Home / Industry / HB 1432 Passes 2nd Vote without Industry Amendments

HB 1432 Passes 2nd Vote without Industry Amendments

Today the Indiana Senate added a few amendments to HB 1432 that left it bad for vapers and bad for vape shops.  Here are the issues with the bill:

1. Several security measures were supposed to be removed. During one of our previous conversations both Senator Yoder and Representative Mahan stated that they thought the rolling steel fire door, architectural design consultant, and the UL bit had already been removed. They also said separating the locksmiths and the security firm (alarm/cameras) so they could be separately contracted companies was a reasonable request that they would accommodate.

 

2. Senator Yoder stated that he was aware of issues with the out of state manufacturers’ registration. He said he would have to address it. We know it is a complex issue, but we have written up some language that should satisfy the intent of the bill while still allowing out of state manufacturers the ability to import into Indiana. The language is similar to laws in place for fireworks and tobacco distributors. Please see the attached language below.
3. The exemption for the 10ml samples is a huge step in the right direction. Reducing the number retained from 3 samples to 1 sample was discussed by one of our industry reps and Senator Yoder. Senator Yoder said that it didn’t seem unreasonable and that he would consider reducing it. Reducing the samples from 3 to 1 would significantly decrease the cost of compliance while still allowing for the testing of products.
4. We had discussed cap on the fees associated with random sampling. The number suggested was $1,000 annually, and this would not prohibit the commission from requiring additional testing in the event of a violation of the article.
5. On page 6 lines 31-32 the bill has some language that prevent anyone from obtaining a manufacturing permit after June 30, 2016. Senator Yoder stated that wasn’t the intent and that it would be addressed.
6. On page 12 line 31 there is a potential $10,000 fine for manufacturers. We pointed out during our last meeting that breweries and distilleries had a cap of $4,000. Senator Yoder stated he would look into the fines. Our suggestion would be to state $4,000 per occurrence or perhaps limit the annual fines to $10,000.
7. On page 3 line 39 packaging is supposed to be conducted in the “clean room”. We have asked that only the bottling and mixing occur in a clean room because the dust and dirt from cardboard packaging could contaminate the product. Senator Yoder agreed with our position.
8. On page 10 lines 3-4 the amendment changes the scannable encryption code to a “code including a quick response code”. While this is a step in the right direction it is extremely redundant since we already have a batch number on the bottle. My suggestion at this point would be to use similar language from the new amendment and say the “label or container must include a scannable code…”
9. We submitted some language that is identical to the home brewers language for people who manufacture eliquid for personal consumption. While I understand that it is unlikely that the commission would cite or fine someone making liquid for themselves it would be appropriate to include the language to make it legal.
10. Senator Yoder suggested removing a “catch 22” from the co-op language. Page 11 line 2 “both” should be removed. Page 11 line 3 “and the manufacturer for which the service is performed” should be removed.

 

 

11. Suggested language for out of state manufacturers: Inserted on page 11 between lines 29 and 30 after (d) before Chapter 5.

Sec. 8. The commission shall stop the shipments and sale of e-liquid unless, prior to shipment into this state for sale, the manufacturer, wholesaler, or distributor of the e-liquid submits to the commission:     
(1) the name, telephone number, and address of the applicant;     
(2) the name, telephone number, and address of the manufacturing facility;     
(3) the name, telephone number, title, and address of the person responsible for the manufacturing facility;     
(4) the projected annual import in liters of e-liquid into this state;    
(5) the annual import in liters of e-liquid into this state in the previous year;          
(6) written verification that the facility will comply with proper manufacturing processes;     
(7) written verification that the e-liquid imported into this state complies with the following safety and  labeling requirements:          
(a) An e-liquid container must use a child proof cap that has the child resistant effectiveness set forth in 16 CFR 1700.15  
(b) An e-liquid container must be secured using either ring seals or plastic wrap.          
(c) The label on an e-liquid container must identify the active ingredients.          
(d) The label must include a separate designation if the product contains nicotine.          
(e) The label must include a batch number and the means for the commission to obtain the manufacturing date.          
(f) The label must include a scannable code including a quick response code tied to the batch number as prescribed by the commission.          
(g) An e-liquid container must be distributed and sold within two (2) years of the date of manufacture.          
(h) E-liquid may be compromised of only the ingredients authorized in IC 7.1-7-5-1(a).; and     
(8) an annual registration fee of two hundred dollars ($200).  

About J Teller