House Taxation Committee considers HB525 to create Montana vapor‑product directory amid fierce industry debate

The House Taxation Committee on Wednesday heard extended testimony on House Bill 525, a proposal from Rep. Amy Regier that would require manufacturers to register vapor products with the state and authorize penalties for products not listed on the directory.

Regier, the bill sponsor, told the committee the directory is intended to “establish a comprehensive vapor product directory” and to give retailers and law enforcement a single, authoritative list of products legal to sell in Montana. She said the measure targets illicit imports and products attractive to youth and urged the committee’s support.

Attorney General Austin Knudsen and a Department of Justice consumer-protection official described how the registry would work. Knudsen said Montana has seen an influx of unregulated products and provided a handout on the problem. Brent Mead, bureau chief for the DOJ’s Office of Consumer Protection, told the panel the bill is modeled on the state’s existing cigarette registry and relies on manufacturers certifying a product’s federal regulatory status. Mead described the certification requirements and said, “in order to sell a vapor product, you would have to be on the state’s directory” and that a pending FDA application qualifies for listing if the manufacturer files proof.

Proponents from both large manufacturers and small retailers urged support. David Fernandez, vice president for public policy at Altria, said reputable manufacturers disclose ingredients and submit to FDA inspection, and he argued the directory restores order to a market he described as “flooded” with products that bypass oversight. Multiple convenience‑store owners and rural retailers told the committee a state list would clarify which products are legal and protect honest businesses from unfair competition.

A long, organized block of opposition testimony came from independent vape‑shop owners and managers. Opponents argued HB525 would effectively lock out many small manufacturers because only a small number of products have completed FDA premarket approval. Keith Bowman, a vape‑store manager, said the bill “doesn’t protect public health. It destroys it,” arguing that many adults use vaping as a less‑harmful alternative to cigarettes and that imposing registry requirements will favor well‑funded tobacco companies that can navigate the federal approval process.

Several opponents pointed to litigation and administrative problems with FDA’s premarket tobacco application (PMTA) process and to pending court cases. Committee members asked DOJ and revenue officials about enforcement, fees, and the bill’s fiscal note. Mead told the committee the department expects startup costs (including an estimated $300,000 general‑fund appropriation in year one) and anticipates covering ongoing program costs through licensing fees; he also acknowledged the department expects litigation and has budgeted for potential legal expenses.

On mechanics, Mead said the bill requires manufacturers to provide one of three FDA determinations (a marketing order, a timely PMTA filing, or an FDA temporary exemption) to be listed, and that manufacturers must notify the attorney general about brand or label changes to avoid enforcement errors. He described a 30–60‑day sell‑off window for retailers with inventory that becomes contraband after a directory change.

Committee members sought detail about liability, enforcement on retailers versus manufacturers, the anticipated timeline for standing up a registry (other states’ experiences were cited at roughly six months to compile an initial list), and how the department would catch manufacturers that never apply. Mead described retailer shelf inspections and interstate information‑sharing as primary enforcement tools.

The committee closed the HB525 hearing after further questions and sponsor remarks. No floor action was taken during the hearing; the chair indicated executive action would be scheduled later.