Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of Benjamin Wolf

On May 1, 2018 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued 13 warning letters to companies that they claim misleadingly labeled or advertised nicotine-containing e-liquids as kid-friendly food products such as juice boxes, candies, and cookies.  Warning letters were issued to manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of eight products.

All of the warning letters included allegations of misbranding under Sections 903(a)(1) and 903(a)(7) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) – both of which relate to labeling or advertising that is misleading or untrue in any particular – and Section 5 of the FTC Act for unfair or deceptive advertising.  Both the FDA and FTC alleged violations are based on the risk of confusion, especially by children, between the e-liquid products and foods that are marketed toward, or appealing to, children.

In some of the warning letters issued to distributors and retailers, FDA added allegations that the e-liquids were sold to minors in violation of Section 903(a)(7)(B) of the FDCA.  In one instance, FDA alleged that the company violated Section 201(rr)(4) of the FDCA – which bars the marketing of a tobacco product “in combination with any other article or product regulated” by FDA – because a combination pack of candy and e-liquid were offered together.  The warning letters also highlighted the potential harm that could result if nicotine-containing e-liquids are ingested by children, although the number of poison center calls regarding e-liquids has fallen dramatically since the Children’s Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act went into effect in 2016.  That law requires “liquid nicotine containers” use child-resistant packaging just like prescription drugs, some over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, and other potentially hazardous products found in the home, pursuant to the Poison Packaging Prevention Act.

The issuance of the 13 warning letters comes about a week after FDA Commissioner Gottlieb announced that FDA (1) recently issued warning letters to 40 retailers for underage sales of JUUL products, (2) was in the midst of a “new blitz of retail establishments targeting youth sale violations”, (3) is seeking to end sale of JUUL products to minors, and (4) would examine the youth appeal of JUUL products.  FDA also requested JUUL Labs submit information regarding, among other things, its marketing, research studies, and how certain product features might appeal to different age groups.  While some have argued that the panic over JUUL, which appears to be based on anecdotal evidence and media reports, could actually adversely impact the public health, there is no doubt that FDA is committed to cracking down on underage sales and reducing youth appeal of tobacco products, including vapor products.

In light of the warning letters issued on April 24 and May 1 and the Agency’s interest in tobacco product flavors, it appears that FDA may be setting its sights on the elimination of flavored e-liquids, which have also been shown to help adult smokers transition to less harmful vaping alternatives, as part of its effort to curb the use of vapor products by youth. Of note, a recent study evaluating how young people use vapor products in the United Kingdom, where the products are actively promoted by the government as less harmful than cigarettes and as a way to quit smoking, found that most product experimentation does not turn into regular use, and that regular use of vapor products in young people who have never smoked remains very low.

Industry and other stakeholders interested in maintaining the availability in the U.S. of flavored e-liquids have until June 19, 2018 to submit comments to FDA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of Daniel Rubenstein

At yesterday’s meeting with the U.S. House Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development to discuss FDA’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb discussed the Agency’s regulation of the tobacco industry and noted, among other things, that when all the requirements for the newly deemed products, including vapor products, went into effect last year, FDA now has authority to inspect and impose GMP standards and enforce age restrictions.  Gottlieb indicated that FDA would be “stepping into this fight in a vigorous way in the coming weeks.”

Being prepared for an FDA inspection is critical to maintaining compliance.  Just a few weeks ago, FDA’s recently-issued Request for Proposal (RFP), Vape Inspection Services (FDA-RFP-18-1190619), was extended on March 22, 2018 to allow for additional time for FDA to receive, review and consider responses from government contractors submitting bids to conduct inspections of establishments engaged in the retail sale of FDA-regulated tobacco products.

The RFP provides valuable insight into the Agency’s current thinking with regard to the scope of inspections that are expected to begin shortly, as mandated by the Tobacco Control Act.

Specifically, the RFP indicates that the contractor(s) shall, in the course of a facility inspection:

  • Complete and provide FDA with a signed Form FDA 482 (“Notice of Inspection”);
  • Complete an inspection form, detailing:
    • Administrative information;
    • The scope of the facility’s business (e.g., manufacturing, retail, import/export of products);
    • A list of potential violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and
  • Be prepared to testify on behalf of FDA in any regulatory or judicial proceeding.

The RFP focuses extensively on the type of evidence collection and storage permissible under the Agency’s guidelines – including the collection of photographic and physical evidence.  The RFP further requires that the contractor complete required Agency training regarding the permissibility of collecting reports, data, documents, and photos (including limitations on Confidential Business Information (CBI), sales data, and personnel data).

The RFP describes the scheduling of inspections on a continuing, quarterly basis, in accordance with designated quotas.  The program allocates funding for one full-time program manager, approximately 10 program coordinators, and 20 inspectors (based on 2,080 annual hours per full-time equivalent).

Keller and Heckman continues to monitor developments relating to FDA’s forthcoming inspections of tobacco and vapor manufacturing establishments, and, to help companies prepare, recently launched the Audit and Inspection Program (AIP).  The AIP provides establishments with an opportunity to conduct advance, client-confidential, independent auditing to identify and remedy any deficiencies.  In addition, the AIP provides establishments with training regarding FDA’s inspection authority, the permissibility of Agency collection of business information, and optional environmental and occupational health and safety components.  For additional details on the AIP Program and to register, click here.

On May 2, 2018 (3:00 PM ET), attorneys Azim Chowdhury and Daniel Rubenstein will be participating in a free webinar hosted by the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), “The FDA is Coming – Are You Ready” and will be discussing Keller and Heckman’s AIP and how manufacturers and retailers can prepare for an FDA inspection. Register for the webinar here.

Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of Benjamin Wolf

The vapor device industry has been requesting FDA for years to exempt devices from the Tobacco Control Act Section 904(a)(1) ingredient listing requirement, respectfully arguing, among other things, that the information required for non-consumable hardware products and components provides no meaningful information to FDA that would help it protect the public health.[1]  On April 13, 2018, just 25 days before the reporting deadline for large manufacturers of deemed tobacco products, FDA published a revised Guidance for Industry: Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products.  FDA now intends to enforce the ingredient listing requirement only with respect to those tobacco product components or parts that are made or derived from tobacco, or contain ingredients that are burned, aerosolized or ingested (i.e., consumed) during use.  Although the revised guidance is late – and comes after many companies have spent considerable time and funds to comply with the reporting requirement – it is welcome news for the industry.

The ingredient listing deadlines for the applicable components and parts of deemed finished tobacco products[2], however, have not changed – large manufacturers of such products still have only until May 8, 2018, while small-scale manufacturers[3] have until November 8, 2018.

Manufacturers of vapor devices and finished deemed tobacco product components and parts should keep in mind that FDA’s decision to exempt such products from ingredient listing does not change the fact that these products are still subject to FDA’s premarket authorization requirements.  It remains the case, for example, that any new vapor device intended for introduction into the U.S. market after August 8, 2016 requires Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) authorization (which requires ingredient information, along with a significant amount of additional data) before it can be marketed, and any devices on the market on August 8, 2016 have until August 8, 2022 before PMTAs are due, and can remain on the market after that date only if PMTAs for the products are accepted by FDA for review.

Components and Parts Subject to Ingredient Listing 

The revised guidance provides examples of “consumable” components and parts that still require ingredient listing including, but not limited to:

  • Cigar filler;
  • Cigar binder;
  • Cigar wrapper;
  • Pipe tobacco;
  • Waterpipe tobacco;
  • E-liquids;
  • Cigarette tobacco;
  • Cigarette paper;
  • Smokeless tobacco;
  • Roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco;
  • RYO rolling paper;
  • RYO tube; and
  • Cigarette filter that contains any ingredient that burns, aerosolizes, or is ingested during use (e.g., cigarette filter with menthol because the menthol will aerosolize during cigarette smoking).

Ingredients of tobacco product components and parts that are not made or derived from tobacco or consumed during use, e.g., pipes, hookah apparatus, vapor devices, etc., need not be submitted to FDA.  Examples of components or parts for which FDA does not intend to enforce the ingredient listing submission requirement at this time include, but are not limited to:

  • Electrical components including, but not limited to, batteries, charging systems, circuit boards, wiring, and connectors;
  • System software;
  • Digital display, lights, and buttons to adjust settings;
  • Connection adapters;
  • Cartomizers;
  • Coils;
  • Wicks;
  • Tanks;
  • Mouthpieces;
  • Pipes;
  • Waterpipes;
  • Hoses;
  • Bowls;
  • Charcoal; and
  • Cigarette filter that does not contain any ingredient that is burned, aerosolized, or ingested during tobacco use.

Based on this, e-liquid manufacturers need only provide ingredient information on the liquid component of their products, not other non-consumable components such as bottles, drippers and packaging.  FDA expects to receive ingredient information for these non-consumable components and parts during its pre-market review of finished tobacco products (e.g., Premarket Tobacco Applications and Substantial Equivalence Reports).

Single Submissions for Multiple Products

With respect to consumable components and parts, the revised guidance also now makes clear that there are a number of situations where ingredients for multiple products may be listed together under a single submission, provided all of the different brands/subbrands and product sizes for the associated products in the submission are identified.  Examples of situations allowing a single ingredient listing for multiple products are provided in the guidance as follows:

  • Identical per weight composition of ingredients for tobacco products sold under multiple brands/subbrands:
    • Pipe tobacco with identical per weight composition of ingredients sold under 30 brands/subbrands;
    • E-liquids with identical per weight composition of ingredients sold under 200 brands/subbrands; and
    • Waterpipe (shisha) tobacco with identical per weight composition of ingredients sold under 15 brands/subbrands.
  • Identical per weight composition of ingredients for tobacco products sold in multiple product sizes:
    • E-liquid with identical per weight composition of ingredients sold in volumes of 30mL, 60mL, 90mL or sold in a range of product sizes (e.g., 20mL-100mL);
    • Pipe tobacco with identical per weight composition of ingredients sold in product sizes of 5g, 10g, 50g;
    • Waterpipe (shisha) tobacco with identical per weight composition of ingredients sold in product sizes of 100g, 200g, 500g; and
    • Pouched snus with identical per weight composition of ingredients sold in a can of 12 snus sachets or a can of 15 snus sachets.

For open-system e-liquids more specifically, the revised guidance indicates that manufacturers can satisfy the ingredient listing requirement by providing one listing that corresponds to multiple products if the manufacturer sells e-liquids that (1) are identical in chemical composition to one another or (2) are identical in chemical composition to one another except the quantities of propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and/or nicotine differ.8 For example:

  • E-liquids with identical nicotine concentrations (e.g., 0.5 mg/ml nicotine) but varying PG/VG ratios (e.g., 20/80, 50/50, 80/20) and all other ingredients having identical per weight composition.
  • E-liquids with identical PG/VG ratio (e.g., 50/50) but different nicotine concentrations (e.g., 0.5, 1.0 1.5 mg/ml) and all other ingredients having identical per weight composition.
  • E-liquids with varying PG/VG ratios (e.g., 20/80, 50/50, 80/20) and different nicotine concentrations (e.g., 0.5, 1, 2 mg/mL) with all other ingredients having identical per weight composition.

However, changes to relative ratios of ingredients or to the quality or type of an ingredient will require separate submissions.  For e-liquids, the revised guidance provides several examples of when separate submissions to correspond to each brand/subbrand of a product are required:

  • E-liquids that have identical PG/VG chemical structure, but the nicotine chemical structure is different (e.g., moving from free nicotine to nicotine salt), even with identical per weight composition of all other ingredients.
  • E-liquids that have identical PG/VG chemical structure and identical nicotine chemical structure but where the per weight composition of all other ingredients is different in any way (e.g., increased amount of cherry flavor #1 added when all other ingredient ratios stay the same).
  • E-liquids where the grade of the PG/VG is different in any way (e.g., percent purity changes).

For more detailed background on the ingredient listing information needed and submission process, see here.

*          *          *          *

If you need assistance with ingredient listing or for more information regarding other regulatory obligations facing tobacco product manufacturers, distributors, importers, or retailers, please contact Azim Chowdhury at chowdhury@khlaw.com or 202-434-4230.

 

_________________________________________________________

[1]           See e.g., comment to the FDA Ingredient Listing Guidance document submitted by Shenzhen E-Vapor Industry Association (SEVIA) in May 2017, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2009-D-0524-0034.

[2]              The term “finished tobacco product” means a tobacco product, including all components and parts, sealed in final packaging intended for consumer use. Components and parts that are sold separately from other tobacco products are finished tobacco products if they are sold in final packaging intended for consumer use.

[3]           The term small-scale tobacco product manufacturer means a manufacturer of any regulated tobacco product that employs 150 or fewer full-time equivalent employees and has annual total revenues of $5 million or less. FDA considers a manufacturer to include each entity that it controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with.

Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of Benjamin Wolf

Per Section 904(a)(1) of the Tobacco Control Act (TCA), one of the core requirements for manufacturers, including manufacturers of deemed tobacco products such as e-liquid, vapor devices, cigars and hookah, is the requirement to submit to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a list of all ingredients that are “added by the manufacturer to the tobacco, paper, filter, or other part of each tobacco product….”  Unlike the Registration and Product Listing requirement, which only applies to domestic U.S. manufacturing establishments, ingredient listing is required for all finished deemed tobacco products marketed in the United States, regardless of where the product was produced.[1]

Upcoming Deadlines

When the Deeming Rule became effective on August 8, 2016, FDA’s initial compliance policy required large deemed tobacco product manufacturers (i.e., manufacturers earning over $5M in annual revenues or who have over 150 full-time employees) to submit ingredient lists to FDA for all of their finished products by February 8, 2017; small-scale manufacturers had until August 8, 2017.  Over the course of 2017 these deadlines were extended several times for various reasons; now, large-scale manufacturers have until May 8, 2018 and small-scale manufacturers have until November 8, 2018.[2]  While it is always possible FDA could further push the deadlines back, we think it is unlikely to do so for ingredient listing.

Information Required

The ingredient listing process can be complicated and time consuming, particularly for manufacturers of e-liquids and vapor devices, for whom FDA has provided little specific guidance, and that may have hundreds of SKUs or more.  Broadly speaking, ingredient listing reports require the following:

  • Contact information for the manufacturer/submitter and U.S. agent;
  • A product list (similar to the product list U.S. manufacturers had to prepare for establishment registration);
  • For each product, a list of “components”;
  • For each component, a list of “ingredients” (e.g., single chemical substances and complex purchased ingredients); and
  • Specific information regarding each ingredient (e.g., quantity, ingredient number, SKU number, supplier information for complex purchased ingredients, etc.).

For more detailed background on the information needed to prepare ingredient listing reports, see our previous postings.

Submission Process

Although companies can submit ingredient listing reports manually to the CTP Document Control Center using the paper Form 3742, FDA encourages electronic submission through the CTP Portal.  This should not be confused with the separate FDA Unified Registration and Listing System (FURLS), which is only for U.S. Establishment Registration and Product Listing.  Obtaining CTP Portal access typically takes a few weeks, so you should apply for an account as soon as possible if you do not yet have one.

Only files that are packaged using FDA’s eSubmitter software can be submitted through the CTP Portal (download eSubmitter here). The eSubmitter tool does not transmit data over the Internet, but resides locally on your computer along with any output files, allowing you to work on a submission offline, save, and continue later.  Once a submission is complete, eSubmitter “packages” (i.e., compiles) the submission into a format that can be securely submitted through the CTP Portal.

Preparing Reports in eSubmitter

The eSubmitter tool contains templates for various FDA required submissions, including health documents and ingredient listing reports, among other things.

Of note, on March 5, 2018, FDA Center for Tobacco Products published a new set of instructions which provides a step-by-step guide on using eSubmitter to list ingredients in tobacco products.  At the same time, eSubmitter was updated to include two new options for preparing ingredient listing reports, which are discussed in the new instructions.

The first new option (“Option (c)”) allows for the use of a single spreadsheet to input ingredient information for all of a company’s products, rather than using multiple spreadsheets (Option (b)). The Option (c) spreadsheets come in both e-liquid specific (download here) and any tobacco templates (download here).

The second new option to attach your own spreadsheet (“Option (d)”) permits manufacturers to create and submit their own ingredient listing files in any format they wish.  While FDA requests that a spreadsheet be generated, eSubmitter will support the submission of a number of file types: .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif, .avi, .wmv, .xpt, .xml, .sgml, .mol, .xls, .xlsx, .csv or .txt.

New eSubmitter Spreadsheets

The new Option (c) spreadsheets require all the same information as before, but has several unique differences compared to the original, multiple-spreadsheet method.  For example, now combinations of flavors and other additives can be saved as “master recipes” that can be added to any e-liquid formulations that contain it, along with levels of nicotine, PG and VG, making it easier to list ingredients for e-liquids that differ only in concentration of nicotine or other ingredients.  In addition, the Option (c) spreadsheets simplifiy the process of inputting component information, making it easier to, for example, “link” different bottle sizes to a formulation without re-inputting all the ingredient information. The new spreadsheet is also less cumbersome to complete and, so far, appears not to have as many bugs that often made importing the original tobacco ingredient spreadsheets into eSubmitter an onerous process (see our May 2017 webinar here which demonstrates how to use the original, multiple-spreadsheet method in eSubmitter).

E-liquid manufacturers should also keep in mind that the Option (c) e-liquid spreadsheet can only be used for the e-liquid component of a product; information regarding the other components of the finished product (e.g., bottle, cap/dripper, label, packaging, etc.) will need to be entered separately (either manually in eSubmitter or with a separate spreadsheet).

Manufacturers of vapor devices and hardware components, many of whom have argued that the current “ingredient” listing requirement and process does not make sense for such products[3], will also need to report ingredients to FDA either manually in eSubmitter, using the original multiple spreadsheet method, the Option (c) spreadsheet for products other than e-liquids, or by developing and submitting their own files as attachments using Option (d).

*          *          *          *

While the new eSubmitter spreadsheet options could make submitting ingredients to FDA easier for some manufacturers, the process still presents a significant time commitment.  Companies should not hesitate to start the process sooner rather than later.

If you need assistance with ingredient listing or for more information regarding other regulatory obligations facing deemed tobacco product manufacturers, distributors, importers, or retailers, please contact Azim Chowdhury at chowdhury@khlaw.com or 202-434-4230.

 

______________________________________________

[1]              A finished tobacco product is defined in the Deeming Rule and FDA guidance as “a tobacco product, including all components and parts, sealed in final packaging intended for consumer use. See FDA, Guidance for Industry (Revised)*: Listing of Tobacco Products, pg. 5 (Nov. 2017).

[2]           See FDA, Guidance for Industry (Revised)*: Extension of Certain Tobacco Product Compliance Deadlines Related to the Final Deeming Rule (Nov. 2017).

[3]           See e.g., comment to the FDA Ingredient Listing Guidance document submitted by Shenzhen E-Vapor Industry Association (SEVIA) in May 2017, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2009-D-0524-0034.

Photo of Azim Chowdhury

The 2nd Annual Keller and Heckman E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium held on February 6-7, 2018 in Irvine, California was a huge success with over 100 attendees from all over the country and world.  Check out the highlight video below.  We are in the process of securing a location for next year’s symposium and would like your feedback on potential locations (Irvine, Miami, Dallas or Washington, DC).  Please take a moment to complete the brief survey here.

Take a look at highlights from this year’s conference:

Click on the link below to receive updates on the 2019 E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium.

For questions or additional information,  please contact:

Sara A. Woldai

Manager, Marketing Meetings and Events

Keller and Heckman LLP

woldai@khlaw.com

Connect with us on: 

 

Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of JC WalkerPhoto of Manesh RathPhoto of Daniel RubensteinPhoto of Benjamin Wolf

February 26, 2018 – Keller and Heckman LLP is pleased to announce the introduction of its Audit and Inspection Program (AIP) for Tobacco and Vapor Product Manufacturing Establishments.

The AIP was developed in response to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) inspection authority under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA or the Act), as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, which provides that FDA shall inspect each factory, warehouse, establishment, or vehicle in which tobacco products, including deemed tobacco products, are manufactured, processed, packed, or stored.  Pursuant to Sections 704 and 905 of the Act, FDA is directed to inspect every establishment at least once every two years.

Audit and Inspection Program

Keller and Heckman’s experienced team of attorneys and scientists will provide a comprehensive, on-site training and facility auditing program designed to help your company adequately prepare for an FDA inspection.  As part of the AIP, companies can expect:

  • An introductory presentation and memorandum detailing FDA’s inspection authority, what to expect during an inspection, and how to adequately prepare for – and respond to – an FDA inspection;
  • A full facility audit, consisting of a complete mock-inspection; and
  • A written post-inspection report detailing the overall readiness of the facility for an FDA inspection, including a list of specific recommendations and opportunities for improvement*

Keller and Heckman’s AIP program is designed to provide companies that are involved in any aspect of the tobacco or vapor product supply chain with confidence that their facilities are operating in accordance with FDA requirements.  The AIP will consider 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.

Supplemental Environmental and OSHA Compliance Components

In addition to FDA compliance, the AIP offers companies the option to include supplemental compliance training and auditing focusing on environmental and occupational health and safety regulations and requirements – efficiently leveraging the FDA mock inspection and full facility audit.

  • Environmental: The AIP program will offer companies the opportunity to add an additional training and compliance component focusing on federal and state environmental and waste management regulations. Specifically, nicotine-bearing products may be subject to regulation under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed.  State regulations governing dangerous or industrial wastes also could apply.  This component will provide an overview of how nicotine in tobacco-based products are regulated differently than when found in e-cigarettes and other vaping products, and will provide valuable information regarding companies’ obligations in responding to these additional requirements.  For more information on environmental requirements, see here.
  • Occupational Health and Safety: Participants in the AIP program will also have the opportunity to add an additional training and compliance component focusing on federal and state Occupational Safety and Health laws. OSHA recordkeeping requirements apply to all employers, except very small businesses.  Most other OSHA standards apply to all employers, regardless of size.  This component will provide companies with a review of existing policies and practices, and will recommend specific actions designed to bring companies into compliance with regulations in areas relevant to the industry, including: personal protective equipment, emergency plans, fire protection, and hazard communication (g., labeling and safety data sheets).

Pre-Registration

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

Upon receipt of your pre-registration form, Keller and Heckman will provide your company with a formal written proposal and cost-estimate to conduct on-site training and mock inspection at your facility.  Scheduling is generally available on a first-come, first-serve basis.

*The written post-inspection report is covered by any existing attorney-client relationship between Keller and Heckman and the Company, and is generally not subject to discovery.  The recommendations set forth in the post-inspection report are for informational purposes only, and do not constitute any warranties or guarantees regarding the outcome of an actual FDA, EPA or OSHA inspection.  Keller and Heckman’s attorneys remain available and look forward to the opportunity to assist with any post-inspection activities or questions following completion of the written report.

Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of Eric Gotting

On February 20, 2018 several organizations filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs in support of Plaintiff-Appellants Nicopure Labs’ and the Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition’s appeal in the Deeming Rule challenge now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is a nonprofit, public-interest law firm and policy center dedicated to defending and promoting free enterprise, individual rights, limited government, and the rule of law. In particular, WLF has devoted substantial resources over the years to promoting the free-speech rights of consumers and merchants in the marketplace, appearing before many federal courts in raising First Amendment issues. WLF has actively litigated First Amendment limits on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to restrict manufacturer speech.  In its amicus brief, WLF argues that FDA’s regulation of the vapor industry unjustifiably restricts truthful, non-misleading speech in violation of the First Amendment. By requiring vapor product companies to obtain FDA’s preapproval of “modified risk” claims before communicating their products’ uncontested health and related benefits to prospective consumers, the Deeming Rule effectively bans legally protected speech. The Rule will also harm those members of the public trying to quit smoking, who have a right to receive truthful information about comparatively safer alternatives to combustible tobacco.  Download the full brief here.

NJOY develops, imports, and distributes e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery products, and is committed to helping adult smokers switch completely from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes.  Like WLF, NJOY’s amicus brief addresses the First Amendment issue, i.e., “a government-imposed gag order” that blocks NJOY from truthfully describing its products to consumers.  Specifically, NJOY argues that FDA’s MRTP preclearance requirement is an unconstitutional speech-licensing regime that silences e-cigarette manufacturers and perpetuates misinformation about the comparative health risks of e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes, jeopardizing the health of millions of smokers. Download the full brief here.

The State of Iowa also filed an amicus brief because it felt “compelled to defend its strong interest in reducing the number of Iowans who smoke combustible tobacco products,” noting that Iowa advocates for a harm-reduction approach and that “the difference between combustible cigarettes and non-combustibles, like e-cigarettes, is dramatic”.  Iowa argues that the MRTP process places a roadblock in the path of public health advocates and frustrates harm-reduction objectives by requiring pre-market review of truthful, non-misleading modified risk claims – which are protected by the First Amendment.  While Iowa supports rules that require pre-market review of any modified risk claim offered for a combustible tobacco product, generalized modified risk claims for e-cigarettes are different because they are true – and the MRTP process undermines momentum towards critical harm reduction by effectively silencing them. Download the full brief here.

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA), a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization with an all-volunteer board and a grassroots membership, is dedicated to ensuring the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking and to providing smokers and non-smokers alike with honest information about those alternatives so that they can make informed choices.  CASAA submitted an amicus brief to provide helpful information to the Court about the importance of flavors and sampling in connection with consumers (a) receiving information about products and (b) making a successful transition from smoking to vaping.  The brief discusses the critical need for consumers to receive truthful information from manufacturers and retailers about the low-risk nature of vapor products.  Download the full brief here.

Last, but certainly not least, Clive Bates, Director of The Counterfactual and former Director of the UK’s primary anti-smoking non-profit Action on Smoking in Health, as well as additional public health advocates Philip Alcabes, Scott Ballin, Konstantinos Farsalinos, Bill Godshall, Jacques Le Houezec, Bernd Mayer, Jeff Nesbit, Joel Nitzkin, Riccardo Polosa, Sally L. Satel, Michael B. Siegel, Jeff Stier, and David Sweanor, submitted an amicus brief because of their concern that excessively burdensome or restrictive regulation of e-cigarettes by FDA will have unintended consequences, effectively protecting the combustible cigarette market, increasing smoking and causing harm to health. The authors argue that vaping is proving highly beneficial to the health of millions of American adults as a low-risk alternative to cigarette smoking – which has fallen rapidly and reached record lows since vaping was introduced.  FDA’s approach to regulating e-cigarettes failed to account for the likelihood of the risks of harmful unintended consequences arising from its own interventions in the e-cigarette market.  Indeed, the authors make clear that the costs of the current regulatory approach are likely to overwhelm the claimed benefits, and a failure to account for them undermines the Deeming Rule.  Download the full brief here.

FDA’s reply brief in the appeal is due by April 18, 2018. We will keep you updated on the progress of the appeal.

Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of Eric Gotting

On February 12, 2018, Nicopure Labs, LLC and the Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition[i] (the Appellants) filed their opening brief in the appeal of last year’s decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled in favor of FDA in the first lawsuit challenging aspects of the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Deeming Rule as they are being applied to the vapor industry. In the brief, the Appellants respectfully disagree with the lower court’s conclusions and believe that both the law and the facts compel a different result.

Specifically, Appellants argue that (1) the Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) provision of the TCA, as well as the ban on free samples of vapor products, violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and (2) FDA was obligated to consider a less burdensome Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) process for vapor products while still protecting the public health. We summarize these issues in turn below, and you can download the full brief here.

1. Modified Risk Claims and Free Sample Ban

The MRTP provision in Section 911 of the TCA prohibits vapor companies from, among other things, representing without FDA authorization that their products: (i) present a lower risk of disease or is less harmful than another tobacco product; or (ii) contain a reduced level of, or is free from, a substance, or that exposure to a substance is reduced or eliminated.  In other words, this means that vapor companies require explicit FDA approval to tell adult consumers, for example, that their products do not contain certain substances (“no diacetyl” or “no allergens”), that they are unlike more dangerous cigarettes because they have “no tar” or produce “no combusted smoke,” and they pose less health risk to individuals than smoking cigarettes (as FDA itself has publicly stated numerous times). Obtaining such MRTP authorization is an incredibly onerous and expensive process (which no company has been able to achieve yet) that requires applicants to demonstrate that their product will:

(i) significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual users; and

(ii) benefit the health of the population as a whole taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products.

21 USC § 387k(g)(1). As to the latter “population effects” prong of the standard, applicants must establish not only the relative health risks of the subject product, but also the potential impact the product will have on overall tobacco use initiation and cessation. 21 USC § 387k(g)(4).

In reality, this imposes a prophylactic ban on MRTP claims and violates the First Amendment because it effectively prohibits truthful, non-misleading statements by vapor companies that convey information needed by adult consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and switch away from cigarettes to less risky vapor products. The First Amendment protects the rights of consumers in the marketplace to obtain product-related information so they can make educated decisions.

But vapor companies cannot make these claims without prior FDA approval and, in all likelihood, will never be able to because the Agency has never approved a claim under the stringent and cost prohibitive MRTP standard. As such, and as detailed in the brief, the MRTP process fails to meet the “intermediate scrutiny” standard required when the government regulates commercial speech.  Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

Similarly, the free sample ban violates the First Amendment because it prohibits adult consumers from trying different vapor products and obtaining valuable information about a novel product category that will help them transition away from cigarettes. Sampling is an “expressive” act that is protected speech. As FDA conceded, sampling conveys information that allows consumers to make individualized choices and change their purchasing behavior. This is important where, as FDA also acknowledged, smokers may have a better chance of switching to vapor products if they can continually sample a variety of e-liquid flavors. Indeed, numerous consumer surveys and other data indicate that smokers rely heavily on flavor variability and the opportunity to try different e-liquids and devices when considering vaping as a substitute for deadly smoking. But, as set forth in the brief, neither Congress nor FDA demonstrated that the free sample ban survives intermediate scrutiny.

2. PMTA Process

Since the Deeming Rule took effect on August 8, 2016, the restrictions on vapor products have been even more onerous than combustible cigarettes, most of which are grandfathered and exempt from FDA’s premarket review requirements. While FDA’s announcement last year for a “comprehensive regulatory plan to shift trajectory of tobacco-related disease, death” acknowledged, among other things, the tobacco harm reduction potential of vapor products and extended the compliance policy deadline for PMTAs for pre-August 8, 2016 vapor products to August 8, 2022, the reality is that safety advances and innovation have been stifled, and the industry still faces effectively being banned in a few short years.

In this regard, it is critical to recognize that the TCA has an overarching goal of ensuring that adult smokers continue to have access to innovative, less risky tobacco products. Despite this, and even though the Agency acknowledged that forcing vapor products to complete a one-size-fits-all PMTA process would eliminate over 95% of manufacturers (along with product variety those companies supply), FDA failed to tailor the PMTA process to less risky vapor products.  Indeed, to date FDA has only approved one PMTA (which was not for a vapor product) and, as provided in the brief, Deeming Rule commenters submitted compelling evidence showing the PMTA will be time and cost prohibitive. FDA was obligated, therefore, not just to extend the filing deadlines, but to consider a less burdensome PMTA process for vapor products (e.g., one that does not require long-term, clinical or epidemiological studies for each vapor product) while still protecting the public health.

FDA’s reply brief is due by April 18, 2018. We will keep you updated on the progress of the appeal.

The Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition and Nicopure Labs are represented in the appeal by Keller and Heckman LLP Partners Eric Gotting and Azim Chowdhury. For more information on the lawsuit and to contribute to the appeal efforts, visit www.r2bsmokefree.org.

[i]  The Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition trade association members supporting the appeal include the American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA), American Vaping Association (AVA), Georgia Smoke Free Association (GSFA), Kentucky Smoke Free Association (KYSFA), Louisiana Vaping Association (LAVA), Maryland Vape Professionals, LLC (MVP), New Jersey Vapor Retailers Association (NJVRA), Ohio Vapor Trade Association (OHVTA), Tennessee Smoke Free Association (TSFA), and the Shenzhen E-Vapor Industry Association (SEVIA).  For a full list of members see www.r2bsmokefree.org.

Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of JC Walker

Beyond the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Tobacco Control Act requirements that now apply to deemed tobacco products, manufacturers and retailers of vapor products, and particularly e-liquids, also face stringent environmental and waste management regulations and compliance issues that are significantly more complex than those faced by cigarette and traditional tobacco product companies. This dichotomy arises because regulations promulgated pursuant to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) treat nicotine in tobacco-based products differently than when found in e-cigarettes and other vaping products.

Compliance with the waste management regulations can be confusing because their scope and extent will vary by the amount of waste nicotine produced at a manufacturing facility or the amount of nicotine-containing products collected for disposal by a retailer. Further complicating the issue, even if exempted from the RCRA regulations, certain nicotine-containing products may be subject to state regulation of nicotine as a dangerous or industrial waste. Although there have been few enforcement actions brought against vapor or e-liquid manufacturers or retailers, regulators have noted the industry’s growth and potential for noncompliance. Going forward, we expect regulators to focus less on educating the industry about waste management obligations and follow a more active enforcement approach.

RCRA Overview

The federal RCRA regulations and state analogues establish a comprehensive system for managing hazardous waste from “cradle to grave,” that is from the point the waste is generated until its ultimate disposal. Broadly speaking, the regulations prescribe how to determine if and when a material is regulated as a hazardous waste, and how to manage the waste once the determination is made. Critically, RCRA only applies when the material becomes solid waste, meaning that it has been discarded by being abandoned, recycled, or treated as “inherently-waste like,” or the decision to discard has been made.[1]

Having decided to discard a material, the waste generator must next determine whether the waste is hazardous. This is done in one of two ways: (1) does the waste contain materials that EPA has listed in one of the three hazardous waste lists codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 261, subpart D; or (2) does the waste exhibit one or more of four characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity?[2] With regards to e-liquids and other nicotine-bearing products, certain unused chemicals are listed hazardous wastes when discarded.[3] The hazardous waste listing applies when the following three criteria have been met. First, the chemical must be listed at 40 C.F.R. § 261.33(e) or (f). Nicotine and its salts are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 261.33(e) as an acute hazardous waste with the P075 waste code. Second, the listing applies “if and when they are discarded or intended to be discarded” prior to use.[4] Given its intended function, nicotine in e-cigarettes is not used until it has been inhaled by the end user.

Third, the listed chemical must be discarded in the form of a “commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical intermediate having the generic name of the listed chemical” (CCP). The term CCP refers to a chemical substance which is manufactured or formulated for commercial or manufacturing use and which consists of the commercially pure grade of the chemical, any technical grades of the chemical that are produced or marketed, all formulations in which the chemical is the sole active ingredient, and any off-specification forms of the foregoing chemicals.[5] Products with more than one active ingredient are not regulated as CCP, although they may still be regulated hazardous wastes if they exhibit one of the hazardous characteristics.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nicotine is the “sole active ingredient” in e-cigarettes because it is the “only chemically active component that performs the function of the product.[6] Flavorings, sweeteners, colorants and other components are considered inert ingredients. Consequently, raw material (i.e., nicotine), off-spec e-liquids, container residues, and spill residues are hazardous wastes when they are discarded or intended to be discarded from businesses. In addition, EPA has stated that because certain e-cigarettes contain cartridges that are containers of a CCP, they too must be treated as hazardous waste when disposed.[7] This also applies to tanks and pods used in open-systems and advanced vaporizers to hold the nicotine-containing e-liquid.

RCRA Requirements Depend on Quantity

Hazardous waste compliance requirements vary significantly under RCRA depending on the amount of hazardous waste a facility generates each month. Thus, the generator category of a company and commensurate requirements, including storage and accumulation, recordkeeping and reporting, and training requirements could change from month to month.[8] Keeping up with these changes and ensuring a facility complies can be particularly burdensome for small businesses, such as those that constitute a large portion of the vapor industry.

Nicotine’s status as an acute hazardous waste is likely the primary driver for determining the “generator” category for an e-liquid or vapor product manufacturer. Businesses that generate acute hazardous waste (“generators”) are categorized as very small quantity generators (VSQGs) when generating up to 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) per month, and large quantity generators (LQGs) when generating more than 2.2 pounds per month.[9] Regulatory requirements are significantly greater for LQGs, as is clear from a guidance chart developed by EPA.[10] Thus, e-liquid manufacturers have a strong incentive to operate as VSQGs or small quantity generators (SQGs).

When a generator has multiple hazardous waste streams, the generator must quantify each waste stream separately and abide by the more stringent generator category.[11] An e-liquid manufacturer will be classified as an SQG if the manufacturer does not exceed the 2.2 pound per month threshold for acute hazardous waste but generates greater than 100 pounds of non-acute hazardous waste per month.[12] For example, a generator of up to 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste that crossed the 220 pound threshold for non-acute hazardous waste may need to comply with SQG requirements, as opposed to VSQG requirements.

Fortunately, a generator has some options for managing hazardous wastes: recycling, treatment, storage, or disposal. Each approach has its own implications and requirements under RCRA. Recycling (e.g., nicotine reclamation) is a management method that can have a meaningful impact on the standards applicable to hazardous waste generators. Provided that the company can demonstrate the recycling is legitimate, the reclaimed nicotine will not be considered solid waste.[13] Recycling is a particularly appealing option as it can reduce the amount of material counted as hazardous waste for purposes of determining the generator category.

E-liquids May Be an Increasing Focus for Enforcement

Compliance with RCRA requirements by vapor product and e-liquid manufacturers is an increasing area of emphasis for both the states and EPA. Thus far, states have focused on outreach to the industry regarding compliance measures.[14] Such outreach typically lasts from six months to a year to provide a chance for the industry to come into compliance before the agencies transition to enforcement. Given that the e-cigarette and vaping industries have been growing for several years, and that the past two years have seen an increase in state proposals and communications concerning this issue, industry members need to consider whether regulators will pursue a more aggressive enforcement agenda in the new year and going forward. Accordingly, e-cigarette and e-liquid manufacturers should evaluate their processes and potential impact on generator status to determine whether their facilities are complying with RCRA or state analogues.

To learn more about the environmental and hazardous waste management regulations that apply to your e-liquid or vapor business, be sure to attend our upcoming E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium on February 6-7, 2018 in Irvine, California. Click here to register and for more information.

For more information on our Tobacco and E-Vapor Practice, visit www.khlaw.com/evapor. For more information on our Environmental Practice, visit www.khlaw.com/Environmental. Follow Keller and Heckman Tobacco and E-Vapor Partner Azim Chowdhury on Twitter.

____________________________________________________________________

[1] 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.2(a), 261.33.
[2] 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.20-261.24.
[3] See 40 C.F.R. § 261.33.
[4] 40 C.F.R. § 261.33. See also EPA Letter to Merck Sharp & Dohme, FaxBack #11012, May 13, 1981.
[5] 40 C.F.R. § 261.33(b)
[6] Letter from Barnes Johnson, EPA, to Daniel K. DeWitt, Warner, Norcross & Judd LLP (May 8, 2015), RCRA Online #14850.
[7] Id.
[8] Recent revisions to the regulations do provide some relief to companies that consistently qualify under one category but experience an episodic event that shifts them to a more burdensome one. The rules generally limit the facility to one episodic event, however. See Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 85,732 (November 28, 2016).
[9] 40 C.F.R. § 262.13.
[10] U.S. EPA, “Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Summary,” available at:https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/hazardous-waste-generator-regulatory-summary.
[11] 40 C.F.R. § 262.13.
[12] See 40 C.F.R. § 262.13.
[13] Four factors are used to determine whether recycling is “legitimate.” 40 C.F.R. § 260.43(g). First, recycling must involve a hazardous secondary material that provides a useful contribution to the recycling process or to a product or intermediate of the recycling process. For example, the nicotine-containing materials may be the source of a valuable constituent (i.e., nicotine) recovered in the recycling process. Second, the recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate, which can be demonstrated by sale of the recycled product to a third party, by its use as an effective substitute for a commercial product, or by its use as ingredient in a process. Third, the generator and the recycler must manage the hazardous secondary material as a valuable commodity when it is under their control. This would entail management of nicotine-containing materials consistent with how raw nicotine is managed. Fourth, the product of the recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate. For example, the recycled product should meet widely recognized specifications for the raw material and not contain hazardous constituents in greater levels than a non-recycled analogue. See Letter from Barnes Johnson, EPA, to Scott DeMuth, g2revolution LLP (May 8, 2015), RCRA Online #14851.
[14] See, e.g., New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “Compliance Advisory Update – Compliance Assistance Available for Vape Shops and Manufacturers” (June 20, 2017), available at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/advisories/2017-03.pdf.

Photo of Azim ChowdhuryPhoto of Benjamin Wolf

Just two weeks before the September 30, 2017 registration deadline for U.S. tobacco product manufacturing establishments, on Friday, September 15, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a Revised Guidance for Industry on Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments .See our original Client Alert summarizing the registration requirements here.

Has the Deadline Changed?

No. Registrations and product listings are still due by September 30, 2017 for U.S. manufacturing establishments. This applies to deemed tobacco products marketed as of August 8, 2016, the effective date of the Deeming Regulation.

How Do I Register?

FDA strongly encourages electronic submission of establishment registrations and product listings through the FDA Unified Registration and Listing System (FURLS) which can be accessed here. FURLS is only used to register an establishment and submit a product listing. Do not confuse this with the CTP Portal, which you can use to submit other regulatory document (e.g.,ingredient reportshealth document submissions, etc.) To obtain a FURLS account and to view more instructions and webinars see here. Alternatively, you may file your Establishment Registration manually by filling out and Form FDA 3741a and mailing all of the necessary materials to CTP’s Document Control Center.

View FDA’s latest Webinar “Using the Tobacco Registration and Listing Module of FURLS – Tips and Recent Enhancements” here (published September 18, 2017).

Who Registers their Establishments and Submits Product Listing Information?

The revised guidance clarifies that owners and operators of domestic U.S. establishments engaged in manufacturing regulated tobacco products are required to register and provide a product list to FDA. This requirement does not extend to foreign establishments (e.g., e-vapor device manufacturers in China) or U.S. importers, distributors or retailers who merely distribute and sell products, but are not engaged in any manufacturing activity (e.g., manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing, including bottling, packaging and labeling). FDA also encourages establishment owners to act as the agent for all operators and to register all establishments it owns and to submit the associated product listing, in order to reduce redundant submissions. If you have any questions about how to best structure your registration and product listing for your particular business, please let us know.

What Products Need to be Listed?

Despite the fact that the Form 3741a and the template FURLS product listing spreadsheet provided by FDA allow companies to indicate whether a particular product is for “Consumer Use” or “Further Manufacturing”, FDA’s revised guidance clarifies that the listing requirement only applies to finished tobacco products sealed in final packaging intended for consumers use. This includes components and parts sold directly to consumers in final sealed packaging. For example, an e-liquid sold in a sealed bottle for use by consumers in an open-system device would be a finished tobacco product, but an e-liquid intended to be filled into a closed system cigalike would be for further manufacturing, and should not be listed.
 
What Information Should be Submitted as Part of Establishment Registration and Product Listing?

Registration Information
The following information is needed to register manufacturing establishments:
  • The name and full address of each establishment engaged in manufacturing the registrant owns or operates, as of the date of registration.
  • The name and places of business of the owner or operator. In the case of a partnership, include the name of each partner. In the case of a corporation, include the name of each corporate officer and director, and the State of incorporation.

Optional information includes an email address and a Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S) number or other unique identifier (codes) for the place of business of the owner, the place of business of the operator, and the location of the establishment.

Product Listing Information

For the product list, FDA’s template product listing spreadsheet (available in FURLS) should be used, particularly if you are processing the registration online through FURLS. The spreadsheet identifies the information that must be submitted for each product, e.g., product identification number (SKU), intended use (consumer use), product category (ENDS), subcategory (e-liquid), open/closed system, flavor, and advertising, labeling and consumer information. Please note that each unique product must be identified on your product list including, for example, e-liquids under the same brand or flavor that vary in terms of package (e.g., bottle) size, nicotine strength and/or Propylene Glycol (PG)/Vegetable Glycerin (VG) ratio.

Do I need to submit labels for all my product variations?

In addition, the product listing must include labeling information, but FDA’s revised guidance clarifies that e-liquid manufacturers in particular need not submit labels for all product variations. Specifically, the guidance states (on page 9):

However, FDA recognizes that product listing for some tobacco products may result in numerous labeling submissions that the manufacturer must prepare and submit. For example, variations in package size, nicotine strength, Propylene Glycol (PG)/Vegetable Glycerin (VG) ratio, and flavor can result in thousands of individual product labeling submissions. 

In order to reduce the amount of uploaded labeling submissions, FDA does not, at this time, intend to enforce the requirements that owners and operators submit the labeling for each individual listed tobacco product if the registrant submits the information that represents the labeling for a selected line of products. In deciding whether a registrant’s submitted information falls within this compliance policy, FDA may consider whether the tobacco products’ labeling is essentially identical (e.g., the same formatting, fonts, colors, background text, and images) and whether the variations are limited to package size, nicotine strength, PG/VG ratio, and flavor. However, we recommend that zero nicotine formulas of a product, or product line, be grouped separately from products with nicotine. 

Rather, as described in Appendix A to the revised guidance, registrants may submit a separate “package label plan”, which is a model/generic product label with placeholder text for the specific variations, along with a “product variation index” which lists all the variations for a specific product, e.g. package size, nicotine strength, PG/VG ratio and flavor. The product variation index must list all combinations of the variations that will be using the model label. The examples from FDA’s revised guidance are copied below.

The Package Label Plans, including the Model/Generic Labels and Product Variation Indices can be uploaded in FURLS by creating a single PDF containing the label and the index. Once uploaded into FURLS you will be given the option of associating the file with all applicable products.

Example A – Sample Model Label (Package Label Plan) for nicotine containing products from the revised FDA guidance:
Example A – Product Variation Index
Example B – Sample Model Label (Package Label Plan) for 0 mg nicotine products from the revised FDA guidance:

Example B – Product Variation Index

What about advertisements and “consumer information”?

 

Finally, we note that despite previously implying that this information was optional, FDA’s revised guidance states that if product advertising exists, a representative sampling of such advertisements must be provided with the product listing. FDA interprets “a representative sampling of advertisements” to mean typical advertising material that reflects the full range of promotional statements made for the tobacco product. For example, if more than one magazine advertisement is used, but the promotional content is essentially identical, only one need be submitted.

FDA’s revised guidance further notes that, in addition, the product listing must include “a copy of all consumer information” to the extent the information is not advertising and has not already been provided as a form of product labeling. Consumer information does not include information directed at wholesalers, distributors or retailers where such information is not available to consumers (e.g., product specifications intended for manufacturing purposes, photos of components or parts not intended for individual sale, or communications between companies), but may include items like consumer brochures.

If you are interested in obtaining additional guidance on this topic contact Azim Chowdhury (202.434.4230, chowdhury@khlaw.com) or Ben Wolf (202-434-4103, wolf@khlaw.com). For more information on our Tobacco and E-vapor Practice in general, visit www.khlaw.com/evaporFollow Keller and Heckman Tobacco and E-Vapor Partner Azim Chowdhury on Twitter.