[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28739-28742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11705]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 5

[Docket No. TTB-2012-0001; T.D. TTB-113; Re: Notice No. 126]
RIN 1513-AB91


Standards of Identity for Pisco and Cognac

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

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau regulations setting forth the standards of identity for 
distilled spirits to include Pisco as a type of brandy that must be 
manufactured in accordance with the laws and regulations of either Peru 
or Chile, as appropriate, governing the manufacture of those products. 
This final rule also removes ``Pisco brandy'' from the list of examples 
of geographical designations in the distilled spirits standards of 
identity, and it includes a technical correction to remove ``Cognac'' 
from the same list of examples. These changes provide greater clarity 
in distilled spirits labeling.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective July 15, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Welch, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 
and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division; telephone 202-453-
1039, ext. 046; email ITD@ttb.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 
codified in the United States Code at 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the 
Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to prescribe regulations relating 
to the packaging, marking, branding, labeling, and size and fill of 
containers of alcohol beverages that will prohibit consumer deception 
and provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity 
and quality of the product. Section 105(e) of the FAA Act also 
generally requires bottlers and importers of alcohol beverages to 
obtain certificates of label approval prior to bottling or importing 
alcohol beverages for sale in interstate commerce. Regulations 
implementing those provisions of section 105(e) as they relate to 
distilled spirits are set forth in part 5 of title 27 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (27 CFR part 5). The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) 
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The 
Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department 
Order 120-01 (Revised), dated January 21, 2003, to the TTB 
Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration 
and enforcement of this law.

Certificates of Label Approval

    TTB's regulations prohibit the release of bottled distilled spirits 
from customs custody for consumption unless an approved Certificate of 
Label Approval (COLA) covering the product has been deposited with the 
appropriate Customs officer at the port of entry. See 27 CFR 5.51. The 
TTB regulations also generally prohibit the bottling or removal from a 
plant of distilled spirits unless the proprietor possesses a COLA 
covering the labels on the bottle. See 27 CFR 5.55.

Classes and Types of Spirits

    The TTB labeling regulations require that the class and type of 
distilled spirits appear on the product's brand label. See 27 CFR 
5.32(a)(2) and 5.35. Those regulations provide that the class and type 
must be stated in conformity with Sec.  5.22 of the TTB regulations (27 
CFR 5.22) if defined therein. Otherwise, the product must be designated 
in accordance with trade and consumer understanding thereof, or, if no 
such understanding exists, by a distinctive or fanciful name, and in 
either case (with limited exceptions), followed by a truthful and 
adequate statement of composition (see 27 CFR 5.35).
    Section 5.22 establishes standards of identity for distilled 
spirits products and categorizes these products according to various 
classes and types. As used in Sec.  5.22, the term ``class'' refers to 
a general category of spirits, such as ``whisky'' or ``brandy.'' 
Currently, there are 12 different classes of distilled spirits 
recognized in Sec.  5.22, including whisky, rum, and brandy. The term 
``type'' refers to a subcategory within a class of spirits. For 
example, ``Cognac'' is a type of brandy, and ``Canadian whisky'' is a 
type of whisky.

Brandy and Pisco

    Brandy is Class 4 in the standards of identity, where it is defined 
in Sec.  5.22(d) as ``an alcoholic distillate from the fermented juice, 
mash, or wine of fruit, or from the residue thereof, produced at less 
than 190[deg] proof in such manner that the distillate possesses the 
taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to the product, 
and bottled at not less than 80[deg] proof.'' ``Pisco'' is a term 
recognized by both the governments of Peru and Chile as a designation 
for a distilled spirits product made from grapes. Generally, Pisco is 
classified as brandy under the terms of TTB's current labeling 
regulations. However, Pisco is not currently listed as a type of brandy 
in Class 4. Rather, ``Pisco brandy'' has been included in Class 11, at 
Sec.  5.22(k)(3), as an example of a geographical name that is not a 
name for a distinctive type of distilled spirits, and that has not 
become generic.

International Agreements

    Pursuant to the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, the 
United States recognized Pisco Per[uacute] as a distinctive product of 
Peru (Article 2.12(2) of the Agreement). Accordingly, the United States 
agreed not to permit the sale of any product as Pisco Per[uacute] 
unless it has been manufactured in Peru in accordance with the laws and 
regulations of Peru governing Pisco.
    In addition, pursuant to the United States-Chile Free Trade 
Agreement, the United States recognized Pisco Chileno (Chilean Pisco) 
as a distinctive product of Chile (Article 3.15(2) of the Agreement). 
Accordingly, the United States agreed not to permit the sale of any 
product as Pisco Chileno (Chilean Pisco) unless it has been 
manufactured in Chile in accordance with the laws and regulations of 
Chile governing the manufacture of Pisco.
    In like manner, Peru and Chile agreed, respectively, to recognize 
Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey (which is defined in both 
Agreements as a straight Bourbon Whiskey authorized to be produced only 
in the State of Tennessee), as distinctive products of the United 
States, and not to permit the sale of any product as Bourbon Whiskey or 
Tennessee Whiskey unless it has been manufactured in the United States 
in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States 
governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey. 
(TTB notes that there are alternative spellings for the same term--
``whisky'' in the TTB regulations in 27 CFR part 5 and ``whiskey'' in 
the Agreements with Peru and Chile.)

[[Page 28740]]

Pisco Production

    ``The Oxford Companion to Wine'' (Jancis Robinson, ed., Oxford 
University Press, 2d ed., 2001, p. 536) reports that Spanish colonists 
began producing aguardiente (grape spirits) in both Peru and Chile in 
the sixteenth century, and it describes such spirits as being produced 
near the town of Pisco, Peru. Further, ``The Oxford Companion to Wine'' 
says ````Pisco'' is an aromatic brandy made in Peru, Chile, and 
Bolivia, mainly from Moscatel (muscat) grapes.'' According to ``Alexis 
Lichine's Encyclopedia of Wines and Spirits'' (Alexis Lichine, ed., 5th 
ed., Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1987), ``Pisco brandy'' is brandy distilled 
from Muscat wine in Peru, Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia. Peru and Chile 
have promulgated standards for the production of Pisco.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On March 27, 2012, TTB published Notice No. 126 in the Federal 
Register (77 FR 18146) proposing to amend Sec.  5.22 to clarify the 
status of Pisco under the standards of identity. Specifically, TTB 
proposed amending Sec.  5.22(d), which lays out the standard of 
identity for brandy. In Notice No. 126, TTB stated that it believes 
that Pisco generally meets the U.S. standard for brandy and should be 
classified as a type of brandy. TTB also asserted that evidence 
suggests that the generally recognized geographical limits of the 
Pisco-producing areas do not extend beyond the boundaries of Chile and 
Peru. The wine and spirits authorities cited above indicate that Pisco 
production is not associated with any areas outside of South America.
    As stated in Notice No. 126, COLAs naming ``Pisco'' as the brand 
name or fanciful name of a distilled spirits product are almost 
exclusively for products from Chile and Peru. TTB could not locate any 
COLAs naming ``Pisco'' as the brand name or fanciful name for any 
products from Argentina, or from any other country in South America 
other than Peru, Chile, and Bolivia. COLAs for products from Bolivia 
that name ``Pisco'' as the brand name or fanciful name also use the 
term ``Singani.'' ``The Oxford Companion to Wine'' defines ``Singani'' 
as an ``aromatic grape-based spirit rather like pisco in that it is 
high in terpenes and made under a strictly controlled regime, 
principally from Muscat of Alexandria grapes'' that is a specialty of 
Bolivia (Robinson, p. 638). Bolivia maintains standards for Singani 
production in Bolivia, but does not have standards for Pisco 
production.
    In Notice No. 126, TTB specifically proposed to amend the standard 
of identity in Sec.  5.22(d) to add Pisco as a type of brandy that is 
manufactured in Peru or Chile in compliance with the laws of the 
country of production regulating the manufacture of Pisco. The proposed 
amendment would also recognize the phrases ``Pisco Per[uacute]'' (with 
or without the diacritic mark, i.e., ``Pisco Per[uacute]'' or ``Pisco 
Peru''), ``Pisco Chileno,'' and ``Chilean Pisco,'' as equivalent class 
and type names of the product, to reflect the provisions of the trade 
agreements. TTB clarified that if Pisco is recognized as a type of 
brandy, persons who distribute it in the United States will be entitled 
to label the product according to its type designation ``Pisco'' 
without the term ``brandy'' on the label, in the same way that a 
product labeled with the type designation ``Cognac'' is not required to 
also bear the class designation ``brandy.''
    TTB noted that the Peruvian standard allows products designated as 
Pisco to have an alcohol content ranging from 38 to 48 percent alcohol 
by volume, and the Chilean standard allows products designated as Pisco 
to have an alcohol content as low as 30 percent alcohol by volume. TTB 
further clarified that since the standard proposed in Notice No. 126 
would identify Pisco as a type of brandy, and the U.S. standard 
requires that brandy must be bottled at not less than 40 percent 
alcohol by volume, or 80[deg] proof, any ``Pisco'' imported into the 
United States would have to conform to this minimum bottling proof 
requirement. A product that is bottled at below 40 percent alcohol by 
volume would fall outside the class and type designation. TTB stated 
that under the proposed regulations, depending on the way that such a 
product is manufactured, it could be labeled as a ``diluted Pisco'' or 
as a distilled spirits specialty product bearing a statement of 
composition.
    Finally, TTB proposed to remove both ``Pisco brandy'' and 
``Cognac'' from Sec.  5.22(k)(3), where they are listed as examples of 
geographical names that are not names for distinctive types of 
distilled spirits, and that have not become generic. TTB proposed this 
amendment for two reasons. First, Pisco will appear in new Sec.  
5.22(d)(9), where it will be a type of brandy defined as grape brandy 
manufactured in Peru or Chile in accordance with the laws and 
regulations of the country of manufacture governing the manufacture of 
Pisco. Second, Cognac currently appears in Sec.  5.22(d)(2), where it 
is a type of brandy defined as ``grape brandy distilled in the Cognac 
region of France, which is entitled to be so designated by the laws and 
regulations of the French Government.'' The inclusion of ``Cognac'' in 
the list of examples of geographical names that are not names for 
distinctive types of distilled spirits, and that have not become 
generic, in Sec.  5.22(k)(3) is duplicative and confusing. Accordingly, 
TTB proposed to remove the reference to Cognac in Sec.  5.22(k)(3) as a 
technical correction to the regulations.

Effect on Currently Approved Labels

    In Notice No. 126, TTB stated that the proposed change to the 
regulations would revoke by operation of regulation any COLAs that 
specify ``Pisco'' as the class and type or, brand name, or fanciful 
name of distilled spirits products that are not products of Peru or 
Chile. TTB also noted that it had searched its COLA database, and 
believes that this rulemaking will affect only a small number of 
labels.

Comments Received and TTB Response

    TTB received eleven comments in response to Notice No. 126. All 
comments appear on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal Rulemaking portal, 
at http://www.regulations.gov, in Docket No. TTB-2012-0001. The 
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) (Comment 5) 
wrote ``in strong support of the proposed amendments.'' Another 
commenter identifying his organization as Campo de Encanto Pisco 
(Comment 4) wrote that Pisco's ``history, tradition and current 
resurgence in the U.S. should be respected and its status as a unique 
category of distillate should be labeled and promoted accordingly.'' 
The Regulatory Council to Guarantee the Origin and Quality of Pisco, 
which is a non-profit organization subject to the laws and courts of 
the Republic of Peru and which represents the beneficiaries of the 
Pisco denomination of origin submitted an informative comment (Comment 
7) detailing the Pisco production process. The comment did not state a 
position on TTB's proposal. TTB did not receive any comments concerning 
any COLAs that would be revoked by operation of regulation were the 
proposed rule to be adopted as a final rule.

Comments Concerning Aging in Wood/Oak Containers

    One individual's comment (Comment 2) stated, ``[t]he technical 
premise for this proposed rule, at least in the case of Peruvian Pisco, 
is erroneous. Pisco is a distilled spirit, NOT a brandy because it is 
not stored in wood casks.''
[Emphasis in original.] Another commenter, Chile's Agricultural and

[[Page 28741]]

Livestock Service (SAG), (Comment 11) also argued that classifying 
Pisco as a type of brandy ``is not appropriate because it does not take 
into account international definitions such as the OIV [(International 
Organization of Vine and Wine)],'' which define Pisco as a ``spirit 
product'' and provide that brandy must be aged in oak containers.

TTB Response

    TTB disagrees with the two commenters who assert that Pisco is not 
a brandy because it might not be aged or stored in wood/oak containers. 
TTB and its predecessor agencies have long considered Pisco to be a 
brandy, as evidenced by its listing in Sec.  5.22(k)(3) as ``Pisco 
brandy'' since 1936. The relevant definition is the definition of 
brandy in Sec.  5.22(d), rather than definitions of brandy in other 
jurisdictions, and this regulation does not specify that brandy must be 
stored or aged in oak containers. TTB notes that Sec.  5.22(d)(1) 
generally provides that grape brandy that has been stored in oak 
containers for less than two years must be labeled with the word 
``immature,'' but also lists several types of brandy (specifically 
neutral brandy, pomace brandy, marc brandy, and grappa, as well as any 
fruit brandy that is not derived from grapes) that are exempt from this 
requirement. To recognize that Peruvian and Chilean Pisco production 
practices do not generally require that Pisco be stored or aged in oak 
containers, in the final rule text, TTB is amending Sec.  5.22(d)(1) to 
clarify that Pisco not stored in oak containers for at least 2 years is 
also exempt from any requirement that it be labeled with the word 
``immature.''

Comments Concerning the 40 Percent ABV Requirement

    Six commenters expressed concerns about the proposed 40 percent 
alcohol by volume minimum alcohol content for Pisco. One individual 
commenter (Comment 1) stated, ``To ensure that the integrity of the 
Pisco brandy * * * is not compromised, the requirement . . . [for] 
Pisco brandy to be consumed in the United States [should] not require 
40% alcohol by volume.'' Another individual (Comment 3) stated that, 
``TTB should reconsider the classification of Pisco as a brandy so that 
the regulation recognizes all Piscos that are manufactured in 
compliance with the laws'' of their respective countries of origin. A 
third individual (Comment 6) proposed that TTB adopt an exception for 
Pisco to the requirement that brandy be bottled at not less than 40 
percent alcohol by volume. The commenter also argued that requiring 
Pisco bottled at less than 40 percent alcohol by volume to be labeled 
differently would confuse consumers.
    The Pisco Producers Association of Chile (Comment 9), the 
Directorate-General for International Economic Relations of Chile's 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Comment 10), and Chile's Agricultural and 
Livestock Service (SAG) (Comment 11) also expressed concerns about the 
proposed 40 percent alcohol by volume minimum alcohol content for 
Pisco. These commenters pointed out that Chilean law permits production 
of Pisco with an alcohol content by volume of as low as 30 percent, and 
requested that TTB take this into consideration.

TTB Response

    TTB notes that the U.S. standards of identity for distilled spirits 
require that all of the major classes of distilled spirits (neutral 
spirits (including vodka), whisky, gin, brandy, rum, and tequila) be 
bottled at not less than 80[deg] proof (which is equivalent to 40 
percent alcohol by volume). TTB believes it is appropriate to apply 
this 80[deg] proof standard to like products of foreign countries so 
that the same standard applies to domestic producers and foreign 
producers. There is precedent for applying this 80[deg] proof standard 
to distinctive products of other countries. The standard of identity 
for Tequila in Sec.  5.22(g), which states that ``Tequila is a 
distinctive product of Mexico, manufactured in Mexico in compliance 
with the laws of Mexico regulating the manufacture of Tequila for 
consumption in that country,'' applies the 80[deg] proof minimum 
despite the fact that Mexican regulations allow Tequila to be bottled 
at 35 percent alcohol by volume (70[deg] proof).
    As noted above, products that are manufactured in Peru or Chile in 
accordance with the laws and regulations governing the manufacture of 
Pisco in those countries and that contain less than 40 percent alcohol 
by volume could be imported into the United States labeled as a 
``diluted Pisco'' or as distilled spirits specialty products bearing a 
statement of composition. This is not a new requirement; under TTB's 
current practice and that of its predecessor agencies, ``Pisco'' 
products imported into the United States from Chile or Peru containing 
less than 40 percent alcohol by volume must be labeled as ``diluted 
Pisco'' or as a distilled spirits specialty product bearing a statement 
of composition. This final rule does not change that requirement. 
Finally, TTB believes that maintaining this consistent and long-
standing 80[deg] proof minimum for the major classes of distilled 
spirits would prevent consumer confusion rather than create it.

Comment From the Government of Peru

    The Government of Peru submitted a comment concerning several 
different issues (Comment 8). The comment included a history of the 
name ``Pisco'' and a description of the production process for Peruvian 
Pisco. The Government of Peru also suggested that the current 
regulations prevent the import and trade of products with the name 
``Pisco'' that ``do not come from the place of origin of `Pisco' 
(Peru).'' Second, the Government of Peru requests that we confirm its 
understanding that 27 CFR 5.51 and 5.55, which require a COLA before 
imported and domestic products are removed from bond, will apply to 
``imported and domestic commercialization''.
    Finally, the Government of Peru argued that Pisco produced in Peru 
is very different from other grape or wine brandies, and proposed that 
TTB, instead of creating one type designation in Class 4 for ``Pisco'' 
that would include both Peruvian and Chilean Pisco, create a Class 4 
type designation for Peruvian Pisco to include the terms ``Pisco Peru'' 
and ``Pisco''. The Government of Peru, in its comment, leaves to the 
consideration of United States authorities what standard of identity 
should be created for the ``grape/wine brandy'' manufactured in Chile.

TTB Response

    TTB believes that evidence suggests that the generally recognized 
geographical limits of the Pisco-producing areas do not extend beyond 
the boundaries of Peru and Chile. TTB believes this rulemaking is 
necessary to prevent confusion on this issue. Furthermore, TTB confirms 
that the standard of identity for Pisco will apply to the universe of 
distilled spirits removed either from U.S. Customs custody or from the 
bonded premises of a domestic distilled spirits plant.
    TTB considered the alternate proposal from the Government of Peru, 
and found that it would give rise to several unintended consequences. 
Currently, pursuant to Sec.  5.22(k)(3), TTB allows the terms ``Pisco'' 
and ``Pisco brandy'' to be used on labels for products manufactured in 
either Peru or Chile. If TTB amended its regulations to remove ``Pisco 
brandy'' from Sec.  5.22(k)(3) and provide type designations for 
``Pisco Per[uacute]'' and ``Pisco Chileno (Chilean Pisco)'' but not a 
type designation for ``Pisco,'' all of the existing COLAs using 
``Pisco'' or ``Pisco brandy'' as the class

[[Page 28742]]

and type designation--estimated at approximately 100 COLAs-- would be 
revoked by operation of regulation. The existing COLAs using ``Pisco'' 
or ``Pisco brandy'' would not fit into either the ``Pisco Per[uacute]'' 
or the ``Pisco Chileno (Chilean Pisco)'' type designation, and these 
COLAs would not comply with TTB's regulations without the broader, 
overall type designation for ``Pisco.'' TTB does not believe that such 
a disruption to the trade is warranted. TTB also notes that consumers 
will easily be able to identify the country of origin of any Pisco 
product because under 27 CFR 5.32(b)(2), imported distilled spirits 
product labels must include the country of origin.

Clarification of the Regulatory Language

    DISCUS, in response to Notice No. 127, which proposed a standard of 
identity for Cacha[ccedil]a, questioned the wording of that proposed 
standard of identity. In Notice No. 127, TTB proposed to define 
Cacha[ccedil]a as ``a type of rum that is a distinctive product of 
Brazil, manufactured in Brazil in compliance with the laws of Brazil 
regulating the manufacture of Cacha[ccedil]a for consumption in that 
country'' (emphasis added). DISCUS commented that the highlighted 
language could inadvertently cause confusion as to whether a product 
that is produced in full conformity with Brazil's regulations governing 
the manufacture of Cacha[ccedil]a for consumption in Brazil and bottled 
at less than 40 percent alcohol by volume could be labeled and sold in 
the United States as ``Cacha[ccedil]a.'' DISCUS also noted that 
deleting this language would be consistent with TTB Notice No. 126, 
Standards of Identity for Pisco and Cognac.
    TTB believes that including the phrase ``for consumption in that 
country'' is appropriate for both Cacha[ccedil]a and Pisco because the 
wording clarifies that the laws of the country of manufacture cannot 
provide standards that are different for products being exported than 
for products to be consumed within the country of manufacture. TTB 
inadvertently omitted this phrase in its proposed standard of identity 
for Pisco in Notice No. 126, and believes, for clarity, that the phrase 
should be included in the final rule text. However, such a requirement 
does not override the current practice, described above, that ``Pisco'' 
products imported into the United States from Chile or Peru containing 
less than 40 percent alcohol by volume must be labeled as ``diluted 
Pisco'' or as a distilled spirits specialty product bearing a statement 
of composition.

TTB Finding

    After careful review of the comments discussed above, and after 
consideration of the obligations incurred in the international 
agreements, TTB has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the 
proposed regulatory amendments contained in Notice No. 126, with the 
two modifications (the clarification that Pisco need not be aged in oak 
containers, and the addition of the phrases ``for consumption in the 
country of manufacture'' and ``for consumption in that country,'') as 
discussed above. TTB notes that these regulatory changes will revoke by 
operation of regulation any COLAs that specify ``Pisco'' as the class 
and type or, brand name, or fanciful name of distilled spirits products 
that are not products of Peru or Chile.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. chapter 6), TTB certifies that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
These amendments clarify the status of Pisco under the standards of 
identity for distilled spirits and do not impose, or otherwise cause, a 
significant increase in reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance 
burdens on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

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

Drafting Information

    Karen E. Welch of the Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this document.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 5

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

Amendment to the Regulations

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends 27 CFR part 5 
as follows:

PART 5--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS

0
1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 5.22 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (d) introductory text, removing the words ``paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (8)'' and adding, in their place, the words ``paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (9)'';
0
b. In paragraph (d)(1), in the third sentence, revising the 
parenthetical phrase to read ``(other than neutral brandy, pomace 
brandy, marc brandy, grappa brandy, Pisco, Pisco Per[uacute], or Pisco 
Chileno)'';
0
c. In paragraph (k)(3), by removing the words ``Cognac,'' and ``Pisco 
brandy,''; and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (d)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  5.22  The standards of identity.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) ``Pisco'' is grape brandy manufactured in Peru or Chile in 
accordance with the laws and regulations of the country of manufacture 
governing the manufacture of Pisco for consumption in the country of 
manufacture.
    (i) ``Pisco Per[uacute]'' (or ``Pisco Peru'') is Pisco manufactured 
in Peru in accordance with the laws and regulations of Peru governing 
the manufacture of Pisco for consumption in that country.
    (ii) ``Pisco Chileno'' (or ``Chilean Pisco'') is Pisco manufactured 
in Chile in accordance with the laws and regulations of Chile governing 
the manufacture of Pisco for consumption in that country.
* * * * *

    Signed: February 7, 2013.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
    Approved: March 5, 2013.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2013-11705 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P