Showing posts with label rulemaking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rulemaking. Show all posts

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Don’t forget that the rules governing Maine’s medical marijuana program are outdated.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.

The Maine Office of Marijuana Policy Re-formats/Changes (?) Residency Requirements in Response to Rulemaking Comments

Thursday, June 6, 2019

The OMP released provisional adult use marijuana rules late yesterday. These rules are majorly substantive, so they are now headed to the legislature. It seems likely that the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee will hold its public hearing on these rules as early as Monday next week.

While there’s a lot to unpack in this newest iteration of the OMP rules, I’ll focus briefly on the residency requirements today. The provisional rules eliminated two notable subsections from Section 2.3.1(B) that were present in earlier iterations. These are the two subsections which OMP eliminated:

(b)(i) No person or entity shall attempt to subvert this paragraph by way of multi-layered corporate structures or other methods for creating a corporate veil, nor through other equity conveyance tools, including without limitation, purchase options and purchase warrants. The Department may deny an application at its discretion for violation of this provision.

(b)(ii) No person or entity shall create a party of control to a marijuana establishment License consisting of less than a majority of residents.

Before you read too much into the deletion of these paragraphs, the OMP justified removing these paragraphs in its response to specific comments:

“The Department has removed the language of sub-parts (B)(i) and (ii) with the understanding that the powers contained therein were inherent in the powers granted by the Legislature to the Department in statute. These provisions were determined to be duplicative by the Office of Marijuana Policy. Action taken by OMP to remove these provisions should not be construed as a limit on the power of the Department to pierce any corporate veil intended to obfuscate the residency requirements intended by the Legislature in Title 28-B. The Department has clarified in rule that the applicant shall bear the burden of proving majority ownership by residents.”

Lastly, the OMP also added additional language to the residency requirements in Section 2.3.1(B)(b), so now that subsection reads (with the new portion underlined):

“A majority of the shares, membership interests, partnership interests or other equity ownership interests as applicable to the business entity must be held or owned by natural persons who are residents or business entities whose owners are all natural persons who are residents of the State of Maine. The applicant shall demonstrate to the Department that a majority of the shares, membership interests, partnership interests and other equity ownership interests are held by residents of the State of Maine.”

Next, the legislature will have the opportunity to make changes to these provisional rules, and will certainly be considering how these residency provisions jive with the Department’s claim to “inherent powers” derived from Title 28-B.

What Is Going on in the World of Hemp?

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Anyone involved in the hemp and CBD industry in Maine has been on a roller coaster ride this year. On December 20, 2018, hemp became (kind of) legal federally. But then the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that non-approved food products containing CBD remained illegal. Then Maine regulators started telling retailers that they weren’t allowed to sell food products containing CBD, only to walk that position back. In response, the State Legislature passed LD 630, which legalizes the sale of food products containing CBD. Meanwhile, at the federal level, the FDA appears to be taking the position that virtually any CBD product meant for human consumption is illegal. 

Where does this leave us? Folks in Maine appear to be safe from enforcement for the time being, with the notable exception of those who make explicit claims that CBD has therapeutic benefits. If you’re growing, processing, or selling hemp and CBD, though, it’s unlikely that the feds are going to knock down your door tomorrow, and LD 630 is keeping the State at bay for now. But watch out, because rulemaking is coming, and we’re sure to see rules that aim to limit the import (and perhaps the export?) of CBD products, create strict labeling and testing standards, and limit the use of CBD in animal food. There will be more details on a lot of the specifics here in future posts, but the situation is certainly fluid. 

Bottom line: Legalities aside, it seems to be full speed ahead in Maine, with a few notable restrictions. Avoid making public claims of therapeutic benefits (like "CBD cures cancer"). Make sure that your product is clean, free of mold and pesticides, etc. and has a THC content below 0.3 percent. Do what you can to ensure your product is accurately labeled. (Check out this study, which concludes that 70 percent of CBD products are inaccurately labeled in terms of CBD content.) And be aware of quickly changing laws and rules at the state and federal level that could impact your business.

Adult-use Rulemaking Is Underway in Maine – This Is Your Chance to Comment

Monday, May 13, 2019

After releasing pre-draft proposed rules for unofficial comment to gauge the initial reaction of the public, Maine's Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) has now released the official no-longer-in-draft-form proposed rules for real comment. In other words, rulemaking has begun. With a public hearing scheduled for May 23 in Portland, and all public comment due by 5:00 pm on Sunday, June 2, perhaps we can expect rulemaking to be complete and these major substantive rules to be back in front of the Maine Legislature for approval sometime in June, during this session?

The OMP has conveniently posted all of the unofficial comments received in response to the draft rules, and their responses, online here. This provides some interesting insights, and some very predictable ones, into what the different stakeholders care about, and how the State plans to deal with these concerns. Also, kudos to the OMP for using Google Docs – very practical and mainstream for government!