Week of February 29, 2008
Greetings! Hope you have had a joyful and laudable week!This week's offerings include notice of an upcoming FAET seminar, information on our upcoming TTB Expo, and advice on the most common advertising (label) mistakes. You'll also find an advance look at one of the articles that will be in the inaugural issue of our soon-to-be published "TTB TOBACCO NEWS" and
instructions on how to subscribe.
In the TTB Newsletter, we compile the top TTB news of the week and other helpful information about the Bureau and the Federal alcohol and tobacco laws and regulations we enforce. Please send any questions and/or comments to Susan Stewart Evans, Executive Liaison for Industry Matters (susan.stewart-evans@ttb.gov) and/or Frosty Chapman, State Liaison (forrest.chapman@ttb.gov). |
 |
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION EXCISE TAX SEMINAR
Mark your calendar for April 2, 2008, to attend the TTB Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) Seminar. TTB is holding FAET training in Philadelphia for industry members interested in learning about requirements, claims, exemptions, and much more. TTB analysts and specialists will be available to answer your questions. To learn more click here.
REGISTER NOW TO ATTEND TTB EXPO 2008!
We invite you to join us for our first Expo, to be held June 17-18, 2008, in Covington, Kentucky-just minutes away from downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. More than 40 different educational sessions will be presented by TTB and other Federal and State agency representatives. Exhibition booths will also be open allowing one-on-one time with TTB experts. Registration is free. For more information or to register, please click here.
MOST COMMON WEB SITE ADVERTISING (LABELING) MISTAKES
- Mandatory statements are missing.
(e.g., name and address of responsible advertiser, % alc/vol for distilled spirits) - Health benefits/claims are made.
(e.g., "will improve memory," "no headaches," "provides energy," curative claims) - Statements create a misleading impression.
(e.g., no statement of composition, misleading references to gluten-free) - Products depicted on Web site do not display reproductions of approved COLAs.
- Low calorie or carbohydrate claim without the Statement of Average Analysis.
SAMPLE ARTICLE FROM TTB TOBACCO NEWS
The following article is just one of the articles that will be in the forthcoming "TTB TOBACCO NEWS." If you have not already forwarded your request to subscribe, please do so by sending an e-mail to forrest.chapman@ttb.gov.
SUPREME COURT ISSUES A WIDE RANGING DECISION ON MAINE STATUTE
In a unanimous decision issued on February 20, 2008, the United States Supreme Court in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transportation Association, found that a State of Maine statute relating to direct shipments of tobacco to consumers was unconstitutional because the Federal Government had enacted a wide ranging statute that pre-empted Maine's attempt to insert itself in an area of law covered by the Federal statute in a manner inconsistent with the Federal statute.
In order to help prevent minors from obtaining cigarettes, the State of Maine enacted a law which required tobacco retailers to use a shipment service that required:
- A purchaser to be the addressee on the shipped packages of tobacco products;
- The addressee to be of legal age to purchase tobacco products and that such addressee was required to sign for the delivered packages; and
- If the addressee was under 27 years of age, the addressee had to show valid picture-government-issued identification that indicated that the addressee was of legal age to purchase tobacco products.
In addition, the Maine statute prohibited unlicensed tobacco shipments into the State and deemed that the shipper knew that a package contained tobacco if it was marked as originating from a Maine-licensed tobacco retailer or if it was received from someone whose name appeared on an official list of un-licensed tobacco retailers distributed to package-delivery companies.
The Supreme Court held that the above requirements were contrary to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAA Act) which forbids States to "enact or enforce a law . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier." The Court found that the FAAA Act did not contain any implied "public health" exemption to the Federal Government's authority and that Maine could achieve its objective through other means such as by requiring adults to sign deliveries. In other words, Maine's statute was an incursion into an area of law already covered by the Federal Government through the FAAA Act and such incursion was inconsistent with the Federal statute.