Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Seems like this has been coming for a while. I couldn't figure out whether vendors had to get their containers certified, or if they just had to meet the requirements. I have to say that if I was a vendor and I had received those letters I would have given some thought to preparing for it. Did they not think it was really going to happen? I wonder who got the letters.
None of those letters appeared to contain a date for enforcement to begin though.
Yeah... All of this has been in the works for awhile.
There was even Mention of it in This Thread a few months ago in between all the other Banter.
The Long and the Short of it is that any "Stakeholder" should have known they they were operating pursuant to 16 CFR § 1700.15 - Poison Prevention Packaging Standards if they sold/manufactured e-liquids.
And that the portion below Can/Could be applied to them.
(d)Restricted flow. Special packaging subject to the provisions of this paragraph shall be special packaging from which the flow of liquid is so restricted that not more than 2 milliliters of the contents can be obtained when the inverted, opened container is taken or squeezed once or when the container is otherwise activated once.
16 CFR § 1700.15 - Poison prevention packaging standards.
Dying early would be really good news for Social Security.
Right. This is one of the reasons I do not think it will hold up if contested in court by a manufacturer that has the resources to do so. I believe a judge would declare it unreasonable to begin enforcement without advance notice of the actual requirements, i.e. exactly what does and doesn't meet the standard.
Isn't that what the CPSC's March 8th 2019 Testing Parameters directive is suppose to address?
There was a time, long since gone, when an agency would have a notice and comment period after which all comments that go contrary to the whims of the agency are forever ignored and the rule is promulgated. Notice and comment rule making becomes a quaint concept of yesteryear by this action.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.
The EU TPD regs impose those restrictions on the UK ( and as members we have to comply). Internally the NHS, as someone has pointed out above, officially endorse vaping as a route to giving up smoking... that's sensible. We have not banned or restricted flavours, sensible. As you say all that could change, as I suggested in my last sentence.
Yes, I suppose so.
But the question is whether the CSPC allowed a reasonable period for the industry to come into compliance after they published that and before they started enforcement, not to mention the conflict between the CSPC's demand for a change in packaging that's in direct conflict with the FDA's Deeming that says you can't change packaging without a PMTA.
I Don't think that Changes to Packaging will be a problematic. Because I Don't think the FDA's Intent is to restrict another Federal Government Agency regulatory enforcement of an existing Statute. Manufacture or Retail initiated Changes? No Can Do. CSPC requirements? I don't think there is going to be a problem.
But like All Things FDA, ya Never Know?
As to a Reasonable compliance period? I dunno? 120 Days might be viewed as Reasonable. How much Enforcement has the CSPC actual done? And what form was enforcement?
To obtain new, compliant bottles and re-tool an automated production line? I don't think so. But let's say it is. Fine, all product shipped after some date (that was never specified, which in and of itself brings up the question whether the regulation is unconstitutionally vague) has to be in compliant packaging. But the number of instances of actual harm by nicotine poisoning do not justify a stop-sale or recall order.
Dunno either. The RegWatch video indicates there has been at least some, and reading between the lines, it seems like it's been aimed primarily at small fry who probably won't put up much of a fight.
All I know is that I'm getting really tired of ripping those dayum caps off. I give vendors credit for adjusting to stupidity so quickly, but I wish some of my favorites had held out a bit longer. NO complaints about the vendors here - they're doing what they need to.
My complaints are directed solely at our legislative & regulating bodies. I do hate them so (predating vaping by a few decades).
My complaints are directed solely at our legislative & regulating bodies. I do hate them so (predating vaping by a few decades).
A Company I am associated with produces Child Resistant Containers. And has dealt with the CSPC as well other Regulatory bodies.
What we have found is that if you are making a Committed Attempt to obtain compliance, the CSPC takes a more Flexible approach towards deadlines. That, and they like being talked to Nicely.
If I have Documented Designs and PO's in my hand for New, Complaint Containers, they seem to be OK with letting a Deadline Slide. Or extending you More Time when those Manufacturing/Production glitches crop up.
But if you choose to get High and Mighty with them because you are having a Really Bad Day(Quarter), or they Feel that you are Not Trying to become Compliant and are just Playing Out the String, they can be the definition of a Federal Azz Hat.
My Dad used to call them, "people-proof caps".
If you recall, this all started with the Tylenol poisoning back in 1980ish. I knew the guy that connected the dots and broke the case. His name was Richard Keyworth and was a fire inspector and some fire department hotshot in the town I worked in at the time. He'd pay a visit to me once in awhile because I was always on the edge of the fire code (that's another story). A really nice guy. Turned out he knew my uncle well. My uncle was the fire chief in a nearby town. So we kind of chatted it up a bit. But anyway, he did private investigation stuff on the side. More as an interest than a living. But he followed those tylenol poisonings before anyone knew what it was or made any connection to tylenol. He was the first to come up with it. He died some five years ago maybe more. And the rest is history.
Based on recent discoveries, perhaps we need to put tamper-proof caps on ice cream containers too.
Very interesting rationale for capitalization as many people speed read nowadays. Perhaps I'll use that with communications with certain people in my life
Which is exactly what they expected all us smokers to obligingly do.
When the modern form of soc sec was enacted in the sixties the actuarial tables of the time had most of us leaving the party early. An important tell is that in deliberations by Congress it was determined that dental benefits were specifically to be excluded. Now we all know that throughout history the first thing you look at in animal to determine its health and prospects are its teeth. So yeah I agree with @DaveP, likely few of us were intended to survive our government. And perhaps proof positive that…you CAN fool most of the people, most of the time.
Good luck.
Last edited:
Right, and when you tell doctors you have a medical marijuana license, they don't give two shakes if you're vaping concentrate. They automatically lump you in with crack-fiends and ....-heads, prohibiting any kind of pain medication prescription. Maybe they think it's for their own good?
How many people lied about smoking marijuana so they could get addicted to opiods? That's the real american epidemic.
How many people lied about smoking marijuana so they could get addicted to opiods? That's the real american epidemic.
Similar threads
- Locked
