Jump to content

dhdunbar

Members
  • Content Count

    535
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

dhdunbar last won the day on January 26

dhdunbar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

71 Excellent

4 Followers

About dhdunbar

  • Rank
    Active Contributor

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    dhdunbar1@gmail.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ellensburg, WA
  • Interests
    Retired from ATF and began consulting for DSP's in 2012. When I'm not working, I like to head outdoors. That can mean simply sitting on the deck reading. Regulation bores me. Helping others deal with it does not.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,624 profile views
  1. The general rule is that if there is a change in any information in the current, approved notice, you must amend the registration with 30 days of the change unless another time period is specified in part 19. You list major equipment, which includes tanks, stills and condensers. Both tanks and stills have other rules. In the case of major equipment other than stills, you are supposed to submit a letterhead notice to any changes to TTB. You must then incorporate the changes when you next amend. [§19.122]. A notice does not require prior approval [see also §19.1, definition of letterh
  2. Sooner rather than later. I'd argue that this is properly the subject of rulemaking, not of fiat. I read additional public guidance to mean a formal document like those found at https://www.ttb.gov/public-guidance. The last one of those was the one on "hand sanitizer." It was not exactly a fount of clarity. It failed to answer basic questions like, "What about surface sanitizers that are produced under the regulations of the EPA, not the FDA?" See https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/disinfection-methods/regulatory-framework.html. :-). I would not be concerned abo
  3. The separate address is one factor. But, since the address applies to the building, and not the surrounding grounds, which are deemed to be a part of the same parcel, whatever the addresses may be, TTB may require a fence. That was the case with the last one I helped get approved, in November or December of last year. We had a fence, but the specialist sent it to Regulations and Rulings Division and came back with a request asking the height of the fence, why it was different in different places, whether there were gates, why it didn't extend all around the DSP. What is the Seinfeld line,
  4. How long ago? The "funny" thing is that the fence, in case law, such as it is, serves as a demarcation between portion of the property that is within the curtilage of the residence and that which is not. Not all always is. When a fence is involved, the question the courts ask is whether the outbuilding is located within the boundaries of a fence that surrounds the residence, not whether the outbuilding is within a fence that surrounds it. But your point is well taken. TTB does decide on a case by case basis and the decision is based on "multiple factors," not just whether there
  5. My advice to all is to always get your local issues settled before your begin to consider federal issues. My experience is also that those who came to me for advice and assistance have not incurred any objections from state and local jurisdictions. And,. because we are talking about multi-use buildings, I am talking about urban areas. To be clear, I am not saying some have not been denied, , or even that a majority have not, etc. because I do not know. Maybe nine out of ten times the fire marshals turn thumbs down or the local development agency responds, "You gotta be kidding," but I've
  6. Apologies if you think I said you told anyone to violate. I certainly do not think you did and I certainly did not intend to say that. Let me expalin in a little more detail the reasons for my concern. I think that this is not an individual pursuit, which you know from the efforts you put into getting what you wanted. My point is that, since the law is not clear about what is included in processing - that is why I asked if you had evidence of intent - the provisions of regulation will determine what will be construed as processing and what will not, and that persons who have a horse i
  7. Are you sure of this? The legislating makes specific reference to processing operations, other than bottling, as set forth in §5002(a)(5). That section provides, in pertinent part: (5)Processor (A)In general [a term I hate] TheThe term “processor”, when used with respect to distilled spirits, means any person who manufactures, mixes, or otherwise processes distilled spirits, (B)Rectifier, bottler, etc., The term “processor” includes (but is not limited to) a rectifier, bottler, and denaturer. (6)Certain operations not treated as processing - In a
  8. I usually cite the sections of regulation that lead to my statements. I did so here. The rules are in §§ 19.75, 19.122, 19.181, 9.182, 19.592 and 19.593, as cited. You can find a link to the regulations on TTB's web site, but here it is for our convenience: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=33fc0c0194b58b6fe95208945b5c637a;rgn=div5;view=text;node=27:1.0.1.1.15;idno=27;cc=ecfr Now, what constitutes a tank is not defined. §19.75 says you don't have to report any portable bulk contains of under 101 gallons capacity unless they are tanks as defined in §19.182. But
  9. You can't begin operations at the new location until TTB approves the application for that location. If you do not want a disruption, you need to apply well in advance and ask TTB to grant you 60 days to make the move, during which time you want to conduct operations at both locations under the same permit and registration. You can also qualify the new location as a discontinuous premises to the first, then curtail the first premises after approval. Just plan ahead.
  10. A cat in dogs clothing, perhaps.
  11. It does not mean that you cannot and it does not mean that you can. I helped qualify a DSP in a building with apartments above it in 2012 and have done so a number of times since then. But TTB states, in a private letter ruling from 2012, that it makes the decision on a case by case basis. That means there are no guarantees and TTB has not provided guidelines that you can follow. My experience is that if you can show a separate entrance to the DSP, which does not require that you share an entry with the apartments, TTB will approve it. From my experience, the issue of residency seems
  12. Here is the news information from the website. It follows what TTB said in the last newsletter. Note that the changes to the transfer in bond of bottled products is effective now, but the change in what constitutes an an authorized processing operation does is not effective until 1/1/2020. That will give some of you who source whiskey that you store but do not process, other than by bottling, a chance to get your business plans in order. I missed the effective date on my first reading of the bill language. That is why we wait for TTB to say what they say it means :-). R
  13. Correct. The "without distinctive" verbiage was largely without meaning. As I said, TTB does not conduct taste tests. Re: less than 190 - Note that the production gauge (§19.289(d) and §19.304) is a gauge required by part 19, and so you must have a gauge record (§19.618(b)(1)). That record will have to show the proof at the time you transfer it from the production account into either the storage or processing account. If it does not shows that the spirits were 190 or more at the time of production, then the vodka was not a neutral spirit, i.e., it is not entitled to the vodka designa
  14. It has been done. I've submitted a number that have been approved without question.
  15. Yes, seemingly simply, except ... Which operations that a DSP conducts are included in the the operations, other than bottling, described in 5002(a)? The problem, as I see it, is that the categories of operations - production, storage and processing - created, by law, in 1980, with the change from supervisor to "all in bond" system, were not created with any tax consequences in mind. Actually, there was, before that time, a rectification tax, and the system had, before that time, defined the acts of rectification that gave rise to liability for that tax. Those acts took place aft
×
×
  • Create New...