Photo of Azim Chowdhury

Azim Chowdhury

Subscribe to Azim Chowdhury's Posts

Azim Chowdhury is a regulatory and public policy attorney with a focus on vapor, nicotine and tobacco product regulation. He is a Partner in Keller and Heckman’s nationally-ranked food and drug law practice.

Mr. Chowdhury advises domestic and foreign corporations in matters of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and international regulatory compliance. In particular, he has developed expertise in tobacco and vapor product regulation relating to the implementation of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, and spearheaded the Tobacco and E-Vapor practice at Keller and Heckman. Specifically, Mr. Chowdhury has experience representing tobacco, e-cigarette and e-liquid manufacturers, distributors, retailers, suppliers and trade associations in matters of FDA, state and global regulatory compliance. He also assists corporations in establishing clearances for food and drug additives in the U.S., Canada, and European Union, with an emphasis on indirect additives used in food-contact materials.

Mr. Chowdhury is also a frequent contributor to the Food and Drug Law Institute's (FDLI) Update Magazine, has served on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Food and Drug Law Journal, and has authored and edited numerous articles and publications, including Tobacco Regulation and Compliance: An Essential Resource, FDA Regulation of Tobacco: A Comprehensive Guide – An FDLI Primer and Tobacco and Nicotine Delivery: Regulation and Compliance, 2nd Edition. He frequently speaks at industry conferences and events, was featured in U.S. News and World Reports Best Lawyers Edition (2016) and was named one of “10 Names to Know in the Vape World” in the October 2015 issue of Vape Magazine.

Mr. Chowdhury also has an active pro bono practice through Keller and Heckman’s Pro Bono Program, and has been featured in the Baltimore Sun for successfully obtaining asylum in the United States for a family who fled their home country of El Salvador because of violence they faced from an international gang.

Prior to entering private practice, he served as a judicial law clerk on the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Mr. Chowdhury received a B.A. and B.S. from Johns Hopkins University, a MBA from the University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business, and a JD, cum laude, from the University of Maryland School of Law.

Education: Johns Hopkins University (B.A., B.S., 2003); University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business (M.B.A., 2006); University of Maryland School of Law (J.D., 2006, cum laude).

Admissions: District of Columbia; Maryland

Follow: Azim's Twitter ProfileAzim's Twitter Profile
CPSC

We have observed two recent enforcement trends at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that may affect the e-vapor industry: (1) a spike in recalls of products harmful or fatal to children if ingested but lacking required child-resistant packaging; and (2) an increased focus on the absence of certificates of compliance. Both forms of regulatory violations were also the subject of a recent Nicotine Packaging Advisory Letter from the Director of CPSC’s Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Companies that bottle and sell liquid nicotine for use in open-system e-vaping devices should therefore ensure that their containers are fitted with compliant child-resistant closures if required, and that they create, furnish, and keep on file accurate and updated General Certificates of Conformity (GCCs) evincing compliance. Failure to do so could result in detention and destruction of shipments or products stored in warehouses, recalls from distribution, and consumer-level recalls, and could put companies at risk of civil penalties for violations. We advise many clients on child-resistant packaging and related obligations. Given scrutiny of the e-vapor industry by multiple federal agencies, it is especially important for industry members to pay close attention to CPSC requirements as well as obligations under laws administered by other agencies.

Child Resistant Closures

As we previously reported, the Child Nicotine Poison Prevention Act of 2015 (CNPPA) requires that “liquid nicotine containers,” which are defined as containers “from which nicotine is accessible through normal and foreseeable use by a consumer,” be packaged in child-resistant packaging. Pods and similar containers that are designed for use in closed-system electronic vaping devices do not need child-resistant packaging if consumers will not come into contact with the nicotine “through customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use, including reasonably foreseeable ingestion or other contact by children.” The requirements for child-resistant packaging are found in CPSC’s regulations implementing the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA) and are specifically cited in the CNPPA. The packaging must be difficult for children to open (80% of children should be unable to open the packaging after 10 minutes of trying), but should also be easy for older adults to open (90% of adults must be able to open it). See 16 CFR § 1700.15. CPSC regulations set out the testing protocol, which includes panels of at least 50 children and 100 adults aged 50-70. 16 CFR § 1700.20.

CPSC’s recent Nicotine Packaging Advisory Letter cautions companies that child resistant closures may apply to dispensing caps that come with the products. Notably, the Advisory Letter stresses that if the dispensing cap or other secondary closure sold with the product is reasonably expected to replace the original child resistant closure, it must also be child resistant. This appears to be a new area of concern for CPSC with respect to liquid nicotine, as it was not mentioned in CPSC’s June 7, 2016 Nicotine Packaging Surveillance letter. Companies should therefore expect enhanced CPSC enforcement focus on products sold with secondary caps.

CPSC is not the only agency concerned about the possibility that children could be poisoned by liquid nicotine if they accidentally ingest it. In May of this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued 13 warnings letters to e-liquid companies that sold liquid nicotine in packages resembling soft drinks, candy, or other foods appealing to children. The letters alleged that these products were misbranded in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act and that the labeling was unfair or deceptive in violation of the FTC Act. In the letters, the agencies states that “children are at particular risk because exposure to the nicotine in the e-liquid product, even in relatively small amounts, could result in acute toxicity. Child poisonings due to the ingestion of liquid nicotine have recently increased substantially.  Severe harms can occur in small children from ingestion of liquid nicotine, including death from cardiac arrest, as well as seizure, coma, and respiratory arrest.” FTC staffers also highlighted use of child-appealing characters and themes by e-cigarette companies in packaging and advertising at a recent National Advertising Division (NAD) advertising conference, stressing that the practice was unfair and deceptive, and that ingesting nicotine could be fatal to children.

Separately, the CPSC appears to have increased its targeted enforcement of child-resistant packaging requirements for other product categories. CPSC announced six consumer-level recalls of products that did not have mandatory child-resistant packaging over the last twelve months. This is a sharp increase in such recalls, as there had been only twenty-two between 1992 and late 2017. Companies that recalled products lacking child-resistant packaging generally provided consumers a refund, a new product, or a replacement child-resistant cap. They also reworked packaging for new products to add child-resistant cap. Be advised that it takes time to source appropriate child-resistant closures that are technically suitable for the package, can be implemented on existing product packaging lines, and meet cost considerations. Additionally, because child-resistant packaging requirements are enshrined in mandatory regulations, firms that learn of a failure to comply must of course consider their obligation to file a report to CPSC under Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). We advise companies that determine that their existing product packaging fails to meet child-resistant requirements to begin the search for alternative packaging or closures at the same time they prepare their reports to the CPSC.

General Certificates of Conformity

Because containers of liquid nicotine are subject to a mandatory CPSC regulation, manufacturers must also create GCCs for their products. GCCs must accompany a product shipment, which can be done either as a hard copy or as a link to a URL where the retailer, or the CPSC if it requests one, can find an electronic copy. CPSC’s recent Nicotine Packaging Advisory Letter specifically reiterated the requirement to issue GCCs. GCCs must include certain specific information.  As it is not always straightforward to create these records, we outline the requirements below with some tips on compliance:

1. Identification of the product covered by the certificate.

  • This would include the brand name, size, SKU and similar information.

2. Citation to each CPSC product safety regulation or statutory requirement to which the product is being certified.

  • The relevant citation is 16 CFR § 1700.15.

3. Identification of the importer or domestic manufacturer or private labeler certifying compliance of the product, including the importer or domestic manufacturer’s name, full mailing address, and telephone number.

  • The manufacturer listed is the company that filled the bottle, or the private labeler, e., the company named on the label in the case of product that was filled by a supplier that is not named on the label.
  • The manufacturer of the child-resistant packaging is not the manufacturer of the e-liquid and should be listed here.

4. Contact information for the individual maintaining records of test results, including the custodian’s name, e-mail address, full mailing address, and telephone number.

  • The manufacturer responsible for creating the GCC must designate a responsible individual and provide this information.

5. Date (month and year at a minimum) and place (including city and state, country, or administrative region) where the product was manufactured.

  • The date and place where the e-liquid was filled should be provided.

6. Date and place (including city and state, country or administrative region) where the product was tested for compliance with the applicable regulation(s).

  • This would be the date and location of testing for compliance with child-resistant packaging requirements.
  • If the e-liquid manufacturer or private labeler has relied on a GCC from the supplier of the container rather than conducting its own tests, list the date of the certificate provided by the packaging suppliers.

7. Identification of any third-party laboratory on whose testing the certificate depends, including name, full mailing address and telephone number of the laboratory (to the extent this is relevant).

  • If the e-liquid manufacturer or private labeler has relied on a GCC from the supplier of the container, the response is “N/A” but the underlying GCC should be attached to the e-liquid manufacturer’s GCC.

CPSC has dramatically increased its enforcement for violations of “paperwork” requirements, including certificate of compliance and tracking labels for children’s products, at the port over the last year. CPSC is on pace to issue more Letters of Advice (LOA) for such violations than in any year since 2012, the earliest year for which data are available. CPSC’s Office of Import Surveillance also recently released a report on a study it conducted that found a high correlation between the lack of certificates and additional regulatory violations. If CPSC requests a GCC and one is not furnished within 24 hours, it is highly likely that the shipment will be detained and subjected to additional scrutiny by the agency. Companies should, therefore, make sure that they create full and accurate GCCs and that they appropriately provide them to their retailers. Companies should also maintain their GCCs in a readily accessible electronic file so that they can be quickly accessed and sent to CPSC upon request.

Conclusion

In an era of heightened attention to the potential harm to minors stemming from e-vaping, sellers of liquid nicotine should diligently comply with child-resistant packaging requirements and should carefully document their compliance with GCCs. Failure to meet these requirements could lead to consumer-level recalls and destruction of all existing non-compliant product in the supply chain. Companies with noncompliant products that want to avoid a prolonged absence from the market will have to quickly secure appropriate packaging, which may be expensive and difficult to integrate with existing production lines. Additionally, failure to use required child-resistant closures may give rise to reporting obligations to the CPSC, and failure to report could lead to enforcement actions and potentially millions of dollars in penalties.

The e-vapor industry is facing scrutiny from multiple federal agencies on multiple fronts. It is essential that industry members understand and adhere to all applicable regulatory requirements, and as always, Keller and Heckman is here to help.

If you have any questions regarding CPSC requirements contact Sheila Millar (millar@khlaw.com, 202-434-4143) or Boaz Green (green@khlaw.com, 202-434-4267. For more information about our Product Safety Practice in general, visit https://www.khlaw.com/Product-Safety. For more information about our Tobacco and E-vapor Practice, visit https://www.khlaw.com/evapor.

Register for Keller and Heckman’s 3rd Annual Tobacco and E-Vapor Law Symposium in Miami, Florida on January 29-30, 2019 here.

WLF

Azim Chowdhury and Adam Susser have been published in the Washington Legal Foundation’s Critical Legal Issues Working Paper Series, Number 210, October 2018 edition. In the paper, Implementing the Continuum of Risk: Modified Risk Tobacco Products, Azim and Adam address how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can better implement the Tobacco Control Act’s Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) provisions to benefit the public health.  To read the full article, click here.

fdli

Azim Chowdhury and Sam Jockel have been published in the latest Issue of Food and Drug Law Institute Update Magazine, “Spotlight on Tobacco – Future Developments in the Regulation of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: Potential Over-the-Counter Pathway.” Update is open access online. To read the article, click here. This article is republished with the permission of FDLI.

leaf

On May 23, 2018, Bill S-5 (“An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”) became law in Canada, representing a major shift in Canada’s regulatory framework, as the Bill establishes a nationalized approach to the regulation of vaping products and tobacco products through the implementation of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (TVPA).

This legislation represents a milestone for vaping products. Prior to the TVPA, vaping products were not expressly acknowledged as legal at the federal level in Canada. Further, vaping products containing nicotine were regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and required premarket approval. Canada’s modernized approach seeks to strike a balance between the goals of restricting access to tobacco and vaping products for minors, while allowing adult smokers to access vaping products and less harmful alternatives to traditional tobacco products.

 General Overview of the TVPA and Related Legislation

Under the new TVPA framework, vaping products that are not marketed with therapeutic claims are now legal and may be manufactured, distributed, and sold in Canada.[1] A “vaping product” is defined in Section 2 (Interpretation) of the TVPA as: (a) a device that produces emissions in the form of an aerosol and is intended to be brought to the mouth for inhalation of the aerosol; (b) a device that is designated to be a vaping product by the regulations; (c) a part that may be used with those devices; and (d) a substance or mixture of substances, whether or not it contains nicotine, that is intended for use with those devices to produce emissions.  Therefore, e-liquids, including zero-nicotine e-liquid, fall within this definition.

While vaping products will be permitted under the TVPA, they will be subjected to substantial regulation. The Act addresses the manufacture, sale, labeling, and promotion of tobacco products and vaping products, and major provisions will:

  • Largely apply existing tobacco regulations to vaping products[2];
  • Prohibit the sale of vaping products to minors[3];
  • Place heavy restrictions on advertising and promotion of vaping products by restricting lifestyle advertising, use of testimonials, and related claims[4];
  • Restrict the promotion of certain flavors—especially those that may allegedly appeal to minors, e.g., dessert flavors[5]; and
  • Empower Health Canada to implement regulations, including plain and standardized tobacco packaging.[6]

Certain provisions of the TVPA became effective upon Bill S-5 receiving Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 (e.g., prohibition on sale to youth), while other provisions give manufacturers and importers 180 days to comply, following Royal Assent (e.g., provisions that prohibit the manufacture and sale of vaping products containing an ingredient set out in Schedule 2, such as “colouring agents”).

Promotional Claims

Stakeholders and Health Canada are working together to ensure that the various restrictions set out in the TVPA, including those impacting promotional claims and advertising, are not overly burdensome.[7] Health Canada has acknowledged competing interests that push back on its obligation to ensure that the public is not misled by promotional practices, including a strong interest in allowing adults to access the information needed to make informed decisions about the vaping products available on the market (especially adults who are working to quit the use of tobacco products). One example is the current dialogue between Health Canada and stakeholders related to TVPA Section 30.43. Specifically, while TVPA Section 30.43 seeks to prohibit the use of certain promotional statements, e.g., statements that could lead a consumer to believe that certain health benefits will result from vaping, Health Canada has distributed a draft list of relative risk statements about vaping products that would be permitted under the TVPA, if finalized.[8] The September 4, 2018 draft of the “List of Statements for Use in the Promotion of Vaping Products” was circulated, and Health Canada accepted comments until September 17, 2018.[9] The list is now under review with the Scientific Advisory Board on Vaping Products (SAB). The seven proposed statements are:

  1. If you are a smoker, switching completely to vaping is a much less harmful option;
  2. While vaping products emit toxic substances, the amount is significantly lower than in tobacco smoke;
  3. By switching completely to vaping products, smokers are exposed to a small fraction of the 7,000 chemicals found in tobacco smoke;
  4. Switching completely from combustible tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes significantly reduces users’ exposure to numerous toxic and cancer-causing substances;
  5. Completely replacing your cigarette with a vaping product will significantly reduce your exposure to numerous toxic and cancer-causing substances;
  6. Switching completely from smoking to e-cigarettes will reduce harms to your health; and
  7. Completely replacing your cigarette with an e-cigarette will reduce harms to your health.

While the list has not yet been finalized, the collaborative effort between Health Canada and stakeholders in bringing clarity to the TVPA through exemptions and other regulatory measures evidences an effort to balance the goals of the legislation. This is in stark contrast to the Tobacco Control Act in the United States, which bans all “modified risk” claims made with FDA authorization. As we have previously blogged about here, this provision of the Tobacco Control Act is being challenged by the vapor industry.

Related Legislation

Additional legislation, such as Canada’s Food and Drugs Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act, will play a role in the approval of vaping products that contain therapeutic claims and will address other issues, such as exposure to second-hand smoke in public spaces and workplaces. The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) will also play a role in the regulation of vaping products as a whole.

The CCPSA sets forth mandatory reporting and document retention requirements, as well as a prohibition on the manufacture, import, advertisement, or sale of any consumer product that is a “danger to human health or safety,” as defined by Paragraphs 7(a) and 8(a) of the CCPSA. Further, the CCPSA empowers Health Canada to order recalls (including less severe actions, depending on degree of risk), as well as to order that testing be conducted on the consumer product of interest.[10]

Health Canada intends to introduce regulations under the CCPSA to address health and safety risks posed by vaping products. While there are currently no product-specific regulations for vaping products under the CCPSA, the CCPSA and applicable regulations, including the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 (CCCR), will apply until regulations specific to vaping products are implemented.  After specific regulations take effect, general provisions of the CCPSA will continue to apply.

Canada’s Guidance Document, Vaping Products not Marketed for a Therapeutic Use (July 12, 2018), provides an overview of the health and safety requirements that exist under the CCPSA and related CCCR regulations that relate to vaping products marketed without therapeutic claims (i.e., vaping products that are not regulated as drugs under Canada’s Food and Drugs Act). The CCCR sets forth a classification-based approach to rules for consumer chemicals, including a prohibition on the sale of very toxic substances and requirements for labeling.  Child-resistant containers are also required for toxic substances.

Importantly, Section 3 of Health Canada’s Guidance Document summarizes the classifications related to nicotine that are applicable to vaping products “manufactured, imported, advertised, or sold as consumer products.” The summary from the Guidance Document states the following:

  1. Vaping liquids containing equal to or more than 66 mg/g nicotine meet the classification of “very toxic” under the CCCR, 2001 and are prohibited from being manufactured, imported, advertised, or sold under Section 38 of the CCCR, 2001.
  2. Vaping liquids containing between 10 mg/g and less than 66 mg/g nicotine meet the classification of “toxic” under the CCCR, 2001.  Stand-alone containers of these liquids must meet the CCCR, 2001 requirements for “toxic” chemicals, including child-resistant containers and hazard labelling.
  3. While the CCCR, 2001 excludes ingredients present between 0.1 mg/g and 10 mg/g when calculating a chemical product’s toxicity, Health Canada has determined that nicotine is potentially toxic via oral exposure in this concentration range. Therefore, vaping liquids containing nicotine between 0.1 mg/g and 10 mg/g or under 1% (m/m) (representations of nicotine concentration in mg/mL and mg/g are not necessarily interchangeable as mass varies with the density of the vaping liquid) that do not meet the requirements for the “toxic” classification under the CCCR, 2001 are a violation of the general prohibition set out in Paragraphs 7(a) or 8(a) of the CCPSA and are subject to enforcement action.

Section 4.3 of the Guidance Document (“Vaping Liquid Considerations”) describes additional considerations regarding whether a consumer product that is a “danger to human health or safety,” as defined by Paragraphs 7(a) and 8(a) of the CCPSA. As noted above, products that are considered to be a “danger to human health or safety” may not be manufactured, imported, advertised, or sold as a consumer product. Specific considerations for e-liquids include those related to nicotine, as described above, diluents, additives and flavors, impurities and thermal degradations products, and microbial contamination. Considerations for vaping devices focus on electrical and mechanical aspects of the product, batteries, and chargers.

Importing E-liquids into Canada from the United States

Under the TVPA, vaping products such as e-liquids may now be imported into Canada, according to Customs Notice 18-05.[11] A step-by-step guide to importing commercial goods into Canada is available here, which serves as a valuable tool.

While many manufacturers and distributors have looked to Canada as a potential market, navigating the process of importing vaping products does not come without its challenges. In addition to licensing and permits, tariff classification numbers are needed for each item, and duties and taxes must be determined prior to shipping the goods and having them released from customs. Further, provincial or territorial legislation may impose additional requirements that retailers must follow. We expect that additional guidance will be forthcoming in this regard.

Joint Efforts to Regulate Vaping Products in North America

The North American Vapor Alliance (NAVA) recently emerged as an outlet to ensure practical regulation of vaping products, and to create a unified approach to standards and regulatory regimes across the U.S. and Canada. On September 5, the American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA), the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), and the Canadian Vaping Association (CVA) announced that they would be engaging in this joint effort. For a copy of the press releases, see here and here.

We will continue to provide updates regarding the evolving regulatory landscape that will impact vaping products in Canada.

For more information, contact Azim Chowdhury (+1 202.434.4230, chowdhury@khlaw.com). For more information on our tobacco and e-vapor regulatory practice in general, visit khlaw.com/evapor.  Follow Keller and Heckman Tobacco and E-Vapor Partner Azim Chowdhury on Twitter.

 

__________________________________

[1]              We note that vaping products that make therapeutic claims continue to fall within the scope of Canada’s Food and Drugs Act and require premarket approval.

[2]              See TVPA, Part I.1 (Vaping Products); see also Part III (Labelling).

[3]              TVPA, Part II (Access).

[4]              TVPA, Part IV (Promotion), Division 2 (Vaping Products).

[5]              See TVPA, Sections 30.48 and 30.49 and the “Flavours” table set out in Schedule 3.

[6]              See Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 152, Number 25: Tobacco Products Regulations (Plain and Standardized Appearance.

[7]              See, e.g., TVPA, Sections 30.1 through 30.8.

[8]              In preparing the list of statements, Health Canada considered public opinion from the 2018 Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes report, prepared by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (report highlights are available here), and consulted with the external Scientific Advisory Board on Vaping Products (SAB).

[9]              The draft list of statements was circulated in a September 4, 2018 email from Mathew Cook, Manager of the Regulations Division of the Tobacco Products Regulatory Office, which is part of Health Canada’s Tobacco Control Directorate.

[10]             See Sections 12(a), 31, and 32 of the CCPSA.

[11]             “Commercial shipments of vaping products with no health claims and no health product ingredients (can contain nicotine as a sole ingredient) may now be imported into Canada under the TPVA [sic].”  (See Customs Notice 18-05 (May 24, 2018), Paragraph 5).

oral arugment image

On September 11, 2018, Nicopure Labs, LLC and the Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition (the “Appellants”) appeared for oral argument before a three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to appeal a decision issued last year by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled in favor of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in the first lawsuit challenging various provisions of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“TCA” or “Act”) and FDA’s Deeming Rule as they are being applied to the vapor industry.[1]

During oral argument, the Appellants argued that the Modified Risk Tobacco Product (“MRTP”) preclearance requirement imposed by Section 911 of the TCA violates the First Amendment as applied to vapor products. In addition, the Appellants argued that application of the Act’s free sample ban to vapor products violates the First Amendment, and that FDA failed to tailor the Premarket Tobacco Application (“PMTA”) requirements to ensure the continued availability of vapor products.  Below, we provide a brief overview of the issues discussed at the oral argument. The recording of the hearing is available here.[2]  For background on the appeal, see our previous blog posts, including copies of the legal briefs, available here and here.

Modified Risk Claims

Appellants argued that the dichotomy in the current law – that manufacturers are legally permitted to sell vapor products for recreational purposes, but not allowed to make objectively truthful statements about those products (e.g., that they do not contain or produce tar, ash, or smoke, among other harmful chemicals found in cigarette smoke), or simply repeat FDA’s and various public health organizations’ statements that vapor products pose less risk than cigarettes – runs afoul of the First Amendment, which protects commercial speech. Indeed, Appellants stated that the requirement to ask permission is a First Amendment injury itself. Further, the Appellants contended that under current law, even if every federal judge in the country found a vapor company’s statements about its products to be true, if FDA determines that such a statement does not benefit public health, it would still be prohibited.

Appellants also discussed application of the Supreme Court’s intermediate scrutiny test to the MRTP provision. Under that approach, restrictions on commercial speech are judged under the four-pronged Central Hudson test, in which Courts ask whether: (1) the speech concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading; (2) the asserted government interest is “substantial”; (3) the restriction directly and materially advances the governmental interest; and (4) the restriction is no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.[3] As to the third prong, Appellants maintained that the MRTP provision does not directly and materially advance the government’s interest because others can make similar public statements without any preclearance approval.

The Appellants also noted that the clear trajectory of modern U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence requires that, under the fourth prong of Central Hudson, if the government can achieve its interest in a way that is less restrictive than a prior restraint, it must do so. For example, FDA could rely on non-speech alternatives standing alone or in combination with each other to prevent potentially misleading modified risk claims, such as enforcing the TCA’s misbranding and adulteration provisions, requiring manufacturers to maintain records substantiating such claims, requiring the use of disclaimers, and conducting post-market surveillance.

Free Sample Ban & PMTA Tailoring

Appellants also argued that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tex. v. Johnson free samples are protected under the First Amendment. [4] Under that case, whether conduct is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication” to warrant First Amendment protection depends on whether there is “an intent to convey a particularized message” and “the likelihood [is] great that the message [will] be understood by those who view it.”[5] Here, vapor companies intend to send a message to consumers through their distribution of free samples; thus sampling is a form of protected speech. Appellants argued that it is not enough for vapor companies to simply state that their e-liquid tastes better than a conventional cigarette, for example, but instead the only way to convey this information – the personalized experience of vaping a particular flavor – is through providing a sample. This is expressive conduct. Appellants also maintained that the ban on free samples violates the third and fourth prongs of Central Hudson. For instance, neither Congress nor FDA produced any evidence that minors are, in fact, obtaining access to vapor products through free samples, and there are ample non-speech restrictions that could limit access by youth, such as enhanced enforcement initiatives and minimum age verification at retailers.

In addition, Appellants argued that the PMTA requirements were insufficiently tailored to ensure the continued availability of vapor products. Specifically, given that FDA determined that the vast majority of manufacturers will exit the market before filing PMTAs due to the high cost of long-term, product-specific studies (for more on this see here), Appellants maintained that FDA should have considered accepting for scientific review PMTAs for vapor products that do not contain such studies but otherwise comply with the PMTA informational requirements. FDA could still do a complete review of those PMTAs, which would include a scientific literature review of the population effects of vapor products as such evidence exists in 2022, when PMTAs are expected to be filed under FDA’s current compliance policy for products on the market as of August 8, 2016.

Post-Argument Activity

One day after the oral argument, FDA submitted a letter to the D.C. Circuit Clerk of the Court, informing the court that, on September 12, 2018, FDA announced significant new actions, including enforcement initiatives, to address an alleged “epidemic of e-cigarette use among teenagers.”[6] We previously blogged about FDA’s enforcement “blitz” here.  The letter notes that “FDA is reconsidering the extended compliance dates for the submission of new product applications when it is apparent that there is widespread youth use of the product, and is also considering a policy change that would lead to the immediate removal of flavored e-cigarette products from the market.”

Indeed, in letters to several large manufacturers of cartridge-based e-cigarettes, FDA threatened to revisit the August 8, 2022 PMTA compliance date (for those companies’ and potentially similar products), if the targeted companies failed to submit within 60 days comprehensive plans to address sales of their products to minors.

On September 17, 2018, Appellants submitted a response to the FDA’s letter, arguing that it “provides no new authorities [as required by Federal Rule 28(j)] and instead describes enforcement actions that have nothing to do with appellants and target a portion of the e-cigarette industry.”[7] Appellants point out that FDA’s enforcement actions, which ostensibly target 97 percent of the e-cigarette market – actually only address the “cartridge-based” e-cigarette market, which is only a portion of the overall vapor products market. Indeed, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb pointed out that sales of open-tank vaping products, which Appellants primarily market, do not appear to be driving the government’s claimed increase in underage use. Regardless, Appellants maintained that FDA’s recent enforcement actions prove their point: if FDA is concerned about purchases by or marketing of vapor products to youth, it can and should advance that interest through actions targeted at that problem (e.g., warning letters to retailers), not through a blanket prohibition on all truthful, non-misleading speech by manufacturers to adults.[8]

Next Steps

While it is impossible to state with certainty when the D.C. Circuit will rule on the case, we believe it is reasonable to expect a decision sometime in early 2019. We will keep readers of this blog updated on the outcome of the case.

______________________________________

[1] At the hearing, Miguel Estrada of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represented Nicopure Labs, and Eric Gotting of Keller and Heckman represented both Nicopure Labs and the Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition.

[2] Oral argument, Nicopure Labs et al. v. FDA, Case No. 15-5196 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 12, 2018), recording available at https://tinyurl.com/y8xzmsr4.

[3] Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 554-55 (2001) (summarizing test outlined in Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980)).

[4] See Tex. v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

[5] Id. at 404 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

[6] See Letter from Tyce R. Walters to Mr. Mark Langer, Clerk of the Court re: Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA, No. 17-5196 (oral argument heard Sept. 11, 2018);  See also U.S. Food & Drug Admin., FDA News Release, FDA Takes New Steps to Address Epidemic of Youth E-Cigarette Use, Including a Historic Action Against More Than 1,300 Retailers and 5 Major Manufacturers for Their Roles Perpetuating Youth Access (Sept. 12, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y9gh3dyg; U.S. Food & Drug Admin., FDA Statement, Statement From FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on New Steps to Address Epidemic of Youth E-Cigarette Use (Sept. 12, 2018), https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm620185.htm.

[7] See September 17, 2018 letter from Miguel A. Estrada and Eric P. Gotting to Mr. Mark Langer, Clerk of the Court re: Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA, No. 17-5196 (oral argument heard Sept. 11, 2018).

[8] Id.; See also Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U.S. 357, 371 (2002) (“[I]f the Government could achieve its interests in a manner that does not restrict speech, or that restricts less speech, the Government must do so.”) (emphasis added).

Ingredients_Listing_Flyer_1260749136

On Tuesday October 2, at 2PM EST, Azim Chowdhury and Ben Wolf will present a webinar, “Ingredients Listing: Walk Through” sponsored by the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA). Ingredient listing reports for small-scale tobacco product manufacturers are due by November 8, 2018. This program is recommended for manufacturers of deemed tobacco products, including e-liquids, their management, and staff who are responsible for regulatory compliance. Participants will learn how to prepare and submit ingredient listing reports to FDA. The floor will also open for questions regarding FDA compliance. For more information and to register, click here.

 

ecig pic fda

On September 12, 2018, in a self-described “blitz”, FDA announced a deluge of enforcement actions, including more than 1,300 warning letters and fines to retailers aimed at addressing youth use of e-cigarettes, which FDA asserts has reached “epidemic” proportions, based on new, not-yet-released survey data.[1]  FDA also requested manufacturers of five “national brands,” whose cartridge (pod) based e-cigarettes the Agency claimed make up 97% of the “current e-cigarette market” (but apparently excluding the open-system vapor products market), and allegedly represent the majority of e-cigarettes sold to minors, to provide detailed plans to curtail youth use of their products.  FDA also threatened drastic action that could impact the entire vapor industry, and millions of former smokers that rely on a variety of vapor products, if adequate responses are not received.

Addressing Increase in Underage E-Cigarette Use; Stopping Access at the Retail Level

In its press release, FDA clarified that these enforcement actions were part of a “large-scale, undercover nationwide” crack down on the sale of e-cigarettes to minors at both brick-and-mortar and online retailers.  FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb further stated that FDA had failed “to predict what [he] now believe[s] is an epidemic of e-cigarette use among teenagers.”  While he reiterated that FDA is “fully committed to the concept that products that deliver nicotine exist on a continuum of risk, with combustible products representing the highest risk, and [e-cigarettes] perhaps presenting an alternative for adult smokers who still seek access to satisfying levels of nicotine, but without all of the harmful effects that come from combustion,” he was unequivocal with respect to underage use, emphasizing FDA’s Youth Tobacco Prevention Plan launched earlier this year, and stating that he “won’t tolerate a whole generation of young people becoming addicted to nicotine as a tradeoff for enabling adults to have unfettered access to these same products.”  On September 18, 2018, FDA issued another press release announcing that it would be advancing “The Real Cost” Youth E-Cigarette Prevention Campaign to educate teens about the dangers of using e-cigarettes.

Notably, all of the cartridge-based e-cigarettes now being targeted by FDA (and the Big Tobacco brands in particular) are sold primarily in convenience stores, gas stations and similar outlets (along with cigarettes and other tobacco products), and appear to be the main source of youth access, as well as the focus of FDA’s retailer enforcement efforts.  Indeed, the vast majority of the 1,300 warning letters and civil monetary penalties were sent to these types of retailers, rather than to vape shops dedicated to open-system vapor products.  While dozens of vape shops and online vape retailers have also been cited by FDA for selling products to minors, those instances appear to represent just a fraction of the millions of transactions that occur annually in the 10,000+ dedicated vape shops across the country.[2]

FDA Focuses on JUUL and JUUL-Like E-Cigarettes; Distinguishes Youth Concerns Between Closed and Open System Vapor Products

Although FDA’s recent announcement refers simply to the “e-cigarette market”, the vapor industry is actually very diverse and complex. Closed-system and cartridge-based e-cigarettes (like JUUL), the adolescent use of which FDA has made clear is its primary public health concern, is only a portion of the overall U.S. vapor products market, along with open-system vapor products (e.g., tanks, mods, e-liquids, etc.).

Indeed, FDA has been focusing on youth-use of cartridge-based e-cigarettes, and JUUL in particular, for several months, as stories about rampant teenage use have been heavily reported in the media, and the focus of Congressional inquiries.

Back on April 24, 2018, FDA announced its first set of 40 warning letters to retailers for underage sales of JUUL e-cigarettes and that it was examining the youth appeal of these products in an effort to end their sale to minors.  FDA used its authority under Section 904(b) of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) to request JUUL Labs submit information regarding its marketing and research studies, and any other information it had on how certain product features might appeal to different age groups.  Subsequently, in May 2018 FDA sent a second set of requests to several manufacturers seeking information on their JUUL-like products, including information on product marketing and design (as it may relate to the appeal or addictive potential for youth and youth-related adverse experiences), and consumer complaints, among other things.[3]

FDA has now announced that it is targeting five national brands that dominate the closed-system e-cigarette market –  JUUL and four other cartridge-based e-cigarettes, all of which are marketed by large tobacco companies: Vuse (Reynolds American), MarkTen XL (Altria), blu e-cigs (Fontem Ventures), and Logic (Japan Tobacco International, USA).  Importantly, Gottlieb indicated that these specific e-cigarettes make up “the majority of products sold to minors,” while noting that “the biggest youth use seems to be among cartridge-based e-cigarettes, and not open-tank vaping products.” (Emphasis added.)

The Agency has requested these five manufacturers submit within 60 days detailed plans describing how they will address and mitigate widespread youth use of their products.  For example, the FDA stated that such a plan may include:

  • Discontinuing sales to retail establishments that have been subject to an FDA civil monetary penalty for sale of tobacco products to minors within the prior 12 months;
  • Developing or strengthening any internal program in place to check on retailers, and reporting to FDA the name and address of retailers that have sold products to minors;
  • Eliminating online sales, whether through Internet storefronts controlled by the company or other retailers, or providing evidence to demonstrate that the company’s online sales practices do not contribute to youth use of e-cigarette products;
  • Revising current marketing practices to help prevent use by minors; and
  • Removing flavored products from the market until those products can be reviewed by FDA as part of a PMTA.

The requests that the companies eliminate all online sales and remove flavored products from the market are extremely onerous and effectively require the companies to cease sales of legal products.  FDA further noted that these actions are only examples of things the manufacturers might do to demonstrate FDA should continue to defer enforcement of the premarket review requirement with respect to their products, as discussed below, and encouraged the companies to “provide additional youth use prevention tools” for the Agency’s consideration.

Warning Letters to E-Liquid Manufacturers

Beyond illegal underage sales at the retail level, open-system vapor products have not been free from FDA scrutiny.  In May 2018, FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued 17 warning letters to e-liquid manufacturers for marketing products the agencies claimed were both misbranded under Sections 903(a)(1) and 903(a)(7) of the FDCA and false and misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act, for being packaged and/or labeled in a manner that imitated “kid-friendly” foods such as apple juice, candy, whipped cream and cereal.  On August 23, 2018, FDA announced that all 17 companies that were warned have cooperated and have ceased all sales of the offending products.  FDA has now issued 12 additional warning letters to retailers for continuing to sell those e-liquids, making clear that any existing inventory of the misbranded products must be removed from commerce.

Drastic Action by FDA Could Destroy the Vapor Industry

a. Premarket Compliance Policy

Commissioner Gottlieb has made clear that the recent increase in youth use may force FDA to revisit its premarket review compliance policy, pursuant to which manufacturers of deemed noncombustible tobacco products (such as vapor products) that were on the market as of August 8, 2016, when the Deeming Rule went into effect, have until August 8, 2022 to submit PMTAs, and can remain on the market through that date.[4]  Moreover, under this compliance policy, if an application is timely submitted and accepted for scientific review, the subject product is permitted to remain on the market pending FDA review.  This compliance policy was first announced in July 2017 as part of the Agency’s comprehensive plan for tobacco and nicotine regulation, and extended the original compliance policy in the Deeming Rule, which only gave e-cigarette manufacturers until August 8, 2018 to submit PMTAs for their existing products.[5]

As noted, FDA’s letter to JUUL and the other large manufacturers indicates that it is seriously reconsidering its compliance policy, at least for cartridge-based e-cigarettes, due to widespread youth use (emphasis added):

To fulfill our public health mandate to address youth addiction to nicotine, FDA is reconsidering its compliance policy for submission of PMTAs for [the JUUL e-cigarette] and other similar products that were illegally sold by retailers during this blitz, including whether earlier enforcement of the premarket review provision might be warranted.

FDA further noted it is “seriously considering a policy change that would lead to the immediate removal of these flavored products from the market.”

Critically, Commissioner Gottlieb stated that if the five companies referenced above do not submit plans to combat youth use of their products, or if those plans are insufficient to address the problem, the companies “face a potential decision by FDA to reconsider extending the compliance dates for submission of premarket applications.”

If FDA does decide to modify the compliance policy for cartridge-based e-cigarettes because of their apparent unique impact on youth compared to other types of vapor products, such action does have precedent.  In its comprehensive plan, for example, FDA required deemed combustible products, such as cigars and hookah, on the market as of August 8, 2016 to submit premarket review applications by August 8, 2021, because of the known-health risks of combustible tobacco.

However, open-system vapor product manufacturers should be aware that Gottlieb did note in his statement that FDA’s “policy reconsiderations apply to the entire category” and that FDA is “also re-examining the enforcement discretion we currently exercise for other e-cig products currently on the market without authorization.”

While it remains unclear what, if anything, FDA might do with respect to its current compliance policy, any move to shorten the PMTA grace period for the vapor industry at-large will have devastating consequences not only for thousands of small businesses that would effectively be banned, but also for the public health.  These impacts were recently summarized in an amicus brief submitted by the Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition in the federal lawsuit filed by the public health groups challenging FDA’s compliance policy.  You can read about that lawsuit and the amicus brief, which makes clear that the vapor industry needs at least until August 2022 to prepare applications given the need for long-term clinical data, on our previous blog post here.

b. Flavored Products

Also of concern for the vapor industry is the potential targeting of flavored products, which the industry has argued are, in fact, appropriate for the protection of the public health (see here). It is important to first recognize that there is no such thing as an unflavored e-cigarette or vapor product. Unlike combustible cigarettes or other tobacco-containing products, there is simply no “natural” tobacco or other flavors inherent to e-liquids.  Rather, all flavors for these products are chemically synthesized and added to the base propylene glycol/vegetable glycerin solution.  Thus, unlike cigarettes, a ban on characterizing flavors would effectively result in a ban of all vapor products.

Moreover, numerous published studies demonstrate, and FDA has acknowledged, that flavored vapor products and e-liquids can help adult smokers reduce their cigarette use and/or switch completely to vapor products.  For example, a recently-released survey of almost 70,000 U.S. vapers found that 87.3% of respondents who quit smoking with e-cigarettes said that flavors were “extremely” or “very” important to their quit attempts.[6]

Remaining Compliant in a Rapidly Changing Regulatory Landscape

The new FDA enforcement actions and broader threats against the industry raise the possibility of dramatically altering the regulatory landscape for e-cigarettes and other vapor products.  FDA’s September 12 letters to the large manufacturers of cartridge-based e-cigarettes threaten to potentially end the premarket review compliance policy for those types of products, but it is not clear if FDA would extend this to all vapor product manufacturers.  Indeed, the stock market appears to have recognized this possibility, as legacy tobacco stocks rallied after FDA’s announcement.  Apparently, the markets have concluded that if adults are not going to be permitted to vape, they could return to traditional combustible tobacco cigarettes – the most harmful nicotine delivery system.  From our vantage point, and to the detriment of public health, it is hard to argue with this conclusion.

Accordingly, in view of FDA’s enforcement blitz and the Agency’s current focus on manufacturer advertising, marketing, and manufacturing practices, we recommend vapor product companies:

  • Start preparing premarket applications (including PMTAs) sooner rather than later (and attend FDA’s public hearing on October 22-23, 2018).
  • Work with retailers (both brick-and-mortar and online) that have age and photo-ID verification procedures that comply with requirements applicable to tobacco retailers, including requirements that:
    • the retailer checks the photo ID of everyone under age 27 who attempts to purchase any tobacco product;
    • the retailer only sells tobacco products to customers age 18 or older (consider whether age-gating may be appropriate for online retailers); and
    • the retailer does not sell tobacco products in vending machines unless in an adult-only facility.
  • Work with legal counsel to ensure that your product labeling and marketing would not cause the product to be misbranded or misleading (i.e., by imitating potentially “kid-appealing” foods).
  • Make sure your advertising and product labeling fully comply with the nicotine addiction warning (and other labeling requirements).
  • Comply with TCA requirements, including registration and listing for U.S. establishments, ingredient listing, and health document disclosures.
  • Do not introduce new products after August 8, 2016 without receiving FDA premarket authorization.
  • Comply with all sales and marketing restrictions, including use of any modified risk claims and the ban on free samples.
  • Prepare to be inspected by FDA and other authorities (sign up for our audit and inspection program here).
  • Consider developing an internal audit program to evaluate the procedures used by retail partners to avoid youth-access to your products.

If you have any questions about FDA’s announcements contact Azim Chowdhury (202.434.4230, chowdhury@khlaw.com). For more information on our Tobacco and E-vapor Practice in general, visit www.khlaw.com/evapor. Follow Keller and Heckman Tobacco and E-Vapor Partner Azim Chowdhury on Twitter.

[1]              See U.S. Food & Drug Admin., FDA News Release, FDA Takes New Steps to Address Epidemic of Youth E-Cigarette Use, Including a Historic Action Against More Than 1,300 Retailers and 5 Major Manufacturers for Their Roles Perpetuating Youth Access (Sept. 12, 2018).

[2]              Christopher Groskopf, What Yelp Data Reveal About the Sudden Rise of Vape Shops in America, Quartz, (Feb. 10, 2016), https://qz.com/608469/what-yelp-data-tells-us-about-vaping/.

[3]              The first set of letters were sent on May 17, 2018 to J Well, of Paris, France, for Bo Starter Kit; YGT Investment LLC and 7 Daze LLC, of Baldwin Park, California, for Zoor Kit; Liquid Filling Solutions LLC, of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, for Myle Products; and SVR Inc., of Las Vegas, for SMPO Kit. Subsequently, in late May additional letters were sent to Myle Vape Inc. regarding Myle Products, and to MMS ECVD LLC regarding the Bo Starter Kit, to reflect additional relevant companies in the manufacturing and distribution chain.

[4]           Guidance for Industry: Extension of Certain Tobacco Product Compliance Deadlines Related to the Final Deeming Rule (Revised) (August 2017), available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM557716.pdf.

[5]              The original Deeming Rule compliance policy also had a sunset period that only permitted manufacturers who submitted timely PMTAs to continue to market those products for an additional year, i.e., until August 8, 2019. Unless an application was authorized during that year, it would have to be removed from the market at that time, and could only be re-introduced if it received FDA authorization.

[6]              Konstantinos F., M.D., MPH, et al., Patterns of flavored e-cigarette use among adult vapers in the United States: an internet survey (2018), at 6, 20.

exec_seal

On September 6, 2018, a coalition of vapor industry trade associations and businesses – specifically the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), the American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA), the American Vapor Association (AVA), and SV3, LLC (collectively, the “Vapor Coalition”) – submitted comments to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) arguing against the Trump Administration’s additional proposed tariffs that would apply to certain vapor products imported from China (see Docket No. USTR-2018-0026).

The Vapor Coalition’s comments strenuously oppose the tariffs, and describe in detail the potentially disastrous economic and public health consequences that would result if the tariffs are imposed.  The comment also describes how FDA’s current regulatory framework makes it effectively impossible for American companies to now start manufacturing vapor devices domestically – forcing U.S. businesses to rely on Chinese manufactured products.

At issue in this docket is the “Third Tranche” of tariffs proposed by the Trump Administration which apply to a number of Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes used to import a variety of vapor products and components, parts and accessories from China:

HTS Code Product Description
8543.90.88.50 Personal electric or electronic vaporizing devices with substances containing nicotine.
8543.90.88.60 Other personal electric or electronic vaporizing devices.
2403.19.20.20 Mixture containing tobacco mixed with glycerol or other ingredients
2905.31.00.00 Ethylene Glycol (without nicotine or flavoring added)
2905.32.00.00 Propylene Glycol (without nicotine or flavoring added)
3824.99.92.80 Mixtures of a kind containing nicotine used in personal electric or electronic vaporizing devices
3923.30.00.00 Carboys, bottles, flasks and similar articles for the conveyance or packing of goods, of plastics.
8504.40.95.80 USB Charger
4202.92.00.00 Product with outer surface of sheeting of plastics or of textile materials
4819.20.00.00 Folding cartons, boxes and cases of non-corrugated paper or paperboard.
4821.10.00.00 Printed paper and paperboard labels of all kinds
8506.10.00 Manganese dioxide primary cells and primary batteries
8506.30.10 Mercuric oxide primary cells and primary batteries having an external volume not exceeding 300 cubic cm.
8506.80.00 Primary cells and primary batteries, nesoi.
8507.40.80 Nickel-iron storage batteries, other than of a kind used as the primary source of power for electric vehicles.
8507.50.00 Nickel-metal hydride batteries.

The USTR has already imposed tariffs on vapor products imported under HTS subheading 8543.70.99 including, in particular, 8543.70.99.30, 8543.70.99.40, and 8543.70.99.90 (Final Second Tranche, August 7, 2018).[1]  Although not the subject of this docket, the Vapor Coalition noted its opposition to such action and urged the USTR to reconsider and remove these subheadings from its Final Second Tranche.

You can download the Vapor Coalition’s comments to the USTR here.

________________________________________

[1] See USTR Finalizes Second Tranche of Tariffs on Chinese Products in Response to China’s Unfair Trade Practices, available at: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/august/ustr-finalizes-second-tranche.

inspection_cartoon

In a widely anticipated move, FDA has significantly increased the frequency of inspections of vapor manufacturing and retail facilities over the past few weeks, with some inspections spanning two days. We have received reports from vapor businesses across the country that they are receiving unannounced visits from FDA investigators conducting biannual inspections pursuant to Sections 704 and 905 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended by the Tobacco Control Act. Under the Act, FDA is required to inspect every tobacco manufacturing facility at least once every two years. FDA uses a broad definition of manufacturing – repacking and relabeling are considered manufacturing acts and retailers that mix e-liquids for consumer sale are considered manufacturers.

During the course of their inspection, FDA investigators have requested product samples, labeling and invoices for raw materials, and labeling and invoices for finished goods. We understand that inspections have included both production (cleanroom) and non-production areas and have made use of photography and recordings. FDA appears also to be doing a lot of “fact finding” – learning as much as they can about the industry and how these products are manufactured and distributed, potentially for use in the development of future guidance documents and rulemakings.

We have also received reports of inspectors visiting vapor businesses from other agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), federal and state Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA), as well as state inspectors (e.g., California Department of Tax and Fee Administration).

As FDA continues to visit facilities across the country, it is critical that manufacturers, including retailer-manufacturers, understand the types of information that they are required to provide to the Agency upon request, as well as the type of that information that can or should be withheld. Similarly, Companies should understand the scope of authority that an FDA Investigator has in asking for specific product details. Vapor product manufacturers should fully prepare for their impending inspection now, so that they can demonstrate a high-degree of confidence when FDA arrives. Critically, and as third-party consultants begin to enter the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) space, manufacturers and retailer-manufacturers should ensure that the guidance they receive from outside counsel is accurate and based on experience in sound science and law and is protected from disclosure to FDA by attorney-client privilege.

Audit and Inspection Program Completes Coast-to-Coast Site Visits in First Half of 2018

Keller and Heckman’s Audit and Inspection Program (AIP) provides companies that are involved in any aspect of the tobacco or vapor product supply chain with assurance that their facilities are operating in accordance with FDA requirements. AIP Program attorneys have completed audits from Florida to California since the Program first began in early 2018, and feedback has been overwhelmingly positive:

Having your team run a thorough inspection was extremely helpful in preparing us for a “real” FDA inspection. The knowledge and insight you guys were able to provide my “Team Awesome” will certainly help us navigate through the regulations and future inspections. During this interesting time for the industry, and as a responsible manufacturer, we must do everything possible to ensure we are going above and beyond what potential GMP’s may be down the road to keep consumers and the industry’s reputation safe.

As “cool” as some people think it is to be a manufacturer in the vape industry, it’s not to be taken lightly. We try to do everything possible to provide our consumers and retailers with top quality products that are manufactured in a clean and safe environment. Having your team come in to review our facility and manufacturing practices gives us confidence that we are doing exactly what we have set out to accomplish!

The AIP Program includes both audit and training components from attorneys experienced in tobacco and vapor law, inspections, and good manufacturing practices, and addresses a broad range of inspection activities, including: recordkeeping, product labeling, product samples, requests for video/audio/photographic recordings, standard operating procedures, cleanliness and sanitation, inventory control, and personnel interviews.

Audits by the AIP Program staff are covered by attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product privilege.

Pre-registration for the AIP is available immediately by filling out the form available here:

Tobacco and Vapor Product Manufacturing Establishment Audit and Mock Inspection Program Pre-Registration Form

The completed pre-registration form can be E-mailed to chowdhury@khlaw.com, faxed to (202) 434-4646, or mailed to:

Keller and Heckman LLP
Attn: Azim Chowdhury
1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20001

Space is limited, and scheduling is generally available on a first-come, first-serve basis.