ooking for breathing room in the midst of the busy holiday season, U.S. vintners are pushing the government to extend to March the comment period on two TTB proposals regarding American Viticultural Area status.

The Tax and Trade Bureau is looking for comments on its proposals on AVA rule revisions. One, calling for public comments by March 20, concerns the grandfathering in of geographical brand names. While the other,also due by March 20, could turn on its ear the criteria for obtaining AVA status in general; this proposed rule accordingly runs the danger of watering down customer assurance of grape origins.

It is likely that the wine industry will be granted those extensions, due to a vociferous outcry from the wine industry, as well as a letter from California Congressman Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), which presses TTB for the extensions.

The most vocal entity, of course, is the Napa Valley Vintners, which has two dogs in this fight. One relates to TTB’s proposal to grandfather-in one of two Calistoga geographically named brands - a winery that apparently doesn’t use at least 85 percent of its grapes from the pending Calistoga AVA.

The other proposal from the government is to re-define future AVAs within AVAs, partially based upon the percentage of land in an area that is devoted to growing wine grapes. The NVV has cause for concern on the latter revision because the Napa Valley alone – which already has 14 sub-AVAs - has one pending (Calistoga) and at least two other petitions in some stage of completion (Pope Valley and Tulocay)

In a statement last week, the NVV voiced strong opposition to TTB’s rule changes. On the “grandfather” revision, the NVV wrote, “these regulations provide, for a select few wine brands [editor’s note: Calistoga Cellars and Calistoga Estates] a loophole through which to sell their misleading wines …”

As for the other proposal, the NVV stated that the rule, “threatens to eliminate the common and internationally understood practice of ‘nesting’ wine appellations within larger appellations and to eliminate the existing high standard of grape source requirements, providing additional channels for consumer deception …”

However, there is one observer of the AVA process, Ralph Carter, with first-hand experience working with TTB, who sees the brouhaha as an “opportunity” for the industry, the consumer, and even for TTB because “it’s pretty rare [that] the public even gets to comment on federal law before it’s enacted.” Furthermore he conjectured, “If it’s enacted, it’s a chance to mould American appellation consciousness.”

Carter has written a half-dozen California petitions to the TTB seeking AVA sanction, and has obtained approval thus far on the Dos Rios and Covelo areas of Mendocino County and Leona Valley, about 50 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Will the TTB actually listen to public comments, and act upon them accordingly?

“It seems like a fair opportunity to test the waters on their behalf,” Carter told APPELLATION AMERICA from the Big Island of Hawaii where he was vacationing. “It seems to be very economical and logical on their part … There will be quite a bit of feedback and they will weigh and pay attention to those comments that are well-founded and ignore the emotional ones.”

Carter believes that the so-called “grandfather” revision, which would allow Calistoga Cellars to keep its name, will be difficult to settle. “I would expect the Calistoga situation will best be resolved by not entering into a grandfathering situation; those within the area should source their grapes from within the area and comply with the 85 percent rule.”

The other proposal he believes, if enacted, will be a nightmare both for the industry and the government because both sides will have to show that there’s a preponderance of land in vineyard in a proposed area before AVA status will be granted in the future.

“That would be quite an obstacle to the industry and it will not promote the vitality of the industry,” he surmised. Carter, who works exclusively with areas that heretofore were not known for grape growing and winemaking, regions which he calls “pioneering areas”, concludes that if TTB enacts the so-called “Percentage Rule”, those areas will be stymied in growing their wine industry.

They need the validation of being approved in order to propagate an industry with which to begin, he said. Further, in a letter to TTB on this matter, Carter wrote, “Pioneer growers need momentum at this early stage of development. This recognition can help the consumer and may actually encourage other growers to consider the area and thus further enhance the economy of the area …”

He also writes to TTB that large, natural geographic areas will “be unfairly burdened” if the “Percentage Rule” goes into effect because they may have to wait an inordinate time to get their areas approved.

The AVA process and the TTB rule system, Carter believes, “is at an historic junction when the American wine industry is competing globally at a time when a huge portion of worldwide wines are indistinguishable from one another.”

To survey an area, looking for certain percentages of viticultural land, will be highly costly to both the industry and TTB. Carter thinks the agency’s rule revisions may be at cross purposes. Considering, he said, that the reasons for the rule changes in the first place are mostly about cost cutting.

Carter said he spoke directly to Nancy Sutton, of TTB’s regulations and procedures division, who told him that her agency’s reasons for wishing to makes rules changes on this issue are because of “cost-cutting measures. She said they spend a lot of money and it seems they’re trying to reduce their expenses.”

Toward that end, Carter recommends that TTB begin charging a fee to anyone filing an AVA petition, something it currently does not do. He indicated that the agency might be receptive to that.

“With all my experiences with TTB, they are a very good, high-integrity department and I have great deal of respect for them,” he said. “I’m hoping they’ll take this opportunity to grow since they’re so young themselves (on these matters) compared to Europe.”

Apparently, those words are not mere platitudes. When pressed that he might have a vested interest in cozying up to TTB because he has to work directly with the agency in order to get his client’s petitions approved, Carter didn’t backtrack. “I haven’t had any reason to have a vested interest with them. I’m learning as I work with them, they seem to be quite professional,” he responded.

However, he did offer this: “I never know if people with TTB are clerical or scientific nerds. I’ve never met any of them personally. I’ve asked questions and didn’t have some of them answered. But the big thing is I think they’re interested in quality. I don’t think they’ll make the mistake they made in the early ‘80s, allowing AVAs with millions of acres, again.”

Carter said he has been busy the last few weeks alerting people “from one end of the state (California) to the other about the issues. He insisted that he “hasn’t met anyone who likes the percentage rule change.”

He also doesn’t think TTB is trying to push through legislation while the industry concerns itself with year-end business. “I don’t believe they’re (TTB) trying to slip one by us in this busy holiday season,” he concluded.