
323 F. Supp. 1002, 1016-17 (D. Vt. 1971), (``we are aware of no 
licenses which once granted, can never be taken away.''), aff'd, 449 
F.2d 1306 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1065 (1972).
    As we explained in the notice, it is ATF's position that its 
statutory authority to issue regulations governing the issuance of 
COLAs also includes the implied authority to issue regulations setting 
forth procedures for the denial and revocation of such COLAs. The 
single comment opposed to this position did not provide a persuasive 
basis for concluding otherwise.

Due Process Issues

    The American Brandy Association (ABA), Beer Institute, Wine 
Institute, NABI and DISCUS submitted comments suggesting that ATF's 
approval of a certificate of label approval (COLA) does create a 
property right subject to the protection of due process of law.
    ATF has always maintained that its informal procedures concerning 
the

[[Page 2125]]

denial and revocation of COLAs were sufficient to provide procedural 
due process to the applicant or certificate holder. Procedural due 
process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive 
individuals of ``liberty'' or ``property'' interests within the meaning 
of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court has 
recognized that ``due process is flexible and calls for such procedural 
protections as the particular situation demands.'' Morrissey v. Brewer, 
408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972).
    In determining whether an administrative procedure accords due 
process, three factors are considered:

    First, the private interest that will be affected by the 
official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of 
such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, 
if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and 
finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved 
and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or 
substitute procedural requirement would entail.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976).

    ATF recognizes that brand names and other terms on labels may be 
significant elements in the marketing of an alcohol beverage. However, 
even assuming that a certificate represents a property interest, we 
believe that the procedures set forth in the final rule minimize the 
risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest of the industry 
member. The procedures adopted in the final rule ensure that 
certificate holders are given prior written notice of a proposed 
revocation; the opportunity to meet with agency officials to discuss 
the issues; and the opportunity to present written arguments or 
evidence before the agency takes final action to revoke a label.
    There have been suggestions that an evidentiary hearing, complete 
with an Administrative Law Judge and the right to cross-examine 
witnesses, is the appropriate model for a revocation proceeding. 
However, none of the commenters explained why a written review 
procedure involved a risk of erroneous deprivation of the certificate 
holder's property interests, or why an evidentiary hearing would shed 
further light on the issue of whether a label is in compliance with the 
regulations. See Doolin Sec. Sav. Bank v. FDIC, 53 F.3d 1395, 1403 (4th 
Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 973 (1995) (finding that an agency 
was not required to provide an evidentiary hearing where the plaintiff 
did not ``offer sufficient evidence demonstrating that an oral hearing 
would allow it to present evidence * * * that it could not present in 
the written review procedure'' and the ``determination did not involve 
credibility assessments, which would benefit from an oral hearing with 
the presentation of witnesses'').
    Thus, the comments provided no basis for concluding that the 
additional procedural safeguards provided by an evidentiary hearing 
would be of value. However, such hearings would certainly impose 
additional administrative burdens on the agency. After evaluating the 
factors set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, it is clear that due process 
does not require a formal evidentiary hearing before the agency revokes 
a certificate of label approval. As the Supreme Court noted in the 
case, ``the judicial model of an evidentiary hearing is neither a 
required, nor even the most effective, method of decisionmaking in all 
circumstances.'' 424 U.S. at 348. This is especially true where, as 
here, judicial review of the final agency determination is available in 
the United States District Court pursuant to the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA). See 27 U.S.C. 205(e); 5 U.S.C. 702. See also 
Doolin, 53 F.3d at 1405 (``This opportunity for judicial review of FDIC 
reclassification determinations therefore supports our conclusion that 
the FDIC's risk classification review procedures satisfy due 
process''). Accordingly, the final rule does not provide for 
evidentiary hearings in connection with the revocation of certificates.

Level of Appeal

    Some commenters suggested that the impact of a revocation on the 
industry member warrants review at a higher level than the ATF 
officials designated in the proposed rule. A number of commenters, 
including Beer Institute, suggested that the officials designated in 
the proposed rule to hear appeals are in day-to-day contact with the 
persons making the initial decisions and may even have participated in 
making those initial decisions. As previously noted, some commenters 
even suggested that appeals of revocations should be heard by an 
Administrative Law Judge.
    The APA, 5 U.S.C. 554, generally requires that an independent 
hearing officer preside at formal adjudicatory hearings ``in every case 
of adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record 
after opportunity for an agency hearing.'' Section 554 also requires 
the separation of investigatory and decisionmaking functions for this 
type of formal adjudication.
    The Federal Alcohol Administration Act does not provide that 
proceedings regarding labels must be ``determined on the record after 
opportunity for an agency hearing.'' Accordingly, proceedings regarding 
the approval or denial of a label do not constitute formal adjudicatory 
proceedings under the APA. See Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. 
Dillon, 344 F.2d 497 (D.C. Cir. 1965). Similarly, there is no statutory 
requirement that appeals of denials or revocations be determined on the 
record after opportunity for an agency hearing. Since these proceedings 
are not formal adjudications, there is no legal requirement that such 
appeals be heard by an independent hearing officer or Administrative 
Law Judge.
    Nonetheless, ATF recognizes that many industry members believe that 
fairness dictates that appeals should be heard at a high enough level 
to ensure some division between the initiation of revocation 
proceedings and the final appeal. In response to these comments, we 
have revised the final rule to designate higher level officials to make 
revocation decisions and hear appeals. The Chief, Product Compliance 
Branch, will issue a notice of proposed revocation, but the decision 
whether or not to revoke a certificate will be made by the Chief, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division. Any appeal of such a revocation 
will be decided by the Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco.

Time Limits for Initiating Revocation Proceedings

    As noted above, many commenters suggested limitations on ATF's 
authority to rescind label approvals. Several commenters suggested 
setting a time within which ATF must begin revocation proceedings. For 
example, Beer Institute suggested a 30-day period during which ATF 
could revoke labels to correct agency administrative errors without a 
formal administrative hearing, and then ``an outer limit of one year'' 
on any other revocation. Wine Institute suggested that any time limit 
(they suggested five years) should be measured from ``relatively wide 
and bona fide distribution'' of a product, rather than from approval of 
a label.
    It has been ATF's experience that in some cases, errors in the 
label approval process are not detected right away. For example, a 
label may be approved for a product that is not placed on the market 
for some time. ATF believes that the placement of an artificial time 
constraint on its ability to take revocation action would not further 
the statutory purpose of protecting the consumer from misleading 
labels. Accordingly, the final rule does not set forth such a time 
limit.

[[Page 2126]]

Standard of Proof for Revocation

    The American Brandy Association and DISCUS suggested that the 
standard for revocation should be based on ``clear and convincing 
evidence'' that a label is not in compliance with law or regulations. 
However, the comment did not provide a legal basis for imposing such a 
standard.
    Under the APA, an agency action (including an informal adjudication 
such as a denial or revocation of a certificate) shall be set aside by 
a reviewing court if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. 
706(2)(A). Even an agency's action in a formal adjudicatory proceeding 
(which this is not) will be set aside by a reviewing court only if it 
is ``unsupported by substantial evidence.'' 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(E). there 
is no requirement that an agency establish ``clear and convincing 
evidence'' to justify its actions.
    The standard of review set forth in the APA provides sufficient 
protection to applicants and certificate holders wishing to contest 
agency actions. Accordingly, this comment was not adopted.

Judicial Review

    ATF is modifying the final rule to clarify that the administrative 
remedies available within ATF must be exhausted prior to application to 
the Federal courts for review. Accordingly, Secs. 13.26, 13.27 and 
13.44 are amended to reflect this requirement.

Effect of Revocation

    There were several comments and questions concerning the effect of 
revocation of a certificate. In response, we have added a new 
Sec. 13.73 to clarify this issue. Section 13.73 provides that, as of 
the effective date of the revocation, a revoked certificate may not be 
used to bottle or pack distilled spirits, wine or malt beverages; to 
remove such products from the place where they were bottled or packed; 
or to remove such products from customs custody for consumption.

Use-Up Period

    A number of commenters suggested a longer ``use-up'' period for 
revoked labels. We have revised the section covering this issue, now 
designated as Sec. 13.72, to allow 60 days from the date of the initial 
revocation of the certificate. Some commenters also did not understand 
that the proposed regulations provided that a timely appeal would stay 
the effective date of a revocation of a certificate (other than a 
revocation by operation of law or regulations). Accordingly, Sec. 13.72 
now incorporates the material on the effect of an appeal on the date of 
revocation, which was originally proposed in Sec. 13.50(b).

Revocations by Operation of Law or Regulation

    With respect to revocations by operation of law or regulation, the 
proposed rule did not require ATF to issue a notice of proposed 
revocation prior to notifying a certificate holder of the revocation of 
a certificate of label approval, certificate of exemption from label 
approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval. The proposed rule 
stated that in these cases, the burden of ensuring that affected labels 
were in compliance with the new requirements imposed by statute or 
regulation was on the certificate holder, not ATF.
    The proposed rule provided that if ATF determined that a label or 
bottle which was not in compliance with the new statutory or regulatory 
requirements was still being used, the Chief, Product Compliance 
Branch, would issue a letter notifying the certificate holder that the 
certificate had been revoked by operation of law or regulation. If the 
certificate holder wished to challenge the application of the law or 
regulation to the particular label or bottle, the holder would appeal 
the decision, in writing, to the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs 
Division.
    In its comment, DISCUS expressed its opinion that ATF should 
individually notify holders whose labels are revoked by operation of 
law, that ATF should never require submission of new COLAs to show 
compliance with any new requirement in the law, and further expressed 
the opinion that COLAs may not be revoked by operation of regulation. 
ATF is not adopting any of these comments.
    In the first instance, affected certificate holders will likely 
receive notice of a proposed or final change in regulations by the 
publication of such notice or regulation in the Federal Register. 
Changes in law usually will be accompanied by changes in regulations. 
Amendments to both the law and regulations affecting industry members 
will be published in the ATF Quarterly Bulletin. Thus, there can be no 
argument that industry members do not receive notice of such changes. 
In those instances, ATF believes the responsibility for learning about 
the changes in the law and regulations and making appropriate changes 
to labels properly rests with the certificate holders.
    Second, ATF reserves the right to decide, based on the facts and 
circumstances of each change in regulations, whether to require 
certificate holders to file new applications to show compliance with 
new requirements or to excuse holders of approved certificates from 
filing new applications, no longer as labels are modified 
appropriately.
    Finally, on the issue of ATF's authority to revoke labels by 
operation of regulations, we believe this is part of our general 
authority to promulgate regulations and to revoke labels, which was 
discussed earlier in this preamble. Changes in the labeling regulations 
usually affect all future labeling activities, regardless of when a 
certificate of label approval was originally issued for a particular 
label. Such changes to the regulations will usually set forth 
specifically whether existing certificates of label approval must be 
surrendered, and new certificates obtained. In the event that an 
individual change to the labeling regulations is accompanied by a 
``grandfathering'' provision for previously approved certificates of 
label approval, the regulation will so provide.

Time Limits for Appeals

    Several commenters, including Beer Institute, DISCUS, FEVS and 
NABI, asked ATF to set a time limit for its own actions in response to 
appeals. DISCUS, in its comment, suggested that ``[c]onsistent with the 
tenet of administrative efficiency, we believe that it is appropriate 
that the Bureau be required to issue its written decision concerning a 
COLA denial within 15 days from the receipt of the applicant's appeal 
of the denial.'' DISCUS made similar recommendations with respect to 
deadlines for ATF action on decisions after a COLA holder disputes a 
notice of proposed revocation and appeals a revocation. Beer Institute 
made the following suggestion: ``* * * we propose that ATF adopt a 45-
day period to render decisions on appeals of denials of COLA 
applications.'' With respect to revocations, they recommend that 
decisions ``be made within 30 days'' after a formal appeal by the 
holder of the COLA.
    Pursuant to the comments received on this issue, ATF has added a 
time limit provision to each of the regulatory sections covering 
initial approvals, appeals of denials of certificates, decisions 
whether or not to revoke a certificate, and appeals of revocations. ATF 
does not believe that the time periods suggested by the comments 
provide sufficient time for the unusual labeling cases that may require 
extensive agency review. Accordingly, the final rule provides that ATF 
must

[[Page 2127]]

generally act within 90 days of receiving an application or appeal. 
However, the regulations provide that, if an applicant or certificate 
holder requests an informal conference as part of an appeal, as 
authorized in Sec. 13.71, the 90-day period will begin 10 days after 
the date of the conference to allow for consideration of any written 
arguments, facts or evidence submitted after the conference. Further, 
ATF may exercise an option to extend this period one time for an 
additional 90 days, based on unusual circumstances.
    It should be emphasized that ATF's current customer service 
standards call for action on initial label applications within 9 
calendar days; the allowance of 90 days in the regulations does not 
reflect any intention to lengthen the average period of time for label 
review. Instead, the regulation merely places an outside limit on the 
unusual labeling cases that may require additional fact-finding, 
consultation with other agencies, or extensive review within the 
agency. A new Sec. 13.75 has been added to clarify the beginning date 
of this time limit.

Formal Third-Party Involvement in the Label Process

    The INAO comment suggested that ATF should recognize the rights of 
third parties with respect to certificates of label approval. Once 
example given by the INAO was where ``a label may contain a brand, 
fanciful name, class, type or other designation that is identical or 
substantially similar to a term, such as an appellation of origin, 
which is protected under U.S. treaties, agreements, laws or 
regulations.'' The INAO suggested that in such a case, ATF should 
implement procedures to ensure that the country of origin was contacted 
regarding the use of the term on the label.
    In appropriate situations, ATF will contact the country of origin 
for more information regarding whether the use of a labeling term would 
violate the laws of the country. Accordingly, ATF does not believe it 
is necessary to codify such procedures in the regulations.
    The INAO also suggested that ATF should implement a system to 
publish approved labels, perhaps similar to the Official Gazette of the 
Patent and Trademark Office. Their comment suggested that such a 
procedure would enable concerned third parties to receive timely notice 
of approved labels, and, in the case of an erroneous approval, will 
enable the third party to bring the error to ATF's attention promptly.
    Certificates of label approval or exemption from label approval, 
and approvals of distinctive containers, become public information upon 
approval, and can be viewed at the ATF Library or requested by mail 
under the Freedom of Information Act. ATF is also working to make these 
public records more readily available through electronic means. We hope 
to make the approved label database available on the Internet in the 
next year or two; we believe that this will provide affected third 
parties ample opportunity to inspect approved labels. Thus, we do not 
see a need for publishing approved labels on a regular basis.
    However, in response to this comment, the final regulations contain 
a new Sec. 13.61, which codifies ATF's policy concerning publicity of 
information contained in applications for certificates of label 
approval, certificates of exemption from label approval, and 
distinctive liquor bottle approvals, and the resulting approvals or 
administrative actions. The regulations also codify ATF's longstanding 
policy that pending and denied applications for label approval are 
treated as proprietary information and are not released to the public 
without the consent of the submitter.
    The INAO and FEVS requested ATF to consider new procedures that 
would allow third parties to intervene in proceedings concerning the 
denial or revocation of a label. The INAO suggested that if a proposed 
revocation of such a label were appealed by the certificate holder, the 
third party should have an opportunity during the appeal process to 
submit material in support of revocation.
    The INAO correctly noted that ATF currently reviews complaints 
concerning approved labels where a third party believes that the label 
is in violation of the regulations. However, the INAO suggested that 
this policy be codified, so that the public would be aware of its 
existence. We concur with the suggestion to codify ATF's policy and 
informal practice concerning review of third party complaints, and 
accordingly have added a new Sec. 13.62 to the final rule. However, the 
regulation does not provide for any formal role for third parties 
during a revocation proceeding. ATF believes that it may be appropriate 
in certain cases to seek the opinions of third parties regarding 
whether a particular label is misleading to consumers; however, we 
believe that this is best determined on a case-by-case basis.

Service of Notices

    In proposed Sec. 13.55, ATF stated that notices of denial, proposed 
revocation and revocation will be served by first class mail or by 
personal delivery. NABI and several other commenters stated that 
service by mail should be by registered mail, return receipt requested. 
This section has been renumbered as Sec. 13.76 in the final rule and 
modified to require proof of service of notices of proposed revocation 
or revocation, either a postal return receipt or equivalent written 
acknowledgment obtained from the addressee by a commercial delivery 
service or a report of hand delivery by an ATF official. The final rule 
does not require proof of service for notices of denial of 
applications, since applicants may not use a label until an approved 
certificate is received.

Informal Conferences

    In proposed Sec. 13.40(a), ATF reserved the right to decide whether 
to grant an informal conference to discuss a denial or revocation of a 
certificate. Several commenters suggested that such a conference should 
be granted as a matter of right, and cited 27 CFR 70.418, which states 
that any person may have a conference concerning ``any matter arising 
in connection with such person's operations'' upon request. In the 
final rule, the paragraph, now designated as Sec. 13.71, is revised to 
show that a conference will be granted upon request.
    Proposed paragraph (b) of that section stated that no transcript 
would be made of a conference, if one was held, and that any arguments, 
facts or evidence on which an applicant or certificate holder wishes to 
rely, should be incorporated in a written submission. A number of 
commenters expressed the opinion that there should be a formal record 
made of such a conference. ATF disagrees. As noted above, proceedings 
regarding label approvals are not required by statute to be conducted 
on the record after an agency hearing; accordingly this is not a formal 
adjudicatory proceeding. The regulations clarify that the conference is 
an informal means of clarifying issues or discussing alternative 
solutions, not an administrative hearing. The written submission of the 
applicant or certificate holder and the written response of ATF will 
form the official administrative record of such proceedings.

Comments Regarding Imported Products

    The EC commented that ``establishing a mandatory procedure 
concerning certificates of label approval * * * would appear to be 
disproportionate to the pursued objective'' (of preventing consumer 
deception). The EC said

[[Page 2128]]

further that they ``would, therefore, deem this regulation as having 
the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to European exports unless 
the U.S. authorities can show that this proposal is not more trade-
restrictive than necessary to fulfill the pursued objective and explain 
the justification for this technical rule in terms of these Articles. * 
* *'' (Article 2.2 and Article 5.1.2 in connection with Article 2.5 of 
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade).
    The final regulations do not create any unnecessary obstacles to 
European exports to the United States; on the contrary, the regulations 
will provide all applicants and certificate holders with more detailed 
and specific information about the label approval process. The 
regulations also set forth specific avenues of appeal for applicants 
and certificate holders. Domestic and imported products are treated 
with parity under both the proposed and final regulations. Accordingly, 
ATF does not agree that the regulations create unnecessary obstacles to 
imported products.
    In its comments, FEVS asked that ATF ensure equal treatment of 
domestic and foreign goods in the final rule, but did not identify any 
specific changes to be made. As noted above, ATF is not aware of any 
provision in the proposed rule or this final rule that treats domestic 
and imported products differently.
    NABI noted that importers of beer are subject to suspension or 
revocation of their basic permits for FAA Act violations, including 
labeling violations, while domestic brewers are not required to obtain 
a basic permit under the FAA Act. However, this distinction flows 
directly from the statute and is not subject to change through 
regulations. Furthermore, brewers may be subject to other sanctions for 
violations of the FAA Act. Thus, no changes were made to the final rule 
as a result of these comments.

Unrelated Labeling Issues

    Government Liaison Services, Inc. expressed concerns about ATF's 
day-to-day handling of applications for certificates of label approval, 
exemption from label approval, and distinctive liquor bottles. They 
requested that ATF make changes in areas such as training, workflow, 
recordkeeping, and communication of policy decisions. Similar concerns 
were raised in the DISCUS and INAO comments.
    These issues are beyond the scope of this rulemaking document. 
Nonetheless, ATF is committed to improving the day-to-day 
administration of its label approval system. ATF is addressing these 
issues through partnership meetings with the regulated industry, and 
through internal restructuring efforts.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The regulation will give ATF specific regulatory authority to issue, 
deny or revoke certificates of label approval, exemptions from label 
approval, and distinctive liquor bottle approvals. The regulation will 
not increase recordkeeping or reporting requirements. 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 entitles; or (2) to impose, or 
otherwise cause a significant increase in the reporting, recordkeeping, 
or other compliance burdens on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant 
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 
this rule is not subject to the analysis required by this Executive 
Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
3507(j), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not 
apply to this document because no requirement to collect information is 
imposed.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of this document is Marjorie D. Ruhf, 
Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. However, 
other personnel of ATF participated in developing this document.

List of Subjects in

27 CFR Part 4

    Advertising, Consumer protection, Customs duties and inspection, 
Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Wine.

27 CFR Part 5

    Advertising, Consumer protection, Customs duties and inspection, 
Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Trade practices.

27 CFR Part 7

    Advertising, Beer, Consumer protection, Customs duties and 
inspection, Imports, Labeling.

27 CFR Part 13

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol and alcoholic 
beverages, Appeals, Applications, Certificates of label approval, 
Certificates of exemption from label approval, Denials, Distinctive 
liquor bottle approvals, Informal conferences, Labeling, Revocations.

27 CFR Part 19

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol and alcoholic 
beverages, Authority delegations, Claims, Chemicals, Customs duties and 
inspection, Electronic fund transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Gasohol, 
Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Puerto Rico, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Security measures, 
Spices and flavorings, Surety bonds, Transportation, Virgin Islands, 
Warehouses, Wine.

Authority and Issuance

    Chapter I of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as 
follows:

PART 4--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF WINE

    Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    Par. 2. Section 4.40 is amended to add paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 4.40  Label approval and release.

* * * * *
    (d) Cross reference. For procedures regarding the issuance, denial, 
and revocation of certificates of label approval, as well as appeal 
procedures, see part 13 of this chapter.
    Par. 3. Section 4.50 is amended to add paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 4.50  Certificates of label approval.

* * * * *
    (c) Cross reference. For procedures regarding the issuance, denial, 
and revocation of certificates of label approval, and certificates of 
exemption from label approval, as well as appeal procedures, see part 
13 of this chapter.

PART 5--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS

    Par. 4. The authority citaiton for part 5 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5301, 7805, 27 U.S.C. 205.


[[Page 2129]]


    Par. 5. Section 5.46 is amended to revise paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 5.46  Standard liquor bottles.

* * * * *
    (d) Exceptions.--(1) Distinctive liquor bottles. The headspace and 
design requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section do not 
apply to liquor bottles that are specifically exempted by the Director, 
pursuant to an application filed by the bottler or importer.
    (2) Cross reference. For procedures regarding the issuance, denial 
and revocation of distinctive liquor bottle approvals, as well as 
appeal procedures, see part 13 of this chapter.
    Par. 6. Section 5.51 is amended to add paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 5.51  Label approval and release.

* * * * *
    (e) Cross reference. For procedures regarding the issuance, denial, 
and revocation of certificates of label approval, as well as appeal 
procedures, see part 13 of this chapter.
    Par. 7. Section 5.55 is amended to add paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 5.55  Certificates of label approval.

* * * * *
    (d) Cross reference. For procedures regarding the issuance, denial, 
and revocation of certificates of label approval and certificates of 
exemption from label approval, as well as appeal procedures, see part 
13 of this chapter.

PART 7--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF MALT BEVERAGES

    Par. 8. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

    Par. 9. Section 7.31 is amended to add paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 7.31  Label approval and release

* * * * *
    (d) Cross reference. For procedures regarding the issuance, denial, 
and revocation of certificates of label approval, as well as appeal 
procedures, see part 13 of this chapter.
    Par. 10. Section 7.41 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 7.41  Certificates of label approval.

    (a) Requirement. No person shall bottle or pack malt beverages, or 
remove malt beverages from the plant where bottled or packed unless 
application is made to the Director, and an approved certificate of 
label approval, ATF Form 5100.31, is issued by the Director.
    (b) Cross reference. For procedures regarding the issuance, denial, 
and revocation of certificates of label approval, as well as appeal 
procedures, see part 13 of this chapter.

PART 13--LABELING PROCEEDINGS

    Par. 11. Part 13 is added to read as follows:

Subpart A--Scope and Construction of Regulations

Sec.
13.1  Scope of part.

Subpart B--Definitions

13.11  Meaning of terms.

Subpart C--Applications

13.21  Application for certificate.
13.22  Withdrawal of applications.
13.23  Notice of denial.
13.25  Appeal of qualification or denial.
13.26  Decision after appeal of qualification or denial.
13.27  Second appeal of qualification or denial.

Subpart D--Revocations of Specific Certificates

13.41  Authority to revoke certificates.
13.42  Notice of proposed revocation.
13.43  Decision after notice of proposed revocation.
13.44  Appeal of revocation.
13.45  Final decision after appeal.

Subpart E--Revocation by Operation of Law or Regulation

13.51  Revocation by operation of law or regulation.
13.52  Notice of revocation.
13.53  Appeal of notice of revocation.
13.54  Decision after appeal.

Subpart F--Miscellaneous

13.61  Publicity of information.
13.62  Third-party comment on certificates.
13.71  Informal conferences.
13.72  Effective dates of revocations.
13.73  Effect of revocation.
13.74  Surrender of certificates.
13.75  Evidence of receipt by ATF.
13.76  Service on applicant or certificate holder.
13.81  Representation before ATF.
13.91  Computation of time.
13.92  Extensions.

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205(e), 26 U.S.C. 5301 and 7805.

Subpart A--Scope and Construction of Regulations


Sec. 13.1  Scope of part.

    The regulations in this part govern the procedure and practice in 
connection with the issuance, denial, and revocation of certificates of 
label approval, certificates of exemption from label approval, and 
distinctive liquor bottle approvals under 27 U.S.C. 205(e) and 26 
U.S.C. 5301. The regulations in this part also provide for appeal 
procedures when applications for label approval, exemptions from label 
approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approvals are denied, when such 
applications are approved with qualifications, or when these 
applications are approved and then subsequently revoked.

Subpart B--Definitions


Sec. 13.11  Meaning of terms.

    Where used in this part and in forms prescribed under this part, 
where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible 
with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meaning ascribed in this 
subpart. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice 
versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the 
feminine. The terms ``include'' and ``including'' do not exclude things 
not enumerated that are in the same general class.
    Act. The Federal Alcohol Administration Act.
    Applicant. The permittee or brewer whose name, address, and basic 
permit number, or plant registry number, appears on an unapproved ATF F 
5100.31, application for a certificate of label approval, certificate 
of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor bottle 
approval.
    Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco. The ATF official 
responsible for deciding an appeal of a revocation of a certificate of 
label approval, a certificate of exemption from label approval, or a 
distinctive liquor bottle approval, under this part.
    ATF. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the 
Treasury, Washington, DC 20226.
    Brewer. Any person who brews beer (except a person who produces 
only beer exempt from tax under 26 U.S.C. 5053(e)) and any person who 
produces beer for sale.
    Certificate holder. The permittee or brewer whose name, address, 
and basic permit number, or plant registry number, appears on an 
approved ATF F 5100.31, certificate of label approval, certificate of 
exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval.
    Certificate of exemption from label approval. A certificate issued 
on ATF F 5100.31 which authorizes the bottling of wine or distilled 
spirits, under the condition that the product will under no 
circumstances be sold, offered for sale, shipped, delivered for 
shipment, or otherwise introduced by the applicant, directly or 
indirectly, into interstate or foreign commerce.
    Certificate of label approval. A certificate issued on ATF F 
5100.31 that authorizes the bottling or packing of wine, distilled 
spirits, or malt beverages,

[[Page 2130]]

or the removal of bottled wine, distilled spirits, or malt beverages 
from customs custody for introduction into commerce, as long as the 
project bears labels identical to the labels affixed to the face of the 
certificate, or labels with changes authorized by the certificate.
    Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division. The ATF official 
responsible for issuing revocations of certificates of label approval, 
certificates of exemption from label approval, and distinctive liquor 
bottle approvals, under this part. This official is also responsible 
for deciding certain appeals of denials of applications for 
certificates of label approval, certificates of exemption from label 
approval, and distinctive liquor bottle approvals, under this part.
    Chief, Product Compliance Branch. The ATF official responsible for 
deciding first appeals of denials of applications for certificates of 
label approval, certificates of exemption from label approval, and 
distinctive liquor bottle approvals, under this part. This official is 
also responsible for proposing revocation of certificates of label 
approval, certificates of exemption from label approval, and 
distinctive liquor bottle approvals, under this part.
    Director. The Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 
the Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
    Distilled spirits. Ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, spirits 
of wine, whisky, rum, brandy, gin, and other distilled spirits, 
including all dilutions and mixtures thereof for nonindustrial use. The 
term ``distilled spirits'' does not include mixtures containing wine, 
bottled at 48 degrees of proof or less, if the mixture contains more 
than 50 percent wine on a proof gallon basis.
    Distinctive liquor bottle. A liquor bottle of distinctive shape or 
design.
    Distinctive liquor bottle approval. Approval issued on ATF F 
5100.31 that authorizes the bottling of distilled spirits, or the 
removal of bottled distilled spirits from customs custody for 
introduction into commerce, as long as the bottle is identical to the 
photograph affixed to the face of the form.
    Interstate or foreign commerce. Commerce between any State and any 
place outside that State, or commerce within any Territory or the 
District of Columbia, or between points within the same State but 
through any place outside that State.
    Liquor bottle: A bottle made of glass or earthenware, or of other 
suitable material approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which 
has been designed or is intended for use as a container for distilled 
spirits for sale for beverage purposes, and which has been determined 
by the Director to protect the revenue adequately.
    Malt beverage. A beverage made by the alcoholic fermentation of an 
infusion or decoction, or combination of both, in potable brewing 
water, of malted barley with hops, or their parts, or their products, 
and with or without other malted cereals, and with or without the 
addition of unmalted or prepared cereals, other carbohydrates, or 
products prepared therefrom, and with or without the addition of carbon 
dioxide, and with or without other wholesome products suitable for 
human food consumption.
    Permittee. Any person holding a basic permit under the Federal 
Alcohol Administration Act.
    Person. Any individual, partnership, joint stock company, business 
trust, association, corporation, or other form of business enterprise, 
including a receiver, trustee, or liquidating agent and including an 
officer or employee of any agency of a State or political subdivision 
thereof.
    Product Compliance Branch Specialist. An ATF official responsible 
for reviewing initial applications for certificates of label approval, 
certificates of exemption from label approval, and distinctive liquor 
bottle approvals, under this part, with authority to issue approvals, 
qualified approvals, or denials of such applications for certificates.
    United States. The several States and Territories and the District 
of Columbia; the term ``State'' includes a Territory and the District 
of Columbia; and the term ``Territory'' means the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico.
    Use of other terms. Any other term defined in the Federal Alcohol 
Administration Act and used in this part shall have the same meaning 
assigned to it by the Act.
    Wine. Wine as defined in section 610 and section 617 of the Revenue 
Act of 1918 (26 U.S.C. 3036, 3044, 3045) and other alcoholic beverages 
not so defined, but made in the manner of wine, including sparkling and 
carbonated wine, wine made from condensed grape must, wine made from 
other agricultural products than the juice of sound, ripe grapes, 
imitation wine, compounds sold as wine, vermouth, cider, perry, and 
sake; in each instance only if containing not less than 7 percent, and 
not more than 24 percent of alcohol by volume, and if for nonindustrial 
use.

Subpart C--Applications


Sec. 13.21  Application for certificate.

    (a) Form of application. An applicant for a certificate of label 
approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive 
liquor bottle approval, must send or deliver signed duplicate copies of 
ATF Form 5100.31, ``Application For And Certification/Exemption Of 
Label/Bottle Approval'' to the Product Compliance Branch, Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, DC 20226. If the application 
complies with applicable laws and regulations, a certificate of label 
approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive 
liquor bottle approval will be issued. If the approval is qualified in 
any manner, such qualifications will be set forth in the appropriate 
space on the form.
    (b) Time period for action on application. Within 90 days of 
receipt of an application, the Product Compliance Branch must notify 
the applicant whether the application has been approved or denied. The 
Product Compliance Branch may extend this period of time once by an 
additional 90 days if it finds that unusual circumstances require 
additional time to consider the issues presented by an application. If 
the Product Compliance Branch extends the period, it must notify the 
applicant by letter, along with a brief explanation of the issues 
presented by the label. If the applicant receives no decision from the 
Product Compliance Branch within the time periods set forth in this 
paragraph, the applicant may file an appeal as provided in Sec. 13.25 
of this part.


Sec. 13.22  Withdrawal of applications.

    A person who has filed an application for a certificate of label 
approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive 
liquor bottle approval, may withdraw such application at any time 
before ATF takes action on the application.


Sec. 13.23  Notice of denial.

    Whenever an application for a certificate of label approval, 
certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor 
bottle approval is denied, a Product Compliance Branch Specialist must 
issue to the applicant a notice of denial on ATF Form 5190.1, entitled 
``ATF F 5100.31 Correction Sheet,'' briefly setting forth the reasons 
why the label or bottle is not in compliance with the applicable laws 
or regulations. The applicant may then submit a new application for 
approval after making the necessary corrections.

[[Page 2131]]

Sec. 13.25  Appeal of qualification or denial.

    (a) Form of appeal. If an applicant for a certificate of label 
approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive 
liquor bottle approval wishes to appeal the qualified approval or 
denial of an application, the applicant may file a written appeal with 
the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, within 45 days after the date of 
the notice of qualification or denial. The appeal should explain why 
the applicant believes that the label or bottle is in compliance with 
applicable laws and regulations. If no appeal is filed within 45 days 
after the date of the notice of qualification or denial, the notice 
will be the final decision of ATF.
    (b) Informal resolution. Applicants may choose to pursue informal 
resolution of disagreements regarding correction sheets or 
qualifications by requesting an informal conference with the Specialist 
or the Chief, Product Compliance Branch. However, formal administrative 
appeals must comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec. 13.26  Decision after appeal of qualification or denial.

    (a) Decision. After considering any written arguments or evidence 
presented by the applicant, the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, must 
issue a written decision to the applicant. If the decision is that the 
qualified approval or denial should stand, a copy of the application, 
marked ``appeal denied,'' must be returned to the applicant with an 
explanation of the decision and the specific laws or regulations relied 
upon in qualifying or denying the application. If the decision is that 
the certificate of label approval, certificate of exemption from label 
approval, or distinctive liquor bottle application should be approved 
without qualification, the applicant should resubmit ATF Form 5100.31 
and the certificate will be issued.
    (b) Time limits for decision. Within 90 days of receipt of an 
appeal, the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, must notify the appellant 
whether the appeal has been granted or denied. If an applicant requests 
an informal conference as part of an appeal, as authorized in 
Sec. 13.71, the 90-day period will begin 10 days after the date of the 
conference to allow for consideration of any written arguments, facts 
or evidence submitted after the conference. The Chief, Product 
Compliance Branch, may extend this period of time once by an additional 
90 days if he or she finds that unusual circumstances require 
additional time to consider the issues presented by an appeal. If the 
Chief, Product Compliance Branch, extends the period, he or she must 
notify the applicant by letter, briefly explaining the issues presented 
by the label. If the appellant receives no decision from the Chief, 
Product Compliance Branch, within the time periods set forth in this 
paragraph, the appellant may appeal as provided in Sec. 13.27.
    (c) Judicial review. Prior to applying to the Federal courts for 
review, an applicant must first exhaust his or her administrative 
remedies, including the appeal rights set forth in this section and 
Sec. 13.27.


Sec. 13.27  Second appeal of qualification or denial.

    (a) Form of Appeal. The decision of the Chief, Product Compliance 
Branch, may be appealed in writing to the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco 
Programs Division. If the decision is that the qualified approval or 
denial was correct, a copy of the application, marked ``appeal 
denied,'' must be returned to the applicant, with an explanation of the 
decision and the specific laws or regulations relied upon in qualifying 
or denying the application. If the decision is that the certificate of 
label approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or 
distinctive liquor bottle application should be approved without 
qualification, the applicant may resubmit ATF Form 5100.31 and the 
certificate will be issued.
    (b) Time limits for decision. Within 90 days of receipt of an 
appeal, the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, must notify 
the appellant whether the appeal has been granted or denied. If an 
applicant requests an informal conference as part of an appeal, as 
authorized in Sec. 13.71, the 90-day period will begin 10 days after 
the date of the conference to allow for consideration of any written 
arguments, facts or evidence submitted after the conference. The Chief, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, may extend this period of time 
once by an additional 90 days if he or she finds that unusual 
circumstances require additional time to consider the unique issues 
presented by an appeal. If the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs 
Division, extends the time period, he or she must notify the applicant 
by letter, briefly explaining the issues presented by the label. The 
decision of the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, shall be 
the final decision of ATF.
    (c)  Judicial review. An appeal to the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco 
Programs Division is required prior to application to the Federal 
courts for review of any denial or qualification of an application.

Subpart D--Revocations of Specific Certificates


Sec. 13.41  Authority to revoke certificates.

    Certificates of label approval, certificates of exemption from 
label approval, and distinctive liquor bottle approvals, previously 
approved on ATF Form 5100.31, may be revoked by the Chief, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Programs Division, upon a finding that the label or bottle at 
issue is not in compliance with the applicable laws or regulations.


Sec. 13.42  Notice of proposed revocation.

    Except as provided in Sec. 13.51, when the Chief, Product 
Compliance Branch, determines that a certificate of label approval, 
certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor 
bottle approval has been issued for a label or bottle that is not in 
compliance with the laws or regulations, he or she must issue to the 
certificate holder a notice of proposed revocation. The notice must set 
forth the basis for the proposed revocation and must provide the 
certificate holder with 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice 
to present written arguments or evidence why the revocation should not 
occur.


Sec. 13.43  Decision after notice of proposed revocation.

    (a) Decision. After considering any written arguments or evidence 
presented by the certificate holder, the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco 
Programs Division, must issue a decision. If the decision is to revoke 
the certificate, a letter must be sent to the holder explaining the 
revocation of the certificate, and the specific laws or regulations 
relied upon in determining that the label or bottle was not in 
conformance with law or regulations. If the decision is to withdraw the 
proposed revocation, a letter of explanation must be sent.
    (b) Time limits for decision. Within 90 days of receipt of written 
arguments or evidence from the certificate holder, the Chief, Alcohol 
and Tobacco Programs Division, shall notify the appellant of his or her 
decision. If a certificate holder requests an informal conference as 
part of an appeal, as authorized in Sec. 13.71, the 90-day period will 
begin 10 days after the date of the conference to allow for 
consideration of any written arguments, facts or evidence submitted 
after the conference. The Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, 
may extend this period of time once by an additional 90 days if he or 
she finds that unusual circumstances require additional time to 
consider the issues presented by a proposed revocation. If the Chief, 
Alcohol and Tobacco

[[Page 2132]]

Programs Division, extends the time period, he or she must notify the 
applicant by letter, along with a brief explanation of the issues under 
consideration.


Sec. 13.44  Appeal of revocation.

    (a) Filing of appeal. A certificate holder who wishes to appeal the 
decision of the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, to revoke 
a certificate of label approval, certificate of exemption from label 
approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval, may file a written 
appeal with the Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco, setting forth 
why the holder believes that the decision of the Chief, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Programs Division, was erroneous. The appeal must be filed with 
the Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco within 45 days after the 
date of receipt of the decision of the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco 
Programs Division.
    (b) Judicial review. An appeal to the Assistant Director, Alcohol 
and Tobacco, is required prior to application to the Federal courts for 
review of any revocation of a certificate.


Sec. 13.45  Final decision after appeal.

    (a) Issuance of decision. After considering any written arguments 
or evidence presented by the certificate holder or the holder's 
representative, the Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco, must issue 
a final decision. If the decision is to revoke the certificate of label 
approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive 
liquor bottle approval, a letter must be issued explaining the basis 
for the revocation, and the specific laws or regulations relied upon in 
determining that the label or bottle was not in conformance with law or 
regulations. If the decision is to withdraw the proposed revocation, a 
letter explaining the decision must be sent.
    (b) Time limits for decision. Within 90 days of receipt of an 
appeal, the Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco, must notify the 
holder whether the appeal has been granted or denied. If a certificate 
holder requests an informal conference as part of an appeal, as 
authorized in Sec. 13.71, the 90-day period will begin 10 days after 
the date of the conference to allow for consideration of any written 
arguments, facts or evidence submitted after the conference. The 
Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco, may extend this period of time 
once by an additional 90 days if he or she finds that unusual 
circumstances require additional time to consider the issues presented 
by an appeal. If the Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco, extends 
the period, he or she must notify the holder by letter, briefly 
explaining the issues presented by the label. The decision of the 
Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco, will be the final decision of 
the Bureau.

Subpart E--Revocation by Operation of Law or Regulation


Sec. 13.51  Revocation by operation of law or regulation.

    ATF will not individually notify all holders of certificates of 
label approval, certificates of exemption from label approval, or 
distinctive liquor bottle approvals, that their approvals have been 
revoked if the revocation occurs by operation of law or regulation. If 
changes in labeling or other requirements are made as a result of 
amendments or revisions to the law or regulations, the certificate 
holder must voluntarily surrender all certificates that are no longer 
in compliance. The holder must submit applications for new certificates 
in compliance with the new requirements, unless ATF determines that new 
applications are not necessary. If a new application is unnecessary, it 
is the responsibility of the certificate holder to ensure that labels 
are in compliance with their requirements of the new regulations or 
law.


Sec. 13.52  Notice of revocation.

    If ATF determines that a certificate holder is still using a 
certificate of label approval, certificate of exemption from label 
approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval that is no longer in 
compliance due to amendments or revisions in the law or regulations, 
the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, will notify the certificate 
holder in writing that the subject certificate has been revoked by 
operation of law or regulations, with a brief description of the 
grounds for such revocation.


Sec. 13.53  Appeal of notice of revocation.

    Within 45 days after the date of receipt of a notice of revocation 
by operation of law or regulations, the certificate holder may file a 
written appeal with the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division. 
The appeal should set forth the reasons why the certificate holder 
believes that the regulation or law at issue does not require the 
revocation of the certificate.


Sec. 13.54  Decision after appeal.

    (a) Issuance of decision. After considering all written arguments 
and evidence submitted by the certificate holder, the Chief, Alcohol 
and Tobacco Programs Division, must issue a final decision regarding 
the revocation by operation of law or regulation of the certificate. If 
the decision is that the law or regulation at issue requires the 
revocation of the certificate of label approval, certificate of 
exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval, a 
letter must be issued explaining the basis for the revocation, and 
citing the specific laws or regulations which required the revocation 
of the certificate. If the decision is that the law or regulation at 
issue does not require the revocation of such certificate, a letter 
explaining the decision must be sent to the certificate holder. The 
decision of the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, will be 
the final decision of ATF.
    (b) Time limits for decision. Within 90 days of receipt of an 
appeal, the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, must notify 
the holder whether the appeal has been granted or denied. If a 
certificate holder requests an informal conference as part of an 
appeal, as authorized in Sec. 13.71, the 90-day period will begin 10 
days after the date of the conference to allow for consideration of any 
written arguments, facts or evidence submitted after the conference. 
The Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, may extend this 
period of time once by an additional 90 days if he or she finds that 
unusual circumstances require additional time to consider the issues 
presented by an appeal. If the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs 
Division, extends the period, he or she must notify the holder by 
letter, briefly explaining the issues presented by the label. The 
decision of the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, will be 
the final decision of ATF.

Subpart F--Miscellaneous


Sec. 13.61  Publicity of information.

    (a) Pending and denied applications. Pending and denied 
applications for certificates of label approval, certificates of 
exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approvals 
are treated as proprietary information, unless the applicant or 
certificate holder provides written authorization to release such 
information.
    (b) Approved applications. The Chief, Product Compliance Branch, 
shall cause to be maintained in the ATF Library for public inspection, 
a copy of each approved application for certificate of label approval, 
certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor 
bottle approval. These documents may be viewed during business hours at

[[Page 2133]]

650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20226.
    (c) Revoked certificates. If an approved certificate is 
subsequently revoked, the record of the approved application will 
remain on file for public inspection, but the index will be annotated 
to show it was revoked.
    (d) Further disclosure of information on denied or revoked 
certificates. If an applicant whose application is pending or has been 
denied, or a holder of a revoked certificate of label approval, 
certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor 
bottle approval, issues public statements concerning ATF action in 
connection with such application or certificate, then ATF may issue a 
statement to clarify its position or correct any misstatements of fact, 
including a disclosure of information contained on the application or 
certificate of label approval, certificate of exemption from label 
approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval.


Sec. 13.62.  Third-party comment on certificates.

    When a third party (such as foreign government, another Federal 
agency, a State agency, an industry association, a competitor of a 
certificate holder, a consumer or consumer group, or any other 
interested person) wishes to comment on an approved certificate of 
label approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or 
distinctive liquor bottle approval, such comments should be submitted 
in writing to the Chief, Product Compliance Branch. The Chief, Product 
Compliance Branch, will review the subject of the comment. If the 
comment raises an issue that is outside the scope of ATF's statutory or 
regulatory authority, or the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, 
determines that the certificate is in compliance with applicable law 
and regulations, the commenter will be informed that no further action 
will be taken. If the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, determines that 
the commenter has raised a valid issue that ATF has authority to 
address, then the Chief, Product Compliance Branch, will initiate 
appropriate action. The Chief, Product Compliance Branch, may, in his 
or her discretion, notify the commenter as to the action being taken by 
ATF with respect to the certificate.


Sec. 13.71  Informal conferences.

    (a) General. As part of a timely filed written appeal of a notice 
of denial, a notice of proposed revocation, or a decision of the Chief, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, to revoke a certificate, an 
applicant or certificate holder may file a written request for an 
informal conference with the ATF official deciding the appeal, or that 
official's delegate.
    (b) Informal conference procedures. The deciding official, or such 
official's delegate, and the applicant or certificate holder will agree 
upon a date for an informal conference. The informal conference is for 
purposes of discussion only, and no transcript shall be made. If the 
applicant or certificate holder wishes to rely upon arguments, facts, 
or evidence presented at the informal conference, he or she has 10 days 
after the date of the conference to incorporate such arguments, facts, 
or evidence in a written submission to the deciding official.


Sec. 13.72  Effective dates of revocations.

    (a) Effective dates.--(1) Revocation of specific certificates. A 
written decision to revoke a certificate becomes effective 60 days 
after the date of the decision.
    (2) Revocation by operation of law or regulation. If a certificate 
is revoked by operation of law or regulation, the revocation becomes 
effective on the effective date of the change in law or regulation with 
which the certificate does not comply, or if a separate label 
compliance date is given, on that date.
    (b) Use of certificate during period of appeal. If a certificate 
holder files a timely appeal after receipt of a decision to revoke a 
certificate from the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, 
pursuant to Sec. 13.45, the holder may continue to use the certificate 
at issue until the effective date of a final decision issued by the 
Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco. However, the effective date of 
a notice of revocation by operation of law or regulations, issued 
pursuant to Sec. 13.52, is not stayed pending the appeal.


Sec. 13.73  Effect of revocation.

    On and after the effective date of a revocation of a certificate of 
label approval, certificate or exemption from label approval, or 
distinctive liquor bottle approval, the label or distinctive liquor 
bottle in question may not be used to bottle or pack distilled spirits, 
wine or malt beverages, to remove such products from the place where 
they were bottled or packed, or to remove such products from customs 
custody for consumption.


Sec. 13.74  Surrender of certificates.

    On the effective date of a final decision that has been issued by 
the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, or the Assistant 
Director, Alcohol and Tobacco, to revoke a certificate of label 
approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive 
liquor bottle approval, the certificate holder must surrender the 
original of the certificate to ATF for manual cancellation. Regardless 
of whether the original certificate of label approval, certificate of 
exemption from label approval, or distinctive liquor bottle approval 
has been manually canceled or not, the certificate is null and void 
after the effective date of the revocation. It is a violation of this 
section for any certificate holder to present a certificate of label 
approval, certificate of exemption from label approval, or distinctive 
liquor bottle approval to an official of the United States Government 
as a valid certificate after the effective date of the revocation of 
the certificate if the certificate holder has been previously notified 
that such certificate has been revoked by ATF.


Sec. 13.75  Evidence of receipt by ATF.

    If there is a time limit on ATF action that runs from ATF's receipt 
of a document, the date of receipt may be established by a certified 
mail receipt or equivalent written acknowledgment secured by a 
commercial delivery service or by a written acknowledgment of personal 
delivery. In the absence of proof of receipt, the date the document is 
logged in by ATF will be considered the date of receipt.


Sec. 13.76  Service on applicant or certificate holder.

    (a) Method of service. ATF must serve notices of denial on an 
applicant by first class mail, or by personal delivery. ATF must serve 
notices of proposed revocation and notices of revocation on a 
certificate holder by certified mail, return receipt requested, by a 
commercial delivery service that will provide an equivalent written 
acknowledgment from the recipient, or by personal delivery.
    (b) Date of receipt. If there is a time limit on a certificate 
holder's action that runs from the holder's receipt of a document, the 
date of receipt may be established by a certified mail receipt, an 
equivalent written acknowledgment secured by a commercial delivery 
service, or by a written acknowledgment of personal delivery.
    (c) Person to be served. When service is by mail or other 
commercial delivery service, a copy of the document must be sent to the 
applicant or certificate holder at the address stated in the 
application or at the last known address. If authorized by the 
applicant or certificate holder, the copy of the document may be mailed 
to a designated representative. If service is by personal delivery, a 
copy of the document must be delivered to the

[[Page 2134]]

certificate holder or to a designated representative. In the case of a 
corporation, partnership, or association, personal delivery may be made 
to an officer, manager, or general agent thereof, or to the attorney of 
record.


Sec. 13.81  Representation before ATF.

    An applicant or certificate holder may be represented by an 
attorney, certified public accountant, or other person recognized to 
practice before ATF as provided in 31 CFR part 8 (Practice Before the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). The applicable requirements 
of 26 CFR 601.521 through 601.527 (conference and practice requirements 
for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms activities) shall apply.


Sec. 13.91  Computation of time.

    In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this part, 
the day of the act, event or default after which the designated period 
of time is to run, is not counted. The last day of the period to be 
computed is counted, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, 
in which case the period runs until the next day that is not a 
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Papers or documents that are 
required or permitted to be filed under this part must be received at 
the appropriate office within the filing time limits, if any.


Sec. 13.92  Extensions.

    An applicant or certificate holder may apply to the Chief, Product 
Compliance Branch, the Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, or 
the Assistant Director, Alcohol and Tobacco for an extension of any 
time limit prescribed in this part. The time limit may be extended if 
ATF agrees the request is reasonable.

PART 19--DISTILLED SPIRITS PLANTS

    Par. 12. The authority citation for part 19 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 81c, 1311; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5002, 5004-5006, 
5008, 5010, 5041, 5061, 5062, 5066, 5081, 5101, 5111-5113, 5142, 
5143, 5146, 5171-5173, 5175, 5176, 5178-5181, 5201-5204, 5206, 5207, 
5211-5215, 5221-5223, 5231, 5232, 5235, 5236, 5241-5243, 5271, 5273, 
5301, 5311-5313, 5362, 5370, 5373, 5501-5505, 5551-5555, 5559, 5561, 
5562, 5601, 5612, 5682, 6001, 6065, 6109, 6302, 6311, 6676, 6806, 
7011, 7510, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9306.

    Par. 13. Section 19.633 is amended to add paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 19.633  Distinctive liquor bottles.

* * * * *
    (c) Cross reference. For procedures regarding issuance, denial and 
revocation of distinctive liquor bottle approvals, as well as appeal 
procedures, see part 13 of this chapter.
    Par. 14. Section 19.641 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 19.641  Certificate of label approval or exemption.

    (a) Requirement. Proprietors are required by 27 CFR part 5 to 
obtain approval of labels, or exemption from label approval, for any 
label to be used on bottles of spirits for domestic use and shall 
exhibit evidence of label approval, or of exemption from label 
approval, on request of an ATF officer.
    (b) Cross reference. For procedures regarding the issuance, denial 
and revocation of certificates of label approval and certificates of 
exemption from label approval, as well as appeal procedures, see Part 
13 of this chapter.

``(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1356, as amended (26 U.S.C. 
5201))

    Signed: August 6, 1998.
John W. Magaw,
Director.

    Approved: December 11, 1998.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 99-624 Filed 1-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-U