For REOs? I rather doubt it. But Rob does.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
For REOs? I rather doubt it. But Rob does.
That's good. I will have to keep that in consideration. May be more affordable buying parts than a whole. Thank you.
Makes me wonder what ECF will be like if the FDA hammer strikes. I think consumer chit-chat will be ok but arranging for juice shipments from Viet Nam certainly won't.
Then again, without any advertisers ECF will most likely go away?
Like Frizzy said, there's a military exemption. What I never understood is why the young voters never stood up and fought. Even if I didn't smoke, if that had tried to pass when I was 18, even if I didn't smoke, I'd have been screaming on the capitol lawn.
This looks new...
e-liquids that do not contain tobacco or nicotine or are not derived from tobacco or nicotine do not meet the definition of "covered tobacco product," as described throughout this final rule, and will not be required to carry an addiction warning or to submit a self-certification.
e-liquids that do not contain tobacco or nicotine or are not derived from tobacco or nicotine do not meet the definition of "covered tobacco product," as described throughout this final rule, and will not be required to carry an addiction warning or to submit a self-certification.
Good morning Girls and Boys
For those that enjoy diving deep into the weeds here is the Deeming Final Rule Redline Changes. Thank you SFATA!
Stay Strong! Fight! Stock Up!
What consumer chit chat? It is clear discussion of vaping vendors is prohibited here. It would seem consumers would like to discuss vendors. Who has better deals? Who offers better selection? Who stands behind products? How do the products get used? What are different ways to use products creating better experience? Almost all of that kind of discussion would at some point reference vendors.
I saw that, still trying to process what it means. Does that mean any 0 nic liquid will be OK to sell??
Flavors getting the Boot would have Incited a Mass Unified Opposition against the FDA/Deeming. And that would have been a Bad Thing in the eyes of FDA/HSS/OOTP.
Much Better to leave Flavors as the are and to Deny them thru PMTA's.
That way there is just a Week or So of Outrage and talk of Action. Which dies down to what you are seeing now.
At first, I thought it was just about labelling.
Because, if it's "reasonably expected" to be used with nic, it would still be regulated.
But this line specifically says "E-Liquid" with NO tobacco or nic, "does not meet the definition of covered". Maybe it meets the definition of a "COMPONENT" though - I can't read it anymore...
Because, if it's "reasonably expected" to be used with nic, it would still be regulated.
But this line specifically says "E-Liquid" with NO tobacco or nic, "does not meet the definition of covered". Maybe it meets the definition of a "COMPONENT" though - I can't read it anymore...
there are enough things that seem to contradict each other in the deeming that my head starts spinning trying to read it.
I saw when she did that. So disrespectful.Thanks, Robin(o). I actually came in here to(increase my post count)post that vid. Good job!!!
I'd like to Boxer.........
Umm, Bronzed One. That's SENATOR Boxer, deary. She worked like really really really hard to get that title.
"Yes, Sir."
As long as they Comply with all the Other Sate and Fed Requirements, there is currently No Reason why they Can't.
And I would Imagine that about 95% of the Market is going to do Just that.
To the extent that a vendor believes these Deeming regs will stick, I suspect he/she will find another job or endeavor way before Aug. 8, 2018 such that their vape business will effectively close well before the deadline. Some may try moonlighting.
BTW, Hillary said she was putting the miners out of business and is proposing sinking billions of dollars into taking care of miners who were put out of business. I wonder if she'll propose the same for vape employees. I mean, coal kills people too, right?
IF your reading that in the RedLine changes document it means zilch as in nada. It can be confusing. All that matters at this point is what is said in the Final Deeming published in the federal register on 5/10/16. Which of course is quite different that your quote.
I'm not taking any chances. Sent my vendor the FDA calendar.
Yup, you figured it out. Remember this isn't a "new" document, it's what the OMB changed from what was submitted to what was released in early May. Products that contain no nicotine do not have to carry the warning label, or have age restrictions because they are not Covered Tobacco Products. However, if they are "reasonably intended" to be used WITH a Covered Tobacco Product, they are a Tobacco Product Component and still subject to the rules and must comply, just no warning label.
BTW - For this August 8th,2018 deadline in this link...
Dropbox - VTA Guidance - Deeming Compliance Calendar - FINAL.pdf
... this in Not Correct.
"Notes:
Filing will allow your product to remain on the market until at least August 8, 2019."
Because if your PMTA is Denied, your product Must Be Removed for the Market Immediately.
Similar threads
- Locked
