Troutman attorneys Bryan M. Haynes and Robert S. Claiborne, Jr. were featured in the February 2017 issue of SMOKESHOP, a tobacco industry magazine, in an article discussing the Indiana Vapor Act. This article discusses the federal appeals court’s decision that Indiana’s Vapor Pens and E-Liquid Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it regulates out-of-state manufacturers of e-liquid products.

Read the full article here

 

Are blunt wraps taxable “tobacco products”? Are they “suitable . . . for smoking in a pipe or otherwise”? On May 15, 2017, the Supreme Court of Colorado answered both questions in the affirmative, handing down its decision in Colorado Department of Revenue, et al. v. Creager Mercantile Co., No. 15SC226. Continue Reading Blunt Wraps Taxable “Tobacco Products,” Divided Colorado Supreme Court Concludes

The FDA has extended their upcoming deeming regulations deadlines. This includes the May 10, 2017 deadline, or later, including deadlines for cigar warning label plans, registration and listing, ingredient submissions, health documents, and others. The extension gives the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services’ new leadership time to work through issues triggered by the final rule on deeming regulations.

 

On Thursday, May 4, 2017, Bryan M. Haynes, Partner, Troutman Sanders LLP, will moderate a session on the FDA Center for Tobacco Products’ Evaluation of Premarket and Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications at the 2017 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference, which will be held in Washington, DC. This session will include a discussion of the FDA’s standards for reviewing premarket tobacco applications, as well as modified risk tobacco applications.

 

On March 24, 2017, the Third Court of Appeals of Texas decided Hegar, et al. v. Texas Small Tobacco Coalition, et al., No. 03-13-00753-CV. The court held that a tax on nonparticipating or non-settling manufacturers (“NPMs”) did not violate either the Equal Protection or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The law at issue, Subchapter V to Chapter 161 of the Texas Health & Safety Code (“Subchapter V”), taxed NPMs remaining outside of the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) at approximately $0.55 per cigarette pack and companies subsequently joining the MSA at approximately $0.15 per pack. The case was of particular interest because Texas is not a party to the MSA, yet the MSA’s distinctions were the bases for Subchapter V’s. Continue Reading NPM Tax Valid Under U.S. Constitution, Says Texas Appellate Court

On occasion, a  manufacturer of tobacco products may decide to use its permitted facility for another purpose, one that may exceed the permit or be altogether unrelated to the permitted use.  For example, a manufacturer of tobacco products may decide to manufacture cigarette papers and tubes, or to process tobacco for third parties, or even to make a product similar to a cigarette that has no tobacco in the product. Some manufacturers have assumed that a tobacco producer permit will automatically cover its activity to also make these products, but it does not.    Continue Reading Ramifications of Using the Permitted Area for Another Purpose

On September 2, 2016, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) finalized its rule amending Article 6 of the regulations implementing Proposition 65 (i.e., California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Environment Act of 1986).  As a result of the new regulation, tobacco and electronic cigarette manufacturers may be required to update their Proposition 65 warnings. Continue Reading California Finalizes New Prop. 65 Warning Label Rule