18 Comments

1. Elizabeth Skerry on November 13, 2023 at 4:36 pm

   Please accept the attached as comments on the proposed rule changes for the purposes of the public hearing on November 13, 2023.

   NMCCD Public Comment 231113

2. Lauren J. Whitehurst on November 13, 2023 at 10:17 am

   Attached please find correspondence from Tina Gooch and Katy Duhigg regarding revisions to 16.8.2 NMAC.

   Letter to CCD re Revisions to 16.8.2. NMAC

3. Anthony (T.J.) J. Trujillo on November 13, 2023 at 10:15 am

   Please accept the attached document as Pecos Valley Production’s Comments on Proposed Changes to Rule 16.8.2, 16.8.3, and 16.8.11 NMAC for purposes of the public rule hearing on November 13, 2023. Please let me know if you have any questions.

   PVP – Comments on Proposed Rules

4. Jerome Baca on November 13, 2023 at 10:14 am

   Dear Cannabis Control Division,
   I am writing to express my support for the continuation of the lawful sale of clones between licensed cannabis facilities in New Mexico. The proposed rule change of 16.8.2.27, line item number 5 states, “Cannabis plants that have germinated or cannabis clones that have been placed in mediums shall not be moved from any one licensed premise to another prior to the final harvest of the plant or the wastage of the plant.” As a concerned stakeholder within the cannabis industry, I believe that allowing the exchange of clones between licensed entities plays a crucial role in fostering innovation, maintaining genetic diversity, reducing black market sales, and ensuring the overall health and growth of the state’s cannabis market. The exchange of clones, as permitted under existing regulations, is fundamental for the industry’s sustainability and advancement. Several key reasons support the preservation of this practice.

   Genetic Diversity: Clones offer a means to preserve and diversify the genetic pool within the cannabis industry. By allowing licensed facilities to exchange clones, the industry can maintain a robust variety of strains, leading to the development of new and improved products. This diversity is critical for both medical and recreational consumers seeking specific effects or benefits from cannabis.

   Quality Control and Consistency: 505 Clones Inc. has been providing clones to other licensed cannabis facilities responsibly. Maintaining a strict IPM program and in-house testing for hops latent viroid (HLVd) helps to drive the legal market forward by ensuring that pest and disease do not cripple the production of legal cannabis. The ability to exchange and test clones from other licensed facilities ensures quality control and consistency in product offerings. It allows for the replication of known and trusted strains, maintaining consumer trust and satisfaction.

   Innovation and Research: Access to a wide range of genetics enables research and development within the cannabis community. This, in turn, facilitates innovation in cultivation techniques, disease resistance, potency, and various other desirable characteristics, which benefits the industry as a whole.

   Economic Impact: The exchange of clones supports economic growth by reducing the costs and time associated with breeding new strains from scratch. This efficiency benefits smaller operations and cultivators who might not have the resources to invest in extensive in-house breeding programs.

   Black Market Sales: In the State of New Mexico any adult over the age of 21 is allowed to lawfully grow 6 flowering plants at their residence. Currently, adults that want to produce their own medicine can drive to their local dispensary and purchase clones legally which benefits the cannabis program immensely. If the current rule changes, it will force law abiding citizens to purchase clones from the local black market or from neighboring states legal markets, and illegally transport cannabis clones into New Mexico.

   Natural Disasters: 505 Clones has been producing clones for a little over a year. Throughout the past year we have observed other licensed cannabis facilities lose their crops to wind, hail, disease, and pest damage. We have been fortunate enough to help our colleagues persevere through disasters beyond their control, by providing clones, so their growing season would not be a total loss.

   The continued legality of clone sales between licensed cannabis facilities will aid in the overall development and success of the industry while upholding standards of compliance and accountability. I urge the Cannabis Control Division to consider the substantial benefits and carefully weigh the decision to preserve this crucial aspect of the cannabis market. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I am available for further discussion or clarification on this issue and am willing to provide any additional information that might aid in the decision-making process.
   Sincerely,
   Jerome Baca

5. Chad Lozano on November 13, 2023 at 10:11 am

   The proposed rule change pertaining to clones will only ensure that we confused more people, make it harder to grow, and cause people to manipulate Biotrack further.

   This only makes sense for mature plants, and even then maybe a little wonky to add and could still cause confusion.

   Genetics are very important!

   This also makes it impossible to run a tissue culture facility, these will become very vital for our industry long term as we can rid of certain viruses, pests, and other issues the plant may have. As well as give us the ability to store genetics long term and bring more clean genetics to our growers.

   This rule will set us back and not show the nation how it’s done.

   🤙🏽

6. Sharon Glover on November 13, 2023 at 9:33 am

   1. Regarding 16.8.2.22 A (3) N.M.A.C., 16.8.2.30 A (3) N.M.A.C, and 16.8.2.36 A (3) N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.42 A (3) N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.44 A (3) N.M.A.C, and 16.8.2.57 A (3) N.M.A.C “proof the applicant has acquired all applicable documentation from the local jurisdiction in which the licensed premise will be located including proof of business registration, proof of zoning approval, and proof of completion of a fire inspection;

   **This requirement will be difficult for some applicants as many municipalities require applicants to already be licensed by the State for their cannabis activities prior to being allowed to apply for business licenses.

   “Zoning Approval” is too broad. What is the standard acceptable documentation for zoning approval?

   “Completion of Fire Inspection” also could potentially require ownership of the property being inspected. This was a requirement in the original State Licensing application and was rightfully removed considering that licensure is not guaranteed, so there is a risk for licenses to purchase or lease a space without being licensed.

   2. Regarding:16.8.2.22 C N.M.A.C., 16.8.2.30 C N.M.A.C, and 16.8.2.36 C N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.42 C N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.44 E N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.22.50 C N.M.A.C., and 16.8.2.57 C N.M.A.C “Failure of applicant to provide additional information: When the division determines an application for licensure is incomplete, an applicant will have 48 hours to rectify any deficiencies before the division will reject the application. ”

   **This is an incredibly burdensome request for applicants. The way that additional documents or information is requested by the division is not conducive to applicants being able to make a 48 hour turn around on certain documents. Our office was recently notified that the division will no longer be submitting OSE water right approval documentation on the behalf of applicants. The OSE is currently 500 cases behind. It is unreasonable to notify applicants that they have 48 hours to get approval of water rights as well as requiring these other departments to have a 2 day turn around before the applicants application is closed and they lose their licensing fees. If this is the process the division chooses to require I would urge them to consider refunding application fees to those applicants, allowing them to re apply. A more reasonable requirement would be 30 days.

   I appreciate the opportunity to comment on these proposed rule amendments and urge the division to considered these changes having the applicants in mind first and foremost. Thank you.

7. Doug Fine on November 13, 2023 at 9:32 am

   Thank you for holding these hearings and fielding these comments, I am a New Mexico based cannabis, hemp and environmental author and rancher. By way of relevant background, my books include Too High to Fail and Hemp Bound. My recent book American Hemp Farmer is partly set in New Mexico and was nominated for Book of the Year in the Santa Fe Reporter in 2020. I’ve been reporting on New Mexico’s (and worldwide) cannabis legalization since 1993. New Mexico is widely regarded as having one of the nation’s best cannabis programs. The micro business system is our signature advantage over other states. Especially for access to citizens and for in state legacy entrepreneurs. Please do not change this — if anything, strengthen the micro business model and include more and easier options for consumption lounges. We’re a model to other states. Proposed rule change 16.8.2.27 Section (5) in particular is problematic. In addition to restricting my in state colleagues’ and journalistic subjects’ ability to provide genetics deriving from environmentally friendly outdoor growing models, there’s another issue: what is unique and special about our New Mexico cannabis program is we encourage in state businesses. Changes sch as 16.8.2.27 Section (5) would risk what I’ve seen as an author in other states: making us an MSO (Multi-state operator) destination and watering down our in state quality and in state economy. Also section 3 that would require city permit before state permit is problematic, please strike. Please do not make these rule changes, especially sections 5 and 3. . Our program ain’t broken and doesn’t need fixing. Thank you.

8. Kory Goold on November 13, 2023 at 8:44 am

   My name is Kory Goold, and I’m the head of cultivation for Mama and the Girls, a small macro business with a farm near Estancia and a dispensary in Albuquerque.

   I’d like to start by supporting and thanking you for striking 16.8.2.23 D (3) & (4). These are unnecessarily burdensome, especially to small cannabis businesses.

   Next I want to very, very strongly oppose the addition of 16.8.2.27 A (5), witch says “cannabis plants that have germinated or cannabis clones that have been placed in growing mediums shall not be moved from any one licensed premises to another prior to the final harvest of the plant or the wastage of the plant.”

   This is, frankly, insane. According to this, I could not create a clone on my farm and sell it to consumers at my dispensary. I also could not create a clone and sell it to other producers. Federally this is a hemp product. I have gone through TSA with clones in my luggage and they did not care because this is a hemp product according to the 2018 Farm Bill and the DEA. You can legally send and receive clones via the US Postal Service. So why place this burden on New Mexico producers?

   This isn’t for disease prevention, e.g. hop latent viroid passes through seeds just as much as it passes through clones. This isn’t to curb black market clone sales. Setting aside the above comments on clones being federally legal, just look on Craigslist, Facebook, or clone businesses around Albuquerque & other cities and towns. Those non licensed businesses don’t hide. Some have nursery licenses and think that’s enough. Those who are not dealing with black market clones, are those of us who are licensed and working compliantly in Biotrack.

   Genetic diversity is essential for a robust market, and not all producers have space to house mother plants (i.e. stock plants), to create their own clones. Many starting up do not have the experience to produce their own clones. Seeds are just fine to grow from, but you have to 1. worry about males; 2. you do not get a homogenous crop because even stable f7 seeds have wide phenotypical variations; 3. you do not get even finishing times (for example, have run two phenotypes of the same cultivar (strain) next to each other, and have had them finish over a month apart).

   Getting a homogenous crop that finishes at the same time is really important to most producers, for testing, and for the consumer. Cutting off our ability to buy and sell clones in Biotrack cuts off the access to all but the largest producers who can readily grow their own large, in-house library of mother plants (stock plants).

   Please, do not let this rule change go through. It will only hamstring small – medium sized producers and eliminate almost all clone sales to the public through dispensaries. This will only benefit seed banks and very large producers.

   I additionally oppose all proposed changes to 16.8.2.22 A and C, as well as 16.8.2.30 A(1)(l) & (3), and C. These will only hinder and encumber small business who do not have deep pockets, or will not have access to capital until they’re licensed. For example, this will eliminate the ability to have a conditional lease where you do not commit to a lease for a premises until you’re licensed. A conditional lease mitigates much of the risk of starting a business, and it’s not like you can actually begin producing, manufacturing, or selling without things like a fire marshal inspection, occupancy, a business license, etc. Making these things necessary on the front end, or only allowing a 48 hour window to address an incomplete application, only favors large, well funded corporations and hinders small local mom & pop businesses.

9. jeffrey Castillo on November 13, 2023 at 8:17 am

   16.8.2.27 Section (5) cannabis plants that have germinated or cannabis clones that have been placed in growing mediums shall
   not be moved from any one licensed premise to another prior to the final harvest of the plant or the wastage of the
   plant
   “Section 5 is extremely problematic and disenfranchises rural New Mexicans as well as dual licensees, by utilizing an indirect method of preventing access of safe, stable, and known genetics for New Mexicans.
   Cannabis is legal for adults to cultivate in their homes. There are many producers and micro producers with NMDA nursery licensure that provide clonal/germinated stock to other producers and adult users/growers who do not have the capacity for nursery activities. Many medical patients only receive relief from plants that are produced from clones and many rural patients and adults purchase these clones and grow them under personal production clauses of HB2 Cannabis Regulation Act. This activity would only prohibit the economic ability for nursery based cannabis producer businesses to remain viable businesses. While the solution of selling seeds is minimal at best, it disadvantages the producers who depend on stable clonal stock. Seeds are non comparable and not used by institutions of higher education for research requiring specificied outcomes in production. Clones and tissue culture propagation are necessary for research activity. Prohibiting the transfer of immature plants between licensees is discriminatory in nature for licensees possessing NMDA nursery licensure and a CCD Cannabis Production License/Microbusiness producer as the nursery licensure specifically allows the transfer of produced germplasm.”
   “Steven Sisneros”

   This comment from Stephen is Spot on!!

   Please do not add in this rule!

10. Erica Rowland on November 13, 2023 at 1:37 am

    Good morning, and thank you for holding this hearing, my name is Erica Rowland and I am a third generation heritage farmer here in New Mexico. I am the owner and operator of farm flourish, a licensed cultivation facility for 500 plants in the north valley.
    I’m here to speak against adding barriers for small and first time farmers already in the program and hoping to succeed.

    Regarding 16.8.2.22
    I caution increasing the requirements in preliminary applications when certain paperwork and requirements don’t exist at municipalities, nor are achievable prior to licensure by CCD.

    I request “fair farming” amongst governing bodies. Simply to be recognized as an agricultural product not a special category.
    Such distinction and neutralization in classification might open doors towards grants, funding and assistance with engineers and architects and processes and would be highly valuable for small farmers.

    Please consider supporting micro businesses and small farmers by not increasing their fees rather reverse honoring them with 2 to 3 years of fee forgiveness to allow them to continue to try again. Fine tuning their abilities, their employees and their product for success and sustainability.

    In December 2022 , The DEA made clear that “any seed, tissue culture, or other genetic material that has a delta-9-concentration of no more than 0.3 percent meets the definition of ‘hemp’ and is not controlled under the CSA.”  

    In reference to 16.8.2.27 (#5)
    This addition to the rules is simply unnecessary and not required to be regulated.

    Plants seeds, cuttings and clones are all transferable across state lines and not listed under the control, substance act,
    Think about the opportunities for New Mexico in the future, simply for our genetics and farm Supply.

    In reference to failure of applicant to provide additional information. I’d like to commend the department for quicker responses in correspondence currently. However, 48 hours for anybody to accomplish anything in this industry is completely unfounded an unrealistic. Please remove . 16.8.2.22 sec C
    Kindly , thank you for your consideration ,

    Erica Rowland

11. Patricia M. Monaghan, Esq on November 12, 2023 at 10:28 pm

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the rules. My opinion is based on over fourteen (14) years of experience in representing applicants for New Mexico cannabis business licenses. I first represented a non-profit medical cannabis producer licensed in 2009. Additional influence to this opinion was gained at a meeting that I attended Tuesday evening, 11/7/23, with dozens of licensed cannabis small businesses discussing these proposed rules.
    The amendments to 16.8.2.22 A (3) N.M.A.C., 16.8.2.30 A (3) N.M.A.C, and 16.8.2.36 A (3) N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.42 A (3) N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.44 A (3) N.M.A.C, and 16.8.2.57 A (3) N.M.A.C requiring “proof the applicant has acquired all applicable documentation from the local jurisdiction in which the licensed premise will be located including proof of business registration, proof of zoning approval, and proof of completion of a fire inspection” is unreasonable, unnecessary, and creates a significant barrier to entry.
    Applicants should not be burdened with the expense of purchasing or leasing the licensed premise prior to earning their license. Requiring proof of proper zoning of the premises location and appropriate water rights is reasonable and not overly burdensome nor a barrier to entry. However, requiring proof of a business registration and completion of a fire inspection prior to licensing requires the applicant to bear the expense of the premises for months in advance of any opportunity to earn income at it. This is unreasonable and unnecessary. It also creates a capital demand, 90 days or more of payments for their premises before any income could be earned on those premises. Most small entrepreneurs cannot afford that burdensome additional expense. It would be a huge barrier to entry.
    The amendments to 16.8.2.22 C N.M.A.C., 16.8.2.30 C N.M.A.C, and 16.8.2.36 C N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.42 C N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.44 E N.M.A.C, 16.8.2.22.50 C N.M.A.C., and 16.8.2.57 C N.M.A.C empowering or requiring the Cannabis Control Division to arbitrarily REJECT an application “when the division determines an application for licensure is incomplete, an applicant will have (a mere) 48 hours to rectify any deficiencies.” This is unconscionable. It is severely one-sided for CCD and unfair to applicants. At least thirty (30) days should be provided to applicants. Many times, the “incomplete” item needs to be obtained from a third party, another agency, making the 48-hour deadline impossible. This rule would be unenforceable due to being so unconscionable.
    The amendment 16.8.2.27 A (5) “cannabis plants that have germinated or cannabis clones that have been placed in growing mediums shall not be moved from any one licensed premise to another prior to the final harvest of the plant or the wastage of the plant” is vague to me and considered unacceptable to the vast majority of licensed cannabis small businesses. If the intent is for mature plants to be restricted, “mature plants” should be in the rule, not “clones.”
    Please accept my feedback, limited to these few amendments for emphasis, as urgent and understand the potential detrimental results. Thank you, again.

12. Ari Greenwald on November 12, 2023 at 9:16 pm

    Subject: Urgent Opposition: Proposed Fee Schedule Changes Jeopardize Small Businesses and Quality Products

    Dear Cannabis Control Division,

    Impact Farms strongly opposes the proposed fee schedule changes outlined in the October 10, 2023 notice, as they will disproportionately burden small businesses, potentially forcing many to close. This not only impacts our business but will detrimentally affect our customers, making high-quality small-batch products more expensive. We urgently request reconsideration to prevent these adverse consequences.

    Sincerely,

    Ari Greenwald
    Impact Farms LLC

13. Erika and Andrew Brown - Carver Family Farm on November 10, 2023 at 9:01 pm

    Regarding proposed change:

    16.8.2.27 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CANNABIS:
    A. General requirements: (5) cannabis plants that have germinated or cannabis clones that have been placed in growing mediums shall not be moved from any one licensed premise to another prior to the final harvest of the plant or the wastage of the plant.

    The approval of this rule change will negatively impact both small business and the forward progress of the cannabis industry in at least the following ways:

    1. Limiting inter-license sales of clones will limit collaboration between small and large scale businesses and keep existing licenses insulated creating the need for out of state or black market clones to continue diversifying the product. “Local genetics” is something of which we are proud.

    As breeders, we are eager to create custom genetics for our fellow industry gardens. This rule disallows us this opportunity to collaborate.

    2. Patients need access to a vast variety of genetics so that they may find the strain that works best for them and their personal condition. Patients seek different levels of potency as well as terpene profiles. We’ve created a 30% true, 1:1 CBD:THC strain called Kym’s Sweater that we sell directly to our customers who come to our retail in Albuquerque, but would like to make this strain accessible to growers throughout NM so that they may provide this medicine in their region without needing to travel.

    3. Many licensees took out loans and created businesses with the understanding that they’d be able to buy bulk clean clones in spring to plant rather than having to include a nursery in their business plan. With the proposed change, a business may have to hire a specialist to create each harvest of clones and create new SOPs never intended in the business model under which they were licensed.

    4. One of the best parts of the micro license is the ability to only operate as a clone supplier. Disallowing open access to collect, trade, license and brand with other companies is a detriment to a healthy market. The previous wholesale clone provider would be forced to take on a retail license which changes the entire business model and tax structure.

    5. Tissue Culture Labs would not be able to operate if we could not transfer clones for testing or sale. It is our understanding that there are labs who are finalizing their business plans here in NM. They’ve collected equipment meant to insulate and protect us for Hops Latent Virus, fusarium, curly top beet virus and the next plague just around the corner. We need tissue culture propagation to keep up with the industry and scientific progress throughout the country and internationally. As breeders we look forward to having the ability to identify strains with great immunity to disease and pests in order to push forward with hardy, medicinal genetics.

    Thank you for your time and consideration,

14. Aaron Brogdon on November 9, 2023 at 12:00 pm

    Southwest Organic Producers strongly object to the proposed rule NMAC 16.8.2.27(A)(5) prohibiting the movement of germinated cannabis plants or cannabis clones between licensed premises prior to the final harvest or wastage of the plant. The following points outline just some of the main reasons for this opposition.
    • Inhibiting Business Efficiency and Growth: The proposed rule hampers the efficiency and growth of the cannabis industry, particularly for companies specializing in cloning and vegetative growth. It disrupts established and legal practices where companies transfer plants between facilities for various stages of cultivation, such as vegetative growth at one facility and flowering at another. The currently allowed transfer process allows businesses to optimize their resources, space, and expertise, resulting in cost-effective and efficient operations. Restricting these transfers could impede the expansion and innovation of the industry.
    • Ambiguity in Definitions: The proposed rule lacks clarity in terms of what constitutes a “mature flowering plant” in contrast to clones and vegetative plants. This ambiguity will lead to confusion and inconsistencies in enforcement, making it difficult for both businesses and regulators to comply with the proposed rule. Clear definitions are necessary to ensure a fair and consistent application of the proposed rule. If the rule was intended to restrict movement of just mature plants, this needs to be clearly stated.
    • Existing Tracking Systems: There is already a robust tracking system in place to monitor the movement of cannabis plants between licensed premises. This system, Biotrack, already should be providing a level of oversight and transparency by forcing companies to manifest all plants from one facility to another. Adding additional restrictions on plant movement appears redundant and unnecessarily burdensome on businesses.
    • Economic Impact: The proposed rule may have unintended economic consequences, potentially leading to job losses and financial setbacks for businesses relying on the legal transfer of plants. It could also result in decreased tax revenue for local governments and hinder job creation within industry.
    In sum, this proposed rule needs serious and thoughtful revisions so that it effects the changes it is intended to affect. If there are issues with illicit mature plants making their way into New Mexico, preventing the transfer of clones and germinated plants will not solve that issue. Therefore, unless and until more research and information occurs to account for the legal market this will impact, we strongly encourage CCD to delete this proposed rule from consideration.

15. Kristina Caffrey on November 6, 2023 at 11:41 am

    Please accept these public comments from New Mexico Top Organics-Ultra Health, Inc., and Ultra Health, LLC sent in relation to the proposed revisions to regulation 16.8.2 NMAC, ahead of the public hearing on November 13, 2023.

    2023.11.6 Ultra Health Comments on Proposed Rule Revisions Relating to November 13 2023 Public Hearing

16. Stephen sisneros on November 4, 2023 at 3:59 pm

    16.8.2.27 Section (5) cannabis plants that have germinated or cannabis clones that have been placed in growing mediums shall
    not be moved from any one licensed premise to another prior to the final harvest of the plant or the wastage of the
    plant.

    Section 5 is extremely problematic and disenfranchises rural New Mexicans as well as dual licensees, by utilizing an indirect method of preventing access of safe, stable, and known genetics for New Mexicans.
    Cannabis is legal for adults to cultivate in their homes. There are many producers and micro producers with NMDA nursery licensure that provide clonal/germinated stock to other producers and adult users/growers who do not have the capacity for nursery activities. Many medical patients only receive relief from plants that are produced from clones and many rural patients and adults purchase these clones and grow them under personal production clauses of HB2 Cannabis Regulation Act. This activity would only prohibit the economic ability for nursery based cannabis producer businesses to remain viable businesses. While the solution of selling seeds is minimal at best, it disadvantages the producers who depend on stable clonal stock. Seeds are non comparable and not used by institutions of higher education for research requiring specificied outcomes in production. Clones and tissue culture propagation are necessary for research activity. Prohibiting the transfer of immature plants between licensees is discriminatory in nature for licensees possessing NMDA nursery licensure and a CCD Cannabis Production License/Microbusiness producer as the nursery licensure specifically allows the transfer of produced germplasm.

17. James Nechleba on November 2, 2023 at 1:56 pm

    We are seeking clarification or modification of the following proposed rules:

    “applicant’s employee information including, but not limited to names, identification photographs,
    employment history and demographic information;”

    As written, this requirement is broad, overburdensome, and largely ineffective for regulatory purposes. A great deal of licensees and most businesses in general that require licensure to operate do not begin hiring until they are licensed, so as to not prematurely inflate their responsibilities regarding payroll and report. It is more effective to simply request these documents upon renewal by providing renewal applicants a form that is required to be filled out by their current employees, and demanding copies of the renewal applicant’s corresponding employee ID’s.

    “proof the applicant has acquired all applicable documentation from the local jurisdiction
    in which the licensed premise will be located including proof of business registration, proof of zoning approval,
    and proof of completion of a fire inspection;”

    As written, this proposed rule is overburdensome and is guaranteed to cause issues amongst the various local jurisdictions. Historically, applicants fell into a very difficult application process when both the local jurisdictions and the CCD required proof of licensure/approval by either agency as the condition precedent to issue a license. Various localities within New Mexico still require some manner of proof of licensure with the CCD before they will approve locally–as they seek direction from the CCD regarding whether to approve or deny a license. However, when the CCD simply issued out licenses but left local approval to localities in order to operate, the issue resolved itself.

    CCD should simply consider proposing a rule that states that operations are not legal until all local approvals have been issued, and have a corresponding rule that provides applicants and licensees are under time-restricted period to provide copies of all local approvals (once issued) to the CCD.

    “Failure of applicant to provide additional information: When the division determines an
    application for licensure is incomplete, an applicant will have 48 hours to rectify any deficiencies before the division
    will reject the application.”

    The timeframe established by this rule is unreasonable as written. First, recognizing the constraints of businesses and the realities of the days of operation for government agencies, the rule should be amended to provide at least 2 business days rather than a flat 48 hour period. Second, it is unfortunately the case that more time is needed to rectify a given issue with an application; as such, the language should be amended to reflect two business days to respond (not rectify), and allow the license examiners discretion regarding the timeframe to rectify any issues regarding incompleteness of applications.

18. Vince Roebuck on October 16, 2023 at 10:22 pm

    I would just like to know why the producer was taken off the required info on the label of ALL products being manufactured?
    This is the most crucial info needed to track a product properly?
    Why list pesticides from producer if no producer is even listed??
    Please fix this error on new labeling requirements??
    As a medical patient I feel like this is the most important information needed when purchasing a product.