dhdunbar

I'll try to get this into perspective before tings spin out of control. You are required to put two kinds of marks on a barrel. One is the lot identification number. The lot identification number ties the barrel to the package record and the package record ties it to the package gauge record. Any number of barrels of the same product filled to the same fill on the same day can have the same lot identification number. See §19.485. the lot identification number is a coded number. If you don't have a number that looks like this, "02A02B," which translates as this is from the 3rd lot filled in on 1/2/2002. You are supposed to follow that code. Next, §19.483(b) and (c) provide that you may use labels as the means for applying prescribed marks if the labels meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of that section (they have to be legible, etc). A proprietor must place the prescribed marks on one side of the case or encased container, or on the head of the package. Now, in addition to the lot identification number I'm sure you are all usng, §19.484 requires a bunch more information and §19.486 requires still more if you repackage the product into another container. But none of this establishes a tax liability and TTB can't assess taxes on the mere prospect that something may have escaped the system. They need to prove the liability; you need to prove the deductions, or, in the case of excise taxes on spirits, prove that any quantities to which the tax has attached, and which were not withdrawn on determination of tax, are accounted for in ways that demonstrate tax was not due. TTB can suspend permits, or collect offers in compromise, or even fine you, if they can find a US Attorney willing to take such a case into federal court, which is not going to happen unless the omission of markings is a part of a fraud that has far more serious consequences. However, Bluestar is correct. If your records don't allow TTB to trace the spirits through the system, AND you can't account for what you are liable, then there is a potential for an assessment on the quantities for which you can't account. Even tough that requires a lot more than leaving a label off a barrel, there is no reason not to affix the label with the staples Bluestar suggests. Hoochware alos prints labels, so most database systems probably do. But you can do it with the permanent marker on a piece of paper you attach with staples.

Any grape brandy not aged in an oak container must be labeled "immature brandy." Acceleration, even if it works, is not an acceptable alternative under TTB's rules. Note that I'm the neutral messenger here. I don't take a position that one is better than the other; I just say that there are legal consequences to not aging grape brandy in an oak container for two years or more. 5.22(d)(1) ... . Fruit brandy, derived from grapes, shall be designated as “grape brandy” or “brandy”, except that in the case of brandy (other than neutral brandy, pomace brandy, marc brandy, grappa brandy, Pisco, Pisco Perú, or Pisco Chileno) distilled from the fermented juice, mash, or wine of grapes, or the residue thereof, which has been stored in oak containers for less than 2 years, the statement of class and type shall be immediately preceded, in the same size and kind of type, by the word “immature”.

TTB can't allow more than one gallon because that limit comes straight from the law. If you want larger consumer sizes, you will have to get congress to make that change. TTB cannot do it by regulation alone. Here is what the law says. §206. Bulk sales and bottling (a) Offenses It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) To sell or offer to sell, contract to sell, or otherwise dispose of distilled spirits in bulk except, under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, for export or to the following, or to import distilled spirits in bulk except, under such regulations, for sale to or for use by the following: A distiller, rectifier of distilled spirits, person operating a bonded warehouse qualified under the internal-revenue laws or a class 8 bonded warehouse qualified under the customs laws, a winemaker for the fortification of wines, a proprietor of an industrial alcohol plant, or an agency of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof. (2) To sell or offer to sell, contract to sell, or otherwise dispose of warehouse receipts for distilled spirits in bulk unless such warehouse receipts require that the warehouseman shall package such distilled spirits, before delivery, in bottles labeled and marked in accordance with law, or deliver such distilled spirits in bulk only to persons to whom it is lawful to sell or otherwise dispose of distilled spirits in bulk. (3) To bottle distilled spirits unless the bottler is a person to whom it is lawful to sell or otherwise dispose of distilled spirits in bulk. (b) Penalty Any person who violates the requirements of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, and shall forfeit to the United States all distilled spirits with respect to which the violation occurs and the containers thereof. (c) "In bulk" defined The term "in bulk" mean in containers having a capacity in excess of one wine gallon.

Whose idea was this and how did they determine they should propose it? Look at a 40 section. It' s ot room for x scu's. If Conglomerate Y has one size for product Z, then product Z takes 2 or three slots depending on turns. If he has four sizes, that multiplies the number of slot's the product fills. That favors him over guess who. Why are large producers taking a stake in "craft?" Let me propose, their distributors want a share of the craft market and acquisition gives the conglomerate a brand to fill that need and not just coincidentally the slots that brand takes up. Retailers get to have the craft segment they need and they get to deal with fewer reps. Decisions involve hard work. A retailer can get both majors and craft with a single sales call. Do you think Lay's makes all those different flavored chips because they want to give the consumer choice? Do you think that is why a major bottler would propose multiple sizes? Am I correct in this? Maybe. Is it the sort of thing that affects most of you? No, because you are not in that fight anyway. Would I as a consumer want my milk to come in many different size packages so that I had to calculate the cost per ounce of brand X vs. brand y and size z vs ....? If not, then why would I want that for bourbon? Why would your customer give a hoot if you package in 700 cl or 750 ml bottles? You don't want to have to deal with all those sku's either. The only client who has ever asked me about this was someone who wanted to package moonshine in pint mason jars. It was the jar perception that was the objective; not the size.

Thanks James - I hadn't heard this phrase before and you sent me on a Google search - Wikipedia augmented by scholar is the way I go. Okay - so it's why, when I approach TTB with a proposal or even a question, I try to know, in advance, more than they do about it and to frame it carefully in my way before they have an opportunity to frame it first in theirs. I want my way in the first position. When they get to set their minds first and take a position, it is a lot harder to steer them to where I want them to go.

Here is the link - https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=1513-AC45. You can see everything that TTB has one its plate at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_LIST&currentPub=true&agencyCode=&showStage=active&agencyCd=1500&Image58.x=45&Image58.y=16

The pending notice of proposed rulemaking on barrel size must have stirred a hornet's nest, because TTB's regulatory agendas has a spanking new item: See it at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=1513-AC50

Thanks - I figured you got an aging "boost", but you have to pay for two new charred barrels, so $seemed like an expen$ive way to accelerate aging. I guess the economics works out if you crunch the numbes$. :-).

One final comment of general applicability. I never ask TTB a question until I have done my best to get an answer. If what they say is not what I understand, then I ask them to tell me how they concluded what they did. I certainly can be wrong, and in the end they make the rules, but I want a citation in support of what they say. I also want to ensure that the person who is giving me the answer is someone vested with the power to speak authoritatively, on that issue, for TTB. I lived by that rule when I worked for the agency. My response was always, here is my answer, here is why I say it, and if you want to rely on it, then send me the question in writing and I will get you an answer in writing. I never resented being challenged either. People had aright to say, on what do you base your dumb answer. Too often TTB employees do not understand their own regulations - who out there who has submitted a label for approval has not experienced the frustration of a WTF denial. Again, TTB may have a policy that transfering from a barre, which was new charred oak when the product went in, into a new, new charred oak barrel, puts an end to the aging process. But, if they told me that when I asked them the "mother may I question," and it actually mattered to me, I would respectfully ask on what they base that answer. I wouldn't try to claim extended age without permission, but I would not shut the door on the possibility, unless, of course, winning the battle was worth it. If it wasn't, then there would be no point. And as a consultant, I always have to ask a client, how much are you willing to pay to fight this out. The answer is often, not what you are going to charge me to do it :-). Perhaps someone can enlighten me on why, other than some marketing claim designed to sell, you would want to go to the expense of double aging? I really am curious about that. I suspect that most consumers can't tell any difference, and, if they have a taster like I have - which is pass the jalapenos please and make that five star subtle - may trip in trying to discern a bourbon from a whiskey made with far less than 51% corn. True confessions - I could probably confuse rum and brandy when both have seen significant time in oak. In fact, I think I have. And there may be witnesses to that too. And how many people who drink Canadian whiskey know that it probably has a significant dose of NSG with compensating flavors added? Or care?

Regulations come in three flavors, so to say: those that say you must; those that say you must not; and those that say you may, but if you do, then you "must" do this and "must not" do that. The proposed regulations want to say, "you must not" claim additional age when spirits are transferred from one new barrel to a second new barrel. But if I were going up against TTB under the current regulations, here is how I would argue: The definition of age is clear, "Age. The period during which, after distillation and before bottling, distilled spirits have been stored in oak containers. “Age” for bourbon whisky, rye whisky, wheat whisky, malt whisky, or rye malt whisky, and straight whiskies other than straight corn whisky, means the period the whisky has been stored in charred new oak containers." I would argue, the definition does not modify the phrase "new charged oak containers" with the the phrase, "the same." Further, I see nothing in §5.40 that would impose a same barrel requirement. Therefore, I would argue, in this let's pretend world, that claiming aggregate age is within the meaning of "age" as the term is defined in the regulation. Further, I would argue that TTB has considered the age regulations at length in hearings, for example, as it did in 1968, and nothing in the Treasury Decisions (I'd have to reread them carefully, but I think I am correct) indicates that the IRS (at that time it was the IRS) intend to implement a same barrel provision. Had it wanted to do that, it could have done so in the regulations it adopted. It did not. Thus, aggregation age is consistent with the current regulations Would I prevail? Who knows, but I could make an interesting fight of it, pointing out that the same barrel requirement,if such a requirement exists, for I have not found it, seems to have arisen outside of the formal rulemaking procedures required by the the Administrative Procedure Act, but that the rules that allow it, as I have argued it does anyway, were adopted by formal rulemaking. So, if TTB wants to change the rule, as it now is attempting to do, it should do so under formal rulemaking procedures, or at least issue a formal revenue ruling, for all to see giving the reasons it amplifies the existing regulation. But I generally try to avoid interesting fights. And I might be missing something. I can't be sure that I am not.

Nor am I, but it does appear in the proposed regulations. §5.74(a)(3), as proposed, provides, "(3) If spirits are aged in more than one oak barrel (for example, if a whisky is aged 2 years in a new charred oak barrel and then placed into a second new charred oak barrel for an additional 6 months,) only the time spent in the first barrel is counted towards the ‘‘age.’’ I don't know how TTB would conclude that this sort of requirement is necessary. Transfer from new to new would seem to be a "no harm, no foul sort" of play - expensive, for sure- but not one that would lead to deception in age statements. The chart in the NPR that describes the impact "on rulings, industry circulars, and other public guidance documents issued over the years by TTB and its various predecessor agencies" lists no document that is superseded by §5.74(a)(3), so, if the list in the table is complete, you will not find the requirement "in the CFR or other TTB communication." I conclude that either this is a brand new rule - which some above say it is not - or it emerges from a private letter ruling that someone issued in the past. I don't plan on commenting because it seems to be a rule of little consequence to any of my clients, but it would be interesting to know the impetus that lead to the question and the logic behind the answer.

On lawyers - Some deal with production and distribution, most focus on state retail licensing, law and regulation. . Most state license applications for producers are straightforward. They ask questions like, "Do you have an interest in a retailer, etc." I tell clients that in most instances, if I submit an application for a state license for them, I'm just transcribing info they give me to a state form. I don't add much value to that. Make sure the attorney is adding value if you hire one. If your are looking to the attorney for contract advice, make sure that the attorney is familiar with the matters that concern you. For example, if you are dealing with appointing a distributor, make sure the attorney understands the franchise law in the state where the distributor is located. This is not an advertisement; I don't understand anything but the questions that you should most obviously ask about such things 🙂. Nor do I know most states licensing requirements. State agents are a good source of info on what you can do in regards to distribution, sales, tax payment, etc.. Again, this is not an advertisement because I have had clients in 40 or more states and I will not pretend to known what each of those states requires, prohibits, or allows.

Busy but a quick response without time for citations. I assume you are talking about bulk. 1. The person who makes the importation must have an importer's permit. 2. Your DSP permit does not cover that. 3. A person who doesn't have a DSP can import for you, but cannot take possession. 4. The spirits move from customs bond to your DSP bond. You pay duties, but not excise tax. 5. You become liable for the tax. 5. You receive the spirits into either the storage or processing account. 6. You receive them based on the last official customs gauge. Remember to check for losses. I would gauge them. 7. You may keep them in the containers in which you received them or you may physically dump them . 8. Marking requirements apply to the containers in which you hold them, whether or original or dumped.. 9. Once you have them, you treat them in the same way you would domestic spirits, but in some cases you have to keep a separate record. Puerto Rico and the VI for example, because of carry over provisions of the tax laws. 10. When you remove the spirits, you must label them under part 5 regulations. Make sure you can document class and type. 11. You pay the excise tax when you remove them. I've probably forgotten at least one thing, but that is it in a nutshell. Hire a customs broker to deal with the customs paperwork.

TTB just published there annual report. You can read it by links on the TTB website. I keep arguing for th need for some perspective on the question of how long. Annectodal evidence does not give a true picture. Here is what TTB said about approval times: GOAL 1: Facilitate Commerce through the Timely Issuance of Permits to Qualified Applicants Streamline permit applications to reduce applicant burden and use technology to minimize application errors and improve processing times Priority Goal: Reduce average approval times for alcohol and tobacco business permits by at least 20 percent (from 96 days to 75 days) and achieve the 75-day standard for 85 percent of applicants by September 30, 2019. That is the goal. It is across all permits and registrations and average times vary by the type of application. Here, for example, are the times for January 2019, the last month for which TTB has posted average figures. Now, for every "oh my god I'm happy" that you find here, you must end up with a balancing "oh crap, this is taking a long time." I can tell you from experience, the long and the short of it is that any application can end up on the long or the short tend. Well prepared applications put in a position to get lucky, but you must get lucky first. Not everyone does.

I've got a technology that keeps me in my own lane. I know nothing about barrels. Or importing them. Or how you would figure out how they had been used and there useful life Or ... the list of things I don't know about this is almost endless :-).

Huffy: This is easy. Go into your PonL DSP record (not the entity record). Click on the record info tab to be the following menu: Click on tyhe supporting documents and attachment link. It brings you to a screen that shows all the documents that you submitted and that TTB has approved. Look for the following document (I omit the left hand columns). Click on the link it the column to the left of that. It will download the approved application. Save it, print it, and send it to the DSP from which you want to obtain spirits. Hope this helps.

I wish I could claim credit for some magic ability to generate quick approvals. I can't. As I have stated on this thread before, it is more a matter of the luck of the draw and how quickly a specialist looks at the application. My results are scattered, just like everyone else who submits a lot of applications will be. Remember that TTB publishes average figures, which don't describe the range, median, mode etc. to give you a better idea of what to expect. We prepare good applications, answer requests for correction quickly and try to be in a position to take advantage of luck if it comes our way. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

You find the sizes at §5.47a(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(2) - " The calculator on line tells me that 355 ml is 12.004 ounces. The rest are nowhere near standard can sizes.

I It ain't tricky - its experience :-).

To sum this up: All the advice about not removing product in bulk (in containers of more than one gallon) is spot on. See §1.80. So you would bottle it in an approved size (§5.47a), labelled with a label for which you have an approved COLA (§5.55) and make a record of tax determination before removing it. You could probably ad lib a batch record that capture all that TTB needs to know about the production and processing of the product. I don't see that as a hurdle. As someone else said, it won't be whiskey because won't see oak before you bottle it. that's okay, I think. While you could solve that by using your nano distillery to nano store in a used oak container, t why bother? the customer knows what they are getting and what they are going to do with it. As someone said, without oak it would be a specialty item, since it does not conform to any standard in §5.22. For an example of a label like this, see the Jack Daniels specialty that is unaged spirits distilled from grain at 140 proof. You can hunt that up on TTB's public COLA registry. As no one else has said, by rule, you have to have an approved statement of production procedure before you can distill. It have to show the grains used in the mash. the statement must . to be on your registration. but that need not be a problem if you write a procedure with enough generality that the product will conform to the designation you claim on the label whatever grains might use in whatever combination you might use them. Finally, you could report it as alcohol under 160 on the production reports. So, what you propose is certainly achievable under federal regulation. I can't comment on the viability of the business model, but I'm sure you will have to make your market for the concept. Check out how others have done that. I have at least one client in Washington who has done "custom" production to retail clients' specifications. But that was done in an ambiance that screamed class.

I am a little reluctant to post a treatise - okay an additional treatise - on the 10 mile limit. But I think it is instructive. Consider the question, "If TTB has a 10 mile limit, why has it not publicly published that limit, thereby eliminating the questions that arise?" That would be easy. So, doesn't that strike you as a bit strange that TTB has not so? I think there are, in the public record, explanations for its silence, but you have to be ready to get wonky. In short, I think the 10 mile limit is a safe haven, an internal instruction to specialists that 10 miles or less is a distance within which, barring other reasons, TTB specialists should not question the propriety of approving discontinuous premises. I do not think it is a line drawn in the sand. So, taking a deep breath, I will jump into the deeper waters for those who might want to know. I will preface this with the admonition, “Pick your fights.” Some things are not worth fighting about. If you want to located a second building for storage, or processing, or production, 12 or 15 or even 20 miles from a currently registered DSP, and it is important to you that both sites be included under the same qualification, I would not hesitate to submit a request for a variance to §19.53, notwithstanding the fact that the 10 mile policy is often repeated as biblically ordained. Now, I have no reason to doubt that there is a 10 miles or less policy that dates 1990. That makes it older than the years that I can count on me fingers and toes. Further, and far more importantly, it is prior to at least two published notices (1998 and 2011), one of which (2011) was a final ruling explaining a major revision of the regulations. Both of those documents specifically address TTB’s position on the matter of discontinuous premises. Neither propose a 10 mile or less standard. Importantly, both those documents were issued under the Administrative Procedure Act. That makes them an official interpretation of the regulation and provides the government’s reason for that interpretation. The quotation I first offered is from 2011. Here, in somewhat more detail, is what TTB said about the separation issue in 1998. TTB affirmed ATF’s prior position in the 2011 Treasury Decision. Here is what ATF said in 1998 (quoted in full but parsed to separate the points ATF made: DISCUS recommends that the term ‘‘same general location’’ mean within 200 miles of the distilled spirits plant. We [ATF] did not adopt this recommendation in the proposed regulations. Although DISCUS states that a ‘‘200 mile rule’’ would provide increased operational flexibility for proprietors, they do not explain how this would occur under their proposal and why that distance is more appropriate than any other. [My emphasis here and below] Over the years TTB has received a number of requests to establish noncontiguous distilled spirits plant premises. We have evaluated each of these requests on a case-by-case basis. In our evaluation of each request, we consider a number of factors, such as: • Security and protection of the revenue, • Distance between the main plant premises and the proposed noncontiguous premises, • Whether the non-contiguous premises would cross State lines, • Whether the non-contiguous premises will facilitate inspections and audits, and • Whether establishment of noncontiguous premises would provide the proprietor with a means for delaying payment of taxes. [The explanation of how this gets included is kind of wonky, but I’ll offer it. ATF and TTB long have been concerned with an issue they call “downstreaming” taxes, i.e., making in bond shipments to remote locations from which a proprietor could remove spirits, later, to persons located in the downstream DSP area, thereby possible shifting the return period in which the taxes had to be paid. That was the root of the now defunct prohibition against the in-bond transfers of beverage spirits in containers of less than one gallon, the maximum size for removals for delivery to consumers. For large bottlers, shifting the date the tax payment became due by even a couple of days could significantly impact the amounts paid]. TTB then concluded: We propose to retain the case-by-case analysis based on multiple factors, instead of adopting a 200 mile rule as proposed by DISCUS. As a general rule, we believe that the ‘‘same general location’’ must not be too large an area so that the revenue is placed at risk. Also, because a distance of 200 miles could extend over a multi-state area and would cross over into different field offices within TTB, such a distance would create administrative difficulties for TTB. This provision appears in the proposed regulations at § 19.53. I think it is important that ATF stated that it did not know why the 200 mile separation was “more appropriate than any other.” I read this as ATF saying, “There is not a necessarily appropriate maximum distance.” And as the above list shows, distance is only one of the factors TTB states it will consider when determining whether to approve. In short, had TTB wanted to draw a firm, 10 mile line in the sand, they had opportunity to do so in 1998 and again in 2011, l but they did not do so. Further, if they wanted to consider other things, while holding the 10 mile limit, they could have said, “If the plant is within 10 miles we will approve if you also can establish to our satisfaction that …. “ It did not do so. I conclude that the fact that it did not do so suggests that the 10-mile rule is safe harbor rule., i.e., that, barring other reasons, TTB specialists will not challenge an amendment that proposes a location that is within 10 miles. I conclude it does not say that TTB will deny a variance, in every case, when the location is greater than 10 miles. I conclude that it will instead consider the distance in conjunction with the other factorsATF enumerated in 1998 and TTB affirmed in 2011, then decide. But, the rule is so often stated that you may end up in a fight. That is why I said at the beginning, pick your fights carefully. It is possible to win battles and lose wars. So, if you have a need, worthy of the fight, to establish a location that is more than 10 miles away, as a part of the current DSP, then you would argue from all those points ATF raised in 1998 and TTB affirmed in 2011, including arguing why it would facilitate TTB’s auditing to have both locations under the same DSP. That's what I would do if it were important to me. Finally, this is why it is important to ask persons within TTB what they rely on when they tell you what the rule is. If real estate is location, location, location, regulation is citation, citation, citation.

A new question arrives while I am posting my last response. You may have as many DSP's as you like. There is no restriction. But each must have its own permit and registration and every transfer between them becomes a transfer in bond that must be authorized by an approved transfer in bond application (one approved application is good for all future transfer,s) and must be accompanied by the appropriate transfer records. Each of the DSP's must then file its own tax returns and operating reports and if some cler wag tries to keep below the 100,000 pg limit for the $2.70 a p.g. tax rate, TTB requires that the removals from all be lumped together for that purpose, not that many of you will have that problem.

As others state, generally this is done by amendment for discontinuous storage, but not always. TTB can insist on spearate qwualifications. The ten mile rule is a good guide to a generally unquestioned safe harbor, but in need not be absolute. The rule appears in §19.53 It provides: As a general rule, the premises of a distilled spirits plant must be continuous except for separations by public waterways, roads, or carrier rights-of-way. However, the appropriate TTB officer may approve the registration of the plant where there are separations of the plant premises and all parts of the plant are in the same general location if: (a) There is no jeopardy to revenue caused by the separation of premises; and (b) The separation of premises does not create administrative problems for TTB. The Distilled Spirits Institute has argued, unsuccessfully, for 200 miles in the past. TTB had suggested changes to the DSP regulations in 1998 and after some consideration, issued a final rule on the changes in 2011. I have not misstated the dates. Here is TTB's response: TTB Response: In the preamble to Notice No. 83, we explained that we would not adopt a 200-mile rule and the current comment does not provide sufficient justification for any change of our position. We will continue to evaluate requests for alternate methods or procedures concerning plant continuity on a case-by-case basis, each analysis to be based upon multiple factors. Generally, we believe that the ‘‘same general location’’ must not be too large an area so that the revenue is placed at risk. Also, because a distance of 200 miles could extend over a multistate area and would cross over into different field offices within TTB, such a distance would create administrative difficulties for TTB. That is TTB's official position. I too tell people 10 miles is a good "safe harbor" rule of thumb. But if you find a location that is 12 or 15 miles away, that is not ruled out. If i were making the arguments, I'd explain why the extra two or five or even 10 miles does not create a risk to the revenue. TTB's specific reference to "different field offices" provides a hint of how to argue that it would not create administrative difficulties. ne could possible argue that a separation of more than 10 miles in a rural area creates less administrative difficult than a separation of three miles in a an urban area, especially since it reduces the number of reports and returns with which TTB must deal. Whether it is worth the argument depends on your circumstances.

I may have missed this conversation on purpose. TTB makes standards of identity.The standards are in 27 CFR 5.22. The distillate that becomes whiskey must derive from 100% grain distilled at less than 190 proof. Other restrictions apply to different types of the class whiskey. I will talk only about the class standard. Further, I will ignore the corn whiskey exception. All references here to "whiskey" should be read as "whiskey except for corn whiskey." A distillate of 100% grain distilled at less than 190 proof is not whiskey. Such distillates becomes whiskey only after storage in an "oak container." The oak container necessary for turning an appropriate distillate into whiskey may be new or used. The type of storage determines, in part, the type of whiskey. You can put oak staves in a barrel, but unless the barrel is oak, the spirit is not aged because it is not stored in oak. That is a matter of definition. Puting spirits into a container, of any type, that has oak staves, chips etc, is a treatment of the whiskey. If you treat the whiskey with oak staves, chips, etc you must disclose that you treated it with staves, chips, etc. The label for any whiskey that has not been stored in oak for four years or more must contain a statement of age. If a whiskey is held in an oak for 5 seconds, then, if the container is new, the statement would be "aged 5 seconds," or" aged not less than 5 seconds." If the container is used, the statement of age will be "stored 5 seconds," or "stored not less than 5 seconds." If a product does not meet a standard set out in §5.22, it must be labeled as a distilled spirits specialty. A distilled spirits specialty is supposed to be labeled "in accordance §5.35. §5.35 requires a fanciful name and truthful and adequate statement of composition. Other restrictions and conditions may apply. For example:. You may not state age on a distilled spirits specialty. Unless a specialty item contains a class or type of spirit as an ingredient, the label may not make mention of the class and type. Since a distillate of 100% grain distilled at less than 190 proof that has not been stored in oak is not a whiskey, it follows that the term whiskey could not appear on the label in the form "unaged whiskey" or"white whiskey" or any other reference that includes the term "whiskey". An aside - Note that the unadorned class and type statement is deemed to be a truthful and adequate statement of composition when the product meets the standard for that type. TTB does not state it that way, but it is one way of thinking about the standards. Of course, the adequacy depends on how well the type standard is known. Who among you would care to compare and contract blended whiskey, a blend of straight whiskeys, and light whiskey. I will not do it without rereading the standards, which few people routinely carry with them when they are shopping. So, every label that was approved for white or unaged whiskey in the past was approved in error. Don' try to confuse me with the fact that there are a few of them out there. I know that. So does TTB. TTB recognizes that its position on age is ludicrous, given its adamant refusal to require some minimal period of storage. Because it is ludicrous - or perhaps to remedy its past errors of approval - TTB proposes to change the rules to create a standard for unaged or white whiskey. Now, TTB does not use the word "ludicrous," That word is mine and I will own it. Here, in TTB's won words, is how it describes the situation and a proposed change that would create a standard of identity for white and unaged whiskey. I've taken the liberty of parsing the statement, bullet style, to make it easier to understand: TTB also proposes to provide for a new type designation of ‘‘white whisky or unaged whisky.’’ TTB has seen a marked increase in the number of products on the market that are distilled from grain but are unaged or that are aged for very short periods of time. Under current regulations, unaged products would not be eligible for a whisky designation (other than corn whisky) and would have to be labeled with a distinctive or fanciful name, along with a statement of composition. In order to provide guidance for these products. TTB proposes that products that are either unaged (so they are colorless) or aged and then filtered to remove color should be designated as ‘‘white whisky’’ or ‘‘unaged whisky,’’ respectively. This proposal represents a change in policy, because currently all whiskies (except corn whisky) must be aged, although there is no minimum time requirement for such aging. TTB believes that currently some distillers may be using a barrel for a very short aging process solely for the purpose of meeting the requirement to age for a minimal time. Consequently, TTB is proposing the new type designation of ‘‘white whisky or unaged whisky’’ and specifically requests comments on this new type and its standards. I will add that TTB damn well knows that some distillers are using a very short aging process, which make a mockery of TTB's dual positions that (1) age is important to creating the character a spirit must have to be whiskey, but (2) there is no need for a required minimum period of storage that will create the required character. See - the term "ludicrous" does not seem to be so harsh a judgement after all. If you have a horse in this race, comment,m as TTB that requests you to do. Read the NPR at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-11-26/pdf/2018-24446.pdf and submit your comments through this link: www.regulations.gov/comment?D=TTB-2018-0007-0001. I emphasis that because it is important. I provide the rather detailed background so that you know the context in which the proposal resides.

It is all state law. State liquor law still often = blue law. They are a zany mix. Ask the local ABC agents what the law is in your state.