Orton Motor, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
Decision Date | 20 March 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-1299,16-1299 |
Citation | 884 F.3d 1205 |
Parties | ORTON MOTOR, INC., d/b/a Orton's Bagley, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Johanna Dennehy, Washington, DC, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Michael J. Baratz and Molly Bruder Fox, Washington, DC.
Megan Barbero, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Mark B. Stern and Alisa B. Klein, Attorneys, Washington, DC, and AnnaMarie Kempic, Deputy Chief Counsel for Litigation, United States Food & Drug Administration.
Before: Tatel, Griffith and Wilkins, Circuit Judges.
Orton Motor, Inc. d/b/a Orton's Bagley ("Orton") is a gas station and convenience store in Bagley, Minnesota, that sells cigarettes and tobacco products, among other sundries. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") levied civil money penalties in the amount of $500 against Orton following two inspections in which Orton sold cigarettes to a minor without first checking identification to verify age. As a policy, if a retailer fails an inspection for the first time, the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products (the "Center") charges all violations observed during that inspection as a single violation. However, the Center charges each separate violation of a regulation as a discrete violation during subsequent failed inspections. Accordingly, the FDA counted both the sale to a minor and the failure to verify age as two separate violations on Orton's second failed inspection and assessed the maximum penalty of $500 for three violations within a 24–month period under the civil money penalty schedule.
Orton challenges this determination on two principal grounds: that the Tobacco Control Act precludes the FDA's methodology of charging multiple violations in a single inspection, and that the FDA violates the law by failing to provide a process for retailers to challenge first violations before the issuance of a warning letter. We find no merit in either contention, and accordingly, we deny Orton's petition.
In 2009, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act ("TCA"), which "g[ave] the FDA broad regulatory authority over tobacco products, including, for instance, authority to impose restrictions on their sale, and on the advertising and promotion of such products ...." Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin. , 627 F.3d 891, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The FDA previously attempted to regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") in 1996, but the Supreme Court concluded in Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. that it lacked the authority to do so based on "the FDCA's overall regulatory scheme and [ ] the tobacco-specific legislation that [Congress] ha[d] enacted subsequent to the FDCA." 529 U.S. 120, 125–26, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). Congress passed the TCA to fill this gap, finding that "Federal and State governments have lacked the legal and regulatory authority and resources they need to address comprehensively the public health and societal problems caused by the use of tobacco products" and determining that "[i]t is in the public interest for Congress to enact legislation that provides the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to regulate tobacco products and the advertising and promotion of such products." 21 U.S.C. § 387 Note, Findings (7) & (12); Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 (June 22, 2009). The TCA incorporated this authority to regulate tobacco into the existing regulatory structure of the FDCA. Sottera , 627 F.3d at 894–95.
Relevant to this case, the TCA prohibits the "misbranding of any ... tobacco product ... in interstate commerce," 21 U.S.C. § 331(b), as well as "the doing of any [ ] act ... [that] results in [a tobacco product] being ... misbranded." Id . § 331(k). A tobacco product is "deemed to be misbranded" if "it is sold or distributed in violation of regulations prescribed under section 387f(d)," id . § 387c(a)(7)(B), which in turn authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to "require restrictions on the sale and distribution of a tobacco product" by regulation, as "appropriate for the protection of the public health." Id. § 387f(d). The regulations promulgated pursuant to this section provide that:
21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a). Neither the statute nor the regulations explicitly states how violations are to be counted.
The TCA created civil monetary penalties for violations related to tobacco. Section 333 provides for civil money penalties "in an amount not to exceed $15,000 for each such violation, and not to exceed $1,000,000 for all such violations adjudicated in a single proceeding," with enhanced penalties available for intentional violations. 21 U.S.C. § 333(f)(9). Other provisions specify the penalty schedule applicable to violations of the retailer-specific regulations. For a retailer with an approved training program, the maximum penalties are:
21 U.S.C. § 333 Note; Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776, 1839 (June 22, 2009).
The TCA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance regarding a variety of topics and procedures for the assessment of violations and civil money penalties. Codified at 21 U.S.C. § 333, these provisions direct that the Secretary issue guidance:
TCA § 103(q)(1); Pub. Law No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776, 1838–39 (June 22, 2009).
The Center published two guidance documents explaining its approach to enforcement of the tobacco retail regulations. One was entitled "Civil Money Penalties and No–Tobacco–Sale Orders for Tobacco Retailers" and the other offered "Responses to FAQs" about the same. See Ctr. for Tobacco Prods., Food & Drug Admin., U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Civil Money Penalties and No–Tobacco–Sale Orders for Tobacco Retailers: Guidance for Industry ("CMP Guidance ") (rev. Dec. 2016), available at www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/ucm447308.htm (last visited Mar. 19, 2018); Civil Money Penalties and No–Tobacco–Sale Orders for Tobacco Retailers, Responses to Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQs ") (rev. Dec. 2016), available at www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/ucm252810.htm (last visited Mar. 19, 2018). The guidance documents bear a banner announcing that they are "not binding on FDA or the public." See CMP Guidance at 1; FAQs at 1. Substantively, the guidance sets forth the Center's approach to actions for civil money penalties. The CMP Guidance provides significant detail about the Center's enforcement approach, including follow-up visits to inspect retailers after violations. The Center's "FAQ" document explains the Center's enforcement position of counting multiple regulation violations on subsequent visits, while "count[ing] only one regulation violation from the first inspection." See FAQs , Question 43 at 13 () .
The parties do not disagree about...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.
...interpretation " ‘respect’ ... but only to the extent that [it] ha[s] the ‘power to persuade,’ " Orton Motor, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. , 884 F.3d 1205, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (omission in original) (quoting Christensen v. Harris Cty. , 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146......
-
Hall v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.
...its position in guidance documents," upon which it later relied in denying California's request. Orton Motor, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. , 884 F.3d 1205, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Indeed, USDA's rejection of California's first request merely referenced the guidance contained i......
-
Huawei Techs. USA, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
...protected reputational interest in pre-deprivation process. Marrero , 625 F.2d at 513 ; see also Orton Motor, Inc. v. HHS , 884 F.3d 1205, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (rejecting petitioner's argument that "mere issuance of a warning letter, absent further enforcement action," where injury was to ......
-
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.
.... . . but only to the extent that [it] ha[s] the 'power to persuade,'" Orton Motor, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 884 F.3d 1205, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (omission in original) (quoting Christensen v. Harris Cty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000)). Given the highly technical nature of th......