[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28739-28742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 [email protected].
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