Troutman Pepper Locke Tobacco Practice

Subscribe to Troutman Pepper Locke Tobacco Practice's Posts

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 …

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 …

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.

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.   

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.

On April 21, 2016, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review a decision allowing Pennsylvania to receive a $125 million payment as part of a nationwide settlement over smoking-related health costs, saying a lower court exceeded its authority by altering an arbitration award.