Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,623
1
84,749
So-Cal
The TCA makes no provision for that, but regulations for the importation of tobacco are and have been in place before the TCA and it prohibits it for personal use. That's why the FDA links to the USCBP an dnot the TCA.

The FSTCA gave the FDA almost Complete Authority over "tobacco Products" sold in the US Market.

It Didn't give the FDA the Ability to Regulate Foreign Companies or their Products if they choose to Not to sell them in the US Market. But I Can't Imagine any Court not agreeing the the FDA has the Authority to Deny US Entry of a Non-Conforming "Tobacco Products" if the sale originated Inside the US and used US Funds.

The Reality of it... Can the FDA stop every foreign order for Personal Use coming into the USA via US Customs? Of Course Not. There just Isn't enough Manpower at the US CBP.

But Does that mean that the US CBP can't kick-out Packages at random that contain Non-Conforming "Tobacco Products" and then Deny their Entry? No, it Doesn't mean that either.

Now I'm sure that the FDA/CTP will make an Example of Some Packages. And have some Press Briefing where they have a Table covered with Mods and tanks in sealed Evidence Bags like it was 100 Kilos of High Grade Smack.

The Media just eats Stuff like that up. And it Also Plays well to support why the FDA Needs a Bigger Budget. And Why the CTP Needs to Raise Tobacco User Fees.
 
Last edited:

gerrymi

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 12, 2013
3,917
14,560
The 'Burgh, PA.
If there is one thing the govt doesn't like is not being able to control and profit from nicotine addicts and addicts in general.

Well UncleJ...if that were true...then they'd legalize ALL drugs...and tax the heck out of them...

(As a taxpayer...I'd much rather the gubmint steal money from me to pay for Treatment Centers...than the War On Drugs.)

[As might be apparent...if I ever decided to act on any political leanings I might find in my personality...I'd probably be a Libertarian.] :shock:

.
 
Last edited:

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,623
1
84,749
So-Cal
The FSTCA gave the FDA almost Complete Authority over "Tobacco Products" sold in the US Market.

It Didn't give the FDA the Ability to Regulate Foreign Companies or their Products if they choose to Not to sell them in the US Market. But I Can't Imagine any Court not agreeing the the FDA has the Authority to Deny US Entry of a Non-Conforming "Tobacco Products" if the sale originated Inside the US and used US Funds.

The Reality of it... Can the FDA stop every foreign order for Personal Use coming into the USA via US Customs? Of Course Not. There just Isn't enough Manpower at the US CBP.

But Does that mean that the US CBP can't kick-out Packages at random that contain Non-Conforming "Tobacco Products" and then Deny their Entry? No, it Doesn't mean that either.

Now I'm sure that the FDA/CTP will make an Example of Some Packages. And have some Press Briefing where they have a Table covered with Mods and Tanks in sealed Evidence Bags like it was 100 Kilos of High Grade Smack.

The Media just eats Stuff like that up. And it Also Plays well to support why the FDA Needs a Bigger Budget. And Why the CTP Needs to Raise Tobacco User Fees.

ETA: Until the FDA/CTP get's a List of what Is under PMTA Review and what Isn't, I'm Not sure how Customs would be able to perform an Enforcement.

And that will probably Take Awhile if the past performance of the FDA/CTP is any gauge.
 

MacTechVpr

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 24, 2013
5,725
14,411
Hollywood (Beach), FL
The FSTCA gave the FDA almost Complete Authority over "Tobacco Products" sold in the US Market.

It Didn't give the FDA the Ability to Regulate Foreign Companies or their Products if they choose to Not to sell them in the US Market. But I Can't Imagine any Court not agreeing the the FDA has the Authority to Deny US Entry of a Non-Conforming "Tobacco Products" if the sale originated Inside the US and used US Funds.

The Reality of it... Can the FDA stop every foreign order for Personal Use coming into the USA via US Customs? Of Course Not. There just Isn't enough Manpower at the US CBP.

But Does that mean that the US CBP can't kick-out Packages at random that contain Non-Conforming "Tobacco Products" and then Deny their Entry? No, it Doesn't mean that either.

Now I'm sure that the FDA/CTP will make an Example of Some Packages. And have some Press Briefing where they have a Table covered with Mods and Tanks in sealed Evidence Bags like it was 100 Kilos of High Grade Smack.

The Media just eats Stuff like that up. And it Also Plays well to support why the FDA Needs a Bigger Budget. And Why the CTP Needs to Raise Tobacco User Fees.
The FSTCA gave the FDA almost Complete Authority over "Tobacco Products" sold in the US Market.

It Didn't give the FDA the Ability to Regulate Foreign Companies or their Products if they choose to Not to sell them in the US Market. But I Can't Imagine any Court not agreeing the the FDA has the Authority to Deny US Entry of a Non-Conforming "Tobacco Products" if the sale originated Inside the US and used US Funds.

The Reality of it... Can the FDA stop every foreign order for Personal Use coming into the USA via US Customs? Of Course Not. There just Isn't enough Manpower at the US CBP.

But Does that mean that the US CBP can't kick-out Packages at random that contain Non-Conforming "Tobacco Products" and then Deny their Entry? No, it Doesn't mean that either.

Now I'm sure that the FDA/CTP will make an Example of Some Packages. And have some Press Briefing where they have a Table covered with Mods and Tanks in sealed Evidence Bags like it was 100 Kilos of High Grade Smack.

The Media just eats Stuff like that up. And it Also Plays well to support why the FDA Needs a Bigger Budget. And Why the CTP Needs to Raise Tobacco User Fees.

What is the proscribed commodity number of the subject product/s you refer to?

What international convention or treaty requires China to declare something as that which it is not?

Good luck. :)
 
Last edited:

UncLeJunkLe

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 29, 2010
10,626
2
28,687
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well UncleJ...if that were true...then they'd legalize ALL drugs...and tax the heck out of them...

(As a taxpayer...I'd much rather the gubmint steal money from me to pay for Treatment Centers...than the War On Drugs.)

[As might be apparent...if I ever decided to act on any political leanings I might find in my personality...I'd probably be a Libertarian.] :shock:

.


Sometimes I wodner about people like Gary Webb. Was he onto something? What is this "war on drugs". Is it really what it's title proclaims? Or is possible the exact opposite, a cover, for something truly sinister? And how does this apply to tobacco? Alcohol?

Possible rabbit hole.

Just Sayin'.
 
Last edited:

MacTechVpr

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 24, 2013
5,725
14,411
Hollywood (Beach), FL
What is the proscribed or subject
Doesn't have one.
Does it Need One?

Sorry I had my mind elsewhere on the customs#. But yes goods are shipped under commodity classifications. But it's the matter of conformity that where talking about. US has determined a non-sensical classification for e-cig products that has no counterpart in international law to my knowledge.

If I ship tank glass components internationally, am I to classify it as tobacco, something it is not? Maybe grass skirts next according to this logic, to conform with US tax law (which is what FDA regulations are prescribing, in essence, the definitions thereof).

Well they could of course, write any law rule, but I'd think that some judge in his right mind would at some point balk at the notion for the probable loss of any conformity whatsoever in practice based on jurisdiction or utility and not the actual commodity itself. A tangled web.

Good luck. :)
 
Last edited:

gerrymi

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 12, 2013
3,917
14,560
The 'Burgh, PA.
What international convention or treaty requires China to declare something as that which it is not?

Since CBD stores (where it's legal)...and MJ stores (where it's legal)...ALL sell e-juice and Tanks/Mods to vape it...all it would take would be for manufacturers to start putting PROMINENT "Not For Use With Nicotine" labels on their products...:thumbs:

.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,623
1
84,749
So-Cal
What is the proscribed or subject


Sorry I had my mind elsewhere on the customs#. But yes goods are shipped under commodity classifications. But it's the matter of conformity that where talking about. US has determined a non-sensical classification for e-cig products that has no counterpart in international law to my knowledge.

If I ship tank glass components internationally, am I to classify it as tobacco, something it is not? Maybe grass skirts next according to this logic, to conform with US tax law (which is what FDA regulations are prescribing, in essence, the definitions thereof).

Well they could of course, write any law, but I'd think that some judge in his right mind would at some point balk at the notion for the probable loss of any conformity whatsoever in practice based on jurisdiction or utility and not the actual commodity itself. A tangled web.

Good luck. :)

I Really Don't think that the FDA is going to get their Paperwork in a Bunch over a piece of Replacement Glass from Fasttech for a RTA. Or for Many "Components or Parts" that have been Deemed as a "Tobacco Products".

But I Also don't think it is Going to be Business as Usual.

And after Today, if the FDA wants to have US Customs refuse ALL entry to say Puff Bar shipments, be they for Personal Use or Not, I think they have the Power to Do So.
 
Last edited:

f1vefour

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Dec 3, 2013
6,212
13,535
Emerald Coast
Since CBD stores (where it's legal)...and MJ stores (where it's legal)...ALL sell e-juice and Tanks/Mods to vape it...all it would take would be for manufacturers to start putting PROMINENT "Not For Use With Nicotine" labels on their products...:thumbs:

.
I think that would depend on if the vaporizing device has ever been used for nicotine vaping, I don't think they could just repackage something.
 

MacTechVpr

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 24, 2013
5,725
14,411
Hollywood (Beach), FL
I Really Don't think that the FDA is going to get their Paperwork in a Bunch over a piece of Replacement Glass from Fasttech for a RTA. Or for Many "Components or Parts" that have been Deemed as a "Tobacco Products".

But I Also don't think it is Going to be Business as Usual.

And after Today, if the FDA wants to have US Customs refuse ALL entry to say Puff Bar shipments, be they for Personal Use or Not, I think they have Power to Do So.

I am just referring to the absurdity of the classification and it's awkward if not impossible ramifications for enforcement. Were every country capable of allowing every subordinate agency to determine classification and tax or import liability independent of law and international convention or treaty…we would soon not be able to trade at all. Tower of Babel.

No nation would have the resources. Which points out the blatant absurdity of TCA's deference to FDA. It breaks the trade model on a grand scale.

Good luck. :)
 

gerrymi

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 12, 2013
3,917
14,560
The 'Burgh, PA.
I think that would depend on if the vaporizing device has ever been used for nicotine vaping, I don't think they could just repackage something.

Why not??? Samsung...just recently...started imprinting "NOT FOR E-CIG OR VAPE"...on the batteries we ALL use in our Mods...

.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: stols001

MacTechVpr

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 24, 2013
5,725
14,411
Hollywood (Beach), FL
Since CBD stores (where it's legal)...and MJ stores (where it's legal)...ALL sell e-juice and Tanks/Mods to vape it...all it would take would be for manufacturers to start putting PROMINENT "Not For Use With Nicotine" labels on their products...:thumbs:

.

I believe some have/will try this gambit. Where vaping is concerned, I argued for this some years ago…a nicotine free vape lounge model. Don't see how FDA could claim jurisdiction in such cirmcumstances. However, they do so anyway, by classifying all commodities that might be used with tobacco as tobacco to my reading of the rules. And that is just insanity.

Good luck. :)
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,623
1
84,749
So-Cal
I am just referring to the absurdity of the classification and it's awkward if not impossible ramifications for enforcement. Were every country capable of allowing every subordinate agency to determine classification and tax or import liability independent of law and international convention or treaty…we would soon not be able to trade at all. Tower of Babel.

No nation would have the resources. Which points out the blatant absurdity of TCA's deference to FDA. It breaks the trade model on a grand scale.

Good luck. :)

The Whole Thing is Absurd.

The FSTCA was never about allowing New Tobacco Products into the Market. It was to Keep them Out. Even if these New Products were Less Harmful or Less Addictive.

It was all about Guaranteeing BT's Cigarette Monopoly. And the Constant Stream of Tax Revenue (and MSA Payments) that they bring to the table.
 

UncLeJunkLe

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 29, 2010
10,626
2
28,687
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kangertech released the Esmart battery many years ago, which is just a manual 510 cigalike battery (only slightly thicker than regular cigalike batteries at the time by about 2mm or so) with a 380mah battery and it was marketed for use with tanks/atomizers that were marketed for use with nicotine eliquid.

MG_4703_1_large.jpg


Today, there are many "alternative vape" brands on the market that sell that same exact mod/battery but it's marketed with a different brand name and marketed for use with various tanks/atomizers designed to vape CDB liquid, wax, dry herb, etc.

Original-Smart-cart-380mAh-Battery-Pen_600x.jpg


The only difference between the Esmart and these other batteries is the colors available (sometimes) and the logo on it. And sometimes (rarely) the shape of the fire button.

And that's just one of many examples. In the end, the shape of the body means nothing. All the mods on the market, be it for nicotine vape or "alternative" vape, are all the same thing, some having various features that others don't, some being crappier than others, all having different price points and logos. But they share one major, common function - to provide power - and all can be used for various things, including a flashlight...
1804300-3.jpg


1804300-2.jpg


"Tobacco Product", my a§
 
Last edited:

MacTechVpr

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 24, 2013
5,725
14,411
Hollywood (Beach), FL
Well UncleJ...if that were true...then they'd legalize ALL drugs...and tax the heck out of them...

(As a taxpayer...I'd much rather the gubmint steal money from me to pay for Treatment Centers...than the War On Drugs.)

[As might be apparent...if I ever decided to act on any political leanings I might find in my personality...I'd probably be a Libertarian.] :shock:

.

Within your answer, I think you answered your own question.

Your rights end where mine begin;
Your fear does not overrule my freedom.

Gov today recognizes neither.

Good luck. :)
 

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,147
SoCal
From the VTA--just in.

"This is a BIG DAY for the vapor technology industry. The day that so many said could not come has arrived. And, just like with every other deadline imposed by the FDA, the vapor industry has stepped up to the task.

Once thought impossible, already reports are coming in of many manufacturers filing their Pre-Market Tobacco Applications (PMTAs) covering what is sure to be thousands of products. Congratulations to all those companies who dug in, did the hard work, gathered the science and submitted their PMTAs by the deadline. Yes, companies had to make some tough decisions along the way, but that was always expected as we headed into the final phase of the Deeming Regulation.

Last week, the FDA confirmed it will take each applicant's individual circumstances into account during the review process. To be sure, FDA already has been quickly replying to early applicants and issuing initial acceptance letters accepting applications for a variety of products.

While this may feel like a finish line, it is really only the beginning of an ongoing process with FDA as CTP reviews each application submitted and engages with further questions of the applicants.

VTA will continue our existing dialogue with FDA to strongly advocate for our members participating in the process. To that end, the process rolls out as follows:

Phase 1: Administrative Review. FDA initially reviews the application to make sure that basic requirements are in the application, it is in English, it includes required contact information and that it contains product identifying information. If these basic elements are included, a company should receive a letter from FDA accepting their application for further action. If not, FDA will send a “refuse to accept” letter.

Phase 2: Filing. FDA engages in a preliminary scientific review to make sure that everything required by the statute is included, such as health risk data, HPHC studies, descriptions of components, ingredients, additives, and principles of operation, description of facility controls, manufacturing, etc. If FDA finds these elements, a company will receive a letter accepting the application for filing. If not, FDA will send a “refuse to file” letter.

Phase 3: Substantive Review: This is FDA’s full-blown evaluation of all the science and data presented in each application. FDA will take recommendations from TPSAC and will engage with the applicant with questions. This process could take up to 12 months and during this time FDA may send the applicant a deficiency letter, giving them 90 days to provide missing or deficient information. If FDA has made a scientific decision to issue a marketing order, FDA will send an environmental information request letter before it can issue a final marketing order. Otherwise, FDA will send a “no marketing order” letter.

Phase 4: Post Marketing Reporting. As part of its approval process, FDA may require that the sale and distribution of your product is restricted (i.e., to protect kids). Or FDA may require the applicant to establish and maintain certain records and make certain reports available to FDA. Post market reports will vary based on submission and may include a requirement that the applicant engages in serious or unexpected adverse experience reporting or any manufacturing deviations.

VTA’s full, in-depth analysis summarizing the important developments for those impacted by the PMTA deadline, particularly as it relates to FDA’s enforcement now that the PMTA deadline has been reached, can be found here."
 

stols001

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 30, 2017
29,338
108,119
The "bad" drugs are the ones that may have usefulness but can be abused, that the government is making goodwill, trading, or other agreements with other countries, or redistributing seized drug shipments to groups it would like to keep in jail/out of ones hair.

One thing that DID happen before the whole "MJ return to life" was sentencing reform for that "non hard drug" and so it has to swing to the state's side and well, they tax it that way.

I am slightly kidding and mostly oversimplifying but it is late. Drugs perform a bunch of useful functions in our society which is why I hope to keep a watchful eye out for the lay of the land not cavalierly do much.

I worked for this day so I wouldn't have to worry.
Anna
 

Users who are viewing this thread