Showing posts with label proposed rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label proposed rules. Show all posts

USDA Hemp Rules Nearly Finalized

Monday, October 28, 2019

We haven’t seen a draft of the rules yet, but the latest news is that the White House has signed off on the proposed rules and they’ll be released any week now. Once the rules are released, a public comment period will begin. The USDA is still claiming that final rules will take effect before the end of 2019. 

The Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (which houses our hemp program) is likely to respond by drafting and proposing new rules of its own. These rules will likely parallel the federal rules including any THC potency testing guidelines, quality control standards, and broader cannabinoid testing requirements. 

Maine will also seek USDA approval of a state regulatory plan governing hemp. Once this approval is obtained, Maine hemp will finally be legal.

Lots of Different Rules Governing Maine’s Marijuana Programs Are Going to Become Official Soon – But When?

Tuesday, October 1, 2019

We are waiting on final and effective versions of several different sets of rules governing Maine’s marijuana programs. I’ll start with the Rules for the Certification of Marijuana Testing Facilities, since the public hearing for these rules was just yesterday. The hearing was sparsely attended and public comments were not particularly noteworthy. Readers probably know that the Emergency Rules for the Certification of Marijuana Testing Facilities already took effect in September. This is allowed during rulemaking under Maine’s administrative procedures act in certain situations, and so rulemaking continues anyway. Final written comments are due October 10. At that point, we can expect about a month until final testing rules are released since the Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) will need to work with the Office of the Attorney General to sort through and incorporate any comments.

We are, of course, also still waiting with baited breath for the final adult use rules to be released. These will incorporate, at a minimum, the changes required by the legislature last June. The legislature required some fairly broad changes to the residency requirements in these draft rules, and we are waiting to see how OMP reacts and what the final rules look like accordingly. These adult use rules, the OMP has stated, will be released within the next 60 days.

Don’t forget that the rules governing Maine’s medical marijuana program are outdated. The current rules were enacted before the legislature significantly revised the program in 2018. So expect OMP to also tackle a rewrite of these rules sometime, perhaps this winter.

If You Believe the Proposed Rules, Regulators Want to Know EVERYTHING About You
Or: A Few Words on Disclosure Requirements

Friday, May 31, 2019

For those who are still scouring the proposed adult use rules, take a look at  the sheer volume of information required to be disclosed to the Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) by anyone seeking a license, and the Department’s claim to unlimited power to keep digging and digging and digging until “satisfied.”

Section 2.4 seems to be designed to require the disclosure of every contract and relationship and, the Department may argue, could even require you to disclose not only your contractors, but your contractors’ contractors. Remember the broad definition of “party of control” (discussed here), and add to that similarly broad definitions of “true party of interest” and “other interested parties.” An applicant must not only disclose all three categories of “parties” (which could be read to encompass everyone remotely involved with or interested in the business), but must provide “all requested information concerning financial and management associations and interests of other persons, parties of control, other interested parties or true parties of interest in the marijuana establishment” (Rule 2.4.2(B)(2)). 

These regulations take us at least two layers deep, but if the Department wants to keep digging even further, it can. Rule 2.5.1 allows the Department to “require additional information to verify that business structures, loans, franchise agreements, and other legal arrangements or anything else regarding true parties of interest, parties of control or other interested parties are not being used to circumvent ownership requirements.”

If these exacting disclosure requirements, combined with broad powers of investigation, remain in the final rules, this will cause headaches on both sides of the process. Applicants will need to be comfortable providing all sorts of sensitive information to regulators, but will also need to be sure their investors, contractors, etc., are comfortable also providing this information to regulators. This is probably something that businesses will want to address, if possible, at the time they enter into their business arrangements to make sure these issues don’t arise in the thick of the application process.

I expect that regulators, too, will find these regulations a bit too much when put into practice. They will need to sift through vast troves of contractual arrangements and other partnerships, many of which will require a particular expertise to decipher. Applicants who want to air on the side of compliance will be almost required to dump their entire filing cabinet on the Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) just by virtue of the vague nature of the regulations. We’ll see if this language stays in the final rules, and we’ll see if it is relaxed over time through the practice of the Department.

What’s up with the Residency Requirements in the Proposed Adult Use Rules?

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

If you’ve looked at the proposed adult use rules, you’ve probably noticed some pretty expansive language limiting the ability of non-Mainers to play really any role in a Maine marijuana business. The Marijuana Legalization Act already requires that every officer, director, manager, and general partner of a marijuana business must be a Maine resident, and requires that “a majority of shares” or “other equity ownership interests” must be held by Maine residents (See 28-B MRS § 202(2)). Now the proposed rules go way beyond these restrictions in statute. 

The statute allows 49% of a business to be owned by non-Maine residents, for example. The rules, though, prohibit any out-of-state person or entity from exerting “more than minimal influence, through direct or indirect financial interest, over decisions regarding the operation of a marijuana establishment.” Whoa. To spin this out a bit: If I’m from Delaware and I own 20 percent of a Maine marijuana business, I’m 100 percent in compliance with the law. But wouldn’t a 20 percent owner necessarily exert “more than minimal influence” over decisions of the business? These rules seem to prohibit what the law allows, which makes the legality of the rules questionable. (More on this in forthcoming blog posts.)

Finally, I’ll just note that the proposed rules give the Office of Marijuana Policy Department of Administrative and Financial Services broad authority to dig, deeply, into the corporate structure and dealings of any applicant or licensed business. Check out rule 2.5.1, which allows the Department to “require additional information to verify that business structures, loans, franchise agreements, royalty agreements and other legal arrangements or anything else regarding true parties of interest, parties of control or other interested parties are not being used to circumvent ownership requirements.” Depending on the Department’s motivation, it can keep digging and digging and withhold a license until its satisfied that residency requirements, etc., are met.

(I am trying not to bury too many legal citations in this blog, to make it digestible, but to spell out the residency requirements explained above, check out section 2.3.1(B)(2) on page 15 of the proposed rules, which states that “no person or entity shall create a party of control to a marijuana establishment license consisting of less than a majority of residents.” Now, check out the definition of "party of control" on page 9 of the rules. This definition is frighteningly broad, as quoted above.)