Standards of Fill for Wine and Distilled Spirits, 1868-1876 [2025-00271]
Download as PDF
1868
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Orders 12866, 14094, and
13563
PART 35—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL
REMEDIES
The Department believes that benefits
of the rulemaking outweigh any costs,
and there are no feasible alternatives to
this rulemaking. Pursuant to M–25–02,
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) has determined that
agency regulations that (1) exclusively
implement the annual adjustment, (2)
are consistent with this guidance, and
(3) have an annual impact of less than
$100 million, are generally not
significant regulatory actions under E.O.
12866. Therefore, agencies are generally
not required to submit regulations
satisfying those criteria to OIRA for
review. This regulation satisfies all of
those criteria.
Executive Order 12988
The Department of State has reviewed
the amendment in light of Executive
Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity,
minimize litigation, establish clear legal
standards, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13175
The Department of State has
determined that this rulemaking will
not have tribal implications, will not
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian Tribal governments, and
will not preempt Tribal law.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rulemaking.
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 3801
et seq.; Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584.
§ 35.3
[Amended]
PART 103—REGULATIONS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHEMICAL
WEAPONS CONVENTION AND THE
CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1998 ON
THE TAKING OF SAMPLES AND ON
ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
CONCERNING RECORDKEEPING AND
INSPECTIONS
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
3. The authority citation for part 103
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 6701
et seq.; Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584.
§ 103.6
[Amended]
PART 127—VIOLATIONS AND
PENALTIES
List of Subjects
■
22 CFR Part 127
Arms and munitions, Crime, Exports,
Penalties, Seizures and forfeitures.
22 CFR Part 138
Government contracts, Grant
programs, Loan programs, Lobbying,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, 22
CFR parts 35, 103, 127, and 138 are
amended as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Jan 08, 2025
■
■
5. The authority citation for part 127
continues to read as follows:
Administrative practice and
procedure, Chemicals, Classified
information, Foreign relations, Freedom
of information, International
organization, Investigations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Jkt 265001
[FR Doc. 2025–00361 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–08–P
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 10020]
RIN 1545–BI22
Reissuance of State or Local Bonds
■
This rulemaking does not impose or
revise any information collections
subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
22 CFR Part 103
8. In § 138.400:
a. In paragraphs (a), (b), and (e),
remove ‘‘$24,496’’ and ‘‘$244,958’’ and
add in their place ‘‘$25,132’’ and
‘‘$251,322’’, respectively; and
■ b. In paragraph (e), remove ‘‘$24,100’’
and add in its place ‘‘$24,726’’.
■
■
Zachary A. Parker,
Director, Office of Organizational Policy,
Department of State.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.
[Amended]
2. In § 35.3:
a. In paragraphs (a)(1) introductory
text, (b)(1)(ii), and (f) remove ‘‘$13,946’’
and add in its place ‘‘$14,308’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (f), remove ‘‘$418,405’’
and add in its place ‘‘$429,275’’.
■
■
4. In § 103.6:
a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove
‘‘$46,901’’ and add in its place
‘‘$48,119’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove
‘‘$9,380’’ and add in its place ‘‘$9,624’’.
22 CFR Part 35
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
1. The authority citation for part 35
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 138.400
Authority: Sections 2, 38, and 42, Pub. L.
90–629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778,
2791); 22 U.S.C. 401; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22
U.S.C. 2779a; 22 U.S.C. 2780; E.O. 13637, 78
FR 16129; Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584.
§ 127.10
6. In § 127.10:
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), remove
‘‘$1,238,892’’ and add in its place
‘‘$1,271,078’’;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), remove
‘‘$1,028,988’’ and add in its place
‘‘$1,055.721’’; and
■ c. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii), remove
‘‘$1,224,787’’ and add in its place
‘‘$1,256,607’’.
PART 138—RESTRICTIONS ON
LOBBYING
7. The authority citation for part 138
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 1352;
Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584.
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
In rule document 2024–30267
beginning on page 106315 in the issue
of Monday, December 30, 2024, make
the following correction:
§ 1.1001–3
[Corrected]
On page 106320, in § 1.1001–3, in the
second column, in the sixth line from
the bottom, ‘‘§ 1.10011.1001–3’’ should
read ‘‘§ 1.1001–3’’.
■
[FR Doc. C1–2024–30267 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099–10–D
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Parts 4, 5, and 24
[Docket No. TTB–2022–0004; T.D. TTB–200;
Re: Notice Nos. 210 and 210A]
[Amended]
■
■
PO 00000
Correction
Sfmt 4700
RIN 1513–AC86
Standards of Fill for Wine and Distilled
Spirits
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
AGENCY:
This final rule amends the
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau (TTB) regulations that govern
wine and distilled spirits containers to
add 13 standards of fill for wine and 15
for distilled spirits. TTB is also
amending its regulations to eliminate
the distinction between standards of fill
for distilled spirits in cans and those for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
distilled spirits in containers other than
cans. TTB had also proposed to
generally eliminate the standards of fill
for wine and distilled spirits, as an
alternative to approving specific new
standards of fill. Upon careful
consideration of comments received,
however, TTB is not adopting that
proposal at this time. The amendments
described in this final rule respond to
industry member requests for additional
flexibility to use a wider range of
container sizes and are expected to
facilitate the movement of goods in
domestic and international commerce
while also providing consumers broader
purchasing options.
DATES: This final rule is effective
January 10, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caroline Hermann, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,
Regulations and Rulings Division;
telephone 202–453–2265.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
I. Background
A. TTB Authority
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau (TTB) administers
regulations setting forth standards of fill
for containers of beverage distilled
spirits and wine products distributed
within the United States.
The authority to establish standards of
fill is based on two provisions of law:
(1) section 5301(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), codified at
26 U.S.C. 5301(a) in the case of distilled
spirits,1 and (2) section 105(e) of the
Federal Alcohol Administration Act
(FAA Act), codified at 27 U.S.C. 205(e),
for both distilled spirits and wine.
Section 5301(a) of the IRC authorizes
the Secretary of the Treasury to
prescribe regulations ‘‘to regulate the
kind, size, branding, marking, sale,
resale, possession, use, and reuse of
containers (of a capacity of not more
than 5 wine gallons) designed or
intended for use for the sale of distilled
spirits . . .’’ when the Secretary
determines that such action is necessary
to protect the revenue. The FAA Act at
27 U.S.C. 205(e) authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations relating to the ‘‘packaging,
marking, branding, and labeling and
size and fill’’ of alcohol beverage
containers ‘‘as will prohibit deception of
the consumer with respect to such
products or the quantity thereof . . . .’’
The FAA Act at 27 U.S.C. 206 generally
prohibits the sale to consumers of
1 Sections 5041(e) and 5368 of the IRC also
provide the Secretary the authority to set forth tax
tolerances for containers of wine products.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
distilled spirits ‘‘in bulk’’ which is
defined as containers over one wine
gallon.
TTB administers the IRC and FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, as
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In addition,
the Secretary of the Treasury has
delegated certain administrative and
enforcement authorities to TTB through
Treasury Department Order 120–01.
B. Current Standards of Fill for Distilled
Spirits
The term ‘‘standard of fill’’ is used in
the TTB regulations and in this
document to refer to the authorized
amount of liquid in the container, rather
than the size or capacity of the container
itself. For better readability, however,
this document sometimes uses the terms
‘‘size’’ or ‘‘container size’’ and
‘‘standard of fill’’ interchangeably. The
standards of fill for distilled spirits are
contained in subpart K of part 5 of the
TTB regulations (27 CFR part 5).
Within subpart K, paragraph (a)(1) of
§ 5.203 (27 CFR 5.203(a)(1)) specifies the
following metric standards of fill for
containers other than those described in
paragraph (a)(2) of that section:
• 1.8 Liters.
• 1.75 Liters.
• 1 Liter.
• 900 mL.
• 750 mL.
• 720 mL.
• 700 mL.
• 375 mL.
• 200 mL.
• 100 mL.
• 50 mL.
In the case of distilled spirits in metal
containers that have the general shape
and design of a can, that have a closure
which is an integral part of the
container, and that cannot be readily
reclosed after opening, paragraph (a)(2)
of § 5.203 authorizes the use of the
following metric standards of fill:
• 355 mL.
• 200 mL.
• 100 mL.
• 50 mL.
For better readability this document
will refer to the containers referenced in
27 CFR 5.203(a)(1) as ‘‘containers other
than cans’’ and those referenced in
§ 5.203(a)(2) as ‘‘cans.’’
In addition to the metric standards
specified above, § 5.203 contains
provisions regarding tolerances
(discrepancies between actual and
stated fill), unreasonable shortages in
fill, and distilled spirits bottled or
imported before January 1, 1980, and
marketed or released from customs
custody on or after that date (the date on
which the U.S. volumetric standards
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1869
were replaced by the § 5.203 metric
standards).
C. Current Standards of Fill for Wine
The standards of fill for wine are
contained in subpart H of part 4 of the
TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4). Within
subpart H, paragraph (a) of § 4.72 (27
CFR 4.72(a)) authorizes the use of the
following metric standards of fill for
containers, in addition to those
described in paragraph (b) which are
discussed further below:
• 3 liters;
• 1.5 liters;
• 1 liter;
• 750 milliliters;
• 500 milliliters;
• 375 milliliters;
• 355 milliliters;
• 250 milliliters;
• 200 milliliters;
• 187 milliliters;
• 100 milliliters; and
• 50 milliliters.
Paragraph (b) of § 4.72 states that wine
may be bottled or packed in containers
of 4 liters or larger if the containers are
filled and labeled in quantities of even
liters (4 liters, 5 liters, 6 liters, etc.).
II. Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Notice No. 210
On May 25, 2022, TTB published
Notice No. 210 in the Federal Register
(87 FR 31787) proposing to add 10
authorized standards of fill for wine
and, as an alternative, to eliminate all
but a minimum standard of fill for wine
containers. The 10 standards of fill
proposed for wine were: 2.25 and 1.8
liters; and 720, 700, 620, 550, 360, 330,
300, and 180 milliliters. TTB also
proposed to eliminate all but a
minimum and maximum standard of fill
for distilled spirits but did not propose
to authorize any specific standards of
fill for distilled spirits as an alternative.
The proposed rule followed, and took
into consideration, a Department of the
Treasury report on competition in the
markets for alcohol beverages that
recommended rulemaking to ‘‘again
consider eliminating the standards of
fill requirements.’’ See Treasury Report
on Competition in the Markets for Beer,
Wine, and Spirits (February 9, 2022),
available at https://home.treasury.gov/
system/files/136/CompetitionReport.pdf. That report (referred to in
this document as the ‘‘Competition
Report’’), which was produced in
response to Executive Order 14036,
‘‘Promoting Competition in the
American Economy’’ (published in the
Federal Register on July 9, 2021, at 86
FR 36987), noted that ‘‘[c]ontainer size
requirements can be a barrier to
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1870
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
innovation and competition, insofar as
producers must conform their packaging
to the Treasury-mandated sizes.’’
Further, TTB had received questions
regarding standards of fill from industry
members noting difficulty in sourcing
compliant containers during certain
periods.
In response to Notice No. 210, TTB
received 76 comments. Commenters
included national trade associations, the
European Union (EU), congressional
representatives, individuals, and
alcohol beverage companies. Most of the
comments addressed the proposals,
providing support for or opposition to
them. However, many commenters
requested that TTB consider adding
certain additional authorized standards
of fill for distilled spirits and wine that
were not included in Notice No. 210, as
either a preferred alternative to
generally eliminating the standards of
fill or, even if their preference was to
eliminate the standards of fill, as an
option for consideration in the event
that the standards of fill were not
eliminated. Several commenters also
suggested TTB eliminate the distinction
between standards of fill that apply to
distilled spirits in cans and those that
apply to distilled spirits in containers
other than cans, which was also not
proposed in Notice No. 210.
B. Notice No. 210A
Because TTB received comments that
requested amendments beyond the
scope of the original request, and
recognizing that these requests should
be considered in the context of the
proposals in Notice No. 210, TTB issued
Notice No. 210A on September 9, 2024
(89 FR 73050), which reopened the
comment period on Notice No. 210. In
Notice No. 210A, TTB specifically
requested comments on whether to
authorize the following new standards
of fill for distilled spirits: For both cans
and containers other than cans, 3.75, 3,
2, and 1.5 liters and 500, 350, 250, and
187 milliliters; for cans, 945, 710, 700,
570, 475, and 331 milliliters; and for
containers other than cans, 355
milliliters. TTB also requested
comments on whether it should
maintain the current distinction
between standards of fill authorized for
distilled spirits in cans and those
authorized for distilled spirits in
containers other than cans. TTB noted
its particular interest in comments
regarding whether the distinction, that
is, whether the size in combination with
the type of container, serves the purpose
of preventing consumer confusion or
preventing consumer deception
consistent with TTB’s mandate under
the FAA Act. TTB also specifically
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
requested comments on whether to
authorize the following new standards
of fill for wine: 600 milliliters, 19.2 oz,
and 16 oz.2
The comment period for Notice No.
210A closed on October 9, 2024.
III. Comments on Notices No. 210 and
210A
A. General
In response to Notice No. 210A, TTB
received 123 comments. In total, on
Notices No. 210 and 210A, TTB
received a total of 199 comments.
Commenters included national and
international trade associations,
members of Congress, representatives of
foreign governments, representatives of
the glass container industry,
individuals, and alcohol beverage
industry members.
In addition to comments on particular
proposed sizes and the proposal to
generally eliminate the standards of fill,
discussed further below, TTB received
many comments that expressed general
views on the standards of fill, either
favoring or disfavoring TTB actions, but
without reference to the technical
aspects of the regulation.
In favor of amending the regulations,
one individual commenter explained
that it was ‘‘common sense to adjust this
outdated and arbitrary regulation.’’
(Comment 11) Others articulated the
benefits of expanding the standards of
fill generally, i.e., independent of
whether that was achieved through
elimination or the addition of specific
sizes (or groups of sizes). For example,
one individual stated that expansion
into ‘‘larger sizes’’ would ‘‘reduce waste
and garbage and recycling burdens and
increase productivity and profitability
while reducing prices for consumers
. . . a win-win-win for the triple bottom
line.’’ (Comment 129) Another
individual expressed that not allowing
‘‘critical single serve sizes puts wine
and cider at an unfair disadvantage.’’
(Comment 128) Similarly, several
commenters, for example Benny Boy
Brewing (Comment 112), urged TTB to
incorporate its proposed changes, but
without referencing a specific size or
approach.
Many commenters also expressed
their general opposition to any changes
2 Notice 210A erroneously listed the metric
equivalent of 19.2 oz for wine as 545.5 milliliters,
rather than 568 milliliters, reflecting a submission
by the American Cider Association and the
conversion factor for imperial ounces instead of
U.S. fluid ounces. Comment responses addressed
the 19.2 oz size and, where applicable, showed that
readers generally understood the proposal to be for
U.S. ounces as TTB intended. This final rule uses
the appropriate conversion factor to establish the
metric equivalent in the regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
at all, for example Bear Creek Winery
(Comment 14) stated that TTB’s
proposal ‘‘does not address any issues’’
and expressed that they ‘‘do not wish to
add any additional fill sizes to what is
already approved.’’ Other commenters
expressed that it seemed too soon to
revisit the standards of fill given that
TTB had recently amended them in
2020. Some commenters opposed the
addition of any new standards on
business and environmental grounds,
such as the Mexican Chamber of the
Tequila Industry (comment 165) who
explained their view that, ‘‘The
introduction of a wide range of bottle
sizes would present significant
challenges to forecasting demand and
managing inventory levels, potentially
leading to increased costs and
inefficiencies, particularly for smaller
tequila producers who may have limited
resources to adapt to such changes,’’
and that ‘‘[s]tandardized sizes have
generated significant environmental
benefits by promoting efficiency in
production and packaging.’’
B. Comments on the Proposed
Elimination of the Standards of Fill
Of the 199 total comments TTB
received in response to Notices No. 210
and 210A, approximately a third of the
comments address the proposal to
generally eliminate the standards of fill.
Approximately a fifth of the comments
support eliminating the standards of fill
for distilled spirits, wine, or both.
Several comments express a preference
for eliminating the standards of fill but
state that approving certain new sizes
would be an acceptable alternative. A
total of 30 comments specifically
oppose eliminating standards of fill for
distilled spirits and/or wine.
Commenters supporting the
elimination of the standards of fill
generally state that the standards are
unnecessary, restrictive to producers,
and out-of-date. They note that there are
no standards of fill for malt beverages or
for other consumer products. One
distilled spirits producer, Endless West,
notes that it regularly encounters
challenges posed by the limitations of
the standards of fill, and that these
limitations reduce competition, inhibit
packaging innovations which in turn
constrain the industry member’s ability
to introduce new sizes to meet customer
demands, and constrain industry
members’ efforts to improve profit
margins, supply chain efficiencies, and
environmental sustainability. The
comment goes on to state that
consumers are capable of reading the
net contents on a label and making
rational purchasing decisions in light of
existing labeling regulations. Other
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
commenters also contend that
eliminating the standards of fill will
result in lower costs for producers, will
facilitate international trade, and will
provide consumers with more options
in beverage alcohol packaging. A
commenter identified as Texas Vine
Country states that eliminating
standards of fill would, among other
things, allow for harmonization with
international packaging sizes, take
advantage of available glass/container
sizes, encourage responsible drinking by
tailoring packaging size more closely to
consumer’s desired serving sizes, reduce
wasted beverages by consumers due to
arbitrary packaging sizes, and allow for
new and innovative packaging that
protects the beverage quality and is
more efficient to transport and store.
Several commenters that support
eliminating the standards of fill say that
the reasons for them no longer apply or
that TTB lacks authority under current
circumstances to mandate them.
Tincknell & Tincknell, a wine sales and
marketing consultant, states that the
standards relate to tax collection and
‘‘post-Prohibition era criminal
behavior’’ that are no longer relevant.
The National Federation of Independent
Businesses asserts that statements made
in the February 2022 Competition
Report show that TTB cannot justify
maintaining its standards of fill
regulations under the relevant statutory
authority in the IRC and FAA Act.
Several commenters favor eliminating
the standards of fill but state that adding
one or more of the proposed sizes would
be an acceptable option. While noting
similar reasons as those described above
for supporting the elimination of
standards of fill, these commenters
stated that in the event the standards of
fill are retained, adding specific new
sizes would still provide benefits to
producers and consumers. A number of
these commenters referencing cider
products specifically requested approval
of 16 ounce and 19.2 ounce sizes for
wine, while other commenters
referencing ‘‘ready-to-drink’’ cocktails
(often referred to as RTDs) specifically
requested approval of the 475 ml and
570 ml sizes for distilled spirits in metal
cans. These are addressed in the
comment summaries related to specified
sizes below.
Commenters opposing the elimination
of the standards of fill cite a number of
reasons to retain the standards. The
most often cited reason is that the
standards of fill prevent consumer
confusion. The Wine Institute
(Comment 43) stated that the standards
of fill do as intended by preventing
consumer confusion and deception that
would otherwise exist if there was a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
limitless array of alcohol beverage
container sizes in the marketplace. The
Wine Institute stated that it ‘‘has had
discussions with state Attorneys
General who have expressed concerns
about the ability of packaging and sizing
to deceive consumers.’’ One concern is
the difficulty in cost comparison and
the potential for ‘‘shrinkflation,’’ when
the packaging size and amount of
product is reduced while the price
remains the same, and the comment
goes on to raise concerns with the small
differences between some of the
proposed container sizes compared with
the existing standards of fill. Similarly,
Fox Run Vineyards states that removing
the standards of fill opens up the
opportunity for consumer deception,
citing how small differences in bottle
sizes may result in less product
provided for the same price. Milestone
Brands, LLC, a producer and marketer of
spirits-based products (Comment 72)
states that it is ‘‘the best option on
balance for consumers’’ and that
retaining the standards of fill
requirements while allowing for new
sizes will maintain sizes that are
‘‘recognizable and familiar’’ to
consumers while providing additional
consumer choice and ensuring that
‘‘order is maintained in the
marketplace.’’
Other commenters claim that the
standards of fill requirements have been
in place for decades and have not
caused a significant burden on industry
members. For example, the Distilled
Spirits Council of the United States
(Comment 59) states: ‘‘Having standard
sizes codified in the regulations
supports investment in modern
packaging and bottling equipment,
which promotes efficiency, cost savings,
and economies of scale as the number
of necessary bottle sizes, labels, and
machinery parts are reduced.’’
Representatives Mike Thompson and
Dan Newhouse, co-chairs of the
Congressional Wine Caucus (Comment
51), express concern that eliminating
the standards of fill could cause
‘‘[s]ignificant disruption to business
operations as producers, distributors,
and retailers struggle to adapt business
operations to accommodate a
proliferation of container sizes.’’
Commenters also argued that
eliminating the standards of fill will
result in conflicting State requirements.
These commenters report that a number
of States defer to the Federal standard
of fill requirements, so elimination
could result in a patchwork of different
State rules. As the Washington Wine
Institute (Comment 62) states, a
proliferation of new rules ‘‘will create
serious disruption to business as
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1871
wineries would have to overhaul their
sales, marketing, and compliance
models to adjust to . . . varying state
regulations.’’ A comment from the
Colorado Wine Industry Development
Board (Comment 69) echoes this view
that eliminating standards of fill, or
adding any new standards of fill for
wine, will cause unnecessary consumer
confusion, significant disruption to
business operations, difficulty for
producers’ compliance across State
lines, and unnecessary expenditure of
State resources to create standards in
lieu of the Federal standards. Also
addressing the wine industry
specifically, the Wine Institute asserts
that the Federal framework for
standards of fill creates a uniform
system that allows wineries to comply
with one national system of regulations
and that eliminating the Federal
standards will result in unnecessary
business disruption. The comment goes
on to assert that Federal uniformity
enhances competition by providing
stability and, noting that eight States
currently have statutorily required
standards of fill that have presented
ongoing challenges to the industry, the
Wine Institute asserts that it is in the
best interest of the wine industry and
consumers to have consistency rather
than different State rules that allow for
differing sizes to be offered in different
marketplaces.
While some commenters supporting
eliminating the standards of fill assert
that doing so will allow greater
flexibility for small businesses, others
that oppose eliminating the standards of
fill assert that maintaining the standards
of fill levels the playing field for
suppliers of all sizes. In its comment,
the Wine Institute states that
eliminating the standards of fill ‘‘will
result in an unknown number of
alternative sizes and bottle types that
will put small and mid-sized suppliers
at a competitive disadvantage because
every different container size will
require a different bottling run with
accompanying costs that cannot be
spread over a large number of units.
C. Comments Regarding the Addition of
Specific Sizes
1. Wine
Notice Nos. 210 and 210A together
solicited comments on adding a
combined total of 13 authorized
standards of fill for wine. A significant
portion of comments address one or
more of the proposed new sizes for wine
containers. One of the comments, from
the Washington Wine Institute
(Comment 62), supports limited
authorization of new sizes, but only if
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1872
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
the requests come from ‘‘a large segment
of the wine industry, and not just one
or two producers or importers.’’
Commenters expressed both support
and opposition for the addition of
specific petitioned-for sizes for wine as
follows:
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
a. 2.25 Liters
As explained in Notice No. 210, TTB
received a petition from an importer of
boxed wine requesting that the agency
authorize a standard of fill of 2.25 liters
for wine containers. The importer stated
that such a container would
significantly reduce the environmental
impact of wine packaging because it
holds as much as three 750-milliliter
wine bottles at half the weight of such
bottles.
Three commenters (two individuals
and Bobo Wine, LLC—Comments 13,
186, and 185, respectively) specifically
support approval of a 2.25-liter size. The
commenters generally state that this size
would enhance the availability of boxed
wines, which they note has
environmental benefits, and would be a
convenient size for consumers, since it
is the equivalent of three standard wine
bottles.
b. 1.8 Liters and 720, 550, 360, 300 and
180 Milliliters
In prior rulemaking, including T.D.
TTB–165 (December 29, 2020, 85 FR
85514) and Notice Nos. 210 and 210A,
TTB described an agreement between
the United States and Japan that
included a commitment for the United
States to engage in rulemaking to
propose the addition of specific new
standards of fill and to take final action
on that rulemaking. These six sizes were
among those that the United States
agreed to consider in rulemaking under
a Side Letter agreement with Japan,
dated October 7, 2019, which was part
of a larger agreement between the
United States and Japan agreed to on
that same day.
Three commenters specifically
support these six sizes: the National Tax
Agency of Japan (Comment 26), the
Japan Spirits and Liqueurs Makers
(Comment 27), and the Japan Wineries
Association (Comment 28). These
commenters did not provide additional
information beyond expressing support
for these sizes. An additional
commenter who identified themselves
as a U.S. wine importer (Comment 2)
also supports the 720 milliliter size to
facilitate the importation of certain
wines from Italy.
Some commenters expressed concern
about one or more of these sizes. For
example, the Colorado Wine Industry
Development Board (comment 69)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
expressed concerns about approving
sizes that are ‘‘nearly but not quite
identical to the existing standards’’
because consumers might purchase a
720-milliliter container thinking it was
the existing 750 milliliter size or a 300
milliliter container thinking it was the
existing 375 milliliter size.
c. 700 Milliliters
TTB had proposed a 700 milliliter
size in Notice No. 210 in response to
inquiries from foreign governments in
2007 and a comment on a 2019 notice
of rulemaking addressing standards of
fill for wine (Notice No. 182, 84 FR
31257). One individual commenter
(comment 13) supports this size noting
that prohibiting this size ‘‘denies
American consumers high quality wines
and hurts American import and retail
businesses . . . .’’
Some commenters, such as Fern
Valley Vineyards, oppose authorizing
700 milliliter containers for wine due to
the potential for consumer confusion.
The commenter states that consumers
would have trouble distinguishing
between the slightly smaller and
therefore less expensive 700 milliliter
containers, which are commonly used
for European wines, and the slightly
larger and more expensive 750 milliliter
containers, which are commonly used
for domestic wines. As a result, Fern
Valley Vineyards believes domestic
wines would be at a disadvantage as
consumers would choose the less
expensive bottle without realizing it
contains less wine.
d. 620 Milliliters
As explained in greater detail Notice
No. 210, TTB proposed a 620 milliliter
size in response to inquiries over the
years regarding the importation of the
French product known as ‘‘vin jaune’’
(‘‘yellow wine’’ in English). Vin jaune is
historically and currently bottled in the
620 milliliters size so authorizing this
container size would allow U.S.
importers to legally import the wine in
its traditionally used containers.
Several commenters specifically
support authorizing a 620 milliliter size.
Commenters include the French
Federation of Wines and Spirits
Exporters (FEVS), the European Union,
and the Comité Européen des
Enterprises Vins. Most of these
commenters state that authorizing this
size will allow the import of ‘‘vin jaune’’
from France, which is traditionally
bottled only in 620 milliliter containers.
FEVS (Comments 40 and 191) requests
that TTB authorize this size only for vin
jaune. No commenters raised concerns
specific to this container size.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
e. 600 Milliliters
TTB received one comment from a
person identifying themselves as a
winemaker and former restaurant wine
buyer (Comment 4), specifically
supporting approval of a 600-ml size
noting that this size has ‘‘become
important for many distributors and
wholesale buyers’’ and authorizing it
would allow American consumers to try
wines from ‘‘regions that are required to
use this size package.’’ No commenters
raised concerns specific to this
container size.
f. 568 Milliliters (19.2 oz.) and 473
Milliliters (16 oz.)
TTB proposed the addition of these
container sizes in Notice No. 210A at
the request of the American Cider
Association (ACA) who noted that both
are already commonly used for similar
products that are not required to
conform to TTB standards of fill.
Numerous commenters support
authorization of 473 ml (16 oz) and 568
ml (19.2 oz) sizes. The majority of
commenters represent individual
cideries and meaderies or cider and
mead organizations, including the
American Mead Maker Association, the
Vermont Cider Association, the New
York Cider Association, and the
American Cider Association. Several
cider producers state that the rationale
for authorizing the 16 oz and 19.2 oz
sizes along with their metric equivalents
is similar to the rationale that was the
basis for authorizing 355 milliliter (12
oz) can size in 2020 (T.D. TTB–165, 85
FR 85514), that is, that these sizes are
commonly used and available for other
products, including cider products to
which the standards of fill do not apply
and their customers want and expect
that size, making it critical to their
commercial success. These producers
note that, in the production of cider,
apples often naturally ferment to an
alcohol by volume (abv) level just above
7.4 percent, so producers often take
steps to lower the abv below 7 percent
so that the standards of fill regulations
will not apply, enabling them to use
readily available containers, such as the
16 oz can that they could not use for
products for which the abv is 7 percent
or higher and the standards of fill apply.
They state that sugar levels in apples
vary widely depending on climate and
other factors, making final alcohol levels
difficult to predict. They argue that
being able to use readily available
container sizes that can be used for
products not subject to the standards of
fill, such as wine products under 7
percent abv and malt beverages will
eliminate this uncertainty. Many
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
producers explained, as did Wolffer
Estate Vineyard (comment 169), that
authorizing these sizes ‘‘allows cideries
and wineries to stay competitive.’’ No
commenters raised concerns specific to
this container size.
g. 330 Milliliters
As explained in greater detail in
Notice No. 210, after the publication of
T.D. TTB–165, TTB received a petition
from a South African wine exporter
requesting the approval of 330
milliliters as a standard of fill for wine.
The petitioner stated that 330 milliliters
is the standard can size for beer and
soda products in South Africa and in
most European countries.
Five commenters (Comments 13, 31,
32, 159, and 180) specifically support
approval of a 330 milliliter size.
Commenters include Ikhaya Wines LLC,
Future Proof Brands, and Ball
Corporation. Ikhaya Wines LLC
(Comments 31 and 32) expresses the
belief that authorizing this size will
facilitate importing wines from South
Africa, where 330 milliliters is a
standard size for canned wines. Future
Proof Brands (Comment 159) states that
authorizing this size will allow
American wine producers to expand
their presence in European and
Australian markets, where these sizes
are common.
The Colorado Wine Industry
Development Board (comment 69)
expressed concerns about approving a
330 milliliter size noting that its
proximity to the existing 375 milliliter
size could cause consumer confusion.
Two commenters specifically support
these sizes (Comments 149 and 197).
The Distilled Spirits Council of the
United States (DISCUS, Comment 197)
states that 2-liter containers for other
beverages are common in the United
States, and consumers are already
familiar with this size.
iii. 1.5 Liters
Only one commenter (Comment 191)
specifically supports this size. In its
comment, FEVS states that this size is
currently allowed in Europe.
iv. 500 Milliliters
Eleven commenters (Comments 5, 59,
72, 78, 109, 148, 149, 166, 191, 194, and
198) specifically support this size.
Commenters include DISCUS, Milestone
Brands, Takara Shuzo International, the
American Distilled Spirits Alliance, and
the Chinese Ministry of Commerce.
Most commenters note that authorizing
this size would fill the large gap
between two currently-authorized sizes
(375 and 700 milliliters) and would
‘‘provide container size parity with the
wine and malt based RTD products
available to consumers’’ (Comment 72).
v. 350 Milliliters
Five commenters (Comments 59, 148,
166, 191, and 198) specifically support
this size. Commenters include DISCUS,
Takara Shuzo International, FEVS, and
the American Distilled Spirits Alliance.
Allowing greater flexibility for
producers and more choices for
consumers were the most commonly
cited reasons for supporting this size.
2. Distilled Spirits
vi. 250 and 187 Milliliters
Notice No. 210A solicited comments
on adding a total of 15 authorized
standards of fill for distilled spirits that
were raised in comments responding to
Notice No. 210. A large number of
commenters expressed support for the
addition of specific sizes for distilled
spirits as follows:
Four commenters specifically support
these sizes (Comments 138, 163, 171,
and 180). Commenters include Ball
Corporation, Social Hour Cocktails, the
Glass Packaging Institute, and Charbay
Distillery. Ball Corporation (Comment
180) notes that these sizes would
particularly benefit producers and
consumers of RTD cocktails.
a. Distilled Spirits in Both Cans and
Containers Other Than Cans
b. Distilled Spirits in Cans
i. 945 and 710 Milliliters
i. 3.75 and 3 Liters
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
ii. 2 Liters
Several commenters specifically
support authorizing 3.75-liter and 3-liter
sizes including DISCUS, The American
Distilled Spirits Alliance, Milestone
Brands, and FEVS. The American
Distilled Spirits Alliance (Comment
198) notes that these larger sizes would
‘‘cater to consumers who prefer to
purchase in bulk for cost savings or
long-term use or who are conscious of
their environment.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
Ball Corporation (Comment 180)
specifically supported these two sizes as
a way to promote RTD cocktails.
ii. 700 Milliliters
Suave Spirits International (Comment
23) specifically supported this size,
noting that it is a common size in
European markets and would help
establish uniformity in packaging sizes
and reduce the number of SKUs needed
to manage their products.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1873
iii. 475 and 570 Milliliters
WISEACRE Brewing (Comment 25)
and Ball Corporation (Comment 180)
specifically supported these two sizes,
which would fill the gap between the
two currently authorized sizes (12 and
24 ounces) and allow more
manufacturing options for small
producers and greater choice for
consumers.
iv. 331 Milliliters
DISCUS (Comments 59 and 197) and
Ball Corporation (Comment 180)
specifically commented on this size,
noting that authorization of this size
would help achieve greater operational
efficiency.
c. Distilled Spirits in Containers Other
Than Cans—355 Milliliters
Several commenters specifically
supported this size. Commenters
include Representative Glenn ‘‘GT’’
Thompson, Representative Austin Scott,
the Glass Packaging Institute, O-I Glass,
and Ball Corporation. The commenters
generally state that allowing this size
would provide greater consumer choice
as the shift to smaller packaging formats
continues to grow for both alcohol and
non-alcohol beverages.
d. Other Distilled Spirits Size
TTB received a number of comments
to Notice No 210A requesting additional
sizes for distilled spirits containers that
were not proposed in Notice Nos. 210
and 210A, because commenters did not
have a chance to comment on these
specific sizes we are not taking action
on those at this time.
D. Harmonization of Authorized
Standards for Fill Across Distilled Spirit
Container Types
During the comment period for Notice
No. 210, TTB received several
comments pertaining to the different
standards of fill for spirits in cans and
containers other than cans (for example,
comments 45, 52, 53, 59, 63, 71, and
75). The comments generally stated that
removing distinctions between cans and
other containers for distilled spirits
would result in greater competition,
consumer choice, and a consistency of
regulation, without adding to consumer
confusion. As a result, in Notice No.
210A, TTB requested comments on
whether it should maintain this
distinction.
TTB received several comments to
Notice No. 210A that address the
question of harmonization of sizes for
distilled spirits. Most of the commenters
state that the current standards of fill
unfairly promote can manufacturers.
Applying the same standards of fill for
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1874
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
all distilled spirits containers would
allow producers of glass containers to
compete more fairly with metal
container producers. Both the Glass
Packaging Institute and O-I Glass
(Comments 163 and 196, respectively)
note that the RTD cocktail market is
rapidly expanding, and malt- or winebased RTD cocktail manufacturers have
a choice between cans or bottles when
producing 355 milliliter (12 ounce)
products, which is a popular size for
consumers. Spirits-based RTD cocktail
manufacturers, however, do not have a
choice and must only use cans if they
choose to produce products in this size.
O-I goes on to say that glass is
‘‘endlessly recyclable without any loss
of material or quality,’’ making it an
environmentally-friendly choice for
both spirits producers and consumers.
The only comments in opposition
were those opposed to any revision to
the standards of fill generally, for
example, the Mexican Chamber of the
Tequila Industry (Comment 165).
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
E. Other Comments
TTB received a number of comments
that did not address retaining or
eliminating the standards of fill, the
specific proposed standards of fill sizes,
or the harmonization of authorized
standards of fill across distilled spirits
container types. We note that we will
not be addressing those comments in
this rulemaking as they are outside of its
scope.
IV. TTB Analysis
As discussed previously, TTB
received comments that express support
for eliminating the standards of fill,
asserting that eliminating the standards
will provide them with greater
flexibility to meet consumer demands
and grow their businesses. TTB received
comments that oppose eliminating the
standards of fill. These commenters
contend that eliminating the standards
of fill would cause consumer confusion
and potentially lead to a proliferation of
differing State container size
requirements that could cause further
consumer confusion. Commenters also
express concern about significant
market disruption.
Based upon these comments,
particularly those with regard to the
potential consumer confusion, TTB
believes that the appropriate action at
this time is not to eliminate all
standards of fill but instead to authorize
all of the new standards of fill that were
specifically requested and for which
TTB received interest in and support for
authorizing.
TTB notes that, while some
commenters express support for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
eliminating of the standards of fill, a
number of the comments themselves
focus specifically upon ensuring that
certain sizes, such as 473 milliliter (16
oz.) and 568 milliliter (19.2 oz) for wine
and 500 milliliter for distilled spirits,
were authorized. TTB believes that its
authorization of these sizes largely
addresses these commenters’ concerns.
In light of this, TTB believes that the
addition of the proposed sizes will
result in many of the same benefits that
were intended by proposing eliminating
the standards of fill—providing bottlers
with more flexibility, facilitating the
movement of goods in domestic and
international commerce, and providing
additional purchasing options to
consumers, but without causing the
disruption commenters expressed
concerns over regarding the proposed
elimination of standards of fill. TTB
does recognize that the result is several
authorized standards that would be
close to each other, including, for wine,
187 ml (an existing standard of fill) and
180 ml (one proposed in Notice Nos.
210 and 210A) and, for distilled spirits,
350 ml (proposed in Notice No. 210A)
and 355 ml (which is already authorized
for distilled spirits in cans, but would
be authorized for all distilled spirits
containers with the elimination of
distinction in standards for different
type of distilled spirits containers).
While TTB understands the potential for
consumers in the near term to mistake
the size of new containers that are close
in size to other authorized containers,
TTB believes the additional flexibility
for industry members and broader
consumer choice that authorizing the
new sizes provides offsets the potential
that expectations may take time to
adjust. TTB also believes that the
limited nature of these approvals, as
opposed to eliminating all standards,
similarly limits the potential for
consumer confusion.
As explained in Notice No. 210A, the
distinction between distilled spirits in
cans and distilled spirits in containers
other than cans resulted from
rulemaking in the early 1990s. On
September 27, 1991, TTB’s predecessor,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (ATF), proposed
differentiating between cans and
containers other than cans in ATF
Notice No. 725 published in the Federal
Register at 56 FR 49152). There, ATF
explained its view at that time that
approving both 375 and 355 milliliter
containers for distilled spirits would be
misleading for consumers because of
how close together the sizes were.
However, ATF also recognized that
because 355 milliliters was not an
approved size, it prevented utilization
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of one of the most common can sizes.
ATF proposed to create mutually
exclusive categories of distilled spirits
containers, cans and containers other
than cans, with separate standards of fill
authorized for each, ‘‘. . . based on the
belief that cans are sufficiently distinct
from other types of [distilled spirits
containers], in both shape and design,
so that a different standard of fill would
not be confusing to the consumer.’’ This
proposal was adopted in the final rule
published in the Federal Register on
July 14, 1992, at 57 FR 31126.
Accordingly, TTB solicited and received
several comments on whether it should
maintain a distinction between cans and
containers other than cans consistent
with this purpose.
After reviewing the comments, TTB
has determined that there is no basis for
maintaining the distinction between
cans and other containers for distilled
spirits for purposes of consumer
protection. As some commenters note,
consumers are already familiar with
comparing net contents labels on other
foods and beverages to determine if one
package contains more product than
another, regardless of the shape or
material of the packaging. TTB currently
requires net content statements on
alcohol beverages, which allows
consumers to do the same with distilled
spirits products regardless of container
type.
With regard to the comment that TTB
lacks the authority to issue regulations
relating to standards of fill, the
commenter points to statements in the
Treasury Competition Report that the
standards are ‘‘no longer necessary to
ensure accurate calculation of tax
liabilities or to protect the revenue’’ and
that ‘‘consumers presumably have
ample information on bottle size from
labeling and point of sale displays.’’ We
disagree with the proposition TTB lacks
authority.
As noted above, the FAA Act at 27
U.S.C. 205(e) authorizes the Secretary of
the Treasury to prescribe regulations
relating to the ‘‘packaging, marking,
branding, and labeling and size and fill’’
of alcohol beverage containers ‘‘as will
prohibit deception of the consumer with
respect to such products or the quantity
thereof . . . .’’ The Treasury
Competition Report goes on to describe
TTB plans for ‘‘future rulemaking to
propose additional new standards of
fill,’’ and states that such rulemaking
‘‘should again consider eliminating the
standards of fill requirements and
specifically examine whether the
potential impact on competition
outweighs potential consumer
confusion.’’ That ‘‘future rulemaking’’
was Notice No. 210, which requested
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1875
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
comment on eliminating the standards
of fill. The comments to Notice Nos. 210
and 210A included information
addressing the presumption that
consumers have adequate information
and that such information prevents
consumer deception with respect to the
products and quantities. As described
above in the comment summaries, a
number of commenters described
confusion that was likely from a
complete elimination of the standards of
fill. In conclusion, rather than indicate
TTB does not have authority for
maintaining standards of fill, the
statements in the Treasury Competition
Report were the bases for soliciting
comment from the public through
Notice Nos. 210 and 210A, and those
comments form the basis for the actions
taken in this final rule.
(OMB) under the title ‘‘Labeling and
Advertising Requirements Under the
Federal Alcohol Administration Act,’’
and assigned control number 1513–
0087. This regulation will not result in
a substantive or material change in the
previously approved collection action,
since the nature of the mandatory
information that must appear on labels
affixed to the container remains
unchanged.
V. TTB Determination
Because these regulations relieve a
restriction by providing wine and
distilled spirits bottlers and importers
with additional flexibility to use new
bottle sizes if they so choose, and do not
impose any new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative
requirements, it has been determined,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), that
these regulations will be issued without
a delayed effective date.
After careful analysis of the comments
discussed above, TTB has decided not
to eliminate the standards of fill for
wine and distilled spirits. Rather, TTB
is adding all sizes for which TTB sought
specific comments on in Notice Nos.
210 and 210A. Based upon the
comments received to those notices,
TTB is authorizing the addition of the
180, 300, 330, 360, 473 (16 oz.), 550, 569
(19.2 oz), 600, 620, 700, and 720
milliliters sizes and 1.8 and 2.25 liter
sizes for wine to § 4.72, and the 187,
250, 331, 350,355, 475, 500, 570, 700,
710, and 945 milliliters sizes and 1.5, 2,
3, 3.75 liter sizes for distilled spirits
containers to § 5.203.
TTB is also adopting the proposal in
Notice No. 210A to eliminate the
distinction between standards of fill for
cans and containers other than cans for
distilled spirits in § 5.203. As a result,
all standards of fill for distilled spirits
are approved for cans and containers
other than cans.
Regulatory Analysis and Notices
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
as defined in Executive Order 12866, as
amended. Therefore, a regulatory
assessment is not necessary.
List of Subjects
27 CFR Part 4
Advertising, Alcohol and alcoholic
beverages, Consumer protection,
Customs duties and inspection, Export,
Imports, Labeling, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Wine.
27 CFR Part 5
Advertising, Alcohol and alcoholic
beverages, Consumer protection,
Customs duties and inspection, Exports,
Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging
and containers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Amendment to the Regulations
The collection of information in this
rule has been previously approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB amends 27 CFR parts 4,
5, and 24 as follows:
Jkt 265001
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise
noted.
2. In § 4.37, revise paragraph (b)(1) to
read as follows:
■
§ 4.37
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Electronic funds
transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food
additives, Fruit juices, Labeling,
Liquors, Packaging and containers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Scientific
equipment, Spices and flavorings,
Surety bonds, Vinegar, Warehouses,
Wine.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Net contents.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) For the metric standards of fill
shown in table 1 to paragraph (b)(1), the
equivalent U.S. measures are:
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1)
Inapplicability of the Delayed Effective
Date Requirement
27 CFR Part 24
16:01 Jan 08, 2025
1. The authority citation for part 4
continues to read as follows:
■
*
TTB certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule will provide
wine and distilled spirits bottlers and
importers with additional flexibility to
use new bottle sizes if they so choose.
This proposed regulation does not
impose any new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative
requirements. Accordingly, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PART 4—LABELING AND
ADVERTISING OF WINE
Metric measure
Equivalent
U.S. measure
3 liters (L) .....................
101 fluid ounces (fl.
oz.).
76.1 fl. oz.
60.9 fl. oz.
50.7 fl. oz.
33.8 fl. oz.
25.4 fl. oz.
24.3 fl. oz.
23.7 fl. oz.
21.0 fl. oz.
20.3 fl. oz.
19.2 fl. oz.
18.6 fl. oz.
16.9 fl. oz.
16 fl. oz.
12.7 fl. oz.
12.2 fl. oz.
12.0 fl. oz.
11.2 fl. oz.
10.1 fl. oz.
8.5 fl. oz.
6.8 fl. oz.
6.3 fl. oz.
6.1 fl. oz.
3.4 fl. oz.
1.7 fl. oz.
2.25 L ...........................
1.8 L .............................
1.5 L .............................
1 L ................................
750 milliliters (mL) ........
720 mL .........................
700 mL .........................
620 mL .........................
600 mL .........................
568 mL .........................
550 mL .........................
500 mL .........................
473 mL .........................
375 mL .........................
360 mL .........................
355 mL .........................
330 mL .........................
300 mL .........................
250 mL .........................
200 mL .........................
187 mL .........................
180 mL .........................
100 mL .........................
50 mL ...........................
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 4.72, revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
■
§ 4.72
Metric standards of fill.
(a) Authorized standards of fill. The
standards of fill for wine are the
following:
(1) 3 liters.
(2) 2.25 liters.
(3) 1.8 liters.
(4) 1.5 liters.
(5) 1 liter.
(6) 750 milliliters.
(7) 720 milliliters.
(8) 700 milliliters.
(9) 620 milliliters.
(10) 600 milliliters.
(11) 568 milliliters.
(12) 550 milliliters.
(13) 500 milliliters.
(14) 473 milliliters.
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1876
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
(15) 375 milliliters.
(16) 360 milliliters.
(17) 355 milliliters.
(18) 330 milliliters.
(19) 300 milliliters.
(20) 250 milliliters.
(21) 200 milliliters.
(22) 187 milliliters.
(23) 180 milliliters.
(24) 100 milliliters.
(25) 50 milliliters.
*
*
*
*
*
4. The authority citation for part 5
continues to read as follows:
AGENCY:
§ 24.255
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5301, 7805, 27 U.S.C.
205 and 207.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
7. In § 24.255:
a. Revise paragraph (b); and
■ b. Remove the parenthetical authority
citation at the end of the section.
The revision reads as follows:
■
■
5. Revise § 5.203 to read as follows:
§ 5.203
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
■
PART 5—LABELING AND
ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 26 U.S.C. 5001,
5008, 5041, 5042, 5044, 5061, 5062, 5121,
5122–5124, 5173, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5351,
5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5361, 5362, 5364–
5373, 5381–5388, 5391, 5392, 5511, 5551,
5552, 5661, 5662, 5684, 6065, 6091, 6109,
6301, 6302, 6311, 6651, 6676, 7302, 7342,
7502, 7503, 7606, 7805, 7851; 31 U.S.C. 9301,
9303, 9304, 9306.
Standards of fill (container sizes).
(a) Authorized standards of fill. The
following metric standards of fill are
authorized for distilled spirits, whether
domestically bottled or imported:
(1) 3.75 Liters.
(2) 3 Liters.
(3) 2 Liters.
(4) 1.8 Liters.
(5) 1.75 Liters.
(6) 1.5 Liters.
(7) 1.00 Liter.
(8) 945 mL.
(9) 900 mL.
(10) 750 mL.
(11) 720 mL.
(12) 710 mL.
(13) 700 mL.
(14) 570 mL.
(15) 500 mL.
(16) 475 mL.
(17) 375 mL.
(18) 355 mL.
(19) 350 mL.
(20) 331 mL.
(21) 250 mL.
(22) 200 mL.
(23) 187 mL.
(24) 100 mL.
(25) 50 mL.
(b) Spirits bottled using outdated
standards. Paragraph (a) of this section
does not apply to:
(1) Imported distilled spirits in the
original containers in which entered
into customs custody prior to January 1,
1980; or
(2) Imported distilled spirits bottled
or packed prior to January 1, 1980, and
certified as to such in a statement signed
by an official duly authorized by the
appropriate foreign government.
PART 24—WINE
Bottling or packing wine.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Bottle or other container fill. (1)
Proprietors of bonded wine premises
and taxpaid wine bottling house
premises must fill bottles or other
containers as nearly as possible to
conform to the amount shown on the
label or blown in the bottle or marked
on any container other than a bottle.
However, in no event may the amount
of wine contained in any individual
bottle, due to lack of bottle uniformity,
vary from the amount stated more than
plus or minus:
(i) 1.0 percent for 15.0 liters and
above;
(ii) 1.5 percent for 14.9 liters to 1.0
liter;
(iii) 2.0 percent for 750 mL to 550 mL;
(iv) 2.5 percent for 500 mL to 473 mL;
(v) 3.0 percent for 375 mL to 300 mL;
(vi) 4 percent for 250 mL and 200 mL;
(vii) 4.5 percent for 187 mL to 100
mL; and
(viii) 9.0 percent for 50 mL.
(2) In such case, there will be
substantially as many bottles overfilled
as there are bottles underfilled for each
lot of wine bottled. Short-filled bottles
or other containers of wine which are
sold or otherwise disposed of by the
proprietor to employees for personal
consumption need not be labeled, but,
if labeled, need not show an accurate
statement of net contents.
*
*
*
*
*
Signed: January 3, 2025.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: January 3, 2025.
Aviva R. Aron-Dine,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.
29 CFR Part 1602
RIN 3046–AB28
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements Under Title VII, the ADA,
GINA, and the PWFA
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (‘‘EEOC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’) is issuing a final rule
amending its regulations regarding
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to delegate authority for
making determinations on hardship
exemption applications, to set forth the
procedure for applying for exemptions,
and to provide a non-exhaustive list of
criteria for considering exemption
applications.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective January 10, 2025.
Gary
Hozempa, Senior Attorney, at (202)
921–2672 or Gary.Hozempa@eeoc.gov,
or Lynn Dickinson, Senior Attorney, at
(202) 921–2559 or Lynn.Dickinson@
eeoc.gov, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Requests for this
document in an alternative format
should be made to the EEOC’s Office of
Communications and Legislative Affairs
at (202) 921–3191 (voice), (800) 669–
6820 (TTY), or (844) 234–5122 (ASL
video phone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 11, 2024, the EEOC published
in the Federal Register a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’)
announcing its proposal to amend 29
CFR part 1602 by creating a new subpart
addressing applications for exemptions
that will be applicable to all EEO
reports. This new subpart will replace
the existing separate provisions
addressing undue hardship applications
for the six EEO reports; therefore, the
NPRM also proposed to remove and
reserve 29 CFR 1602.10, 1602.18,
1602.25, 1602.35, 1602.44, and 1602.53.
This new subpart will apply to all EEO
reports as now constituted or
subsequently modified.
In addition, the Commission proposed
to revise its regulations to: (1) delegate
to its Chief Data Officer (CDO) or the
CDO’s designee 1 the authority to make
determinations on exemption
applications; (2) establish express
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2025–00271 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
6. The authority citation for part 24
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
1 References to the CDO in this final rule include
the CDO’s designee.
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1868-1876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00271]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Parts 4, 5, and 24
[Docket No. TTB-2022-0004; T.D. TTB-200; Re: Notice Nos. 210 and 210A]
RIN 1513-AC86
Standards of Fill for Wine and Distilled Spirits
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 (TTB) regulations that govern wine and distilled spirits
containers to add 13 standards of fill for wine and 15 for distilled
spirits. TTB is also amending its regulations to eliminate the
distinction between standards of fill for distilled spirits in cans and
those for
[[Page 1869]]
distilled spirits in containers other than cans. TTB had also proposed
to generally eliminate the standards of fill for wine and distilled
spirits, as an alternative to approving specific new standards of fill.
Upon careful consideration of comments received, however, TTB is not
adopting that proposal at this time. The amendments described in this
final rule respond to industry member requests for additional
flexibility to use a wider range of container sizes and are expected to
facilitate the movement of goods in domestic and international commerce
while also providing consumers broader purchasing options.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 10, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Hermann, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division; telephone 202-
453-2265.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. TTB Authority
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers
regulations setting forth standards of fill for containers of beverage
distilled spirits and wine products distributed within the United
States.
The authority to establish standards of fill is based on two
provisions of law: (1) section 5301(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (IRC), codified at 26 U.S.C. 5301(a) in the case of distilled
spirits,\1\ and (2) section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (FAA Act), codified at 27 U.S.C. 205(e), for both
distilled spirits and wine. Section 5301(a) of the IRC authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations ``to regulate the
kind, size, branding, marking, sale, resale, possession, use, and reuse
of containers (of a capacity of not more than 5 wine gallons) designed
or intended for use for the sale of distilled spirits . . .'' when the
Secretary determines that such action is necessary to protect the
revenue. The FAA Act at 27 U.S.C. 205(e) authorizes the Secretary of
the Treasury to prescribe regulations relating to the ``packaging,
marking, branding, and labeling and size and fill'' of alcohol beverage
containers ``as will prohibit deception of the consumer with respect to
such products or the quantity thereof . . . .'' The FAA Act at 27
U.S.C. 206 generally prohibits the sale to consumers of distilled
spirits ``in bulk'' which is defined as containers over one wine
gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sections 5041(e) and 5368 of the IRC also provide the
Secretary the authority to set forth tax tolerances for containers
of wine products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB administers the IRC and FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In
addition, the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated certain
administrative and enforcement authorities to TTB through Treasury
Department Order 120-01.
B. Current Standards of Fill for Distilled Spirits
The term ``standard of fill'' is used in the TTB regulations and in
this document to refer to the authorized amount of liquid in the
container, rather than the size or capacity of the container itself.
For better readability, however, this document sometimes uses the terms
``size'' or ``container size'' and ``standard of fill''
interchangeably. The standards of fill for distilled spirits are
contained in subpart K of part 5 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part
5).
Within subpart K, paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 5.203 (27 CFR
5.203(a)(1)) specifies the following metric standards of fill for
containers other than those described in paragraph (a)(2) of that
section:
1.8 Liters.
1.75 Liters.
1 Liter.
900 mL.
750 mL.
720 mL.
700 mL.
375 mL.
200 mL.
100 mL.
50 mL.
In the case of distilled spirits in metal containers that have the
general shape and design of a can, that have a closure which is an
integral part of the container, and that cannot be readily reclosed
after opening, paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 5.203 authorizes the use of
the following metric standards of fill:
355 mL.
200 mL.
100 mL.
50 mL.
For better readability this document will refer to the containers
referenced in 27 CFR 5.203(a)(1) as ``containers other than cans'' and
those referenced in Sec. 5.203(a)(2) as ``cans.''
In addition to the metric standards specified above, Sec. 5.203
contains provisions regarding tolerances (discrepancies between actual
and stated fill), unreasonable shortages in fill, and distilled spirits
bottled or imported before January 1, 1980, and marketed or released
from customs custody on or after that date (the date on which the U.S.
volumetric standards were replaced by the Sec. 5.203 metric
standards).
C. Current Standards of Fill for Wine
The standards of fill for wine are contained in subpart H of part 4
of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4). Within subpart H, paragraph (a)
of Sec. 4.72 (27 CFR 4.72(a)) authorizes the use of the following
metric standards of fill for containers, in addition to those described
in paragraph (b) which are discussed further below:
3 liters;
1.5 liters;
1 liter;
750 milliliters;
500 milliliters;
375 milliliters;
355 milliliters;
250 milliliters;
200 milliliters;
187 milliliters;
100 milliliters; and
50 milliliters.
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 4.72 states that wine may be bottled or
packed in containers of 4 liters or larger if the containers are filled
and labeled in quantities of even liters (4 liters, 5 liters, 6 liters,
etc.).
II. Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Notice No. 210
On May 25, 2022, TTB published Notice No. 210 in the Federal
Register (87 FR 31787) proposing to add 10 authorized standards of fill
for wine and, as an alternative, to eliminate all but a minimum
standard of fill for wine containers. The 10 standards of fill proposed
for wine were: 2.25 and 1.8 liters; and 720, 700, 620, 550, 360, 330,
300, and 180 milliliters. TTB also proposed to eliminate all but a
minimum and maximum standard of fill for distilled spirits but did not
propose to authorize any specific standards of fill for distilled
spirits as an alternative.
The proposed rule followed, and took into consideration, a
Department of the Treasury report on competition in the markets for
alcohol beverages that recommended rulemaking to ``again consider
eliminating the standards of fill requirements.'' See Treasury Report
on Competition in the Markets for Beer, Wine, and Spirits (February 9,
2022), available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Competition-Report.pdf. That report (referred to in this document as
the ``Competition Report''), which was produced in response to
Executive Order 14036, ``Promoting Competition in the American
Economy'' (published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2021, at 86 FR
36987), noted that ``[c]ontainer size requirements can be a barrier to
[[Page 1870]]
innovation and competition, insofar as producers must conform their
packaging to the Treasury-mandated sizes.'' Further, TTB had received
questions regarding standards of fill from industry members noting
difficulty in sourcing compliant containers during certain periods.
In response to Notice No. 210, TTB received 76 comments. Commenters
included national trade associations, the European Union (EU),
congressional representatives, individuals, and alcohol beverage
companies. Most of the comments addressed the proposals, providing
support for or opposition to them. However, many commenters requested
that TTB consider adding certain additional authorized standards of
fill for distilled spirits and wine that were not included in Notice
No. 210, as either a preferred alternative to generally eliminating the
standards of fill or, even if their preference was to eliminate the
standards of fill, as an option for consideration in the event that the
standards of fill were not eliminated. Several commenters also
suggested TTB eliminate the distinction between standards of fill that
apply to distilled spirits in cans and those that apply to distilled
spirits in containers other than cans, which was also not proposed in
Notice No. 210.
B. Notice No. 210A
Because TTB received comments that requested amendments beyond the
scope of the original request, and recognizing that these requests
should be considered in the context of the proposals in Notice No. 210,
TTB issued Notice No. 210A on September 9, 2024 (89 FR 73050), which
reopened the comment period on Notice No. 210. In Notice No. 210A, TTB
specifically requested comments on whether to authorize the following
new standards of fill for distilled spirits: For both cans and
containers other than cans, 3.75, 3, 2, and 1.5 liters and 500, 350,
250, and 187 milliliters; for cans, 945, 710, 700, 570, 475, and 331
milliliters; and for containers other than cans, 355 milliliters. TTB
also requested comments on whether it should maintain the current
distinction between standards of fill authorized for distilled spirits
in cans and those authorized for distilled spirits in containers other
than cans. TTB noted its particular interest in comments regarding
whether the distinction, that is, whether the size in combination with
the type of container, serves the purpose of preventing consumer
confusion or preventing consumer deception consistent with TTB's
mandate under the FAA Act. TTB also specifically requested comments on
whether to authorize the following new standards of fill for wine: 600
milliliters, 19.2 oz, and 16 oz.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Notice 210A erroneously listed the metric equivalent of 19.2
oz for wine as 545.5 milliliters, rather than 568 milliliters,
reflecting a submission by the American Cider Association and the
conversion factor for imperial ounces instead of U.S. fluid ounces.
Comment responses addressed the 19.2 oz size and, where applicable,
showed that readers generally understood the proposal to be for U.S.
ounces as TTB intended. This final rule uses the appropriate
conversion factor to establish the metric equivalent in the
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment period for Notice No. 210A closed on October 9, 2024.
III. Comments on Notices No. 210 and 210A
A. General
In response to Notice No. 210A, TTB received 123 comments. In
total, on Notices No. 210 and 210A, TTB received a total of 199
comments. Commenters included national and international trade
associations, members of Congress, representatives of foreign
governments, representatives of the glass container industry,
individuals, and alcohol beverage industry members.
In addition to comments on particular proposed sizes and the
proposal to generally eliminate the standards of fill, discussed
further below, TTB received many comments that expressed general views
on the standards of fill, either favoring or disfavoring TTB actions,
but without reference to the technical aspects of the regulation.
In favor of amending the regulations, one individual commenter
explained that it was ``common sense to adjust this outdated and
arbitrary regulation.'' (Comment 11) Others articulated the benefits of
expanding the standards of fill generally, i.e., independent of whether
that was achieved through elimination or the addition of specific sizes
(or groups of sizes). For example, one individual stated that expansion
into ``larger sizes'' would ``reduce waste and garbage and recycling
burdens and increase productivity and profitability while reducing
prices for consumers . . . a win-win-win for the triple bottom line.''
(Comment 129) Another individual expressed that not allowing ``critical
single serve sizes puts wine and cider at an unfair disadvantage.''
(Comment 128) Similarly, several commenters, for example Benny Boy
Brewing (Comment 112), urged TTB to incorporate its proposed changes,
but without referencing a specific size or approach.
Many commenters also expressed their general opposition to any
changes at all, for example Bear Creek Winery (Comment 14) stated that
TTB's proposal ``does not address any issues'' and expressed that they
``do not wish to add any additional fill sizes to what is already
approved.'' Other commenters expressed that it seemed too soon to
revisit the standards of fill given that TTB had recently amended them
in 2020. Some commenters opposed the addition of any new standards on
business and environmental grounds, such as the Mexican Chamber of the
Tequila Industry (comment 165) who explained their view that, ``The
introduction of a wide range of bottle sizes would present significant
challenges to forecasting demand and managing inventory levels,
potentially leading to increased costs and inefficiencies, particularly
for smaller tequila producers who may have limited resources to adapt
to such changes,'' and that ``[s]tandardized sizes have generated
significant environmental benefits by promoting efficiency in
production and packaging.''
B. Comments on the Proposed Elimination of the Standards of Fill
Of the 199 total comments TTB received in response to Notices No.
210 and 210A, approximately a third of the comments address the
proposal to generally eliminate the standards of fill. Approximately a
fifth of the comments support eliminating the standards of fill for
distilled spirits, wine, or both. Several comments express a preference
for eliminating the standards of fill but state that approving certain
new sizes would be an acceptable alternative. A total of 30 comments
specifically oppose eliminating standards of fill for distilled spirits
and/or wine.
Commenters supporting the elimination of the standards of fill
generally state that the standards are unnecessary, restrictive to
producers, and out-of-date. They note that there are no standards of
fill for malt beverages or for other consumer products. One distilled
spirits producer, Endless West, notes that it regularly encounters
challenges posed by the limitations of the standards of fill, and that
these limitations reduce competition, inhibit packaging innovations
which in turn constrain the industry member's ability to introduce new
sizes to meet customer demands, and constrain industry members' efforts
to improve profit margins, supply chain efficiencies, and environmental
sustainability. The comment goes on to state that consumers are capable
of reading the net contents on a label and making rational purchasing
decisions in light of existing labeling regulations. Other
[[Page 1871]]
commenters also contend that eliminating the standards of fill will
result in lower costs for producers, will facilitate international
trade, and will provide consumers with more options in beverage alcohol
packaging. A commenter identified as Texas Vine Country states that
eliminating standards of fill would, among other things, allow for
harmonization with international packaging sizes, take advantage of
available glass/container sizes, encourage responsible drinking by
tailoring packaging size more closely to consumer's desired serving
sizes, reduce wasted beverages by consumers due to arbitrary packaging
sizes, and allow for new and innovative packaging that protects the
beverage quality and is more efficient to transport and store.
Several commenters that support eliminating the standards of fill
say that the reasons for them no longer apply or that TTB lacks
authority under current circumstances to mandate them. Tincknell &
Tincknell, a wine sales and marketing consultant, states that the
standards relate to tax collection and ``post-Prohibition era criminal
behavior'' that are no longer relevant. The National Federation of
Independent Businesses asserts that statements made in the February
2022 Competition Report show that TTB cannot justify maintaining its
standards of fill regulations under the relevant statutory authority in
the IRC and FAA Act.
Several commenters favor eliminating the standards of fill but
state that adding one or more of the proposed sizes would be an
acceptable option. While noting similar reasons as those described
above for supporting the elimination of standards of fill, these
commenters stated that in the event the standards of fill are retained,
adding specific new sizes would still provide benefits to producers and
consumers. A number of these commenters referencing cider products
specifically requested approval of 16 ounce and 19.2 ounce sizes for
wine, while other commenters referencing ``ready-to-drink'' cocktails
(often referred to as RTDs) specifically requested approval of the 475
ml and 570 ml sizes for distilled spirits in metal cans. These are
addressed in the comment summaries related to specified sizes below.
Commenters opposing the elimination of the standards of fill cite a
number of reasons to retain the standards. The most often cited reason
is that the standards of fill prevent consumer confusion. The Wine
Institute (Comment 43) stated that the standards of fill do as intended
by preventing consumer confusion and deception that would otherwise
exist if there was a limitless array of alcohol beverage container
sizes in the marketplace. The Wine Institute stated that it ``has had
discussions with state Attorneys General who have expressed concerns
about the ability of packaging and sizing to deceive consumers.'' One
concern is the difficulty in cost comparison and the potential for
``shrinkflation,'' when the packaging size and amount of product is
reduced while the price remains the same, and the comment goes on to
raise concerns with the small differences between some of the proposed
container sizes compared with the existing standards of fill.
Similarly, Fox Run Vineyards states that removing the standards of fill
opens up the opportunity for consumer deception, citing how small
differences in bottle sizes may result in less product provided for the
same price. Milestone Brands, LLC, a producer and marketer of spirits-
based products (Comment 72) states that it is ``the best option on
balance for consumers'' and that retaining the standards of fill
requirements while allowing for new sizes will maintain sizes that are
``recognizable and familiar'' to consumers while providing additional
consumer choice and ensuring that ``order is maintained in the
marketplace.''
Other commenters claim that the standards of fill requirements have
been in place for decades and have not caused a significant burden on
industry members. For example, the Distilled Spirits Council of the
United States (Comment 59) states: ``Having standard sizes codified in
the regulations supports investment in modern packaging and bottling
equipment, which promotes efficiency, cost savings, and economies of
scale as the number of necessary bottle sizes, labels, and machinery
parts are reduced.'' Representatives Mike Thompson and Dan Newhouse,
co-chairs of the Congressional Wine Caucus (Comment 51), express
concern that eliminating the standards of fill could cause
``[s]ignificant disruption to business operations as producers,
distributors, and retailers struggle to adapt business operations to
accommodate a proliferation of container sizes.''
Commenters also argued that eliminating the standards of fill will
result in conflicting State requirements. These commenters report that
a number of States defer to the Federal standard of fill requirements,
so elimination could result in a patchwork of different State rules. As
the Washington Wine Institute (Comment 62) states, a proliferation of
new rules ``will create serious disruption to business as wineries
would have to overhaul their sales, marketing, and compliance models to
adjust to . . . varying state regulations.'' A comment from the
Colorado Wine Industry Development Board (Comment 69) echoes this view
that eliminating standards of fill, or adding any new standards of fill
for wine, will cause unnecessary consumer confusion, significant
disruption to business operations, difficulty for producers' compliance
across State lines, and unnecessary expenditure of State resources to
create standards in lieu of the Federal standards. Also addressing the
wine industry specifically, the Wine Institute asserts that the Federal
framework for standards of fill creates a uniform system that allows
wineries to comply with one national system of regulations and that
eliminating the Federal standards will result in unnecessary business
disruption. The comment goes on to assert that Federal uniformity
enhances competition by providing stability and, noting that eight
States currently have statutorily required standards of fill that have
presented ongoing challenges to the industry, the Wine Institute
asserts that it is in the best interest of the wine industry and
consumers to have consistency rather than different State rules that
allow for differing sizes to be offered in different marketplaces.
While some commenters supporting eliminating the standards of fill
assert that doing so will allow greater flexibility for small
businesses, others that oppose eliminating the standards of fill assert
that maintaining the standards of fill levels the playing field for
suppliers of all sizes. In its comment, the Wine Institute states that
eliminating the standards of fill ``will result in an unknown number of
alternative sizes and bottle types that will put small and mid-sized
suppliers at a competitive disadvantage because every different
container size will require a different bottling run with accompanying
costs that cannot be spread over a large number of units.
C. Comments Regarding the Addition of Specific Sizes
1. Wine
Notice Nos. 210 and 210A together solicited comments on adding a
combined total of 13 authorized standards of fill for wine. A
significant portion of comments address one or more of the proposed new
sizes for wine containers. One of the comments, from the Washington
Wine Institute (Comment 62), supports limited authorization of new
sizes, but only if
[[Page 1872]]
the requests come from ``a large segment of the wine industry, and not
just one or two producers or importers.''
Commenters expressed both support and opposition for the addition
of specific petitioned-for sizes for wine as follows:
a. 2.25 Liters
As explained in Notice No. 210, TTB received a petition from an
importer of boxed wine requesting that the agency authorize a standard
of fill of 2.25 liters for wine containers. The importer stated that
such a container would significantly reduce the environmental impact of
wine packaging because it holds as much as three 750-milliliter wine
bottles at half the weight of such bottles.
Three commenters (two individuals and Bobo Wine, LLC--Comments 13,
186, and 185, respectively) specifically support approval of a 2.25-
liter size. The commenters generally state that this size would enhance
the availability of boxed wines, which they note has environmental
benefits, and would be a convenient size for consumers, since it is the
equivalent of three standard wine bottles.
b. 1.8 Liters and 720, 550, 360, 300 and 180 Milliliters
In prior rulemaking, including T.D. TTB-165 (December 29, 2020, 85
FR 85514) and Notice Nos. 210 and 210A, TTB described an agreement
between the United States and Japan that included a commitment for the
United States to engage in rulemaking to propose the addition of
specific new standards of fill and to take final action on that
rulemaking. These six sizes were among those that the United States
agreed to consider in rulemaking under a Side Letter agreement with
Japan, dated October 7, 2019, which was part of a larger agreement
between the United States and Japan agreed to on that same day.
Three commenters specifically support these six sizes: the National
Tax Agency of Japan (Comment 26), the Japan Spirits and Liqueurs Makers
(Comment 27), and the Japan Wineries Association (Comment 28). These
commenters did not provide additional information beyond expressing
support for these sizes. An additional commenter who identified
themselves as a U.S. wine importer (Comment 2) also supports the 720
milliliter size to facilitate the importation of certain wines from
Italy.
Some commenters expressed concern about one or more of these sizes.
For example, the Colorado Wine Industry Development Board (comment 69)
expressed concerns about approving sizes that are ``nearly but not
quite identical to the existing standards'' because consumers might
purchase a 720-milliliter container thinking it was the existing 750
milliliter size or a 300 milliliter container thinking it was the
existing 375 milliliter size.
c. 700 Milliliters
TTB had proposed a 700 milliliter size in Notice No. 210 in
response to inquiries from foreign governments in 2007 and a comment on
a 2019 notice of rulemaking addressing standards of fill for wine
(Notice No. 182, 84 FR 31257). One individual commenter (comment 13)
supports this size noting that prohibiting this size ``denies American
consumers high quality wines and hurts American import and retail
businesses . . . .''
Some commenters, such as Fern Valley Vineyards, oppose authorizing
700 milliliter containers for wine due to the potential for consumer
confusion. The commenter states that consumers would have trouble
distinguishing between the slightly smaller and therefore less
expensive 700 milliliter containers, which are commonly used for
European wines, and the slightly larger and more expensive 750
milliliter containers, which are commonly used for domestic wines. As a
result, Fern Valley Vineyards believes domestic wines would be at a
disadvantage as consumers would choose the less expensive bottle
without realizing it contains less wine.
d. 620 Milliliters
As explained in greater detail Notice No. 210, TTB proposed a 620
milliliter size in response to inquiries over the years regarding the
importation of the French product known as ``vin jaune'' (``yellow
wine'' in English). Vin jaune is historically and currently bottled in
the 620 milliliters size so authorizing this container size would allow
U.S. importers to legally import the wine in its traditionally used
containers.
Several commenters specifically support authorizing a 620
milliliter size. Commenters include the French Federation of Wines and
Spirits Exporters (FEVS), the European Union, and the Comit[eacute]
Europ[eacute]en des Enterprises Vins. Most of these commenters state
that authorizing this size will allow the import of ``vin jaune'' from
France, which is traditionally bottled only in 620 milliliter
containers. FEVS (Comments 40 and 191) requests that TTB authorize this
size only for vin jaune. No commenters raised concerns specific to this
container size.
e. 600 Milliliters
TTB received one comment from a person identifying themselves as a
winemaker and former restaurant wine buyer (Comment 4), specifically
supporting approval of a 600-ml size noting that this size has ``become
important for many distributors and wholesale buyers'' and authorizing
it would allow American consumers to try wines from ``regions that are
required to use this size package.'' No commenters raised concerns
specific to this container size.
f. 568 Milliliters (19.2 oz.) and 473 Milliliters (16 oz.)
TTB proposed the addition of these container sizes in Notice No.
210A at the request of the American Cider Association (ACA) who noted
that both are already commonly used for similar products that are not
required to conform to TTB standards of fill.
Numerous commenters support authorization of 473 ml (16 oz) and 568
ml (19.2 oz) sizes. The majority of commenters represent individual
cideries and meaderies or cider and mead organizations, including the
American Mead Maker Association, the Vermont Cider Association, the New
York Cider Association, and the American Cider Association. Several
cider producers state that the rationale for authorizing the 16 oz and
19.2 oz sizes along with their metric equivalents is similar to the
rationale that was the basis for authorizing 355 milliliter (12 oz) can
size in 2020 (T.D. TTB-165, 85 FR 85514), that is, that these sizes are
commonly used and available for other products, including cider
products to which the standards of fill do not apply and their
customers want and expect that size, making it critical to their
commercial success. These producers note that, in the production of
cider, apples often naturally ferment to an alcohol by volume (abv)
level just above 7.4 percent, so producers often take steps to lower
the abv below 7 percent so that the standards of fill regulations will
not apply, enabling them to use readily available containers, such as
the 16 oz can that they could not use for products for which the abv is
7 percent or higher and the standards of fill apply. They state that
sugar levels in apples vary widely depending on climate and other
factors, making final alcohol levels difficult to predict. They argue
that being able to use readily available container sizes that can be
used for products not subject to the standards of fill, such as wine
products under 7 percent abv and malt beverages will eliminate this
uncertainty. Many
[[Page 1873]]
producers explained, as did Wolffer Estate Vineyard (comment 169), that
authorizing these sizes ``allows cideries and wineries to stay
competitive.'' No commenters raised concerns specific to this container
size.
g. 330 Milliliters
As explained in greater detail in Notice No. 210, after the
publication of T.D. TTB-165, TTB received a petition from a South
African wine exporter requesting the approval of 330 milliliters as a
standard of fill for wine. The petitioner stated that 330 milliliters
is the standard can size for beer and soda products in South Africa and
in most European countries.
Five commenters (Comments 13, 31, 32, 159, and 180) specifically
support approval of a 330 milliliter size. Commenters include Ikhaya
Wines LLC, Future Proof Brands, and Ball Corporation. Ikhaya Wines LLC
(Comments 31 and 32) expresses the belief that authorizing this size
will facilitate importing wines from South Africa, where 330
milliliters is a standard size for canned wines. Future Proof Brands
(Comment 159) states that authorizing this size will allow American
wine producers to expand their presence in European and Australian
markets, where these sizes are common.
The Colorado Wine Industry Development Board (comment 69) expressed
concerns about approving a 330 milliliter size noting that its
proximity to the existing 375 milliliter size could cause consumer
confusion.
2. Distilled Spirits
Notice No. 210A solicited comments on adding a total of 15
authorized standards of fill for distilled spirits that were raised in
comments responding to Notice No. 210. A large number of commenters
expressed support for the addition of specific sizes for distilled
spirits as follows:
a. Distilled Spirits in Both Cans and Containers Other Than Cans
i. 3.75 and 3 Liters
Several commenters specifically support authorizing 3.75-liter and
3-liter sizes including DISCUS, The American Distilled Spirits
Alliance, Milestone Brands, and FEVS. The American Distilled Spirits
Alliance (Comment 198) notes that these larger sizes would ``cater to
consumers who prefer to purchase in bulk for cost savings or long-term
use or who are conscious of their environment.''
ii. 2 Liters
Two commenters specifically support these sizes (Comments 149 and
197). The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS,
Comment 197) states that 2-liter containers for other beverages are
common in the United States, and consumers are already familiar with
this size.
iii. 1.5 Liters
Only one commenter (Comment 191) specifically supports this size.
In its comment, FEVS states that this size is currently allowed in
Europe.
iv. 500 Milliliters
Eleven commenters (Comments 5, 59, 72, 78, 109, 148, 149, 166, 191,
194, and 198) specifically support this size. Commenters include
DISCUS, Milestone Brands, Takara Shuzo International, the American
Distilled Spirits Alliance, and the Chinese Ministry of Commerce. Most
commenters note that authorizing this size would fill the large gap
between two currently-authorized sizes (375 and 700 milliliters) and
would ``provide container size parity with the wine and malt based RTD
products available to consumers'' (Comment 72).
v. 350 Milliliters
Five commenters (Comments 59, 148, 166, 191, and 198) specifically
support this size. Commenters include DISCUS, Takara Shuzo
International, FEVS, and the American Distilled Spirits Alliance.
Allowing greater flexibility for producers and more choices for
consumers were the most commonly cited reasons for supporting this
size.
vi. 250 and 187 Milliliters
Four commenters specifically support these sizes (Comments 138,
163, 171, and 180). Commenters include Ball Corporation, Social Hour
Cocktails, the Glass Packaging Institute, and Charbay Distillery. Ball
Corporation (Comment 180) notes that these sizes would particularly
benefit producers and consumers of RTD cocktails.
b. Distilled Spirits in Cans
i. 945 and 710 Milliliters
Ball Corporation (Comment 180) specifically supported these two
sizes as a way to promote RTD cocktails.
ii. 700 Milliliters
Suave Spirits International (Comment 23) specifically supported
this size, noting that it is a common size in European markets and
would help establish uniformity in packaging sizes and reduce the
number of SKUs needed to manage their products.
iii. 475 and 570 Milliliters
WISEACRE Brewing (Comment 25) and Ball Corporation (Comment 180)
specifically supported these two sizes, which would fill the gap
between the two currently authorized sizes (12 and 24 ounces) and allow
more manufacturing options for small producers and greater choice for
consumers.
iv. 331 Milliliters
DISCUS (Comments 59 and 197) and Ball Corporation (Comment 180)
specifically commented on this size, noting that authorization of this
size would help achieve greater operational efficiency.
c. Distilled Spirits in Containers Other Than Cans--355 Milliliters
Several commenters specifically supported this size. Commenters
include Representative Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Representative Austin
Scott, the Glass Packaging Institute, O-I Glass, and Ball Corporation.
The commenters generally state that allowing this size would provide
greater consumer choice as the shift to smaller packaging formats
continues to grow for both alcohol and non-alcohol beverages.
d. Other Distilled Spirits Size
TTB received a number of comments to Notice No 210A requesting
additional sizes for distilled spirits containers that were not
proposed in Notice Nos. 210 and 210A, because commenters did not have a
chance to comment on these specific sizes we are not taking action on
those at this time.
D. Harmonization of Authorized Standards for Fill Across Distilled
Spirit Container Types
During the comment period for Notice No. 210, TTB received several
comments pertaining to the different standards of fill for spirits in
cans and containers other than cans (for example, comments 45, 52, 53,
59, 63, 71, and 75). The comments generally stated that removing
distinctions between cans and other containers for distilled spirits
would result in greater competition, consumer choice, and a consistency
of regulation, without adding to consumer confusion. As a result, in
Notice No. 210A, TTB requested comments on whether it should maintain
this distinction.
TTB received several comments to Notice No. 210A that address the
question of harmonization of sizes for distilled spirits. Most of the
commenters state that the current standards of fill unfairly promote
can manufacturers. Applying the same standards of fill for
[[Page 1874]]
all distilled spirits containers would allow producers of glass
containers to compete more fairly with metal container producers. Both
the Glass Packaging Institute and O-I Glass (Comments 163 and 196,
respectively) note that the RTD cocktail market is rapidly expanding,
and malt- or wine-based RTD cocktail manufacturers have a choice
between cans or bottles when producing 355 milliliter (12 ounce)
products, which is a popular size for consumers. Spirits-based RTD
cocktail manufacturers, however, do not have a choice and must only use
cans if they choose to produce products in this size. O-I goes on to
say that glass is ``endlessly recyclable without any loss of material
or quality,'' making it an environmentally-friendly choice for both
spirits producers and consumers.
The only comments in opposition were those opposed to any revision
to the standards of fill generally, for example, the Mexican Chamber of
the Tequila Industry (Comment 165).
E. Other Comments
TTB received a number of comments that did not address retaining or
eliminating the standards of fill, the specific proposed standards of
fill sizes, or the harmonization of authorized standards of fill across
distilled spirits container types. We note that we will not be
addressing those comments in this rulemaking as they are outside of its
scope.
IV. TTB Analysis
As discussed previously, TTB received comments that express support
for eliminating the standards of fill, asserting that eliminating the
standards will provide them with greater flexibility to meet consumer
demands and grow their businesses. TTB received comments that oppose
eliminating the standards of fill. These commenters contend that
eliminating the standards of fill would cause consumer confusion and
potentially lead to a proliferation of differing State container size
requirements that could cause further consumer confusion. Commenters
also express concern about significant market disruption.
Based upon these comments, particularly those with regard to the
potential consumer confusion, TTB believes that the appropriate action
at this time is not to eliminate all standards of fill but instead to
authorize all of the new standards of fill that were specifically
requested and for which TTB received interest in and support for
authorizing.
TTB notes that, while some commenters express support for
eliminating of the standards of fill, a number of the comments
themselves focus specifically upon ensuring that certain sizes, such as
473 milliliter (16 oz.) and 568 milliliter (19.2 oz) for wine and 500
milliliter for distilled spirits, were authorized. TTB believes that
its authorization of these sizes largely addresses these commenters'
concerns.
In light of this, TTB believes that the addition of the proposed
sizes will result in many of the same benefits that were intended by
proposing eliminating the standards of fill--providing bottlers with
more flexibility, facilitating the movement of goods in domestic and
international commerce, and providing additional purchasing options to
consumers, but without causing the disruption commenters expressed
concerns over regarding the proposed elimination of standards of fill.
TTB does recognize that the result is several authorized standards that
would be close to each other, including, for wine, 187 ml (an existing
standard of fill) and 180 ml (one proposed in Notice Nos. 210 and 210A)
and, for distilled spirits, 350 ml (proposed in Notice No. 210A) and
355 ml (which is already authorized for distilled spirits in cans, but
would be authorized for all distilled spirits containers with the
elimination of distinction in standards for different type of distilled
spirits containers). While TTB understands the potential for consumers
in the near term to mistake the size of new containers that are close
in size to other authorized containers, TTB believes the additional
flexibility for industry members and broader consumer choice that
authorizing the new sizes provides offsets the potential that
expectations may take time to adjust. TTB also believes that the
limited nature of these approvals, as opposed to eliminating all
standards, similarly limits the potential for consumer confusion.
As explained in Notice No. 210A, the distinction between distilled
spirits in cans and distilled spirits in containers other than cans
resulted from rulemaking in the early 1990s. On September 27, 1991,
TTB's predecessor, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF),
proposed differentiating between cans and containers other than cans in
ATF Notice No. 725 published in the Federal Register at 56 FR 49152).
There, ATF explained its view at that time that approving both 375 and
355 milliliter containers for distilled spirits would be misleading for
consumers because of how close together the sizes were. However, ATF
also recognized that because 355 milliliters was not an approved size,
it prevented utilization of one of the most common can sizes. ATF
proposed to create mutually exclusive categories of distilled spirits
containers, cans and containers other than cans, with separate
standards of fill authorized for each, ``. . . based on the belief that
cans are sufficiently distinct from other types of [distilled spirits
containers], in both shape and design, so that a different standard of
fill would not be confusing to the consumer.'' This proposal was
adopted in the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 14,
1992, at 57 FR 31126. Accordingly, TTB solicited and received several
comments on whether it should maintain a distinction between cans and
containers other than cans consistent with this purpose.
After reviewing the comments, TTB has determined that there is no
basis for maintaining the distinction between cans and other containers
for distilled spirits for purposes of consumer protection. As some
commenters note, consumers are already familiar with comparing net
contents labels on other foods and beverages to determine if one
package contains more product than another, regardless of the shape or
material of the packaging. TTB currently requires net content
statements on alcohol beverages, which allows consumers to do the same
with distilled spirits products regardless of container type.
With regard to the comment that TTB lacks the authority to issue
regulations relating to standards of fill, the commenter points to
statements in the Treasury Competition Report that the standards are
``no longer necessary to ensure accurate calculation of tax liabilities
or to protect the revenue'' and that ``consumers presumably have ample
information on bottle size from labeling and point of sale displays.''
We disagree with the proposition TTB lacks authority.
As noted above, the FAA Act at 27 U.S.C. 205(e) authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations relating to the
``packaging, marking, branding, and labeling and size and fill'' of
alcohol beverage containers ``as will prohibit deception of the
consumer with respect to such products or the quantity thereof . . .
.'' The Treasury Competition Report goes on to describe TTB plans for
``future rulemaking to propose additional new standards of fill,'' and
states that such rulemaking ``should again consider eliminating the
standards of fill requirements and specifically examine whether the
potential impact on competition outweighs potential consumer
confusion.'' That ``future rulemaking'' was Notice No. 210, which
requested
[[Page 1875]]
comment on eliminating the standards of fill. The comments to Notice
Nos. 210 and 210A included information addressing the presumption that
consumers have adequate information and that such information prevents
consumer deception with respect to the products and quantities. As
described above in the comment summaries, a number of commenters
described confusion that was likely from a complete elimination of the
standards of fill. In conclusion, rather than indicate TTB does not
have authority for maintaining standards of fill, the statements in the
Treasury Competition Report were the bases for soliciting comment from
the public through Notice Nos. 210 and 210A, and those comments form
the basis for the actions taken in this final rule.
V. TTB Determination
After careful analysis of the comments discussed above, TTB has
decided not to eliminate the standards of fill for wine and distilled
spirits. Rather, TTB is adding all sizes for which TTB sought specific
comments on in Notice Nos. 210 and 210A. Based upon the comments
received to those notices, TTB is authorizing the addition of the 180,
300, 330, 360, 473 (16 oz.), 550, 569 (19.2 oz), 600, 620, 700, and 720
milliliters sizes and 1.8 and 2.25 liter sizes for wine to Sec. 4.72,
and the 187, 250, 331, 350,355, 475, 500, 570, 700, 710, and 945
milliliters sizes and 1.5, 2, 3, 3.75 liter sizes for distilled spirits
containers to Sec. 5.203.
TTB is also adopting the proposal in Notice No. 210A to eliminate
the distinction between standards of fill for cans and containers other
than cans for distilled spirits in Sec. 5.203. As a result, all
standards of fill for distilled spirits are approved for cans and
containers other than cans.
Regulatory Analysis and Notices
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will provide wine and distilled spirits bottlers and importers
with additional flexibility to use new bottle sizes if they so choose.
This proposed regulation does not impose any new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirements. Accordingly, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information in this rule has been previously
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the title
``Labeling and Advertising Requirements Under the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act,'' and assigned control number 1513-0087. This
regulation will not result in a substantive or material change in the
previously approved collection action, since the nature of the
mandatory information that must appear on labels affixed to the
container remains unchanged.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended.
Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not necessary.
Inapplicability of the Delayed Effective Date Requirement
Because these regulations relieve a restriction by providing wine
and distilled spirits bottlers and importers with additional
flexibility to use new bottle sizes if they so choose, and do not
impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative
requirements, it has been determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1),
that these regulations will be issued without a delayed effective date.
List of Subjects
27 CFR Part 4
Advertising, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Consumer protection,
Customs duties and inspection, Export, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wine.
27 CFR Part 5
Advertising, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Consumer protection,
Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Labeling, Liquors,
Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
27 CFR Part 24
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Electronic funds
transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food additives, Fruit juices,
Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research, Scientific equipment, Spices and
flavorings, Surety bonds, Vinegar, Warehouses, Wine.
Amendment to the Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends 27 CFR parts
4, 5, and 24 as follows:
PART 4--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF WINE
0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 4.37, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.37 Net contents.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For the metric standards of fill shown in table 1 to paragraph
(b)(1), the equivalent U.S. measures are:
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric measure Equivalent U.S. measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 liters (L)......................... 101 fluid ounces (fl. oz.).
2.25 L............................... 76.1 fl. oz.
1.8 L................................ 60.9 fl. oz.
1.5 L................................ 50.7 fl. oz.
1 L.................................. 33.8 fl. oz.
750 milliliters (mL)................. 25.4 fl. oz.
720 mL............................... 24.3 fl. oz.
700 mL............................... 23.7 fl. oz.
620 mL............................... 21.0 fl. oz.
600 mL............................... 20.3 fl. oz.
568 mL............................... 19.2 fl. oz.
550 mL............................... 18.6 fl. oz.
500 mL............................... 16.9 fl. oz.
473 mL............................... 16 fl. oz.
375 mL............................... 12.7 fl. oz.
360 mL............................... 12.2 fl. oz.
355 mL............................... 12.0 fl. oz.
330 mL............................... 11.2 fl. oz.
300 mL............................... 10.1 fl. oz.
250 mL............................... 8.5 fl. oz.
200 mL............................... 6.8 fl. oz.
187 mL............................... 6.3 fl. oz.
180 mL............................... 6.1 fl. oz.
100 mL............................... 3.4 fl. oz.
50 mL................................ 1.7 fl. oz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 4.72, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.72 Metric standards of fill.
(a) Authorized standards of fill. The standards of fill for wine
are the following:
(1) 3 liters.
(2) 2.25 liters.
(3) 1.8 liters.
(4) 1.5 liters.
(5) 1 liter.
(6) 750 milliliters.
(7) 720 milliliters.
(8) 700 milliliters.
(9) 620 milliliters.
(10) 600 milliliters.
(11) 568 milliliters.
(12) 550 milliliters.
(13) 500 milliliters.
(14) 473 milliliters.
[[Page 1876]]
(15) 375 milliliters.
(16) 360 milliliters.
(17) 355 milliliters.
(18) 330 milliliters.
(19) 300 milliliters.
(20) 250 milliliters.
(21) 200 milliliters.
(22) 187 milliliters.
(23) 180 milliliters.
(24) 100 milliliters.
(25) 50 milliliters.
* * * * *
PART 5--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS
0
4. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5301, 7805, 27 U.S.C. 205 and 207.
0
5. Revise Sec. 5.203 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.203 Standards of fill (container sizes).
(a) Authorized standards of fill. The following metric standards of
fill are authorized for distilled spirits, whether domestically bottled
or imported:
(1) 3.75 Liters.
(2) 3 Liters.
(3) 2 Liters.
(4) 1.8 Liters.
(5) 1.75 Liters.
(6) 1.5 Liters.
(7) 1.00 Liter.
(8) 945 mL.
(9) 900 mL.
(10) 750 mL.
(11) 720 mL.
(12) 710 mL.
(13) 700 mL.
(14) 570 mL.
(15) 500 mL.
(16) 475 mL.
(17) 375 mL.
(18) 355 mL.
(19) 350 mL.
(20) 331 mL.
(21) 250 mL.
(22) 200 mL.
(23) 187 mL.
(24) 100 mL.
(25) 50 mL.
(b) Spirits bottled using outdated standards. Paragraph (a) of this
section does not apply to:
(1) Imported distilled spirits in the original containers in which
entered into customs custody prior to January 1, 1980; or
(2) Imported distilled spirits bottled or packed prior to January
1, 1980, and certified as to such in a statement signed by an official
duly authorized by the appropriate foreign government.
PART 24--WINE
0
6. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5008, 5041, 5042,
5044, 5061, 5062, 5121, 5122-5124, 5173, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5351,
5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5361, 5362, 5364-5373, 5381-5388, 5391,
5392, 5511, 5551, 5552, 5661, 5662, 5684, 6065, 6091, 6109, 6301,
6302, 6311, 6651, 6676, 7302, 7342, 7502, 7503, 7606, 7805, 7851; 31
U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
0
7. In Sec. 24.255:
0
a. Revise paragraph (b); and
0
b. Remove the parenthetical authority citation at the end of the
section.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 24.255 Bottling or packing wine.
* * * * *
(b) Bottle or other container fill. (1) Proprietors of bonded wine
premises and taxpaid wine bottling house premises must fill bottles or
other containers as nearly as possible to conform to the amount shown
on the label or blown in the bottle or marked on any container other
than a bottle. However, in no event may the amount of wine contained in
any individual bottle, due to lack of bottle uniformity, vary from the
amount stated more than plus or minus:
(i) 1.0 percent for 15.0 liters and above;
(ii) 1.5 percent for 14.9 liters to 1.0 liter;
(iii) 2.0 percent for 750 mL to 550 mL;
(iv) 2.5 percent for 500 mL to 473 mL;
(v) 3.0 percent for 375 mL to 300 mL;
(vi) 4 percent for 250 mL and 200 mL;
(vii) 4.5 percent for 187 mL to 100 mL; and
(viii) 9.0 percent for 50 mL.
(2) In such case, there will be substantially as many bottles
overfilled as there are bottles underfilled for each lot of wine
bottled. Short-filled bottles or other containers of wine which are
sold or otherwise disposed of by the proprietor to employees for
personal consumption need not be labeled, but, if labeled, need not
show an accurate statement of net contents.
* * * * *
Signed: January 3, 2025.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: January 3, 2025.
Aviva R. Aron-Dine,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-00271 Filed 1-8-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P