`[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`