Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiffs' claims for inadequate warning and labeling of tampon boxes are preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 360k and 21 C.F.R. § 808.1 (b), together with 21 C.F.R. § 01.430 (see, Moore v Kimberly-Clark Corp., 867 F.2d 243; Lindquist v Tambrands, Inc., 721 F. Supp. 1058; Poloney v Tambrands, Inc., 260 Ga. 850, 412 S.E.2d 526).
Moreover, we agree that the external warning appearing on the back of the tampon package complies with the Federal regulations as a matter of law (see, 47 Fed Reg 26987 [1982]; Sloman v Tambrands, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 699; Beecher v Tambrands, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 86; see generally, Brudnok v Tambrands, Inc., 1993 US Dist LEXIS 19185 [US Dist Ct, Ore, Mar. 24, 1993, Juba, M.]; Causie v Tambrands, Inc., US Dist Ct, WD Tenn, June 11, 1991, McRae, J., 90-2236-4B; Dallenbach v Tambrands, Inc., US Dist Ct, ND Iowa, Mar. 14, 1991, Hansen, J., No. C89-76; Polizzi v International Playtex, US Dist Ct, ND NY, Mar. 1, 1991, Cholakis, J., 89 CV 1196; Lindquist v Tambrands, Inc., supra). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.