Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,618
1
84,741
So-Cal
He was rather long winded in basically saying "we are screwed".

...

Yeah... Not Exactly the Judicial Interpretation I was looking for on the Major Points.

Price could give us some Relieve with regards to Components, Parts, and Accessories. But I'm not sure he will.

Congress could Move the Predicate Date and make Changes to the TCA. But I'm not sure they can.

An Appeal could Throw Out Judge Jackson's Ruling. But I don't think it will. And I don't think there is Enough Sand left in the glass.

:|
 

mikepetro

Vape Geek
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 22, 2013
10,224
81,686
66
Newport News, Virginia, United States
From a Cigar site:
Sums it up a bit quicker than the 2 hour video.

**************************************************
he U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled in favor of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a motion for Summary Judgment in a case against Nicopure LLC and the vaping Industry. For now, this essentially throws out the legal challenge initiated by the vaping community last year. The decision was made by Judge Amy Berman Jackson. There is one item of concern to the cigar industry – namely the Court upheld the FDA’s claim that the predicate date can only be changed by an act of Congress.

In the Court Ruling:

After considering the record, the points and authorities set forth in the briefs submitted by both sides and the amici, and the arguments presented at a hearing on the motions, the Court will uphold the Deeming Rule.


The Court wishes to reassure the many worried vapers who followed these proceedings closely that this case is not about banning the manufacture or sale of the devices. That is not what the Deeming Rule does or what it was intended to accomplish. In the Deeming Rule, the FDA simply announced that electronic cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems (“ENDS”) would be subject to the same set of rules and regulations that Congress had already put in place for conventional cigarettes.

While this ruling doesn’t directly affect the cigar industry, there is one precedent that was set in this case – namely, the Court states very clearly that the February 15, 2007, predicate date for products grandfathered from the Deeming Rule can only be changed by Congress. This is a position the FDA has held from the very beginning. The Court ruling states:

Thus, it was Congress that set the grandfather date in the TCA, and RSF has not pointed the Court to any authority for the proposition that the agency can ignore a statutory command. RSF argues that “[w]hen viewed in the TCA’s overall statutory context, it is apparent that Congress did not intend for the February 15, 2007 grandfather date to be strictly applied to all categories of deemed products.” RSF Mem. at 18. But “the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself.” CPSC v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). The statute unambiguously points to a specific date – February 15, 2007 – and it contains no exceptions for items deemed to be tobacco products in the future. 21 U.S.C. § 387j(a)(2)(A).27 While the Court is sympathetic to RSF’s policy argument that as new products come to market, the grandfather date will become obsolete, see RSF Mem. at 18–19, the path forward is to seek an amendment to the statute, which is already underway. Hr’g Tr. at 57:22–58:1 (“THE COURT: Isn’t your problem with Congress and not the agency? And aren’t you already working on that right now? [Counsel for RSF]: We are. There are two bills in front of Congress right now.”).

The statute is clear, and FDA had no power to change it. So RSF’s challenge to the grandfather date fails.

In particular interest to the Vaping Community was whether or not the FDA exceeded its authority to regulate liquids and devices. The ruling by the Court was that it did not. The Court made it clear that it believed the FDA did not exceed its authority, but worked within the framework of the law enacted by Congress.

It bears repeating that the provisions the plaintiffs find most objectionable were not crafted by the FDA as part of the Deeming Rule. Instead, they are requirements of the Tobacco Control Act that was enacted by Congress. Congress gave the FDA broad authority to deem new products to be “tobacco products” subject to that existing statutory regime, and the Court finds that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the agency to decide to take that action with respect to e-cigarettes.

It was Nicopure Labs LLC, an e-liquid company that filed the first legal challenge against the FDA Deeming Rule. This was followed by a joint legal challenge of Eleven Vaping/E-Liquid Trade Associations against the FDA. Judge Jackson then ordered the Nicopure and Trade Association cases to be consolidated. Both Nicopure and the Vaping Community filed for a motion for Summary Judgement. The FDA filed for a cross motion for Summary Judgment. A Summary Judgment is a procedural move that essentially requests the Court to promptly dispose of a case because there are no facts at issue. For this case, the ruling was in favor of the FDA.
 

MacTechVpr

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 24, 2013
5,725
14,411
Hollywood (Beach), FL
Law doesn't mean a thing when it's elements are selectively dispensed with. Accordingly in my view the necessity of any respect or regard for it.

Gone is justice and the law when courts defer to the omnipotent discretion of bureaucratic regulatory authority.

Good luck all. :)
 

CMD-Ky

Highly Esteemed Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 15, 2013
5,321
42,395
KY
Law doesn't mean a thing when it's elements are selectively dispensed with. Accordingly in my view the necessity of any respect or regard for it.

Gone is justice and the law when courts defer to the omnipotent discretion of bureaucratic regulatory authority.

Good luck all. :)

Every politician (judges are just politicians in black dresses) is always happy to avoid personal responsibility. Deferring to faceless nameless members of an unaccountable bureaucracy is an easy dodge and if there is a dodge available, politicians will take it.
 

mikepetro

Vape Geek
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 22, 2013
10,224
81,686
66
Newport News, Virginia, United States
Some notable bullet points that caught my eye:
Green text are my own personal comments.

  • The Court concludes that the agency acted within the scope of its statutory authority: it
    was legally permitted to regulate that category of liquids, and to consider a refillable electronic
    nicotine delivery system to be a “component” of a tobacco product and therefore subject to
    regulation.
  • It bears repeating that the provisions the plaintiffs find most objectionable were not crafted
    by the FDA as part of the Deeming Rule. Instead, they are requirements of the Tobacco Control Act that was enacted by Congress. (emphasis - mine)
  • e TCA contains other provisions that are important to the protection of public health,
    such as requiring that tobacco products bear a warning about the addictive nature of the products, see 21 U.S.C. § 387f(d)(1)–(2), and banning all flavored cigarettes, but those provisions are not relevant to the issues in this lawsuit. (emphasis - mine)
  • The TCA would have also authorized the agency to impose the premarket review
    requirement on manufacturers immediately, thereby halting sales until premarket applications
    were approved. See 21 U.S.C. § 387b (finding that a tobacco product is adulterated
    if it is required to have a premarket review order but does not have one); 21 U.S
    .C. § 331(a) (making it unlawful to introduce an adulterated tobacco product into interstate commerce). But as part of the Deeming Rule, the agency opted to implement the statutory requirement more gradually. (In other words, she is saying the FDA actually cut us a break)
  • plaintiffs’ claim is focused on the application of the Deeming Rule to open system devices and nicotine-free liquids, and any challenge to the application of the rule to batteries or other
    parts alone would be premature. (wiggle room, not ruled upon until directly challenged in court)
  • there is evidence in the record that pen-like open-system devices are also frequently used
    for the purpose of smoking marijuana. (uggh)
  • FDA did not exceed its statutory authority when it deemed both open system vaping devices and nicotine-free liquids to be “tobacco products.” ................... The Court finds that the FDA was well within its statutory authority to regulate the narrow set of products at issue in this case.
  • The FDA has the statutory authority to regulate open-system vaping devices. ...............
    the Court finds that the physical separation of the liquid from the device at the point of sale is of no significance. Both are “components.” (used pen and ink as example, pretty clever analogy)
  • an open-system vaping device is a unique item with a single function, and it is fundamental to the vaping process: you can’t vape without it. Therefore, the FDA ’s interpretation of the term“component” to encompass an empty open system vaping device is based on a permissible construction of the TCA. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. (Chevron analysis used extensively to interpret meaning of TCA)
  • Defendants argue that plaintiffs do not know whether the FDA will ever initiate enforcement proceedings against their non-nicotine-based e-liquids, and that in light of the agency’s stated intention that it will review nicotine-free e-liquids on a “case-by-case” basis, any challenge to that aspect of the regulation should wait until the agency decides to initiate an enforcement proceeding. (emphasis - mine) (I.e. until the FDA slaps somebodies hands for zero nic eliq, it cant be challenged in court) (my interpretation - 0 nic "base" cant be marketed if it is clear the intent is for the consumer to add their own nic, especially if tobacco flavored.)
  • The agency’s interpretation of the definition of “tobacco product” to include certain non-nicotine-containing e-liquids meets the Chevron test.
  • neither plaintiff seems to manufacture products that contain synthetic nicotine – nicotine that is made or derived in a laboratory or from other non-tobacco sources. See id. at 35:3–15. So the Court does not need to reach the issue of whether the agency may lawfully regulate e-liquids that contain synthetic nicotine. (synthetic nic still an open issue)
  • The fact that Congress passed the TCA in its current form notwithstanding the concerns raised by Congressman Buyer and Senator Burr provides further support for the conclusion that the Secretary’s decision to deem e-cigarettes to be tobacco products, and therefore subject to premarket review, is reasonable and fully consistent with the intent of the statute. (I.e. Congress knew about ecigs when they passed the TCA, so the TCA applies)
  • Just because there is evidence that e-cigarettes may be less risky than conventional cigarettes does not mean] that e-cigarettes are not risky at all (ugggh)
  • the Court finds that plaintiffs’ objections do not overcome the agency’s scientific judgment that regulation of ENDS products under the TCA is in the interest of public health.
  • it was Congress that set the grandfather date in the TCA ....... The statute
    57 unambiguously points to a specific date – February 15, 2007 – and it contains no exceptions for items deemed to be tobacco products in the future.
  • The Deeming Rule is not invalid due to any deficiencies in the cost-benefit analysis. ........the agency was not required to undertake a cost-benefit analysis when it implemented the statutory deeming provision.
  • The Tobacco Control Act’s ban on the distribution of free samples is constitutional - The Tobacco Control Act’s ban on the distribution of free samples regulates conduct, not speech.
  • And in the end, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ rhetoric, this provision does not ban truthful statements about health benefits or reduced risks; it simply requires that they be substantiated. (i.e. submit a Modified Risk Application which requires substantiation, if approved you can make the legally reduced risk statements)
Now she backed all of this up citing solid precedents. She was thorough. She basically said "take it up with Congress, they wrote the law".
 
Last edited:

retired1

Administrator
Admin
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 5, 2013
51,330
46,133
Texas
At this point, I suspect the FDA feels they're caught between a rock and a hard place.

As other governments backtrack on e-cigarette usage and begin to endorse them as a safer alternative to smoking, the FDA is obviously feeling as if they were duped by the various agencies that have continuously lied to them prior to the release of the deeming regulations. To backtrack now would incur the wrath of the anti-vaping crowd along with the majority of politicians who fully believe the FUD that have been spewed by the clueless for years. And considering the FDAs track record on admitting they're wrong, I don't think we'll see any relief from that agency for quite some time.
 

stols001

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 30, 2017
29,338
108,119
Here's the number of meds (purportedly) that have been pulled from the market, or substantially regulated in use, though I'm not sure I trust this site even remotely, but it is interesting.....

404 Not Found - 404 Not Found - ProCon.org

So, is vaping safe? Compared to some of those reports, unabashedly yes. In fact, we don't WANT the FDA bowing out and admitting they are wrong about vaping.... At least they haven't removed it from the market yet. Though, they are REALLY looking for ways to deny safety reports and reduce the business if you ask me. But, it's not going to let go of the stranglehold NOW.

Anna
 

mikepetro

Vape Geek
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 22, 2013
10,224
81,686
66
Newport News, Virginia, United States
upload_2017-7-26_11-6-18.png

upload_2017-7-26_11-7-0.png

upload_2017-7-26_11-8-3.png
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,618
1
84,741
So-Cal
For some reason, not all the bullet points are showing on my iPad. I'll go to my desktop later to see if they show up there.

I believe the Text Colour is the same as the Background Colour.

If you Highlight it with your Mouse it can be Seen.
 

mikepetro

Vape Geek
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 22, 2013
10,224
81,686
66
Newport News, Virginia, United States
I believe the Text Colour is the same as the Background Colour.

If you Highlight it with your Mouse it can be Seen.
Doesnt surprise me, I had some trouble with formatting. The auto BBCode didnt always do what it was supposed to.
 

Robino1

Resting in Peace
ECF Veteran
Sep 7, 2012
27,447
110,404
Treasure Coast, Florida

retired1

Administrator
Admin
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 5, 2013
51,330
46,133
Texas
Doesnt surprise me, I had some trouble with formatting. The auto BBCode didnt always do what it was supposed to.

You're using the dark theme, not realizing that white text isn't going to show for those who don't use that theme.

You should leave the color code for white out, letting the software default the text to the default color for the theme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikepetro

Users who are viewing this thread