59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–394 

CHILD NICOTINE POISONING PREVENTION ACT OF 2015 

JANUARY 11, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. UPTON, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3242] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 3242) to require special packaging for liquid nicotine 

containers, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 

the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 2 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 2 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 2 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 3 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 3 

Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ............................. 3 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 3 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 3 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 4 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 4 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 5 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 5 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 5 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 5 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 5 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 3242, the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015, is to require special packaging commonly referred 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

1 Consortium 

2 American Association of Poison Control Centers Press Release. December 12, 2014. Available 

online at: http://www.aapcc.org/press/37/ 3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5 American Association of Poison Control Centers. Electronic Cigarettes and Liquid Nicotine 

Data, August 31, 2015. Available online at: https://aapcc.s3.amazonaws.com/files/library/Ecig_Nicotine_Web_Data_through_8.2015_BjzqUYv.pdf. 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Press Release. New CDC Study Finds Dramatic 

Increase in E-Cigarette-Related Calls to Poison Centers. April 3, 2014. Available online at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0403-e-cigarette-poison.html. 7 Id. 

8 American Association of Poison Control Centers Press Release. December 12, 2014. Available 

online at: http://www.aapcc.org/press/37/ 

to as child resistant or child-proof packaging for liquid nicotine containers, and for other purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

As sales of e-cigarettes increase in the United States, the accidental ingestion, absorption, and inhalation of liquid nicotine has 

become a growing public health and safety concern, especially 

among children.1 According to the American Association of Poison 

Control Centers (AAPCC), liquid nicotine exposures are on the 

rise.2 In 2012, 460 exposures were reported to the AAPCC, and in 

2013 there were 1,543 reported incidents.3 Before the end of 2014, 

the AAPCC had received 3,638 exposure calls.4 Between January 

1, 2015 and August 31, 2015, there were 2,209 reported exposure 

incidents.5 Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a study in 2014 showing an increase in poisonings related 

to liquid nicotine.6 The study showed that calls to the CDC related 

to liquid nicotine poisonings had gone from one call per month in 

September 2010 to 215 per month in February 2014.7 To date, 

there has been one reported death attributed to nicotine poisoning 

from an e-liquid container.8 The intent of H.R. 3242 is to ensure 

that liquid nicotine is sold in special or child-resistant packaging, 

as determined and enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 

1970, to reduce accidental poisonings among children. 

HEARINGS

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has not held hearings 

on the legislation. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On July 23, 2015, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade met in open markup session and forwarded draft 

legislation of H.R. 3242 to the full Committee, without amendment, 

by a voice vote. On September 29 and 30, 2015, the full Committee 

on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered 

H.R. 3242 reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice 

vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. There were no 

record votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 3242 reported. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has not held hearings on this 

legislation. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of H.R. 3242 is to require special packaging—child resistant packaging—for liquid nicotine containers, and for other purposes. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 3242 

would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement 

authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 3242 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, November 17, 2015. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3242, the Child Nicotine 

Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel Hoople. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3242—Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015 

H.R. 3242 would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to develop regulations requiring special packaging for 

liquid nicotine containers. CBO estimates that implementing the 

bill would cost about $1 million over the 2016–2020 period, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the legislation 

would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-yougo procedures do not apply. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3242 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any 

of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026. 

Under the bill, the CPSC would require liquid nicotine containers 

to be packaged in a way that would make it difficult for children 

younger than five years to open or to obtain a harmful amount of 

the enclosed substance. Based on information from the agency, 

CBO estimates that the cost of developing the regulation and conducting compliance testing would total about $1 million over the 

next five years. 

H.R. 3242 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would preempt 

some state laws that are inconsistent with regulations adopted by 

the CPSC governing child-resistant packaging for containers holding liquid nicotine. The preemption would have a limited effect on 

state laws because the majority of those laws conform to the standards outlined in the bill. While the mandate would limit the application of those state laws, it would impose no duty on states that 

would result in additional spending or a loss of revenues. Consequently, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate, if any, 

would fall well below the threshold established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates ($77 million in 2015, adjusted annually for 

inflation). 

The legislation would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on manufacturers of consumer products containing 

liquid nicotine. The bill would require those manufacturers to use 

special packaging for such products to make them child resistant. 

The cost of this mandate would be the incremental cost of using 

packaging that would comply with the standard established by the 

CPSC. Based on data from representatives of affected manufacturers about the number of products sold annually and information 

from the CPSC about the cost of special packaging per unit for 

similar products, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate 

would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2015, adjusted annually for 

inflation). 

On March 26, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 142, 

the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015. The two bills 

are similar and CBOs estimates of the budgetary effects are the 

same. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Daniel Hoople (for 

federal costs), J’nell Blanco Suchy (for intergovernmental effects), 

and Amy Petz (for private-sector effects). The estimate was approved by Holly Harvey, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 

Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 3242 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
5 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 3242 does not direct 

any rulemakings to be completed within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 

551. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015.’’ 

Section 2. Special packaging for liquid nicotine containers 

Section 2 establishes a requirement that liquid nicotine containers that are sold, manufactured for sale, distributed for commerce, or imported in the U.S. are packaged according to special 

packaging standards as defined in the Poison Prevention Packaging 

Act of 1970. It also establishes a savings clause providing that 

nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect 

the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

take action regarding the manufacture, marketing, sale, distribution, importation, or packaging of nicotine, liquid nicotine containers, or electronic nicotine delivery systems. This includes the 

authority for final rulemakings on the proposed ‘‘Deeming Tobacco 

Products to Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 

Control Act; Regulations on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco 

Products and the Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products’’ and ‘‘Nicotine Exposure Warnings and Child-Resistant Packaging for Liquid Nicotine, Nicotine-Containing E-Liquid(s), and 

Other Tobacco Products.’’ 

If the Secretary decides to adopt, maintain, enforce, impose, or 

continue in effect any packaging requirement for liquid nicotine 

containers, this section directs the Secretary to do so in consultation with the CPSC. This section also sets forth definitions for 

terms contained within the Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE