TTB COLAs and Formulas

On October 11, 2017, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) reopened the comment period for the following three notices of proposed rulemaking:

  1. Notice No. 160, Proposed Revisions to Wine Labeling and Record Keeping Requirements

TTB proposes to amend the labeling and record keeping requirements of 27 C.F.R. part 24. The proposed rule provides that standard grape wine containing 7 percent or more alcohol by volume (ABV) covered by a certificate of exemption from label approval may not be labeled with a varietal (type of grape) designation, a type designation containing a varietal significance, a vintage date or an appellation of origin unless the wine is labeled in compliance with the appropriate standards in 27 C.F.R. part 4 for that label information. TTB also seeks comments on alternate proposals submitted during previous comment periods for Notice No. 160.

Comments are due on or before January 9, 2018. You may view the original notice and rule here. Comments on this proposed rule amendment can be made electronically here.

  1. Notice No. 164, Wine Treating Materials and Related Regulations

TTB proposes to amend the regulations regarding wine production found in 27 C.F.R. part 24 regarding permissible materials and treatments used to treat wine and juice for wine. These proposed amendments respond to wine industry members seeking greater flexibility in wine production.

Comments are due on or before January 9, 2018. You may view the original notice and rule here. Comments on this proposed rule amendment can be made electronically here.

  1. Notice No. 165, Proposed Addition of New Grape Variety Names for American Wines

TTB proposes to amend wine labeling regulations found in 27 C.F.R. part 4 by adding additional grape variety names approved for use in designating American wines. TTB believes these changes will allow wine bottlers greater flexibility and provide consumers with more information while continuing to protect against deceptive labels.

Comments are due on or before December 11, 2017. You may view the original notice and rule here. Comments on this proposed rule amendment can be made electronically here.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) recently notified holders of permits that were originally filed in paper of plans to move all permits to the Permits Online (PONL) system this fall. This could lead to substantial delays due to the volume of permits included.  Industry members who wish to submit requests ahead of that time can send their information (EIN, Permit and Registry Numbers) to Permits.Online@ttb.gov and enter Permits Online Data Load in the subject line of the email. Filing amendments electronically has historically been significantly faster using TTB’s PONL system.

Arthur DeCelle wrote this bylined article describing how brewers can use product labels, point of sale (POS) advertising, social networks, and other media to tell customers about their environmental responsibility efforts. Such information “must be truthful and substantiated by evidence [and] must not be deceptive to reasonable consumers,” Mr. DeCelle wrote, urging brewers to “carefully consider the language you use and any potential for consumer deception [regarding] false or deceptive environmental claims.”

Read the full article.

Originally published in New Brewer, March/April 2017.

On March 13, the European Commission approved a report that calls on members of the alcohol beverage industry to develop a comprehensive self-regulatory system of ingredient and nutritional labeling for beer, wine, and distilled spirits. The Commission is composed of representatives of each member nation of the European Union (EU) with a range of administrative responsibilities and authority to develop and propose legislation for consideration by the European Parliament.

The European Commission characterizes access to ingredient and nutrition information as a right of EU consumers, and called on industry members to develop a self-regulatory proposal over the next year. Current EU policy on alcohol beverage labeling is analogous to US policy. The EU regulation on food labeling exempts alcohol beverages containing more than 1.2 percent alcohol-by-volume.

The European Commission proposal warrants careful attention by US alcohol beverage suppliers across all beverage categories. The initial industry response by European suppliers will likely start a lengthy process leading to new ingredient disclosures.

US regulations are largely based on the presumption that consumers have a working knowledge of ingredients in alcohol beverages. Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) and its predecessor agency considered and rejected mandatory ingredient labeling proposals several times since 1970s. TTB’s most recent assessment of ingredient and nutritional labeling of alcohol beverages was an advance notice of proposed rulemaking published in 2005 soliciting public input on the existing TTB policy. No further rulemaking activity followed the TTB inquiry.

Existing TTB regulations focus on disclosures of certain ingredients that pose unique health risks or allergic reactions. Industry members are permitted to disclose ingredients on a voluntary basis.  A few alcohol beverages are subject to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, which require comprehensive ingredient and nutritional labeling.

Many US products are exported for consumption in the EU. If a new system is adopted in the EU, producers in the US must provide ingredient and nutritional information to their customers overseas with no corresponding requirements in their home markets. EU suppliers are major players in the US market and may decide to voluntarily provide the same information to their American customers that they will ultimately have to provide in their home markets.

These dynamics will likely reinvigorate calls by consumer advocacy organizations and government agencies (e.g., Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health) in support of ingredient labeling of alcohol beverages in the US. In the current era of dwindling government resources, the European Commission’s call for an industry self-regulatory initiative provides an opening for a similar initiative in the US. Industry members and associations should monitor developments in the EU and consider appropriate responses directly to the EU initiative and to analogous proposals in the US.

An English version of the European Commission proposals is available here.

On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” A link to Executive Oder 13771 appears here.  The Order provides:

  1. For Fiscal Year 2017 (which ends September 30, 2017):
    1. For each new “regulation” published for notice and comment “or otherwise promulgated,” the agency in question must “identify” two existing regulations to be repealed. Notably, the Order does not require the repeal to be concurrent with the publication or promulgation of the new regulation.
    2. For Fiscal Year 2017, each agency must ensure that the total incremental costs of all new and repealed regulations shall not exceed zero, unless otherwise required by law or as consistent with the advice of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Order does not specify whether the costs in question represent costs to the agency, costs to the government or total societal costs. It also does not provide any guidance on how to calculate such costs.
    3. To the extent permitted by law, the costs of any new regulations shall be offset by the elimination of costs associated with at least two existing regulations. Once again, the Order provides no guidance on what constitute costs of a regulation or how to calculate such costs.
    4. The OMB is directed to provide agencies with guidance on how to implement the Order.
  2. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2018 (which begins October 1, 2017):
    1. The semi-annual Unified Regulatory Agenda for each agency must: (i) identify for each new regulation “that increases incremental cost,” two offsetting regulations; and (ii) provide an approximation of the total costs or savings for each new and repealed regulation.
    2. Each regulation approved by the OMB shall be included in the Unified Regulatory Agenda.
    3. Unless otherwise required by law, agencies may not issue new regulations that were not listed in the most recent Unified Regulatory Agenda.
    4. During the budgeting process, the OMB shall notify agencies of the total costs per agency that will be allowed in issuing and repealing new regulations for the upcoming fiscal year.
    5. The OMB shall provide agencies with guidance on implementing the Order’s requirements.

Executive Oder 13771 applies to each “executive department or agency,” but leaves a number of government regulatory functions outside of its scope. These include agencies involved in military, national security, and foreign affairs functions, as well as any government organization arising from the Legislative or Judicial branches. Nevertheless, the Order applies to a vast swath of the federal bureaucracy.

On its face, Executive Order 13771 could have a significant impact on the pace of federal rulemaking during the Trump Administration. The “two-for-one” requirement, in particular, appears to be a blunt instrument aimed at shrinking the Code of Federal Regulations. Moreover, the explicit requirement for cost estimates and “zero” total costs flowing from the rulemaking process plainly seeks to halt the growth and costs of the federal administrative state.

But the jury remains out on the practical impact of Executive Order 13771. Longstanding observers of the federal bureaucracy will, no doubt, recall that the Paperwork Reduction Act (1980), Executive Order 12866 (1993), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and other measures all failed to noticeably slow the growth or improve the functioning of the administrative state. In that spirit, President Trump’s Executive Order leaves many questions unanswered:

  1. Much hinges on the interpretation of “costs” referenced throughout the Executive Order. Does this mean the costs to the Agency, the entire federal government or society at large? And, particularly if “costs” are defined broadly, how will agencies and/or the OMB calculate such costs? The OMB presumably must arrive at answers to these fundamental questions.
  2. While a “rule” has a defined meaning in administrative law, a “regulation” does not. While the Order purports to define the term, as every lawyer in an administrative practice knows, individual “sections” within the Code of Federal Regulations are called “regulations” and come in many sizes. Does an agency satisfy the “two-for-one” rule by replacing two one-sentence regulations with a single ten-sentence regulation? The opportunities to “game” the Executive Order’s mandate seem endless.
  3. The Executive Order might not withstand a legal challenge. While the President yields broad authority over most administrative agencies, nothing in current law authorizes a “two-for-one” rule. While a full analysis is beyond the scope of this note, on its face the Order seems to push the boundaries of what a President can mandate by Executive Order.

Finally, the Executive Order may accelerate the unfortunate trend of agencies to make rules through informal documents instead of the notice-and-comment rulemaking process mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. During the past several decades, many agencies have sought to shortcut the rulemaking process by asserting that any number of substantive rules are mere “interpretations” not subject to notice-and-comment. Too often, the legal costs and potential for relationship damage involved in challenging such rules outweighs the benefit of a challenge. (For example, how willing is a heavily-regulated brewery, winery or distillery to engage in protracted litigation with the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau?)  As a result, usually the regulated public tacitly accepts this subversion of Administrative Procedures Act requirements – requirements that flow directly from the Fifth Amendment’s requirement for Due Process of Law. By making formal notice-and-comment rulemaking even more burdensome, Executive Order 13771 will likely accelerate the pace of regulation by internet posting, bottom-drawer regulation, letter ruling and other means that do not provide the regulated public with notice and an opportunity to comment on legal requirements that will affect them.

In the end, then, President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Regulations leaves many important questions unanswered and, like other like-minded actions before it (e.g., the Paperwork Reduction Act), may not progress the objective of simplifying and reducing the federal bureaucracy.

On January 23, 2017 the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) published a Temporary Rule and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to the new definition of hard cider. Congressional action required a new definition when Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code in December 2015 by enacting the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act. The Temporary Rule lays out TTB’s current thinking on regulations to implement the revised definition, while the NPRM requests comments on the regulations spelled out in the Temporary Rule.

We view the following provisions as most significant:

1. Requiring a new mandatory tax classification statement on all products eligible for the hard cider tax rate, effective January 1, 2018.

2. Requiring the words “sparking” or “carbonated” on all hard cider with carbonation in excess of 0.392 grams per 100 ml.

3. Codifying in the regulations (although this reflects longstanding TTB policy) that materials like honey, hops, spices and pumpkin may be added to hard cider without jeopardizing the hard cider tax rate.

4. Establishing a .009 gram per 100 ml tolerance for carbonation in cider.

5. Suggesting in the pre-amble that treating materials, regardless of source, could render a product ineligible for the hard cider rate if those materials imparts a fruit flavor other than apple (under the new regulations apple or pear).

6. Codifying in the regulations for the first time (although this reflects longstanding TTB policy) that the hard cider definition and most rules also apply to imported hard cider.

The current deadline for comments on the proposed regulations is March 24, 2017, but TTB generally grants reasonable extensions (typically 60 or 90 additional days) upon request.

Current conventional wisdom in the craft beer business holds that being local helps sell more beer. This has led many brewers to emphasize their local roots on their labels and in their marketing efforts. In some ways, the trend has a “back to the future” feel, as labels and marketing materials once again feature place names that often became the brand names for many of the first generation of craft brewers in the 1980s.

But the emphasis on place can come with a price: the prospect of legal hurdles, including lawsuits, over allegations that a brand name, label, or advertisement misrepresents the beer’s place of production. Legally this subject usually goes by the name “geographic misdescription,” itself a subset of false advertising law. How can brewers minimize their chances of becoming the target of a lawsuit or government investigation alleging that a beer’s labeling or marketing deceived consumers?

Read the full article, originally published in the January/February 2017 issue of The New Brewer.

On January 10, 2017, TTB published a Federal Register notice adjusting the civil monetary penalty imposed for violations of the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 (the ABLA). The ABLA requires the labels of alcohol beverages sold in the United States to bear the now-familiar Government Warning Statement. When first enacted, the maximum civil penalty for violations was $10,000 per day.

Under TTB’s latest inflation adjustment, the maximum penalty will stand at $20,111 per day, beginning with all penalties assessed after January 10, 2017. This new amount will apply even in cases where the underlying violation occurred prior to the effective date of the new penalty amount. View the full text of TTB’s notice here.

On December 23rd, 2016 the federal government published its Fall edition of the “Unified Agenda” – a bi-annual compilation of all ongoing federal rulemaking projects. Attached is a copy of the TTB detail from this latest Unified Agenda. As always, projected future publication dates should be viewed with a very healthy dose of skepticism.

TTB’s portion of the Unified Agenda identifies the following “priority” items:

  1. Final rules implementing the International Trade Data System (ITDS). TTB published these final rules on December 22, 2016 – mission accomplished.
  2. Revisions to TTB regulations to implement the “Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015” (PATH Act). Among other things, the PATH Act amended the Internal Revenue Code definition of “hard cider” and changed the bonding requirements for small excise taxpayers. While listed as a priority for action in late 2016, TTB has shown little ability to quickly amend its regulations to reflect statutory changes enacted by Congress (see Taxpayer Relief Act note below).
  3. Revisions to modify and streamline TTB’s wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverage labeling regulations. This item has appeared in the Unified Agenda for several years, and apparently stems from a January 2011 Executive Order requiring the identification and elimination of outmoded and burdensome regulations. The Unified Agenda lists a December 2016 publication date for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on this subject.
  4. Back on the “priority” list of this Unified Agenda is the NPRM permitting the self-certification of nonbeverage product formulas. Projected publication of that NPRM now has slipped to September 2017.
  5. A project to combine the current four forms required for reporting by distilled spirits plants (DSPs) into two report forms now receives priority status. Originally proposed in December 2011, TTB now expects to publish a 2017 “Supplemental NPRM” to gather more comments on the subject.

Among the other TTB rulemaking projects industry members may take an interest in are the following:

  1. TTB’s allergen labeling rulemaking, initiated in April 2005, remains on the Unified Agenda, but under the heading of “Next Action Undetermined.”  This suggests that TTB may walk away from mandatory allergen labeling altogether.
  2. TTB is considering amendments to the “standards of fill” for wine and distilled spirits, with an NPRM projected date of April 2017.
  3. A new item proposes an NPRM to amend the wine labeling regulations in order to better address the labeling of flavored wines.  The project arises from a petition received by TTB and projects an April 2017 publication date.
  4. TTB has withdrawn (and presumably abandoned) the rulemaking project, commenced in 2010, to further define the use of terms like “estate bottled” on wine labels.
  5. TTB continues to plan for a “Supplemental NPRM” to solicit additional comments on the use of an American viticultural area as an appellation on a wine finished in an adjacent state.  TTB now expects to publish the Supplemental NPRM in January 2017.
  6. Final rules arising from the August 2016 NPRM proposal to impose certain Federal Alcohol Administration Act labeling requirements on wines below 7% alcohol by volume are expected in September 2017.
  7. TTB expects to publish an NPRM to permit the labeling of fortified wines in a manner that discloses the addition of grape spirits or brandy to the wine in September 2017.
  8. TTB still promises action to adopt regulations implementing the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.  That NPRM now is scheduled to appear in April 2017.

On December 22, 2016, TTB published a Final Rule implementing the streamlined importation and exportation procedures established by the International Trade Data System (ITDS). See 91 Fed. Reg. 94186 (Dec. 22, 1016). ITDS is an interagency program to establish a “singe window” that importers and exporters can use to submit all data required by Federal agencies in order to clear imports or exports. Under the new system, importers and exporters will need to file only with the “Automated Broker Interface,” a system run and administered by Customs & Border Protection (CBP). The CBP system then makes that data available to every other federal agency, including TTB, which requires it. In short, importers and exporters of alcohol beverages can fulfill all their filing requirements electronically, through a single system.

A link to TTB’s Final Rule is found here.