united states district court district of … 8 - joint amicus...united states district court...
TRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 8:18-cv-883-PWG
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF JOHN MIDDLETON, CO., ITG BRANDS LLC, JUUL
LABS, INC., THE CONSUMER ADVOCATES FOR SMOKE-FREE ALTERNATIVES
ASSOCIATION, NJOY LLC, THE AMERICAN E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING
STANDARDS ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN VAPING ASSOCIATION, THE
ARIZONA SMOKE FREE BUSINESS ALLIANCE, THE INDIANA SMOKE FREE
ASSOCIATION, IOWANS FOR ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING AND TOBACCO, THE
KENTUCKY SMOKE FREE ASSOCIATION, THE MARYLAND VAPOR ALLIANCE,
THE NEW YORK STATE VAPOR ASSOCIATION, THE OHIO VAPOR TRADE
ASSOCIATION, THE RIGHT TO BE SMOKE-FREE COALTION, THE SMOKE FREE
ALTERNATIVES TRADE ASSOCIATION (SFATA), SFATA-CALIFORNIA, SFATA-
CONNECTICUT, SFATA-HAWAII, SFATA-LOUSIANA, SFATA-RHODE ISLAND,
SFATA-TEXAS, SFATA-WISCONSIN, THE TENNESSEE SMOKE FREE
ASSOCIATION, AND THE TEXAS VAPOR COALITION
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ...................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................3
I. This Court Must Remand for FDA to Complete Essential Regulatory Steps..........3
A. FDA Must Fill Significant Regulatory Gaps, and Allow the Time
Necessary for Manufacturer Testing and Applications, Before It
Can Review Applications ............................................................................3
B. A Remand Is Necessary for FDA to Complete the Requisite
Regulatory Steps ..........................................................................................8
II. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedy Is Unlawful .............................................................10
A. Plaintiffs’ Timeframe Would Invalidate the Deeming Rule ......................10
B. Plaintiffs’ Remedy Would Otherwise Violate the APA ............................12
III. Plaintiffs’ Proposal Would Devastate Industry and Jeopardize Public
Health .....................................................................................................................14
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 19
INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE
The interests of amici are set forth in the letters they filed expressing their intent to move
to intervene. Amici are manufacturers of cigars covered by the Deeming Rule, and manufacturers,
retailers, and users of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products also covered by that
Rule. For most cigar products, the pathway to FDA approval is through Substantial Equivalence
(SE) Reports, i.e., applications establishing substantial equivalence to products already on the
market. For ENDS products, the path involves Premarket Tobacco Applications (PMTAs), i.e.,
applications establishing that the product is appropriate for the protection of public health. Amici
have direct, substantial, and varying interests that will be affected by any remedy the Court
imposes. It is also “abundantly clear” that amici are knowledgeable about the practical realities of
the “filing and approval processes” that any remedy will affect. May 31, 2019 Letter Order.1
INTRODUCTION
For years, FDA has issued, then extended, deadlines for when ENDS and cigar
manufacturers must submit premarket review applications to keep existing products on the market.
That iterative process did not happen because FDA sat on its hands. Rather, one of the
cornerstones of the Deeming Rule—the rule that subjected ENDS and cigars to FDA’s powers
under the Tobacco Control Act (TCA)—was FDA’s flexibility to extend enforcement timetables
so it could lay out regulatory stepping stones that would instruct manufacturers what tests to
undertake, what studies to provide, and what other information FDA needs to assess their
applications. This process turned out to be staggeringly complicated, especially due to a host of
1 Amici submit this joint brief pursuant to the Court’s May 31, 2019 Letter Order, Dkt. No. 84,
without prejudice to their rights to appeal the denial of intervention or their ability to make
arguments in further proceedings based on their own interests. As the accompanying declarations
illustrate, amici are disparate entities in disparate industries with multiple disparate interests.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 19
2
novel and disparate technical issues affecting ENDS products and cigars. FDA has made progress:
in April 2019, it issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify the contents of SE Reports, and
it recently announced that a proposed rule for PMTAs is under review at the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). Just yesterday, FDA issued 52-page final guidance to ENDS manufacturers
regarding what their PMTA applications should include. See FDA Guidance, Premarket Tobacco
Product Applications for ENDS (June 11, 2019), available at https://tinyurl.com/yybbk93z (Final
Guidance). But all along the way, FDA has assured manufacturers that they would be given both
the guidance and the time necessary to successfully navigate its premarket approval process.
Manufacturers can hardly be faulted for having taken FDA at its word.
All agree that this Court’s holding invalidating FDA’s August 2017 Guidance cannot
suddenly subject ENDS and cigar products to TCA enforcement actions for failure to file the very
applications that FDA authorized manufacturers to file later. Remanding that Guidance to FDA
without vacatur would avoid upending FDA’s massive existing regulatory efforts and causing
unwarranted harm to consumers and manufacturers. Such a remand would allow FDA to continue
fleshing out parameters for premarket applications and would give manufacturers sufficient time
to prepare the technical data necessary for quality applications that include the kind of information
that Plaintiffs themselves claim to want and need. Such a remand would also provide FDA
sufficient time to resolve each completed application without products being forced off the market
in the interim. A remand is the customary remedy in these circumstances.
By contrast, any court-fixed timetable would defy black-letter law prohibiting judicial
intervention in the substance of agency rulemaking. Dictating a timetable to FDA would risk
invalidating the Deeming Rule itself, which presupposed that FDA retains the flexibility to ensure
that newly deemed products have the time and means to successfully navigate premarket review.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 19
3
Plaintiffs’ unrealistic proposed timetable would also cause this Court to preside over a regulatory
train wreck that would unlawfully deprive manufacturers of a meaningful ability to submit
thousands of anticipated PMTA applications and SE Reports and would short-circuit FDA review.
To satisfy Plaintiffs’ timelines, FDA would be forced to act precipitately, without regard for the
law, public health, FDA’s pending rulemakings, or devastating economic consequences.
Make no mistake: amici share the Court’s concerns about youth usage, which they are
strongly combatting and consider unacceptable at any level. Youth cigar usage continues to
decline. And ENDS manufacturers have taken a number of steps, and spent tens of millions of
dollars on programs, to prevent youth usage. But the answer is not to force from the market
products on which millions of American adults rely in their efforts to quit smoking cigarettes.
ARGUMENT
I. This Court Must Remand for FDA to Complete Essential Regulatory Steps
A. FDA Must Fill Significant Regulatory Gaps, and Allow the Time Necessary for
Manufacturer Testing and Applications, Before It Can Review Applications
1. As FDA has frequently acknowledged, it must undertake a host of preliminary
regulatory actions to ensure that manufacturers know what to file and have time to prepare their
applications. Starting in 2011, FDA acknowledged (with respect to cigarettes, cigarette tobacco,
roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco) that “interested parties need clarity as to FDA’s
expectations regarding [SE] reports,” pledging to “initiate a rulemaking that would establish
requirements and standards for SE.” Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff (Jan. 2011) at 1–2.
FDA’s initial efforts focused on the four tobacco product types identified in the TCA; FDA only
began devoting comparable efforts to the SE requirements for newly-deemed products after FDA
issued the 2016 Deeming Rule. Time and again, FDA has insisted that further regulatory action
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 19
4
is imperative before ENDS and cigar manufacturers face compliance deadlines.2 And rightly so.
FDA could not conceivably satisfy the APA by requiring applicants to submit applications without
first telling them what rules applications must follow. Yet despite FDA’s decision to deem cigars
and ENDS products subject to the TCA, manufacturers remain in dire need of clarity to this day.
2. For ENDS products, significant pieces of the application puzzle are still missing. ENDS
products generally require PMTAs. But manufacturers have had little to go on in preparing them.
FDA has approved two PMTAs ever, and has never approved a PMTA for an ENDS product.
Bauersachs Decl. ¶ 20; FDA, Premarket Tobacco Product Marketing Orders (June 11, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/yyxfqzdw (approval of two PMTA applications comprising 12 products). The
estimated timeframe to prepare a PMTA for any type of tobacco product is at least two years.
Bauersachs Decl. ¶ 23; Engelke Decl. ¶ 20; Benson Decl. ¶ 25.
Fleshing out the rules for ENDS products has proven particularly challenging given the
newness of those products and the dearth of existing studies. For starters, until only yesterday,
2 See Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence for Tobacco
Products (Jan. 2011) at 1–2, https://tinyurl.com/y4x3dd62 (pledging to initiate a “[new]
rulemaking that would establish requirements and standards for [SE]”); FDA Comm’r S. Gottlieb,
Protecting American Families: Comprehensive Plan for Nicotine and Tobacco (Jul. 28, 2017),
https://tinyurl.com/y5lsxn4o (“One area of emphasis will be to make sure we have the foundational
regulatory architecture to ensure proper oversight of ENDS . . . . Part of this will be developing
regulations that we have not yet pursued because the Agency’s tobacco program itself is so new.”);
FDA Comm’r S. Gottlieb, Address at National Press Club (Nov. 3, 2017),
https://tinyurl.com/y5hdqbu3 (33:15) (“The foundational regulations for the tobacco program were
never put in place and so we’re going to take the time to put those in place so we have a firm
foundation from which to regulate.”); FDA, Advancing Tobacco Regulation to Protect Children
and Families (Aug. 2, 2018) (stating that “foundational proposed rules” are needed “regarding the
basic rules of the road, especially when it comes to what’s expected in premarket applications.”),
https://tinyurl.com/yysms73g; FDA Comm’r S. Gottlieb, Testimony to House Approp. Subcomm.
for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies (Feb.
27, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y62ps5pe (1:51:05) (August 2017 Guidance is needed “to give
[FDA] the time to put in place the implementing regulations and guidance that would . . . provide
the rules of the road for how to effectively traverse the PMTA process[.]”).
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 19
5
FDA had not issued final guidance on what PMTAs for ENDS products should include, and it had
expressly warned that its draft guidance did not necessarily reflect FDA’s current thinking. See
Draft Guidance, Premarket Tobacco Product Applications for ENDS, 81 Fed. Reg. 28,781 (May
10, 2016). Manufacturers have barely had time to digest that 52-page “nonbinding” document,
but it plainly does not resolve many open questions. The guidance contemplates the need for
further rulemaking, see, e.g., Final Guidance at 1, 11, and that PMTAs will not be a one-size-fits-
all process. FDA still has not specified the kind of testing (if any) ENDS manufacturers should
conduct to produce reliable data regarding product characteristics or public health consequences.
The Final Guidance identifies a wide variety of studies or materials that “should” or “could” be
conducted or included, but acknowledges limits on what is actually feasible, and encourages
manufacturers to meet with FDA before submitting an application to discuss what to include. Id.
at 3, 50–52. That reflects the reality that there is substantial variation among ENDS products,
which come in different configurations and flavors and are sold or distributed in different ways.
Woessner Decl. ¶¶ 4–8. What FDA requires for one product may prove different than for another.
FDA also appears poised to clarify what PMTAs for all tobacco products must include, but
much work remains on that front as well. The government just announced that OMB is reviewing
FDA’s draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on PMTAs—but that notice is not expected to issue
until at least September 2019. See OMB RIN 0910-AH44, HHS-FDA Proposed Rule, Premarket
Tobacco Product Applications and Recordkeeping Requirements (May 31, 2019). Then would
come the comment period, which would likely produce tens of thousands of comments—all of
which FDA must carefully consider in its final rule to avoid invalidation. Int’l Union, United Mine
Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Even when manufacturers know what tests or studies FDA wants, that is just the first step
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 7 of 19
6
in a long process. FDA must allow manufacturers time to conduct and analyze those studies before
they can be submitted. Human clinical studies are time-consuming. Determining whether and
how the chemical composition of liquid in an ENDS pod changes during a year of shelf-life
requires study preparation, then the required year of observation. Surveys tracking consumers’
consumption patterns take time to set up. Engelke Decl. ¶¶ 37, 42–50; Graham Decl. ¶¶ 10, 14.
Finally, in determining what applications should include and when manufacturers should
submit them, FDA must continue considering substantial reliance interests—not just of
manufacturers who have been promised a path to demonstrate that their products should remain
on the market, but of the millions of American adults who use ENDS products to help them quit
smoking cigarettes. Manufacturers cannot be faulted for not prematurely committing resources to
costly studies they may have to redo if they guessed wrongly as to what FDA would want. And
forcing manufacturers into a process where they would lack a meaningful opportunity to submit
applications would be quintessential arbitrary and capricious agency action given the reliance
interests FDA has created. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2126 (2016).
That said, ENDS manufacturers have not just sat around. They have done what they can
to prepare for the PMTA process. Engelke Decl. ¶¶ 21–56; Graham Decl. ¶¶ 10–11, 16–17. But
as the signatories to this brief reflect, ENDS manufacturers come in different shapes and sizes,
with vastly different levels of resources to devote to trying to anticipate what FDA would require.
For example, there are not enough accredited third-party laboratories qualified to conduct various
types of testing, and small manufacturers lack the resources to do those tests themselves. Engelke
Decl. ¶ 35; Woessner Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12; Anton Decl. ¶ 12; Benton Decl. ¶¶ 6, 24.
ENDS manufacturers have not been dilatory in addressing youth usage, either. Amici reject
any youth use of nicotine-containing products, and ENDS manufacturers have been tackling youth
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 8 of 19
7
usage head-on. They have spent tens of millions of dollars on programs to prevent youth usage,
have proposed limits on how their products can be sold, and have spearheaded youth education
initiatives, among other efforts. Many have supported a nationwide increase in the minimum age
for buying tobacco products. E.g., Engelke Decl. ¶ 9. But as FDA has stated, ENDS products
present fewer health risks than cigarettes and help many adult smokers move down the “continuum
of risk” for nicotine use,3 and the premarket review process must fully account for this.
3. Seeking approval for cigars poses its own challenges. FDA has substantially more
experience with SE Reports, having received over 5,000 of these types of applications for other
tobacco products. Folmar Decl. ¶ 6. But that experience does not bode well for efforts to prescribe
a fixed timetable. FDA as of April 2018 has issued final orders for only about 191 provisional
products, in no small part because FDA’s current SE process involves a litany of time-consuming
back-and-forth steps (including multi-disciplinary scientific review).4
Here, too, regulatory gaps abound. Cigars are different than cigarettes and present unique
additional challenges. There are currently no standardized testing methodologies for cigar smoke;
cigars do not fit standardized cigarette testing machines, and may have other unique attributes (like
plastic tips that affect inhalation). As with ENDS products, FDA has not yet provided guidance
as to which Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents (“HPHC”) manufacturers should test
for in cigars or how such testing should be conducted, see 21 U.S.C. § 387d(a)(3), and there is a
lack of accepted HPHC testing standards, methods, and equipment for these products. Bauersachs
Decl. ¶ 15; see Final Guidance at 28 & n.35. Nor has FDA grappled with how to standardize
3 See Protecting American Families: Comprehensive Plan for Nicotine and Tobacco, supra n.2;
Engelke Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.
4 See FDA, Substantial Equivalence: The Review Process, https://tinyurl.com/y3sm3lvt; Update
on Provisional Substantial Equivalence Review (Apr. 5, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/yyrhcwjt.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 9 of 19
8
testing results for cigar tobacco leaf, which displays much higher variability with respect to HPHC
yields than cigarette tobacco. FDA thus instructed manufacturers to stop submitting applications
on a trial-and-error basis pending further FDA action. Bauersachs Decl. ¶ 26.5
FDA is now amidst a rulemaking that may substantially affect all SE Reports. In April
2019, FDA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify what SE Reports should generally
include. Content and Format of Substantial Equivalence Reports, 84 Fed. Reg. 12,740 (April 2,
2019). The comment period (which FDA is extending) will close on July 17, 2019. FDA then
must decide how to finalize the rule in response to comments, as well as undergo OMB review.
Those processes will take time. And the proposed rule does not elucidate what cigar manufacturers
should submit for this unique product category, instead inviting “comments and information
[regarding] the parameters that may be needed to support an SE Report.” 84 Fed. Reg. 12,762.
Meanwhile, FDA is still weighing comments submitted in response to advance notices of proposed
rulemakings on “Regulation of Flavors in Tobacco Products,” 83 Fed. Reg. 12,294 (Mar. 21,
2018), and “Regulation of Premium Cigars,” 83 Fed. Reg. 12,901 (Mar. 26, 2018).
B. A Remand Is Necessary for FDA to Complete the Requisite Regulatory Steps
Given these considerations, the only proper remedy is a remand of the Guidance. FDA
cannot lawfully enforce any application deadline before it takes needed steps to flesh out the
premarket review process for ENDS and cigar products, and determines how much time is needed
for acceptable applications to obtain approval. But that process defies any predetermined
5 Trade associations have challenged the Deeming Rule’s premarket authorization provisions for
cigars and pipe tobacco. Cigar Ass’n of Am. v. FDA, No. 1:16-cv-1460, ECF No. 1 (D.D.C.).
After FDA announced the August 2017 Guidance, the parties, with court approval, agreed to defer
those challenges to give FDA time to act. Id., ECF No. 51 at 2–3. That suit has proceeded on the
understanding that FDA would undertake regulatory actions, including issuing a substantial
equivalence rule, to clarify the premarket review process for newly deemed products. Id., ECF
Nos. 53, 110, 112, 115, 119. The Court should not interfere with that process.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 10 of 19
9
timetable, not least because hard technical problems cannot be resolved at will. A remand is
needed so that FDA is not straitjacketed into a timetable that precludes reasoned deliberations.
1. No one argues that invalidating the August 2017 Guidance means that ENDS and cigar
products that were on the market as of August 8, 2016 (which are the only products to which that
guidance applies) should suddenly be forced off the market. As the Court recognized, that
Guidance replaced earlier guidance documents setting application deadlines that have already
passed. Op. at 9–10, 53. And, as the Court noted, “[i]t is undisputed that the FDA has some
discretion to adapt [TCA] provisions to the special circumstances of products that become subject
to the TCA . . . by virtue of deeming and, to that end, to permit a compliance period for newly
deemed products.” Id. at 8. Even Plaintiffs’ remedy presupposes that manufacturers and FDA
must have some period to submit and review applications, respectively.
But FDA, not the courts, must set that timetable in the first instance. “If courts were
empowered to enter general orders compelling compliance with broad statutory mandates, they
would necessarily be empowered, as well, to determine whether compliance was achieved.”
Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 66 (2004). If so, “it would ultimately become the
task of the supervising court, rather than the agency, to work out compliance with the broad
statutory mandate, injecting the judge into day-to-day agency management.” Id. at 66–67. But
“[t]he prospect of pervasive oversight by federal courts over the manner and pace of agency
compliance with such congressional directives is not contemplated by the APA.” Id. at 67; see
City of New York v. DOD, 913 F.3d 423, 429–31 (4th Cir. 2019) (similar).
2. A remand without vacatur is the only appropriate remedy under the APA. Black-letter
administrative law dictates that “set[ting] aside” unlawful agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)
is limited to either remanding the action to the agency (i.e., allowing the action to remain in effect
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 11 of 19
10
while the agency considers next steps) or vacating it (i.e., preventing the action from having further
force or effect). See Sierra Club v. Army Corps of Eng’s, 909 F.3d 635, 655 (4th Cir. 2018). And
courts have chosen remands when eliminating the agency action would leave a destabilizing void
or uncertainty while the agency determines what further action to take. E.g., N. Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176, 1177–78 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remanding without vacating an EPA rule despite having
concluded that EPA could not lawfully re-enact virtually any of it); see also Cal. Communities
Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989, 993–94 (9th Cir. 2012) (remanding without vacating rule
with concededly flawed rationale where vacatur “could well delay a much needed power plant”).
This case fits the same mold. The pre-Guidance deadlines cannot spring back into effect;
they have since expired (and also were not issued by rulemaking). See Op. at 53. But the Court
has concluded that any future timetable to replace the August 2017 Guidance likely must go
through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Id. at 53–54. To avoid confusion over the vacuum
created by vacating the existing Guidance in the interim, the Court should remand without vacatur.
At a minimum, the Court should avoid “impairing the interim administration” of the Deeming Rule
by staying any order to vacate the Guidance until FDA takes necessary next steps. See Northern
Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 88–89 (1982).6
II. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedy Is Unlawful
A. Plaintiffs’ Timeframe Would Invalidate the Deeming Rule
Plaintiffs would give manufacturers a mere 120 days from the Court’s order to submit
applications, and would give FDA twelve more months to process those applications. Any
proposed remedy that could force amici’s products off the market without a full and fair
6 While the Court has indicated that it is vacating the Guidance, Op. at 53, courts have shifted from
vacatur to remand in similar circumstances. E.g., N. Carolina, 550 F.3d at 1177–78.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 12 of 19
11
opportunity to obtain marketing orders would expose the Deeming Rule to legal challenge under
the APA. The TCA does not empower FDA to summarily declare entire classes of tobacco (or
“deemed tobacco”) products illegal. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 387g(d)(3); H.R. Rep. No. 111–58, pt.
1, at 2 (2009) (Act does not grant authority to “ban[] a class of nicotine products, such as all
cigarettes”). To the contrary, the TCA only gives FDA the power to deem products subject to the
statute. And the TCA plainly anticipates a process by which manufacturers may submit
applications seeking approval of those products—approval that FDA may deny only upon specific
consideration and findings. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(2).
Cognizant of that reality, FDA did not contemplate in the Deeming Rule that it could force
existing products from the market before PMTAs or SE Reports could be submitted, reviewed,
and acted upon. Nor did that Rule address the impact of such a drastic outcome. Rather, one of
FDA’s core assumptions in that Rule was that FDA could consider and address these potential
impacts during the application review process, and after FDA clarified what the application
process should entail. See 81 Fed. Reg. 28,974, 29,010/1-2 (May 10, 2016). Indeed, when
commenters emphasized the public health benefits of ENDS and “argued that restrictions on access
to the newly deemed products would be detrimental to public health,” FDA responded that its
“consideration of [the] public health benefits” of the products “will be included in FDA’s review
of PMTAs based on the evidence.” Id. at 28,995/1 (emphasis added).
If, as plaintiffs maintain, the Deeming Rule may be administered in a way that pulls
thousands of products off the market without a real opportunity to seek FDA review, then the Rule
violates the TCA and the APA’s requirement that agencies consider an “important aspect of the
problem,” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)—
namely, the economic consequences of devastating multi-billion dollar industries, and the
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 13 of 19
12
attendant adverse effects on public health that FDA said it would assess before barring products.
Further, the Deeming Rule would fail for having “misconceived the law.” SEC v. Chenery
Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943). The Rule rests on FDA’s legal view that “[a]gency compliance/
enforcement policies”—including “the relevant time periods” by which amici would be required
to submit a PMTA—are “not subject to the requirements that govern notice-and-comment
rulemaking,” and that FDA could extend those periods as needed. 81 Fed. Reg. at 28,977. If FDA
lacks the flexibility to allow products to remain on the market during the period needed to finalize
the application process and for applications to be received and reviewed, an essential legal premise
of the Rule is invalid, as is the Rule itself.
B. Plaintiffs’ Remedy Would Otherwise Violate the APA
1. Plaintiffs’ proposed court-imposed timetable would flout the APA by impermissibly
dictating the outcome of notice-and-comment rulemaking. Under the Court’s opinion, FDA
cannot impose such a “compliance period” without “adher[ing] to the notice and comment
requirements of the APA.” Op. 53; see id. at 54 (contemplating “notice and comment period” for
the adoption of “new Guidance”); Dkt. No. 84, at 2 (similar). Agencies cannot render the
rulemaking process a sham by pre-judging the outcome before commenters can convey concerns.
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). Forcing FDA to adopt a
fixed timetable would ensure that such a final rule is invalidated, which would only delay FDA.
2. Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy would also be arbitrary and capricious, for several reasons.
First, forcing manufacturers into a process where they would lack a meaningful opportunity to
submit applications or were abruptly forced to pull their products from the shelves would be
quintessential arbitrary and capricious agency action, particularly given the reliance interests FDA
has created. See Encino, 136 S. Ct. at 2126. FDA, after all, deemed products before establishing
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 14 of 19
13
a process to review them, and assured manufacturers that they will have meaningful guidance and
meaningful time to submit applications. Forcing FDA to abandon those assurances and adopt a
timetable that makes a mockery of deliberation during the premarket review process would subject
FDA’s ensuing actions to invalidation.
Second, a key part of premarket review is what applications must contain for FDA to
meaningfully review them. But, despite the new PMTA Guidance, FDA still has not made clear
what it wants PMTAs to include, let alone filled gaps for SE Reports. In the next 120 days, FDA
cannot conceivably fill all of those holes. But it would be arbitrary and capricious to order FDA
to conduct premarket review in a manner that precludes it from considering centrally “important
aspect[s] of” what it seeks to regulate. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43.
Third, Plaintiffs’ artificial 120-day deadline to file applications would ensure arbitrary and
capricious determinations by depriving manufacturers of a meaningful opportunity to submit
quality applications. ENDS products are novel and generally require time-consuming and
exhaustive PMTA applications, which require population-level data beyond individual safety. The
first PMTA for a smokeless tobacco product relied heavily on long-term (30+ year) epidemiology
data from Sweden, and the most recent PMTA, for the IQOS Tobacco Heating System, involved
about two million pages of submissions, over 35 studies, and over two years of FDA review (when
no other application had been accepted for filing). Engelke Decl. ¶ 20; Benson Decl. ¶¶ 15–17;
IQOS Briefing Document for Tobacco Prod. Sci. Advisory Comm. at 8 (Dec. 2017),
https://tinyurl.com/yy63pdl4. Ordering ENDS manufacturers to submit PMTA applications with
120 days thus may force FDA to forgo requests for studies and tests that it otherwise would
consider. Likewise, SE Reports involve amassing studies and technical data—but until FDA says
what it wants, cigar manufacturers would have to either forgo the information or take a kitchen-
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 15 of 19
14
sink approach to their applications. Either way, this rushed process would unfairly hamper their
chances of navigating the premarket review process for products that have been on the market in
largely the same form for decades. Folmar Decl. ¶ 14; Bauersachs Decl. ¶¶ 2, 29, 31–33.
Fourth, Plaintiffs’ compressed timetable would deprive FDA of any meaningful time to
review applications. Plaintiffs would give FDA twelve months from receipt of an application to
review FDA’s existing backlog and all new applications, and would force any unapproved
products off the market thereafter. But, to date, FDA has resolved only 5% of some 5,000 PMTA
and SE Report submissions; any pending ENDS or cigar applications would apparently be swept
into Plaintiffs’ one-year timetable for an FDA decision. Folmar Decl. ¶ 6. There is reason to doubt
even one ENDS PMTA could be resolved under Plaintiffs’ schedule, let alone the thousands that
would be expected were the Court to enter Plaintiffs’ proposed remedial order. FDA has never
resolved a PMTA for an ENDS product, and the most recent PMTA for a non-ENDS product took
over two years to process (at a time when hardly any other PMTAs were pending). Engelke Decl.
¶ 20. Yet estimates of expected ENDS PMTAs range from 750 to tens of thousands. See Preamble,
Deeming Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 29,078 (May 16, 2016); Deeming Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 29,091 (May
10, 2016). As for cigars, Plaintiffs’ timetable similarly fails to allow for meaningful review given
FDA’s backlog of thousands of SE Reports and the agency’s track record of processing such
applications to date. Bauersachs Decl. ¶¶ 16–17; Folmar Decl. ¶¶ 6–8. But Plaintiffs’ proposal
would flood FDA with an unpreceded deluge of applications, all on a one-year clock.
III. Plaintiffs’ Proposal Would Devastate Industry and Jeopardize Public Health
Plaintiffs’ abrupt timetable would risk forcing ENDS products off the market and
destroying the multibillion-dollar ENDS industry. Manufacturers have planned the onset and
duration of long-term studies to correspond with FDA’s deadlines in the August 2017 Guidance.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 16 of 19
15
Hobbling manufacturers’ ability to file adequate PMTAs, and forcing FDA to deny applications it
fails to complete on an unrealistic timetable, could drive ENDS products off the market. Wiping
out that industry would endanger public health, risking a significant reversal in the historic
downward trend of cancer-causing cigarette consumption. Many of the roughly 14 million ENDS
users have switched, or are transitioning, from very harmful cigarettes to ENDS products.
Woessner Decl. ¶ 15; Engelke Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.
Plaintiffs similarly overlook the serious hardships their proposal would inflict on the cigar
industry. Needless to say, forcing cigar products off the market if FDA could not complete its
premarket review process within a year would significantly harm manufacturers, and that could
translate into job losses, loss of tax revenue, and other unpredictable consequences. Bauersachs
Decl. ¶¶ 32—33; Anton Decl. ¶ 19. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs have not even tried to assert that their
proposal would somehow promote access to reliable public-health data, creating doubts about
whether their proposal redresses the injuries they claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).
CONCLUSION
This Court should remand the Guidance to give FDA the flexibility it needs—and which
the APA demands—to clarify critical aspects of the TCA as applied to ENDS and cigar products
and to complete pending rulemakings. If instead the Court orders vacatur, it should stay that ruling
until FDA imposes another timetable, or otherwise make clear that deemed products may remain
on the market as an orderly process is established for their application and review.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 17 of 19
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Eugene Scalia (with permission)
Eugene Scalia (12182)
GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 955-8500 (Telephone)
(202) 530-9606 (Facsimile)
Counsel for JUUL Labs, Inc.
/s/ Philip Perry (with permission)
Philip J. Perry (Pro hac vice)
Andrew D. Prins (10597)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 637-2200 (Telephone)
(202) 637-2201 (Facsimile)
Counsel for ITG Brands LLC
/s/ Eric Gotting (with permission)
Eric Gotting (20278)
KELLER & HECKMAN LLP
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 434-4230 (Telephone)
(202) 434-4646 (Facsimile)
Counsel for Right to Be Smoke-Free
Coalition, et al.
/s/ Lisa S. Blatt
Lisa S. Blatt (Pro hac vice)
Liam J. Montgomery (28978)
David J. Ryan (20484)
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 434-5000 (Telephone)
(202) 434-5029 (Facsimile)
Counsel for John Middleton Co. and Consumer
Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives
Association
/s/ Paul D. Clement (with permission)
Paul D. Clement (Pro hac vice pending)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 389-5000 (Telephone)
(202) 389-5200 (Facsimile)
Jennifer A. Davidson (23012)
KLEINFELD, KAPLAN & BECKER LLP
1850 M Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 223-5120 (Telephone)
(202) 223-5619 (Facsimile)
Counsel for NJOY LLC
Dated: June 12, 2019
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 18 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 12, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court of the District of Maryland by using the CM/ECF system, which filing will
provide service to all parties and amici.
/s/ David J. Ryan
David J. Ryan (20484)
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113 Filed 06/12/19 Page 19 of 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
PEDIATRICS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 8:18-cv-883-PWG
INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
Exhibit A Declaration of Ryan Bauersachs
Exhibit B Declaration of Julie Woessner
Exhibit C Declaration of Joanna Engelke
Exhibit D Declaration of Carole Folmar
Exhibit E Declaration of David Graham
Exhibit F Declaration of Mark Anton
Exhibit G Declaration of Stacey Benson
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 7 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 8 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 9 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 10 of 11
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-2 Filed 06/12/19 Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT B
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-3 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 6
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 8:18-cv-883-PWG
I, Julia T. Woessner, declare as follows:
1. I am over 18 years of age. I am National Policy Director for the Consumer
Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (“CASAA”). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration.
I. CASAA’s Work and its Members.
2. CASAA is a 501(c)(4) non-profit with an all-volunteer board and a grassroots membership of more than 250,000 users of smoke-free alternatives from all walks of life.
3. As part of my work with CASAA, I am in continuous contact with our membership to determine what issues are most important to them. I am an administrator of a Facebook group of approximately 22,000 members, and I review and participate in discussions, which include, among other things, what factors our members believe are most important to them in terms of helping smokers replace their smoking habit with smoke-free alternatives. Moreover, I attend conventions open to consumers and regularly communicate with our members regarding advocacy-related issues.
4. In addition, from 2013 to 2018, I administered the CASAA Testimonials Project where our members share their success stories, often discussing in great detail the types of devices and specific brands and flavors of smoke-free alternatives that they find most satisfying. To date, we have collected over 11,000 testimonials. Our members consistently tell us that they value access to a diverse range of effective and enjoyable products at a reasonable cost, and they reject what they feel is overly restrictive or burdensome government regulation of these products.
5. In 2015, CASAA conducted an extensive member survey of various issues, including the role that flavors play in transitioning from cigarettes to vapor products (“CASAA’s
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-3 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 6
4
Survey”). CASAA’s Survey can be found at https://antithrlies.com/2016/01/04/casaa-ecig-survey-results/. In CASAA’s Survey, approximately 87% of the survey population (17,186 out of 19,823 individuals) indicated that they completely replaced their smoking habit after starting to use such products.
6. CASAA supports regulations that prevent youth exposure to vapor products. But the availability of flavors for adults is not a mere frivolity. There is no question from our data that flavors (including the availability of a variety of flavors) play an important role in permitting adults to successfully make and maintain a complete transition away from cigarette smoking. For example, many of our members report that the availability of a non-tobacco flavor was instrumental in allowing them to distance themselves from their smoking habit. Reducing adult users’ enjoyment by arbitrarily restricting the availability of flavors hinders their ability to switch, which in turn endangers public health overall.
7. CASAA’s members are concerned that, without a compliance period that allows manufacturers enough time to file pre-market applications with FDA, they will not have access to the wide variety of products on which they rely to significantly reduce their smoking or to completely switch away from their smoking habits and to remain smoke-free.
8. In the final analysis, if consumers do not have access to these products, there is a substantial risk that they will return to their old smoking habits or feel forced to rely on do-it-yourself (“DIY”) activities or an unregulated black market for liquids and devices. This is not merely a theoretical concern. In CASAA’s Survey, respondents were asked how they would respond if the only e-liquids that could be sold were tobacco and menthol flavored. The vast majority of the survey population—89%—indicated that they would continue to use their preferred flavors by purchasing from overseas, purchasing on the domestic black market, and/or by making or flavoring e-liquid themselves. When asked what they would do in response to a total ban on all vapor products, 93% of the survey population indicated they would continue to use the products they enjoy by either purchasing from overseas or a domestic black market, or by engaging in DIY activities.
II. Regulatory Process
9. Many manufacturers of vapor products are smaller companies that may lack the knowledge and resources to engage in a complex and uncertain regulatory process on the timelines Plaintiffs have proposed (indeed, it is my understanding that even sophisticated companies and the FDA itself would likely be unable to meet these timelines).
10. The process for vapor product manufacturers to submit premarket applications is still very uncertain. FDA only issued its Final Guidance for Industry on ENDS PMTAs on June 11, 2019. See FDA, Premarket Tobacco Product Applications for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (June 11, 2019), available at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/premarket-tobacco-product-applications-electronic-nicotine-delivery-systems-ends. Moreover, the Guidance leaves important issues unresolved and indicates that what FDA expects for ENDS PMTAs will continue to be a moving target. See, e.g., id. at 28
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-3 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 6
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-3 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 6
4
industry would be out of work or out of business, and adult consumers would be deprived of a product that helps to dramatically reduce their health risks by substantially reducing or completely eliminating their smoking habits.
15. This would leave as many as 14 million people who use vapor products with fewer or no options. Although some may quit entirely, our data indicate that most would likely turn back to other sources of nicotine, including smoking, which is indisputably the most harmful source of nicotine. Still others may turn to black-market products that carry their own potential health and safety risks, to say nothing of the increase in crime and loss of tax revenue caused by such illicit trade.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-3 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 6
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Executed on June 11, 2019.
Julia T. Woessner
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-3 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT C
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
* AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
PEDIATRICS, et al., * Plaintiffs, * * Case No.: PWG-18-883 v. * FOOD AND DRUG *
ADMINISTRATION, et al., * Defendants, *
JUUL LABS, INC., * * Amicus * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DECLARATION OF JOANNA ENGELKE ON BEHALF OF JUUL LABS, INC.
I, Joanna Engelke, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2746, declare:
1. I am employed by JUUL Labs, Inc. (“JLI”) as its Chief Quality and Regulatory Officer.
I have worked at JLI since February, 2018. During that time I have provided quality and compliance
oversight to JLI’s products. My more than 30 years of experience since receiving an M.B.A. from
Harvard University includes executive leadership of global quality and regulatory matters at Boston
Scientific and Managing Director of Halloran Consulting Group, Inc., a national consultancy to life
sciences companies. The information in this declaration is based on (i) my personal knowledge;
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 25
2
(ii) the business records of JLI; and (iii) the personal knowledge of others at JLI from whom I
received the information.
COMPANY BACKGROUND
2. JLI is a San Francisco-based company dedicated to improving the lives of the world’s
one billion smokers by eliminating cigarettes. To further that goal, JLI has developed a nicotine-
delivery system, by pioneering vapor technology, to provide adult smokers with a viable
alternative to combustible cigarettes. JLI is the number one vapor-product manufacturer in the
United States.
3. The Company’s founders, James Monsees and Adam Bowen, both of whom are now
former smokers, conceived the idea that became JLI to provide a real alternative to traditional
combustible cigarettes. Graduates of Stanford University’s Design School in the mid-2000s,
they pioneered groundbreaking technology that aimed to improve the lives of smokers. As
smokers themselves, they saw a gap in the alternative smoking environment for adults who
wanted to switch from combustible cigarettes. Mr. Monsees and Mr. Bowen saw a lack of
development in the tobacco industry, and sought to leverage their own design and scientific
know-how to develop an alternative for adult smokers, one that would provide a nicotine
experience that was similar to cigarettes, was easy to use, and did not involve combustion.
4. The JUUL system is a closed-system vapor platform with three components: (1) an
electronic device that couples with (2) a nicotine-containing liquid pod at one end and (3) a
charger at the other end. The JUUL system generates a nicotine aerosol vapor for inhalation.
The pod is filled with a nicotine and benzoic acid formulation (“e-liquid”) that is designed to
appeal to adult smokers and facilitate their switch away from combustible cigarettes.
5. JLI products have been designed for adult smokers only, for the purpose of
transitioning them from combustible cigarettes.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 25
3
6. Different tobacco products—cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco like dip or snuff,
and ENDS—have different risk profiles. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has noted
repeatedly that a “key piece of the FDA’s approach is demonstrating a greater awareness that
nicotine—while highly addictive—is delivered through products that represent a continuum of
risk and is most harmful when delivered through smoke particles in combustible cigarettes,” and
is less harmful when delivered through ENDS. News Release, FDA, FDA announces
comprehensive regulatory plan to shift trajectory of tobacco-related disease, death (July 28,
2017) (“FDA News Release”). There is a growing global recognition of the public health benefit
of moving current adult smokers down the continuum of risk from combustible tobacco to
electronic nicotine. For instance, Public Health England, the British government agency
principally responsible for public health, has concluded that e-cigarettes are approximately 95%
less harmful than combustible cigarettes. See Brose, McNeil, et al., E-cigarettes: an evidence
update, A report commissioned by Public Health England 5 (Aug. 2015), available at
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file
/733022/Ecigarettes_an_evidence_update_A_report_commissioned_by_Public_Health_England
_FINAL.pdf.
7. The increase in the sales of JUUL products has corresponded with a significant
population-wide transition away from combustible cigarettes. Cigarette-pack sales volumes have
declined dramatically. Syndicated market data provided by the Nielsen Company’s “Answers in
Demand Services for the Total Store/Tobacco Category” show that in a recent four-week period,
for example, cigarette sales volumes dropped by more than 11% year-over-year. This compares
favorably with the compound annual decline rate of 2.7% from 2011 to 2016 according to the
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. The Nielsen syndicated data show that the trend
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 25
4
away from combustible cigarettes is most pronounced where JLI has high market penetration: in
New York City, Portland, Oklahoma City, Seattle and Denver, declines accelerated from 3.0%
year-over-year one year ago to 13.9% in a recent reporting period.
8. JLI has reiterated many times, and it continues to maintain, that no youth and no non-
nicotine user should ever use an Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (“ENDS”) product. The
Company does not sell “Juice Box,” “Pop Corn,” or any remotely similar product of the type that
the Court expressed concern about in its May 15, 2019 Memorandum Opinion, D.E. 73. See
Opinion at 3 n.5.
9. The Company has also worked proactively to prevent youth from using its products.
These efforts include, among other things, creating a comprehensive action plan to address youth
access, appeal, and use of JUUL products that it submitted to FDA in November 2018. Some of
the elements of that plan, and some of JLI’s related initiatives, include:
• JLI supports and has advocated for an increase in the minimum age to purchase tobacco products, including vapor, to 21 years old nationwide;
• JLI has ceased selling non-tobacco and non-menthol based flavored JUUL products to more than 90,000 traditional retail outlets;
• JLI has limited the sale of flavored products, other than tobacco and menthol-based, to online sales through JUUL.com, which (i) uses third-party age-verification, two-factor authentication, and facial-recognition technology to help ensure that persons ordering online are at least 21 years of age (even if state law permits tobacco purchases at age 18), and (ii) limits the amount of product that can be purchased;
• JLI has expanded its secret-shopper program that checks 2,000 stores per month to ensure compliance with age-verification and company-specific bulk purchasing requirements;
• JLI has exited U.S. Facebook and Instagram accounts; • JLI is deploying technologically-based solutions to prevent youth access and use,
including establishing full system product traceability to identify where youth are obtaining product illegally;
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 25
5
• JLI has developed a standard-based approach for point-of-sale systems, which includes automated scanning of government-issued identification to verify age and validity and an automated block on bulk purchases, and is partnering with retailers to deploy this technology in brick-and-mortar stores to restrict youth access to JUUL products;
• JLI uses only adults in JUUL ads;
• JLI has committed tens of millions of dollars to youth education and prevention, community engagement, and independent research on youth prevention; and
• JLI uses brand slogans that target adult smokers, such as “Make the Switch” and “The Alternative for Adult Smokers.”
PMTA PROCESS
10. The Tobacco Control Act requires manufacturers of “new tobacco products” to seek
FDA premarket authorization for the product to be in interstate commerce. For vapor products,
this generally requires manufacturers to submit a premarket tobacco product application
(“PMTA”) capable of showing that allowing the marketing of such product would be appropriate
for the protection of the public health. The statute requires FDA, when reviewing a PMTA, to
evaluate “the risks and benefits to the population as a whole,” after taking into account (i) “the
increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such
products” and (ii) “the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco
products will start using such products.” 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(4). This standard is not further
defined in the statute.
11. In 2016, FDA released a guidance document, in draft form, regarding PMTAs for
ENDS products. FDA, Draft Guidance for Industry, Premarket Tobacco Product Applications
for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (May 2016) (“Draft PMTA Guidance”). The draft
guidance set forth FDA’s proposed recommendations regarding the contents of an application.
When FDA issues final guidance, it describes “the agency’s interpretation of or policy on a
regulatory issue.” 21 CFR § 10.115(b). Because FDA guidance represents the agency’s views,
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 25
6
“FDA employees may depart from guidance documents only with appropriate justification and
supervisory concurrence.” Id. § 10.115(d)(3). Yesterday (June 11, 2019), FDA issued its Final
PMTA Guidance for ENDS products, which replaces the Draft Guidance. FDA, Guidance for
Industry, Premarket Tobacco Product Applications for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
(June 11, 2019), available at http://bit.ly/2XFfWdy (“Final PMTA Guidance”). It will take time
for JLI to review and carefully analyze the Final Guidance (which is 52 single-spaced pages),
including a comparison to the Draft Guidance in order to appreciate fully what has changed,
what still is missing, and how the Final Guidance will affect the work JLI has been doing so far
to prepare PMTAs. In the short amount of time the Final Guidance has been available, our
review has identified a number of areas in which FDA will need to provide further information—
through formal guidance, FDA meetings, public meetings, or otherwise—in order for JLI to
complete and submit PMTAs. The Final Guidance describes an exacting and time-consuming
process that may still take years to complete.
12. As detailed in the Final PMTA Guidance, any PMTA should contain a
comprehensive assessment of each product that includes, among other things, manufacturing
methods and standards, clinical and non-clinical studies, human health surveys, and a population
health model. The Final Guidance confirms that manufacturers are encouraged to include
“detailed technical information and analysis concerning” the product’s manufacturing facilities.
Final PMTA Guidance at 25. FDA also continues to recommend in its new Final PMTA
Guidance validation and accreditation to ensure that a company manufactures a consistent
product over time and meets the specifications listed in the application. Id. at 26, 30-31. The
Final PMTA Guidance, like the Draft Guidance, states that FDA will provide “tobacco product
manufacturing practices, which will be set forth in a future rulemaking,” to help manufacturers
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 7 of 25
7
satisfy various criteria. Id. at 11. FDA has not stated when it expects to complete the
rulemaking that sets forth these recommended tobacco product manufacturing practices. It
appears from the Final Guidance, though, that FDA may apply future requirements that result
from such rulemaking to a PMTA that is begun before, but submitted after, the rulemaking is
completed. Id. at 11 n.18.
13. FDA also recommends that manufacturers undertake non-clinical studies. Id. at 31.
Non-clinical studies include, for example, in vitro (outside of a living organism, such as in a
culture dish) studies that test cytotoxicity (whether the components are toxic to cells) and
genotoxicity (whether the components affect genetic material). Final PMTA Guidance at 34-35.
The Final PMTA Guidance also refers to in vivo (inside a living organism, such as a mouse)
studies to determine toxicity levels. Id. at 35. These tests, which FDA traditionally expects for
non-tobacco products, should be performed by accredited laboratories, which is usually
accomplished by hiring a third-party laboratory inspected and approved by FDA.
14. The Final PMTA Guidance confirms that the manufacturer must include in its
application “a full statement of the components, ingredients, additives, and properties, and of the
principle or principles of operation” of the product. Final PMTA Guidance at 26. “FDA
interprets this requirement” from the Tobacco Control Act “to mean that [an applicant] should
provide a complete list of uniquely identified components, ingredients, and additives by quantity
in the new product, as well as the applicable specifications and a description of the intended
function for each.” Id. The new Final Guidance also recommends that any testing “reflect the
range of operating conditions,” such as different temperatures and settings, as well as different
“use patterns (e.g., intense and non-intense use conditions) within which consumers are likely to
use” the product, and the “types of products that consumers are likely to use in conjunction with”
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 8 of 25
8
applicant’s products. Id. at 27-28. The practical effect is that manufacturers will need to test the
product’s components under a wide range of use and operating condition assumptions, not only
at the time that the product is created, but also after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months to determine whether
the product’s characteristics (such as their chemical composition) are stable or, instead, change
over time.
15. FDA’s Final Guidance also states that when a product “has not yet been sufficiently
reviewed, new nonclinical and clinical studies may be necessary.” Final PMTA Guidance at 46.
FDA says it does not expect “long-term” clinical or non-clinical studies, where “long-term” is
defined as lasting six months or longer, to be included in PMTAs. Id. at 13, 31, 37. But the
Final Guidance further states: “To evaluate the acute and chronic health effects associated with
the product, FDA recommends including studies, other scientific evidence, or both, that identify
biomarkers of exposure, biomarkers of harm, and health outcome measurements or endpoints.”
Id. at 37, 40. In a section about “[h]ealth outcomes” FDA recommends data measuring changes
to “heart rate and blood pressure” as well as longer-term effects such as “changes in lung,
cardiac, and metabolic function. Id. at 40-41. Under the Final PMTA Guidance, FDA interprets
the Tobacco Control Act to require inclusion of “a full narrative description of the way in which
a consumer will use the new tobacco product, including a description of how a consumer
operates the product, how the manufacturer reasonably believes a consumer could change the
product characteristics, adjust the performance, or add or subtract ingredients.” Id. at 30.
16. The Final PMTA Guidance also suggests that an evaluation of product use patterns
consider, among other things, “the trends by which users consume the product over time.” Final
PMTA Guidance at 38-39. “FDA recommends that information and data on product use,
including use in conjunction with other tobacco products, be assessed, when possible, by factors
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 9 of 25
9
that may be expected to influence such patterns, such as age group (including youth and young
adults), sex, race, ethnicity, and education.” Id. at 39. The Final PMTA Guidance recommends,
when conducting studies, to “ensure, to the extent possible, that the study findings are
generalizable to the population of U.S. users and nonusers of” the new tobacco product. Id. at
41. Evaluations of consumer perception should identify consumer perceptions of the product,
both in an absolute sense and in comparison to other categories of tobacco products or quitting
tobacco use. Id. at 38. Evaluations should also address the likelihood of initiation and cessation
by both users and nonusers of tobacco products. Id.
17. As alluded to above, the Tobacco Control Act requires that the manufacturer make a
“showing that permitting such tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for the
protection of the public health.” 21 U.S.C. 387j(c)(2)(A). This suggests that manufacturers may
need to create a population health model to assess the net-population impact of their products,
including use by current and new users of tobacco products. FDA’s Final PMTA Guidance does
not offer insight into how to construct a proper population health model for ENDS products.
18. FDA asserts that “[t]he recommendations made in [the Final] guidance document are
substantially similar to those set forth in the draft guidance issued on May 5, 2016” and that if a
manufacturer has “taken measures consistent with the draft guidance, they will generally be
consistent with the recommendations herein.” Final PMTA Guidance at 2. Yet there are some
material changes in FDA’s position in the Final PMTA Guidance, including the agency’s
expectations on the duration and form of the studies required to support a PMTA. Compare,
e.g., Final PMTA Guidance at 14 with Draft PMTA Guidance at 14 (regarding the specific
comparisons recommended for the assessment of health risks between a new tobacco product
and marketed products); Final PMTA Guidance at 13, 31, 37 with Draft PMTA Guidance at 44
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 10 of 25
10
(regarding the agency’s position on “long-term” studies in such contexts as clinical studies of
biomarkers of exposure). Moreover, FDA repeatedly acknowledged that its draft guidance
provided insufficient information for regulated entities to prepare a compliant PMTA. In July
2017, FDA stated that an extended compliance policy was necessary “to issue foundational rules
to make the product review process more efficient, predictable, and transparent for
manufacturers,” “to issue regulations outlining what information the agency expects to be
included in Premarket Tobacco Applications,” and to “finalize guidance on how it intends to
review PMTAs.” See FDA News Release. The Commissioner at that time explained during a
November 2017 speech that FDA “pushed off product application deadlines for certain of the
newly deemed products in particular to allow the ENDS to continue to advance while we got in
place foundational reg[ulation]s that would define how we would require product applications to
come into FDA.” Scott Gottlieb, Address at National Press Club, at 32:16-34 (Nov. 3, 2017).1
He explained that FDA intended to advance regulations that “are going to lay out what that
product application process is. The foundational regulations for the tobacco program were never
put in place, and so we are going to take the time to put those in place.” Id. at 33:08-20. In
August 2018, FDA repeated that “foundational proposed rules” were needed “regarding the basic
‘rules of the road,’ especially when it comes to what’s expected in premarket applications.”
FDA, Advancing Tobacco Regulation to Protect Children and Families: Updates & New
Initiatives from the FDA on the Anniversary of the Tobacco Control Act & FDA’s
Comprehensive Plan for Nicotine (Aug. 2, 2018).
1 Available at https://www.c-span.org/video/?436197-1/fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-addresses-national-
press-club
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 11 of 25
11
19. The new deadlines that FDA set in August 2017 for submitting a PMTA have
significantly affected JLI’s planning for various studies and other work that the Company is
performing, and will be performing, for use in connection with PMTAs. In order to prepare a
high-quality PMTA – one that contains the quantity and quality of information most helpful to
FDA’s review process – the durations of the studies and other work that the Company is
performing, and will be performing, were chosen in line with having the application completed
and submitted by August 2022 (the date set forth in the August 2017 guidance for ENDS
products). For example, as explained more below, the Company’s human health surveys and
nonclinical stability testing were designed to fit within a timetable under which the application
would be submitted in August 2022 or earlier.
20. The brief filed by Plaintiffs on May 29, 2019, states that no further PMTA guidance
was needed from FDA, but FDA’s subsequent release of Final Guidance, which differs from the
Draft Guidance, shows otherwise. Plaintiffs’ brief gives the example of products manufactured
for the IQOS Tobacco Heating System that recently received an FDA marketing order based on a
PMTA. Pl’s Opening Br. On Remedies, D.E. 78, at 10-12 & n.11. The IQOS Tobacco Heating
System products are not ENDS products. Instead, as the FDA release cited in footnote 11 of
Plaintiffs’ brief describes them, they are part of a device that heats tobacco-filled sticks wrapped
in paper to generate a nicotine-containing aerosol. See News Release, FDA, FDA permits sale of
IQOS Tobacco Heating System through premarket tobacco product application pathway (Apr.
30, 2019), available at https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-permits-sale-
iqos-tobacco-heating-system-through-premarket-tobacco-product-application-pathway. Because
of this composition, IQOS products “meet the definition of a cigarette in the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act.” Id. The manufacturer of the IQOS products did not need guidance from
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 12 of 25
12
FDA for PMTAs for ENDS products, because they are not ENDS products. Moreover, it took
FDA more than two years to complete its review of the application for the IQOS products. FDA
announced its decision on April 30, 2019. Although, as just noted, FDA review did not involve
an ENDS product, FDA made a number of statements in connection with issuing its IQOS
marketing order that JLI is considering in an effort to understand how FDA might approach its
review of PMTAs for ENDS products. These statements are apart from, and in addition to, the
new Final Guidance.
JLI’S PMTA EFFORTS BEFORE THE RELEASE OF FINAL GUIDANCE
21. Notwithstanding a lack of finalized PMTA guidance for ENDS products before
yesterday, JLI had already been at work on the necessary studies, and had gathered the required
information, to the extent possible. To that end, JLI has dedicated 87 full-time employees to
conducting the work necessary to, and to preparing, its PMTAs. The number of employees
working on the PMTA process is expected to grow to more than 150 by the end of this year. JLI
has already dedicated more than $50 million to preparing the applications, and it plans to spend a
total of more than $125 million by the end of 2019. The absence of sufficient information from
FDA on what specifically those applications must include has caused JLI to be conservative in
its preparations in order to guard against FDA penalizing it for a lack of thoroughness. This
necessarily means that progress has been slower, and will take longer, than if JLI had more
specific instructions.
Meetings with FDA for Information on Survey and Test Design
22. In an effort to address the issues and questions left unresolved by the Draft PMTA
Guidance, JLI availed itself of an FDA process for submitting questions about the preparation
and review of PMTAs for ENDS products. For example, JLI used the feedback at one of the
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 13 of 25
13
earlier meetings, in January 2018, to help inform its understanding of FDA’s expectations for its
PMTA.
23. Further meetings have been necessary. FDA’s process for requesting, planning,
participating in, and receiving feedback following such meetings is involved. For example,
another meeting with FDA occurred in February 2019. A total of four months passed between
the date JLI requested the meeting (in November 2018) and FDA’s written feedback following
the meeting. Before JLI could attend the meeting it needed to submit, at least 45 days before the
meeting date, a detailed “briefing document,” known as a Meeting Information Package for
Premarket Tobacco Product Application. The document, 29 pages plus attachments, contained
required product information and a list of 13 detailed, multi-part questions for the agency. JLI’s
stated purpose for this meeting was to receive FDA feedback on the specific questions it had
about preparing JLI’s PMTA submission.
24. JLI received written feedback from FDA in March 2019. That feedback was
important to JLI on a number of fundamental issues. For example, FDA responded to questions
with factors and approaches that JLI should consider in determining how many permutations of
product flavors and nicotine concentrations it should subject to a number of different types of
clinical, nonclinical, and analytical chemistry testing. FDA also suggested that, in identifying
the physical characteristics of each e-liquid subject to the PMTA, JLI should add at least five
metrics to the list that was proposed by JLI. As another example, FDA advised JLI that, before
undertaking a particular type of toxicology study, it should request a follow-up meeting with the
agency to discuss specific design parameters to be incorporated into such a study. FDA also
referenced its May 2016 draft PMTA guidance, and explained that, when finalized, it would
represent the Agency’s current thinking on this issue.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 14 of 25
14
25. On another topic at the February 2019 meeting, FDA stated that, while it does not
have specific requirements governing the types of experimental models and toxicity endpoints to
be measured in a PMTA for tobacco products, JLI should consider a number of specific things to
include in the PMTA relevant to those tests, and FDA identified four non-FDA guidance
documents that may be useful. FDA also provided responses on important questions about how
to determine, under the Draft PMTA Guidance at the time, when “batches” used in sampling are
“different,” and what constitutes a “replicate” for each batch. This information was needed to
satisfy the proposed recommendation in the Draft PMTA Guidance that data sets span “a
minimum of three different batches with a minimum of ten replicates per batch, with date and
time sampling points.” Draft PMTA Guidance at 24; see also Final PMTA Guidance at 25-26
(changing the number of suggested replicates to “generally seven or more”). FDA responded by
explaining, with examples, that the answers vary according to the purpose of each test. FDA
also clarified that, while the sampling protocol described in the relevant section of the Draft
PMTA Guidance operates as a minimum, a number of factors which it set forth at the meeting
could raise or lower the numbers. FDA also suggested how to go about justifying the choice and
clarified that, in the absence of FDA guidance regarding replicate and batch testing for tobacco
products at this time there are multiple ways to conduct batch testing. This was all information
that FDA provided for the first time in connection with the February 2019 meeting.
26. This need for meetings to gain clarification and further guidance still exists even now
that Final PMTA Guidance has been published. In fact, the Final Guidance recommends
requesting such a meeting in multiple circumstances. See, e.g., Final PMTA Guidance at 36
(suggesting a meeting before conducting non-animal based tests); 37 (suggesting a meeting if
planning to conduct any computational modeling); 13 (suggesting a meeting to discuss
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 15 of 25
15
alternatives to well-controlled investigations); 26 (same, specific to demonstrating
appropriateness for human health); 22 (suggesting a meeting to discuss product samples before
submitting them); 28 (suggesting a meeting to consult on which harmful and potentially harmful
constituents (HPHC) testing is appropriate to a particular application).
Validation of Manufacturing Machines and Facilities
27. In addition to JLI meeting with FDA about its study designs and other aspects of the
PMTA, the Company has taken extensive steps to validate its manufacturing lines. As explained
above, FDA recommends that companies manufacture their tobacco products through validated
machines (also referred to as “qualified lines”). Qualified lines are necessary so that JLI can
demonstrate that the facility produces a consistent product, which is necessary to ensure that the
pods it tests share the characteristics of pods that consumers use. If pods are produced on
machines that do not create a consistent product, then the different samples will vary, and the
results of the testing may differ between batches.
28. For other (i.e., non-tobacco) products that FDA regulates, the agency has published
“good manufacturing practice” requirements that inform manufacturers of the Agency’s view
about how to create qualified lines and ensure consistent and quality-controlled product
manufacturing. As noted above, FDA stated in its Draft PMTA Guidance document that it will
set forth tobacco product manufacturing practice requirements for ENDS in a future rulemaking.
See Draft PMTA Guidance at 12. In November 2017, FDA requested comments on “updated
recommendations for regulations on good manufacturing practice for [ENDS],” see 82 Fed. Reg.
55,613, 55,613 (Nov. 22, 2017), but it has yet to initiate a rulemaking. Furthermore, because
ENDS are a new product, there are no readily identifiable standards for manufacturing or
production. JLI therefore does not know the agency’s view about what is necessary to create a
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 16 of 25
16
qualified line. JLI expected that the recently released Final Guidance would include
recommendations on product manufacturing to support a PMTA, but the Final Guidance states
that “tobacco product manufacturing practices . . . will be set forth in a future rulemaking.” Final
PMTA Guidance at 11. Thus, no discernible clarity on manufacturing requirements will be
known until FDA finalizes that rulemaking.
29. To fill this gap, JLI has looked at how manufacturers in other areas regulated by
FDA, such as the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, have set up their manufacturing
process. JLI also evaluated whether its manufacturing procedures comport with what other
ENDS manufacturers are doing, and based on a “best guess” about what FDA will want. Due to
the lack of clarity from FDA, however, JLI has been forced to take extra precautions that have
delayed qualifying the lines.
30. In addition to manufacturing facilities, JLI needs to establish controls over supplier
quality systems and product specifications to verify the raw materials and facilities of suppliers,
because supply variations could lead to an inconsistent product used in the PMTA process.
31. Despite the lack of final guidance on the topic, JLI went ahead with validating its
facilities and qualifying its lines, using its best estimate of what FDA will require. This was a
time-intensive process, still under way across the entire supply chain base, with specific lines
used to manufacture PMTA test samples to be completed later this month (June 2019). In
choosing when and how to qualify its lines, JLI relied on FDA’s extended compliance policy to
ensure that JLI could comply with the August 2022 deadline.
JLI’s Extensive Nonclinical Studies
32. JLI has also designed non-clinical studies to gather required data on the products’
chemical attributes and components. Designing an effective study is a labor intensive and
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 17 of 25
17
challenging process that frequently requires time consuming back-and-forth with FDA. For
example, as explained above, JLI added to the attributes it tests after FDA recommended adding
to the list during the February 2019 meeting. The proper definition of a “different batch,” also
clarified at the February 2019 meeting, was needed before JLI could begin some of the required
nonclinical testing.
33. As another example, JLI has been in dialogue with FDA over the proper inhalation
profile for its toxicological studies. An inhalation profile measures the length of inhalation, how
long the vapor is held, and the volume of vapor. FDA has not informed regulated entities what
inhalation profile should be used during testing. JLI originally proposed to FDA that it use a
standard puff – one representative of how consumers use the product. After extensive
communication, FDA recommended using a different inhalation profile. Again, determining the
proper inhalation profile is a prerequisite to conducting certain nonclinical tests, yet even the
Final PMTA Guidance does not provide concrete guidance on this foundational point.
34. JLI’s nonclinical testing has been hampered by the lack of concrete guidance in other
ways as well. For most products that FDA regulates, the product formulations and test methods
are well established. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, has international standards that
inform regulated industries how to perform certain tests, and how to interpret those test results.
Similar standards do not exist in the ENDS industry. There is no consensus about how to set up
sample units, what tests to use to measure chemical components, or how to interpret the results.
Furthermore, because test results may vary depending on the test method used, the absence of
standardized methods makes it difficult to compare products. Although JLI is not waiting before
it conducts nonclinical testing, JLI expected that the Final PMTA Guidance would include
standardized testing methods, but it does not. In addition, the Final Guidance recommends
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 18 of 25
18
considering a list of more than 30 constituents or chemicals in the analysis of potential health
risks, with a dozen added to the list that appears in the Draft Guidance. Compare Final PMTA
Guidance at 28-29 with Draft PMTA Guidance at 26-27. The Final Guidance also states that this
list is only FDA’s “current thinking” on which constituents or chemicals to consider. Final
PMTA Guidance at 28 n.35. “FDA intends to establish a revised list of harmful and potentially
harmful constituents (HPHCs) that include HPHCs in ENDS products and publish it in the
Federal Register.” Id. The Final Guidance gives no expected publication date.
35. Another factor that affects the timing to complete nonclinical testing is the
availability of space at accredited laboratories. Qualified laboratory space is severely limited,
however, both because relatively few accredited laboratories perform work on ENDS products
and because manufacturers are competing for the limited space.
36. Notwithstanding these challenges, and even before receiving the Final PMTA
Guidance, JLI has (1) set up testing parameters that it believes FDA will accept, (2) arranged for
the delivery of product from qualified lines, and (3) secured laboratory space.
37. These efforts have been made in reliance on the timeline the FDA announced in 2017.
The tests of other remaining work will still take a significant amount of time, and there are
serious limitations on shortening the process. For example, one critical component of a PMTA is
stability testing. Stability testing is akin to determining a use-by date for groceries. JLI must test
whether and how the product changes over various time periods (3, 6, and 12 months, for
example) and under various conditions (such as various temperatures or exposure to light). By
definition, these tests take time. The only way to determine, for example, how its product
changes over a one-year period is to test it a year after it was manufactured on a qualified line.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 19 of 25
19
Furthermore, neither the Draft nor the Final PMTA Guidance explains whether the stability
testing should account for 6 months, 12 months, or some other duration.
JLI’s Clinical Studies
38. JLI is already conducting clinical, human-based studies in support of its PMTA. Five
clinical studies that it began in April 2018 concluded in February 2019.
39. The clinical studies that JLI has conducted to date are helpful for test-design
purposes, and will assist in planning and carrying out studies for use in the PMTA. (These
concluded trials pre-dated the existence of a qualified line.)
40. Similar to the process for nonclinical studies, JLI has met with FDA to attempt to
ascertain whether its planned clinical studies would comport with FDA’s expectations. During
those meetings, FDA has told JLI that it expects certain types of clinical studies that do not
appear in the Draft PMTA Guidance and that JLI did not have reason to believe were necessary
for a PMTA.
41. For example, during the meeting process FDA requested clinical research on “third-
hand” exposure. (First-hand exposure is when a consumer uses the product directly; second-
hand exposure is similar to the phenomenon of second-hand smoke for combustible tobacco
products; and third-hand exposure refers to vapor that a non-user might come into contact with
after it condenses on a surface). Neither the Draft PMTA Guidance nor the Final Guidance
mentions this type of exposure. To JLI’s knowledge, there also is no research in the literature
about third-hand exposure testing and no other party has ever submitted research on third-hand
exposure as part of a PMTA. Based on FDA’s statements outside of the formal written guidance
process, JLI plans to design and conduct third-hand exposure clinical trials.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 20 of 25
20
JLI’s Long-Term Adult Survey
42. JLI is also engaged in surveys to determine how adults use its products, as well as
their use of other tobacco products. Among other things, these surveys cover frequency of use of
JLI’s products, use concurrently with other tobacco products, use as an alternative to other
tobacco products, and changes in usage over time.
43. JLI began designing these surveys more than a year ago. Due to the dearth of
experience conducting significant behavioral research on ENDS products, these surveys needed
to be designed with minimal guidance from past practice. That lack of experience has slowed
the entire process down, from engaging research firms that could conduct preliminary testing and
design a proper survey, to obtaining institutional review board approval, to implementing the
survey.
44. Because a well-designed survey must be representative of the United States
population, the sample size must be large. These surveys, which began in May 2018, currently
have roughly 70,000 participants who have signed up over time.
45. In addition to needing a proper methodology and a large sample size, these surveys
must take place over a sufficient length of time. Especially when evaluating behavior relating to
an addiction, results—such as whether a person has switched from combustible cigarettes to
ENDS products—are more reliable the further out they are measured. JLI therefore intends to
follow survey participants for at least one year to determine rates of cigarette abstention and
regression. Because survey participants have enrolled over time, results will continue to come in
over the course of this year. As discussed below, there will be more to do after the survey data
are compiled.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 21 of 25
21
JLI’s Youth Surveys
46. The PMTA process requires information about youth usage and perceptions. JLI has
therefore also commissioned youth surveys. In addition to questions about usage, the surveys
attempt to determine prevalence, patterns of use, and perceptions regarding the addictiveness of
ENDS and other tobacco products. The surveys are conducted by an independent provider.
47. Youth surveys differ from adult surveys in important ways and raise special
challenges. JLI did not want to commission a youth study until it could meet with FDA to
ensure that any youth surveys were conducted in a manner that FDA would approve. Before the
youth surveys were started, JLI therefore met with FDA in August 2018. FDA provided
feedback in October 2018, and the first round of surveys was launched the following month.
48. For ethical reasons, dual consent is required for these surveys—consent of the
participant and a parent. The logistics of a youth survey also make the process more time-
consuming, in part because of the need to find a survey provider experienced in and capable of
locating a representative sampling of participants.
49. The youth surveys that JLI commissioned are cross-sectional and conducted at six-
month intervals. Each survey is conducted with a new cohort of participants, and the answers are
compared to the results of previous surveys.
50. Although cross-sectional youth surveys will have been conducted by the end of 2019,
JLI needs additional information to support a PMTA. Youth perceptions of ENDS products are
highly dynamic, in part because of the recent increased emphasis on initiatives to prevent usage
by youth, including through educational outreach. This makes the results of only two or three
surveys (for example) more difficult to use as a predictive device.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 22 of 25
22
JLI’s Efforts To Create A Population Health Model
51. JLI is also developing a population health model. Such a model is important in
preparing the PMTA because, as noted earlier, the standard for approving an application is
whether there is a showing that permitting the product to be marketed would be appropriate for
the protection of the public health.
52. In contrast with combustible tobacco products, because ENDS products are relatively
new JLI has not been able to look to prior studies to develop a population health model.
Creating a public health model requires balancing benefits and costs without any clear guidance
on how either should be measured. For example, by statute the model must weigh the cost of a
person who had never previously used tobacco products becoming addicted to ENDS against the
benefit of a cigarette smoker transitioning to non-combustible products. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 387j(c)(4). There is no established, accepted model informing regulated parties how to
measure and compare those or other possible effects.
53. Importantly, even with the issuance of Final PMTA Guidance, FDA has not
provided guidance or insight into how it intends to construct or evaluate a population model that
accounts for the relevant costs and benefits of ENDS products. This is a foundational component
of the PMTA, yet regulated entities have little insight into how FDA intends to evaluate whether
a product is appropriate for the protection of the public health.
54. Even if FDA were to inform regulated entities about how it plans to evaluate a
population health model, a reasonably situated applicant like JLI could not complete the model
until its non-clinical, clinical, and survey results are complete.
55. In sum, JLI has already devoted substantial resources to the preparation of a PMTA.
It embarked on the process without clear guidance from FDA, as the industry waited for the
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 23 of 25
23
Agency to finalize a draft from 2016. FDA has finally issued its Final PMTA Guidance, but it
leaves important questions unanswered and amends recommendations made in the Draft PMTA
Guidance. Even with Final Guidance, a number of the remaining steps for completing a PMTA
will require time to conduct and complete studies and other work. By their nature, these studies
and other analyses will take time. In addition, under FDA’s submission rules a manufacturer
must submit a “fileable” application. This means that if FDA decides the application should
have contained additional elements or information, it can reject (decline to file) the application.
With all of this in mind, JLI has designed studies and other work in reliance on FDA’s guidance
stating that JLI has until August 2022 to complete its PMTA. Although JLI will endeavor to
meet an earlier deadline, the many factors set forth above will limit the ability of JLI to submit
an application more quickly.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 24 of 25
24
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-4 Filed 06/12/19 Page 25 of 25
EXHIBIT D
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-5 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Greenbelt Division
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
PEDIATRICS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-00883-PWG
DECLARATION OF CAROLE B. FOLMAR
I, Carole B. Folmar, declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called to
testify as a witness, would testify competently under oath.
2. I have been the Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs and Associate General
Counsel of ITG Brands, LLC (“ITG”) since June 2015. In that capacity I oversee ITG’s
preparation of regulatory submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
3. ITG is the third-largest tobacco company in the United States and offers a broad
range of cigar brands, including Dutch Masters, Backwoods, Phillies, White Cat, Antonia y
Cleopatra, El Producto, and Hav-A-Tampa cigars.
4. In 2009, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
Act (“Tobacco Control Act”), which permits FDA to regulate cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and
other products FDA “deems” to be tobacco products. 21 U.S.C. § 387a(b). Except as to covered
products commercially marketed as of February 15, 2007 (grandfathered products), the Tobacco
Control Act generally requires manufacturers of new tobacco products to obtain premarket
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-5 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 8
2
authorization from FDA by submitting a premarket tobacco application (“PMTA”) before their
products may be marketed or sold. Id. § 387j(a). Manufacturers need not submit PMTAs,
however, for new products that are “substantially equivalent” to either products that were on the
market as of February 15, 2007, or that FDA has previously approved. Id. § 387e(j). Such a
manufacturer must instead demonstrate in a report (an “SE Report”) that its product has the “same
characteristics” as an earlier predicate product or that its product has “different characteristics” but
does not “raise different questions of public health.” Id. § 387j(a)(3)(A).
5. In May 2016, well after all of ITG’s cigars became available to consumers, FDA
deemed cigars to be tobacco products subject to the Tobacco Control Act (the “Deeming Rule”).
81 Fed. Reg. 28,974 (May 10, 2016). All of ITG’s cigar products were either on the market prior
to February 15, 2007, and thus are grandfathered products, or are “substantially equivalent” ( “SE”)
to products on the market at that time. Therefore, ITG does not anticipate filing PMTAs for its
cigar products, and is entitled instead to rely on the SE pathway created by Congress for
substantially equivalent products.
6. FDA has not yet published regulations governing the SE process for “deemed”
tobacco products, but has been reviewing SE Reports for cigarettes since March 2011. Based on
publicly available data, FDA received approximately 3,517 provisional SE Reports, and through
September 2015, had received an additional 1,926 regular SE Reports—for a total of 5,443. As of
April 2018, FDA announced that it had issued final orders for 191 products. Accounting for SE
Report withdrawals and cancellations, FDA appears to have issued final orders on only
approximately 5.1 percent of known SE Reports in the over eight years since those SE submissions
began. Thus, FDA retains a backlog of thousands of SE Reports, including approximately 1,500
SE Reports that the Agency has announced in 2018 that it would indefinitely remove from review.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-5 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 8
3
7. ITG has extensive experience with FDA’s “SE” process, having navigated that
process for cigarette products since 2011. ITG has found that demonstrating “substantial
equivalence” is an exacting, and resource-intensive process, with multiple supplemental FDA
requests for information, that takes years to complete. Indeed, several ITG submissions originally
filed by the March 2011 deadline for provisional products still remain unresolved.
8. Successfully demonstrating substantial equivalence has required ITG to show in
very significant detail that the product at issue has the same characteristics as an earlier predicate
product (sold over a decade ago) or that its product has different characteristics than that predicate
but does not raise different questions of public health. This showing has required ITG to develop
thousands of pages of comparative manufacturing, chemistry, toxicological, and social science
data and literature. In order to facilitate such a comparison, testing data and detailed manufacturing
documentation must be collected for a grandfathered predicate product that typically has not been
manufactured or distributed for several years (manufacturers were not on notice that any such data
would ever be needed, so it typically was not collected). As a practical matter, manufacturers are
frequently required to conduct comparative testing on a “surrogate” tobacco product, which refers
to a product manufactured for the purposes of supporting an SE Report that is intended to replicate
the grandfathered predicate product as it existed as of February 15, 2007. In such circumstances,
in order to “bridge” the surrogate product data and predicate product, manufacturers are required
to submit information to support three comparisons: (1) surrogate product to predicate product; (2)
surrogate product to new tobacco product; and (3) predicate product to new tobacco product.
9. Once an SE Report has been submitted, FDA first conducts a compliance review to
ensure that the predicate product is a valid predicate (i.e., on the market as of February 15, 2007
or a provisional product subject to an SE Marketing Order). Next, an SE Report enters scientific
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-5 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 8
4
review, sometimes years after the SE Report was submitted, and is assigned for review to Office
of Science staff from up to eight scientific disciplines (chemistry, microbiology, engineering,
toxicology, environmental science, social science, addiction, and medical). FDA may then issue
Advice/Information Request letters soliciting additional information, or a Preliminary Finding
letter containing deficiencies requiring additional information from the applicant. After a
Preliminary Finding letter, FDA will issue an SE Marketing Order or Not Substantially Equivalent
(“NSE”) Order. Applicants may request supervisory review, a form of administrative appeal, of
NSE Orders.
10. ITG has been deeply engaged with FDA on scientific and regulatory issues
regarding the SE process since the enactment of the Tobacco Control Act. ITG has filed multiple
comments regarding the SE review process, both in the context of cigarettes and deemed products.
These comments have offered suggestions for ways in which FDA can most efficiently and
appropriately conduct SE review, consistent with FDA’s public health mission. Further, ITG has
shared cigar leaf data and provided FDA information on the current state of cigar science in
anticipation of future cigar SE submissions for its products.
11. Importantly, although FDA has now defined in some detail the requirements for SE
Reports for cigarettes, FDA has not yet fully defined any single standard as to the information
required to initiate the substantial equivalence process for cigars. Standards set for cigarette SE
applications do not translate to cigars. Cigar tobaccos are selected and controlled in a different
manner than cigarette leaf varieties, and available data indicate that cigar tobacco leaf naturally
displays a much higher degree of variability than cigarette tobacco. Thus, there is no reliable way
to know what will be accepted by FDA in a cigar SE Report, and no way to ensure in advance that
the effort, time, and money spent preparing an SE application will produce an acceptable
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-5 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 8
5
submission. Among the issues left unaddressed by FDA guidance and/or rulemaking are: (1)
which specific harmful and potentially harmful constituents (“HPHCs”) should be analyzed in any
tests run and submitted for a cigar product and its predicate; (2) the technical methodology for
conducting testing for those HPHCs and performing risk assessments for oral or inhalation
exposures; (3) the definition of, and how to identify, a product’s “characterizing flavor”; and (4)
the information required in the application to describe and compare flavors for purposes of
demonstrating substantial equivalence. Indeed, FDA has separately postponed issuing guidance
on HPHC testing and reporting for cigars under Section 904(a)(3) of the Act.
12. As FDA has recognized, it is not feasible for cigar manufacturers to simply guess
what is required to demonstrate substantial equivalence because of the unique features of cigars.
To that end, FDA’s previous extensions of the compliance deadlines for deemed products
recognized “the amount of time needed for firms to prepare” SE Reports, and FDA has recently
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to provide “clarity to industry about the
requirements for” SE Reports. The proposed rule instead “invite[d] comments and information
[regarding] the parameters that may be needed to support an SE Report,” and ITG and other
stakeholders have announced their intent to provide further comments regarding these issues.
Those comments are due on July 17, 2019.
13. Given the lack of guidance, the significant cost of performing testing, and FDA’s
specific instruction that cigar SE Reports need not be filed until 2021 after “foundational rules and
guidances” are put in place by FDA,1 ITG had no practical option but to follow FDA’s lead and
1 FDA, Advancing Tobacco Regulation to Protect American Children and Families: Updates and
New Initiatives from the FDA on the Anniversary of the Tobacco Control Act and FDA’s
Comprehensive Plan for Nicotine, Aug. 2, 2018, available at https://www.fda.gov/news-
events/fda-voices-perspectives-fda-experts/advancing-tobacco-regulation-protect-children-and-
families-updates-and-new-initiatives-fda.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-5 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 8
6
await more specific instruction before filing cigar SE Reports. In the meantime, ITG has not sat
on its hands—it has expended thousands of man hours and millions of dollars anticipating what
FDA might require. And based on the type of technical requirements FDA has imposed for SE
Reports in other contexts, many months may be needed to submit SE Reports here despite ITG’s
preparation. Indeed, SE Reports for cigarettes have previously been rejected by FDA if they lack
sufficiently detailed information.
14. Any order rendering cigars illegally marketed because FDA has not approved an
SE could have very serious consequences for a number of ITG’s key brands that have been on the
market for decades and should qualify as SE under the Act. Congress intended that these products
can be lawfully marketed and specified that the SE process would be available for that purpose;
any remedy that has the practical effect of preventing that outcome is starkly inconsistent with the
statute. Indeed, if the Court’s remedy appears to render these products illegal, retailers could
erroneously conclude that ITG’s cigars are not compliant with the Tobacco Control Act and
prematurely pull them from their shelves.
15. I am not aware of any allegation in this case that there has been an uptick in youth
cigar usage, and multiple sources report a significant decline in youth cigar usage over recent
years. See, e.g., CDC, Vital Signs: Tobacco Product Use Among Middle and High School
Students – United States, 2011-2018, Feb. 15, 2019, available
at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6806e1.htm?s_cid=mm6806e1_w (significant
decline in youth usage of cigars observed from 2011 to 2018); Lloyd D. Johnston, et al.,
Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use 1975-2018, Jan. 2019, at 45, available
at http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2018.pdf (significant
declines in youth usage of small cigars since 2010).
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-5 Filed 06/12/19 Page 7 of 8
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-5 Filed 06/12/19 Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT E
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 9
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 9
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 9
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 9
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 9
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 9
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 7 of 9
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 8 of 9
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-6 Filed 06/12/19 Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT F
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-7 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 8
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINSTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-883-PWG
DECLARATION OF MARK ANTON, PRESIDENT, WHAT A SMOKE, LLC, AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SMOKE-FREE ALTERNATIVES TRADE ASSOCIATION
1. I am the President of What a Smoke, LLC, a small Electronic Nicotine Delivery
Systems (ENDS) manufacturer, distributor and retailer based in Flanders, New Jersey. What a
Smoke was established in 2008 as one of the country’s first ENDS businesses. In my capacity, I
manage the day-to-day operations of the company, but also engineer ENDS devices and e-liquid
formulations. We market 138 unique ENDS products, all of which will have to go through FDA
premarket review.
2. Since 2017, I have also served as the Executive Director of the Smoke-Free
Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), one of the largest national trade associations of U.S.
ENDS businesses. Our membership includes hundreds of manufacturers, retailers and
distributors, both large and small, located in all 50 States. Our members employ thousands of
individuals across the country.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-7 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 8
2
3. Based on my experiences with What a Smoke and SFATA, I have an extensive
knowledge of the industry and the related actions taken by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) under the Tobacco Control Act (TCA).
4. In May 2016, when the final Deeming Rule was published, FDA extended the
TCA’s requirements to all deemed products, including ENDS that contain tobacco-derived
nicotine. Now, ENDS manufacturers are subject to a host of regulatory requirements, including
registration, product listing, ingredient reporting, harmful constituent testing, warning labels and,
most critically, premarket authorization for any new tobacco products.
5. Since the Deeming Rule went into effect, FDA has consistently moved regulatory
deadlines to give the ENDS industry a reasonable amount of time to comply, as well as
accommodate FDA’s own needs, technical issues and capacity. For example, the initial
registration and product listing deadline for U.S. manufacturing establishments was moved
several times from December 31, 2016 to October 12, 2017. The ingredient reporting deadline
was moved from February 8, 2017 for large manufacturers, and August 8, 2017 for small-scale
manufacturers, to May 8, 2018 and November 8, 2018, respectively. The harmful and potential
harmful constituent (HPHC) reporting deadline, which was originally set for August 8, 2019, has
been moved indefinitely to either six or nine months after FDA’s final guidance on HPHC
testing is published (depending on whether the reporting company is large or small). As a
practical matter, it would not have made sense to require PMTAs even before much less-
involved ingredient reports were due.
6. The most critical requirement for ENDS companies is premarket authorization for
new products. A “new” tobacco product is one that was either introduced to the U.S. market
after the February 15, 2007 “grandfather date” or, if it was already on the market as of that date,
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-7 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 8
3
had any modifications made to the product other than to its label. Although my company has
been in business for 11 years, none of my products – nor any ENDS on the market – are
grandfathered, and all will have to go through “premarket” review.
7. More specifically, while the TCA offers several pathways for premarket approval
to combustible tobacco products (i.e., substantial equivalence), the only approval route available
to lower risk products such as ENDS is through the most onerous of these pathways, the PMTA.
8. The PMTA is the most extensive pre-market review pathway and, according to
the statute, requires tobacco product manufacturers to submit information for each product
showing that marketing the product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health” with
respect to both users and nonusers of tobacco products. This has become known as the
“population effects” standard, which requires FDA, when deciding whether a product may be
commercialized, to consider the product’s impact on the population as a whole, including the
likelihood that people will stop using tobacco products (i.e., cessation), as well as start using
them (i.e., initiation).
9. Since the Deeming Rule was published in May 2016 and until yesterday (June 11,
2019), only a draft guidance has been published by FDA on the PMTA process for ENDS. The
fact that the guidance was not finalized for over three years has made it very difficult for
companies like mine, and hundreds of SFATA members, to understand what information would
satisfy this population effects standard. Such understanding, of course, is necessary for
companies to plan and invest in the appropriate level of resources. Unlike well-established
regulations for drugs and medical devices, which require demonstration of safety and
effectiveness, the more burdensome public health or population effects standard is brand new for
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-7 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 8
4
both industry and FDA – making the need for clear guidance so critical, especially for small
ENDS businesses.
10. Beyond the PMTA guidance itself, FDA has also so far failed to provide any
guidance or initiate rulemaking in other critical areas necessary to complete PMTAs. For
example, FDA has not yet established Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practices (TPMP),
although a proposed TPMP rulemaking has been on FDA’s regulatory agenda for several years.
Section 910(b)(1)(C) of the TCA requires that PMTAs include “a full description of the methods
used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, processing, and, where relevant,
packing and installation of the new tobacco product.” The recently finalized PMTA guidance
summarizes information about manufacturing processes that will need to be included in an
application, but does not itself provide any guidance on what practices or procedures are
appropriate for the protection of the public health when, for example, manufacturing e-liquids.
11. Another example is the lack of guidance on how to assess the levels of HPHCs in
ENDS products. This is a particular concern for “open-tank” (i.e., refillable) products. There are
no standardized test methods for aerosol produced from open-tank ENDS, unlike for cigarettes
which have established smoke testing regimes. In the recently finalized PMTA guidance, FDA
indicates that, in lieu of testing, “it might be acceptable to provide the quantity [of an ingredient]
added to an e-liquid,” but still does not provide any guidance on testing procedures, sample sizes,
validation methods, limits of detection, or how to conduct exposure assessments.
12. Another major concern for smaller companies that market open-tank products, of
which FDA records indicate there are millions, is the lack of available third-party laboratory
space to conduct HPHC and other analytical testing necessary for PMTAs. Small companies like
mine do not have their own laboratory capabilities and so must rely on third-party labs and
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-7 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 8
5
consultants. Based on our research and outreach, there are only handful of establishments in the
country that would be able to conduct this research.
13. Another challenging aspect of the PMTA process for ENDS companies is
developing an Environmental Assessment (EA), which applicants must submit so that the agency
can assess the environmental impact of issuing a marketing order for a new product, as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Significant clarity on what an EA requires
for an ENDS manufacturer is needed. For example, it is not clear if and how companies need to
assess the potential greenhouse gas emissions that result from the manufacture, use and disposal
of ENDS products. This is particularly concerning for ENDS companies whose devices and
other components are produced by contract manufacturers in China. The time and expense to
prepare EAs for PMTAs that meet FDA standards is expected to be significant.
14. In addition, as the final PMTA guidance makes clear (page 51), pre-PMTA
meetings are essentially required with FDA. FDA specifically recommends applicants meet with
them “well in advance of the planned premarket applications so that the applicant has the
opportunity to consider CTP feedback prior to preparing the application and to help ensure the
application will be complete at the time of submission and likely to provide the data and
information required for the Agency to make a final authorization decision.” Moreover, FDA
states that to ensure a successful pre-submission meeting, applicants are “expected to have a
fully developed approach to meet the regulatory requirements for its planned application(s)”
before the meeting with FDA. Thus, given the large number of PMTAs that are expected to be
filed, it is likely that even scheduling a meeting with FDA could take months or more. In the
end, FDA still needs time, even with the final guidance, to flesh out parameters and solve hard
technical questions for individual applications.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-7 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 8
6
15. While we are encouraged that FDA has finally published a final PMTA guidance,
significant time and expense will be needed to complete this process.
16. Based on the recently finalized PMTA guidance, the expected cost to complete a
PMTA is exorbitant – potentially millions of dollars per application. Literature reviews alone,
the backbone of any PMTA, are estimated to cost over $500,000 to generate according to
consultants. This far exceeds the $300,000 per application FDA estimated in the Deeming Rule.
17. My business has over 138 ENDS products. Even if I can realize some economies
of scale in filing multiple applications, it is easy to see that my costs would sky-rocket, at a
minimum, into the tens of millions of dollars.
18. There are thousands of small businesses like mine, many of them “Mom and Pop”
type businesses. In fact, we understand FDA has over 3 million different products registered.
This means an industry that is estimated at $6 billion annually in sales would have to spend far in
excess of that figure to just keep the products we currently have on the market.
19. There will be many unintended economic consequences of the PMTA process as
outlined by FDA. Small businesses investing in a PMTA will struggle to pay their bills and
overhead, to invest in new inventory and equipment and extend their leases. Beyond
manufacturers, many of whom will go out of business because of the PMTA process, there are
over 15,000 small “vape shops” that focus on selling open-tank devices and e-liquids whose
businesses will be severely impacted by a shortage of approved products, and will likely have to
shut down, putting thousands of employees out of jobs.
20. This will cause economic hardship on multiple levels for small business owners.
Many have invested their life savings into their vapor business, mortgaged their homes, and
personally guaranteed leases and SBA loans. If we are forced out of business, we will also lose
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-7 Filed 06/12/19 Page 7 of 8
7
the significant resources we spent on outfitting our labs to incorporate clean rooms and advanced
production equipment.
21. In short, the FDA needs sufficient time to work with the industry to develop a fair
and streamlined PMTA process that takes into account the lower risk profile of ENDS products
and provide additional, and much needed, guidance on manufacturing standards and other PMTA
requirements.
22. As a business owner I believe I am doing a public good by helping adult smokers
transition to products that studies show are at least 95% less harmful than combustible cigarettes.
We would like to continue to help millions of addicted smokers reduce or eliminate their harm
from tobacco smoke.
23. The youth issue is of paramount importance and our industry members strive to
operate under the laws to prevent youth access. However, it is important to consider the
devastation the PMTA process will have on the thousands of U.S. businesses and workers, as
well as the millions of smokers who have made the switch and have seen their health
dramatically improve, if the compliance period effectively results in millions of products being
arbitrarily removed from the market.
It is with great honor and thanks to the court in taking into consideration the points and
concerns of a citizen, industry member and leader. I thank you.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
June 12, 2019.
Mark Anton
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-7 Filed 06/12/19 Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT G
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 11
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINSTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-883-PWG
DECLARATION OF STACEY M. BENSON, Ph.D.
1. I am an epidemiologist with over 15 years of professional experience conducting,
analyzing, and interpreting scientific data using well-accepted scientific methodology.
2. I currently serve as a Supervising Health Scientist and Epidemiology Practice
Area Lead at Cardno ChemRisk, a global scientific consulting firm specializing in, among other
areas, product health and safety. Cardno ChemRisk is a consulting firm that provides scientific
advice to the government, corporations, law firms and various scientific/professional
organizations.
3. My areas of expertise include environmental epidemiology, occupational
epidemiology, respiratory protection, and clinical research. I received my undergraduate degree
(B.S.) in physics from St. Lawrence University, my master’s degree (M.S.) in the field of
exercise physiology from the University of Pittsburgh, and my Ph.D. in Epidemiology from the
University of Pittsburgh.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 11
2
4. Prior to joining Cardno ChemRisk, I held teaching positions at Carnegie Mellon
University and Point Park University, and served an Associate Service Fellow at the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, where I conducted human subject experiments at
the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory. I have published over 30 scientific
articles, presented 28 papers at both national and international conferences, and have been cited
in the scientific literature over 400 times.
5. Cardno ChemRisk has been providing consulting services to electronic nicotine
delivery systems (ENDS) clients for over five years and is currently supporting clients through
the Premarket Tobacco Application (PMTA) process. As such, we are familiar with the PMTA
procedures, at least as they stand today, as well as the many challenges and uncertainties facing
stakeholders attempting to meet the requirements set forth by FDA.
6. In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance
document regarding PMTAs for ENDS. While the draft discussed many aspects of the PMTA
process, including several types of non-clinical and clinical studies that must be completed, there
remained many unanswered questions about, among other issues, various testing protocol
requirements. It was not surprising that many manufacturers, and especially smaller companies
with limited financial resources, were hesitant to start the PMTA process, at least beyond the
early planning stages, based on only a draft guidance.
7. Given FDA’s statements regarding the draft guidance and PMTA process, this
hesitancy was understandable. The FDA Center for Tobacco Products indicated on their website
that the draft PMTA guidance document is “[n]ot for implementation” and “[c]ontains non-
binding recommendations” (FDA, 2018). According to the FDA, once the guidance document is
finalized it “will represent FDA’s current thinking on submitting PMTAs for ENDS products.”
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 3 of 11
3
(FDA, Accessed June 2019). In August 2018, Commissioner Gottlieb acknowledged that “[a]
key part of achieving [FDA’s] goals is issuing foundational rules and guidances to help industry
better understand what is needed to submit product applications.” He explained further that “in
the coming months,” FDA would “propose new rules to help industry on topics including
Substantial Equivalence, Premarket Tobacco Applications, Modified Risk Tobacco Product
Applications, and Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practices” that would “lay out a transparent,
modern, and science-based framework for manufacturing practices and the development of
tobacco product applications that meet the legal requirements.” (Gottlieb, 2018).
8. It was not until three years later, on June 11, 2019, that FDA released the finalized
PMTA guidance document (FDA, 2019). This document describes on some level the types of
data and information that must be submitted in order to meet the Tobacco Control Act’s (TCA)
requirement that a new tobacco product be protective of public health. As discussed in the
guidance, a comprehensive assessment of each product requires an evaluation of the short and
long-term human health effects of ENDS on the population. These investigations include
product testing, environmental assessments, toxicological studies, and human subject research.
The findings must be generalizable to the U.S. population and include impacts on both users and
non-users of the product (FDA, 2019).
9. Although the final guidance provides some additional insight into how FDA is
going to evaluate the PMTAs, there are still many issues that have not been resolved. For
example, the PMTA applicant must demonstrate high standards for product quality through good
manufacturing practices (GMP), supply chain assessment, and product testing. Applicants must
also demonstrate through an environmental assessment that their products do not have significant
impacts on the environment. Stakeholders, however, are in a tenuous position, because FDA has
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 4 of 11
4
not issued guidance on GMPs or methods/assumptions that need to be incorporated in the
environmental assessment.
10. To add to the continued uncertainty, the final guidance does not provide
manufacturing or testing standards for devices or e-liquids. For instance, the FDA does not
provide a standard device or device settings for e-liquid manufacturers. The guidance also does
not recommend a standard liquid or set of liquids for open-tank device manufacturers. Instead,
the FDA recommended that applicants conduct tests that reflect a “reasonable range” of
conditions (FDA, 2019 p. 28). Without further direction, however, the applicant runs the risk of
falling short of what FDA expects to see in a PMTA.
11. These details are extremely important as the study design and number of variables
to test in non-clinical and clinical studies can greatly influence the costs and time to execute and
perform these studies. By way of example, there are several variables that could influence
toxicological and clinical study design, execution, and findings regarding product testing: e.g.,
power settings, airflow settings, humectant composition, flavors, nicotine concentrations, and
nicotine type (free base v. nicotine salts). Thus, under one possible interpretation of the final
guidance, a clinical study of a closed device with one power setting, one airflow setting, two
nicotine concentrations, one PG/VG ratio, and three flavors would result in having to test six
potential ENDS use scenarios with the study participants. This type of study design would likely
take 12 to 18 months to plan, perform, analyze and summarize for the PMTA.
12. Further, a clinical study of an open-tank device with two power settings, two
airflow settings, three flavors, three PG/VG ratios, and three nicotine concentrations would be
even more involved and result in 108 possible ENDS use scenarios. This type of study would
likely take several years to complete.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 5 of 11
5
13. It is clear that as the number of use scenarios increases, the costs to conduct
clinical studies also increases and, particularly for smaller companies, could easily become
prohibitive. Therefore, having an understanding, before developing and filing the PMTA, of
what the FDA considers adequate for the range of appropriate testing conditions would be
invaluable to the FDA and the applicant in at least two ways: ensuring FDA gets the information
it needs to fairly evaluate the product and to set reasonable limitations on the required research
so that both parties can optimize the use of limited resources.
14. For those of us who are working to complete PMTAs, this means that FDA will
be required to spend a significant amount of time with each applicant (and the consultants and
technicians who are helping them) leading up to the PMTA’s submission to work through
numerous issues so that the application is appropriately robust and complete for a substantive
review by FDA. I was not surprised at all when I reviewed the final guidance to see FDA
repeatedly urging applicants to meet with the agency to discuss particular issues. As just one
example, the finalized guidance recommends that applicants “meet with the FDA to discuss the
approach prior to preparing and submitting an application.” (FDA, 2019 p. 13). This back and
forth will take months, at a minimum, to get the applicant in a place where it can actually
conduct the required studies and research knowing that their efforts will provide useful
information to FDA and satisfy the PMTA requirements.
15. The risks associated with incomplete information and any uncertainties regarding
the PMTA process can even be seen when a sophisticated company is involved. Recently, Philip
Morris became only the second manufacturer to successfully get a tobacco product (in this case,
a heat-not-burn product called IQOS) through the PMTA process. Philip Morris still conducted
studies that ultimately did not weigh into FDA’s evaluation and marketing authorization of the
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 6 of 11
6
IQOS product. This is a testament to just how complicated and time-consuming PMTA issues
can be for both FDA and the applicants.
16. Philip Morris provided its initial PMTA submission on May 15, 2017. Over the
course of the FDA’s evaluation, the agency communicated and requested additional information
and/or corrected reports 12 times. FDA provided a decision on the IQOS products on April 30,
2019. The process that was undertaken for the IQOS PMTA illustrates two points. First, it took
approximately two years for the FDA to review, provide feedback, and ultimately issue a
marketing authorization for the IQOS product.
17. Second, even with likely communications between the FDA and Philip Morris
throughout the entire application process, there was information included in the PMTA that the
FDA did not consider relevant. For instance, the FDA indicated that the pharmacokinetic studies
conducted in rats were not relevant for informing on human health effects. Philip Morris
conducted a 90-day nose only inhalation study of Sprague-Dawley rats to compare the effect of
exposure to the IQOS Heatsticks, a reference cigarette, and filtered air. The FDA stated “[i]n
vivo studies, such as the 90-day inhalation study, can provide important information about non-
cancer toxicology endpoints, but are not generally sensitive enough to determine systemic
toxicities from chronic tobacco product use.” (CTP IQOS, 2019 p. 38).
18. Philip Morris also conducted several in vitro systems toxicology studies with
human organotypic tissues; the FDA stated the following:
“The experimental approach taken in these studies included using methods that are
exploratory, have not been independently validated, and have unknown utility for
regulatory use. The applicant attempts to extrapolate from acute exposure studies with
naïve tissues that have little or no genetic variability to predict toxicity in a diverse
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 7 of 11
7
population with a history of cigarette smoking. This limits the use of these data. Thus,
this data does not significantly contribute to the overall toxicological profiles of the
products under review in these applications.” (CTP IQOS, 2019 p. 58).
19. The FDA also provided comments on studies that were not conducted but that
could have, according to FDA, been relevant to determining whether the IQOS product is
appropriately protective of public health. For example:
“No biomarker studies of secondhand exposure to these products were conducted by the
applicant. This type of study could have helped to better understand potential risks to
non-users. There were also no comparisons between IQOS and other tobacco products
(e.g., e-cigarettes). Given that IQOS and e-cigarettes may both be considered by
consumers to be a substitute for cigarettes, a comparison of the differences in exposure
would be useful.” (CTP IQOS, 2019 p. 56).
20. FDA’s comments on the IQOS PMTA are informative, but also lead to
questions/concerns for future PMTA submissions regarding the types of non-clinical and clinical
studies FDA will consider pertinent and informative to evaluate the public health impacts of
newly deemed tobacco products, including ENDS.
21. Further complicating matters, the final guidance recommends that applicants
conduct systematic reviews of “all relevant publications.” (FDA, 2019). New research on these
products is published daily. The National Academy of Science released their report on “Public
Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes” which evaluated over 4,000 publications from the peer-
reviewed literature published prior to February or August of 2017 (depending on topic area)
(NAS, 2018). Since the release of the NAS report, hundreds to thousands of papers have been
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 8 of 11
8
published in the peer-reviewed literature (Briganti et al. 2019) and the current publication rate
for articles that include the key word “e-cigarette” is over 100 articles per month.
22. These preliminary literature reviews are encouraged by the FDA. Due to the
abundance of available literature, systematic reviews require the applicant to review and evaluate
hundreds of articles for their specific product. Toxicology reviews include in vitro and in vivo
summaries for the following topic areas: carcinogenesis, genotoxicity, mutagencitiy, reactive
oxygen species, inflammation, cytotoxicity, cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, and
reproductive and developmental toxicity. Epidemiology reviews include the following topic
areas: trends in usage, factors that influence ENDS usage (susceptibility, perception, initiation,
and transition), cessation, respiratory health, cardiovascular disease, biomarkers of harm and
exposure, pharmacokinetics, abuse liability, topography, and population health. These
systematic reviews allow applicants to identify bridging opportunities and data gaps, and informs
the strategic planning for product testing, toxicological evaluations, and human clinical subject
study designs. Needless to say, these reviews will take a significant amount of time and money
to complete, spanning weeks or more as the applicant puts its PMTA together.
23. In addition, even if publicly available studies can be located that are relevant to
the product at issue, it is likely that many product-specific studies will need to be conducted due
to all of these numerous and product-specific variables. For instance, devices contain different
types of components to aerosolize the e-liquid. The e-liquids may also contain any range of
humectant combinations between propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG). E-liquids
may also consist of free-base nicotine or nicotine salts, with very different nicotine delivery
efficiency. Regardless of the protocols involved, testing all of these variables is expensive and
takes weeks, months, and potentially years to complete (Benson Affidavit, 2018).
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 9 of 11
9
24. Finally, lab capacity for product testing, in vitro tests, and clinical tests is also a
major concern for potential applicants. The labs should be accredited, follow good laboratory
practices, and have the research capabilities to conduct the necessary tests to demonstrate that an
e-cigarette is appropriately protective of public health. Not all laboratories have the capabilities
to perform all of the necessary testing. There are only a handful of laboratories across the
various research categories that have the experience and expertise to conduct these experiments.
As more and more applicants move forward with the PMTA process, laboratory capacity will
reach critical mass, making it impossible for future applicants to move forward with their
submissions in a timely fashion.
25. In the final analysis, we expect the typical PMTA application process – from the
initial planning stages to completion of FDA’s substantive review – to span at least 2 years, if not
more, depending on the tobacco products at issue. The estimated costs are anticipated to be in
the millions. All of this places a high premium on FDA providing predictability for the applicant
in terms of what is required in the PMTA process so that the company can manage risk, as well
as financial and time demands.
26. The process applicants must go through to demonstrate that their new tobacco
product (a device and/or e-liquid) is appropriate for the protection of public health is complex.
Both FDA and companies will need sufficient time to resolve complicated issues associated with,
among other things, protocols for testing and research. Providing rationale to and receiving
feedback from the FDA during the initial phase of the process will hopefully lead to high quality
PMTAs, but will nevertheless expand the timelines for the application process. For these
reasons, the current deadlines need to remain in effect (August 2021 and August 2022).
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 10 of 11
10
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
June 12, 2019.
STACEY M. BENSON, Ph.D.
References
Benson Affidavit, Am. Academy of Pediatrics v. FDA, Case No. 8:18-cv-883-PWG (Aug. 14,
2018) (Dkt. 37-4).
Briganti, M., Delnevo, C.D., Brown, L., Hastings, S.E. and Steinberg, M.B., 2019. Bibliometric
Analysis of Electronic Cigarette Publications: 2003–2018. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 16(3), p.320.
CTP IQOS. (2019). Center for Tobacco Control. Food and Drug Administration. Technical
Project Lead Review. Philip Morris New Tobacco Product PMTA Submission. Marlboro
Heatsticks, Marlboro Smooth Menthol Heatsticks, Marlboro Fresh Menthol Heatsticks, IQOS
System Holder and Charger. April 30, 2019. Accessed June, 2019.
https://www.fda.gov/media/124247/download.
Gottlieb, S. 2018. Advancing Tobacco Regulation to Protect Children and Families: Updates
and New Initiatives (August 2, 2018), https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-voices-perspectives-
fda-experts/advancing-tobacco-regulation-protect-children-and-families-updates-and-new-
initiatives-fda.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (NAS). (2018). Public Health
Consequences of E-Cigarettes. A Consensus Study Report. Accessed: June, 2019.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2016). Premarket Tobacco Product Applications for
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. Guidance for Industry. Accessed: June, 2019.
https://www.fda.gov/media/97652/download.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Draft Guidance: Premarket Tobacco Product
Applications for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. Presentation by Paul Hart and Li-Lun
Chen. Accessed June 2019. https://www.fda.gov/media/97881/download.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2018). Guidance Document. Premarket Tobacco
Product Applications for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) Guidance for Industry.
May 2016. Accessed: June, 2019. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-
guidance-documents/premarket-tobacco-product-applications-electronic-nicotine-delivery-
systems-ends.
Case 8:18-cv-00883-PWG Document 113-8 Filed 06/12/19 Page 11 of 11