BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
In the matter of the adoption of New Rule I (42.13.204) and amendment of ARM 42.13.111, 42.13.201, 42.13.203, and 42.13.401 relating to product approval for beer, wine, and hard cider products
NOTICE OF ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT
TO: All Concerned Persons
1. On October 25, 2012, the department published MAR Notice Number 42-2-886, regarding the proposed adoption and amendment of the above-stated rules at page 2178 of the 2012 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 20.
2. A public hearing was held on November 15, 2012, to consider the proposed adoption and amendment. Tony Herbert, Executive Director of the Montana Brewers Association and representative of the craft beer industry in Montana, appeared and testified at the hearing. Craig Moore, Associate General Counsel for Anheuser Busch, and Katie Jacoy, Western Counsel for the Wine Institute, submitted written comments. The oral and written comments received are summarized as follows, along with the responses of the department:
COMMENT NO. 1: Mr. Herbert commented that the department has done a good job trying to take on a hard subject and that the proposed rules build some good sidebars. He further commented that some beers do not need to have the alcohol content on them per state requirement, and that the department should be consistent with that in the rules. Specifically, in ARM 42.13.201(2)(c), the proposed changes about minimizing or failing to identify make it sound like there is a requirement to always identify the specific alcohol content. Mr. Herbert stated that he doesn't think that is accurate and suggested the department consider revising the language for clarity.
RESPONSE NO. 1: The department appreciates Mr. Herbert's comments. He is correct and makes a good point that not all alcoholic beverages are required by law to state the alcohol content on their labels. The department agrees with his suggestion and is amending ARM 42.13.201 for clarity.
COMMENT NO. 2: Mr. Moore commented, relative to the proposed amendments to ARM 42.13.201, 42.13.203, and 42.13.401, that his organization believes clarification is necessary with respect to the prior approval/submission of packaging. He further stated that they do not believe the intent of the proposed amendments is to impose a dramatic expansion of the current system of review nor the addition of new compliance hurdles, however, they fear an expansive reading of the proposed amendments may unintentionally impose such a burden.
Mr. Moore further commented that the submission of labels and description of the primary packaging is common practice and consistent with current Montana law and the Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) requirements. However, the advance submission of secondary packaging such as casing for packs of 6, 12, 24, or 30, is not. If the proposed amendments are read to require the prior submission of all secondary packaging, it will increase the potential for delay and add burdens for getting new products approved and available to consumers. He further stated that they don't believe such a reading is intended, and a more appropriate reading of the term packaging would require only a submission of a general description of the primary container. If this reading is adopted, the proposed amendments would be consistent with industry standards and not impact or delay future product approvals.
Mr. Moore asks that the proposed amendments be clarified to ensure that only submission of primary label and/or descriptions of the container type be required during the submission process.
RESPONSE NO. 2: The department appreciates Mr. Moore's comments. The amendments to the rules were proposed with the intent of establishing a fair and equitable product approval process that would protect public health and safety effectively, yet also remain reasonable with regard to minimizing the burden on the alcohol beverage industry.
The department agrees with Mr. Moore that better clarity relative to the term packaging is necessary. The requirement for the approval of beer, wine, and hard cider product packaging does refer only to the primary container which directly surrounds the alcoholic beverage. It does not refer to the secondary packaging, such as the outer casing of a 12-pack or 24-pack. Therefore, the department is further amending ARM 42.13.201, 42.13.203, and New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204), to insert the word "primary" ahead of the word packaging, as needed, to add the missing clarity and is also amending the definitions rule for this chapter, ARM 42.13.111, to add in and define the term "primary packaging."
Furthermore, the department is amending the rules to only require picture copies of the packaging when traditional containers are not being used. The additional rule amendments will include the types of containers that are considered traditional.
COMMENT NO. 3: Ms. Jacoy stated that the Wine Institute (WI) respectfully suggests that the department consider following the lead of many other states and simplify wine label approval processes; and not make them more complicated as proposed in the amendments. The WI advocates for individual states to discontinue wine label approval because the work is duplicative with that of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which requires that all labels for wine products with 7 percent alcohol or more sold in the United States be approved and registered. TTB's online system makes it easy and fast for states to retrieve the Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) for a wine product. States simply need to require each winery or importer to provide their TTB label approval numbers to gain access to the approved COLA. Ms. Jacoy asked that if this type of streamlined procedure is not possible at this time, that the department please consider their additional comments regarding the proposed new and amended rules and the WI's proposed substitute language.
RESPONSE NO. 3: The department appreciates Ms. Jacoy's comments. While the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) has a convenient program in place, and the department does utilize it for efficiencies where possible, the TTB approval is not required for all alcoholic beverages. Additionally, in its ongoing effort to protect the public's health and safety, the department feels it is necessary to be directly involved in the product approval process in the state of Montana.
The department currently accepts label approval requests electronically through its Taxpayer Access Point (TAP) program. TAP requests that the user key in specific product information including the Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) identification number. The department then uses this information to retrieve the COLA from the TTB site.
TAP will continue to be available for the alcoholic beverage industry to submit their label requests and the department will continue to work to make it more efficient for users, including expanding the capability to add pictures of the packaging when necessary.
COMMENT NO. 4: Ms. Jacoy commented, regarding New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204), that there is confusion relating to what information must currently be submitted for a wine label approval in Montana. She stated that ARM 42.13.401 currently provides, in part, that each winery or importer desiring to ship table wines to licensed distributors within the state must submit an application for registration, and each application must be accompanied by a registration fee, and a copy of each product label the winery or importer intends to ship into the state. However, the Foreign Winery and Importer Registration form only requires copies of TTB label approvals for each brand of wine. Ms. Jacoy commented that this discrepancy has resulted in wineries providing different information. Some submit only their TTB approved COLAs for department approval, and others submit both the COLAs and copies of each label. She further commented that it would be helpful if the department would clarify what needs to be submitted and how department approval is indicated.
Ms. Jacoy stated that the most significant new requirement is for wineries to provide the department with picture copies of the packaging in order to consider the product for approval. This requirement is troubling since COLA applications are typically submitted in advance of the first bottling. Once the TTB COLA is obtained, then wineries must submit applications in the states that also require label approval. Some states take weeks or months to approve label registrations, so wineries submit applications as early as possible. Early submission ensures that a winery has all necessary approvals to ship the wine once it is bottled. If wineries are required to wait for the first bottling before submitting a picture of the finished product, there would be significant delays in launching new products in Montana, having a negative impact on distributors, retailers and consumers. This delay is compounded by the department's 30-day approval time included in this proposal.
Ms. Jacoy further commented that because almost all wine products are packaged in traditional bottles or boxes, this burdensome requirement doesn't seem justified. Providing pictures of final wine packaging is not required from any of the other 25 states that require label/brand approval. It is not clear why this is necessary in Montana. Ms. Jacoy stated that for these reasons, the Wine Institute (WI) does not believe that a picture of the packaging should be required for wine products.
Ms. Jacoy commented that proposed New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204) would also require, for the first time, that wineries submit to the department for approval any changes to the label or packaging that requires Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) approval. Approval of label changes is duplicative with TTB and will require additional department personnel time, increasing costs and causing delay in the label approval process.
Ms. Jacoy stated that the WI requests that the department reconsider requiring this new information. If this requirement remains, they respectfully ask for clarification. Since TTB does not review packaging, would any change in packaging require department approval? Would label revisions that fall within the TTB "Allowable Revisions to Approved Labels" guidelines not require submission to the department?
Ms. Jacoy further commented that the 30-day response time is greater than the time it currently takes for wineries to get approval in Montana. Currently, wineries have their indication of label approval from the department in about 14 days. Waiting 30 days for a response would delay product launches and make Montana one of the slowest states in approving labels. Ultimately, this time increase will have a negative impact on distributors, retailers, and consumers in Montana. Most states requiring label approval are working from online submissions to decrease approval times, not to increase the processing time. There are only nine other states that have 30 or more day average turn around for approvals.
Ms. Jacoy stated that the WI respectfully recommends the following language as substitute language to put into rule the current wine label approval process, to place all requirements for wine labeling and packaging in one section, and to set a general standard for appropriate content of labels and packaging in the event enforcement becomes necessary:
(1) A winery or wine importer, before sending a wine product with alcohol content of 7 percent or greater to a licensed distributor, must send the department, electronically or otherwise, a copy of the wine product label and the TTB Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) for approval by the department.
(2) A winery or wine importer, before sending a wine product with alcohol content below 7 percent to a licensed distributor, must send the department, electronically or otherwise, a copy of the wine product label.
(3) The winery or wine importer can begin sending wine products to licensed distributors upon receipt of the department's approval, which can be sent electronically or otherwise.
(4) Wine product labels and packaging must be accurate and truthful, not misleading or designed to target or particularly appeal to persons under the age of twenty-one.
RESPONSE NO. 4: The department appreciates Ms. Jacoy's concerns regarding the requirements for product approvals. The department is further amending ARM 42.13.201, 42.13.203, and New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204) to clarify the requirements. The department also understands that the department's Foreign Winery and Importer Registration form will need to be updated, and will do so once the rule process is completed, to ensure continuity.
The department understands Ms. Jacoy's concern regarding the new requirement of submitting picture copies of the packaging and is amending ARM 42.13.201, 42.13.203, and New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204), to reduce the burden on manufacturers and to streamline the process. The department will only require picture copies of the packaging when nontraditional containers are used. The department is making further amendments to include the types of traditional containers that would be exempt from this requirement in both ARM 42.13.203, and New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204).
The approval of label changes is a not a new requirement with the addition of New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204). ARM 42.13.203 currently requires all label changes to be approved for in-state and out-of-state brewers or importers. ARM 42.13.401 also currently requires that any changes, additions, or deletions in a winery or wine importers product line be noticed to the department prior to distribution in Montana. The new rule simplifies the process by requiring revised labels only if the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) requires it. It does not put any additional burden on the department staff or increase any costs associated with the process. The department is further amending ARM 42.13.201, 42.13.203, and New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204), to add clarity to the requirement for package changes.
Ms. Jacoy's concern with regard to a 30-day response time is understandable. The department recognizes the importance of quick turnaround times when approving products, always strives for rapid turnaround, and is not making or proposing a change in this practice. The 30-day response time is not a new requirement in ARM 42.13.203(5). It is a part of the rule only to provide the maximum length of time and account for extreme situations.
The department appreciates Ms. Jacoy's proposed language changes, and has taken them into consideration with the additional amendments being made to ARM 42.13.201, 42.13.203, and New Rule I (ARM 42.13.204).
COMMENT NO. 5: Ms. Jacoy commented, relative to ARM 42.13.201, that if a governmental entity wants to regulate the content of alcohol beverage labels and packaging, it must be very cautious not to violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. Alcohol beverage advertising, including labels and packaging, are protected under the First Amendment as commercial speech. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has noted that voluntary self-regulatory advertising codes provide important protections in this area, where government restrictions raise First Amendment issues. Only when such self-regulation fails should the government resort to narrowly tailored action consistent with the First Amendment.
Ms. Jacoy stated that, as referenced in the proposal notice, the WI has adopted such a self-regulatory Code of Advertising Standards (Code) and requires compliance by all its winery members. The Code applies to all advertising, including print and internet advertising, as well as labels and packaging. The Code helps ensure that members' advertising of wine does not target or appeal to underage individuals. The Code also includes a third party review process for wine advertisements.
Ms. Jacoy further commented that the only limitations on commercial free speech that are constitutionally permitted are those narrowly tailored to achieve an asserted government interest. Underage drinking is a serious public policy issue and alcohol advertising should not target or appeal to those underage. It is not clear however, the specific problems the department is trying to address by these amendments.
Ms. Jacoy asked if there are existing problems with labeling and packaging of wine products in Montana. Has voluntary compliance with our Code not been sufficient to prevent advertising that is targeted to or particularly appealing to those underage? If there are problems, why isn't it sufficient for the department to use its enforcement powers against the bad actors?
Ms. Jacoy further stated that some of the proposed restrictions contained in ARM 42.13.201 are vague and could be interpreted very broadly. They present constitutional issues because they are not narrowly tailored. For example, the restriction on the use of flavors commonly associated with underage persons, such as cotton candy or bubble gum. What makes one flavor more associated with underage persons than another? Would chocolate or fruit flavors be acceptable? The WI does not believe that a product should be banned from sale in Montana based on a flavoring if the packaging is accurate and truthful, and in compliance with Federal law.
Ms. Jacoy commented that another example of a restriction that is too vague is that a wine label or package cannot contain graphics or elements that are most commonly associated with underage persons. This is also vague and raises serious concerns about how it will be interpreted. WI's Code deals with this issue in more specific terms, providing that wine advertising shall not use music, language, gestures, cartoon characters, or depictions, images, figures, or objects that are popular predominantly with children or otherwise specifically associated with or directed toward those below the legal drinking age, including the use of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. We are not aware of any problems in Montana with wine products in this regard. She further commented that since they believe the restrictions proposed in ARM 42.13.201 are problematic, they suggest they be deleted. In the alternative, wine products should be exempt from these restrictions for all of the reasons they have stated.
RESPONSE NO. 5: The department appreciates Ms. Jacoy's comments, and acknowledges that it is very helpful when voluntary, self-regulated, advertising codes are employed to aid in the prevention of products from being sold with misleading labeling or packaging. However, as Ms. Jacoy notes, self-regulation does sometimes fail to achieve its goals, and the state must then use narrowly tailored statutes and rules to address the problems which remain. That is precisely the department's purpose here.
While recognizing that alcohol labeling comprises "commercial speech," the Supreme Court has noted that a state government "has a significant interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens" by preventing alcohol manufacturers from engaging in practices "which could lead to greater alcoholism and its attendant social costs." Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476, 481, 485 (1995). (See also 16-1-101(3), MCA, describing the state's role, acting through the department, to protect "the welfare, health, peace, morals, and safety of the people of the state," by regulating alcoholic beverages in accordance with the Montana Alcoholic Beverage Code). In Rubin, the Court struck down a state's ban on certain beer labels describing the strength of the alcohol content of the product, finding that the brewer sought to print "only truthful, verifiable, and non-misleading factual information about alcohol content on its beer labels." (514 U.S. at 483).
Similarly, the Court more recently, in striking down a statute that restricted commercial speech in the context of pharmaceutical information, noted that "the state may not seek to remove a popular but disfavored product from the marketplace by prohibiting truthful, non-misleading advertisements." Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2671 (2011).
In contrast to the situations in Rubin and Sorrell, by implementing these proposed rules, the department specifically seeks to avoid alcoholic beverage sales where the packaging or labeling is inherently misleading, nonverifiable, or encourages illegal activity. The test applied by the court in Rubin for determining whether "commercial speech" falls within the First Amendment is the Central Hudson test.
The threshold requirement of the Central Hudson test is that the commercial speech "at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading." 514 U.S. at 482, citing Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980). As noted by Justice Breyer in his dissenting opinion in Sorrell, "the Court normally exempts the regulation of 'misleading' and 'deceptive' information even from the rigors of its 'intermediate' commercial speech scrutiny." 131 S. Ct. at 2681 (Breyer, J., dissenting), citing 44 Liquormart v. R.I., 517 U.S. 484, 501 (1996).
Because the rule proposed by the department is tailored to prevent specific instances of misleading product labeling and packaging, which make it difficult to determine the product contains alcohol, encourage illegal activity, or specifically appeal to underage persons, the rule is permissible under the First Amendment.
The department commends Ms. Jacoy and the Wine Institute's effort in implementing a self-regulatory Code of Advertising Standards. The department referenced this code as the rules were drafted. Although the alcoholic beverage industry in general does an excellent job in marketing their products to the appropriate age group, some manufacturers don't always follow the same set of codes or inadvertently target the wrong age group. The department's product approval process will ensure all manufacturers are following the same set of rules.
The alcoholic beverage industry continues to evolve. New flavors, packaging and marketing concepts are regularly entering the market. As these new concepts enter the market, some are targeted towards underage persons or make it difficult for an underage person to differentiate it from a nonalcoholic product. As mentioned previously, these rules will ensure the public health and safety while ensuring all products are looked at in a fair and equitable manner.
The department appreciates Ms. Jacoy's comments regarding flavors used in the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages. The department will look at all flavors as they are introduced and will make a decision on a case-by-case basis. The department feels it is necessary to make this provision broad in nature as the flavors of alcoholic beverages today will most likely not be the same flavors in the future.
Ms. Jacoy's comments regarding the vagueness of graphics and elements on the label or packaging are well-taken. The department has further amended ARM 42.13.201(2)(c) and has used some of the language Ms. Jacoy suggested. The department does not feel that wine products should be exempt from these restrictions. It is imperative to treat all alcoholic beverages, whether they are wine, beer, or liquor in a fair and equitable manner.
COMMENT NO. 6: Ms. Jacoy commented, relative to ARM 42.13.401, that the inclusion of a reference to the labeling and packaging requirements in the fee section is confusing. The WI is very concerned that ARM 42.13.401 could be interpreted to require a fee to be paid for each label or brand registration rather than a fee for the winery or importers registration as an entity.
RESPONSE NO. 6: The department appreciates Ms. Jacoy's comment. The department believes it is necessary to include the reference to ARM 42.13.201 within ARM 42.13.401 to ensure wineries and importers are aware of the new and amended rules, to help ensure all wineries and importers are following the same process.
The registration fee provided for in the rule remains the same. It continues to represent the number of cases the winery or importer intends to ship to licensed distributors in the state of Montana as being on a case-by-case basis, and is not based on how many labels the winery or importer plans to register. Based on Ms. Jacoy's comments about the potential for confusion, the department is further amending the rule to add clarity.
3. As a result of the comments received, the department adopts NEW RULE I (ARM 42.13.204) with the following changes:
NEW RULE I (42.13.204) WINE LABEL APPROVALS (1) Each product a winery or wine importer desires to sell in the state of Montana must be approved by the department and conform to the provisions of ARM 42.13.201.
The In order to consider the product for approval, the department must receive picture copies of the label and packaging, from the winery or wine importer, in order to consider the product for approval. copies of:
Changes to the label or packaging that requires TTB approval must be approved by the department prior to making the product available for sale in the state of Montana. a picture of the primary packaging unless a traditional container is used. Traditional containers include aluminum cans, glass bottles, kegs, and boxes that are typically associated with alcoholic beverages. Any changes to the primary packaging must be approved by the department prior to entering the Montana market if a nontraditional container is used; and
A winery or wine importer that desires to sell wine that is subject to the labeling requirements administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must also supply copies of that label and packaging for approval to the department. Such products are wine beverages containing less than 7 percent alcohol by volume, including hard cider. the Certificate of Label Approval from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau for wine over 7 percent alcohol by volume. Any changes to the label that require approval from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau must be approved by the department prior to entering the Montana market; or
(c) the label, if the wine is less than 7 percent alcohol by volume. Any changes to the label must be approved by the department prior to entering the Montana market.
(3) remains as proposed.
AUTH: 16-1-303, MCA
IMP: 16-1-101, 16-1-102, 16-1-106, 16-1-303, 16-4-107, MCA
4. As a result of the comments received, and to include supportive implementing statutes previously omitted, the department amends ARM 42.13.111, and further amends ARM 42.13.201, 42.13.203, and 42.13.401 as follows:
42.13.111 DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply to this subchapter:
(1) through (9) remain the same.
(10) "Primary packaging" means the container that directly holds the alcoholic beverage. Examples of primary packaging include, but are not limited to, aluminum cans, glass bottles, kegs, and a box containing a plastic bladder or other soft flexible container of wine.
(10) through (13) remain the same, but are renumbered (11) through (14).
AUTH: 16-1-303, 16-1-424, 16-9-1009, MCA
IMP: 16-1-424, 16-3-302, 16-3-311, 16-4-312, 16-4-404, 16-4-406, 16-4-1001, 16-4-1002, 16-4-1003, 16-4-1004, 16-4-1005, 16-4-1006, 16-4-1007, 16-4-1008, 16-6-104, MCA
42.13.201 LABELING AND PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS (1) As a condition of holding a retail license, no retail licensee shall sell, offer for sale, or provide any beer, wine, or hard cider unless the label and primary packaging are in conformity with this rule and ARM 42.13.221.
(2) Alcoholic beverage products are a mature product category, restricted by law to only consumers age 21 and older and who are not intoxicated, and therefore should be marketed in a responsible and appropriate manner. The department, in its discretion and on a case-by-case basis, will not approve a beer, wine, or hard cider label or primary package that:
(a) blurs the distinction between an alcoholic and nonalcoholic product by utilizing labeling
, and/or primary packaging , and/or containers that emphasize features that are most commonly associated with nonalcoholic consumable products including, but not limited to:
(i) aerosol cans;
(ii) gelatin cups;
(iii) hollow candies; or
(iv) mason jars that contain fruit;
(b) uses flavors that are
most commonly associated with underage persons designed to target or particularly appeal to underage persons, such as:
(i) cotton candy; or
(ii) bubble gum; or
(c) contains graphics or elements that:
most commonly associated with underage persons designed to target or particularly appeal to underage persons;
(ii) minimizes, fails to identify, or disguises that the
product's alcohol content product contains alcohol; or
(iii) alludes to or suggests irresponsible, excessive, or underage consumption.
(3) remains as proposed.
AUTH: 16-1-303, MCA
IMP: 16-1-101, 16-1-102, 16-1-106, 16-1-303, MCA
42.13.203 BEER LABEL APPROVALS (1) Each product a brewer or beer importer desires to sell in the state of Montana must be approved by the department and conform to the provisions of ARM 42.13.201.
Except as provided in (a), the department must receive picture copies of the label and packaging, from the brewer or beer importer, in order to consider the product for approval.
(a) A brewer of malted beverages who has an annual nationwide production of less than 10,000 barrels is not required to provide the department with copies of the label and packaging exempt from the requirements in (3).
(b) Changes to the label or packaging that require Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) approval must be approved by the department prior to making the product available for sale in the state of Montana.
(c) A brewer or beer importer that desires to sell beer that is subject to the labeling requirements administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must also supply copies of that label and packaging to the department for approval. Such products are a fermented beverage that qualifies as a beer under the Internal Revenue Code (other than sake or similar products) but that is made without both malted barley and hops.
(3) In order to consider the product for approval, the department must receive copies of:
(a) the primary packaging unless a traditional container is used. Traditional containers include aluminum cans, glass bottles, kegs, and boxes that are typically associated with alcoholic beverages. Any change to the primary packaging must be approved by the department prior to entering the Montana market if a nontraditional container is used; and
(b) the Certificate of Label Approval for products that are regulated by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Any change to the label that requires approval from the TTB must be approved by the department prior to the product entering the Montana market; or
(c) the label for products that are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Any changes to the label must be approved by the department prior to entering the Montana market.
(3) remains as proposed but is renumbered (4).
(4)(5) To obtain approval from the department for all beer or formula changes that meet the criteria in (3)(4), the following documents are required:
(a) The brewer or beer importer must file a form, supplied by the department, attesting that the formula meets the requirements in
(b) If the brewer or beer importer is required by federal law or regulations to file its formula with TTB, the brewer or beer importer is also required to send a copy of the formula filed with the TTB to the department.
(c) At the department's request and sole discretion, brewers or beer importers must file a formula for verification of its compliance with Montana statutes.
(d) All formulas filed with the department are protected by the privacy act and will not be released by the department unless otherwise required by law or by court order.
(5) remains as proposed, but is renumbered (6).
AUTH: 16-1-303, MCA
IMP: 16-1-102, 16-1-106, 16-1-302, 16-4-105, MCA
42.13.401 IMPORTATION OF WINE (1) Each winery or importer desiring to ship table wines to licensed distributors within the state must submit an application for registration to the department as specified in 16-4-107, MCA. Each product the winery or importer desires to ship must conform to the provisions of ARM 42.13.201. Each application must be accompanied by the applicable registration fee shown in (2).
Each product the winery or importer desires to ship must conform to the provisions of ARM 42.13.201.
(2) and (3) remain as proposed.
AUTH: 16-1-303, MCA
IMP: 16-4-107, MCA
5. An electronic copy of this notice is available on the department's web site at www.revenue.mt.gov. Select the "Laws and Rules" link in the left hand column, and click on the "Rules" link within to view the options under the "Current Rule Actions – Published Notices" heading. The department strives to make the electronic copy of this notice conform to the official version of the notice, as printed in the Montana Administrative Register, but advises all concerned persons that in the event of a discrepancy between the official printed text of the notice and the electronic version of the notice, only the official printed text will be considered. While the department also strives to keep its web site accessible at all times, in some instances it may be temporarily unavailable due to system maintenance or technical problems.
/s/ Cleo Anderson /s/ Dan R. Bucks
CLEO ANDERSON DAN R. BUCKS
Rule Reviewer Director of Revenue
Certified to Secretary of State December 10, 2012