Photo of Bryan Haynes

Bryan Haynes

Subscribe to Bryan Haynes's Posts

Bryan serves clients by developing and implementing creative solutions for complex issues. Focusing in tobacco industry regulatory compliance and enforcement matters, Bryan efficiently assists clients in complying with regulatory obligations and managing risk, consistent with clients' business objectives.

Contact:Read more about Bryan Haynes

The Virginia ABC will assess a regulatory scheme for liquid nicotine, with the consultation of stakeholders, and issue a report and recommendations.

On April 12, the Virginia General Assembly enacted House Bill 2296 and Senate Bill 1350, incorporating recommendations of Governor Glenn Youngkin to have the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority (ABC) “assess” a potential licensing scheme for liquid nicotine manufacturers, distributors, and retail dealers, as well as administrative and enforcement matters relating to liquid nicotine licensing, age verification, product verification, and advertising restrictions. These bills effectively instruct the ABC to tell the Virginia General Assembly whether and how the Commonwealth should regulate liquid nicotine. The ABC’s report and recommendations are due by November 1, and will be informed by stakeholder input. The enactments specify that the ABC will conduct its assessment “in consultation with stakeholders, including public and community health organizations, retailers, tobacco and vaporized nicotine companies, and wholesalers.”

On May 11, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, along with two convenience stores and the American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association, sued the California attorney general and district attorney for Fresno County in their official capacities, seeking declaratory relief that these California officials misinterpreted and misapplied California’s ban on flavored tobacco products and incorrectly concluded that RJ Reynolds’ new products violate this ban.

Bryan Haynes of Troutman Pepper’s Tobacco + Nicotine team will be moderating the panel discussion, 2023 and Beyond — Tobacco Product Standards and Additional Needed Rulemaking, as part of FDLI’s Annual Conference on May 17-18 in Washington, DC.

The panel will discuss the FDA Center for Tobacco Products’ plans for…

This is the third post in our multipart series evaluating the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) response to the Reagan-Udall Foundation report (the Report) on the operations of the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). If you missed our prior posts on the Report and FDA’s response, check them out here, here, and here.

In this segment of our series evaluating FDA’s response to the Report (which can be found here and here), we review a subset of the Report’s recommendations and responses from two CTP Task Forces—Cross Cutting and Regulation and Guidance.

Over the last several months, FDA and DOJ enforcement efforts have increasingly focused on manufacturers and distributors of vapor products covered by the Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act and the PACT Act.

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Justice (DOJ) are increasingly focusing enforcement efforts on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Such enforcement priorities have been reflected in six DOJ complaints for injunctions and four FDA complaints for civil monetary penalties (CMP) against businesses dealing in ENDS without marketing authorization under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). In addition, ENDS businesses have been receiving communications from DOJ’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) alleging violations of the PACT Act, and FDA has issued a substantial number of warning letters alleging ENDS businesses’ FD&C Act violations. Federal prioritization of ENDS enforcement has also been reflected in FDA statements in connection with its CMP complaints and the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s operational evaluation of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), which we have discussed here, here, and here.

Bryan Haynes, Agustin Rodriguez and Nicholas Ramos of the Troutman Pepper Tobacco Team will be attending TMA’s 2023 Conference and Annual Meeting. This in-person event will be held in Leesburg, VA from April 17-19, 2023. Hot topics will include discussions surrounding nicotine policies; federal, state, and local enforcement initiatives…

Coming on the heels of the Reagan-Udall Foundation report on the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Accountability has commenced an investigation into CTP’s regulation of tobacco and nicotine products.  In a letter to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, the Committee notes that CTP has failed to effectively administer its tobacco and nicotine regulations, resulting in uncertainty by compliant stakeholders and a proliferation of unsafe and unregulated products in the marketplace.  The Committee has requested a variety of documents and a staff-level briefing regarding CTP’s activities.

This is the second post in our multipart series evaluating the Food and Drug Administration’s response to the Regan-Udall Foundation report on the operations of the Center for Tobacco Products. If you missed our first post, check it out here.

There is a common refrain that appears throughout the Reagan-Udall Foundation report on the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — lack of transparency. The report found that stakeholders generally perceived premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) — required for all electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) on the market — as “ineffective and problematic” due in part to a “lack of adequate guidance and transparency regarding CTP expectations,” as well as a “lack of clarity regarding review standards.”

The Troutman Pepper Tobacco Team was featured in part two of a two-part podcast on recent developments in the tobacco industry and what to expect for the coming year. In this podcast, Bryan Haynes, Agustin Rodriguez and Nick Ramos discuss tobacco excise taxes; challenges to flavor bans; FDA’s regulation of…

FDA’s approach to a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) raises new questions about whether its marketing denial order was arbitrary and capricious and whether the deliberative-process exemption justifies its withholding of related records. The Agency’s approach is partially documented in a memorandum that FDA disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, and there is pending litigation over other records that FDA continues to withhold. 

May a federal agency that has issued its final determination on a PMTA set aside a portion of its written analysis and withhold those records under the deliberative-process exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? What if those records actually support the PMTA or undermine the purported bases for the agency’s action? These are questions stemming from two pending cases involving FDA and JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI). In No. 22-1123 (D.C. Cir.), JLI claims that FDA’s marketing denial order (MDO) on its PMTAs was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In No. 1:22-cv-02853 (D.D.C.), JLI claims that FDA’s withholding of these records is not supported by FOIA’s deliberative-process exemption.