Extracted text

OCR Page 1 of 7
06/30/97 MON 18:57 FAX 202 514 8071 CIVIL OAAG I 010 U.S. Department of Justice DRAFT Washington, D.C. 20530 TOBACCO- LEGAL June 30, 1997 Memorandum To: Stephen Preston, George Phillips Fr: Michael Raab Re: Preemption Issues Raised By Proposed Tobacco Settlement This memorandum considers preemption issues presented by the Proposed Resolution dated June 20, 1997, which provides for the settlement of numerous lawsuits relating to tobacco products. Part I of the memorandum briefly summarizes current law governing the preemption of state and local requirements regarding medical devices. Part II provides a preliminary analysis of relevant provisions of the Proposed Resolution. I. Current Law. Section 521 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, as amended ("Act"), preempts any state-law "requirement" with respect to a medical device that is "different from, or in addition to," federal requirements imposed under the Act. 21 U.S.C. 360k(a). The Supreme Court has held that Section 521 (a) does not preempt state common-law claims that are premised on the failure of a medical device to satisfy federal requirements. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 116 S. Ct. 2240, 2255 (1996); id. at 2264 (O' Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). However, state-law requirements that are more stringent than specific counterpart requirements imposed under federal law are subject to preemption under Section 521 (a). See id. at 2257-2258; id. at 2260-2261 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) ; 21 C.F.R. 808.1(d). Section 521 (b) of the Act permits States and their political subdivisions to apply to the FDA for an exemption from Section 521 (a). 21 U.S.C. 360k (b). The FDA can exempt a state-law requirement if (1) the requirement "is more stringent than" its federal counterpart or (2) the requirement "is required by compelling and local conditions" and "compliance with the