Last edited:
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
I'll see your Guidance and Raise you a Final Rule.
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...1-22787/treatment-of-e-cigarettes-in-the-mail
I was glad to see this one. I get a fair amount of samples for review so now I know that it's ok.
Consumer Testing: Limited shipments of cigarettes sent by verified and authorized manufacturers to adult smokers for consumer testing purposes
Consumer Testing: Limited shipments of cigarettes sent by verified and authorized manufacturers to adult smokers for consumer testing purposes
All this talk about the final rule really should be in the mail ban thread, but anyway...
The use of the term "cigarettes" in the Final Rule isn't the same as the term "ENDS". USPS concluded that ENDS are not eligible for mailing under the Consumer Testing Exception and that they can't do anything about that, only congress can.
======================
II. Summary of Final Rule
ENDS products are generally nonmailable, except as authorized by an exception, and then only if all PACT-Act-related and non-PACT-Act-related conditions of mailability are met. Congress did not grant the Postal Service authority to make policy decisions to waive or defer the operation of the POSECCA, to create new PACT Act exceptions, or to expand, restrict, or modify the scope of existing exceptions, beyond the reasonable application of the conditions enumerated in the PACT Act.
...
As for the Consumer Testing and Public Health exceptions, it is apparent that Congress intended those exceptions to apply only to combustible cigarettes, and not to ENDS products or smokeless tobacco. First, the Consumer Testing exception is statutorily restricted to cigarette manufacturers with a permit under section 5713 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”), which does not apply to ENDS manufacturers. Second, shipments under the Consumer Testing exception (and, by extension, the Public Health exception) are expressly limited to specified quantities of “packs of cigarettes” containing 20 cigarettes each. This standardized quantification is meaningful in the context of combustible cigarettes, but not in the context of ENDS products or smokeless tobacco. Upon consideration of the public comments, there does not appear to be a workable standard by which to apply this material condition for the Consumer Testing and Public Health exceptions to ENDS products, notwithstanding their treatment as “cigarettes” for broader purposes of the PACT Act. Given this context-based plain reading of the statute and the narrow construction typically due exceptions, the Postal Service concludes that current law does not support applying these exceptions to ENDS products.
473.5 Consumer Testing Exception
The consumer testing exception permits a legally operating cigarette manufacturer or a legally authorized agent of a legally operating cigarette manufacturer to mail cigarettes to verified adult smokers solely for consumer testing purposes. The manufacturer for which mailings are entered under this exception must have a permit, in good standing, issued under 26 U.S.C. 5713. The consumer testing exception applies only to cigarettes and not to smokeless tobacco or ENDS. Mailability is further restricted to mailings that comply with all conditions in 473.51 to 473.54.
...
1. Testing by Manufacturers
...
For these reasons, the Postal Service concludes that the PACT Act does not make the Consumer Testing exception available for ENDS products. It should be noted that the Intra-Alaska/Intra-Hawaii exception would permit the mailing of ENDS products for any purpose, including consumer testing, with the only restriction being that the mailing occur entirely within Alaska or Hawaii. Otherwise, barring further legislative change, such activities must employ transportation and delivery methods that do not involve the mails.
As relevant to both exceptions, “consumer testing” is limited to “formal data collection and analysis for the specific purpose of evaluating the product for quality assurance and benchmarking purposes of cigarette brands or sub-brands among existing adult smokers.” Id. at (b)(5)(D).
======================
Also, it seems that "consumer testing" isn't the same as "product reviews". "Consumer Testing" is defined as testing a product for the manufacturer, which isn't a marketing function like product reviews are.
======================
I. Consumer Testing and Public Health Exceptions
...
As relevant to both exceptions, “consumer testing” is limited to “formal data collection and analysis for the specific purpose of evaluating the product for quality assurance and benchmarking purposes of cigarette brands or sub-brands among existing adult smokers.” Id. at (b)(5)(D).
======================
The use of the term "cigarettes" in the Final Rule isn't the same as the term "ENDS". USPS concluded that ENDS are not eligible for mailing under the Consumer Testing Exception and that they can't do anything about that, only congress can.
======================
II. Summary of Final Rule
ENDS products are generally nonmailable, except as authorized by an exception, and then only if all PACT-Act-related and non-PACT-Act-related conditions of mailability are met. Congress did not grant the Postal Service authority to make policy decisions to waive or defer the operation of the POSECCA, to create new PACT Act exceptions, or to expand, restrict, or modify the scope of existing exceptions, beyond the reasonable application of the conditions enumerated in the PACT Act.
...
As for the Consumer Testing and Public Health exceptions, it is apparent that Congress intended those exceptions to apply only to combustible cigarettes, and not to ENDS products or smokeless tobacco. First, the Consumer Testing exception is statutorily restricted to cigarette manufacturers with a permit under section 5713 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”), which does not apply to ENDS manufacturers. Second, shipments under the Consumer Testing exception (and, by extension, the Public Health exception) are expressly limited to specified quantities of “packs of cigarettes” containing 20 cigarettes each. This standardized quantification is meaningful in the context of combustible cigarettes, but not in the context of ENDS products or smokeless tobacco. Upon consideration of the public comments, there does not appear to be a workable standard by which to apply this material condition for the Consumer Testing and Public Health exceptions to ENDS products, notwithstanding their treatment as “cigarettes” for broader purposes of the PACT Act. Given this context-based plain reading of the statute and the narrow construction typically due exceptions, the Postal Service concludes that current law does not support applying these exceptions to ENDS products.
473.5 Consumer Testing Exception
The consumer testing exception permits a legally operating cigarette manufacturer or a legally authorized agent of a legally operating cigarette manufacturer to mail cigarettes to verified adult smokers solely for consumer testing purposes. The manufacturer for which mailings are entered under this exception must have a permit, in good standing, issued under 26 U.S.C. 5713. The consumer testing exception applies only to cigarettes and not to smokeless tobacco or ENDS. Mailability is further restricted to mailings that comply with all conditions in 473.51 to 473.54.
...
1. Testing by Manufacturers
...
For these reasons, the Postal Service concludes that the PACT Act does not make the Consumer Testing exception available for ENDS products. It should be noted that the Intra-Alaska/Intra-Hawaii exception would permit the mailing of ENDS products for any purpose, including consumer testing, with the only restriction being that the mailing occur entirely within Alaska or Hawaii. Otherwise, barring further legislative change, such activities must employ transportation and delivery methods that do not involve the mails.
As relevant to both exceptions, “consumer testing” is limited to “formal data collection and analysis for the specific purpose of evaluating the product for quality assurance and benchmarking purposes of cigarette brands or sub-brands among existing adult smokers.” Id. at (b)(5)(D).
======================
Also, it seems that "consumer testing" isn't the same as "product reviews". "Consumer Testing" is defined as testing a product for the manufacturer, which isn't a marketing function like product reviews are.
======================
I. Consumer Testing and Public Health Exceptions
...
As relevant to both exceptions, “consumer testing” is limited to “formal data collection and analysis for the specific purpose of evaluating the product for quality assurance and benchmarking purposes of cigarette brands or sub-brands among existing adult smokers.” Id. at (b)(5)(D).
======================
Last edited:
"criminalisation of ordinary citizens."
<sarcasm>shocking</sarcasm>
<sarcasm>shocking</sarcasm>
Well, no more teen killing vaping epidemics for Hong Kong. Hong Kong has politicians who really care.
Lordy, I hope a 'sarc' is not required.
Right on that, since
"5 000ml of suspected nicotine-containing electronic cigarette oil"
Yeah, don't vape oil!!
"5 000ml of suspected nicotine-containing electronic cigarette oil"
Yeah, don't vape oil!!
A peek at our future.
If the US does not follow the UK and EU, then I suspect you are correct.
Buy all the liquids needed to mix your own juices and learn how to do so if you don't already know. Buy a freezer to store the nicotine base. Get enough of the solutions to last the rest of your life.
Buy all the liquids needed to mix your own juices and learn how to do so if you don't already know. Buy a freezer to store the nicotine base. Get enough of the solutions to last the rest of your life.
Mexico totally bans sales of e-cigarettes
Assistant Health Secretary Hugo López Gatell lashed out at industry claims that vaping is safer than smoking, calling it “a big lie.”
Assistant Health Secretary Hugo López Gatell lashed out at industry claims that vaping is safer than smoking, calling it “a big lie.”
It makes perfect sense for Mexico to ban vaping - Vaping may be interfering with the Mexican drug cartels.
Safer than light and burn tobacco products with many flavor variations as well, many would be drug users
might be tempted to vape more and use drugs {probbsly the main staple of the Mexican economy} less.
Now think about all those poor Mexican farmers and drug traders losing money to vaping, and you can
see the perfect sense in Mexico's actions !!!
So now don't you feel better knowing there is a method to the madness, a reason to get those evil vapes
away from the people while simultaneously advancing the drug cartels !
As I've said before about the American politicians that want to take your vapes away or regulate them out
of existence - "They may be evil, but they are not stupid" !
Maybe one day Mexico will make a prisoner exchange for El Chapo {major Mexican drug lord now serving a life sentence in the US}, return him to Mexico and make him President !
I don't understand how the world works. I thought Hong Kong was under Chinese law now. I won the giveaway from ElegoMall on ECF on April 19. The shipping took a while. ElegoMall asked that the winners talk up the product on social media, but I don't do any of the social media, so I offered them a limited time free audio advert. It took them a while to get a script to me. I've been communicating with them during the process. Just this morning I sent the ad to them to approve, and they asked me for airing times. There has never been one hint that they were under duress or in danger of closing. They're in Shenzhen, which is about 75 miles away from Hong Kong, but maybe Shenzhen China is under different law than Hong Kong S.A.R. ElegoMall is a factory, not a walk-in shop, to the best of my knowledge.
HK banned the sale of devices. However its still legal to use said products for personal use. So depending on the pharma/chem market I suspect DIY is still very possible in HK. You would just have to leave HK to the "mainland" to get another device should it die. HK although technically independent(less and less so every year) it still is able to self govern as China see's it as a gateway to western trading businesses.
It would be fair to say the devices themselves are not illegal, its the nicotine. SO travelers going to HK are just advised to bring unmarked bottles as customs is VERY unlikely to bother checking the contents.
Last edited:
Very informative, thank you. I don't think ElegoMall sells liquids, but they sell 300 brands of devices.
I wouldn't personally take the chance. What are the Hong Kong regulations on importing nicotine? They are very rigid and extremist with some of their laws. You wouldn't want to be caught with the chemical if it was banned from import.
Similar threads
- Locked
