Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/498427
20 WINES&VINES May 2015 WINE INDUSTRY NEWS W ashington, D.C.—An unusual proposal from the Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) would allow wines to be labeled with the grapes' AVA of origin, if "fully fin- ished" in an adjacent state. TTB notice 147 was, the bureau stated, "in response to comments TTB re- ceived during the comment period for notice No. 142, Proposed Estab- lishment of The Rocks District of Milton-Freewater District Viticul- tural Area, which is located near the Oregon-Washington state line in northeastern Oregon." The notice has engendered some confusion among wine industry organizations nation- wide. Michael Kaiser, director of public affairs at WineAmerica, summarized the proposal: "The TTB is proposing that wineries in adjacent states be allowed to use the single-state AVA from the bordering state. To use the 'Finger Lakes' as an example, a Pennsylvania winery would be able to purchase grapes from the Finger Lakes AVA and use the Finger Lakes AVA on the label, even if the wine is fully finished in Pennsylvania. The regulations currently state that a Pennsylvania winery can purchase Finger Lakes grapes and use a 'New York' state appel- lation of origin." Current rules for AVA use on domestic wine label are: 1. The labeled area is an American viticultural area approved under U.S. regulations; 2. Not less than 85% of the wine volume is derived from grapes grown in the labeled viticultural area; 3. The wine is fully finished (except for cellar treatment and/or blending, which does not alter the class and type of the wine) in the state or one of the states where the viticultural area is located. The TTB says its expressed goal of establish- ing AVAs is "to prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product." Given the proliferation of AVAs and sub- AVAs in recent years, avoiding confusion seems a worthy aim. Kaiser said however, that if ap- proved, Notice 147 "might allow more accuracy (regarding grape sources) but dilute the impact of an AVA." Steven Bates, executive direc- tor of The Long Island Wine Coun- cil in New York, suggested the proposal "could work for multi- state AVAs." Grapegrowers in his area, who mostly sell within New York or in adjacent Connecticut, might benefit. "Most of our wineries are licensed as farm wineries," he said. The grapes they vinify must come from within the state. Wendell Lee, VP and general counsel at the California Wine Institute, commented, "I think the TTB's trying to respond to the Milton-Free- water issue. But to us in California, it totally ignores existing state regulations." California law, he said, requires wine to be finished within California if labeled with a California AVA name. —Jane Firstenfeld Loosening AVA Regulations "The TTB is proposing that wineries in adjacent states be allowed to use the single-state AVA from the bordering state." —Michael Kaiser, WineAmerica director of public affairs