[Margaret Flerchinger] 13:04:12 Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the cannabis testing rack. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:04:17 I'm Margaret Flirchinger, and I'll be facilitating today. As you can see, I've turned on the closed captions, and also this meeting is being recorded. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:04:28 We still have, I think, a few more people that might. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:04:32 kind of drop in. But I think we can go ahead and start it as we have the majority of our participants here today. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:04:47 I'm going to start out with a intro. So everybody knows what we're doing here today. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:04:59 So hello again. My name is Margaret Florshinger, and I am the rules and operations liaison for the Oregon Health Authority Medical Marijuana program. Today is Tuesday, August 18th, 2020 or 2026. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:05:14 And this is the first Rules Advisory committee meeting or RAG for the cannabis testing rules. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:05:19 Today's meeting will cover Division 7 only. This rag is being held in coordination with Oregon's Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, or ORLEP, which is also a part of OHA. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:05:32 There will be another RAC meeting tomorrow, August 19th, starting at 1 Pm. To review proposed changes to Division 64, which will cover proposed changes to laboratory testing for cannabis, and if there's time, psilocybin. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:05:46 If all items are not able to be covered, there'll be a third and last rec that will take place this Friday, August 21st, from 10 a.m. To noon, and that should mainly cover the psilocybin testing changes. A representative from the Oregon Psilocybin Services will be present for the psilocybin portion of the meeting. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:06:07 Meeting materials for today's meeting and the other meetings can be found on Omnp's rules and statutes website, which may be found at healthoregon.org/almp and selecting rules and statutes from the left sidebar. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:06:23 They are also posted on Orlap's website at healthoregon.org forward slash. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:06:31 or laps, which is O-R-E-L-A-P. This meeting is being held over Zoom and is being recorded, and the recording will be posted on OMP's rules website to cut down on background noise. Everyone should place themselves on mute when not speaking, and that would include anybody calling in. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:06:54 to please mute your phones. Everyone seems to be doing a wonderful job so far. So thank you for that. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:07:00 The public is invited to listen to the rack meetings, but only RAC members may be involved in the discussion of the proposed rule changes during the RAC meeting. The public will be able to provide comment on a final proposed rule draft at a later time. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:07:15 And that information will be posted on OMPs and Oral Apps Rules webpage. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:07:22 The purpose of the rack is to increase the public's involvement in the development of administrative rules. Rac meetings are a way to solicit input from internal and external stakeholders who are likely to be impacted by development or amendment of agency policy rules. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:07:40 Rank members include those impacted by the rules, such as OMP registrants, Oregon liquor and Cannabis Commission or OLCC licensees. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:07:50 Cannabis testing laboratories accredited by Orlap, small business, cannabis industry associations, members of the public partner agencies, and other interested stakeholders, such as those from psilocybin for that portion of the meeting. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:08:05 The reason for having all these members on this committee today is to hear from different communities that may be impacted by these rules. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:08:13 The RAC's role is advisory only, and consensus is not necessary. The RACS input will be considered for possible integration into the final rules. Rac members are encouraged to communicate information or concern during these meetings. And if anything comes up afterwards, you're welcome to email myself or Melissa from Orlap. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:08:34 As an overview, the OHA, Oregon Health Authority is responsible for cannabis testing rules that apply to both the medical and retail market. Any marijuana item intended to be sold at a dispensary or retail shop must have been sampled and tested according to the rules found in Division 7. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:08:52 and Division 64. Today's RAC meeting of proposed changes for cannabis testing rules found in Division 7, the associated Exhibit A tables 3, 4, 8, and 9, and the statement of need fiscal impact statement and racial equity statement will be reviewed. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:09:12 Speeding is scheduled to go until 5. If by chance we get through all the material sooner, then we will include before that. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:09:21 I review the changes in each section and ask for feedback from the rec. Please use the raise hand function to be called upon before speaking. And before you begin speaking, please state your name for the record. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:09:34 The route should provide meaningful feedback on the proposed changes and the impact that change may have on you, your business or processes, any fiscal impact, equity impact or time it may take to implement the change. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:09:47 The chat box is only available to send messages to the hosts. So some of the agency members have been given co-host permissions, and I'm going to ask them to help me kind of monitor the chat. So if you do have questions, comments. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:10:02 You're welcome to put them in there, and we will read them out to everyone. And a reminder that all comments in the chat are public record. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:10:12 We ask that you respect everyone on the committee, and as a reminder, this is a forum to discuss the proposed changes. The rec meeting is not the time to introduce new topics that are not related to the proposed changes. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:10:24 These changes get adopted. They would be effective January 1, 2027. So any timeframes that should be considered for implementation should be brought forward and discussed as we cover various sections of the rules today. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:10:40 If a fiscal or racial equity impact is identified for a particular section as we are reviewing it, please bring that forward while we're reviewing this section, or you can also just save your comment to the end to when we review the. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:10:55 statement of need and fiscal impact and racial equity statement. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:10:59 We'll take about a 10 to 15 min break around the midway point, which should be about 3 pm. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:11:06 And with that, I'm going to go ahead and do roll call so we know who's here today. And when I call your name, please indicate you are here and who you represent. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:11:22 So 1st step on my list here. I have Jay Kirkwood. I did get an email from him this morning saying he won't be making it today, but should be here tomorrow. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:11:34 Next up, Chris Griffey. [Chris Griffey] 13:11:40 Ah, yes, uh, Chris Griffey. I am the lab director at Rose City Labs. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:11:46 Thank you, Chris. And next up, Megan Anderson. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:12:07 Megan, our. [1252****854] 13:12:07 Sorry, my audio is being weird, but I'm here, and I'm representing Pinnacle Analytics. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:12:13 Perfect. Thank you so much. And Jeremy Sackett, are you here? [Jeremy Sackett] 13:12:20 Hello, Jeremy Sake here, present, representing Columbia Laboratories. Thank you. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:12:26 Thank you. Next up, Patrick Trujillo. [Patrick Trujillo] 13:12:31 Hello, Patrick Trujillo. I represent Chem History. I'm the lab director there. Thanks. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:12:39 Thank you. Justin Miller. [Justin M.] 13:12:44 Hi, I'm Justin Miller and I represent SC Labs. I'm the lab manager here. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:12:49 Thank you. And, Daniel Hudson. [Daniel Huson] 13:12:54 Hi, Daniel Hewson representing Rose City Laboratories. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:12:58 Thank you. And, uh, Richard Halston. [Richard] 13:13:13 Richard representing Reference Labs. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:13:17 Thank you. Next up, Aaron Purchase. [Erin Purchase] 13:13:24 Aaron Purchase representing Kindly Pendleton. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:13:29 Thank you. Melissa Wolf. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:13:48 Melissa, are you here? I don't see your name in. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:13:53 the participants list. Maybe you're calling in. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:13:58 No. Okay? [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:14:02 How about Suzanne Silva? [Suzanne Silva] 13:14:07 Hi, Suzanne Silva here, representing Farmers Friend Extracts. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:14:12 Thank you. and April Roth. Did you happen to join us today? I also received an email from April this morning saying she actually no, she said she would be late, but just checking to see if she's here yet. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:14:29 No, I don't think so. Okay, she'll probably just join us a little late next up. Alexander. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:14:38 Maruki, I'm not sure if I said that correctly. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:14:39 Yeah. Hi, Alex Marucci. I'm the owner or managing member of Higher Cultures and Good Gardens. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:14:46 Great. Thank you. Tucker Holland. [Tucker Holland] 13:14:52 Hello, Tucker Holland. I am one of the co-founders and managing member of Entourage Cannabis, an OLCC licensed processor. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:15:02 Thank you. And Mia Nelson. [mia] 13:15:06 Mia Nelson, owner, general manager, Capricorn. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:15:12 Thank you. And Sienna Uran Walker. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:15:19 Did I say that correctly. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:15:26 I saw her log in. [Siana Ọrun-Walker, I BE I AM INC.] 13:15:32 Hi. Hello. I am Siana O'Run Walker. You did say that correctly, representing IBIM Inc. We are a mental health consulting corporation. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:15:45 Thank you. And next we have Michael Rhodes. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:16:04 get see Michael in the participant list. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:16:12 Mary? And Patricia Butcher, I don't I'm not expecting her. She also emailed me this morning, but just checking in case she did come in. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:16:27 So, okay. Anthony Taylor. [A Taylor] 13:16:33 Thank you, Margaret Anthony Taylor, Chair of the Oregon Cannabis Commission. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:16:38 Thank you. And David Billancourt. I also received an email from David, so he might not be here, but checking anyways. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:16:50 I don't believe so. Okay. Cheryl Johnson. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:17:04 Don't see her. I didn't hear from her this morning, but she said she was going to make it. But maybe she'll come in late. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:17:13 And then I'm going to go through just some members from other State agencies that are here to participate in the rec, so that everyone knows who's here. We'll start with Melissa Jackson. [Melissa Jackson - OHA / ORELAP] 13:17:29 Hello! This is Melissa Jackson with Orlap. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:17:34 Thank you. And next up we have David Stanford. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:17:38 Howdy! This is David Standiford with the Oregon Liquor and [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:17:43 Thank you. And then we also have Dr. Sarah Volker. [Sarah Voelker (she/her) - ODA] 13:17:49 Hi, this is Sarah. I represent the Oregon Department of Ag Laboratory [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:17:54 Thank you. And then we do have. So Nick Case from DOJ joining us today. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:18:04 And I know we have a couple managers on the line. I don't know if they would like to introduce themselves or not. We have Megan Lockwood. I see you on video, so I'll go to you. [Megan Lockwood] 13:18:14 Thank you, Margaret. Hi, everyone. Megan Lockwood. I'm the section manager for the Oregon Medical Marijuana program. Thank you. I really want to thank the members today for joining us and helping us put these rules together. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:18:29 Thank you. And then I also see Angie Lv here from psilocybin Services. [Angela Allbee, OHA (She/Her)] 13:18:36 Hello, I'm just off camera listening in today. Great to see you all. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:18:42 Thank you. And if I missed any agency folks, I would like to pop in, say hi, you're welcome to do so right now, as I do some organizing on my end. [Steve Jetter (He/him) - OHA ORELAP] 13:18:54 Sure, I'll pop in here. Hi, everybody. My name is Steve Jetter, and I'm the program manager with Orlep. As Megan said, we really appreciate everybody's contributions in this rulemaking process. Thank you for being here. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:19:10 Thank you. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:19:18 All right. So we're going to get started reviewing Division 7. So I will do a screen share. So we're all looking at the same document. It is the same document that is posted on the website and that your emailed. If you'd like to follow along with your own copy, you are welcome to do so. [Melissa Jackson - OHA / ORELAP] 13:19:35 Margaret, before we get started, it looks like April Roth might be in the waiting room. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:19:37 Yeah. Okay, are you able to admit participants as a co-host? [Melissa Jackson - OHA / ORELAP] 13:19:44 Yeah. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:19:45 Okay. Great. Thanks. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:19:54 All right. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:20:19 should be able to see my screen with the Division 7 rules. And like I mentioned, I'll just start going through this and either read off or summarize the changes and ask for feedback. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:20:32 Uh, and I'm done. So we're going to start with 333-007-0310 definitions. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:20:40 This might be a bit of scrolling here, as we're not changing a lot of definitions, but make sure we… get a recovering. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:20:52 Okay, so our first definition, we are adding a new definition for target potency, and it will have the same meaning given to that term as in OAR. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:21:04 8, 4, 5, 0 2 5 7,000, and that is the same exact definition that the Olcc has in their rules, and that is what is in this little comment here. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:21:15 So it means the intended potency included on the label for the amount or concentration of a cannabinoid, including but not limited to amount or concentration THC, CBD or total amount of cannabinoids. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:21:29 And the rest of the changes are just numbering changes to add that new definition. And that is everything that is being added to the definition section. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:21:45 And next step, 3, 3, 3, 007-0315, ordering tests. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:21:53 Sub one is where we'll find the 1st change, and it has to do when a test is being requested. The requester must provide a laboratory prior to the laboratory taking samples with a minimum of the following information. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:22:07 and to sub I of that section we are adding 4 cannabinoid products, the weight or mass of all intended serving sizes and units of sale for cannabinoid products in liquid form. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:22:20 Also include the density of the product or the volume of all intended serving sizes and units of sale, and this is just to capture all the various ways that the item is being sold to ensure that it meets concentration limits. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:22:35 see a hand raised, Alex. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:22:40 Um, does that include, uh, inhalable? Cannabinoid products, or is that just for like cannabinoid products more like animals? [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:22:53 It's just for products. I… I'm going to defer to OLCC because this was an ask that they had if they wanted this to include inhalables or not. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:23:05 No, I think… I think this is just for products. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:23:11 That was the primary concern. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:23:14 Yeah, I mean, like, it's just the different packages that items can be placed in. If you have gummies. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:23:23 or a beverage that might come in different sizes, or tinctures that might come in different sizes. It's mainly to accommodate that, so… just for products. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:23:24 Right. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:23:31 Okay, that makes sense. And should I consider inhalable cannabinoid products as a totally separate. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:23:40 Uh, product from cannabinoid products. I think in my head, I feel like it's a subsection of cannabinoid products. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:23:49 It is in a sense, a subsection, but it is separate. There's different testing rules that do apply to those. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:23:50 Just curious. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:23:50 Yeah. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:23:57 items. And David, if you want to elaborate, feel free. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:24:00 Yeah, so we'll get into it more for the when the rules section. But this is coming down to when we get a certificate of analysis, being able to determine if. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:24:13 using the certificate of analysis, can another company determine if this product violates the serving size and potency limits? Because without the actual mass of the unit, like, the… you can't tell. And the lab needs to know this to determine a pass-fail criteria anyways. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:24:33 And so that's where it came comes in. Realistically, you know, if we have this on there for inhalables, that's great. Realistically, we don't see it, you know, I can't think of an example off the top of my head where we've had inhalables, you know, unless someone's trying to do these like. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:24:35 Got it. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:24:50 4 gram carts or something really, really large. We're not saying inhalables being the problem, it's more of things like soda cans and different things like this, where the… you really need to know the mass or density to determine the pass-fail criteria of the item. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:25:06 Understood. Thank [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:25:10 Chris, you have your hand raised? [Chris Griffey] 13:25:12 Yes, I was just wondering, did you guys… is the OR intended? Did you want that to be one or the other, or both of them? [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:25:22 For this section here, where it says the density of the product or the volume of all intended. It is an or because it just depends on. [Chris Griffey] 13:25:23 Correct. Yes. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:25:31 The item, and depending on the unit of measure that the. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:25:38 the processor needs to provide to make that clear. [Chris Griffey] 13:25:43 Okay, just checking. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:25:44 Mm-hmm. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:25:45 Yeah, I should be able to figure out the pass-fail using one or the other. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:25:53 And Tucker. [Tucker Holland] 13:25:57 Yeah, on here it says the, uh, the weight or mass of all intended serving sizes and units of sale. So are is just to be clear. Is that saying the mass of a single unit, or the mass of the entire production lot? [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:26:12 the unit. So if you do using, like, sodas again, if I do, I sell them as a single or a six pack. I need to know both so I can make sure that either one would do the pass-fail of the 100 milligrams per unit. [Tucker Holland] 13:26:26 Okay, thank you. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:26:32 Okay, great questions. We're going to move on to the next section here. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:26:38 And we're adding a new sub 8 that says registrant or licensee that requests testing on a cannabinoid product may provide to the laboratory prior to the laboratory taking samples. The target potency per serving or per container of any cannabinoid listed under oar. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:26:56 333-007-04371. In the item being tested for the purpose of establishing an additional failure criteria as described in OAR 333-007. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:27:13 0, 4, 3, 0, sub 4. I think that we'll probably get a bit more into this rule once we get to section 430, which is the potency section rule. But for purposes of ordering the test, if a processor is making a product, and they're. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:27:34 Making this consistent product that we'll always have, for example, 100 milligrams. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:27:40 then that is their target. And if for some reason that target is. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:27:46 Not met from their testing, they would have an avenue to possibly get that retested if other criteria is met, which we'll get into once we get to that potency section. Suzanne, you have a question or comment? [Suzanne Silva] 13:28:00 Yeah, just a question about that. Would, in this case, if you provide a target potency and the product does not meet that target potency, does that list as a failure either on the test result or in metric? [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:28:15 No. No one knows the target potency is optional. [Suzanne Silva] 13:28:16 Perfect. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:28:22 So it's it's up to the producer if they, yeah, the processor, if they decide they would like to have a target potency, they can provide that if they want to say, I just want to test it. There's no target potency. They can do that, too. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:28:37 So this is kind of an optional thing that we're adding for for folks. [Suzanne Silva] 13:28:41 Great. Thank you. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:28:43 And Margaret, if it'd be helpful, I can explain the concept real quick. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:28:49 Do you want to do that here? Or when we get into the potency section? [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:28:54 My guess is people are going to keep having questions about it, and so if just kind of explain the logic from the top. So I get a lot of phone calls from people who get 89 milligram milligrams of THC in a unit. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:28:58 Okay. Go for it. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:29:11 And that does not fail, but they have… you know, thousands of labels that say 100 milligrams, and they're aware that the OLCC would consider it misleading to have a product that's. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:29:25 on the back says it's got 89 milligrams of THC, but on the front has 100 milligrams. And so, this was a concept, uh, the OLCC brought to OHA to come up with a way for OLCC licensees who are in the scenario where. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:29:43 No test has failed, but they want to ask for reanalysis from the lab, and the test failure rules only trigger when a test fails. So this allows a licensee to establish. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:29:59 a additional failure criteria with the lab where they could then invoke the rules in the, I think it's 0450 the tests failed reanalysis section and request reanalysis under that section. And so. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:30:14 This allows a licensee, it's completely optional. To go, hey, when I order this test, this product has a target potency of 100 milligrams. And then, as you'll see outlined in the potency rule, if you set this criteria ahead of time, so you can't go backwards in time and set the target after you get 89 milligrams, you have to tell the lab ahead of time. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:30:36 Then, when it comes in. They can then treat that as if it was 111 milligrams of THC, and like a failure and or request free analysis, and it follows the exact same track as a normal test failure reanalysis. So this is. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:30:54 Just giving manufacturing licensees for products. So this doesn't work for flour or something like that is just for products. This gives them another avenue to contest the result and request reanalysis through the rules. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:31:11 So that's all it's meant to do. Completely optional. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:31:19 and we'll talk about it more with more rules. But wanted to make sure people understood what we were going for. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:31:27 Thank you, David. That was a good explanation. And we will revisit the subjects. So if you don't have any questions now, you will have an opportunity, and at least 2 other sections to kind of hear a bit more about it and ask your questions then. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:31:48 Move on to the next section. In the meantime. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:31:51 333-007-0320 compliance testing requirements for marijuana or usable marijuana. You'll see very similar changes throughout the next few sections of the rules. And what we're doing here is we're deleting reference to any. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:32:11 thing that has a date that's already passed. Um, you'll see that these dates are in correlation to heavy metals, myotoxin, microbiological testing. This is back when we added those new testing requirements. There was that leeway period of anything that was. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:32:30 harvested or made before either March 1st or March 1st, 2023, or July 1st, 2022, that didn't have to have these I, um, these tests performed. We're now removing those dates. So. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:32:46 Once these rules go into effect, anything being tested will have to receive all required compliance testing. So even if the item was. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:32:55 harvested or made before that March 1st or July 1st date, it would also need to have that item. So I guess this is kind of your. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:33:02 As always, she likes to call it, your sail down period. If you want to try to get rid of that product now. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:33:17 not gonna just keep scrolling here. Next section 33-007-0330 compliance testing requirements for cannabinoid concentrates and extracts. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:33:28 and it's basically the same change of removing those reference the dates that have passed. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:33:36 and there is one grammatical, not grammatical, but just kind of formatting thing that we're fixing in sub 3. There was. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:33:47 This is always something that was kind of confusing the way it was written before, because it would have this and statement, and then it would have this or statement. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:33:56 So we're just reformatting this to make it a little easier to read. No. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:34:01 No rule change there really. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:34:11 Next section is 333-007-0341 compliance testing requirements for finished inhalable cannabinoid products, and you'll see that it's the same change that's being made with deleting reference to those dates that have passed. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:34:29 And I apologize if you can hear my cat. She loves talking during meetings. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:34:37 The next is 333-007-0342 compliance testing requirements for industrial hemp, dry vapor items. Same changes, just deleting reference to those past dates. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:34:52 And next is 333-007-0350 batch requirements for compliance testing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:35:01 Same thing, the leading reference to past dates. So what we're deleting here is the reference to if something was harvested before July first, 2022, it could be in no larger than 15 pound batches, as we know, the requirement now is 50 pound batches. So we're just deleting that old language. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:35:24 You'll also see throughout this rule draft all the shells are being changed to must. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:35:30 Does it change the intent of the rule? It's just a change in what is. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:35:36 I guess, consider more. appropriate to put here, or was being used more in the legal world. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:35:52 And now we have Section 333-007-0360 sampling and sampling size requirements for compliance testing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:36:03 In this section, also removing a reference to dates that have passed. So in this case. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:36:11 it the or lab standard operating procedure revision 4.0 was referenced as that should have been used on or. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:36:23 Sorry, before January 1, 2022, the new ORLAP SOP is revision 4.1, so it will just reference 4.1 and not reference 4.0 anymore. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:36:36 and all the revs are being changed to revision. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:36:41 Another change you'll see throughout these rules, starting here is that we are adding a significant railing 0 to anywhere you see a number. That is to add consistency and clarity to the rules. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:36:57 So 15 pounds doesn't mean 15.1? Does it mean 15.4? It means 15.0 or less. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:37:11 Again, changing shells to must. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:37:23 Oh, let's see. for clarification, we're also adding into the rules that. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:37:33 sufficient sample size must be taken for analysis of all requested tests. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:37:38 And we're adding potential reanalysis test, even though it already says all requested test because there is a case for potential reanalysis that could occur. We're making or we're adding this language just for clarification. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:37:55 that. Well, you'll see just the same changes I've already talked about, shall demuss, the revision, and that potential reanalysis test being added to samples. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:38:07 So there's a sample size being collected. So that concludes the sampling section of the rules. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:38:22 So for this next upcoming section, I'm going to read through. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:38:27 Some of the standard testing changes that we're making, and then I'll go into the tables so we can take a look at those as well rather than flipping back and forth between a section and then going to a table. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:38:40 1st up, we have 333-007-0400 standards for pesticides compliance testing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:38:51 In step two, we're adding the language. At or those are the two words we're adding here. So it now says a batch fails pesticide testing if a laboratory detects the presence of a pesticide at or above the action limits listed in exhibit A table three, any sample, including a duplicate. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:39:10 And you'll see this language at or being added to the next few sections. So I'll just review those and then we can go to the tables. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:39:19 The other item you'll also see is language in sub 4 that's being added throughout the rules. Any trailing 0 to the right of the decimal point for a pesticide listed in exhibit A table 3 is considered a significant figure. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:39:36 Patrick, do you have a question or comment? [Patrick Trujillo] 13:39:39 I just want to clarification or just to verify. So now we have the option for replicates on bigger batches, so I just want to verify that sub 2, where it says it could fail at or above the action levels. [Patrick Trujillo] 13:39:55 Um, in any sample, including a duplicate, I think you probably intend to also need a replicate as well. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:40:04 Yeah, so it would be for any sample, so we can make that clarification. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:40:09 Thank you. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:40:19 Okay, so next up is 333-007-0410 standards for solvent compliance testing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:40:31 The same items we just discussed are being changed here. So we're adding the at or language at or above the action limit. The item fails. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:40:41 We're adding a point 0, or is trailing 0 to the numbers listed here, and then any trailing 0 to the right of the decimal point for solvent listed in exhibit A table 4 is considered a significant figure. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:40:59 Standards for heavy metal compliance testing, same items we just discussed adding the at or above the action level, the item fails and any trailing 0 to the right decimal point. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:41:14 considered a significant figure. And Tucker, I see your hand raised. [Tucker Holland] 13:41:19 Yeah, uh, sorry, we might have to just back up a hair. [Tucker Holland] 13:41:25 But if the batch sizes are 50 pound batch sizes. [Tucker Holland] 13:41:33 Why are we still required to have 15 pound containers? [Tucker Holland] 13:41:38 Is that a change that? [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:41:39 That is… That is for sampling purposes, and that has to do with the ability to select a representative sample from the overall batch. So if you have a 50-pound batch, and it's all in one tub, tote, box, whatever the case may be. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:41:56 In order not to disturb the sample that might be maybe from the bottom or midway through that batch. We distribute it through multiple. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:42:09 totes, boxes, whatever, that are 15 pounds. The sampler has a. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:42:15 better chance of selecting a multitude of product, as opposed to just picking things from the top of a sample that is provided to them, or a batch is provided to them. And that way they're also not disturbing and maybe crushing or. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:42:31 damaging the the item that's being sampled. And if Melissa or anyone from Ora would like to add to that, you're welcome to. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:42:43 One thing I'll add from the OLCC perspective. This is only during the sampling event. You're not required to permanently store them in 15 pound containers. It's just during the sampling event to make sure that it can all be reasonably assessed [Tucker Holland] 13:43:01 Thank you. [Melissa Jackson - OHA / ORELAP] 13:43:02 Yeah, I didn't have anything to add, Margaret. I think you did a good job explaining that. Thank you. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:43:07 Yep, great. Thanks. All right. So we just finished the heavy metal portion. So we're going to 3, 3, 3, 007-0420 standards for testing water activity and moisture contents. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:43:23 Same changes of adding zeros and stating any trailing 0 to the right of the decimal point listed is considered significant. You'll see here that sub 2 is being deleted. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:43:37 And that is just because, um, again, we're trying to clean up rules that have reference to past dates. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:43:52 Now on to 333-007-0425 standards for mycotoxin contaminant compliance testing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:44:02 Same changes. Laboratory detects the presence of any mycotoxin at or above the action limit. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:44:08 would be a failure and any 0 to the right of the decimal is considered significance. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:44:14 and that concludes all our standards for compliance testing. So I'm going to move to the tables. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:44:20 that go along with these various tests. Let me do a little, uh… changeover in my screen. Pull up the table. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:44:34 All right. So here we have exhibit A. These are the tables associated with the various compliance tests we just reviewed. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:44:42 1st up for pesticide testing, which is 333-007-0400. Table 3. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:44:52 You'll see that we've added all the zeros to the end. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:44:58 of action limits. We do have a new footer added to abidectin, which. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:45:07 It's going to come right down here that says aviductin must be measured as cumulative residue of ivermectin B1A and ivermectin B1b. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:45:19 From what we understand. or I should say, from what from discussing this with Orla. It appears that all labs already are able to measure these 2 residues, and we we don't really see a fiscal impact with this. But if. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:45:40 This is an impact for your lab or whatnot. Please let us know. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:45:45 I see I missed a 0 here, so I will. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:45:50 at 0. You'll also see that anything that said should now says musts. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:45:58 Must as well. That is just updating the legalese language. That means the same thing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:46:08 We're doing the rest of the pesticide list. You'll see the addition of all those zeros again, and then there is an updated CAS registry number update for this one pesticide that I'm not sure if I'll pronounce correctly. So. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:46:23 Let's see to not sure if that's said right, but. [Melissa Jackson - OHA / ORELAP] 13:46:29 I think it's pebuconazole. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:46:32 Okay, that's pretty close. It sounded like. Thanks. Okay. Any comments or questions on what we just reviewed for the pesticide table? [Melissa Jackson - OHA / ORELAP] 13:46:47 I think there was a change to spinosad too, the little 4 there. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:46:51 Thank you, Melissa. Yes, so Suicide does have a subsection for being added. Spin is set must be measured as a cumulative residues, a spinot. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:47:04 Spinosid A and spinosid D. And again, from reviewing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:47:11 laboratory material with Orlab, but it appears that all labs are already doing this, as far as we know. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:47:18 and then I just changed the numbering, which is why you see this to become a 3 now, and so forth above. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:47:31 Reviewing the next table which is associated with the solvent list, which is found in 333-007-0410 table 4. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:47:44 and you'll see that we've just added zeros to the end of all the action levels. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:47:51 And I do hear somebody try to. I had a comment or question. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:48:03 No. Okay. And again, you'll see all those shoulds being changed to must. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:48:13 for heavy metals. 3, 3, 3.007-0415 table 8. adding those zeros to the end and 3, 3, 3. 007-0425 table 9, mycotoxins. Again, adding those zeros. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:48:35 That concludes the review of Exhibit A tables 3, 4, 8, and 9, and I will add that the reason for making this change is to add consistency between laboratories and how they're reporting out numbers. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:48:52 Uh, us metric and their certificate of analysis. Turns out that everybody was rounding the same way. So to try to level the playing field and ensure everyone's doing it the same way. We've added these zeros, and we've clarified the language to say at or above. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:49:08 So it's pretty clear that once you reach, for example, Mercury, once you reach point one, if you get a 0.11 that's a fail. If you get 0. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:49:21 Well, yeah, if it's point 0, that is a fail also, because it's at or above. So it needs to come in at just under that in order for it to pass, and that goes for all of these. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:49:37 I'm going to change my screen over to the rules again. So if anybody has any questions or comments, please feel free to raise your hand. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:49:56 not saying any, so we will move right along. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:50:00 Next up, 333-007-0430 standards for adult use cannabinoid and Cbd compliance testing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:50:11 Again, you'll see the zeros being added to the end of the numbers for sub 2 sub B. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:50:20 We are adding language to say for any sample increments that was inadvertently left out when we did our last rule change, because this language before was in the sub 2 language part, and it didn't get out of here. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:50:36 Or when that was removed at the top, it didn't get added back in here. So we're adding that language back in to make it clear that any sample increment, if it exceeds the maximum concentration limit in a package. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:50:51 Um, that would mean a failure. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:50:59 Tucker. [Tucker Holland] 13:51:03 Yes, thank you. It looks like that we're removing the the 10% allowable variance here for edibles. Is that correct? [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:51:11 We are deleting it from the Division 7. There is that variance for 10% in Olcc roles. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:51:23 that David can speak to. So it's really it's the the role is not really changing. It's just it. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:51:31 We don't have authority. Oha has not authority of our concentration limits. So we didn't want to keep this rule here. We're relying on Occ rules for that. [Tucker Holland] 13:51:42 Okay, so I guess, so to be clear, what I am hearing is the rule itself is not changing, it's just being removed from OHA's testing. [Tucker Holland] 13:51:52 Rule? [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:51:52 Yes. Exactly. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:51:56 Right? So 103 milligrams and inedible is still going to be a pass. It's under our rules. [Tucker Holland] 13:52:05 Okay. Thank you for the clarification. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:52:09 Yeah, no problem. Alright, you'll see these trailing zeros being added throughout this section. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:52:19 and then we get to our new subsection 4 regarding target potency. So I will read this. I will explain the references as they come up. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:52:30 And if you have questions when I'm finished, please feel free to raise your hand. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:52:36 So step 4 indicates if a registrant or licensee provided the testing laboratory with a target potency in accordance with AOAR 333-007 0 3 1 5 7 8. So that is the ordering test rule. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:52:53 and a process law of a cannabinoid product did not meet its intended potency within 10.0% of the value calculated as described in. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:53:04 OAR 333-064-0100 sub 4, and that is how you calculate that value by a laboratory. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:53:13 But the lot otherwise meets the requirements of subsection 2 of this rule, meaning it's not over concentration limits, and it has a passing RPD, so we can look at that. So sub 2. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:53:30 says the Rpd is good. Rsd is good. Doesn't exceed the concentration limit. So basically, it's a compliant product. It just didn't meet the target potency is what we're saying. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:53:44 So it says, prior to requesting. Okay, sorry, I missed this, but otherwise meets requirements section 2 of this rule. The registrant licensee may request free analysis with OAR 333-007-050 sub 10 c 10 C of that rule describes how reanalysis works. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:54:05 So prior to requesting reanalysis, the registrant or licensee must conduct an investigation, determine the cause of not meeting the target potency. The investigation must be documented in writing, include any corrective action taken if applicable. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:54:20 And made available for review upon request by the authority or commission. So what that last part is saying is if you, as a manufacturer. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:54:32 Made an item, made a product. you didn't meet the target potency, you want to request reanalysis by the laboratory. Need to go back and make sure that, first of all, your process is followed. Did you use all the correct input material? There weren't any mistakes made along the way to maybe make that target potency not what you think it would have been. Then you can request reanalysis. So when we say investigation, it doesn't mean you to hire a team to like. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:54:59 Look at what happened. It's just you doing an internal audit review of what happened when you made this product to make sure that, um. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:55:09 nothing was incorrectly added, mixed, performed, whatever the case may be. So this is just a double check on your process, and then you can tell the lab, Hey, I'm gonna request a reanalysis. This is completely optional. You don't have to request reanalysis. You can take that result and say, I'm just going with this result. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:55:26 and move forward. Or you can say, no, I want to double check it, so let's do it. But only caveat is you need to make that target potency known to laboratory beforehand. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:55:38 I think I covered everything in regard to what we're trying to get at with this rule. I would go to comments, and if any agency people have anything else they want to add, feel free. So I see Chris, your hand is raised. So go ahead. [Chris Griffey] 13:55:51 Uh, yes, my comment is actually about the previous item, the concentration limits for the individual sample increments. I wanted to get this in before we dug into the other part. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:56:04 Okay. [Chris Griffey] 13:56:05 since that was kind of left out by mistake last time, I think labs have been passing or failing things based on just the average. [Chris Griffey] 13:56:15 Uh, so I just wanted to make sure that the, you know, the processors or producers online are aware that it's going to have more failures come through because previously you could have, say, a primary fail and a field dupe pass, and the average would pass, and that would be considered passing. [Chris Griffey] 13:56:33 That sounds like that's gonna go away, so, uh, just want everybody to be aware of that, because sometimes. [Chris Griffey] 13:56:41 uh, the lab always sees both results, sometimes the producers don't see both results, just the average. [Chris Griffey] 13:56:49 That's it. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:56:50 Okay, thank you for that. I do have to say, this has also been a role that has not been applied consistently as from what we have seen. We've had cases where we've seen the one result over one under or one within range, and. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:57:07 It's been failed, and we've seen other cases where maybe it hasn't it slipped by us. We've had labs ask us. So this is, I think, a confusion point, and it wasn't consistent from what we've seen. Justin, you had your hand raised next. [Justin M.] 13:57:21 Yeah, I had a quick question about the optional for the manufacturer to give us the target. If they don't provide the target, can then they still like challenge and request a reanalysis, or do they have to provide that if they would want to get a reanalysis? [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:57:27 Yeah. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:57:37 So… They can do it how they would normally do it, so if they fail a test, all the reanalysis is there. But if they want this additional version of the rule where they get the 89 on 100 on 100 target. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:57:54 then they can't do this, because they have to, at the ordering test stage, have declared that target. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:58:03 But, like, they fail for pesticides, they can still do reanalysis. They fail over the limit, they can still do reanalysis. [Justin M.] 13:58:07 Yeah. Right, it's just that they'd fail sort of meeting under the target or whatever, they'd have to establish that going in first. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:58:16 Yeah. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:58:19 And Megan, your hand was next. [Megan A] 13:58:22 Um, so if they request a reanalysis for the potency, say it was like, you know, 89 out of 100, how would you want us to go about it in metric if it did end up passing the next time? [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:58:35 Yeah, let me review this with our metric team one more time. It's been a while since we wrote this draft, and I want to make sure. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:58:46 I'll check with our team to make sure we have, like, a clear answer for how that would get tracked and metric, so… This one was written, like, months ago, and so I've been working on other stuff since, and I don't want to give you the wrong answer. [Megan A] 13:59:00 Sure. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:59:05 Alex, you're next. [Margaret Flerchinger] 13:59:09 No, you're muted. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:59:12 detectives. I'm just curious if… It, you know, in this instance, hits the 89. We want the retest. It then passes. Is it going to have like a remediated symbol? [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:59:25 No, so it'll act like reanalysis, not like remediation, so it would then have to go to another lab for a resample and retesting as a breaker. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:59:33 Right. Okay. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 13:59:35 So, that was the that was the version we thought of this. Again, we're really open to comment to hear what people think of that idea. But the easiest lane, we thought is treat it like you're challenging like a reanalysis, not a remediation, because you haven't done anything to the product. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 13:59:53 Right? I just like… The remediation tag in metric is always something that's difficult for for us producer processors with respect to our retails, because we can explain as much as possible that, no, no, no, the product is safe now. It's been retested. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:00:11 Um, but, uh, that doesn't do much for them. They they will oftentimes, and it's usually particular retails will just not bring in products that have that mark on it. So it is. It's difficult for us, because. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:00:25 You know, it's unsellable product now, even though it is passed and ready for consumption. That's hence my question. It's just I want to make sure that there's no like mark in metric that the retail can see because they get confused easily. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:00:42 With that stuff. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:00:43 Well, it will have to get tracked in metric. And so there there's either and there's a couple different ways it'll look, but there it won't look like a normal series because it'll just like reanalysis gets tracked a metric where you're going to see these other test results roll in. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:01:01 So there may be, you know, with a reanalysis, for example, there's a fail and then a pass, and then a third… and then a third test result of a pass, and that's the row that continues on. And so it just says retest passed as it's, uh, test status instead of test passed. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:01:19 So it's still all tracked in metric. It's going to be very clear about the test lineage and metric. There's going to be COAs uploaded in metric, so it wouldn't look completely invisible. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:01:30 But you'd have to drill down into that. Yeah, there, exactly. Okay, cool. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:01:32 Oh. Right, there's not gonna be the big warning. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:01:46 Okay, great. Thanks for those questions, comments, anything else where I move on. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:01:53 I mean, I am kind of curious about the first point that was brought up that we're going to see more failures. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:02:02 Um… Can we kind of dig into that? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:02:04 Okay. Yeah, I mean, when you have two samples and one. So this is for products. So we're talking about. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:02:15 weeding concentration limits. So we'll go with 100 milligrams again. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:02:21 Technically, it would be a non-compliant product to begin with. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:02:25 because you would have one sample that is outside. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:02:29 what's allowed for a concentration limits. So it was a way to try to sneak past those items that weren't technically in compliance to begin with. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:02:38 Um, so they never should have passed anyways. So whether we'll actually see an increase in products, failures for this. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:02:48 It's hard to say. There might be some, but it it shouldn't be like tenfold or anything. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:02:55 Yeah. So an example like Chris was talking about. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:03:00 Again, edibles is really kind of the scenario. I think this will most likely impact is if I've got. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:03:07 A cookie that's 105, but then the duplicate is 112. That is now a failure, even though the Rpd may be within the threshold, you have cookies out there that exceed the potency limit by more than 10%. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:03:24 And our concern is about public health and safety. A consumer reads 100 milligrams on a package, not reeling… there is a whole extra serving of THC in this one. That's what we're thinking about, and so it's not just, is the average following the limit? No. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:03:42 individual unit should be following our limit of potency to a consumer to make sure that what's on the package, what's on the label matches their expectation of experience. And so that's part of that. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:03:54 Okay. And… [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:03:54 And so we wanted to clarify the rule because it it it didn't seem clear to us. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:04:00 Okay. And forgive my ignorance. Can you request a re retest on that? [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:04:05 Yeah. Any test failure you can request reanalysis. and you can remediate it if it does fail. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:04:06 Okay. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:04:17 Justin. [Justin M.] 14:04:19 Yeah, so then on that same note, if as the lab, somebody fails one of their increments, when we go into metric, I presume this would be like, you know, like other fails where we would enter the result for the highest. [Justin M.] 14:04:32 result, basically, and that would be a fail, not the average for this particular situation. And then the same thing if we have a COA that's actually putting out the the total amount per package, we would have to use the failing. [Justin M.] 14:04:46 concentration and value, as opposed to using the average. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:04:53 Yeah, how that… how… the best possible route to do that metric, I want to… I want to make sure I fully run it through our team on the best way. How you described would work totally fine. I wanna… I'll run it by our team and see if there's a different preference, but I think that makes the most sense. I think that's very clear to the licensee who gets it, that. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:05:16 This is the result, the COA can be clear about, you know, the, you know, duplicate failed with this result, something like that. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:05:27 Chris. [Chris Griffey] 14:05:31 Yeah, uh, so I wanted to ask a question about that, because while that certainly does make the most sense, doesn't the rules state that what we have to put in metric is the average value of the total THC? [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:05:42 Yeah, it does, and I think if you reported the average, but still mark it as a fail, and you can even include a note saying duplicate exceeded the limit, that would also work as long as the test gets marked as a fail, it may be a little, you know, more confusing to a licensee if they see the average under, and then. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:06:00 They see a fail next to it, um, and that's where appropriate communication, both in the COA with the lab, it's going to be helpful. Rsd could make it even murkier, too, yeah. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:06:28 Not seeing any more questions. I'm going to move on to the next section, which is 3, 3, 3, 007-0450 failed test samples. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:06:41 Some of the change that you'll see here is for consistency within these rules. We're adding that little hyphen between re and sample, and also re and test. So you'll see that throughout here. So when you see this little. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:06:54 Mark off to the left, more than likely that's what it is. If you don't see a major change. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:07:03 So yeah, that's what you're seeing here and here. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:07:10 Margaret, I just had one one question for the lab licensees. Another option on a way to track that would be to add another test type that would be like. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:07:25 potency failure like sample increment exceeded the limit, and so you would only add that one in the case of a failure. So you could still report the average and the potency the THC milligram per milligram section, but then add that additional one as a failure. If that's the specific. So that's another possible solution. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:07:44 Be curious if labs have a preference on which would be the best way to tackle that. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:07:53 Patrick. [Patrick Trujillo] 14:07:58 Sorry, I think, uh, like David said, adding that extra test might be the best, so then we can be sure we're satisfying the requirement of reporting that at the average, but having some way to fail it too. I know sometimes we also just when there's a failure, we'll just report. [Patrick Trujillo] 14:08:16 Each one, uh, like, basically provide the result for both, but report the average metric. So I think it'd be easier just to clean that up just [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:08:29 And Justin. [Justin M.] 14:08:31 Yeah, I would concur with that, because some of our reporting is already taking the average and calculating it out for the final result, and that would help any mistake of oops, we should have reported the other one, or we've got the wrong milligrams, or what have you on there. I agree with that, having the extra one would be. [Justin M.] 14:08:47 would be nice and make it [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:08:51 And you want the extra one always, so, like a primary duplicate, you know, whatever a nice name for it are under the limit, or one that only you only use when the fail occurs. [Justin M.] 14:09:09 I would think only when the fail occurs, but that's just my opinion. [Chris Griffey] 14:09:15 Yeah, me too. Only when the failures occurs. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:09:26 Okay, great. Justin, was there anything else or. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:09:32 Okay, great. Thanks. So continuing on with the failed test section, you'll see that when we list the tests that must be tested again after a fail. We're just adding in accordance with and then the appropriate OAR to go with that test result, just to make it clear as to what needs to be tested. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:09:59 And that's for all of these. Going forward here. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:10:14 Then in sub 10 is where we get into failed potency testing. So this is where we're going to cover how reanalysis and retesting works for that target potency that we discussed earlier. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:10:29 that comes up in swallowed right past it. Sub C. This lower case C. Here's where that begins. So for a cannabinoid product as described in 333-007-0434. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:10:46 So that is the potency section of the rule that says that outlines the additional failure criteria for target potency. It may be reanalyzed in accordance with Section 1A of this rule. So we already know how real analysis works. Same lab will. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:11:03 Be able to retest. They won't be able to subcontract out, etc, etc, all the normal things that currently happen. And then it goes into if the reanalysis test results are outside the parameters of the target potency as described in 430 sub 4. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:11:20 The reanalysis test result will be considered the amount of adult use cannabinoids in the item. So. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:11:27 You get your target potency. Or you submit the target potency to a lab, the test happens, it's outside the target, you request reanalysis, the reanalysis, um… get a result that would be considered. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:11:45 the tar or the potency now. If it's also outside the parameters of the target potency. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:11:54 If it's within the target potency. This is where we go into sub B of the rule. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:12:01 Then you have one result that's outside, and now you have one result that's inside the target potency. So it's going to work just like retesting. It's going to be kind of that tiebreaker of where you're going to have a second lab go in and retest that item. So that second lab would go with their sample, they would do their test. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:12:20 whatever result they get, that is going to be the potency now. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:12:25 Does that make sense? Any questions? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:12:30 Jeremy. [Jeremy Sackett] 14:12:33 Hi. Yeah. Generally, I think this is a great addition. But with the expected potency communication to the laboratory, you know, I'm assuming, you know, at the laboratory, we're going to want to get that in writing from an agency standpoint. Is there any requirement, or is that in the rule? Or what's the kind of. [Jeremy Sackett] 14:12:51 interpretation on on that, I guess I'm moving forward. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:12:55 Yeah. So that goes back to that order test section. So when the client is ordering the test, they do need to provide that information to the web. That should be in writing along with all that rest information, who they are, their license number, the size. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:13:12 the item type, blah blah blah. It it just gets added as another line item on your current way of ordering tests. [Jeremy Sackett] 14:13:21 Great. Thanks for clarifying that. Sorry, I missed it earlier. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:13:24 No worries. Yeah, Patrick. [Patrick Trujillo] 14:13:29 Uh, yeah, so I know we kind of will go over this a little bit more in the next iteration of this rack with Division 64. But the reading of this right now seems to imply that this is limited to one retest or reanalysis. Is that the intention? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:13:47 Yeah. So you would have your initial test. It's outside target potency, the same laboratory would do the reanalysis depending on that test result. If it's again outside target potency, then you have 2 outside of target potency results. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:14:05 There's no need for another test. You're just going with your last test result at that point. If you have one. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:14:13 Your initial test, outside target, your second test is inside target. That's when you do your retest by a second laboratory, and they make the determination of what's. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:14:24 the potency will be, whether it's going to be outside or inside. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:14:29 Does that answer the question? Okay, great. [Patrick Trujillo] 14:14:31 Yeah, definitely, thank [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:14:42 Any concerns or comments around the target potency concept, or how results will be or what the results will end up being. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:15:02 Okay. Well, then we will just keep going with these rules. You see a lot of the same changes where we discussed with adding reference to the different sections of the testing standards here. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:15:19 and adding those dashes, hyphens, and that concludes the failed testing section of the rules. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:15:26 I believe we are on our last section. This is 3, 3, 3, 007-0600 cannabis reference laboratory, and I will say that this section of the rules pertaining to the reference laboratory is specific to. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:15:44 OHA registrants. Now OLC registrants. Olcc already made this rule change, and OHA is just adopting the change that Olcc made. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:15:56 and the only change that's being made is in sub 3. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:16:00 Subsection 3, sub C, and D. So it now says the authority may request reanalysis by the reference laboratory, as opposed to saying that the item would be subject to reanalysis, and then the authority may request or require, as opposed to just require. And again, these are just rule changes that. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:16:22 OHA is adopting based off of changes that OLCC made for canvas Reference Laboratory for registrants. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:16:32 and that concludes. Division 7, Tucker, you have a comment or question? [Tucker Holland] 14:16:39 Yes, I have a question here. It looks like if the cannabis reference laboratory tests product and it fails that a licensee has no recourse for that action. So there is no option for a request of a retest. [Tucker Holland] 14:16:57 or anything like that, like we do, um, when we are compliance testing. Um… What, uh, what's the… what is the process for appeal or retesting or anything like that that a licensee has in that step? [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:17:14 I think you're talking about no Lcc rule, because hers only applied to registrants. [Tucker Holland] 14:17:23 Okay, so I will bring this C. Then. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:17:30 Yeah, it's a little. a little confusing, because in division said. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:17:43 adjusts to those licensed by OHA. OLCC has the same exact rule in their section. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:17:49 So it would be up to, I guess, probably touch base with Occ after outside this meeting for that discussion. But OHA doesn't have any. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:18:02 processors at the moment. Um, so I can answer how we would do that, because we haven't done this process yet, but we're… we had this rule just in case we need it. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:18:18 No problem. Well, we've reviewed the rules and the table. So now we're on to the statement of need of fiscal impact. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:18:31 Do people feel like they would like to jump straight into that? Or does anybody need a 10 min break? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:18:39 That will be the last document we'll be reviewing before the meeting concludes, too. So… [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:18:46 not hear anything. I'm going to say we are going to power. [Siana Ọrun-Walker, I BE I AM INC.] 14:18:48 I'm okay with moving. Yeah, I'm okay with powering through. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:18:51 Okay, great. Just wanted to give people the option just in case. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:18:56 All right. So let me bring up that document on my screen here. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:19:05 Okay. So here we go. So what we'll do today is I'm going to review the portions related just to Division 7. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:19:19 This document will be brought up again once we review Division 64 at the other meetings. If something comes to mind about Division 7, you're more than welcome to bring it up. Then, since we haven't reviewed the changes for Division 64, I'm going to ask that we limit the comments just to. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:19:39 Division 7 for today. But we will give everybody plenty of time to review this in more detail and give your thoughts at a later time also. I do want to also just read a little statement here about this, just so people know. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:19:57 What's. what they should kind of look for in this. So for the statement of need fiscal impact and racial equity statement. The rack shall provide recommendations on the fiscal impact, including advice on mitigating the cost of compliance for small businesses and provide recommendations on the racial. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:20:16 Equity impact statement, including recommendations related to reducing the impact in affected communities. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:20:23 Recommendations for the timeframe for implementation should also be provided. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:20:29 for the racial equity statement, we need to consider which populations are affected or most harmed from a racial equity perspective in what specific ways are specific communities affected by this rule? So communities could include people. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:20:46 who receive, um… or who purchase from dispensaries. It could be communities, partners, providers, others interested parties, people from a range of racial equity, ethnic, cultural, linguistic backgrounds. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:21:03 Um, gender identities, disability, social class, different geographic areas. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:21:10 multi-generations, or just small business interest in general. So if the rack members have additional comments on anything that we review today, we will give you some extra time and we'll discuss that at the, um… The next rulemaking. And then there will be time for public comment on these rules once we have a final draft and that gets published on the website. And we'll everybody know when that is going to happen. So to jump into this statement here, let me bring it up on the screen again. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:21:48 All right. Here we are. So statement of need. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:21:53 So the need for the rule we're proposing amending rules in Division 7. Remember, I'll just go over Division 7 changes today pertaining to marijuana and hemp testing to address technical issues such as correcting errors, improving clarity and removing outdated provisions tied to past dates related to cannabis testing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:22:13 These amendments are technical and clarifying in nature. They help to remove ambiguity ambiguity and promote consistency, ensuring enforcement remains aligned with existing regulatory framework. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:22:26 Um, and then we'll go into the psilocybin and Division 64 changes tomorrow. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:22:32 So for Division 7. We do have the statement here for the target potency. And again, it's going to apply to when ordering potency on cannabinoid products processors that create products tend to follow standard operating procedures designed to achieve a specific potency. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:22:51 ensuring that they create a consistent product every time it's made. They also often purchase large quantities of printed labels with that target amount to be displayed on the principal display panel. And under OLCC rules, actual potency may vary by plus or minus 10% from. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:23:10 the labeled product for the products. In some cases, a test may fall outside the intended target potency, but still remain within allowable OLCC concentration limits, meaning the product does not fail the test. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:23:25 Current rules do not permit retesting in these situations. The proposed amendment would allow a reanalysis or retest. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:23:32 If the test results deviate from target potency by more than 10% of that target. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:23:40 Following an investigation by the registrant or licensee to confirm that protocols were followed during manufacturing, and the correct input materials were used. This change supports more accurate labeling, helps prevent unnecessary product waste and ensures products are manufactured as intended. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:23:57 This amendment applies to paranoid products because target potency is almost exclusively utilized for products. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:24:05 and they're also typically the most straightforward category to formulate a target. How the product is being reanalyzed and retested is outlined in the rule changes. The batch passes retesting and reanalysis. The less. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:24:19 potency test result outline will be considered as the final result. So that was kind of what we already talked about, but just a further clarifying statement there for the need. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:24:30 Um… And again, you're welcome to provide comments, feedback on any of this. If you think of a fiscal impact, we'll get to that in a minute. But just to kind of… Start sharing that. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:24:44 That part. So another change when ordering potency tests on cannabinoid products whereas skiing or change we're making is to provide the weight or mass of all serving sizes and unit of sale. Insurers laboratories can calculate potency accuracy for multi-unit products and verify they meet. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:25:03 Concentration limits. This clarification supports accurate testing while maintaining existing testing practices and does not introduce new requirements. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:25:14 and we have our clarification to stay a sufficient sample size must be taken for analysis of all test results, including any potential reanalysis tests that. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:25:25 may also be requested. This change maintains existing sample practices and does not introduce new requirements and only really clarifies them. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:25:36 We went into the changes with the action levels in Exhibit A for all the compliance tests. So those are all being updated to include trailing 0 as a significant figure. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:25:47 Rule language for each test type would also be revised to clearly state that an item fails if the measured result is at or above the actual limit. These updates improve consistency across laboratories and clarify existing expectations without increasing regulatory burden. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:26:03 And one thing I did want to ask with. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:26:08 Adding those zeros, is that or even for this next item with avidactin or spinoset, is that is a timeframe of having this in place for January 1, 2027 appropriate? Is there any comment on timeframe related to this at all? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:26:27 And if you want to go back to your laboratories, check things out and provide comment tomorrow. You're welcome to do that, too. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:26:37 Patrick. [Patrick Trujillo] 14:26:40 Yeah, I think January 1st is more than reasonable. Like we said, I think all most of, if not all laboratories are kind of reporting this way. So just gives clarification. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:26:51 Okay, great. Thank you. So I won't read this next paragraph. We talked about the measurements for abidectin and spinosad. When I reviewed those sections, they. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:27:06 will improve accuracy, reduce false reporting, as opposed to just reporting one residue over the other in case one is more, and it. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:27:14 mix it up over the actual limit. It's going to make it clear that you do have to use both the… both residues, and they actually align with what, um, testing methods are at the federal level. So, again, it's making that clarification and leveling the playing field for all the laboratories and making it clear how. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:27:34 the measurement is supposed to be applied. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:27:40 And then the rest of the changes here kind of go into Division 64. So we'll cover that tomorrow. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:27:48 There were documents replied upon. You're welcome to review these at your leisure. I'm not going to go over all of these or any of these, really. But if you have a question on any of them, please feel free to ask either today or at. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:28:02 the next rack. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:28:10 So our next item here is how the rules will affect racial equity in the States. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:28:18 Sorry, I saw a hand raised. Nope. Okay. Uh, so I'll just go ahead and read this. This rulemaking is being done in collaboration between the Oregon Medical Marijuana program and the Oregon and Oregon's Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:28:34 Both programs are a part of OHA public health division. This equity impact statement addresses both the testing standards being updated by Omnp and the enhanced operational processes for laboratories being implemented by or lab. The proposed amendments primarily modernize and clarify cannabis testing roles, and also reduce regulatory burden and improve consistency and product safety standards. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:29:00 They indirectly advance equity by improving clarity, reducing compliance burden and strengthening product safety within Oregon's cannabis regulatory system. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:29:11 Clarify testing thresholds for contaminants and let's say improve consumer safety and transparency across all communities while also reducing administrative and financial burdens for smaller cannabis businesses. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:29:23 Clear testing thresholds ensure safer and accurately labeled product across all communities, helping to reduce disparities in exposure to unregulated or lower quality cannabis products. These benefits will have a greater impact on vulnerable populations like those enrolled in the medical marijuana program who use cannabis to help with their debilitating. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:29:44 Health condition. Any comments? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:29:49 feedback. I'll just bounce here for a second. [Siana Ọrun-Walker, I BE I AM INC.] 14:29:57 I think this is… important. And then the question that I have is. [Siana Ọrun-Walker, I BE I AM INC.] 14:30:05 How are we also incorporating the original stewards of the land, the indigenous people of the land? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:30:14 Okay, thank you for that. We will make note of that and see if we can get it edited. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:30:25 Anything else? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:30:31 Okay? And again, we'll probably review this again tomorrow. So if something comes to mind tonight, tomorrow morning, you'll have the opportunity to provide that feedback. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:30:43 Now we'll go into the fiscal and economic impact of these rules. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:30:50 So we are expecting there to be a minimal fiscal and economic impact on registrants, licensees, laboratories, agencies, and consumers. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:31:03 Amendments in Division 7 rely on existing testing systems that do not require additional testing, staffing or state resources, or they're very minimal. Just got to get rolled into day-to-day operations. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:31:18 Um… So some amendments are anticipated to produce net income savings for businesses under current rules, batches that fall outside intended target potency, but still meet Occ's concentration limits cannot be retested, which may result in unnecessary disposal of compliant product. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:31:36 According to disposal of a batch or requiring the need to relabel a product without first confirming through testing the potent result can preserve hundreds of to thousands of dollars in product value, depending on batch size and production cost. In comparison, a 40 to $75 reanalysis. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:31:55 Test represents a substantially lower cost, making reanalysis a cost-effective alternative to otherwise possibly discouraging compliant product or relabeling it or potentially mislabeling the product. And again, this is a statement that we came up with. So. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:32:13 Everyone on the rack as industry members, if. you see something here that may not be 100% accurate, or you see something else. Please feel free to let us know. We can get that added in, and we do want to consider all the various costs. This is just. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:32:33 Um, but we… came up with. So we we do look for your feedback on these things. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:32:43 So also clarifying pesticide quantification requirements and action levels is expected to reduce false failures retesting and misreported results. This increases lab consistency between laboratory and reduces the risk of corrective actions, relabeling or product recalls. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:33:01 Laboratory costs associated with adopting clarified measurement standards are expected to be minimal and absorbed into normal validation processes is unknown if there will be more failures due to this change, which could result in a loss for licensees. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:33:17 Most, if not all, laboratories are able to quantify for avidacted and spinosyn in a manner that's being proposed. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:33:26 And then finally, the last item here for Division 7 consumers will benefit more. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:33:33 or from a more accurate potency labeling and improve clarity in pesticide measurement. These and hatch placements support informed purchasing decisions, increase confidence in product consistency and improve safety for reducing the likelihood of mislabeled potency. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:33:51 or under measure pesticide residues. Notice the changes here are for Division 64, so I won't review them today, but we will review this document tomorrow. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:34:10 All right. And then we go into the cost of compliance. So impact on State agencies, units of local government and the public. The amendments don't introduce new state level responsibilities fees or enforcement mechanisms. So the existing compliance and oversight structures are sufficient to. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:34:29 implement rule changes resulting in negligible fiscal impact for OHA, OLCC, or other state partners. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:34:38 And then for sub 2, we go into the cost compliant cost of compliance effect on small businesses in here in part a we just list the number of laboratories. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:34:53 licensees, registrants, all of that that would be affected by this rule. So this is really just an overall kind of capturing who this affects. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:35:05 where B goes into the projected reporting, record keeping and other administrative activities required for compliance, including cost for professional services. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:35:17 So we said that small businesses may incur occasional administrative activities regarding needing to review processes followed prior to requesting a reanalysis for missing the target potency. So that's that investigation that would need to occur before. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:35:33 You can request reanalysis if you're outside your target. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:35:39 But any of those costs are at sea, but are expected to benefit from the reduced waste. So small businesses are expected to benefit from reduced waste, more reliable labeling, and lower cost of market disruptions due to the testing outcomes. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:35:55 There may be minimal added costs for laboratories associated with clarifying action levels by adding a trianguling zero. Systems used to produce results in certificate of analysis may need adjusting to comply with these rule changes and may end up being a one-time upfront cost. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:36:11 Reviewing some of the certificate of analysis from laboratories. It seems that most labs are reporting more. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:36:19 more digits than what we're requiring. So I don't know if there'll really be a cost here, but again, you might want to check at your laboratory, and you're welcome to provide feedback to us tomorrow on if there is going to be an additional cost here that we might not be seeing. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:36:34 Um, but as far as we saw, it seemed like most labs were already reporting out several decibel points. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:36:45 And then last up here. So again, this costs associated with equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:36:54 administration required for compliance needed say looks like this is more so for Division 67. So I'll leave it at that. But there might be a cost there for laboratory. So keep your. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:37:06 Um, I guess eyes open for that or think about it as we review the draft tomorrow. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:37:12 And then we have our last section here for how we're small business involved in the development of this rule, and that is all of you, which is what this basically says in many words. So thank you everyone for your participation in joining us today. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:37:28 I'll open the floor back up for any final comments or questions anyone may have. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:37:34 Alex. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:37:36 Um, yeah, in regards to the reference lab, um, I know you said that's like OLCC's jurisdiction in response to Tucker's question. But, um… How… how can license holders find out, like. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:37:51 what the findings are of the reference labs, because I, you know, since that that change was instituted. I I haven't heard of really any products being pulled other than there was, I think, one product pulled last year for pesticides. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:38:09 Um, I don't really know what I I don't think any of us really have much visibility on what's going on there. I think it would be helpful for. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:38:18 for us to know, you know, what they're finding in the field, if they're finding inconsistencies with particular labs, um, you know, us being able to. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:38:28 To know about that would help us make more informed decisions when picking which labs to use. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:38:35 You know, I don't I think it's just a blind spot for license holders. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:38:41 So, yeah, just kind of curious if you guys have any information on that. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:38:47 I'm happy to jump in real quick. So we do when we last year. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:38:56 I think it was last year. We did Operation Clean Leaf. We created authored a almost 100 page report that's on our website that outlines a lot of the… some of the, like, more public-facing testing we've done. A lot of the. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:39:11 The reference labs work is case specific. And so just like how we don't publish our investigative reports on our website, it's kind of the same thing. It's embedded in some sort of investigation. So it's not necessarily always going to be super public facing because. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:39:29 you know, we're out doing that sort of work. But when we do kind of do these larger audit missions, you know, we, we hope to kind of publish reports on these. But… There's always going to be pretty anonymized data. We're not out to kind of… [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:39:48 Um, you know, do one thing or another, like, name a specific company for some sort of public-facing report, something like that. But yep, I don't want to sidetrack this because this is about OHA's testing rules, but you can always reach out to me. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:40:03 If you have at olcc.labs, if you have questions about our work with that. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:40:08 Is that report titled technical report evaluating Compliance Potency? Okay, cool. I pulled that up. I'll I'll give that a review. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:40:21 Any other comments, questions. Feedback on anything that we reviewed today? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:40:40 All right. Not seeing any hands raised. We will continue the rack tomorrow to review Division 64, where we'll touch on. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:40:50 Cannabis testing for laboratories, and then the psilocybin portion of Division 64 will be reviewed. If there's time tomorrow. If not, that will be reviewed. Um… on Friday. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:41:04 Uh, so thank you for all your feedback. Alex, I see your hand raised. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:41:10 One more. Um, will there be time for us to propose any other changes, or is this? [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:41:17 These meetings specifically for the changes in 7 and 64. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:41:23 These meetings are specific for the changes in Division 7 and 64. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:41:28 If you have suggestions or rules that you'd like the agency to consider, you're welcome to email us, and those could be addressed at a later time. But at this point, we're not going to bring forward a new concept. Like, if you wanted to. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:41:46 change something else in our testing rules. We probably wouldn't be able to do that this time. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:41:50 Uh, unless it was maybe something super simple. Um, so, but yeah, if there are changes to testing rules in the future, you're welcome to email us at any time and say, hey, I have a concept for something, and, you know, we can talk it through or whatnot. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:42:06 for today, tomorrow, this rulemaking. It's just for the proposed changes that have been brought forward. And then, if you have changes or suggestions for changes on like wording or the way we phrase something. If you see Easter way of. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:42:23 maybe being written out, or if you have comments on, hey, I think that's going to take me more than the next few months to try to implement this change. I don't think January one is going to cut it. You can let us know that and say, Hey, for this section, could we shoot for. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:42:38 you know, another another date within a reasonable timeframe and then kind of explain why if there's costs associated with anything that we've gone over today that we haven't addressed or haven't discussed. Please bring that forward so that we can take that consideration before we make the rule change. That's really important. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:42:59 There's, um… on an equity standpoint or something there that we didn't catch. And you think that there's going to be an impact there, positive, negative, whichever it may be. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:43:11 Please bring that forward as well. Like I said, we'll review the statement of need document tomorrow, which includes the fiscal and equity part. We'll also give the RAC about a week to kind of think things over and email us in the meantime. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:43:27 So it's not like tomorrow is it for you when it comes to reviewing this, we will give you some time to kind of let it. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:43:35 you know. sit around, and then you can always bring that forward. And I see Melissa has her hand raised, so I'll let Melissa speak, because I've probably done enough today. [Melissa Jackson - OHA / ORELAP] 14:43:44 Thanks, Margaret. You did a great job, and thanks again to everyone on the committee today. I did want to point something out as you are going through the statement of need and racial equity impact. I did notice that the version that went out didn't have anything to do with psilocybin, and I do apologize for that. We worked on this a few back and forth and seemed like that got missed in this version. [Melissa Jackson - OHA / ORELAP] 14:44:05 So I'm… most of the changes for testing for psilocybin mirror or are the same as the cannabis changes. But for tomorrow's rack, I may update that so it does include psilocybin, and I apologize that that was left out. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:44:22 Thank you, Melissa. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:44:26 Okay, so… I'm just shooting my shot here. Would a increase in the allowable. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:44:36 Uh, like, concentration limits on CBD as it pertains to RPD be open for discussion, or is that something that I should… I need to email about? [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:44:50 I mean, you're always welcome to make a comment. It's not something that we're changing currently. It might not be something that's just easy to say, hey, let's change the number, because we do need to have some kind of justification. Well, what number, or why are we going to be measuring it differently? And has it gone through. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:45:07 Like, some kind of justification, as opposed to, it's too low, can we increase it? Because I'm failing right now, you know? [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:45:14 Yeah, no, we've, uh, we've had a handful of failures over the years. I've never failed for THC, and every time I fail for CBD, it's just, like, slightly over that 1% threshold, um, or that 10 milligram threshold, and I think, you know, at those levels, given that CBD is not intoxicating. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:45:34 that customers aren't… Like, they're not even paying attention to the CVD number. It's typically so low in respect to the THC versus CBD. That is just silly that those batches can't make it to the market because, you know. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:45:51 the the primary was at 1.5%, and the duplicates at 2.5% like it's just not, you know, that's… That's not really affecting the end consumer. It just causes us to waste batches and waste money and and waste time. So I thought of a it we're considering simple changes, you know, increasing that to 50 milligrams or 100 milligrams would be great. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:46:16 Um, but I understand if this is the wrong forum. I was just, yeah. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:46:21 Okay. Shooting myself. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:46:25 It doesn't hurt, that's for sure. And, you know, when we… for changes like that, you know, there's other considerations for us to take into account as far as how does this affect olcc rules and what standards and recommendations or not recommendations, but just parameters that they have in place for concentration limits. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:46:43 And will that align with what they have? We do try to, or I should say the rules try to ensure that products are consistent, that they're somewhat homogenous. There is kind of that leeway of, you know, you're never going to get. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:47:00 Exactly the same homogenous product each time, but that's why we do allow for some variation to occur. What is the right number for that? I think we could probably go back and forth for a while to figure out what that is, and that's why it's kind of like, okay. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:47:15 I hear ya. I don't know if we can quite make that change in this rack, but it's something that we could take forward and discuss and definitely put it forward in another rack, I think. So I would say, um, things like that, definitely send us emails, give us your comments. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:47:27 Okay. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:47:33 for like future considerations for the time being anything with what we've discussed today. We would like comment on a lot sooner. Since we're going to put these forward. But yeah, we're definitely open to hearing other other rule changes. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:47:49 Awesome. Well, I'll work with our group and, uh, try to submit something after this round. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:47:55 Yeah, thank you. Anything else? Oh, go ahead. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:47:58 So just for. Just for a quick clarification, Alex, your preference would be to expand the subsection of. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:48:12 when that Rpd rule applies, not change the Rpd limit itself. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:48:20 You're muted. Sorry. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:48:22 To me, yeah, changing the RPD rule and having it be specifically different for CBD versus THC doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but it's those, like, lower threshold limits, um, that if you could just elevate that, I wouldn't have failed. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:48:38 those batches. [David Standiford (he/him) - OLCC] 14:48:40 just for concentrates and extracts, or for everything. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:48:45 It's only happened to me on, like, extracts, concentrate oil. I mean, I think it's only been on concentrates and or sorry, on extracts. I believe it's been primarily, like, with. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:48:57 Very high potency dislift. Like, not with libraries. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:49:07 Okay, thanks. Megan, did you have a comment? [Megan A] 14:49:10 Yeah, actually, it's something our lab is seeing quite frequently, is where, you know, the product is based on THC, and they have, like, this very minor cannabinoid of CBD in it, and for something for us, like, we haven't had a failure, but something where it came really close where, like, RPD for THC might have been, like, 1%, and then CBD was 9%. [Megan A] 14:49:29 It was something I thought about emailing a while ago, and just seeing, like, you know, if it's, like, 5 times our LOQ, can we increase the limit to 30%? Because our matrix duplicate right now in lab, that's like an exception we have, and it's something we talked to Orlap about and got an approval and stuff. So that was definitely, like, a proposal I was thinking that could apply to try and like prevent these minor cannabinoids from failing a THC product. [Megan A] 14:49:52 Just something I had in mind. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:49:57 Okay, thanks. Again, not sure we can do that change this time around. But we can consider that for a future rulemaking, I think. [Alex Marucci - Higher Cultures / Gud Gardens] 14:50:10 Thanks, Hill. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:50:13 Okay. And with that, thank you, everybody, for your participation and being here today, and look forward to doing this again tomorrow, and tomorrow Melissa will be leading. She'll cover Division 64. [Margaret Flerchinger] 14:50:27 Yeah, so have a have a good evening, and thank you. [Siana Ọrun-Walker, I BE I AM INC.] 14:50:31 Thank you, everyone. Have a great evening. See you tomorrow. [Tucker Holland] 14:50:35 Thank you, everyone