Federal Rules Provide Useful Tools for Cannabis Cultivators
With the formal publication of the interim rules, the USDA begins its implementation of the federal hemp program. A 60-day public comment period follows the formal publication.
October 31, 2019 at 09:29 AM
4 minute read
On Oct. 29, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released draft interim rules for hemp production. These rules on hemp will be formally published in the Federal Register on Oct. 31. With the formal publication of the interim rules, the USDA begins its implementation of the federal hemp program. A 60-day public comment period follows the formal publication.
The interim rules include provisions for the USDA to approve plans submitted by states and Indian Tribes for the domestic production of hemp. State or Tribal plans must be submitted to the USDA and approved prior to their implementation. The draft rules also establish a federal plan for producers in states or territories of Indian Tribes that do not have their own USDA-approved plan. Florida's current plan, the framework of rules being promulgated by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), is also at the public comment stage which concludes at the end of October. FDACS had the foresight to draft application forms that require information from applicants that is also required in the draft USDA rules.
Importantly, the USDA decided it will not include a seed certification program in the rule. One cited reason is that the same seeds grown in different geographical locations and growing conditions can react differently. Another reason is that the USDA does not have accurate data currently on the origin of most hemp seed planted in the United States.
The USDA interim rule also includes sampling regulations. For example, within 15 days prior to the anticipated harvest of cannabis plants, designated individuals will obtain samples from the flower material from the cannabis plants for delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration level testing. The USDA is still requesting comments and information regarding this 15-day sampling and harvest timeline.
If it stands, this provision may require a tweak to the FDACS regulations as currently drafted. The FDACS final rule on sampling currently states that a sample must be collected and submitted in accordance with the hemp field sampling manual for licensees found on the FDACS website. This manual currently states that a sample must be collected no earlier than 30 days before harvest. However, the 30-day provision should still stand for hemp that is not grown for flower material, e.g., seeds.
Under the new rules, laboratories conducting hemp testing must be registered by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). However, USDA approval may in the future be required on top of DEA registration.
Importantly, the USDA interim rules include a provision for measurement of THC that is accompanied by a quantitative statement of its uncertainty, or margin of error. When a quantity is measured, the outcome depends on several factors, such as the accuracy of the measuring device or the skill of the operator. It is normally expressed as +/- with a number, (e.g., +/- 0.5). With inherent uncertainty in mind, the interim rule includes a definition of "acceptable hemp THC level" to account for the uncertainty in the test results. Because of the potential error, a reported THC concentration level of a sample may not be the actual concentration level in the sample. However, the actual THC concentration level would be within the given margin of error for the reported concentration level.
This provision will help producers. Consideration of the margin of error in current testing procedures will allow crops that might otherwise fail for having high THC to be properly harvested as hemp. Thus, the USDA's consideration of uncertainty will actually reduce uncertainty for hemp growers.
Joseph R. Englander is a shareholder in the intellectual property practice group at Fowler White Burnett, where he leads the firm's cannabis law team working with industry clients in the field of hemp, medical marijuana and affiliated businesses. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250