Dykema Gossett PLLC  
Capitol View  
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900  
Lansing, MI 48933  
WWW.DYKEMA.COM  
Tel: (517) 374-9100  
Fax: (517) 374-9191  
R. Lance Boldrey  
Direct Dial: (517) 374-9162  
Direct Fax: (855) 259-3563  
Email: LBoldrey@dykema.com  
February 17, 2020  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
Legal Section  
P.O. Box 30205  
Lansing, MI 48909  
Re:  
Comments to Proposed Combined Topic-Based Rule Sets  
To Whom it May Concern:  
As the chair of the Cannabis Law Practice at Dykema, I am writing to offer comments on  
the Michigan Marijuana Regulatory Agency’s (the “MRA”) proposed combined topic-based rule  
sets: Marijuana Licenses; Marijuana Licensees; Marijuana Operations; Marijuana Sampling and  
Testing; Marijuana Infused Products and Edible Marijuana Products; Marijuana Sale or Transfer;  
Marijuana Employees; Marijuana Hearings; Marijuana Disciplinary Proceedings; Industrial  
Hemp for Marijuana Businesses; and Medical Marijuana Facilities (Rescinded) (collectively  
referred to as the “Proposed Rules”) being promulgated pursuant to the Medical Marihuana  
Facilities Licensing Act (“MMFLA”) and the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana  
Act (“MRTMA”).  
As you know, our attorneys and government policy advisors represent clients in all facets  
of the medical and adult use cannabis industry. Our comments are based on our collective  
experience and the experience and views of many of our clients. Pursuant to the rulemaking  
process and the request for public comments, please find below Dykema’s comments and  
recommendations on the proposed rules.  
1. General Global Comments  
Although most of our comments are targeted to isolated provisions within the Proposed  
Rules, and are set forth below on a rule by rule basis, two of our comments implicate issues that  
are reflected by multiple proposed rules.  
First, as a general matter, all provisions related to Labor Peace Agreements should be  
eliminated. A mandate to enter into Labor Peace Agreements as a condition of licensure violates  
the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and exceeds the statutory authority given to the  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 2  
Department. Additionally, Labor Peace Agreements effectively place the terms and conditions  
of employment in the hands of an arbitrator. In an industry that is just beginning to find its way,  
and where income and expenses already fluctuate wildly, requiring critical economic decisions  
to be made by a third party does nothing to protect the interests of the industry, patients,  
consumers, and the state. Therefore, all provisions related to Labor Peace Agreements should be  
removed in entirety from all rule sets.  
Second, we believe that there should be significant rewrites of the testing provisions. We  
have already seen instances where MRA has imposed new standards and ordered hundreds of  
thousands of dollars of product to be destroyed, only to then realize that the standards were  
flawed or should be implemented differently, and reverse course. Producers who were ordered  
to destroy product that MRA later determined was not harmful have suffered significant  
economic harm with no recompense. We believe these concerns are best addressed by allowing  
greater flexibility when it comes to remediation and by broadening the concept of administrative  
holds beyond simply cases of rules violations, to also encompass product that has initially failed  
testing. This would provide producers the ability to contest the appropriateness or sufficiency of  
testing standards without having to destroy viable product.  
Third, we believe that the MRA should exercise its authority to establish new license  
types to establish a license for receiver businesses. As we have learned from other states, we  
should expect significant business failures in this industry. Yet, cannabis businesses cannot avail  
themselves of federal bankruptcy protection. Additionally, MRA’s rules provide for the  
suspension and revocation of licenses. In an industry where licensees may have product  
midstream in growth or production, or significant inventories, suspending operations can lead to  
significant loss, and jeopardize the interests of creditors. This can also incentivize product  
diversion. Having licensed receivers able to step in to operate or liquidate facilities serves  
numerous public interests.  
2. Marijuana Licenses 2019-67 LR  
R 420.1(1)(c)—Definition of “Applicant”  
The term “indirect ownership interest,” used in 420.1(1)(c)(i), comes directly from the  
MMFLA but was not defined by the Legislature, leading to confusion and inconsistent practice  
and advice from attorneys in the industry. The Proposed Rules should either define the term or  
state that MRA will provide guidance as to the MRA’s interpretation. We often see what may be  
considered indirect interests arise through the provision of equity in only one license of an entity  
that possesses multiple licenses, or with respect to one product line. Today, it is not clear if an  
indirect interest of 10% should be calculated based on total equity, total revenues, or some other  
metric. MRA guidance would be useful.  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 3  
Also, we appreciate the express permission for both financing arrangements and licensing  
agreements. Under 420.1(1)(c)(ii)(A) and (D), however, we recommend defining the terms  
“reasonable interest rate” and “reasonable payment,” respectively. At a minimum, the rules should  
state that MRA will provide guidance to the industry with respect to these terms.  
R 420.1(1)(l)—Definition of “Employee”  
Under 420.1(1)(l), the definition of “Employee” excludes “individuals providing trade  
services who are not normally engaged in the operation of a marihuana business.” Dykema  
suggests that the language read “Employee” does not include “individuals providing trade or  
professional services who are not normally engaged in the operation of a marihuana business.  
R 420.3—Application procedure; requirements  
Under 420.3(2), Dykema suggests allowing prequalification status for grow facilities  
currently under construction to extend beyond 1 year to avoid having to re-qualify grow facilities  
whose municipal approval process and construction schedule often extends far beyond that  
timeframe. This is especially problematic when a municipality requires prequalification status as  
a condition to local approval, and prequalification status could be temporarily lost. Dykema  
suggests providing that the MRA may request updated information from an applicant within 90  
days prior to the expiration of prequalification status, and allow applicants with their facility under  
construction to maintain uninterrupted prequalification status so long as circumstances have not  
changed in a manner that affects suitability.  
R 420.4—Application requirements; financial and criminal background  
Under 420.4(2)(a)(i)(C), Dykema suggests amending the language “all loans” to read “all  
loan types specified by the Department,” thus providing explicit authority for the MRA to exclude  
auto loans, credit cards, student loans or other loans that the MRA may find to be unnecessary to  
examine.  
Under 420.4(13), while we understand the need to have adult-use licensees pass a facility  
inspection on a timely basis, we also believe that this requirement provides municipalities the  
ability to sidestep important MRTMA protections, at least insofar as MRA requires local  
certificates of occupancy as a condition for passing inspection. As you know, MRTMA provides  
municipalities the ability to opt out of allowing adult use businesses in their communities, but  
MRTMA also explicitly states that ineligibility of an applicant to receive a license on this basis  
must be tested as of the time the applicant files its application. MRTMA also expressly provides  
that a municipal ordinance may not prevent an applicant from operating certain types of adult-use  
establishments where the applicant already has an operating MMFLA facility. Despite the fact  
that MMFLA and MRTMA operations and impacts are identical in nature (indeed, for many  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 4  
license types the only observable difference is the color of the Metrc tag), we have seen  
municipalities refusing to issue certificates of occupancy for adult-use purposes to existing medical  
facilities. A licensee should have the ability to demonstrate to MRA that a municipality is  
improperly withholding documentation, without being forced to suffer a license denial and then  
sue either the MRA or the municipality.  
R 420.5—Application requirements; complete application  
Under 420.5(4)-(5), Dykema suggests allowing more than 5 days for applicants to supply  
missing information or proof of corrected deficiencies to the agency, at least in the case of  
MMFLA applicants for whom there is no 90-day deadline for MRA decision making.  
R 420.10—Proof of financial responsibility; insurance  
Dykema suggests adding language to sections (1) and (4) that would require licensees to  
maintain $100,000 in liability insurance per location as opposed to per license.  
R 420.11—Capitalization requirements; medical marihuana facilities licensing act  
Dykema suggests amending section (1) to read “On its initial application for licensure  
under the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, an applicant shall disclose the sources and  
total amount of capitalization to operate and maintain a proposed marihuana facility.” In other  
words, the capitalization requirements should not be applicable to the expansion of existing  
facilities.  
R 420.12—Denial of a marihuana license; additional reasons  
Dykema suggests that 420.12(2)(e) and (n) apply to adult-use applicants only, as they again  
stem from the MRA’s need to more quickly process adult-use applications.  
R 420.13—Renewal of state license  
Under section (1)(a) and (2) the MRA is requiring spouses on renewal applications to be  
fingerprinted, and apparently treating a disqualified spouse as a basis to disqualify an entity on  
renewal. This applies new “applicant” language from 2018 statutory amendments to both initial  
applicants and renewals. We believe this is entirely contrary to legislative intent and to the  
language of the MMFLA.  
The original set of amendments proposed by LARA/BMMR in 2018 made the  
definitional change equally applicable to those in the application process and those who had yet  
to file. This caused a particular concern by essentially retroactively changing the standard for  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 5  
those who had already filed applications. More specifically, this caused specific concerns for  
applicants who worked with Rep. Kesto to ensure the changes would not be retroactively  
applied; this was the genesis of the language limiting the effectiveness of the change to only  
applications submitted “on or after January 1, 2019.” To now include and enforce these  
standards on renewal to entities that applied before January 1, 2019, would completely subvert  
and undermine the Legislature’s intent in adding the January 1, 2019, language.  
Additionally, to add these requirements on renewal is inconsistent with the statutory language  
itself. The MMFLA, as amended, makes an express distinction between “Applicant” and  
“Licensee” under the MMFLA, as amended, along with a possible argument about MRA not  
properly exercising its deference when carrying out the MMFLA depending on its ultimate  
position. The MMFLA has specifically defined both “Applicant” and “Licensee” and references  
the various definitions based on whether the license is being applied for or whether it is being  
renewed. Thus, an “Applicant” is not a “Licensee” and a “Licensee” is not an “Applicant.”  
Michigan courts have continuously held that “[w]hen interpreting a statute, our primary  
obligation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. To do so, we begin with the  
language of the statute, ascertaining the intent that may be reasonably inferred from its  
language.” Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 187 (2007). “When the language of a statute is  
unambiguous, the Legislature’s intent is clear and judicial construction is neither necessary nor  
permitted.” Id. The Michigan Supreme Court has further held that “ambiguity is a finding of last  
resort.” Stone v Williamson, 482 Mich 144, FN 21 (2008).  
The MMFLA defines “applicant” as “a person who applies for a state operating license.” MCL  
333. 27102(c). The statute further clarifies that applicant includes, “with respect to disclosures  
in an application, for purposes of ineligibility for a license under section 402, or for purposes of  
prior board approval of a transfer of interest under section 406, and only for applications  
submitted on or after January 1, 2019, a managerial employee of the applicant, a person holding  
a direct or indirect ownership interest of more than 10% in the applicant.” Id. The MMFLA  
defines “Licensee” as “a person holding a state operating license.” MCL 333.27102(j).  
MCL 333.27402 provides that “[t]he board shall issue a license to an applicant who submits a  
complete application and pays both the nonrefundable application fee required under section  
401(5) and the regulatory assessment established by the board for the first year of operation, if  
the board determines that the applicant is qualified to receive a license under this act.” MCL  
333.27402(1). Section 27402 further provides that “[a] license shall be issued for a 1-year period  
and is renewable annually. Except as otherwise provided in this act, the board shall renew a  
license if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The licensee applies to the board on a  
renewal form provided by the board that requires information prescribed in the rules; (b) The  
application is received by the board on or before the expiration date of the current license; (c)  
The licensee pays the regulatory assessment under section 603; and (d) The licensee meets the  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 6  
requirements of this act and any other renewal requirements set forth in the rules.” MCL  
333.27402(9).  
From the statutory language it is apparent that the Legislature intended to distinguish applicants  
(persons applying for a state license) and licensees (persons holding a state license). Section  
27402 outlines the requirements for applicants to obtain a license, throughout the entire section  
pre licensure requirements are referred to by “applicant.” However, provisions outlining the  
requirements for licensure renewal specifically reference the “licensee.” Thus, the Legislature  
intended that the definition of applicant apply to only those seeking licensure, while the  
definition of licensee refer to holders of licenses.  
Dykema suggests adding qualifying language to section (1)(a) and (2) carving out an  
exception for spouses of applicants and licensees whose original application was filed prior to  
January 1, 2019.  
R 420.21—Designated consumption establishment license  
Dykema suggests adding “program or manual” to section (2)(k) to read: “A documented  
employee training program or manual that addresses all components of the responsible  
operations plan.”  
R 420.27—Marihuana delivery business  
Dykema recommends removing rule 420.27 in its entirety. Licensees who make  
significant investments in facility construction, inventory, and operating costs have a meaningful  
financial incentive to fully comply with statutory and regulatory obligations. A licensee who  
makes no such investment and has a role simply limited to delivering retail product does not  
have such incentives. This new license type simply presents too much risk.  
3. Marijuana Licensees 2019-68 LR  
R 420.108—Grower license  
Under section (6), Dykema suggests defining “investor.”  
R 420.109—Processor license; exception for industrial hemp  
Under section (1), Dykema suggests re-wording the section to read “A processor license  
authorizes purchase of marihuana only from a grower or another processor.” Currently, the  
section allows the sale of marihuana from another processor but not the purchase. If the sale is  
authorized to another processor, it is inherent that the purchase would also be allowed. (We note  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 7  
also that the title of this rule includes “exception for industrial hemp,” yet the rule does not  
mention hemp.)  
4. Marijuana Operations 2019-69 LR  
R 420.201—Definitions  
Under 420.201(1)(c), Dykema suggests extending the definition of Administrative Hold to  
include the failure to meet testing standards, and allow facilities having product that fails testing  
standards to hold the product during an investigation into alleged violations or sufficiency of  
testing standards.  
Under 420.201(1)(e)(ii)(D), the MRA should define what is a “reasonable payment”  
under a licensing agreement.  
R 420.203—Marihuana licenses; licensees; operations; general  
420.203(2)(a) provides that “a marihuana business shall be partitioned from any other  
marihuana business or activity, any other business, or any other dwelling.” While section (2)(a)  
provides an exception for operation of separate licenses at the same location and for operation of  
equivalent licenses at the same location, we believe that the current language does not fully  
contemplate the processing of industrial hemp. Section 7(1) of the Industrial Hemp Research  
and Development Act (the “Hemp Act”) states that a processor licensed under the MMFLA may  
process industrial hemp. Therefore, we believe that language should be added at the end of  
section (2)(a) of proposed rule 420.203 to read “a marihuana business shall be partitioned from  
any other marihuana business or activity, any other business, or any other dwelling, other than  
activities in which marihuana businesses are entitled to participate, and provided further that  
growers and processors operated at the same location under R 420.204 shall not be required to  
partition.” (This latter provision would eliminate the need for costly “mantraps” in co-located  
and integrated grower and processor facilities.)  
Although the language of 420.203(2)(c) appears in the current rules, we believe that the  
MRA should remove the requirement that marihuana businesses must be contiguous. To date,  
MRA has allowed licensed activities to be in out-buildings on the same parcel as primary  
buildings (e.g., for grinding of waste). At a minimum, the MRA should at least define  
contiguous to mean structures located on one parcel.  
Dykema suggests removing the prohibition against drive through operations in  
420.203(2)(g).  
R 420.204—Operation at same location  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 8  
Dykema suggests amending 420.204(2)(d)(iii) to read “Have separate entrances, exits,  
inventory, record keeping, and point of sale operations other than for growers and processors at  
the same location.”  
As noted above, in 420.204(2)(d)(ii) MRA should remove the requirement that marihuana  
businesses must be contiguous.  
Dykema suggests adding a subsection (4)(d) under 420.204 that makes clear that a  
laboratory co-located with an existing non-marijuana testing laboratory must comply with all  
building security, design, and other MRA operational rules.  
R 420.205—Equivalent licenses; operation at same location  
Under 420.205(2)(c) to operate equivalent licenses at the same location, the operation  
cannot “circumvent a municipal ordinance or zoning regulation that limits the marihuana business  
under the acts.” MCL 333.27956, however, provides that “[a] municipality may not adopt an  
ordinance that . . . prohibits a marihuana grower, a marihuana processor, and a marihuana retailer  
from operating within a single facility or from operating at a location shared with a marihuana  
facility operating pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.” Dykema suggest that  
this exact language be added to the end of (2)(c) after a “provided, however,” in order to comply  
with the statutory requirements and prevent municipalities from sidestepping them.  
R 420.206—Marihuana business; general requirements  
Under 420.206(1)(b)(ii), cultivation may occur outdoors if “all drying, trimming, curing,  
or packaging of marihuana occurs inside the building meeting all the requirements under these  
rules.” Dykema suggests adding “Provided, however, that marihuana may be transported to a  
grower or processor without drying, trimming, curing, or packaging of marihuana.”  
Under 420.206(8)(b), Dykema suggests defining the term “supervisory analyst.”  
Under 420.206(11), the term ‘inactive ingredients’ is a pharmaceutical product term.  
While the term and this requirement is sensible with respect to distillate blended with other  
products and intended for inhalation through vaping, to the extent that edibles or other supplements  
have ingredients that may be on the FDA inactive ingredient list, they are not intended to “facilitate  
the transport of marihuana in the body” and therefore the regulation makes no sense as applied to  
edible or ingestible marihuana products. As non-pharma products or supplements, such products  
should simply be required to list the ingredients pursuant to FDA labeling regulations (for food  
products).  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 9  
420.206(14) requires marihuana businesses to comply with updated standards issued by  
the agency within 60 days of their adoption. However, for growers, 60 days does not provide  
enough time for a grow cycle to occur and product to be tested to comply with any changes.  
Therefore, Dykema suggests adding “Except in cases of public health emergencies, a lab must  
validate new tests within 60 days of adoption by the agency and growers and processors must meet  
the standards adopted by the agency within 150 days of adoption.”  
420.206(16)(a)-(b) quite simply amounts to a regulatory taking and must be removed. The  
agency has no statutory authority to force a sale of product to a third party “to ensure that all  
marihuana businesses are properly serviced.” Such a regulation amounts to a regulatory taking  
and forces marihuana businesses to eliminate their competitive business advantage. By mandating  
sales in certain circumstances, it also puts the MRA itself in direct violation of the federal  
Controlled Substances Act, eliminating the defense to pre-emption challenges to the MMFLA  
(and, by extension, to MRTMA) relied upon by the Michigan Supreme Court in Ter Beek v City  
of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (2014). This step would thus threaten to undermine Michigan’s entire  
statutory framework for the industry.  
R 420.207—Marihuana delivery; limited circumstances  
Under 420.207(3), Dykema suggests changing “shall establish procedures” to “may  
establish procedures.” (Otherwise, this could be read as mandating delivery for businesses that  
may choose not to engage in this practice.)  
Under 420.207(4)(c), Dykema suggests amending the language to read: “All marihuana  
delivery employees meet the requirements in R 420.602 and are employees, as defined in R  
420.601(1)(d), of the marihuana sales location.  
R 420.208—Building and fire safety  
Under 420.208(5), we believe that the MRA and Bureau of Fire Services needs to re-assess  
whether growers should be treated as an industrial use. This unique Michigan treatment has led to  
numerous requirements that are not present in any other state, including such absurdities as  
mandating sprinklers and specific paths and distances for marijuana planted outdoors under plastic  
high tunnels.  
R 420.209—Security measures; required plan; video surveillance system  
Under 420.209(3) Dykema suggests adding “or other electronic or keypad access” after  
“door locks.” (The current mandate for commercial grade locks has been interpreted by some in  
MRA Enforcement to require low-tech deadbolt style locks, when electronic access controlled  
doors are more secure.)  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 10  
5. Marijuana Sampling and Testing 2019-70 LR  
R 420.301—Definitions  
Under 420.301(1)(h) “Final Package” is defined as “the form a marihuana product is in  
when it is available for sale by a marihuana sales location.” We believe the definition is  
ambiguous because it references the “form” of the product itself. The definition should reference  
the packaging, not the form of the product. Therefore, we suggest the definition be amended to  
read: “Final Package means the outermost container or box the marihuana product is house in  
when it is available for sale by a marihuana sales location.”  
R 420.303—Batch; identification and testing.  
Dykema suggests that MRA clarify in 420.303(1) that each immature plant counts as one  
plant toward the grower plant count. As the MRA and others have determined, this is the count  
methodology required by the wording of the MMFLA. However, this provision for batch  
tagging in Metrc, while correct, continues to be misinterpreted, especially by new market  
entrants.  
420.303(5) currently allows marihuana product that fails testing and is remediated to be  
sold or transferred once approved by the agency. We believe that agency approval should not be  
required for marihuana product that passes (under R 420.306) two subsequent re-tests following  
remediation.  
Under 420.303(9), the MRA should change the language “anytime the marihuana product  
changes form” to read “anytime the marihuana product changes state.”  
R 420.304—Sampling; testing  
Under 420.304(2)(b)-(c), the MRA should amend section (2)(b) to read “The agency may  
publish sample sizes for other marihuana products being tested, and may provide for a  
maximum harvest batch size.” Additionally, the MRA should move the language at the end of  
section (2)(c) to the end of (2)(b) to now read “The laboratory must have access to the entire  
batch for the purpose of sampling and shall ensure that the sample increments are taken from  
throughout the batch.” (Sampling methodology should remain under the full control of the  
laboratory, not growers, and growers should not be held responsible for a laboratory’s failure to  
take appropriate samples.)  
In 420.304(2)(h), laboratories should be the parties responsible for uploading accurate  
data from the certificate of analysis into the statewide monitoring system. Certificates of  
analysis are not standardized, vary from lab to lab, and are commonly misunderstood.  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 11  
Dykema suggests amending 420.304(2)(i) to read “This provision does not apply to a  
laboratory who engages another laboratory to perform certain safety tests on a subcontracted  
basis, or to a laboratory under common ownership.”  
R 420.305—Testing; laboratory requirements  
420.305(3) should be clarified so as to not interpret the section to mean a marihuana  
product needs to be tested every time it changes form (or state). Testing should be required  
before sale or transfer, but not when form changes due to processing.  
420.305(10) currently sets a zero tolerance for chemical residue (pesticides). However,  
extremely low levels of pesticide residue is possible. We believe that chemical residue should  
have an action limit instead of a limit of quantification. Having an LOQ with a fail for even the  
slightest amount of chemical residue creates excess costs or production because potentially large  
batches must then be destroyed. At the very minimum we believe that R 420.306(3) should be  
amended to allow product that tests positive for chemical residue to be remediated to fall below  
the action limit allowable.  
We believe that the accuracy thresholds for all licensed labs should be published by the  
department. This would allow other licensees to monitor and be aware of labs that are the most  
accurate.  
The MRA should add a 420.305(2) stating that, “A marihuana business may have a failed  
batch R&D tested by a different laboratory to determine whether or not the laboratory that  
performed the initial test may have made an error. If an R&D test contradicts the failed result,  
the department will investigate the failed result and may have the item selected for random  
sampling by another licensed lab.”  
Finally, Dykema suggests adding a provision to Rule 420.305 that allows laboratories  
prelicensure possession of marihuana for the purpose of validating testing equipment. (With the  
passage of MRTMA, owners and operators of prelicensed laboratories have the legal authority to  
possess marijuana.)  
R 420.306—Testing marihuana product after failed initial safety testing and remediation  
Dykema suggests amending 420.306(2) to add a provision that prevents immediate  
destruction of product if the marihuana business is challenging the validity of testing. In this  
case, product would be required to be placed under an administrative hold as defined in R  
420.501.  
As discussed above, 420.306(3) is not ideal in practice. Currently, the rules propose a  
zero tolerance for chemical residue. However, ultra-low levels of chemical residue can be  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 12  
attributable to accidental contamination rather than the use of a banned pesticide. Section (3)  
should be amended to allow processors to remediate the material to remove chemical residue.  
The implementation of the current section, as written, will result in exponential loses to licensees  
and a shortage of product for customers and patients. Growers are vulnerable to large losses as a  
result of accidental environmental contamination, while processors are vulnerable to large losses  
due to an accumulation of contamination during processing, even where no banned pesticide was  
utilized.  
420.306(4) should be amended to specify that processors will be allowed to remediate  
any material that can be remediated. Additionally, this rule should allow processors to transfer  
material to another processor for remediation.  
Finally, Dykema suggests amending section (4) to read “The agency shall publish a  
remediation protocol.”  
R 420.307—Research and Development  
We believe that R&D testing should be allowed before or after final compliance testing.  
6. Marijuana Infused Products and Edible Marijuana Product 2019-71 LR  
R 420.403—Requirements and restrictions on marihuana-infused products; edible marihuana  
product  
420.403(6) should be amended in accordance with our comment to R 420.206(11): The  
term ‘inactive ingredients’ is a pharmaceutical product term. To the extent non-medical  
marihuana products have ingredients which may be on the FDA inactive ingredient list, they are  
not intended to “facilitate the transport of marihuana in the body” and therefore the regulation  
makes no sense as applied to edible or ingestible marihuana products. As food or supplements,  
such products would be required to list the ingredients pursuant to FDA labeling regulations.  
R 420.404—Maximum THC concentration for marihuana-infused products  
420.404 should be amended to read “A marihuana sales location shall not sell or transfer  
marihuana infused products that exceed, by more than 15%, the maximum THC concentrations  
established by the agency.”  
7. Marijuana Sale or Transfer 2019-72 LR  
R 420.504—Marihuana product sale or transfer; labeling and packaging requirements  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 13  
Under 420.504(1)(i), listing the name of the laboratory that performed any test, any  
associated batch number, and any test analysis date is very cumbersome and should be limited to  
certain laboratories, batch numbers, and analysis dates.  
Under 420.504(1)(k)(iii), Dykema suggests amending the language to read: “For products  
being sold by a licensee under the medical marihuana facilities licensing act that exceed  
maximum THC levels allowed for products sold under MRTMA, “For use by individuals 21  
years of age or older only. Keep out of reach of children.”  
Additionally, under section (1)(k)(iv), Dykema suggests amending the language to read:  
“For all other products being sold by a licensee, “For use by individuals 21 years of age or older  
or registered qualifying patients only. Keep out of reach of children.”  
Together, the above changes would enable licensees to use the same labels for products  
that are allowed for both medical and adult-use customers, thereby reducing the costs incurred by  
growers and processors.  
R 420.505—Sale or transfer; marihuana sales location  
Dykema suggests amending section (1)(e) to read “A licensee selling marihuana product  
pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.”  
R 420.507—Marketing and advertising restrictions  
Under 420.507(6), Dykema suggests moving “under the medical marihuana facilities  
licensing act” to after “marihuana product” so that section (6) would read: “A marihuana product  
under the medical marihuana facilities licensing act must be marketed or advertised as  
‘medical marihuana’ for use only by registered qualifying patients or registered primary  
caregivers.”  
Under 420.507(7), Dykema suggests moving “under the medical marihuana facilities  
licensing act” to after “marihuana product” so that section (7) would read: “A marihuana product  
under the medical marihuana facilities licensing act must not be marketed or advertised to  
minors aged 17 years or younger.”  
8. Marijuana Employees 2019-73 LR  
R 420.602—Employees; requirements  
Dykema suggests amending sections (6) and (7) to insert “or professional” after the word  
“trade”.  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 14  
9. Marijuana Hearings 2019-74 LR  
R 420.706—Complaint by licensee  
Dykema suggests adding a section that allows licensees to contest the standards set for  
testing.  
10. Marijuana Disciplinary Proceedings 2019-75 LR  
R 420.808—Citation  
Dykema suggests amending section (7) to allow a licensee to provide “a written  
response” instead of limiting the response to one single page.  
11. Industrial Hemp Rule for Marihuana Businesses 2019-88 LR  
R 420.1003—Processing industrial hemp.  
Sections (1), (2) and (5) of 420.1003 expressly require a medical or adult-use marijuana  
processor to comply with the Hemp Act and associated rules promulgated by the Michigan  
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development if the processor handles, processes, markets,  
or brokers industrial hemp. This would pose a serious compliance issue for marijuana processors  
that choose to process industrial hemp for several reasons. First and foremost, industrial hemp and  
marijuana are both defined as the plant Cannabis sativa L., with the only distinction between the  
two being the delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of the plant. Under the Hemp  
Act, any cannabis in the processor’s possession that exceeds .3% THC concentration would be  
considered non-compliant industrial hemp and would need to be destroyed. Thus, a marijuana  
processor that processes both industrial hemp and marijuana would not be in compliance with the  
Hemp Act because it would be processing and in the possession of cannabis with a THC  
concentration that exceeds the allowable limit under the Hemp Act. Similarly, a marijuana  
processor would be unable to use any industrial hemp-derived CBD or other ingredients in its  
finished marijuana products.  
Therefore, the rule should be clarified to exempt marijuana processors from complying  
with the Hemp Act if and when the marijuana processor handles, processes, markets, or brokers  
cannabis with a delta-9-THC content greater than 0.3% on a dry weight basis.  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
Marijuana Regulatory Agency  
February 17, 2020  
Page 15  
Regards,  
DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC  
R. Lance Boldrey  
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.  
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3  
;