dhdunbar

Section 30.11, definitions - Proof spirits. That liquid which contains one-half its volume of ethyl alcohol of a specific gravity [weight/volume] of seven thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine ten-thousandths (0.7939) in vacuum at 60 degrees Fahrenheit referred to water at 60 degrees Fahrenheit as unity. Why the differences in the tightness of the acceptable range of proof vs. volume? I cannot give a definitive answer. but the language of section 5.47a convinces me that the difference lies in the limits on the consistency of fill (vs. proof) that can be achieved by persons using good commercial practice. Consider the way the fill tolerance is described in part 5. Tolerances. The following tolerances shall be allowed: (1) Discrepancies due to errors in measuring which occur in filling conducted in compliance with good commercial practice. (2) Discrepancies due to differences in the capacity of bottles, resulting solely from unavoidable difficulties in manufacturing such bottles to a uniform capacity: Provided, That no greater tolerance shall be allowed in case of bottles which, because of their design, cannot be made of approximately uniform capacity than is allowed in case of bottles which can be manufactured so as to be of approximately uniform capacity. (3) Discrepancies in measure due to differences in atmospheric conditions in various places and which unavoidably result from the ordinary and customary exposure of alcoholic beverages in bottles to evaporation. The reasonableness of discrepancies under this paragraph shall be determined on the facts in each case. Note that TTB's regulations assume that you can cut spirits to exactly bottling proof before bottling. You are not given any tolerance above bottling proof. You are allowed a drop in proof. Section 5.37( - "Tolerances. The following tolerances shall be allowed (without affecting the labeled statement of alcohol content) for losses of alcohol content occurring during bottling:" The regulation does not make reference to good commercial practice, but the drop in proof allowed is the result of losses of content during the bottling process, suggesting that TTB has found that the drops up to the tolerances stated will occur even with good commercial practice. I think the regulations bow in the direction of what TTB has concluded are the to practical limits of accuracy.

Yes, because the US standard is 8%, but the Tuva standard could be different. I'll make a general statement. If you are going to export to any other country, ask TTB what that country requires.

I'd check to make sure that the 750 ml bottles for 700 ml labels, when filled, meet the headspace requirements of the country to which you are exporting. The last thing you want is to have a pallet you've shipped to Tuva for the throat singing festival rejected at the border because you've got too much headspace in the bottle. TTB can help with this. Contact the International Affairs Division by phone at (202) 453-2260, or by email at exportcertificates@ttb.gov and ask them whether Tuva has headspace regulations. They are there to help. Do such regulations exist. Yup. We've got them right here in the USA. Although part 5 does not apply to products bottled for export (I missed the fact that the 700 ml bottles were meant for export when I first responded to this thread and got my comeuppance from 3dOg), the US has regulations on headspace: § 5.46 Standard liquor bottles. (a) General. A standard liquor bottle shall be one so made and formed, and so filled, as not to mislead the purchaser. An individual carton or other container of a bottle shall not be so designed as to mislead purchasers as to the size of the bottles. (b ) Headspace. A liquor bottle of a capacity of 200 milliliters or more shall be held to be so filled as to mislead the purchaser if it has a headspace in excess of 8 percent of the total capacity of the bottle after closure. (c ) Design. A liquor bottle shall be held (irrespective of the correctness of the stated net contents) to be so made and formed as to mislead the purchaser, if its actual capacity is substantially less than the capacity it appears to have upon visual examination under ordinary conditions of purchase or use. I'm not saying that Tuva has such standards, but it might. I'm not saying Tuva would enforce the standards if it had them. But it might. I do know that some countries can be tough on imports,so it would be nice to know going in the comeuppance you might be inviting. As the saying goes, "just sayin'..." .

As a consultant who deals with applications, I advise my clients to take care of local issues first. It is pragmatic advice. Let’s take a walk through the proces. TTB is going to require that you submit (1) diagrams of the premises, and more importantly, (2) a signed lease. You do not want to enter into a lease, only to learn that you can’t use the building because of some ordinance, or that you can’t afford to make the leasehold improvements necessary to obtain the required permits. So, since you should take care of local issues before you sign the lease (unless it is contingent on the required approvals), and TTb requires a lease, local issues should take precedence over submitting your application to TTB. The same would apply to submitting your applications for state licenses. You need to have secured your premises first. I would never advise a client to hold off on submitting a state license application until TTB has approved the federal registration and issued the permit. TTB’s average time to completion has deteriorated to 157 days as of October. I can’t speak in terms of “most states,” because I’ve not had experience with a lot, but certainly not al. However, I can say that a lot of states, including PA I think, that require a federal permit before final approval of a state license, will go through all of the steps necessary to give you a commitment to issue once TTB gives its approval to the federal application. The state application then sits ready and when you get the permit, you send the state a copy. Your state license then is approved quickly and without further hassle. I can’t imagine having to add the waiting time for a state license to the waiting time for a federal permit. My best advice, if at all possible - serve those “sentences” concurrently and hope for an early release program.

I had never thought about obscuration resulting from the addition of sugar to vodka. The limit on solids for proofing without taking obscuration into account is indeed 400 ml/liter (Sec. 30.31( - Solids content not more than 600 milligrams. Except as otherwise authorized by the appropriate TTB officer, the proof of spirits containing not more than 600 milligrams of solids per 100 milliliters of spirits shall be determined by the use of a hydrometer and thermometer in accordance with the provisions of §30.23 except that if such spirits contain solids in excess of 400 milligrams but not in excess of 600 milligrams per 100 milliliters at gauge proof, there shall be added to the proof so determined the obscuration determined as prescribed in §30.32.). The the upper limit of sugar addition to vodka, without creating an alteration of class and type, is 2 grams per liter (Section 5.23). So, although I'm not one to make a conversion between metric units, I can move decimal points and 400 ml is clearly 0.4g. And it doesn't take someone too clever to figure out that 2 grams is 2000 mg. I don't know why this had not occured to me in the past. It is worth a mention. Using sugar in excess of 600 mg/liter throws all proofing into another realm. Section 30.31© goes on, "If such spirits contain solids in excess of 600 milligrams per 100 milliliters at gauge proof, the proof shall be determined on the basis of true proof determined as follows: (1) By the use of a hydrometer and a thermometer after the spirits have been distilled in a small laboratory still and restored to the original volume and temperature by the addition of pure water to the distillate; or (2) By a recognized laboratory method which is equal or superior in accuracy to the distillation method. You leave the hydrometer in the box and get out the lab still. I'd never get that right. Thanks for calling my attention to this.

As to the landlord being free and clear of any involvement with any other liquor licenses, your federal application is not going to be affected by that. Some states would object; other states would not. The state tied house laws vary a great deal. However, in the matter of a possible federal objection: (1) TTB will never know that the landlord has a liquor license. They do not run a check on that. (2) Even if they did, there would be no reason to deny based on the involvement per se. See 27 CFR 1.24: 1.24 Qualifications of applicants. The application of any person shall be granted and the permit issued by the appropriate TTB officer if the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the appropriate TTB officer that: (a) Such person (or in case of a corporation, any of its officers, directors, or principal stockholders) has not, within 5 years prior to the date of application, been convicted of a felony under Federal or State law, and has not, within 3 years prior to date of application, been convicted of a misdemeanor under any Federal law relating to liquor, including the taxation thereof; and ( Such person, by reason of the person's business experience, financial standing or trade connections, is likely to commence operations as a distiller, warehouseman and bottler, rectifier, wine producer, wine blender, importer, or wholesaler, as the case may be, within a reasonable period and to maintain such operations in conformity with Federal law; and © The operations proposed to be conducted by such person are not in violation of the law of the State in which they are to be conducted. There are no other grounds for denial of the permit. The registration would not be affected by the ownership of the building as long as the owner consents to use as a DSP. TTB could conceivable find a violation after approval, if the lease contained language which obligated the landlord to buy your products for sale at retail under the license it held. TTB could also object on the grounds that you paid too much for the lease as a way of inducing the landlord to purchase your products. Any straight lease deal that does not involve a requirement or some inducement beyond a legitimate payment for rent is not going to lead to any violations, which, again, occur only after the landlord is required or induced to buy your product to the exclusion in whole or in part of similar products offered for sale by others in interstate commerce. Do you think TTB will want to take a bite of that apple over a lease between a small time craft distiller and a landlord who also happens to have an interest, either directly or indirectly, in a retail license. As someone who made more than a few trade practice investigations, let me assure you that I would not have been interested in such an arrangement. There are too many elements to make a small time deal worth proving and there are far bigger fish to fry. States, however, can be very strict about such arrangements. They are becoming less consumed by three-tier arrangements with each passing year, but they can still be draconian in their interpretations. If in doubt, ask the NC ABC about their position on the matter.

This is a start. The problem is "stuff" happens. Things change. Many of you are pushing for changes. The challenge now is to verify and keep this up. I once made a compliance manual on a single subject, how to register/qualify/etc brands for shipment into states, for a company that distributed in most states. I assure you it is a nightmare. You have what the law says, what the regulations or rules say, what the policy is, and how individuals can misinterpret their own agencies requirements, leading to repeated conversations. Once you have that down as best you can, you face the problem of updates. Few individuals have the time, determination, patience, or frankly, ability to do that. Look to the California Wine Institute's treatment, on its web site, of the rules for interstate shipment, for an example of what needs to be done to make a project like this work. Since 2004, Wine Institute and ShipCompliant have partnered to provide Wine Institute members with clear and accurate details and documents for compliant direct-to-consumer wine shipments in each state. The State Shipping Laws for Wineries Portal on Wine Institute's website is powered by ShipCompliant and continuously updated—through a joint effort—to stay current as a foremost source of accurate direct shipping compliance information for wineries. Additionally, Wine Institute and ShipCompliant collaborate to develop tools that help wineries manage complex direct-to-consumer compliance requirements. In 2007, Wine Institute licensed ShipCompliant's State Sales and Excise Tax Rate Tool (Tax Tool) as a benefit to all member wineries. Wine Institute staff are also frequent contributors to the ShipCompliant Blog and DIRECT conference. You will find that at http://wineinstitute.shipcompliant.com/AboutUs.aspx. Now ask yourselves, who can fill that roll for you guys? Might I suggest that you look to/petition ADI or other organizations to see if you can convince them to foot the bill to have someone keep things current and accurate. You pay for membership. Ask for a return on that investment. PS - I am not volunteering for that job!

Federally - You may not conduct restaurant business on the premises qualified under federal law as a distilled spirits plant. Further, you can't sell any liquors at retail on distilled spirits plant premises. That is prohibited by law. If you want to locate the pizza oven on the DSP premises. you would have to ask TTB for a variance allowing you to do so. Alternately, you could build a fence around the oven and take it off premises, but you will have to have separate access - not through the distillery. You must also have access to the distillery from a public space that does not pass through the restaurant. And people entering the restaurant can't pass through the distillery. State and locally - it is all over the place. I'd cite the sources, but I'm on vacation in Hawaii and am not jumping into that. I'm posting this between beach times.

No. You can but do not need to add sugar. You can, but do not need to add citric. Adding citric lets you take advantage of credits for the alcohol content of the citric you add. In all likelihood, you and everyone else who reads this will not want to deal with the records required for the tax credit. But if you add sugar (it makes it taste more like some of the expensive imports)or citric, then you do that BEFORE you cut to bottling proof. But you are correct, you filter before you make the cut. The cut to bottling proof is the last thing you do before putting it in the bottle.

700 ml is not an authorized size. The authorized sizes are: §5.47a Metric standards of fill (distilled spirits bottled after December 31, 1979). (a) Authorized standards of fill. The standards of fill for distilled spirits are the following: (1) For containers other than cans described in paragraph (a)(2), of this section— 1.75 liters 1.00 liter 750 milliliters 500 milliliters (Authorized for bottling until June 30, 1989) 375 milliliters 200 milliliters 100 milliliters 50 milliliters (2) For metal containers which have the general shape and design of a can, which have a closure which is an integral part of the container, and which cannot be readily reclosed after opening— 355 milliliters 200 milliliters 100 milliliters 50 milliliters If you find spirits in 700 ml bottles, say Cutty Sark Scotch, it is likely a gray market or counterfeit product (there is difference) entered into commerce outside of the channels generally occupied by the sole authorized US agent and taking advantage of price differences in say an FTZ in Cypress and the importers price in the US. Anyway, you don't want 700 ML (or 70 CL bottles) on goods you want to market here.

Okay - the refill provisions to which people are making reference appear in the dealer regulations, part 31. I applaud the actual citation of a regulation, but : §31.0 Scope. This part contains the requirements relating to the registration of wholesale and retail dealers in liquors and in beer and to the operations of such dealers, including recordkeeping requirements, prescribed under title 26 of the United States Code. This part also contains provisions relating to entry of dealers' premises and inspection of their records by TTB officers.The prohibition is intended to keep a wholesaler or retailer from putting low price vodka into a bottle labeled as a high priced vodka not that many could tell the difference when mixed (okay, I'm cynical about vodka, but Smirnoff, often malign, kicked high end butt, in a tasting by reportedly sophisticated pallets). It is not designed to keep a DSP from refilling bottles. The bottle regulations for DSP's are found in part 19. Sec. 19.511 Bottles authorized. Each liquor bottle for nonindustrial distilled spirits for domestic use must conform to a bottle size specified in the standards of fill set forth in subpart E of part 5 of this chapter. This rule applies to liquor bottles intended for distribution in both interstate and intrastate commerce. Two other sections address distinctive bottles and bottles that TB finds might be deceptive as to their contents. That is is. So I see no prohibition in TTB's rules against a reused bottle. If it satisfied the requirements on the first use, then it should on the second. However, someone else makes a good point. Don't just accept my statement that it should be of no concern to TTB, no matter how authoritatively I may pretend to speak. When in doubt, WRITE to TTB and ask them to respond in writing about whether you can do it and also ask that they cite the sections of the law or regulation that apply, just to keep them honest. You should get an answer within six months. The health department may have other ideas, and if you inadvertently leave foreign material in the bottle, say a dead mouse someone stuffed in as a joke, the lawsuit that could follow would tend to render the whole idea ill advised. That, of course, is not legal advice because I'm not qualified to give it. I can, however, suggest that you just recycle the glass so it can be crushed and used in freeways. If it happens to be used in a clogged freeway in a major city it will be further evidence that such bottles pave the way to hell..

Yes, there is an exemption from most of the part 5 requirements for products sold only in intrastate commerce, but oh there are so many catches, slightly less than 22, but still .... Look at the name of the form: "Application for and Certification/Exemption of Label/Bottle Approval." That is, you must get TTB to grant you the exemption by submitting the same form. Next, you must label the bottles, "For Sale in Hawaii Only." The customer then asks, "How come?" Finally, if you get the exemption from label approval, you still have to comply with all of the labeling requirements part 19 places on labels that are exempt from part 5. Did I say that these requirements are mirror images of the many, but not all, requirements of part 5 requirements? Look at 19.517. If a proprietor bottles spirits for domestic use under a certificate of exemption from label approval on form TTB F 5100.31, the following information must appear on the label used on the bottle, in the manner indicated: (a) Brand name. The brand name on the label must conform to the requirements of Sec. 5.34 of this chapter; ( Kind. The class and type of the spirits identified on the label must conform to the requirements of Sec. 5.35 of this chapter; © Alcohol content. The alcohol content on the label must conform to the requirements of Sec. 5.37(a) of this chapter; (d) State of distillation. In the case of whisky, the state of distillation statement on the label must conform to the requirements of Sec. 5.36(d) of this chapter; (e) Net contents. The label must show the net contents, unless the statement of net contents is permanently marked on the side, front, or back of the bottle; (f) Name and address of bottler. The name and address of the bottler must conform to the requirements of Sec. 19.518; (g) Age of whisky containing no neutral spirits. In the case of whisky containing no neutral spirits, statements of age and percentage by volume on the label must conform to the requirements of Sec. 5.40 of this chapter; (h) Age of whisky containing neutral spirits. In the case of whisky containing neutral spirits, the label must state the age of the whisky or whiskies and the respective percentage by volume of whisky or whiskies and neutral spirits in accordance with Sec. 5.40 of this chapter; (i) Age of brandy. In the case of brandy aged for a period of less than two years, the label must state the age. (j) Presence of neutral spirits or coloring, flavoring, or blending material. The label must indicate the presence of neutral spirits or coloring, flavoring, or blending material in accordance with Sec. 5.39 of this chapter; and (k) Country of origin. Labels of imported spirits must state the country of origin in substantially the following form: ``Product of ------------,'' with the blank filled in with the name of the country of origin. And you still must have a health warning statement. So, since you have to apply, have to have most of the same statements, and have to include "For Sale in Hawaii Only," somehow the temptation to get exempted is far less inviting. I'd put a smiley emoticon on the end of that sentance, but I think what is given with the one hand is taken away with the other, leaving little reason to smile about a new found workaround TTB's label delays.. Did I mention that you also lose the cover that pre-approval gives, not that it matters in civil suits like the one brought against Tito's, but if TTB approves a label it later finds in violation, they have to jump through the hoops in part 13 to take action. If they haven't approved the label .... It's late. Good luck. I'm going to be in Hawaii in a week. Don't go looking to harpoon the messenger.

I hadn't seen this thread before. Whatever the quality considerations may be, the regulation is specific. You have to do the gauge for bottling after you filter. Sec. 19.353 Bottling tank gauge. - When a distilled spirits product is to be bottled or packaged, the proprietor must gauge the product after any filtering, reduction, or other treatment, and before bottling or packaging begins. The gauge must be made at labeling or package marking proof, and the details of the gauge must be entered on the bottling and packaging record required in Sec. 19.599. Now, for purposes of the records, that means that the dump and batch record that shows the addition of water is going to have to show that the filtration took place before cutting to bottling proof. Then the gauge is made at bottling proof and recorded in the bottling record. [Don't forget that after bottling begins you are supposed to do a proof and fill check and record that too - see Sec. 19.600 Alcohol content and fill test record.]. If you don't know know what I'm talking about, take another look at the record requirements. This is one of those times when I fly the "don't shoot the messenger flag." Will TTB object if they find you are doing otherwise? Those who have gone through an audit can tell you that better than I can. It is not going to be a hanging offense. If they find that you are outside of the tolerance of .15% allowed for a drop in proof on bottling (there is no tolerance for over-proof) they may formally cite you. But even then, it is not a hanging offense. Take a look at their market basket statistics - they buy products off the shelf and test them - and you'll see that year after year 20% of the products sampled are not in compliance in some way and the majority of those are alcohol content or fill errors, yet you do not see a lot of offers-in-compromise over proof issues. Actually, you don't see any, but you don't want to be the first! Do your best do to do what is required. It minimizes angst if you are prone to it. This suggests that the cut close to, but over, then filter, and make the final cut scenario is probably the best.

Actually, the fiscal year has nothing to do with it. Well, it may have something to do with it, but if it does, it is hidden, improbably, in the technical reasons that fall out of something called the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act. Uruguay Round, really? Yup. I'm not kidding. TTB "explains" the need for three returns (only if you file semimonthly - not if you file quarterly) in a 1995 Industry Circular, which you can find at http://www.ttb.gov/industry_circulars/archives/1995/95-04.html. TT states: "The Uruguay Round Agreements Act enacted on December 8, 1994, amended the law relating to the payment of certain excise taxes. The new law permanently accelerates the payment of taxes due on distilled spirits, wine, beer, tobacco products, and cigarette papers and tribes for the second semimonthly period of September. The new law splits the second semimonthly period of September into two payment periods and requires receipt of payment as described below." That is hardly an explanation. But don't look t me for anything more. Although I pretend to understand how most regulations evolved since the end of prohibition, this one is a Gordian knot that I don't even attempt to unravel. For example, Sec 101 of the Uruguay Act act provides as follows: SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS. (a) APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS AND STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.—^Pursuant to section 1103 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2903) and section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), the Congress approves— (1) the trade agreements described in subsection (d) resulting from the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, entered into on April 15, 1994, and submitted to the Congress on September 27,1994; and (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to implement the agreements that was submitted to the Congress on September 27,1994. If you have some masochistic need to flay yourself with more such language, you can pursue this further by downloading a copy of the act from the internet. Be prepared, it takes a couple of minutes to do so. That's to download it - not understand it. I have no idea how long that would take, because I haven't pursued it further and don't intend to. For me, this provision falls into the category of "those things that are because TTB says they are." What you should understand, if TTB calls you on it, are the rules for payment in the regulations. You can find those in Section 19.237. The "safe harbor" rules in subsection ( make things a bit easier, but only if you do not try to understand "why" or "how"."

They CONTRACT the IT to a private firm. It fits the private is always better than public model. So TTB does not have a budget to hire their own IT people.

What things would be typically near the 400 range? Example - Canadian whiskeys made with a blending agent and sugar. Certain cocktails. Are any oils or other things that come over in distillation ever considered 'solids', such as those found in a gin or a vapor infused flavored vodka ? No. How can I say this with assurance when I'm certainly no chemist? Consider this - one acceptable way you can determine the obscuration is by distillation: Distillation method. Determine the apparent proof and temperature of the sample of spirits and then distill a carefully measured sample in a small laboratory still, and collect a quantity of the distillate, 1 or 2 milliliters less than the original sample. The distillate is adjusted to the original temperature and restored to the original volume by addition of distilled water. The proof of the restored distillate is then determined by use of a precision hydrometer and thermometer in accordance with the provisions of §13.23 to the nearest 0.1 degree of proof. The difference between the proof so determined and the apparent proof of the undistilled sample is the obscuration; or So, that means obscuration is the solids left behind when you redistill = it is also anything left behind when you originally distill = it is never present in gin, vodka, whiskey, brandy or anything that contains only the vapors that come into the spirits through distillation.

This post just came to my attention. I missed it in June, but Mr. Niekamp's response brought it to the top of the list. I think I need to respond, because (1) my experience is different from Mr. Niekamp's, and (2) no one has addressed the issue of retail premises in the same building. I think by now it is probably a matter Alex has settled, in one way or another, but I’d like to address the issue anyway, since others may be concerned. I will deal with the different experiences first. I have probably been involved in 20 or more applications to establish a DSP in a building that houses other businesses. I have never seen a hesitance by TTB to grant permits to distillers within multi-unit buildings. I can state categorically that the collocation with other businesses within buildings like a strip malls has never been a problem. For example, I obtained approval for a DSP in a condominium with mixed residential and commercial use. The approval came in the form of a private ruling by TTB, after full disclosure of all circumstances. I do not recommend that you plan a DSP in such a building without getting TTB's prior approval of the location, because the ruling my client has did not establish a broad precedent. Because it was particular to the circumstances, I don't want to get into that any further here. I simply want to say that it is possible. Mr. Niekamp is correct about separation, but my experience is that standard stick frame construction always suffices as separation. If you protect your assets from theft by other than forced entry, and you damned well better do so, or you'll be trying to locate the copper from the still in the local junk yard where it was sold for scrap value, I do not think that you need to search for a further “way around” TTB’s rules. I think TTB has an open door to collocation, unless a residence is involved, and even there the door is not closed to all circumstances. To demonstrate TTB’s flexibility, I also obtained approval for a distilled spirits plant located within the same building as a brewery of separate ownership, with no common principals. The brewery and DSP were located within the same warehouse “space,” with the brewery subleasing to the distillery, but were separated by a chain link fence that did not reach floor to ceiling and that had a gate that opened to allow delivery of bulk beer from the brewery to the distillery without leaving the building. Again, this was done with full disclosure to TTB. They may have been a bit reluctant, in this case, since they asked for photographs of the fence, but in the end they said okay. I’ve done other “collocations” of this sort and do not hesitate to assure clients that TTB is not going to object. The advice on separate entrances is on point. The DSP must have an entrance from a public area and access to the other areas of the building cannot be through the DSP. An entrance from a hallway, which has access to a public area, and which is common space shared by tenants or owners, is acceptable public access. I would add a caveat that if the other areas contain residences, TTB is likely to require a separate entrance that is not shared, regardless of whether the shared access is through common space. Where you may need advice is in navigating the waters that pass through local zoning, fire, water, and development codes. Very few consultants who offer services, as I do in 50 states, are familiar with local codes. Because the codes vary from place to place, in a seemingly arbitrary manner, I make no claim to such familiarity and I’m not interested in trying to understand them. Architect, builders, and even DSP owners, are better able to assist with local issues. Next, my advice is always take care of those local issues first, because we can generally find a solution to federal issues. To answer your specific questions. You state that it is an historical building. TTB used to require that you answer questions about historic locations. They no longer do. This is not a TTB issue. But be aware of the possibility of the National Historic Preservation Act affecting what you can do in a building that is eligible for historical status. This is something that the landlord and the developer should know about. Further, the fact that you are talking about a DSP, as opposed, say, to a facility that cans cat food, should not matter. You then state, “Potential site owner is hesitant about leasing to manufacture & retail distillery and not being able to use the other floors for say leasing to restaurant that has a liquor license.” This requires a little more careful parsing. First, you will not have a distilled spirits plant from which you make retail sales. That is prohibited under federal law, not just regulation, and so is not something for which TTB can consider granting a variance. However, may, as I will explain below, make sales from an adjacent space, separated by walls or fencing, from the area you have described, on your application, as DSP premises. But the retail area will not be a part of the area you have described as DSP premises, because unless the specialist is asleep at the wheel, and the reviewers are also asleep, TTB is going to slam the door to that prospect. They allowed this in the past in some cases. They have become very strict about this now. Assuming that standard walls separate the restaurant/bar and the DSP, whether the entity holding the DSP permit and registration operates the retail area or someone unrelated operates the retail area, TTB will not take issue with this. Think about the number of tasting rooms/retail sales spaces that are included in the area leased by a distillery, but described as being off DSP premise. In summary, if you described an area as being part of the DSP, then it is. If you do not describe it as part of the DSP, it is not. The boundaries between what is included and what is exclude from the premises must be secure, but, setting residences aside, TTB does not care what is on the other side. If the bear went over the mountain to see what he could see, it could be a school, church, fireworks factory, Hooters, brewery, or indoor pole faulting facility. It would not matter. But if it were a pole faulting facility, TTB just might want those chain link walls to extend from floor to ceiling! Again, excluding residences, for TTB there are no additional rules. As long as the retail area is not on DSP premises, is properly separated, and has separate public access, TTB has no problem, Even if TTB were reluctant to approve, there is no law or regulation on which they might lean to do so. That is not to say that your landlord may not have reason for concern, since local laws and regulation that would prohibit a location like this are going to trump TTB’s lack of concern. Simply put, you must obey the strictest of the rules unless they are in direct and positive conflict, and I don’t want to get into that here, other than to say that direct and positive conflict occurs only when obeying one law results in violating the other. Location questions are not going to result in direct and positive conflict. Finally, by your link, you make reference to the trade practice provisions of the regulations. I could try a lengthy explanation, but everyone is probably already nearly comatose reading this, so I’ll cut to the chase. If the landlord is concerned about some statute proscribing him from leasing to both you and a retailer, there is no need for concern. TTB does not exercise prior restraint here because leasing to both is not, in and of itself, a violation of any provision of federal law and regulation. What do we then make of the material to which you supply a link? The landlord has no reason for concern. First, the laws to which you link do not apply to him, only to you as an "industry member," that is, as a producer or bottler of spirits. In fact, under those federal laws and regulations, there is an absolute safe harbor for the landlord. Unless less the landlord uses the retailer’s lease in way that either induces or requires the retailer to buy your products to the exclusion, in whole or in part, of similar products offered for sale by others in interest commerce, there is no violation period. That is a mouthful and it is the string of elements TTB must prove that pretty much guarantees TTB is not going to want to spend much time looking at the trade practices of a craft distillery in St. Louis when it has far bigger fish to fry with the limited time it has available to make those sort of drawn out investigations. But remember, even if the landlord did impose this requirement, the law does not say that he cannot do it. It says you cannot do it. And since you are not the person leasing to the retailer, unless you and the landlord conspire, the landlord is home free. Further, even if you did conspire, the landlord would have to be have to be indicted under aiding and abetting or conspiracy statutes, which ain’t about to happen unless the Justice Department has gone bonkers. First, no one is interested in bringing these sort of misdemeanor cases into a federal courtroom. Second, Nobody is interested in bringing these sort of misdemeanor cases into a federal court room. Third, no on is interested .... Explaining all of that to a landlord may be a bit of a challenge, but in practice the landlord has nothing to fear from TTB. N o law prohibits him from leasing to both and even if he does, I cannot think of any scenario under which TTB would get after him. I've got to add the caveat that this is not intended as legal advice, so if anyone has an concerns or questions, talk with an attorney who specializes in federal trade practice matters, That is the federal side. Call the state ABC to make sure that they do not impose restrictive requirements on licensees. They are often concerned about things like the distance between a licensee and a school or church, and there are some strange “blue laws” and licensing rules out there. Only your state and local regulator can answer those questions. I’ll speak confidently about federal law. I will not pretend to speak confidently about local law. I hope that this response has not been too long. Those who wade through it and have questions can contact me by personal message. I’ll gladly consult on particular circumstances, but I did want to try to give here what I think is a more or less definitive answer to the general questions Alex posed in his posting.

I've not weighed in here. I'll offer some general comments. I think they can put things into a perspective of use. Here is what I tell clients. I know what TTB wants, so we can prepare good applications that should pass muster. Every word of that is true. So is every word of this - I still can't guarantee you that an application I prepare and submit will beat the published averages (right now that is 114 days in July, down from 128 in June). Fact set 1 - applications that I submit for clients look remarkably the same, except for the details of financing and statements of production procedure, and even those fall into patterns. Further, even though the premises differ a great deal, the descriptions TTB requires follows a format. Next, it takes about 15 minutes of head banging to figure out bond amounts and if you go through an agent who knows what is required, as I do, bonds should not be a problem. I repeat, the applications are remarkable similar. Fact set 2 - Even though the applications I submit look very similar and satisfy TTB's requirements, and even though the bonds are good - all the right powers of attorney, boxes checked, etc -, the time to approval varies quite a bit. I don't want to turn this into an ad, so I won't give typical times. If a potential client asks, I will say that I usually beat the average time, but even with a good application, I get some that linger longer than the average. I have even had a disaster - 174 days a year or so ago - and that was on a good application in a case where the specialist did not raise one issue. It simply sat. I tried everything short of dynamite to get it moving. Conclusion - If my similar applications show a range of well over 100 days, then the time from submission until approval is not closely correlated to the quality of the application. Yes, the care with which an application was prepared will probably affect time to approval - I can only imagine the difference with which the specialists must deal - but care in preparation is no guarantee of timely approval, which has a lot to do with the workload and work habits of the specialist who reviews it. . Message 1 - it makes no sense to take a small sample composed of the persons who respond here, over a couple of years time, and try to project what is likely to happen with your application when you submit it today. Forget nuances like the fact the sample isn't random; the principal problem is that it is too small. Message 2 - Even if we took a 100% sample, I've got a hunch the standard deviation in time to approval is high. I said that the average time in July was 114 days. I'd bet my dollars to your donuts that the actual approvals don't cluster around that date. I'd bet they spread across quite a range. Message 3 - All of this means that I think the average time to approval is not a typical time to approval and you really have no information on which you can rely.. Recommendation - Submit a good application, which puts you in a position to get lucky if the application falls into the hands of a specialist who moves paper. But remember that even good applications can get stuck, like a fermentation, long before completion. Be prepared to wait until TTB approves, because there is not much anyone can do to make a specialist move faster than the specialist is going to move.

The applicable section of the regulations appears, in passing, in the video to which you link. It is 27 CFR 30.32. § 30.32 Determination of proof obscuration. (a) General. Proof obscuration of spirits containing more than 400 but not more than 600 milligrams of solids per 100 milliliters shall be determined by one of the following methods. The evaporation method may be used only for spirits in the range of 80–100 degrees at gauge proof. ( Evaporation method. Evaporate the water and alcohol from a carefully measured 25 milliliter sample of spirits, dry the residue at 100 degrees centigrade for 30 minutes and then weigh the residue precisely. Multiply the weight of the residue by 4 to determine the weight of solids in 100 milliliters. The resulting weight per 100 milliliters multiplied by 4 will give the obscuration. Experience has shown that 0.1 gram (100 milligrams) of solids per 100 milliliters of spirits in the range of 80–100 degrees proof will obscure the true proof by 0.4 of one degree of proof. For example, if the weight of solids remaining after evaporation of 25 milliliters 0.125 gram, the amount of solids present in 100 milliliters of the spirits is 0.50 gram (4 times 0.125). The obscuration is 4 times 0.50, which is two degrees of proof. This value added to the temperature corrected hydrometer reading will give the true proof. © Distillation method. Determine the apparent proof and temperature of the sample of spirits and then distill a carefully measured sample in a small laboratory still, and collect a quantity of the distillate, 1 or 2 milliliters less than the original sample. The distillate is adjusted to the original temperature and restored to the original volume by addition of distilled water. The proof of the restored distillate is then determined by use of a precision hydrometer and thermometer in accordance with the provisions of §13.23 to the nearest 0.1 degree of proof. The difference between the proof so determined and the apparent proof of the undistilled sample is the obscuration; or (d) Pycnometer method. Determine the specific gravity of the undistilled sample, distill and restore the samples as provided in paragraph © of this section and determine the specific gravity of the restored distillate by means of a pycnometer. The specific gravities so obtained will be converted to degrees of proof by interpolation of Table 6 to the nearest 0.1 degree of proof. The difference in proof so obtained is the obscuration. (Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85–859, 72 Stat. 1358, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5204))

Ezras; The world of labels is replete with examples of what you call two "brand" names. But there is only one brand name on the label. Why? It is a matter of definition. People who bottle wine, or spirits have a basic permit. The permit is held in their legal name. ABC, LLC. They may also have a trade name, 123 Distilling. 123 Distilling is the name they put on the sign on their plant. They may also have another trade name, a bottling trade name, A1B1 Spirits Co. In the world of TTB - and this is not any different than the world of soap powder if you think about the conglomerate nature of most businesses these days - ABC, LLC, dba 123 Distilling, may have may own all sorts of brands. Let's say they have three A-1 Vodka, B-4 Bourbon, and GR-8 Gin. The brands are trademarks. 123 Distilling is a trade name. Trade names and marks are legally different. Regulations come in three sorts. What you must do; what you must not do, and what you may do - but do not need to do - if you follow certain rules. On a label of distilled spirits, a brand name is mandatory, sort of. The name and address of the bottler is always mandatory. Go to 27 CFR 5.32 and follow its links to explanations of what your label must contain. The point is, what you call two "brand names" is actually (1) a "brand name" and (2) the "name" of the bottler, which may be either is legal name, or it it has one, it's trade name, which, in turn may be either the operating name or the bottling trade name. The brand name is what you hope the customer will identify with and be loyal to. The trade names lead them to the person they are going to sue if there is some vile chemical in the bottle.

1. I'm not in the business. I consult. As a consultant I see a lot of different business plans. 2. I may have missed it, but it seems no one has mentioned local permitting. Talk with others in Denver who have had to deal with building department and fire marshal. You do not want a location that cannot pass muster. That may be an obvious and unnecessary warning, but it is still worth saying just in case. 3. You also plan on tasting and selling spirits. Make sure that you can create a separate area in which to taste and from which to sell. TTB will not allow sales or tasting on "distillery premises." That said, distillery premises is the area you decide to call the distillery, so you get to draw the lines on the floor where you will build the separation - wall or chain link and eight foot high suffices, that you must have between the DSP and the retail area. Also consider public access to the tasting/sales area. It can't be across DSP premises. 4. As to time lines, TTB's average time to approval now is 123 days. This varies month to month. That means that from the time you submit to the time TTB approves, it was almost four months for application approved in April, the last month for which TTB has published figures. But the wait does not end there. 5. Since you will be making an infused vodka, you will need to get formula approval before you make application for label approval. You may not put a label that has not bee approved on a bottle. The average time to approval of the formula and label are 57 days and 28 days respectively. You must add this time to the four months average for permit approval because TTB will not accept formula or label applications from persons whose basic permit has not been approved. We are now talking, in averages, six and a half months before you can sell your peach infused vodka. 6. That's TTB . Ask existing distillers in Colorado how long the state is taking. 7. Next, the money angle. I don't have the background to comment on the financial aspects of the business plan. I know of one distillery that succeed on $45,000, but they fabricated the still and had members with marketing backgrounds that allowed them to get press coverage etc. They did it without a tasting room or direct sales, but they were in a control state that supports local products, so that got initial distribution in state stores. I've had other clients who invest $1M plus. There are a lot of avenues to success - and failure. I'm just not the one to provide sound advice on that. 8. Re saturation - I've always been suspect of bubbles. But I live in Washington. I was around the wine industry when there were about eight wineries in the state and there was not a great prospect for any one of them. Then something changed. Ste. Michelle bought in and began varietal wine production. Using the money available to it from its large corporate owner, it began producing and promoting Washington wine. When the number of wineries got to 100, I said, there has to be a limit and we must be approaching it. Ditto at 200, 400, etc. There are now over 800. Where is the limit? Are we on a bubble that will burst? 9. A lot of people who could have said the risk of market saturation at 100 wineries is too great, but did not, have successful wineries today because they took the risk that 100 was not a bubble. 10. In terms of bubbles, I'd feel more comfortable investing on a stock market dollar-cost averaging sort of model than I would buying in all at once, only to find that I did so at the peak. But here's the thing, that's me and it ain't my money we are talking about. A financial consultant should ask you about your tolerance for risk before advising you on how to invest. Before taking advice from anyone, ask yourself the same question.

NO. Capital letters scream! And I resort to exclamation points (!!!!) as well. Oak chips do not a barrel make, to paraphrase a poem by Frost. You can't toss oak chips into a malt mash and call the distillate malt whiskey. Do not let the provisions of Sec. 19.303 fool you. "A proprietor may add oak chips that have not been treated with any chemical to packages of spirits prior to or after the production gauge," because (1) that is an addition to spirits; and (2) although you may do it, doing it does not make whiskey. You have to put it in a barrel. If you designate it is malt whiskey, it must be a new charred oak barrel. If you designated it "whiskey distilled from malt mash," it can be a used oak barrel, but it must be a barrel . Don't ask me how long you have to keep it in oak; TTB has made a debacle of that. But you do have to make a truthful statement of how long it was in oak and TTB appears to be trying to recapture territory, that it previously surrendered by default, by now insisting that "Less than one year" is not a sufficient statement. They announced that with some fanfare. The only exception to a statement of age is for whiskey stored in oak for more than four years. Any label that contains no statement of age is read to mean the stuff in the bottle was aged in oak for more than four years. If it was not, the omission is deceptive and in violation. My guess is that TTB will be looking at that if they come a-knocking of your distillery door. So, to quote another poet, I'd suggest you "Nevermore" omitting a statement of age on whiskey less than four years old. That means, if you follow the wag who, in answer t to the question,"How long in oak?" offers the seemingly clever response, "How long does it take to roll a barrel across the floor?" be prepared to respond,in turn, with a label that says, "Aged for 24 seconds."

The above ruling applies to brandy, not whiskey. Whiskey must go into oak barrels. It is part of the standard of identity - 5.22(. It can be whiskey without going into oak only if TTB is asleep at the wheel when they approve the application for label approval. Buy the way, the class for the product is "malt whiskey," not single malt. Single malt is a Scottish designation, not applicable to American type whiskeys. TTB has not standard that makes a malt a single malt.

People who are selling in North Carolina know more about the details of this issue than I do, but: (1) The state ABC determines if your product will be "listed," that is made available for sale, in North Carolina; however (2) You do not sell to the State ABC, which buys nothing; all sales at retail rae made by local ABC's, to which you sell the product. (3) Even though it buys nothing, the State ABC operates a bailment warehouse to which you must ship all products that will be sold in NC (aside from those you will be able to sell at our distillery under the new law); (4) You own the product in the bailment warehouse; (5) The fact that the state lists the product and accepts it into its warehouse does not mean that you will have a customer for the products you ship there; (6) Each local ABC independently decide what products it will buy and you must convince each of them, independently, to order your product for sale; (7) The state has a broker system; (8 )Broker's represent you with the State ABC to get the initial listing and with the local ABC's to secure sales; (9) The state requires that you obtain a federal basic permit as a wholesaler liquor dealer at the location of its bailment warehouse; (10) The state says that TTB requires this, and although I think that TTB would not require it given the fact that the state warehouse is a place of storage only, since TTB makes no charge, it is easy to go along with the rules than argue over niceties. Here is a link to a state explanation of its system. http://resources.abc.nc.gov/Public%20Web%20Documents/Divisions/Pricing%5CNew%20Suppliers%5CBasic%20Guidelines.pdf To learn more about the details of your relationship to your broker, talk with distillers who are selling to the state.

We need to make a distinction between keeping financial records and keeping "government records" required to account for spirits. I think this thread is doing that, but it is worth a comment. CPA's - or accountants in general - learn how to classify and report financial transactions. People who audit financial transactions follow a particular set of rules (generally accepted auditing standards or GAAS) to test whether you are keeping your records according to generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP). All of that is accountant talk and, aside from certain universal notions, like internal controls, all of it is absolutely irrelevant to TTB's rules about excise taxes on distilled spirits, bonds, compliance with operating standards, and label claims and designations, etc.. TTB's regulations replace GAAP, which is the CPA's bailiwick, in determining how to classify operations and transactions in DSP records. An audit firm that does "compliance auditing," which can be described as a review of your adherence to regulatory guidelines, works under a separate set of auditing rules. One of the first principles is that the auditor must have an understanding of the industry and of the rules. Few CPA's have any idea of the rules that apply to DSP operations. While I would never go so far as to say that their advice on TTB compliance is worthless, I guarantee that you do not want to pay them their rates while they are coming up to speed on Parts 19 and 5. So I suggest that you not use a CPA to review those records or prepare those tax returns. In truth, although the "government records" can seem confusing, in most cases they are simple enough that good old analog systems, operating on the KISS principle, work just fine. You may want to create a few spreadsheets, but if you are not engaged in all manner of transactions, you can develop a set of records that will meet your needs. Then you can hire a bookkeeper, at bookkeeper rates, to keep those records for you if yo do not want to do it yourself. I will leave it to others, who have business experience on which they can draw, to provide advice about whether you should use a CPA, an accountant, or a bookkeeper to keep your financial records. I will offer one bit of advice, in any case you should keep an active hand in both financial and government recording and reporting. Ultimately, the problem is going to be yours, when someone says show up tomorrow to sign, and oh, yea, bring a check for $14,000 or, sorry buddy, but you can't call the spirits in that bottle bourbon.