[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65256-65261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Parts 4 and 9

[Notice No. 77; Re: Notice No. 36]
RIN: 1513-AA92


Proposed Establishment of the Calistoga Viticultural Area (2003R-
496P)

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

[[Page 65257]]


ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On March 31, 2005, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau published a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish the 
Calistoga viticultural area in Napa County, California. In light of 
comments regarding the potential adverse impact on established brand 
names that we received in response to that prior notice, we issue this 
new notice of proposed rulemaking to seek comments on our proposal to 
provide ``grandfather'' protection for certain brand names used on 
existing certificates of label approval, provided those labels also 
carry information that would dispel an impression that the wine meets 
the requirements for using the viticultural area name. We designate 
viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of 
their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may 
purchase.

DATES: We must receive written comments regarding this notice on or 
before December 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on this notice to one of the following 
addresses:
     http://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking portal; 
follow the instructions for submitting comments); or
     Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-
4412.
    See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific 
instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for 
information on how to request a public hearing.
    You may view copies of this notice and any comments we receive 
about this proposal at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
2007-0067. You also may view copies of the previous notice regarding 
this subject and the comments received in response to it under the same 
docket number. In addition, you may view this notice, the previous 
notice, all comments received in response to the two notices, as well 
as all related petitions, maps, and supporting materials, by 
appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy R. Greenberg, Regulations and 
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 
Street NW., Suite 200E, Washington, DC 20220; telephone 202-927-8210; 
or e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas

TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA 
Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol beverage labels 
provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity 
and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The 
FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue 
regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 
and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these regulations.
    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the 
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their 
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains 
the list of approved viticultural areas.

Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) 
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries 
of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. 
These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given 
quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes 
grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of 
viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the 
origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify 
wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is 
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in 
that area.

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure 
for proposing an American viticultural area (AVA) and provides that any 
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region 
as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations specifies 
the requirements for an AVA petition. The petition to establish 
Calistoga as an AVA was filed in accordance with these procedures and 
requirements.

Prior Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On March 31, 2005, TTB published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
16451) as Notice No. 36 a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the 
establishment of the Calistoga viticultural area. In that notice, we 
requested comments from all interested persons by May 31, 2005. TTB 
received two comments regarding Notice No. 36 before the close of the 
comment period. Both comments fully support the establishment of the 
Calistoga viticultural area.

Subsequent Comments Received

    After the close of the public comment period, we received 
representations on behalf of two entities opposing the establishment of 
the Calistoga viticultural area as proposed. These entities are 
Calistoga Partners, L.P., d.b.a. Calistoga Cellars, and Chateau 
Calistoga LLC, which uses ``Calistoga Estate'' as its trade name.
    In a written submission to TTB, representatives of Calistoga 
Partners, L.P., expressed opposition to the establishment of the 
Calistoga viticultural area due to the impact the establishment of an 
area named ``Calistoga'' would have on the winery and its existing wine 
labels. In particular, Calistoga Partners noted that it has been using 
the ``Calistoga Cellars'' name on wine labels since 1998. TTB notes 
that under 27 CFR 4.25(e), a wine may be labeled with a viticultural 
area appellation if, among other things, at least 85 percent of the 
wine is derived from grapes grown within the viticultural area named. 
Calistoga Partners indicated that its wines would not meet the 85 
percent requirement for its existing labels if the proposed 
viticultural area were established. Because the winery has been using 
the ``Calistoga Cellars'' brand name on its labels since 1998, it may 
not rely upon the ``grandfather'' provision in 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2), which 
applies only to brand names used on certificates of label approval 
issued prior to July 7, 1986.
    The letter also stated that the partnership has collectively 
invested millions of dollars and years of effort to build the trade 
name, trademark, and brand name ``Calistoga Cellars.'' Its 
representatives claim that to lose the use of the name or to be 
restricted in its use would materially impact the winery. As to the 
merits of a ``Calistoga'' viticultural area, Calistoga Partners argues 
that the term ``Calistoga'' is most often associated with the town of 
Calistoga, which is known as a tourist destination rather than a 
specific viticultural area.
    For these reasons, Calistoga Partners requested that TTB: (1) 
Reopen the public comment period to allow it and others to provide 
additional comment on alternative solutions that would protect 
Calistoga brand names; (2) exempt Calistoga Partners from any 
restrictive consequences resulting from

[[Page 65258]]

the establishment of the Calistoga viticultural area through a 
``grandfathering'' approach; (3) delay approval of the AVA until an 
industry-wide solution is implemented to protect Calistoga Partners; or 
(4) allow Calistoga Partners to continue to use its existing labels 
with a TTB-approved notice on the back label.
    As previously noted, TTB also received comments opposing the 
establishment of the ``Calistoga'' viticultural area on behalf of 
Chateau Calistoga LLC, citing the impact that establishment of the AVA 
would have on existing labels bearing the ``Calistoga Estate'' trade 
name. This entity stated that it has spent considerable money and time 
building the ``Calistoga Estate'' name. According to that entity, its 
wines are made under contract with a winery in Santa Rosa, California, 
and are produced with grapes from the Napa region, but not necessarily 
from the Calistoga region. This commenter also supported use of a 
``grandfathering'' approach.

Revised Regulatory Text Proposed

    After careful consideration of the evidence submitted in support of 
the petition and the comments received, TTB believes that there is a 
substantial basis for the establishment of the viticultural area. The 
petitioners submitted sufficient evidence of the viticultural 
distinctiveness of the Calistoga area, and no evidence was provided to 
contradict the petitioners' evidence. TTB also believes that 
``Calistoga'' is the most appropriate name for the area. There is ample 
evidence clearly showing that ``Calistoga'' is the name by which the 
area is locally and regionally known and that the term ``Calistoga'' by 
itself has been associated historically with viticulture, specifically 
Napa Valley viticulture.
    Consistent with previous practice, we considered alternative names 
as a means to resolve conflicts between existing labels and the 
establishment of a ``Calistoga'' proposed viticultural area. 
Previously, for example, the ``Oak Knoll District of Napa Valley'' 
viticultural area (T.D. TTB-9, 69 FR 8562) and the ``Diamond Mountain 
District'' viticultural area (T.D. ATF-456, 66 FR 29698) were 
established after resolving such conflicts, resulting in AVA names that 
were modifications of those originally proposed by the petitioners. The 
petition to establish the ``Oak Knoll District of Napa Valley'' 
viticultural area originally proposed the name ``Oak Knoll District''. 
The petition to establish the ``Diamond Mountain District'' 
viticultural area originally proposed the name ``Diamond Mountain'' for 
the viticultural area. In these and similar cases, TTB found that name 
evidence supported the use of the modified names, that the modified 
names were associated with the proposed viticultural area boundaries, 
and that their use reduced potential consumer confusion with long-
standing existing labels. In the two cases cited here, Oak Knoll 
District of Napa Valley and Diamond Mountain District, the petitioners 
also agreed to the modifications of the viticultural area names.
    In the case at hand, the petitioners and commenters have not 
suggested any modification to the proposed name that would resolve 
conflicts between existing brand names and the establishment of a 
``Calistoga'' viticultural area. Moreover, TTB did not find any 
potential name modifications to be acceptable substitutes for the 
proposed ``Calistoga'' viticultural area name. Because the term 
``Calistoga'' alone is a specific, not generic, descriptive name that 
is clearly associated with Napa Valley viticulture, regardless of 
whether there may be adequate evidence to support a name modification 
such as ``Calistoga District'', the term ``Calistoga'' alone has 
viticultural significance, and therefore any viticultural area name 
including the term ``Calistoga'' would be as problematic as the 
proposed name.
    TTB believes that the evidence submitted by the petitioners 
indicates that designation of the Calistoga viticultural area would be 
in conformity with applicable law and regulations. We do not find the 
request by Calistoga Partners that TTB delay the approval of the 
``Calistoga'' viticultural area ``until an industry-wide solution is 
implemented to protect Calistoga Cellars'' to be an appropriate or 
responsive resolution. The Calistoga case and cases with similar 
factual bases involve a fundamental conflict between two otherwise 
valid and appropriate TTB administrative actions, the approval of 
labels by TTB through issuance of COLAs and the subsequent approval of 
a petitioned-for AVA.
    However, TTB also believes that Calistoga Partners has demonstrated 
a legitimate interest in not losing the ability to continue to use its 
long-held Calistoga Cellars brand name on its wines in the same way it 
has been using this name. We believe it is desirable to find a solution 
that will address the legitimate interests of both the Calistoga 
petitioners, who have an interest in gaining formal recognition of a 
viticulturally significant area and name, and vintners who have an 
interest in retaining the use of long-held brand names. We also 
believe, as a fundamental tenet of administrative practice, that it is 
preferable to avoid, whenever possible, a situation in which one 
otherwise proper administrative action (issuance of a certificate of 
label approval in this case) is restricted by a subsequent, valid 
administrative action (establishment of a viticultural area). And 
perhaps most importantly, where a conflict arises between a proposed 
AVA name and an established brand name, we do not believe that, in the 
context of the labeling provisions of the FAA Act, it is an appropriate 
government role to make choices between competing commercial interests, 
if such choices can be avoided.
    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we are proposing to add 
in part 9 a new section covering the Calistoga viticultural area. The 
new part 9 section text would differ from the section text proposed in 
Notice No. 36 by the addition of a paragraph (d) to set forth a 
``grandfather'' provision that allows continued use of brand names that 
contain the term ``Calistoga'' even though the wine may not meet the 
appellation of origin requirements of part 4 for the use of the 
``Calistoga'' appellation of origin. Under this ``grandfather'' 
provision, a brand name containing the word ``Calistoga'' may only 
appear on wine that does not meet the appellation of origin 
requirements if: (1) The appropriate TTB officer finds that the brand 
name has been in actual commercial use for a significant period of time 
under one or more existing certificates of label approval that were 
issued under part 4 of this chapter before March 31, 2005; and (2) the 
wine is labeled with information that the appropriate TTB officer finds 
to be sufficient to dispel the impression that the use of ``Calistoga'' 
in the brand name conforms to the appellation of origin requirements of 
Sec.  4.25. In no case would the grandfather provision apply to a label 
approved on or after March 31, 2005, the date that Notice No. 36 was 
published in the Federal Register originally proposing the 
establishment of the Calistoga viticultural area. The proposed rule is 
intended to limit the adverse effect on established brands, and at the 
same time dispel any misleading impression that might exist as to the 
origin of the grapes used in those wines.
    We note that this proposed paragraph (d) text would not extend to 
the use of the name ``Calistoga Estate'' because that name was 
submitted to TTB for label approval after the notice of proposed 
rulemaking was made public

[[Page 65259]]

through publication in the Federal Register.
    This proposal would not affect the application of the current 
``grandfather'' provision in 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) to any Calistoga brand 
name used in an existing certificate of label approval issued prior to 
July 7, 1986.
    In this document we have also included a proposed amendment to 27 
CFR 4.39(i)(1) to conform that text to the paragraph (d) 
``grandfather'' provision in the proposed ``Calistoga'' AVA text in 
part 9.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a 
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true 
place of origin. If we establish this proposed viticultural area, its 
name, ``Calistoga,'' will be recognized under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a 
name of viticultural significance. The text of the proposed regulation 
clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using ``Calistoga'' 
in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference 
as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product 
either is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an 
appellation of origin or meets the requirements for application of the 
existing ``grandfather'' provision or the ``grandfather'' provision 
proposed for the Calistoga AVA.
    For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin a 
viticultural area name or other term specified as being viticulturally 
significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of 
the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented 
by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions 
listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the 
viticultural area name or other term as an appellation of origin and 
that name or term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in 
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain 
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or 
other term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading 
manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.
    Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a 
viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label 
approved before July 7, 1986. In addition to the amendment of Sec.  
4.39(i)(1) contained in this document, see 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for 
details.

Public Participation

Comments Invited

    We specifically invite comments from interested members of the 
public on the proposed ``grandfather'' provision protecting certain 
brand names used on existing certificates of label approval that 
contain the proposed ``Calistoga'' viticultural area name, provided 
those labels also carry information that would dispel an impression 
that the wine meets the requirements for using the viticultural area 
name. In addition, we invite comment on the period of time of actual 
commercial use that would be deemed ``significant'' under the rule, and 
on alternatives to the proposed regulatory text.
    We also solicit comments on what type of dispelling information is 
sufficient to prevent consumers from being misled as to the origin of 
the grapes used to produce such wines and comments on the appropriate 
type size and location on the label for such information. Any other 
comments related to the approaches in this proposed rule are invited.
    Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views or 
suggestions presented will be particularly helpful in developing a 
reasoned regulatory decision of this matter. However, comments 
consisting of mere allegations or opinions are counterproductive to the 
rulemaking process that is designed to build a factual evidentiary 
record for the final rule.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this notice by one of the following two 
methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To submit a comment on this 
notice using the online Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit http://www.regulations.gov and select ``Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau'' from the agency drop-down menu and click ``Submit.'' In the 
resulting docket list, click the ``Add Comments'' icon for Docket No. 
2007-0067 and complete the resulting comment form. You may attach 
supplemental files to your comment. More complete information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing open and closed 
dockets and for submitting comments, is available through the site's 
``User Tips'' link.
     Mail: You may send written comments to the Director, 
Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this 
notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and 
mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language 
acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of 
comments, and we consider all comments as originals.
    If you are commenting on behalf of an association, business, or 
other entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as 
your name and position title. If you comment via http://www.regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the 
``Organization'' blank of the comment form. If you comment via mail, 
please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing 
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right 
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public 
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your 
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for 
public disclosure.

Public Disclosure

    You may view copies of this notice and any electronic or mailed 
comments we receive about this proposal on the Federal e-rulemaking 
portal at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 2007-0067. You 
also may view copies of the previous notice regarding this subject and 
the comments received in response to it under the same docket number. 
To view a posted document or comment, go to http://www.regulations.gov 
and select ``Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau'' from the agency 
drop-down menu and click ``Submit.'' In the resulting docket list, 
click the appropriate docket number, then click the ``View'' icon for 
any document or comment posted under that docket number.
    All submitted and posted comments will display the commenter's 
name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of 
mailed comments, all address information, including e-mail addresses. 
We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider 
unsuitable for posting.
    You may also view copies of this notice, the previous notice, and 
all electronic and mailed comments received in response to the two 
notices, as well as all related petitions, maps,

[[Page 65260]]

and supporting materials, by appointment at the TTB Information 
Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also 
obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 11-inch page. Contact our 
information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-
2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or 
other materials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirement. 
Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the 
result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from 
that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as 
defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory 
assessment.

Drafting Information

    Amy R. Greenberg and Michael D. Hoover of the Regulations and 
Rulings Division drafted this document.

List of Subjects

27 CFR Part 4

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

27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

The Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 27 
CFR, chapter I, parts 4 and 9, as follows:

PART 4--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF WINE

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

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise noted.
    2. In Sec.  4.39, paragraph (i)(1) is amended by adding the words 
``or in Sec.  9.209(d) of this chapter'' after ``subparagraph (2)''.

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

    3. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

    4. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec.  9.209 to read as follows:


Sec.  9.209  Calistoga.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``Calistoga''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, 
``Calistoga'' is a term of viticultural significance, but its use in a 
brand name is also subject to paragraph (d) of this section.
    (b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps used to determine the 
boundary of the Calistoga viticultural area are four United States 
Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle maps. They are 
titled:
    (1) Mark West Springs, Calif. (1993);

    (2) Calistoga, CA (1997);
    (3) St. Helena, Calif. (1960, revised 1993); and
    (4) Detert Reservoir, CA (1997).
    (c) Boundary. The Calistoga viticultural area is located in 
northwestern Napa County, California. The boundary beginning point is 
on the Mark West Springs map at the point where the Napa-Sonoma county 
line intersects Petrified Forest Road in section 3, T8N/R7W. From this 
point, the boundary:
    (1) Continues northeasterly along Petrified Forest Road 
approximately 1.9 miles to the road's intersection with the 400-foot 
contour line near the north bank of Cyrus Creek approximately 1,000 
feet southwest of the intersection of Petrified Forest Road and State 
Route 128 on the Calistoga map;
    (2) Proceeds generally east-southeast (after crossing Cyrus Creek) 
along the 400-foot contour line to its intersection with Ritchey Creek 
in section 16, T8N/R6W;
    (3) Follows Ritchey Creek northeast approximately 0.3 miles to its 
intersection with State Route 29 at the 347-foot benchmark;
    (4) Proceeds east-southeast along State Route 29 approximately 0.3 
miles to its intersection with a light-duty road labeled Bale Lane;
    (5) Follows Bale Lane northeast approximately 0.7 miles to its 
intersection with the Silverado Trail;
    (6) Proceeds northwest along the Silverado Trail approximately 
1,500 feet to its intersection with an unmarked driveway on the north 
side of the Silverado Trail near the 275-foot benchmark;
    (7) Continues northeasterly along the driveway for 300 feet to its 
intersection with another driveway, and then continues north-northeast 
in a straight line to the 400-foot contour line;
    (8) Follows the 400-foot contour line easterly approximately 0.7 
miles to its intersection with an unimproved dirt road (an extension of 
a road known locally as the North Fork of Crystal Springs Road), which 
lies in the Carne Humana Land Grant approximately 1,400 feet southwest 
of the northwest corner of section 11, T8N/R6W on the St. Helena map;
    (9) Continues northerly along the unimproved dirt road 
approximately 2,700 feet to its intersection with the 880-foot contour 
line in section 2, T8N/R6W;
    (10) Follows the meandering 880-foot contour line northwesterly, 
crossing onto the Calistoga map in section 2, T8N/R6W, and continues 
along the 880-foot contour line through section 3, T8N/R6W, sections 34 
and 35, T9N/R6W, (with a brief return to the St. Helena map in section 
35), to the 880-contour line's intersection with Biter Creek in the 
northeast quadrant of section 34, T9N/R6W;
    (11) Continues westerly along the meandering 880-foot contour line 
around Dutch Henry Canyon in section 28, T9N/R6W, and Simmons Canyon in 
section 29, T9N/R6W, to the contour line's first intersection with the 
R7W/R6W range line in section 30, T9N/R6W;
    (12) Continues northerly along the meandering 880-foot contour line 
across the two forks of Horns Creek and through Hoisting Works Canyon 
in section 19, T9N/R6W, crossing between the Calistoga and Detert 
Reservoir maps, to the contour line's intersection with Garnett Creek 
in section 13, T9N/R7W, on the Detert Reservoir map;
    (13) Continues westerly along the meandering 880-foot contour line, 
crossing between the Calistoga and Detert Reservoir maps in sections 13 
and 14, T9N/R7W, and in the region labeled ``Mallacomes or Moristul y 
Plan de Agua Caliente,'' to the contour line's intersection with the 
Napa-Sonoma county line approximately 1.1 miles northeast of State 
Route 128 in the ``Mallacomes or Moristul y Plan de Agua Caliente'' 
region, T9N/R7W, of the Mark Springs West map; and
    (14) Proceeds southerly along the Napa-Sonoma county line to the 
beginning point.
    (d) Brand names. A brand name containing the word ``Calistoga'' may 
be used on a label only if:
    (1) The wine meets the appellation of origin requirements of Sec.  
4.25 of this chapter for the viticultural area established by this 
section;
    (2) The appropriate TTB officer finds that the brand name has been 
in actual commercial use for a significant period of time under one or 
more existing

[[Page 65261]]

certificates of label approval that were issued under part 4 of this 
chapter before March 31, 2005, and the wine is labeled with information 
that the appropriate TTB officer finds to be sufficient to dispel the 
impression that the use of ``Calistoga'' in the brand name conforms to 
the appellation of origin requirements of Sec.  4.25 of this chapter; 
or
    (3) The use of the brand name complies with Sec.  4.39(i)(2) of 
this chapter.

    Signed: November 7, 2007.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
    Approved: November 7, 2007.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
 [FR Doc. E7-22715 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P