IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
__________________
CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL PREMIUM CIGAR AND PIPE
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, AND CIGAR RIGHTS OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ALEX AZAR II, AND SCOTT GOTTLIEB, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01460-APM, District Judge Amit P. Mehta
__________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS
__________________
2. Appellees appearing in this Court are the United States Food and
Drug Administration; the United States Department of Health and
Human Services; Scott Gottlieb, M.D., in his official capacity as
Commissioner of Food and Drugs; and Alex Azar II, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
-i-
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 3 of 163
Truth Initiative.
2. Order (granting partial final judgment), June 27, 2018, Hon. Amit P.
Mehta, ECF.101.
C. RELATED CASES
As this appeal relates to some, but not all, of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs,
January 11, 2019, the District Court consolidated this case with En Fuego Tobacco
Shop LLC v. FDA, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-1460-APM, a case transferred from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that challenges the
- ii -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 4 of 163
a February 11, 2019 Order, the District Court set a schedule for summary judgment
briefing to conclude on June 13, 2019, and scheduled oral argument for July 11,
Court, any other United States court of appeals, or any other court in the District of
Columbia.
- iii -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 5 of 163
publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest (such as stock or
no parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership
association representing premium cigar and tobacco retail shops located throughout
held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest (such as stock or partnership
CAA, IPCPR, and CRA have a vital interest in ensuring that any regulation
requirements. In addition, CAA, IPCPR, and CRA are “trade associations” within
- iv -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 6 of 163
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES ............. i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....................................................... iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii
GLOSSARY............................................................................................................ xii
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ..........................................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................1
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.........................................................................2
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................4
A. The FDA Issues a Sweeping Regulation of Cigars and Pipe
Tobacco .................................................................................................4
B. The FDA Rethinks Its Regulatory Approach and Delays Much
of the Rule ...........................................................................................11
C. Proceedings in the District Court ........................................................12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................15
STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................19
ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................20
I. The Massive Cigar and Pipe Tobacco Warnings Violate the First
Amendment....................................................................................................20
A. The FDA Failed to Identify a Substantial Governmental Interest
the Rule Served ...................................................................................21
B. The Warnings Are “Broader Than Reasonably Necessary” to
Remedy a “Not Purely Hypothetical Harm”.......................................26
1. The District Court Erroneously Required No Analysis of
Whether the Warnings’ Size Was Broader than Necessary......27
2. The Agency Extended the Warnings to Premium Cigars
Without Justification.................................................................29
3. The Agency Showed No Real Problem of Misperceptions
About the Risks of Cigar Use ...................................................32
-v-
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 7 of 163
- vi -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 8 of 163
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Achernar Broad. Co. v. FCC,
62 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1995)............................................................................50
Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, 760 F.3d 760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
(en banc). ....................................................................................18, 21, 22, 24, 25
Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y.,
447 U.S. 557 (1980)......................................................................................13, 39
- vii -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 9 of 163
Dwyer v. Cappell,
762 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................38
Edenfield v. Fane,
507 U.S. 761 (1993)............................................................................................27
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades
Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988).............................................................................49
*Gerber v. Norton,
294 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 2002)................................................................44, 45, 48
McCullen v. Coakley,
134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014)........................................................................................41
Michigan v. EPA,
135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015)........................................................................................50
- viii -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 10 of 163
*Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29 (1983)........................................................................................49, 50
Porter v. Califano,
592 F.2d 770 (5th Cir. 1979) ..............................................................................33
In re R.M.J.,
455 U.S. 191 (1982)......................................................................................26, 28
Sanjour v. EPA,
56 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (en banc)................................................................31
- ix -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 11 of 163
Tillman v. Miller,
133 F.3d 1402 (11th Cir. 1998) ..........................................................................39
U.S. Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm’n, 785 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir.
2015) .............................................................................................................51, 53
28 U.S.C. § 1291........................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. § 1292........................................................................................................1
-x-
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 12 of 163
Other Authorities
Webster’s Third International Dictionary (2002) ....................................................24
- xi -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 13 of 163
GLOSSARY
- xii -
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 14 of 163
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
covering 30 percent of the two most important panels of each cigar box and 20
percent of nearly every communication to consumers about cigars. Did the District
Court err in holding that these massive compelled warnings do not violate the First
they extend broader than is reasonably necessary, and they are unduly
2. The Rule requires that cigar retailers and manufacturers seek FDA
any time limit on the agency’s consideration. Does the Rule violate the First
err in refusing to consider this violation of the First Amendment on the ground that
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 15 of 163
it was not pled in the Complaint, despite the Complaint’s broad First Amendment
claim and the parties’ full summary judgment briefing of the issue?
before requiring health warnings on tobacco products. Did the District Court err in
holding the Rule satisfied the Act, even though the FDA admitted it had not yet
studied the issue and thus lacked the information necessary to make those
findings?
4. Did the District Court err in holding that the warnings mandate was
not arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, even
though the agency failed to analyze obvious alternatives and contradicted its own
reasoning?
Control Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–31, 123 Stat. 1776 (2009); 15 U.S.C. § 1333
(2008); and the FDA’s Final Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 81 Fed. Reg. 28,974 (May 10, 2016),
INTRODUCTION
The District Court’s decision sustained massive new warnings for cigars and
pipe tobacco. The warnings will replace 30 percent of the two most important
2
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 16 of 163
panels of each cigar and pipe tobacco package and 20 percent of virtually every
by the Government. They are the largest fully implemented compelled disclosures
The District Court sustained the warnings even though the FDA never even
for nearly 16 years and admitted that it lacked any “[r]eliable evidence” that the
warnings would reduce cigar use. According to the District Court, the First
That the District Court erred was confirmed by the Supreme Court’s June
2018 decision in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S.
Ct. 2361 (2018) (“Becerra”). There, the Court held that compelled commercial
disclosure must remedy a harm that is “potentially real not purely hypothetical”
and “extend ‘no broader than reasonably necessary.’” Id. at 2377. The en banc
Ninth Circuit followed Becerra to strike down a health warning that consumed
20% of certain beverage advertisements. See Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. of
S.F, Case No. 16-16072, slip op. at 15-16 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019) (en banc).
cigar retailers from speaking to consumers until the FDA approves “warning
3
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 17 of 163
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (the “Family Smoking
agency failed to make findings expressly required by the Act. At the same time,
Family Smoking Prevention Act. Pub. L. No. 111–31, 123 Stat. 1776 (2009).
Congress was convinced that the agency should regulate cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco. See id. § 2, 123 Stat. at 1776–81 (legislative findings). About cigars and
pipe tobacco, Congress was unsure. So Congress left to the FDA the question of
whether to regulate cigars and pipe tobacco, to be determined only through careful
On May 10, 2016, the FDA issued a Final Rule choosing to regulate cigars,
pipe tobacco, and other products. See Final Rule, Deeming Tobacco Products to
Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 81 Fed. Reg. 28,974
4
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 18 of 163
(May 10, 2016) (the “Rule”).2 The Rule’s regulatory scheme was vast and
onerous. It included labyrinthine requirements that each cigar and pipe tobacco
addition, each cigar would have to pass through a vague chemical testing process,
and each manufacturer would have to register and subject itself to FDA
regulation. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 28,976, 28,983, 29,000. The agency went a step
further, though, and invoked special statutory authority to impose a warning label
scheme on cigars and pipe tobacco, as discussed below. See id. at 28,975, 28,982
(invoking authority under Section 906(d) of the FD&C Act to impose warnings as
When the agency proposed the Rule, it was aware these requirements would
be particularly onerous for premium cigars. Premium cigars are rolled by hand
from only tobacco leaf and water. They are expensive, are not used by youth, and
are used infrequently by their adult consumers. They come in great variety, as
premium cigars depend on the artisan composition of the cigar and the growing
seasons producing the best tobacco. Recognizing that premium cigars present
2 The Rule also reaches e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems,
which are not at issue in this case.
5
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 19 of 163
questions of public health different from other tobacco products, the FDA had
sought comment on a proposal to exempt a class of premium cigars from the Rule.
See Proposed Rule, Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142, 23,150-152 (Apr. 25, 2014). With
little explanation, however, the FDA rejected its own proposal and threw premium
on all cigar and pipe tobacco packages and advertising. The warnings must cover
at least 30 percent of the two “principal display panels” of every cigar package—
percent of any advertisement for cigars. Id. § 1143.5(b). The warnings must be
color, with all other printed material.” Id. § 1143.5(a)(2), (b)(2). An example
follows:
6
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 20 of 163
consumers about cigars or pipe tobacco. The FDA said that “the term
the availability of tobacco products.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 29,062. This term reaches
The warnings extend to retailers, even though the cigar packages they sell
each will bear two warnings. 21 C.F.R. § 1143.5(a), (b). The result is dramatic.
The corner cigar store will be blanketed with FDA warnings—two on every cigar
box, one on each placard describing a cigar in the humidor, and one on every
in-store display referencing a cigar. Id. Retailers also must display a sign no
smaller than 8.5 x 11 inches, within 3 inches of each cash register. Id.
§ 1143.5(a)(3).
7
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 21 of 163
The agency took the warnings’ content from a long-standing cigar warnings
consent decree had required health warnings on the packages and advertising of
many cigars sold in this country. See, e.g., In the Matter of Swedish Match N. Am.,
Inc., Docket No. C-3970, 2000 WL 1207446, at *3 (F.T.C. Aug. 25, 2000).3 Of the
six FDA warnings, five were drawn from the FTC scheme, and one (italicized
(1) WARNING: Cigar smoking can cause cancers of the mouth and
throat, even if you do not inhale;
(2) WARNING: Cigar smoking can cause lung cancer and heart
disease;
(3) WARNING: Cigar use while pregnant can harm you and your
baby;
Or FTC scheme: SURGEON GENERAL WARNING:
Tobacco Use Increases the Risk of Infertility, Stillbirth, and
Low Birth Weight;
(4) WARNING: Cigars are not a safe alternative to cigarettes;
(5) WARNING: Tobacco smoke increases the risk of lung cancer and
heart disease, even in nonsmokers; and
(6) WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an
addictive chemical.
While the FDA adopted the FTC’s content, it massively expanded the size of
the FTC warnings. On average, the FTC warnings cover roughly 13 to 15 percent
3 The parties to the consent decree, seven leading cigar firms, comprised about 95
percent of the U.S. cigar market at the time of the settlement. See 81 Fed. Reg. at
28,979.
8
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 22 of 163
of one package panel and roughly 4 to 8 percent of any visual advertisement. See
Swedish Match, 2000 WL 1207446, at *4–7.4 This means that the FDA warnings
on a single package panel are more than twice as large as the FTC warnings.
Coupled with FDA warnings reaching two package panels, the FDA warnings
cover roughly 390 to 475 percent more of the package surface area. See id.
at *4-6. The FDA warnings on advertisements likewise are roughly 250 to 500
packages, each of the six warning statements “must be randomly displayed in each
sold in product packaging and be randomly distributed in all areas of the United
In addition, each manufacturer and retailer of cigars must submit to the FDA
a plan for rotating the warnings no less than twelve months before advertising. Id.
4 The percentages set forth above are approximations derived from a warning size
specified by the FTC in dimensions and font size, rather than in percentage of total
surface area. See id.; Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF.61) at 8-9;
Pls.’ Reply (ECF.78) at 5-6; Norris Decl. ¶ 8 & Exs. B-C (ECF.61-14).
9
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 23 of 163
retailer cannot speak about a cigar product. Id. § 1143.5(c); 81 Fed. Reg. at
29,072–73. The Rule contains no final deadline for agency action. See 21 C.F.R.
§ 1143.5(c).
§ 1143.3(a)(1). The warning must follow the same formatting requirements as for
likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products”
and “the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco
products will start using such products.” FD&C Act § 906(d)(1), 21 U.S.C.
in its rulemaking that it was unable to make any such finding: “Reliable evidence
does not, to our knowledge, exist.” AR023973 (emphasis added). In the Rule, the
consumers better understand and appreciate the risks and characteristics of tobacco
products.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 28,981; see also id. at 29,063, 29,064, 29,065, 29,069,
10
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 24 of 163
The new Administration recognized the Rule’s many defects. On July 28,
products. See FDA Press Release (July 28, 2017).5 The agency recognized that its
regulation of cigars is broken. The agency promised to take a new look through
rulemaking at whether and how premium cigars should be regulated and to fix
other aspects of the Rule. Id. At the same time, the agency said the focus of its
continuum of risk. Id. To accommodate this review, the agency extended most of
the Rule’s deadlines until 2020 at the earliest. But it left the August 10, 2018
The FDA followed through and opened a new rulemaking docket explicitly
Regulation of Premium Cigars, 83 Fed. Reg. 12,901 (Mar. 26, 2018). The agency
placed the warnings squarely on the table, soliciting data on whether the
differently to premium cigars.” Id. at 12,903–04. The comment period for the
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking closed on July 25, 2018. Id. at 12,901.
5 Available at
https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm568923.htm
(last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
11
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 25 of 163
But resolving the docket is not imminent: It was designated a “Long Term Action”
While the agency has reoriented its focus toward cigarettes, the warnings
currently in effect for cigarettes are anomalously smaller than those the Rule
prescribes for cigars and pipe tobacco. For cigarettes, one warning label appears
on one side panel of a cigarette package, covering only around 4 percent of the
package; the cigar warnings take 7.5 times more package area. See 15 U.S.C.
and Advertisements, 76 Fed. Reg. 36,628, 36,678 (June 22, 2011). The FDA’s
attempt to require larger and more glaring warnings was struck down by this Court
in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
statutory grounds. ECF.1. Appellants moved for summary judgment, but the
Following the July 2017 announcement, the parties stayed many claims
attacking aspects of the Rule for which compliance deadlines were extended and
12
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 26 of 163
summary judgment against enforcement of the warnings, for which the compliance
deadline had not been further delayed. ECF.61, 62. On May 15, 2018, the District
warnings. The District Court held that the FDA’s warnings did not restrict speech
and thus need not be analyzed under the intermediate scrutiny of Central Hudson
Gas & Electric Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
The District Court then explained why the “more relaxed standard” of
Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), for compelled commercial disclosures saved
the Rule. Op. at 27-28. The District Court accepted the agency’s interest in
District Court held that Zauderer required only that the warnings be “‘reasonably
6 That Order addressed other aspects of the Rule, striking down some and
upholding others. See Op. at 49-58 (upholding a rule requiring cigar and pipe
tobacco manufacturers to pay the agency user fees); Op. at 58-63 (striking down
requirement that retailers who blend finished pipe tobacco register as
manufacturers); Op. at 63-70 (upholding requirement that pipes be individually
approved by the FDA). Those issues are not currently before this Court.
13
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 27 of 163
effectiveness.” Op. at 38-39. The District Court held that no scrutiny of the
warnings’ size is required until “the desired messaging is . . . ‘effectively ruled out.’”
Op. at 33-44. Here, the District Court held that the Appellants’ member companies
still had “70 percent of cigar packaging and 80 percent of cigar advertisements” to
The District Court refused to decide the constitutionality of the warning plan
Op. at 44-46. The District Court so held despite the Complaint’s broad First
whether the warnings would actually decrease tobacco use and the agency found
that it lacked “[r]eliable evidence” on that issue, the District Court held that the
FDA made the required findings. Op. at 19–23. The District Court also held that
the warnings satisfied the APA, even though the FDA never addressed the obvious
alternative of adopting the size of the FTC warnings, just as it had their content.
Op. at 23–25.
14
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 28 of 163
against the enforcement of the FDA’s new warnings on cigars and pipe tobacco.
ECF.95. The District Court granted Appellants’ motion on July 5, 2018, citing the
exempting a category of cigars from them and the Supreme Court’s intervening
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The FDA’s warnings violate the First Amendment. They cover 30% of the
two most important panels of every box and 20% of every advertisement. They
glare at the viewer in a stark black-on-white format. They make the Government
government interest; they must be “no broader than reasonably necessary” to serve
that interest; and they must not be “unduly burdensome.” Becerra, 138 S. Ct.
at 2377. These requirements stem from the test established by the Supreme Court
15
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 29 of 163
Court viewed the Zauderer test as a “relaxed” standard that widely defers to the
Government. Op. at 28. But the Supreme Court’s June 2018 decision in Becerra
demonstrates that these are real restrictions on government authority that must be
more assiduously enforced. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2377. Properly applying the
consumers. This Court has held that the communication of health risks to
consumers, standing alone, is not a substantial interest. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co. v. FDA, 696 F.3d 1205, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other
grounds by Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, 760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc). The
District Court erred in its contrary holding, declining to follow binding Circuit
would justify larger and larger warnings as more noticeable on any product,
Second, the District Court did not evaluate whether the warnings extended
“broader than reasonably necessary,” as the Supreme Court has required. Becerra,
138 S. Ct. at 2377. The agency offered no explanation for why the warnings must
be so big, and the District Court erred in holding the FDA need not do so. These
massive warnings came after 16 years of smaller FTC warnings governing most of
16
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 30 of 163
the cigar market. But the FDA said nothing about why this more modest
alternative was inadequate. And the agency extended these warnings to premium
cigars, a category it had identified as separate from the rest of the cigar industry
and populated with consumers who use the product infrequently and are older and
better-educated. The FDA bypassed exempting premium cigars from the warnings
Third, the warnings are unduly burdensome, if only because of their large
size and glaring format. The warnings drown out the speech of manufacturers and
See Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2378; Am. Beverage Ass’n, slip op. at 16. The size and
repetition of the Rule’s warnings are far more burdensome than those struck down
Beverage Association. Each warning is as large or larger (the Ninth Circuit struck
store, the warnings must be repeated literally hundreds of times, as they must cover
The warnings are so large and dominant that they effectively restrict the
speech of manufacturers and retailers, so that they must be analyzed under the
speech. This Court long has recognized the possibility that a warnings scheme
17
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 31 of 163
Am.’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 507-08 & n.3 (D.C. Cir. 2016). And this
Court has never analyzed a warnings scheme remotely as large as the FDA’s under
anything other than the Central Hudson test or strict scrutiny. See R.J. Reynolds,
696 F.3d at 1217 (applying Central Hudson to tobacco warnings); cf. Am. Meat
Inst., 760 F.3d at 21–22 (applying Zauderer to disclosure rule requiring just a
small inscription of the country of origin of meat packages). Of course, the Rule
plainly fails the Central Hudson test or strict scrutiny, if only for the agency’s
The warnings scheme is also a prior restraint that violates the First
Amendment. The Rule prohibits a manufacturer or retailer from speaking about its
products until the FDA has approved a plan to rotate the six mandatory warnings.
But there is no time limit on the agency. Such a prior restraint is per se
unconstitutional. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dall., 493 U.S. 215, 226 (1990).
The District Court erred when it declined to decide the prior restraint issue. The
Complaint’s broad First Amendment claim against the warnings scheme raised
these and other First Amendment arguments in line with the Federal Rules’ notice
18
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 32 of 163
The District Court also failed to recognize the Rule’s numerous statutory
expressly declined to undertake this inquiry and admitted it would need to study
this issue further, after the warnings were in place. That is not the sequence
Congress required.
The agency’s reasoning was also arbitrary and capricious in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act. The agency gave the back of its hand to statutorily
the regulation against its dramatic costs. It also created an irreconcilable tension
with its own findings, by establishing a warnings scheme that is more severe for
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo grants and denials of summary judgment and
legal rulings underlying the denial of preliminary injunctions. Seed Co. Ltd. v.
Westerman, 832 F.3d 325, 335 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar.
Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The Court of Appeals has a special
19
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 33 of 163
question. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 499, 504–08
(1984); accord Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Rees, 852 F.2d 595, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
ARGUMENT
I. The Massive Cigar and Pipe Tobacco Warnings Violate the First
Amendment
Under the Rule, the warnings’ large size and stark black-on-white format
disclaiming any objective of reducing tobacco use, the warnings do not serve a
also “broader than reasonably necessary,” as no effort was made to justify the size
at 2377.
The District Court viewed its inquiry as binary—a choice between the
scrutiny of the Central Hudson test for restrictions of speech and the Zauderer test
for compelled commercial disclosures that would drive the result. Although the
warnings were so large that they restricted speech and should have been subject to
20
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 34 of 163
the Central Hudson test for restrictions on speech (see Section I.D, infra), the
District Court found otherwise. Having done so, the District Court held that the
scrutiny under the Zauderer test for compelled commercial disclosures was so
That was error, and the Supreme Court underscored it at the end of the 2018
Term in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra. Just as under
Zauderer must “remedy a harm that is ‘potentially real not purely hypothetical,’
and . . . extend ‘no broader than reasonably necessary.’” Becerra, 138 S. Ct.
at 2377; see also Am. Meat Inst., 760 F.3d at 34 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)
(rejecting “as a false choice” what some “portrayed [as] . . . the ‘tough Central
Hudson standard’ and the ‘lenient Zauderer standard’”). Contrary to the District
Court’s opinion (Op. at 27), compelled disclosures failing the Zauderer test are
subject to strict scrutiny. See Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2372. The warnings fail both
the Central Hudson and Zauderer standards, and certainly strict scrutiny. They
Cal., 854 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e see nothing in Zauderer that
21
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 35 of 163
on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 2708 (2018); see also Am. Meat Inst., 760 F.3d at 23
Here, the Government claims that the warnings serve only an interest in
“helping consumers understand and appreciate health risks and in curing the
misperceptions that have arisen about the health and safety of [cigars].” Gov. Opp.
to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF.74, at 27; see also 79 Fed. Reg. at 23,163; AR023975
interest in reducing the use of cigars or pipe tobacco. See ECF.74 at 30 (criticizing
tobacco use’” and contending that “the warnings are instead intended to inform
Recognizing this interest as adequate would be the end of any meaningful scrutiny
22
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 36 of 163
communications.
Binding Circuit precedent has so held. In R.J. Reynolds, this Court rejected
the FDA’s attempt to justify cigarette warnings through “an interest in ‘effectively
See R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1221. Although “skeptical that the government can
substantial.” Id. at 1218 & n.13; see also Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S.
525, 564 (2001) (“As the State protects children from tobacco advertisements,
tobacco manufacturers and retailers and their adult consumers still have a protected
interest in communication.”). Because the agency “could not even reject the
statistical possibility that the [new warnings] would have no impact on U.S.
health information.’” R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1220–21. This Court explained
that such “an interest in ‘effective’ communication is too vague to stand on its
accomplish its goal of reducing smoking rates, and not an independent interest
capable of sustaining the Rule.” Id. at 1221 (emphasis added). R.J. Reynolds
23
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 37 of 163
Court, “[h]ere, the FDA’s stated interest is in actually communicating health risks
The District Court’s fine line between “actually” and “effectively” communicating
District Court also suggested R.J. Reynolds turned on the agency having failed
risks. Op. at 37. That is a misreading of this Court’s decision, which fully
Nor has R.J. Reynolds been overturned by this Court’s en banc decision in
American Meat Institute. According to the District Court, “[i]f the government’s
surely the same is true of health warnings on packages and advertising of cigar and
pipe tobacco products.” Op. at 35. American Meat Institute overruled R.J.
Reynolds solely to the extent that it “may be read as . . . limiting Zauderer to cases
Inst., 760 F.3d at 22–23. In any event, the interests analyzed in American Meat
concerned efforts to change consumer behavior. The principal purpose was “to
24
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 38 of 163
enable consumers to choose American-made products.” See Am. Meat Inst., 760
F.3d at 23. Other discussion of “individual health concerns” was related to the
need to identify the origin of meat in the event of “a food-borne illness outbreak.”
See id. All of these were directed at affecting the purchasing choice, to buy
American meat or to avoid it in a crisis. American Meat Institute did not bless as
Finally, the warnings do not qualify for the Zauderer test because they are
not directed at correcting consumer deception. Nowhere does the agency build the
case that cigar manufacturers have misled consumers, as Congress suggested with
(47)-(49). The en banc D.C. Circuit in American Meat held that the Zauderer test
Supreme Court’s decision in Becerra, and this Court should return Zauderer to its
original and exclusive focus on correcting consumer deception, in line with the
Seventh and Tenth Circuits. See Entm’t Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, 469 F.3d
641, 652 (7th Cir. 2006) (Zauderer applies only to disclosures “reasonably related
840, 849-50 (10th Cir. 2005) (same); see also Am. Beverage Ass’n, slip op.
25
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 39 of 163
speech). The Supreme Court has explained that “Zauderer governs” when a statute
“is directed at misleading commercial speech.” Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A.
v. United States, 559 U.S. 229, 249 (2010). And the Supreme Court recently
reviewed its ruling in Zauderer and had every opportunity to clarify that it
extended beyond the purpose of correcting consumer deception. See Becerra, 138
S. Ct. at 2372, 2377-78. To the contrary, the Supreme Court highlighted its
protection.” Id. at 2372. The Rule cannot be sustained under Zauderer if the test
The First Amendment prohibits disclosures that are “broader than reasonably
Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2377 (citation omitted)).7 The FDA warnings fail this
standard.
7 In endorsing that standard, the Court cited several cases evaluating commercial
speech restrictions typically subject to the Central Hudson test. Becerra, 138 S.
Ct. at 2377 (citing In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 203 (1982); Va. Bd. of Pharmacy v.
Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 772 n.24 (1976); Bates v. State
Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 384 (1977)). This invocation was deliberate, and
represented a shift away from the binary approach embraced by the District
26
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 40 of 163
that Zauderer did not require a serious inquiry into whether the warnings’ size and
interest. According to the District Court, “[w]hereas the government would have
evidentiary parsing is hardly necessary’ under Zauderer.” Op. at 39. And then the
District Court held that no further analysis of the warnings’ intrusive size is
needed, once the Government established the warnings were accurate and would
size, format, and manner that consumers will readily notice and retain satisfies the
‘means-end fit’ requirement under Zauderer.” Op. at 40. This is error after
Becerra, and was error before it: This Court had long required proof that is more
Government’s asserted interest. See Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs., 800 F.3d at 525–26
Court’s ruling. In dissent, Justice Breyer criticized the Court for modifying the
Zauderer standard by “appl[ying] a searching standard of review based on our
precedents that deal with speech restrictions, not disclosures.” Id. at 2390 (Breyer,
J., dissenting); see also id. at 2376 (majority op.) (responding to dissent). “This
approach,” Justice Breyer wrote, “is incompatible with Zauderer,” which requires
that a disclosure be only “reasonably related to the State’s interest.” Id. at 2390
(Breyer, J., dissenting) (quoting Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651).
27
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 41 of 163
The District Court further erred by holding the agency need not have
analyzed the effectiveness of smaller and less repetitive warnings. Op. at 39. Of
course, that is exactly what ensuring that disclosures be “no broader than
reasonably necessary” demands. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2377; Am. Beverage Ass’n,
slip op. at 15-16 (applying Becerra and analyzing whether smaller warnings would
suffice). Each prior decision cited by the Supreme Court to build the requirement
that a compelled disclosure be “no broader than necessary” demanded that the
Government show that less burdensome regulatory alternatives were not adequate.
Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2377 (citing R.M.J., 455 U.S. at 203; Va. Bd. of Pharmacy,
Unlike in many First Amendment cases, the alternatives here were not
hypothetical. For 16 years before the agency’s Rule, a Federal Trade Commission
scheme had covered most of the cigar industry. The Rule kept the FTC scheme’s
content, but blew out its size. The Rule would take nearly five times as much
package space and three to five times as much advertising space. See Swedish
Match, 2000 WL 1207446, at *4–7. At the same time, the FDA mentioned the
alternative FTC formatting only once, to say that it had received comments arguing
for warnings “consistent with the current FTC Consent Decree.” 81 Fed. Reg. at
29,066. It never explained why it was inadequate. The FTC scheme was a less
intrusive alternative that had been implemented and could have been analyzed
28
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 42 of 163
easily, but was not. If the First Amendment does not require analysis of the
Beyond the FTC scheme, the agency failed to consider any other options less
restrictive of speech than the overwhelming new warnings. The FDA did not
consider, for example, whether a public information campaign of its own “is not a
sufficient alternative” to “co-opting” a private business “to deliver its message for
option within the agency’s grasp, having just launched one regarding youth e-
cigarette use.8
they reach the distinct category of “premium cigars.” Premium cigars are made by
hand, from whole tobacco leaf, and are inevitably expensive. They are sold to and
urged the agency to carve premium cigars from many aspects of the proposed
The Final Rule rejected treating premium cigars differently, saying that
those products should be subject to the FDA’s elaborate review process too. 81
Fed. Reg. at 29,020. But the agency never explained why the separate marketing
standard that required warnings should extend to premium cigars as well. See id.
warnings). In this regard, the agency’s failure to address comments that the
separate warnings requirement should not reach premium cigars is also a textbook
violation of the APA. See Ass’n of Private Sector Colls. and Univs. v. Duncan,
suffers from “misperceptions” about cigars, or that the behavior of its members
reflects an appreciation of the risks of cigar use: According to a study the FDA
consumers use the product very infrequently—the median consumer only 1.7 days
per month. See 83 Fed. Reg. at 12,902–03 (discussing Catherine G. Corey et al.,
30
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 44 of 163
US Adult Cigar Smoking Patterns, Purchasing Behaviors, and Reasons for Use
and Health (PATH) Study, 2013–2014, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Sept. 15,
2017). The agency’s reach for premium cigars violates the First Amendment,
especially when it did not assemble evidence identifying a problem with those
products. See Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2375, 2377 (criticizing compelled disclosure
as both overbroad and underinclusive); Sanjour v. EPA, 56 F.3d 85, 97 (D.C. Cir.
1995) (en banc) (“If the government has a substantial interest with respect to only
a subcategory of the restricted speech, then its interest will not readily outweigh
The agency knows there is a problem here. In March 2018, the agency
opened a new rulemaking docket that specifically sought studies and information
against premium cigars in August 2018, while the agency attempted to complete its
study into whether the warnings made any sense for premium cigars. Op. at 46.
31
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 45 of 163
The First Amendment does not allow this serious inquiry to lag the implementation
of the warnings, and the Rule should fall for that reason alone.9
show its warnings would remedy a problem “that is potentially real not purely
hypothetical.” Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2377; Op. at 39–40. Remember, the agency
said there was no “[r]eliable evidence” that the warnings would reduce tobacco use
and conceded that it should study it later. AR023973; see also 81 Fed. Reg.
at 29,065. With cigar use itself ruled out as the problem the warnings were
addressing, the District Court focused on whether there was a real problem of
consumers misperceiving the risks of cigars. But the District Court cited no
credible evidence to show such a problem. Most critically, the District Court relied
on studies gathering data from nearly two decades ago, before the FTC cigar
9 The District Court thought no issue regarding premium cigars was before it,
because an attack on the FDA’s decision to “deem” premium cigars subject to the
Act had been deferred by the parties. Op. at 48. That is wrong. The District Court
erroneously conflated the agency’s decision to “deem” all cigars subject to the
Family Smoking Prevention Act with its separate decision to extend the warnings
to premium cigars. “Deeming” was an exercise of the agency’s authority under
Section 901(b) of the Act; the warnings were an exercise of Section 906(d). See
FD&C Act §§ 901(b), 906(d), 21 U.S.C. §§ 387a(b), 387f(d) (2009). Only
Appellants’ claims contesting the former decision were stayed in the wake of the
FDA’s announcement.
32
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 46 of 163
Gen., Youth Use of Cigars: Patterns of Use and Perceptions of Risk (Feb. 1999)
(gathering data from focus groups in 1997, four years before the FTC warnings
took effect)).10 This data is just too stale to show real problems today of consumer
The warnings are so large and glaring that they will make the Government
the most prominent speaker on cigar and pipe tobacco packages and advertising.
They will drown out the speech of manufacturers and retailers. The District Court
10 The District Court’s citations to one more recent article did not bring any more
recent data meaningfully to bear on the issue. Op. at 34, 37 (citing AR7708,
Cullen et al., Seven-Year Patterns in U.S. Cigar Use Epidemiology Among Young
Adults Aged 18-25 Years: A Focus on Race/Ethnicity and Brand, Am. J. of Pub.
Health, Vol. 101, No. 10 (2001)). The Cullen study did not gather its own data,
but instead commented on three older studies conducted well before the FTC
warnings had any effect or otherwise lacking any statistical significance. First is a
“focus group” study based on data collected in 2005 from a mere 21 college
students, which the study’s authors admitted “may lack external validity.” See
David H. Jolly, Exploring the Use of Little Cigars by Students at a Historically
Black University, Preventing Chronic Disease, Vol. 5, No. 3 (July 2008), at 6
(AR007716). Second is a 2001 study that collected data before the FTC warnings
went into effect and lacked, according to the authors, “statistical generalizability.”
See R.E. Malone et al., Cigar Risk Perceptions in Focus Groups of Urban African
American Youth, Journal of Substance Abuse, Vol. 13 (2001), at 551 (AR007079).
And third is a 2003 article examining smoking behavior rather than risk perception
and relying on 2001 field work, just months after the FTC warnings began to
circulate. See J. Bryan Page et al., Cigars, Cigarillos, and Youth: Emergent
Patterns in Subcultural Complexes, Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, Vol.
2(4) (2003), at 63. The District Court erred by rejecting expert analysis regarding
the import of these and other studies. (Op. at 39 n.9.) Without precedent, it said
that even First Amendment claims are limited to the record. But constitutional
rights cannot be bound by the accident of what appears in an administrative record.
See Porter v. Califano, 592 F.2d 770, 780–81 (5th Cir. 1979).
33
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 47 of 163
cast this concern aside, observing that there was some space left on the box for
someone other than the Government to speak. Op. at 43. But the Supreme Court
since has required a serious analysis of whether a disclosure places unjustified and
undue burdens on private speakers or otherwise “drowns out the [private party’s]
advertisements, a clinic “must call attention to the notice, instead of its own
message, by some method such as larger text or contrasting type or color.” Id.
at 2378. The notice also must be “posted ‘conspicuously’ at the entrance of the
facility and in at least one waiting area,” on a sign “at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches
The FDA warnings are far more intrusive than those struck down in Becerra.
The warnings must cover 30% of the two principal display panels of each cigar
box and 20% of every advertisement, in a stark black-on-white format set off by a
thick rectangular border. See 21 C.F.R. § 1143.5(a)(2), (b)(2). They will appear in
a larger font than most of the text on the package or advertisement and in a
contrasting type and color. See id. While the Becerra sign needed to appear only
34
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 48 of 163
once on the outside of the clinic and a single time in one waiting room, the FDA
sign must appear at every single cash register in the store, in addition to the
repetitive warnings on multiple panels of each and every cigar package, every
descriptive note on retail shelves, every branded picture or fixture, and every other
“advertisement” inside the store. Id.; see 81 Fed. Reg. at 29,064. In a typical retail
store, the FDA warnings could be repeated hundreds of times—not just once or
being “drowned out” by the massive FDA warnings. Premium cigar boxes long
have been crafted from fine wood, with delicate artistic designs conveying the
heritage of the products and the care with which they were made. See, e.g.,
Once emptied of their contents, these decorative and luxurious boxes could be
found on a grandfather’s desk, collecting mementos and photos. That will come to
an end if the FDA warnings requirements were upheld and a mahogany premium
covering a third of the two most visible panels. See 21 C.F.R. § 1143.9 (“The
35
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 49 of 163
“drown[ed] out” the clinic plaintiffs’ “own message,” in violation of Zauderer, the
same must be true of FDA warnings that would permanently suppress the luxury
message of premium cigars and pipe tobacco. See Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2378.
ruled out” by those blaring warnings, notwithstanding the available physical space
The extreme size and ubiquitous repetition of the FDA’s warnings will chill
protected speech. Cigar manufacturers and retailers have sworn that they will
abandon the use of certain media to communicate with their customers because of
the burdens of the warnings. See Koebel Decl. ¶ 7 (ECF.61-22); Anderson Decl.
¶ 13 (ECF.62-18). Examples include social media posts and websites with oddly
floating warnings and radio advertisements whose time is consumed with the
A compelled warning of this size and scope never has been upheld in the
D.C. Circuit. See R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1220 (striking down warnings
miniscule size of the warnings at issue in American Meat Institute, a case that lies
36
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 50 of 163
at the heart of the District Court’s opinion and the Government’s arguments below.
USA”) and had no minimum size requirement other than legibility. See 7 C.F.R.
§ 65.400(a) (2013).
In January 2019, the en banc Ninth Circuit became the first Court of
Appeals to apply Becerra and struck down warnings covering 20% of certain
“unduly burdensome.” Am. Beverage Ass’n, slip op. at 16. San Francisco had “not
shown that the contrasting rectangular border containing a warning that covers
20% of the advertisement does not ‘drown out’ Plaintiffs’ messages and
‘effectively rule out the possibility of having an advertisement in the first place.’”
Id. (quoting Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 2378) (alterations in original). The city also had
not shown that smaller warnings would not have sufficed. Id. at 15-16. The Ninth
Circuit rejected efforts to justify the size by claiming “20% size requirements
adhere to the best practices for health and safety warnings.” Id. at 15. The city’s
argument here eerily tracks one of the few things the FDA said justified the size of
the cigar and pipe tobacco warnings: That they were “similar to those suggested
by” the World Health Organization as best practices for tobacco warnings. See 81
Fed. Reg. at 29,066. The District Court repeatedly relied on this assertion, one that
37
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 51 of 163
The FDA warnings are enormous. Covering 30 percent of the two package
panels at which anyone bothers to look, standing out as black text on a white
background, they draw the eye. They become the principal message on the box.
in the 30 percent of these two package panels covered by the warnings, space they
use now to speak to consumers. If they use what remains, their own message will
There is a line “when the compulsion to speak becomes more like a speech
restriction than a disclosure.” See Pursuing Am.’s Greatness, 831 F.3d at 507 &
n.3. The FDA warnings step far across it. The size and format of the warnings
communicate alongside it and make the Government the principal speaker. Some
media for communication will become useless and will be abandoned as the
make it not worth the effort. See Dwyer v. Cappell, 762 F.3d 275, 284 (3d Cir.
cease using a means of communication are “properly analyzed under the Central
cigar stores use radio advertisements to alert consumers to new products; no longer
will 15- or 30-second ads make sense with a lengthy warning to read. See Tillman
v. Miller, 133 F.3d 1402, 1404 n.4 (11th Cir. 1998) (requirement that five seconds
Decl. ¶ 7 (ECF.61-22) (likely to cease radio and television ads). These problems
are aggravated by the agency failing to release promised guidance on how the
warnings would apply to these communications (prior to the District Court’s stay,
only weeks remained before the compliance date). See 81 Fed. Reg. at 29,064.
The regulation cannot survive the Central Hudson test. The warnings do not
prove the warnings would reduce cigar or pipe tobacco use. See Central Hudson,
447 U.S. at 566; R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1222; Section I.A, supra.
adopted would in fact alleviate” a cognizable harm “to a material degree.” Nat’l
Ass’n of Mfrs., 800 F.3d at 527. Accordingly, “Central Hudson requires FDA to
find and present data supporting its claims prior to imposing a burden on
commercial speech.” R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1221 (emphasis in original). Yet
the agency conducted no study of whether increasing the size and repetition of
FTC warnings that had then been in force for over 16 years would reduce cigar
use. Instead, the agency determined that “[r]eliable evidence on the impacts of
39
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 53 of 163
warning labels . . . on users of cigars . . . [and] pipe tobacco . . . does not, to our
It appears that the FDA may have learned the wrong lesson from R.J.
Reynolds. There, the agency had done its work as a scientific agency and had
studied the effectiveness of its larger, graphic warnings on cigarette packages. See
R.J. Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1209–10, 1220. Its cigarette warnings were struck
down in part because the results of that study had indicated that the new warnings
would have little effect. See id. at 1220 (warnings did not “materially” advance
asserted governmental interest). This Court cannot allow the agency to avoid the
same result by skipping any serious scientific inquiry regarding larger, more
Nor did the FDA give serious consideration to less restrictive available
requirement. See Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. SEC, 800 F.3d 518, 524, 555 (D.C. Cir.
that less restrictive means would fail.”). The alternatives of adopting the FTC
format for warnings or commissioning its own public information campaign were
left unaddressed. See Part I.B, supra. Central Hudson demands more before the
government may restrict protected speech. See U.S. West, Inc. v. FCC, 182 F.3d
1224, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 1999) (agency’s “failure to consider an obvious and
40
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 54 of 163
substantially less restrictive alternative” indicated that “it did not narrowly tailor”
its regulations). Whether this Court applies Central Hudson or Zauderer, the
FDA’s warnings cannot pass First Amendment muster. And if they fail Central
Hudson, they plainly fail strict scrutiny as they are far from the least restrictive
The Rule bars everyone from cigar manufacturers to the corner cigar shop
from speaking to consumers without the FDA’s permission. That is because they
must first submit to the FDA a plan for rotating the 6 warnings on their
29,072–73. And then they are required to wait for the FDA to approve the plan,
before they may say a word. The FDA requires this application for permission to
speak 12 months in advance of when the applicant plans to advertise, but it places no
on speech absent advance approval from the Government is a prior restraint that
Inc., 493 U.S. at 225. “Unbridled discretion” and absence of “reasonable time
limits on the decisionmaker” are the “two evils” of prior restraints. Id. at 225–26.
review. See id. at 226; Nutritional Health All. v. Shalala, 144 F.3d 220, 228 (2d
Cir. 1998).
justification for it that can withstand Central Hudson review. After all, the purpose
The District Court erred by holding this gross violation of the First
Amendment was not pled and thus need not be decided. Op. at 44. The Complaint
alleges that the regulation setting forth the whole warnings’ scheme, including the
plan submission and approval requirement, violates the First Amendment. Compl.
Complaint need not set forth all the legal reasons why. That is what motion papers
are for. The Federal Rules establish a system of notice pleading, and the
Complaint provided plenty of notice of what was being challenged (the regulatory
42
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 56 of 163
sections setting forth the content and procedures for the warning requirement) and
on what legal basis (that they violate the First Amendment). This is not a case
where a plaintiff said the Rule violated his “constitutional rights” but did not say
which one. See Op. at 44 (citing Zarmach Oil Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of
In any event, briefing on summary judgment of the prior restraint reason for
issue is fully briefed and the opposing party does not demonstrate how its ability to
defend itself is disadvantaged. See Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560,
569-70 (2d Cir. 2000) (Sotomayor, J.); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Costle, 629 F.2d
118, 133 & n.45 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (In an APA case, “[i]t would have been reversible
error for the District Court to deny summary judgment where meritorious grounds
are urged in the motion but not pleaded in the complaint.”). The Government did
not have to gather facts to defend itself the minute the Complaint arrived. The
First Amendment theories are legal arguments based (in this instance) on the
of the prior restraint arguments in the briefing and at oral argument. ECF.74
43
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 57 of 163
at 32-37; Hearing Tr. at 55–62 (ECF.85). The District Court erred by not finding
III. The FDA’s Warnings Scheme Violates the Family Smoking Prevention
Act and Is Arbitrary and Capricious Under the Administrative
Procedure Act
A. The FDA Did Not Make the Findings Required by the Family
Smoking Prevention Act
To impose the warnings challenged here, the FDA drew from its authority
under the Family Smoking Prevention Act to compose “restrictions on the sale and
condition on that authority: The FDA was first required to consider the proposed
restrictions’ effect on (1) “the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users
of tobacco products will stop using such products” and (2) “the increased or
decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using
The agency did not make these necessary findings, rendering the warnings
regulation invalid. See Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173, 185–86 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
“prerequisite to” action, it “violate[s] the statute” and the APA). The District
44
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 58 of 163
First, the District Court relied on a passage from the Proposed Rule, which
recited the statutory language that it had considered the Rule’s effect on reducing
cigar use. See Op. at 19–20 (citing 79 Fed. Reg. at 23,146). At the outset, when
expects analysis and explanation. None of that appears in this passage. “Merely
Gerber, 294 F.3d at 186. And “stating that a factor was considered—or found—is
not a substitute for considering or finding it.” Susquehanna Int’l Grp., LLC v.
SEC, 866 F.3d 442, 446 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see also Getty v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins.
Corp., 805 F.2d 1050, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“conclusory recitation” failed to
satisfy a statutory requirement that the agency “consider” a specified factor). Even
this recitation was not based on the administrative record, having been made in the
Second, the District Court turned to a passage making observations about the
Rule as a whole. See Op. at 19-20 (citing 79 Fed. Reg. at 23,146). That passage
said that the entire Rule—presumably including provisions for premarket and
registration (79 Fed. Reg. at 23,148), youth sale restrictions (79 Fed. Reg.
at 23,160), cigar manufacturer registration (79 Fed. Reg. at 23,148), and others—
may together reduce tobacco use. But that is not the question Congress asked.
45
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 59 of 163
Rather it is whether the warnings requirement alone—the restriction for which the
agency invoked its special authority under Section 906(d) of the FD&C Act—
would reduce tobacco use. It does not matter whether other provisions of the Rule,
imposed pursuant to separate statutory authority that did not require the particular
communication of health risks. Op. at 20-21. But the agency throughout the Rule
release and this case assiduously has avoided connecting the improved
communication of health risks with an effect on the level of cigar use. The Court’s
quoted language never makes the link, focusing only on “‘help[ing] consumers
The agency’s failure to comply with the Act stems not just from what the
agency omitted from its analysis, but from what it affirmatively said about the
warnings. The agency flatly admitted that “[r]eliable evidence on the impacts of
warning labels . . . on users of cigars . . . [and] pipe tobacco . . . does not, to our
knowledge, exist.” AR023973. The agency did not say that such evidence could
not be found, but instead promised to study after adopting the Rule how the
warnings would affect the use of cigars and pipe tobacco. 81 Fed. Reg. at 29,065
46
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 60 of 163
developments regarding the efficacy of the final health warnings and the ways in
which their efficacy could be improved.”). This statement informs any vagaries in
the agency’s incomplete findings: The agency did not study or consider whether
the warning requirement would reduce cigar and pipe tobacco use.
observation that it is difficult to analyze the effect of health warnings before they
are implemented. Op. at 22–23. But that is no excuse here: Warning labels with
almost identical content had been imposed on the vast majority of cigars 16 years
earlier. Against this background, the Act and the APA required the agency to
study the federal government’s own experience with cigar warnings to determine
The agency’s position is even less defensible given the history of tobacco
warnings litigation in this Circuit. Seven years ago, this Court struck down the
Reynolds, 696 F.3d at 1220. One reason for this Court’s ruling is that the agency
actually studied the effect the challenged new warnings would have on cigarette
use. Id. The agency found that “the new warnings would reduce U.S. smoking
rates by a mere 0.088%, a number the FDA concedes is ‘in general not statistically
47
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 61 of 163
distinguishable from zero.’” Id.11 When it came to regulating cigars four years
later, the agency made the decision not to study the effect of proposed larger
because the agency was worried about producing similarly dismal results and
collection of data before mandating speech is suspect. See Section I.D, supra. But
it certainly cannot be permitted when the authorizing statute itself requires the
agency to consider the effect of warnings on reducing cigar use, before issuing the
regulation. See Susquehanna, 866 F.3d at 446–47; Gerber, 294 F.3d at 185–86.
effect on tobacco use is crucial to passing First Amendment scrutiny. See R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 696 F.3d at 1217-19. And Congress had the First
Amendment very much in mind when it required such consideration and findings
11 The District Court also discounted the agency’s concession that there was “no
reliable evidence” that the warnings would reduce cigar use because it was made in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Op. at 22. But that is exactly where the above
dispositive finding in R.J. Reynolds came from. 639 F.3d at 1220.
48
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 62 of 163
problems, the Court should resolve any statutory ambiguity in favor of advanced
study and detailed findings on the effect of the warnings on cigar and pipe tobacco
use. See, e.g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr.
Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988) (constitutional avoidance canon).
The District Court also erred in giving the agency a pass for failing to
the cigar industry. See Op. at 24–25. “[A]n agency’s refusal to consider evidence
bearing on the issue before it constitutes arbitrary agency action within the
meaning of [the APA].” Butte Cty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir.
2010); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463
U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (agency action is arbitrary and capricious where it “fail[s] to
chooses.” Del. Dep’t of Natural Res. & Envtl. Control v. EPA, 785 F.3d 1, 11
As explained above, the District Court failed to require the agency to explain
why the FTC warnings regime in place for much of the U.S. cigar market did not
suffice. See Op. at 23-24. The FDA skipped this analysis of the FTC warnings’
size, even though it was highlighted in public comments. See 81 Fed. Reg.
49
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 63 of 163
decisionmaking,’” Achernar Broad. Co. v. FCC, 62 F.3d 1441, 1447 (D.C. Cir.
1995), the FDA’s outright failure to consider such an obvious alternative surely
was arbitrary and capricious, Del. Dep’t of Natural Res., 785 F.3d at 17–18.
The District Court similarly erred when it failed to address whether the
agency arbitrarily and capriciously required massive costs without weighing the
corresponding benefits. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. The District Court
incorrectly found that the parties had agreed to defer resolution of the issue. See
Op. at 15–16, 25 n.6. That is not so: Plaintiffs brought a full throated challenge
under the APA to the warnings requirement in Count VI of the Complaint, which
no one agreed to defer. What the District Court failed to consider is that under the
Rule, each product label will undergo what the FDA terms in its benefit-cost
analysis a “major change,” and the labeling requirements are “a large contributor to
the costs of this rule.” AR023952, AR024017, AR024019. Under the FDA’s own
calculation of the cost for a label change, one premium cigar manufacturer with
1,670 unique products alone will need to spend between $2.5 million and $27.8
massive sums of money without identifying any concrete benefits is the height of
arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking. See Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699,
50
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 64 of 163
entails a cost-benefit analysis); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d
August 10, 2018 is flatly inconsistent with its own reasoning.. That violates the
APA. See Dist. Hosp. Partners, L.P. v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 46, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(inconsistent reasoning violates the APA); U.S. Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg.
Comm’n, 785 F.3d 740, 753-56 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (requirement of consistency also
extends to enforcement).
First, that the FDA insisted on enforcing the warnings requirement against
cigars, as scheduled on August 10, 2018, cannot be reconciled with its actions
concerning premium cigars and other deadlines. The agency insisted on such
reconsidering whether premium cigars should bear the warnings. See 83 Fed. Reg.
time, all aimed at fixing the Rule. See FDA Press Release (July 28, 2017), supra.
It extended deadlines for other parts of the rule to accommodate those rulemaking
dockets, but neither extended the warnings deadline to account for the premium
unfair exercise of agency authority.” Op. at 46. But the District Court decided it
could do nothing about it, because the decision to stay certain deadlines was not
challenged. Op. at 48; see also Section I.B.2, supra (explaining that challenges to
extending the warnings to premium cigars were properly pressed). That was error.
Appellants are not injured by the stay of premarket review and substantial
the warnings requirement, which they challenged. See Airmark Corp. v. FAA, 758
F.2d 685, 691–92 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“grossly inconsistent and patently arbitrary”
it should apply to a class of cigars and while other deadlines were extended,
without explanation, violates the APA. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
Surface Transp. Bd., 403 F.3d 771, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (agency must explain
cigars cannot be reconciled with its treatment of cigarettes. The cigar warnings
currently in effect for cigarettes, which account for only 4% of packaging, 76 Fed.
Reg. at 36,678. But the FDA has determined that cigarettes are at the most
52
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 66 of 163
dangerous end of the risk continuum. See FDA Press Release (July 28, 2017),
Skipping directly to dramatically larger and broader cigar warnings, while leaving
cigarette warnings untouched, cannot be reconciled with that finding and violates
the APA. See U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.3d at 755–56 (agency actions and findings
A larger warnings scheme for cigarettes that was vacated by this Court seven
years ago and has never been implemented does not change this analysis. Yet the
District Court found that discarded scheme the agency’s saving grace. Op. at 25.
The APA, however, deals with agency action not its discarded plans and reaches
the order and consistency of its enforcement decisions. See Portland Cement Ass’n
v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency violated APA by ignoring
parallel rulemaking with the potential to modify the requirements for the regulated
industry); Airmark Corp., 758 F.2d at 695 (agency must act “in a consistent
manner” and “any deviation” must “be carefully reasoned and fully explained”).
The District Court’s blessing of this irreconcilable tension between the agency’s
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the judgment below and
remand with instructions to set aside and permanently enjoin enforcement of the
53
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 67 of 163
new warnings requirements for cigars and pipe tobacco set forth in 21 C.F.R.
further proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion, and grant Appellants such
other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
54
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 68 of 163
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
32(e)(2)(B)(i) because this brief contains 12,823 words, excluding the parts of the
brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f). This brief complies with the typeface
requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R.
App. P. 32(a)(6) because the brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced
typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman typeface.
55
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 69 of 163
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing brief with the Clerk
of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on February 19, 2019. Service
upon participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be
56
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 70 of 163
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
__________________
CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL PREMIUM CIGAR AND PIPE
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, AND CIGAR RIGHTS OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ALEX AZAR II, AND SCOTT GOTTLIEB, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01460-APM, District Judge Amit P. Mehta
__________________
ADDENDUM TO BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS
__________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111–31 (2009) ...................................................... ADD001
i
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 72 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00001
ADD001
Fmt 6579
Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 73 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00002
ADD002
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 74 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00003
ADD003
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 75 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00004
ADD004
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 76 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00005
ADD005
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 77 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00006
ADD006
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 78 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00007
ADD007
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 79 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00008
ADD008
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 80 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00009
ADD009
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 81 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00010
ADD010
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 82 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00011
ADD011
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 83 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00012
ADD012
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 84 of 163
101(a), 102, or 103 of title I, title II, or title III of the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, shall be con-
strued to affect, expand, or limit the Secretary’s authority over
(including the authority to determine whether products may
be regulated), or the regulation of, products under this Act
that are not tobacco products under chapter V or any other
chapter.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of this chapter shall
not apply to tobacco leaf that is not in the possession
of a manufacturer of tobacco products, or to the producers
of tobacco leaf, including tobacco growers, tobacco ware-
houses, and tobacco grower cooperatives, nor shall any
employee of the Food and Drug Administration have any
authority to enter onto a farm owned by a producer of
tobacco leaf without the written consent of such producer.
‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A),
if a producer of tobacco leaf is also a tobacco product
manufacturer or controlled by a tobacco product manufac-
turer, the producer shall be subject to this chapter in
the producer’s capacity as a manufacturer. The exception
in this subparagraph shall not apply to a producer of
tobacco leaf who grows tobacco under a contract with a
tobacco product manufacturer and who is not otherwise
engaged in the manufacturing process.
‘‘(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to grant the Secretary authority to
promulgate regulations on any matter that involves the
production of tobacco leaf or a producer thereof, other than
activities by a manufacturer affecting production.
‘‘(d) RULEMAKING PROCEDURES.—Each rulemaking under this
chapter shall be in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code. This subsection shall not be construed to affect the
rulemaking provisions of section 102(a) of the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
‘‘(e) CENTER FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS.—Not later than 90 days Deadline.
after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention Establishment.
and Tobacco Control Act, the Secretary shall establish within the
Food and Drug Administration the Center for Tobacco Products,
which shall report to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs in
the same manner as the other agency centers within the Food
and Drug Administration. The Center shall be responsible for the
implementation of this chapter and related matters assigned by
the Commissioner.
‘‘(f) OFFICE TO ASSIST SMALL TOBACCO PRODUCT MANUFACTUR-
ERS.—The Secretary shall establish within the Food and Drug Establishment.
Administration an identifiable office to provide technical and other
nonfinancial assistance to small tobacco product manufacturers to
assist them in complying with the requirements of this Act.
‘‘(g) CONSULTATION PRIOR TO RULEMAKING.—Prior to promul-
gating rules under this chapter, the Secretary shall endeavor to
consult with other Federal agencies as appropriate.
‘‘SEC. 902. ADULTERATED TOBACCO PRODUCTS. 21 USC 387b.
‘‘A tobacco product shall be deemed to be adulterated if—
‘‘(1) it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid,
dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00013
ADD013
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 85 of 163
Secretary by regulation;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00014
ADD014
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 86 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00015
ADD015
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 87 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00016
ADD016
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 88 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:38 Jul 02, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00000 Frm 00017
ADD017
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 GPO1 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 89 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00018
ADD018
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 90 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00019
ADD019
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 91 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00020
ADD020
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 92 of 163
is based; and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00021
ADD021
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 93 of 163
Time period. ‘‘(2) the period within which interested persons may present
their comments on the notice or findings (including the need
therefore) orally or in writing, which period shall be at least
60 days but may not exceed 90 days unless the time is extended
by the Secretary by a notice published in the Federal Register
stating good cause therefore.
‘‘(c) LIMITED CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.—Any informa-
tion reported to or otherwise obtained by the Secretary or the
Secretary’s representative under section 903, 904, 907, 908, 909,
910, 911, or 704, or under subsection (e) or (f) of this section,
which is exempt from disclosure under subsection (a) of section
552 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of subsection (b)(4)
of that section shall be considered confidential and shall not be
disclosed, except that the information may be disclosed to other
officers or employees concerned with carrying out this chapter,
or when relevant in any proceeding under this chapter.
‘‘(d) RESTRICTIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may by regulation require
restrictions on the sale and distribution of a tobacco product,
including restrictions on the access to, and the advertising
and promotion of, the tobacco product, if the Secretary deter-
mines that such regulation would be appropriate for the protec-
tion of the public health. The Secretary may by regulation
impose restrictions on the advertising and promotion of a
tobacco product consistent with and to full extent permitted
by the first amendment to the Constitution. The finding as
to whether such regulation would be appropriate for the protec-
tion of the public health shall be determined with respect
to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including
users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into
account—
‘‘(A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing
users of tobacco products will stop using such products;
and
‘‘(B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those
who do not use tobacco products will start using such
products.
No such regulation may require that the sale or distribution
of a tobacco product be limited to the written or oral authoriza-
tion of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe medical
products.
‘‘(2) LABEL STATEMENTS.—The label of a tobacco product
shall bear such appropriate statements of the restrictions
required by a regulation under subsection (a) as the Secretary
may in such regulation prescribe.
‘‘(3) LIMITATIONS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No restrictions under paragraph (1)
may—
‘‘(i) prohibit the sale of any tobacco product in
face-to-face transactions by a specific category of retail
outlets; or
‘‘(ii) establish a minimum age of sale of tobacco
products to any person older than 18 years of age.
‘‘(B) MATCHBOOKS.—For purposes of any regulations
issued by the Secretary, matchbooks of conventional size
containing not more than 20 paper matches, and which
dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00022
ADD022
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 94 of 163
posed to be promulgated;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:38 Jul 02, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00000 Frm 00023
ADD023
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 GPO1 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 95 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00024
ADD024
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 96 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00025
ADD025
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 97 of 163
product;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00026
ADD026
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 98 of 163
standard.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00027
ADD027
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 99 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00028
ADD028
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 100 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00029
ADD029
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 101 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00030
ADD030
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 102 of 163
Before issuing an order under this subsection, the Secretary shall Consultation.
consult with the persons who are to give notice under the order.
‘‘(b) NO EXEMPTION FROM OTHER LIABILITY.—Compliance with
an order issued under this section shall not relieve any person
from liability under Federal or State law. In awarding damages
for economic loss in an action brought for the enforcement of any
such liability, the value to the plaintiff in such action of any
remedy provided under such order shall be taken into account.
‘‘(c) RECALL AUTHORITY.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary finds that there is a Order.
reasonable probability that a tobacco product contains a manu-
facturing or other defect not ordinarily contained in tobacco
products on the market that would cause serious, adverse
health consequences or death, the Secretary shall issue an
order requiring the appropriate person (including the manufac-
turers, importers, distributors, or retailers of the tobacco
product) to immediately cease distribution of such tobacco
product. The order shall provide the person subject to the Deadline.
order with an opportunity for an informal hearing, to be held
not later than 10 days after the date of the issuance of the
order, on the actions required by the order and on whether
the order should be amended to require a recall of such tobacco
product. If, after providing an opportunity for such a hearing,
the Secretary determines that inadequate grounds exist to sup-
port the actions required by the order, the Secretary shall
vacate the order.
‘‘(2) AMENDMENT OF ORDER TO REQUIRE RECALL.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If, after providing an opportunity
for an informal hearing under paragraph (1), the Secretary
determines that the order should be amended to include
a recall of the tobacco product with respect to which the
order was issued, the Secretary shall, except as provided
in subparagraph (B), amend the order to require a recall.
The Secretary shall specify a timetable in which the tobacco Timetable.
product recall will occur and shall require periodic reports Reports.
to the Secretary describing the progress of the recall.
‘‘(B) NOTICE.—An amended order under subparagraph
(A)—
‘‘(i) shall not include recall of a tobacco product
from individuals; and
‘‘(ii) shall provide for notice to persons subject to
the risks associated with the use of such tobacco
product.
In providing the notice required by clause (ii), the Secretary
may use the assistance of retailers and other persons who
distributed such tobacco product. If a significant number Notification.
of such persons cannot be identified, the Secretary shall
notify such persons under section 705(b).
‘‘(3) REMEDY NOT EXCLUSIVE.—The remedy provided by this
subsection shall be in addition to remedies provided by sub-
section (a).
‘‘SEC. 909. RECORDS AND REPORTS ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS. Regulations.
21 USC 387i.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Every person who is a tobacco product manu-
facturer or importer of a tobacco product shall establish and main-
tain such records, make such reports, and provide such information,
dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00031
ADD031
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 103 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00032
ADD032
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 104 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00033
ADD033
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 105 of 163
require;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00034
ADD034
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 106 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00035
ADD035
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 107 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00036
ADD036
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 108 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00037
ADD037
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 109 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00038
ADD038
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 110 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00039
ADD039
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 111 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00040
ADD040
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 112 of 163
and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00041
ADD041
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 113 of 163
of conditions of use.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00042
ADD042
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 114 of 163
subsection (h).
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00043
ADD043
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 115 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00044
ADD044
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 116 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00045
ADD045
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 117 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00046
ADD046
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 118 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00047
ADD047
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 119 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00048
ADD048
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 120 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00049
ADD049
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 121 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00050
ADD050
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 122 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00051
ADD051
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 123 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00052
ADD052
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 124 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00053
ADD053
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 125 of 163
‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY.—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00054
ADD054
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 126 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00055
ADD055
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 127 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00056
ADD056
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 128 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00057
ADD057
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 129 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00058
ADD058
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 130 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00059
ADD059
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 131 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00060
ADD060
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 132 of 163
is available.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00061
ADD061
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 133 of 163
after ‘‘device’’.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00062
ADD062
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 134 of 163
and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00063
ADD063
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 135 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00064
ADD064
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 136 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00065
ADD065
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 137 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:14 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00066
ADD066
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 138 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00067
ADD067
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 139 of 163
in nonsmokers.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00068
ADD068
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 140 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00069
ADD069
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 141 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00070
ADD070
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 142 of 163
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, if the Secretary finds that
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00071
ADD071
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 143 of 163
United States.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00072
ADD072
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 144 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00073
ADD073
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 145 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00074
ADD074
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 146 of 163
of title 5, United States Code, adjust the format, type size, and
text of any of the label requirements, require color graphics to
accompany the text, increase the required label area from 30 percent
up to 50 percent of the front and rear panels of the package,
or establish the format, type size, and text of any other disclosures
required under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, if the
Secretary finds that such a change would promote greater public
understanding of the risks associated with the use of smokeless
tobacco products.’’.
(b) PREEMPTION.—Section 7(a) of the Comprehensive Smokeless
Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 4406(a)) is
amended by striking ‘‘No’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in
the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (and the
amendments made by that Act), no’’.
SEC. 206. TAR, NICOTINE, AND OTHER SMOKE CONSTITUENT DISCLO-
SURE TO THE PUBLIC.
Section 4 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act (15 U.S.C. 1333), as amended by sections 201 and 202, is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(e) TAR, NICOTINE, AND OTHER SMOKE CONSTITUENT DISCLO-
SURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, by a rulemaking Regulations.
conducted under section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
determine (in the Secretary’s sole discretion) whether cigarette
and other tobacco product manufacturers shall be required
to include in the area of each cigarette advertisement specified
by subsection (b) of this section, or on the package label, or
both, the tar and nicotine yields of the advertised or packaged
brand. Any such disclosure shall be in accordance with the
methodology established under such regulations, shall conform
to the type size requirements of subsection (b) of this section,
and shall appear within the area specified in subsection (b)
of this section.
‘‘(2) RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES.—Any differences Memorandum.
between the requirements established by the Secretary under
paragraph (1) and tar and nicotine yield reporting requirements
established by the Federal Trade Commission shall be resolved
by a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary
and the Federal Trade Commission.
‘‘(3) CIGARETTE AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCT CONSTITU-
ENTS.—In addition to the disclosures required by paragraph
(1), the Secretary may, under a rulemaking conducted under
section 553 of title 5, United States Code, prescribe disclosure
requirements regarding the level of any cigarette or other
tobacco product constituent including any smoke constituent.
Any such disclosure may be required if the Secretary deter-
mines that disclosure would be of benefit to the public health,
or otherwise would increase consumer awareness of the health
consequences of the use of tobacco products, except that no
such prescribed disclosure shall be required on the face of
any cigarette package or advertisement. Nothing in this section
shall prohibit the Secretary from requiring such prescribed
disclosure through a cigarette or other tobacco product package
or advertisement insert, or by any other means under the
dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00075
ADD075
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 147 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00076
ADD076
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 148 of 163
advertising; and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00077
ADD077
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 149 of 163
demnity compensation.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00078
ADD078
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 150 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00079
ADD079
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 151 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00080
ADD080
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 152 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00081
ADD081
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 153 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00082
ADD082
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 154 of 163
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00083
ADD083
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 155 of 163
Æ
dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 079139 PO 00031 Frm 00084
ADD084
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6580 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.111 APPS06 PsN: PUBL031
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 156 of 163
(3) Provide practical advice (problem appropriate steps to address the non-
solving/skills training) about how to compliance.
deal with common issues faced by
smokers trying to quit; PART 1143—MINIMUM REQUIRED
(4) Provide evidence-based advice WARNING STATEMENTS
about how to formulate a plan to quit
smoking;
Sec.
(5) Provide evidence-based informa- 1143.1 Definitions.
tion about effective relapse prevention 1143.3 Required warning statement regard-
strategies; ing addictiveness of nicotine.
(6) Provide factual information on 1143.5 Required warning statements for ci-
smoking cessation treatments, includ- gars.
ing FDA-approved cessation medica- 1143.7 Language requirements for required
tions; and warning statements.
(7) Provide information, advice, and 1143.9 Irremovable or permanent required
support that is evidence-based, unbi- warning statements.
ased (including with respect to prod- 1143.11 Does not apply to foreign distribu-
ucts, services, persons, and other enti- tion.
1143.13 Effective date.
ties), and relevant to tobacco ces-
sation. AUTHORITY: 21 U.S.C. 387a(b), 387f(d).
(c) The smoking cessation resource SOURCE: 81 FR 29103, May 10, 2016, unless
must: otherwise noted.
(1) Other than as described in this
section, not advertise or promote any § 1143.1 Definitions.
particular product or service;
For purposes of this part:
(2) Except to meet the particularized
Accessory means any product that is
needs of an individual caller as deter-
intended or reasonably expected to be
mined in the context of individual
used with or for the human consump-
counseling, not selectively present in-
tion of a tobacco product; does not con-
formation about a subset of FDA-ap-
tain tobacco and is not made or derived
proved cessation products or product
from tobacco; and meets either of the
categories while failing to mention
following:
other FDA-approved cessation products
or product categories; (1) Is not intended or reasonably ex-
(3) Not provide or otherwise encour- pected to affect or alter the perform-
age the use of any drug or other med- ance, composition, constituents, or
ical product that FDA has not ap- characteristics of a tobacco product; or
proved for tobacco cessation; (2) Is intended or reasonably expected
(4) Not encourage the use of any non- to affect or maintain the performance,
evidence-based smoking cessation prac- composition, constituents, or charac-
tices; teristics of a tobacco product but
(5) Ensure that staff providing smok- (i) Solely controls moisture and/or
ing cessation information, advice, and temperature of a stored tobacco prod-
support are trained specifically to help uct; or
smokers quit by delivering unbiased (ii) Solely provides an external heat
and evidence-based information, ad- source to initiate but not maintain
vice, and support; and combustion of a tobacco product
(6) Maintain appropriate controls to Cigar means a tobacco product that:
ensure the criteria described in para- (1) Is not a cigarette and
graphs (b) and (c) of this section are (2) Is a roll of tobacco wrapped in leaf
met. tobacco or any substance containing
(d) If the Secretary of the Depart- tobacco.
ment of Health and Human Services Cigarette tobacco means any product
(Secretary) determines that a part of that consists of loose tobacco that is
the smoking cessation assistance re- intended for use by consumers in a cig-
source referenced by paragraph (a) of arette. Unless otherwise stated, the re-
kpayne on DSK54DXVN1OFR with $$_JOB
this section does not meet the criteria quirements applicable to cigarettes
described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of under this chapter also apply to ciga-
this section, the Secretary shall take rette tobacco.
830
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244077 PO 00000 Frm 00840
ADD085
Fmt 8010
Sfmt 8010 Q:\21\21V8.TXT 31
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 157 of 163
Component or part means any soft- rials other than tobacco used in manu-
ware or assembly of materials intended facturing a component, part, or acces-
or reasonably expected: sory of a tobacco product) and
(1) To alter or affect the tobacco (2) Does not mean an article that is a
product’s performance, composition, drug under section 201(g)(1) of the Fed-
constituents, or characteristics; or eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a
(2) to be used with or for the human device under section 201(h) of the Fed-
consumption of a tobacco product. eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or
Component or part excludes anything a combination product described in
that is an accessory of a tobacco prod- section 503(g) of the Federal Food,
uct. Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Covered tobacco product means any to-
bacco product deemed to be subject to § 1143.3 Required warning statement
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic regarding addictiveness of nicotine.
Act pursuant to § 1100.2 of this chapter, (a) Packages. (1) For cigarette to-
but excludes any component or part bacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and cov-
that is not made or derived from to- ered tobacco products other than ci-
bacco. gars, it is unlawful for any person to
Package or packaging means a pack, manufacture, package, sell, offer to
box, carton, or container of any kind sell, distribute, or import for sale or
or, if no other container, any wrapping distribution within the United States
(including cellophane), in which a to-
such product unless the tobacco prod-
bacco product is offered for sale, sold,
uct package bears the following re-
or otherwise distributed to consumers.
quired warning statement on the pack-
Point of sale means any location at
age label: ‘‘WARNING: This product
which a consumer can purchase or oth-
contains nicotine. Nicotine is an ad-
erwise obtain tobacco products for per-
dictive chemical.’’
sonal consumption.
(2) The required warning statement
Principal display panels means the
must appear directly on the package
panels of a package that are most like-
and must be clearly visible underneath
ly to be displayed, presented, shown, or
any cellophane or other clear wrapping
examined by the consumer.
as follows:
Required warning statement means a
textual warning statement required to (i) Be located in a conspicuous and
be on packaging and in advertisements prominent place on the two principal
for cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own to- display panels of the package and the
bacco, cigars, and other covered to- warning area must comprise at least 30
bacco products. percent of each of the principal display
Retailer means any person who sells panels;
tobacco products to individuals for per- (ii) Be printed in at least 12-point
sonal consumption, or who operates a font size and ensures that the required
facility where vending machines or warning statement occupies the great-
self-service displays are permitted est possible proportion of the warning
under this part. area set aside for the required text;
Roll-your-own tobacco means any to- (iii) Be printed in conspicuous and
bacco product that, because of its ap- legible Helvetica bold or Arial bold
pearance, type, packaging, or labeling, type (or other sans serif fonts) and in
is suitable for use and likely to be of- black text on a white background or
fered to, or purchased by, consumers as white text on a black background in a
tobacco for making cigarettes. manner that contrasts by typography,
Tobacco product. As stated in section layout, or color, with all other printed
201(rr) of the Federal Food, Drug, and material on the package;
Cosmetic Act in relevant part, a to- (iv) Be capitalized and punctuated as
bacco product: indicated in paragraph (a)(1) of this
(1) Means any product made or de- section; and
rived from tobacco that is intended for (v) Be centered in the warning area
kpayne on DSK54DXVN1OFR with $$_JOB
831
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244077 PO 00000 Frm 00841
ADD086
Fmt 8010
Sfmt 8010 Q:\21\21V8.TXT 31
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 158 of 163
and the other information on the prin- (v) Be centered in the warning area
cipal display panel have the same ori- in which the text is required to appear
entation. and positioned such that the text of
(3) A retailer of any tobacco product the required warning statement and
covered by paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of the other textual information in the
this section will not be in violation of advertisement have the same orienta-
this section for packaging that: tion; and
(i) Contains a health warning; (vi) Be surrounded by a rectangular
(ii) Is supplied to the retailer by the border that is the same color as the
tobacco product manufacturer, im- text of the required warning statement
porter, or distributor, who has the re- and that is not less than 3 millimeters
quired state, local, or Alcohol and To- (mm) or more than 4 mm.
bacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)- (3) This paragraph (b) applies to a re-
issued license or permit, if applicable, tailer only if that retailer is respon-
and sible for or directs the health warning
(iii) Is not altered by the retailer in required under the paragraph. How-
a way that is material to the require- ever, this paragraph does not relieve a
ments of this section. retailer of liability if the retailer dis-
(b) Advertisements. (1) For cigarette plays, in a location open to the public,
tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and an advertisement that does not contain
covered tobacco products other than ci- a health warning or contains a health
gars, it is unlawful for any such to- warning that has been altered by the
bacco product manufacturer, packager, retailer in a way that is material to
importer, distributor, or retailer of the the requirements of this section.
tobacco product to advertise or cause (c) Self-certification. A tobacco prod-
to be advertised within the United
uct that would otherwise be required to
States any tobacco product unless each
bear the warning in paragraph (a)(1) of
advertisement bears the required warn-
this section but does not contain nico-
ing statement specified in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. tine is not required to bear the warning
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section on
(2) For print advertisements and
packages or advertisements if the to-
other advertisements with a visual
component (including, for example, ad- bacco product manufacturer has sub-
vertisements on signs, shelf-talkers, mitted to FDA a confirmation state-
Internet Web pages, and electronic ment certifying to be true and accurate
mail correspondence), the required that the product does not contain nico-
warning statement must appear in the tine and that the tobacco product man-
upper portion of the area of the adver- ufacturer has data to support that as-
tisement within the trim area as fol- sertion. Any product not required to
lows: bear the warning in paragraph (a)(1) of
(i) Occupy at least 20 percent of the this section must include the state-
area of the advertisement; ment ‘‘This product is made from to-
(ii) Appear in at least 12-point font bacco.’’ on all packages and advertise-
size and ensures that the required ments in accordance with the require-
warning statement occupies the great- ments of this part.
est possible proportion of the warning (d) Small packages. A tobacco product
area set aside for the required text; that would otherwise be required to
(iii) Appear in conspicuous and leg- bear the warning in paragraph (a)(1) of
ible Helvetica bold or Arial bold type this section but is too small or other-
(or other similar sans serif fonts) and wise unable to accommodate a label
in black text on a white background or with sufficient space to bear such in-
white text on a black background in a formation is exempt from compliance
manner that contrasts by typography, with the requirement provided that the
layout, or color, with all other mate- information and specifications required
rial on the advertisement; under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
kpayne on DSK54DXVN1OFR with $$_JOB
832
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244077 PO 00000 Frm 00842
ADD087
Fmt 8010
Sfmt 8010 Q:\21\21V8.TXT 31
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 159 of 163
type (or other similar sans serif fonts) bacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)-
and in black text on a white back- issued license or permit, if applicable,
ground or white text on a black back- and
833
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244077 PO 00000 Frm 00843
ADD088
Fmt 8010
Sfmt 8010 Q:\21\21V8.TXT 31
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 160 of 163
(iii) Is not altered by the retailer in the public, an advertisement that does
a way that is material to the require- not contain a health warning or con-
ments of this section. tains a health warning that has been
(b) Advertisements. (1) It is unlawful altered by the retailer in a way that is
for any tobacco product manufacturer, material to the requirements of this
packager, importer, distributor, or re- section.
tailer of cigars to advertise or cause to (c) Marketing requirements. (1) Except
be advertised within the United States for cigars sold individually and not in a
any cigar unless each advertisement product package, the warning state-
bears one of the required warning ments required for packages in para-
statements specified in paragraph (a)(1) graph (a)(1) of this section must be ran-
of this section. domly displayed in each 12-month pe-
(2) For print advertisements and riod, in as equal a number of times as
other advertisements with a visual is possible on each brand of cigar sold
component (including, for example, ad- in product packaging and be randomly
vertisements on signs, shelf-talkers, distributed in all areas of the United
Internet Web pages, and electronic States in which the product is mar-
mail correspondence), each required keted in accordance with a plan sub-
warning statement must appear in the mitted by the cigar manufacturer, im-
upper portion of the area of the adver- porter, distributor, or retailer to, and
tisement within the trim area as fol- approved by, the Food and Drug Ad-
lows: ministration.
(i) Occupy at least 20 percent of the (2) The warning statements required
area of the advertisement; for advertisements in paragraph (a)(1)
(ii) Appear in at least 12-point font of this section must be rotated quar-
size that ensures that the required terly in alternating sequence in each
warning statement occupies the great- advertisement for each brand of cigar
est possible proportion of the warning in accordance with a plan submitted by
area set aside for the text required; the cigar manufacturer, importer, dis-
(iii) Appear in conspicuous and leg- tributor, or retailer to, and approved
ible Helvetica bold or Arial bold type by, the Food and Drug Administration.
(or other similar sans serif fonts) and (3) Each person required to randomly
in black text on a white background or display and distribute or rotate warn-
white text on a black background in a ings in accordance with an FDA-ap-
manner that contrasts by typography, proved plan under this part shall sub-
layout, or color, with all other mate- mit a proposed warning plan to FDA no
rial on the advertisement; later than either 12 months after May
(iv) Be capitalized and punctuated as 10, 2016, or 12 months before advertising
indicated in paragraph (a)(1) of this or commercially marketing a product
section; that is subject to such requirement,
(v) Be centered in the warning area whichever is later.
in which the text is required to appear
and positioned such that the text of § 1143.7 Language requirements for re-
the required warning statement and quired warning statements.
the other textual information in the The text in each warning statement
advertisement have the same orienta- required in § 1143.3 or § 1143.5 must be in
tion; and the English language, except as fol-
(vi) Be surrounded by a rectangular lows:
border that is the same color as the (a) In the case of an advertisement
text of the required warning statement that appears in a non-English medium,
and that is not less than 3 mm or more the text in the required warning state-
than 4 mm. ment must appear in the predominant
(3) This paragraph (b) applies to a re- language of the medium whether or not
tailer only if that retailer is respon- the advertisement is in English, and;
sible for or directs the warning state- (b) In the case of an advertisement
ments required under the paragraph. that appears in an English language
kpayne on DSK54DXVN1OFR with $$_JOB
However, this paragraph does not re- medium but that is not in English, the
lieve a retailer of liability if the re- text in the required warning statement
tailer displays, in a location open to must appear in the same language as
834
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244077 PO 00000 Frm 00844
ADD089
Fmt 8010
Sfmt 8010 Q:\21\21V8.TXT 31
USCA Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 161 of 163
835
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244077 PO 00000 Frm 00845
ADD090
Fmt 8010
Sfmt 8010 Q:\21\21V8.TXT 31
USCA§ Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 162 of 163
1333 TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE Page 1076
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1973 AMENDMENT (b) Conspicuous statement; label statement for-
Section 4 of Pub. L. 93–109 provided that: ‘‘The mat; outdoor billboard statement format
amendment made by this Act [amending this section (1) Each label statement required by para-
and section 1335 of this title] shall become effective graph (1) of subsection (a) of this section shall
thirty days after the date of enactment [Sept. 21, be located in the place label statements were
1973].’’ placed on cigarette packages as of October 12,
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1970 AMENDMENT 1984. The phrase ‘‘Surgeon General’s Warning’’
shall appear in capital letters and the size of all
Amendment by Pub. L. 91–222 effective Jan. 1, 1970,
except where otherwise specified, see section 3 of Pub. other letters in the label shall be the same as
L. 91–222, set out in part as a note under section 1331 of the size of such letters as of October 12, 1984. All
this title. the letters in the label shall appear in conspicu-
ous and legible type in contrast by typography,
§ 1333. Labeling; requirements; conspicuous layout, or color with all other printed material
statement on the package.
(a) Required warnings; packages; advertise- (2) The format of each label statement re-
ments; billboards quired by paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this
section shall be the format required for label
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to man- statements in cigarette advertising as of Octo-
ufacture, package, or import for sale or distribu- ber 12, 1984, except that the phrase ‘‘Surgeon
tion within the United States any cigarettes the General’s Warning’’ shall appear in capital let-
package of which fails to bear, in accordance ters, the area of the rectangle enclosing the
with the requirements of this section, one of the label shall be 50 per centum larger in size with
following labels: a corresponding increase in the size of the type
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking in the label, the width of the rule forming the
Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphy- border around the label shall be twice that in ef-
sema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. fect on October 12, 1984, and the label may be
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting placed at a distance from the outer edge of the
Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks advertisement which is one-half the distance
to Your Health. permitted on October 12, 1984. Each label state-
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking ment shall appear in conspicuous and legible
By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal In- type in contrast by typography, layout, or color
jury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight. with all other printed material in the advertise-
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette ment.
Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. (3) The format and type style of each label
statement required by paragraph (3) of sub-
(2) It shall be unlawful for any manufacturer
section (a) of this section shall be the format
or importer of cigarettes to advertise or cause
and type style required in outdoor billboard ad-
to be advertised (other than through the use of
vertising as of October 12, 1984. Each such label
outdoor billboards) within the United States any
statement shall be printed in capital letters of
cigarette unless the advertising bears, in accord-
the height of the tallest letter in a label state-
ance with the requirements of this section, one ment on outdoor advertising of the same dimen-
of the following labels: sion on October 12, 1984. Each such label state-
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking ment shall be enclosed by a black border which
Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphy- is located within the perimeter of the format re-
sema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. quired in outdoor billboard advertising of the
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting same dimension on October 12, 1984, and the
Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks width of which is twice the width of the vertical
to Your Health. element of any letter in the label statement
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking within the border.
By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal In-
(c) Rotation of label statement; plan; submission
jury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.
to Federal Trade Commission
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette
Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
label statements specified in paragraphs (1), (2),
(3) It shall be unlawful for any manufacturer and (3) of subsection (a) of this section shall be
or importer of cigarettes to advertise or cause rotated by each manufacturer or importer of
to be advertised within the United States cigarettes quarterly in alternating sequence on
through the use of outdoor billboards any ciga- packages of each brand of cigarettes manufac-
rette unless the advertising bears, in accordance tured by the manufacturer or importer and in
with the requirements of this section, one of the the advertisements for each such brand of ciga-
following labels: rettes in accordance with a plan submitted by
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking the manufacturer or importer and approved by
Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, And Em- the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal
physema. Trade Commission shall approve a plan submit-
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting ted by a manufacturer or importer of cigarettes
Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Health which will provide the rotation required by this
Risks. subsection and which assures that all of the la-
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Pregnant bels required by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) will
Women Who Smoke Risk Fetal Injury And be displayed by the manufacturer or importer at
Premature Birth. the same time.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette (2)(A) A manufacturer or importer of ciga-
Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. rettes may apply to the Federal Trade Commis-
ADD091
USCAPage
Case #18-5195 Document #1773984 Filed: 02/19/2019 Page 163 of 163
1077 TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE § 1334
sion to have the label rotation described in sub- ‘‘(A) on and after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph (C) apply with respect to a brand Act [Aug. 16, 1985] a manufacturer or importer of
style of cigarettes manufactured or imported by cigarettes may apply to the Federal Trade Commis-
sion to have the label rotation specified in section
such manufacturer or importer if—
4(c)(2) of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Adver-
(i) the number of cigarettes of such brand tising Act [subsec. (c)(2) of this section], as amended
style sold in the fiscal year of the manufac- by subsection (a), apply to its brand styles of ciga-
turer or importer preceding the submission of rettes and the Commission may take action on such
the application is less than one-fourth of 1 per- an application, and
cent of all the cigarettes sold in the United ‘‘(B) a manufacturer or importer of cigarettes may
States in such year, and elect to have the amendments apply at an earlier
(ii) more than one-half of the cigarettes date or dates selected by the manufacturer or im-
porter.
manufactured or imported by such manufac-
‘‘(2) The Federal Trade Commission may, upon appli-
turer or importer for sale in the United States cation of a manufacturer or importer of cigarettes with
are packaged into brand styles which meet the an approved application under section 4(c)(2) of the
requirements of clause (i). Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act [sub-
sec. (c)(2) of this section], as amended by subsection (a),
If an application is approved by the Commission,
extend the effective date specified in paragraph (1) to
the label rotation described in subparagraph (C) January 11, 1986. The Commission may approve an ap-
shall apply with respect to the applicant during plication for such an extension only if the Commission
the one-year period beginning on the date of the determines that the effective date specified in such
application approval. paragraph (1) would cause unreasonable economic hard-
(B) An applicant under subparagraph (A) shall ship to the applicant. Section 4 of the Federal Cigarette
include in its application a plan under which the Labeling and Advertising Act [this section], as in effect
label statements specified in paragraph (1) of before October 12, 1985, shall apply with respect to a
manufacturer or importer with an application approved
subsection (a) of this section will be rotated by
under this paragraph.’’
the applicant manufacturer or importer in ac-
cordance with the label rotation described in EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT
subparagraph (C). Section 4(b) of Pub. L. 98–474 provided that: ‘‘The
(C) Under the label rotation which a manufac- amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this sec-
turer or importer with an approved application tion] shall take effect upon the expiration of a one-year
may put into effect each of the labels specified period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section Act [Oct. 12, 1984].’’
shall appear on the packages of each brand style EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1970 AMENDMENT
of cigarettes with respect to which the applica-
tion was approved an equal number of times Section 3 of Pub. L. 91–222 provided in part that:
within the twelve-month period beginning on ‘‘Section 4 of the amendment made by this Act [amend-
ing this section] shall take effect on the first day of the
the date of the approval by the Commission of seventh calendar month which begins after the date of
the application. the enactment of this Act [Apr. 1, 1970].’’
(d) Application; distributors; retailers
§ 1334. Preemption
Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to
a distributor or a retailer of cigarettes who does (a) Additional statements
not manufacture, package, or import cigarettes No statement relating to smoking and health,
for sale or distribution within the United States. other than the statement required by section
(Pub. L. 89–92, § 4, July 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 283; Pub. 1333 of this title, shall be required on any ciga-
L. 91–222, § 2, Apr. 1, 1970, 84 Stat. 88; Pub. L. rette package.
98–474, § 4(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2201; Pub. L. (b) State regulations
99–92, § 11[(a)], Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 402; Pub. L.
No requirement or prohibition based on smok-
99–117, § 11(d), Oct. 7, 1985, 99 Stat. 495.)
ing and health shall be imposed under State law
AMENDMENTS with respect to the advertising or promotion of
1985—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–92 designated existing any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled
provisions as par. (1), substituted ‘‘Except as provided in conformity with the provisions of this chap-
in paragraph (2), the’’ for ‘‘The label’’, and added par. ter.
(2).
Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Pub. L. 99–117 substituted ‘‘brand (Pub. L. 89–92, § 5, July 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 283; Pub.
style’’ for ‘‘brand’’ in provisions preceding cl. (i). L. 91–222, § 2, Apr. 1, 1970, 84 Stat. 88.)
1984—Pub. L. 98–474 amended section generally, des-
AMENDMENTS
ignating existing provisions as subsec. (a), expanding
choice of warnings to be placed on cigarette packaging 1970—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 91–222 substituted provision
and further expanding scope of places that must con- that no requirement or prohibition based on smoking
tain warnings to include advertisements and outdoor and health should be imposed under State law with re-
billboards, and adding subsecs. (b) to (d). spect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes
1970—Pub. L. 91–222 substituted ‘‘Warning: The Sur- which packages are labeled in conformity with the pro-
geon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking visions of this chapter for provision that no statement
Is Dangerous to Your Health’’ for ‘‘Caution: Cigarette relating to smoking and health should be required in
Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health.’’ the advertising of any cigarettes which packages are
labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chap-
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1985 AMENDMENT
ter.
Section 11(c) of Pub. L. 99–92 provided that: Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 91–222 struck out subsecs. (c)
‘‘(1) The amendments made by subsection (a) [prob- and (d) relating to the authority of the Federal Trade
ably refers to undesignated par. preceding subsec. (b), Commission with respect to unfair or deceptive adver-
amending this section] shall take effect October 12, tising acts or practices, and reports to Congress by the
1985, except that— Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
ADD092