1868 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Orders 12866, 14094, and 

13563 

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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rulemaking does not impose or 

revise any information collections 

subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. 

List of Subjects 

22 CFR Part 35 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties. 

22 CFR Part 103 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Chemicals, Classified 

information, Foreign relations, Freedom 

of information, International 

organization, Investigations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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: 

PART 35—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL 

REMEDIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 35 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 3801 

et seq.; Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584. 

§ 35.3 [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’’. 

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 

■ 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] 

■ 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’’. 

PART 127—VIOLATIONS AND 

PENALTIES 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 127 

continues to read as follows: 

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 [Amended] 

■ 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. 

§ 138.400 [Amended] 

■ 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. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00361 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[TD 10020] 

RIN 1545–BI22 

Reissuance of State or Local Bonds 

Correction 

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] 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1869 

1Sections 5041(e) and 5368 of the IRC also 

provide the Secretary the authority to set forth tax 

tolerances for containers of wine products. 

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. 

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 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
1870 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

2Notice 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. 

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

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
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: 

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 Comite ́ Europe ́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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
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). 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 4.37, revise paragraph (b)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
1876 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1References to the CDO in this final rule include 

the CDO’s designee. 

(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 

■ 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. 

■ 5. Revise § 5.203 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 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. 

■ 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: 

§ 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 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION 

29 CFR Part 1602 

RIN 3046–AB28 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements Under Title VII, the ADA, 

GINA, and the PWFA 

AGENCY: Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

DATES: Effective January 10, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES