 So, my name's James Pepper. I'm the chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board. Today is November 30th, 2022. It's moving forward. Can I call this meeting in order? I hope everyone had a restful Thanksgiving. The board did not meet last week, though that certainly didn't stop us from getting some good work done. We have some new guidance documents posted to our website. Kyle is going to walk us through those later today. Huge thank you to our licensing and compliance teams for hosting a live Q&A session last week. And thank you to everyone who joined and that brought their good questions and kept the discussion civil. No one has really figured out how to regulate their cannabis markets perfectly right out of the gate. Every state takes a different approach with respect to their laws, their market structure, their testing protocols, et cetera. This inevitably means that there's a steep learning curve and some confusion, both among regulators and licensees at the outset. And we really do need to learn from each other. We provide guidance where there's ambiguity and we are continually assessing what's working and what's not. I think the Q&A session seemed very productive in achieving these goals. The recordings available at our YouTube page and we are actively discussing internally when and how to do more of these. We have a lot to get through today, but I would like to take a moment to note that tomorrow is World AIDS Day. People living with HIV were some of the earliest advocates in speaking truth to power about the therapeutic effects of cannabis. I know in Vermont we would not have a medical program and likely not an adult use program without this community's determination and sacrifice. Thank you for all the bravery and hope you share with the world every day. A quick administrative note. We have a new rule waiver request form. As a reminder, the CCB built a little bit of flexibility in designing our regulations to reduce or waive certain requirements on a case-by-case basis. This new form is an effort to centralize and streamline the waiver request process. It's available at ccb.fermont.gov. Moving forward, all waiver requests other than packaging waiver requests must be submitted through this form. Packaging waivers have a unique set of circumstances and considerations and still need to go through the packaging form that's available on our guidance page. I would just add a word of caution. The CCB spent a lot of time contemplating whether each and every regulation was in service to our core mission. So our granting a waiver to any regulation has been and will continue to be the rare exception rather than the rule. So other than that, just need to approve the minutes from our last meeting on November 16th, 2022. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Kyle, I think we're turning to you now for some guidance walk-throughs. Yeah, I'm just gonna walk everybody through what can I do with my cannabis two-pager that we put out on our website last week. I think it's important for every one of our licensed folks, whether it's cultivator or retailer, understands what they can and can't do with these at a 30,000-foot view with their respective license. And I know that there's been some questions or some confusion that's come out of some of the words that we've used on this two-pager. And I think it's important to remember these words are intentional, a lot are in our definitions, in our rules or in statute. So let's start with the cultivator license. Cultivator, licensees, make or cannabis plants either outdoor indoors or a mix of indoors and outdoors. Cultivators may also dry cannabis, package it, create pre-rolls out of flour and or trim and sell it to other cannabis establishments. They may produce clones for sale to other licensees, including license retail establishments. I know there's been some questions about that. People have seen clones at retail establishments. That is perfectly fine. Cultivators may not conduct any extraction, including mechanical extraction. This means extraction by means of mechanical or manual sifting and pressing as approved by the board. This includes sifting for Keef. You need to get a manufacturer's license if you want to do that intentionally. If not, it's going to end up in your trim and you'll package it in your pre-rolls or however else you decide to work with your trim product. You may also not possess cannabis products. Now I think that there's been some confusion around this. Folks need to remember that cannabis and cannabis products are two different things under our regulations. Cannabis in and of itself implies through our regulations flour or pre-rolls. Cannabis products means that flour has undergone some other type of process or extraction and is a little bit more concentrated. I know that there's folks out there that are wondering, hey, I'm working with a manufacturer to turn my flour into a manufactured product. Why can't I take possession of that as I look to distribute it to retailers? One, that's a business arrangement that you can make with a manufacturer to move that product for you or on your behalf. You can still carry your brand name, your label, your branding, whatever you want to call it on that product that that manufacturer has in effect turned into a cannabis product for you. This is on par with however you other state. More or less treats cannabis products. You're required to either do that or seek an additional license, a wholesale license or a manufacturer license to take repossession of those cannabis products. And this was the legislative intent. You look through our statutes of how the legislature thought that this supply chain would work in a linear fashion. I think we all know both folks listening and us table recognize that this is not always a linear supply chain. And as we update the legislature on how things are going, I'm sure we'll have conversations to see if any adjustments to that cannabis product and who can possess them if any adjustments should be made. But I just want to make folks aware that a product and flower are two distinct things under our regulations. Can I make a just something to that when we say they may not possess cannabis products? That means under their license. It doesn't mean that the person can't separately participate in the cannabis market as a consumer. Absolutely. You are welcome to participate as you desire. So long as you're 21. And as I said cultivators may make arrangements with manufacturers to have the cultivators label put on cannabis products that are manufactured with the cultivators plant material. And if you want more information, this is a live link. You can go look at our our rules that kind of further elaborate on this 2.3 2.4 and 2.5 in addition to the statutory charges and that legislative intent with which we interpreted to create these rules. This is not the time for questions. But thank you. Wholesaler license. Wholesaler licensees may purchase cannabis and cannabis products from other licensees and sell them to licensees. They may package cannabis and cannabis products and may create pre rolls out of flower and or trim. They may not sell to the general public. Testing laboratory license. Testing lab license. Sure I'm not getting ahead of myself. Testing laboratory licensees test cannabis and cannabis products obtained from a licensed cannabis establishment dispensary or a member of the public. All cannabis and cannabis products sold must be tested in accordance with board rules. Testing laboratories tests for product potency and purity across a variety of metrics. They may not sell cannabis to the general public or to other licensees. And again, if you have any questions. These are live links. You can you can do your own investigating as to what we specifically say in roll and look to the legislature and their intent as we interpreted it. A manufacturer license. Manufacturer license licensees may create products from cannabis plants, including edibles, oils, tinctures and other such products. There are three tiers of manufacturing licenses depending on the type of extraction methods used and amounts sold. Tier three manufacturers may use any lawful method of extraction including supercritical CO2 extraction, solvent chemical extraction and flammable solvent chemical synthesis. Tier one tier two manufacturers may use the following extraction methods. Cannibal extraction as I talked about previously. Water based extraction is extraction using only ice water or other freezing subs substrate or process as approved by the board food based extraction. Using propylene glycol glycerin butter coconut or olive oil other type of cooking fats or alcohol as approved by the board or heat and pressure based extraction. Manufacturers can product package their products and sell them to other cannabis establishments. Again, they cannot sell to the general public. A retailer license and purchase cannabis and cannabis products from other licensees. And they may package and sell cannabis and cannabis products to the general public. Only retail licenses and the retail portion of integrated licenses may sell to the general public. Last but not least our integrated license. They may engage in activities of each of the license types cultivation manufacturing wholesale testing and retail. And these licenses are only available to an applicant and its affiliates that hold a medical cannabis program dispensary registration. On April 1st 2022. So you know it's really it from this two pager. We're hopeful this kind of gives folks who have any outstanding questions about what they can do. Some type of clarity. I recognize it's pretty high level and questions as they continue to arise. We'll respond to them. I think it's important to note also that a cannabis establishment refers to any of our license types. Anabas establishment is not just a cultivator. It's not just a retailer. It's not just a manufacturer. It's kind of a general term that we use in reference to anybody who's licensed by the board. So that's it for that. I'm going to do you want to do the block power. Thank you. So as the chair mentioned at the outset we had a Q&A session last week after hours that some of the CCB staff participated in. There were a number of great questions that came up at that event. As the chair mentioned it is recorded and it's available on our YouTube page. So feel free to check it out. One of the questions or issues that kind of that came up quite a bit in that session had to do with registering flower and the nuances of registering flower. So it was clear that we needed to provide a little bit more clarity about registering flower and in particular registering bulk flower. So we put together a guidance document that tries to clarify these questions a little bit and I'll just pull it up and go through it quickly. So essentially there are two ways to register your flower. As we've described in the product registration process typically all different types of products need to have their own separate product registration. This gets a little bit tricky with flower. So if you are prepackaging your flower each different strain or cultivar of that flower has to be under a separate product registration. Again if it is prepackaged for retail sale. One of the nuances that came up during the Q&A session is cultivators who are registering their own flower. And if so if you're a cultivator that wants to prepackage and brand your own flower and also register your pre-rolls that are made with the same cultivar or process lot as the flower that you're packaging for retail sale you can submit one registration application for both your prepackaged flower and your prepackaged pre-rolls as long as you include in your registration application the different packaging that you'll be using for both your flower and for your pre-rolls. So if you take a look at our website the product registration page there are instructions for how to include information about your packaging requirements. So as long as you include that information about the packaging for both the flower and the pre-rolls you can submit one registration application for both. So that is prepackaged and branded flower. The other thing that's happening is that retail shops are carrying bulk flower and that bulk flower is changing relatively frequently based on how many people are coming in to buy it but there's quite a bit of turnover I think with the different strains of flower that retailers are getting in. So in an effort to make it an easier process for retailers to carry and sell bulk flower we're only requiring that bulk flower have one product registration. So any retailer that wants to have a bulk flower program sell bulk flower only has to submit one product registration for that bulk flower program. So retailers can sell any cultivar that comes from any cultivator under that one product registration. So what we're asking for retailers to do if they want to sell bulk flower is to submit a registration application for their bulk flower that includes the proposed packaging for their bulk flower a warning label and an initial certificate of analysis. And then they have to sell that flower in a child deterrent reusable container that complies with all of the relevant packaging and labeling requirements. Many retailers are already doing this providing reusable bulk flower containers and offering customers to bring them back for refills. The CCB is really encouraging retailers to do this as long as that reuse container reuse program contains the following elements which I will go through here. So I was just going to say and very quickly for just for anybody who who may be slightly confused at the term for flower this is deli style packaging. I think we're trying to move enough calling it bulk flower direction and away from deli style but just for anybody who's maybe not caught onto that yet. I just wanted to clarify. Yep. So bulk flower is really when retailers receive flower from a cultivator or from a wholesaler and are packaging it at the point of sale. That is what we mean by bulk flower. So if retailers want to have a container reuse program for their bulk flower they have to ensure that their containers that they're providing for their bulk flower meet the requirements of the rule including that the container be child deterrent and maintain that child determinants with reuse. Retailers can only refill containers that they originally supplied to the consumer for bulk flower. When a consumer purchases bulk flower the retailer has to provide the cult of our name the potency information and the COA for pathogens and pesticide residues that correspond to that specific bulk flower that the consumer purchased. And then to ensure the integrity of the child deterrent container retailers would have to make sure that the container that the customer brings back is still child deterrent and if it's not they have to replace the container or a portion of the container so that it remains child deterrent. And then lastly the retailer has to ensure that the warning label on the container is still legible when it's refilled and if it is not legible replace it. And the board plans to conduct retail inspections to ensure that retailers are operating in compliance with the guidance for their bulk flower registrations. That's it. Great. Any questions or comments? Yes, just very briefly. I know a lot of folks have moved in a packaging direction utilizing the one that has been the one child deterrent bag or flower that we've allowed or granted a waiver for. And so something to think about for retailers that are interested in in doing this. If you sell flower in that bag after it's been torn and ripped and used that first time it loses its child deterrent capabilities if you read the definition of child deterrent. So again I'm always encouraging folks to move away from our waivers and into glass packaging. I think if it's perfectly with what we're trying to do here. I'm sure folks that have used these bags, consumers that are bringing those bags back to the store may just want their bag to be refilled. But we're going to have to see in a plan that you submit as Brin mentioned how you intend to you know meet that child deterrent with those bags. Those bags are designed to break down easily. The use or two of the bags going to start falling apart. I don't know if they're engineered to do what the bulk flower intends to do and it's really hoping folks can figure out a way to move beyond that waiver which will go away eventually unless we reauthorize it and move towards other types of packaging and start really focusing on reusing a lot of the packaging that's out there. That's all I got. All right. So next on the agenda is a walkthrough of proposed rule changes. I'd just like to say a few words before we start this process. You know what has been happening is every time we have a public comment session or any time we kind of notice something about our rules that isn't working or could be improved upon or needs to be changed. David our general council keeps track of those. You know we intend to update our rules every year. You know to keep them current to keep them relevant to keep them useful. And what we're going to do today is review the changes that David has been keeping track of. And this is not the kind of this is the starting line of our rule change process. I know that you know whenever we kind of reopen the rule and you know it feels kind of like it's going to be there forever it's etched in stone. It's not the case and this really is going to be a continuous iterative kind of process. And I don't know David I didn't ask you in advance but maybe you could kind of talk about at the appropriate time what the next steps in the administrative processes are procedure acts so that anyone who's listening can understand where we where we are when we decide to reopen a rule. Yeah I'll do that right now and then we'll jump into the edits if that makes sense. So I can keep it brief I mean well there's a series of filings that we have to do in order to promulgate a rule in order to make a rule become a real regulation that that has the force of law. One of the procedures though or one of the steps in those filings is that we are required to get public comment and those of us who those of you all who are listening who were involved with this earlier this year will remember that there is a huge amount of public comment at that time I'm sure we'll have more this time the board welcomes it the board made a lot of changes as a result of those public comments. So as you go through this is just remember this is the first draft there are going to be more changes and there's going to be a lot of opportunity for public input both through our portal on our website or we'll have a meeting where there will be a opportunity for people just that will be dedicated to just receiving verbal public comments that people want to make. So there's going to be a lot of time and opportunity for input and that's required by law we couldn't the board can't not do that so that will be happening and I don't know exactly when but I'd expect that that'll probably be early February in the public comment period has to extend for 30 days so there will be time but I expect that 30 day period will be somewhere around like starting in late January. So anyway that's a little overview and I'll jump in. Today's like something. Don't so you know in light of that you may see things you like maybe you don't like other things that we should change. Don't feel like if you don't get your comments in at our 10 minute public comment session at the end of the meeting that they heard it may be better that you submit those written or in our design specifically so that's exactly right. So we're closer together. All right so as you'll see as we're going through this some of these changes are substantive changes that I think will have an impact a lot of them are not particularly substantive they're really technical things but we'll identify that as we go through. So the first one you'll see this is really a technical change employee. This definition was intended to apply only to the positive impact criteria section having it here actually introduce some confusion about who is required to get the employee ID cards we didn't intend to do that so anyway technical change here that definition is still in the rule but it's been its place has been changed. Outdoor cultivation definition is changing I would say this is more of a substantive change so I'll just read out what the proposal is. Outdoor cultivation means growing cannabis in a manner that does not use artificial lighting provided that outdoor cultivators may use the minimum amount of artificial lighting necessary to keep photoperiod plants in a vegetative state artificial lighting for outdoor cultivation must not extend beyond May 1st in a calendar year or past when the specific cultivar can sustain vegetative growth under natural sunlight whichever comes first and also I should say you know you guys pipe up however. So moving on to the social equity section these first couple edits are really just making explicitly clear something that the board has this is how the board has applied this rule and has interpreted already but I think we're just sort of clarifying which is that incarceration really means in a jail or prison facility subsequent to sentencing so pretrial detentions aren't will not count and don't count currently the board has interpreted incarceration to mean what this says but we felt like it made sense to clarify by putting this in the rule there's a number of tiny little changes here around to make sure the sections all agree this subsection new subsection or subdivision to here I would put this more as a technical change this is really just making clear that an individual who meets any of the three criteria up here could constitute an owner for the purpose of comprising a social equity business and so there's a little bit of a gap there that was not intended and we've been interpreting the rule to mean this but again this is really just making explicitly clear that any of the three ways in which you might be a social equity applicant mean that that counts towards the ownership stake in a social equity business so one of the areas of social equity that's been a point of discussion and I think it's fair to say some some confusion over the this initial period has been the third social equity criteria which says that if you're from a community that's been historically disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition and you're able to demonstrate to the board that you're personally harmed by that disproportion impact then you could be a social equity applicant so with the changes here we are trying to clarify what this means and I think this is a significant change I would also say that in many ways it really is just trying to put on paper how the board has interpreted this again so I'm not actually sure that its impact is going to sort of change who makes it through this gate but I think it's just trying to clarify what was intended when this was originally read so there's a slight change there around the long-term consequences sort of trying to state that a little more plainly I think the bigger piece obviously is this new paragraph that says for the purposes of this subsection community includes but is not limited to a person who spent the majority of their youth prior to prior to turning 18 and a household that was eligible for FDPIR or that received SNAP benefits and FDPIR is essentially the equivalent to SNAP benefits but it is for individuals on Indian reservations or that I'm sorry I didn't finish out that sentence before I started saying that or that receives that or lives in a household that is eligible for or that receives SNAP benefits currently for the purposes of this subsection community does not mean professional or civic associations social organizations clubs advocacy organizations or hobbyist groups a prior association with Canvas is not by itself sufficient to constitute community so again we're trying really to clarify what the intention was here and in fact clarify how the board has been interpreting this I think you know the board has stated publicly some of these concepts already and we're trying to put them in the rule itself so that we can have more clarity and individuals trying to understand what is a complicated piece of the rule can understand it more easily just by reading the rule the applicability section this is a bit of a substantive thing so the legislature in the most recent most recent session this earlier this year did give to the board significant authority to excuse me regulate hemp derived products and so this clarifies that excuse me person to engage in the transfer or sale of hemp derived products that contain more than one milligram of THC for serving our subject to this rule thank you that we all have the same cough as the testament to how long we spend together I'll get through this eventually so this section is really the clarification excuse me lost my voice entirely this was always how we've interpreted this but again clarifying a crop has to be the entirety the crop has to be within two spans those are mixed cultivators this is again how the rule has been interpreted but supercritical co2 extraction is not something that's permitted for a tier two manufacturer I also deleted the word unapproved there's never an intention to routinely carve out exceptions for tier two manufacturers it was just this is the stuff that's reserved for tier three this is a substantive change where here one outdoor cultivators could have a more have an easier path to moving up a tier our outdoor tier I should say this is a bit of clarification around escrow just clarifying there needs to be a third party that's holding the account we got rid of the word bond because I think it was confusing nobody's used it when we were asked what we meant by that I don't think we were really able to plain it all that well and I don't think we had clarity on why exactly that was in there that term is usually used in relation to like securities and things like that and so it did make a lot of sense obviously we will take public input if somebody had an idea for what that how that may have been fit in there this is where that employee definition went landed here because this is what it was intended to apply to one thing that is a substantive change here for retailers a plan to pay the applicable taxes on the behalf of medical patient registered pursuant to where they need to be registered may capture one of the criteria that would otherwise need they would otherwise need to meet in this section and this is that positive impact criteria section as I just said that licensees need to meet if they have more than a certain number of employees this isn't a particularly substantive change it just made sense to restate this given the sort of new board responsibilities around CBD and hemp directs products and to say a little bit more about that the legislation did require the board to come up with a plan for dealing with those products in the new year in January so that'll be presented publicly into the legislature at that time but that does not there isn't currently anything if people are wondering and you haven't seen it it's because it doesn't exist at this time this is a change to acknowledge that the $50,000 this is really a statutory requirement that had to be accomplished by October 1st of this year and that has passed and behind us so it didn't make sense to keep that in the rule so or I should say it didn't make sense to have that specific piece in the rule a plan to contribute will remain as one of the things that should be there yeah this is us putting into the rule the ways in which the board has been interpreting the rule so for overcoming a presumptive disqualification a person will be deemed qualified if the board finds that granting them a license will not pose a threat to the safety of the legal cannabis market or the general public and that's really the framework with within which the board has already been operating but it made sense to just state that plainly so folks know what the bar is the general public knows what the bar is that needs to be met lots of things aren't changing as you can see so we had a provision in there regarding change of location or change of license control and some of the sort of specificity and tightness of the rules around this is to make sure that there is no violation of the one license per type rule which is really like one of the key aspects of the legislation as it was designed by the legislature and we wanted to make sure we held that closely but as experience experience has taught us that it doesn't necessarily make sense in every case to require a full-on license renewal for every possible change in control because there are some very small ones that where it doesn't make sense to do that so this is just acknowledging that and saying we're not going to do it in every case but everybody still has to notify us when they are going to have a change of control yeah so let's go to this and I'll open this up for board discussion there had been some interest excuse me among the board members in thinking about the waiver provisions so I if you want to have a quick discussion now and I can pull up the provisions or have this in a way where you can see both the list and provisions but yeah I will open up the discussion for you guys so just for the purpose of orientation you know these are the rule one waivers that we wrote into our rule that we've specific aspects of our regulations if you are a tier one cultivator whether that's indoor outdoor mixed we took significant public comment about which regulations are not necessary for tier one cultivators we tried to capture them in this section and now I think it's the perfect time to reopen that discussion now that we have a little bit of experience under our belt so are there any in particular yeah I'm just reminding myself which which sections align with which numbers so these are the first two right here G and H of 1.4.2 okay and let me know if you want to skip down so it seems like upon renewal we would want people to put in their renewal application a description of any criminal action or description of any civil action particularly as we tap in since they were licensed I mean they do have a responsibility to keep us informed but it should be part of the renewal process I'm fine with that I actually when in reviewing this couldn't remember our rationale for waving those other than we didn't want to necessarily retraumatize someone but yeah and maybe it is that we say that you have to give a description of anything that's happened since your since the issuance of your license yeah that would make sense that sounds good I think I think at least this you know majority of those waivers that are in there are from 1.4.4 which are compliance and management plans and just something I know I'm thinking about I think we waved a lot of those to try and capture as many folks I shouldn't say the word capture bring along as many folks as we possibly could get them licensed get them growing get their products into the market and I think you know one of the things that I feel is important and I hope everybody who is listening also feels similarly is now that you you know some are getting their licenses today but we've had some licenses that have been granted for four or five six months is looking at your business and how do you get smarter and start planning for the long term as a business and a lot of these waivers to me feel as though they're the beginnings of a compliance plan a business plan you know how you like to make sorry that was distracting how you're looking to move forward as a business whether you're trying to grow up a tier or you know just make sure you have long-term viability and what that means to you so I think you know I don't necessarily want to imply I want to strike all of those waiver provisions without further conversation or discussion but I think it's it's worth noting that we want folks to you know continue to find success and that's not just success on that first initial sales that you've already made but how can you keep the success as this market it starts to mature so can we look at those data yeah sorry here's one plan 4.4 it was everything but D I think was waived here yeah it seems like a once somebody's get a year under their belt should have a plan for dispersal disposal of inventory they have 125 plants we would like to know where it's going to go if they decide not to continue to operate so are you suggesting that that only apply to renewal renewal yeah not to not see initial yeah I'm focused I think that makes sense to me I think if we're thinking about renewal or we've made it I think you know through what we've already talked about a little easier for folks to move up a tier from an after birth tier one to a different tier obviously these waivers wouldn't apply but I think even on renewal getting folks thinking this way if that's in their two-year clients and management plans and business plans are important for anybody to maintain their business yes I have been thinking about this in terms of renewal so would you be wanting to have all of these kick back in for renewal on like for a renewal of a license yeah you want to be which is a submitted timeline for beginning operations but yeah I think so okay I feel like you know some of it and I don't know how we word it I feel like it's some of it's contingent on whether or not that tier one outdoor cultivator has any employees because we've waived a lot of overviews of unless I'm looking at the wrong numbers like E F G we waived all that folks may have hired somebody to help them between licensure and now we want to see that but that might be understanding on renewal who is working for your business if it's anybody by yourself right yes unless I know I think that's right I think that's right I mean if it's a sole proprietorship we wouldn't need any of that information and I don't think that's too much of a lift for I would hope that's not too much of a lift for our small cultivators but I think what it can help do is folks approach in the right way is starting to get smarter as a business as we want them to succeed okay that was helpful David in terms of turning no I think I think I think we should add it over the last year and a half so I can put it I mean one thing that we're seeing that for for C a test they'll comply with applicable municipal ordinances is that there is a lot of confusion as to what both on the municipal side and on the licensee side as to what's applicable municipal ordinance what's legal and what's not so I hate to have someone at test only to find out hey like what we thought at the time is not what we think now so maybe we should leave that one I think we should leave that one out from tier one and just to be sure that I'm clear so we're leaving is the same for initial licensure we're talking about renewal but even for renewal BNC will not be required okay public comment I have no doubt see how folks feel about that and some of it could depend on any statutory changes too right that might happen unless you're let's say legislature does decide that all we're called bachelors bachelors bachelors bachelors bachelors bachelors both stuff and then that's the fact that they do are we creating a frankincense monster here I mean between is this unchangeable um I'm just thinking about how long it may take us to change just the application and it may take longer than how long it's going to take to get these rules amended but it doesn't mean we can't do it just I mean well let's keep that in the back of our minds when we start making determinations between initial and renewal because I think that's where the complication will come okay yeah yeah and again I think this is from my perspective hoping to help people get smarter as a business we all know that business and technical assistance and the cannabis space is hard to come by at least right now so anything I feel like we can do to ask people to think that way I think would benefit folks upon renewal and year two three four and do whenever so then the next one is the escrow requirement in 1.4.5 b which right now just doesn't apply to zero one keep it the same or yeah I mean okay I think the next ones we'll get there eventually are wastewater requirements yeah it's these two the what are it certifying the capacity to both provide the water and deal with the wastewater and then these are accepted only as to home occupancy businesses and you can find leaving that as is sounds great all right so that's rule one you want to take a break let me get a couple more cough drops to make it through rule two please that might be enough while you're pulling that up I'll just say one more time that that this is not final these are the things that we've noticed we've heard about the most and throughout the kind of next stages of this process we have ample opportunity for people to bring new rule changes to us that can be included in this year's amendments you know people want to see other things waived for tier one cultivators you know there'll be plenty of opportunity for people that kind of provide that information the bore and can be included in our kind of this year's this coming year's rule amendments exactly yeah that's that's good to point out your comments don't need to be specifically tailored to the changes we're trying to make you can suggest things as well that's exactly right all right so in rule two got some definition changes here or additions really defining clone means plant section from a female cannabis plant not yet root bound growing a water solution solution which is capable of developing into a new plant distillate means a concentrate where a segment of cannabinoids from an initial extraction are segregated through heating and cooling with all impurities removed full spectrum means a cannabis concentrate product or infused product that is derived from a cannabis concentrate contains cannabinoids aromatic essential vitamins vitamins and minerals fatty acids protein chlorophyll flavonoids and terpenes and has not been reformulated or has not had cannabinoid isolates or distillates added to it the harvest law definition has changed although again as you'll see a theme of this is that a lot of these changes are really just sort of modifying how the board has been interpreting and enforcing the stuff already and that is true here too harvest law means cannabis grown in the same manner whoops that is a that is a typo sorry about that so what this is going to say is harvest lot means that basically the get that first sentence is just shouldn't be there I don't believe I'm going to check with our with Kerry our compliance person but I think this is a copy-paste problem but it's the basic concept is that to meet the criteria for a single harvest lot a given lot of cannabis would need to be on the same flowering fertilizer and pesticide application schedule single harvest lot and they contain one or multiple cultivars of cannabis so it is different than what it was before which was yeah that was defined differently this is how it is currently being applied and I will confirm to make sure that this is what Kerry had intended on this piece but that is harvest lot out Kerry maybe we should allow for where he I was just going to give you a thumbs up David that that looks good that's great that's good news thanks Kerry I lost confidence there isolate means a cannabis concentrate that is more than 98% comprised of a single cannabinoid compound created by a chemical process and then this outdoor cultivation change which is the same thing that I just read in the prior rule so I won't reread it but it is the it was yeah we changed the definition of outdoor cultivation in everywhere process lot means whole or partial harvest lots that follow different paths towards market or diverted into waste for example a single harvest lot would be broken into two process lots of half of sold fresh frozen to a manufacturer and half was dried cured and sold as bulk flower to a retailer tincture means a solvent such as alcohol or glycerin infused of cannabis a tincture may include additional plant material tinctures may be sold in any volume but the total milligrams of THC per container must not exceed 500 milligrams and then this was changed to reflect that change in rule one that states that hemp derived products with more than one milligram of THC per serving are required to get licensed pursuant to rule one and this just allows that to agree so these changes up here are through the tiers are mostly just correcting errors where the tiers have been not putting correctly in the original rule they didn't meet the legislation or they didn't match the legislation I should say so now they match the legislation and then tier one manufacturers and tier one the one change I guess is that tier one manufacturers were dropped down to this section which only requires 10,000 in escrow for the if you can't get insurance and then again having a third party requirement for that escrow account and then noting that this escrow account as well as the cessation of operations escrow accounts in rule one maybe disperse only in accordance with guidance issued by the board and that guidance will be forthcoming but that's just to make sure that there is a clear understanding of when the escrow accounts can be accessed so I think one thing we've all talked about is decreasing the cessation of operations that happens in guidance just as a reminder that's right okay so we have a number of changes to the warning labels first change is to the health warning label and I will note that there's definitely going to be further input on this as as Julie's talked about in other when we were working on this before we are required to consult the Department of Health we will be getting more input from them I'm sure on this piece that has to happen still so this is I'd almost say a bit of a place holder but it is a sort of an initial proposal for how the health warning might change it's a bit shorter as you can see it's half as long half as long almost exactly and then a couple more points of clarification on it when there's multiple layers of packaging the label must appear on the base layer that's and it does say yeah so it says up here no smaller than 6.5 but if you do go down to 6.5 what it should be capitalized must be capitalized we changed that health warning and people have like 10,000 units with pre-printed with that warning is there a we can use the waiver provision to just say that if you already use your existing inventory yeah figure it out I think it could be around to get that big label on there yeah right I think so I would expect some folks and just of note all this came from the ASTM guidance that they're working on in the ASTM but contains cannabis symbol as well they did it was yellow yeah and we did not go with that one although we just certainly could now Department of Health I feel like so this looks different but it does actually almost all the same I just it was hard to read it was in an image the the directions for how to put this these warnings were in little images beneath the warnings and so I just pull them out of there and put them into normal type a little bit easier to read there's one change in there where there the word optional had been included when it really wasn't supposed to be there that's the only substantive change everything else is the same added some clarifications here that these two warnings both need to be on the marketing layer of packaging and then this one adds the words and pets this changes and an interesting one there's been a lot of confusion around advertising especially around social media and this change just specifies um say eliminates this prohibition on any other images or text regarding products this is purely like excuse me I might just go get some other pop medicine should we pause for a minute sure why don't we uh just what do you think like three minute break is that right sorry for my infirmity here no that's all right we'll come back at two o'clock all right see how this goes so it's two o'clock by the way back sorry yes thank you but the one other thing I just want to know on the social media accounts it's important to remember that all the other advertising restrictions do apply to social media it's not like there's any elimination of that step it was just this extra piece creating a lot of confusion and I'd and I'd say they're even internally there is lack of clarity and so eliminating it and just relying on the other regulations or in advertising made sense uh this is your update but really quickly before you uh go much further you'll have to re-share your screen I've popped up the meeting break image which I think pirated screen sharing you'll unplug and re-plug gotcha thanks Nellie how's that looking hopefully that's looks good great thank you this piece of yours really just a grammatical thing to make it agree with that one's at the top but no substantive change there this is a substantive change there's been a prohibition on retail establishments co-locating but this does allow for a co-location for retailers if a retailer is providing mentorship or accelerator a mentorship or accelerator program for another so product licensing is what the statute calls product registration so there's going to be some confusion about this we can figure out how to deal with that issue for now the rule we'll use the statutory terminology and we can figure out how to clarify that that's what we're talking about this is in case there are unanticipated changes in terms of new license types coming out just saying that the board will establish security requirements for those license types if that happens this clarifies the one location rule for all establishments and again this is really in the nature of putting on paper how the boards been interpreting this and we're just continuing to use the to a butting span rule so as long as your establishment is within two abutting spans that will count as a single location this does add a requirement that the for cultivator packaging that will be packaged for consumer purchase needs to include the license number and process lot number the cultivator's license number and the process lot number this just instead of naming the license types that a sample could go to it just says another licensee there are still some statutory limitations on how flower and products can be sort of transferred through the supply chain that may or may not change in legislation but this is just to make sure that there's no more limitation on that under the rules and legislation may eliminate it entirely but we didn't want to have that limitation in the rules just samples should be able to flow through the supply chain in a way that makes sense for whatever commercial reasons we did add this you know it is currently the case and will remain the case that cultivators who can obviously continue to grow some plants for personal use just as anybody in the in the state of Vermont can we wanted to clarify how that should operate when you're also running a licensed operation so we have here a cultivator may grow cannabis for their personal use in accordance with the law that allows them to do that any cannabis plant grown for this purpose must be specifically designated by the cultivator such that a board designee can readily identify which plants are being grown for personal use if the plants are at or near a cultivator's physical side of operations physical side of operations is itself a defined term that basically just says you know where your establishment is where you're actually growing the plants for the market if they're not near there then it doesn't really matter but if they are you need to designate them no plants grown for no plant grown for personal use may supply cannabis to the regulated market and cannabis grown for personal use must not be entered into the inventory tracking system so a couple changes here to the manufacturer packaging again we're adding in license number and process lot number for packaging that's going to go to a consumer also adding a couple more warnings here so a warning specific to solid concentrates use of caution exceeding recommended serving size can have severe adverse effects vape oil cartridges use of caution to avoid overconsumption starts start low and go slow and then a new subsection related to disposable vape pens which will prohibit the use of disposable vape pens so disposable vape pens are other disposable vaping devices are prohibited disposable vape pens are all-in-one pre-charged vape pens that are not intended for multiple uses and that can be used for e-liquids oils extracts or distillates so at this section here this is this is the packaging requirements for interest supply chain no so interest supply chain is is up up here so interest supply chain is much less onerous we can go back to 2.2.9 a that's all right and on the pre-charged disposable vape pens this is something that I know is brought before us when we originally wrote our rules then it kind of got lost in the shuffle of everything we were trying to accomplish last year but that a number of people asked me about them as we've opened I think it fits with the culture of our our packaging and what we're trying to accomplish that disposable vape pens some are most are plastic some at all but you know they're thrown away quickly and if we can reuse those batteries as much as we possibly can I think it's it's better for our way systems right and yeah just to remind per pepper's question a second ago just to remind everybody this does a long list as for packaging that will ultimately be the packaging that a consumer sees when they purchase product interest supply chain packaging is much more basic those requirements are in 2.2.9 same changes before here just clarifying that samples can go to another licensee instead of naming the specific license types this is just a clarification section 2.5.1 so that all doors have to be locked at all times which obviously doesn't make sense for a retailer so just noting that retailers can have unlocked doors the extent necessary to allow customer access just change the title here to make it clear that it's not all age verification in this section there's a couple things about personal information at the bottom I don't know why that changed so we didn't previously have a sample section for employees of retailers because under the original legislation retailers couldn't do packaging that has changed they can so in accordance with that change to make it all even across the playing field here retailer employees can access samples just like employees of other license types can I changed this to display samples just because there's a lot of confusion about people thinking that consumer samples were about handing out samples directly to consumers that really wasn't what was intended here this is about like having samples in jars that people could view or smell I don't know if this makes any better but hopefully it's a little less confusing and then just putting in that clones will be the board will have some regulations about that but we're going to do it by guidance a number of changes have happened to the testing section and again these are very much in the nature of a lot of the changes as I've talked about before where we're really just trying to put into rule how the board has been applying these rules already so the flow chart that started this all out has changed significantly a lot of it will be explained in guidance as that second sentence says so you'll see a very well so those of you have been working in this this isn't a new flow chart because this is the flow chart that is in our guidance it is quite different than the one that was than the chart that was previously in this rule but it is not new it is the one that is in the guidance and that's being sort of followed and applied by our compliance team already and this is the old deleted almost entirely eliminated there is one note that I think is repeated in here which is that testing for other contaminates may be deemed necessary at the board's discretion moisture parameters they're not although the specifics are deleted they're not being eliminated we're just moving them to guidance in the same way that we put in guidance almost all the other parameters and this is essentially just a restatement of what was already there which is that pesticides have to follow use of pesticides has to follow the rules that are already in force and have been adopted are maintained by the agency of agriculture just noting that labs have to maintain their certification there this is really a technical change just to make sure this section agrees with the change in rule one that says that sometimes we aren't going to require a full renewal for changes in control and then I'll finish it out and then come back to this waiver provisions piece the only other change here is just shortening this time for where the board will basically deem that a local control commission has made a decision in terms of and the board will deem it will deem local control licenses have been granted if they haven't heard anything within 45 days that could go longer if there is clear communication about a process that's occurring around the local control licensing but if there's really no communication at all it'll be a 45 day time period we had any issues with that to date where there are like 19 local control commissions or I don't there have been a lot of there has been a lot of confusion generally around the local control process I don't think the I'm line has been a particular issue so let's go back and did sorry did you want did you want to do this one too or were there a few minutes it may be generally good practice if my colleagues want to look at this one as well to just see if this is what we want to I didn't have any suggestions for changing this particular piece a lot of these at least a couple of these were energy related it's important for everybody listening here that on re-licensure if you're an indoor cultivator a lot of these energy waivers will go away and you need to start thinking about that I think there'll be a communication with those folks in the near future I don't know I don't really have a strong feeling either way if we want to keep some of these waivers and for folks in year one who might be a deal like indoor cultivator or do we think we've moved as a critical mass enough folks over to kind of seeing folks to start without these waivers I don't really have a good answer for that at this point in time but I don't know if I want to change any anything today something we can consider as we move through this process I don't think yeah like I said I didn't have any any of these that I specifically thought we needed to look at but generally good practice and less I'll just run through them then and then something pops into your mind you can say something so this first one is the just the standard operating procedure manuals who are saying that does not have to happen for tier one cultivators so that one 2.2.4 A, B and C had some exemptions there yep I think those are fine yeah I don't really yep so the 2.2.5 one and five so yeah accepting them from some of the procedural requirements here in the cash handle yep makes sense sorry the training again you know folks are looking to move up to here I think it it makes sense to have our tier one folks thinking about those things in light of getting smarter as business professionals but see the need to change that yep and I think this one this was J right yeah so this one was really saying that look at your a tier one I think the idea here was that a lot of these are going to be sole providers it's not possible to have transportation happening and also it's going to be one person doing it so allow some flexibility around staying close to the vehicle 2.3.2 another just protocol exemption there around the safety call and again doesn't exempt them from all the other pieces of that the visitor thing just saying the written protocol isn't necessary and then this whole section was exempted or home occupancy businesses and that's I think it's just going to be the case but as I understand it 2.5.6 BNC and then this is what Kyle I think you were talking about earlier around some of the energy requirements and this is for BNC for these and that's it so unless there's any other stuff that those are all the waivers two one waivers and they were good thank you all right so that's rule two and then we only have one other rule we're going to hold on rule three because there is a good chance that there's good that the legislatures really going to revisit the medical program so didn't there was like really minimal changes that had come up for rule three so it made more sense to wait on the legislative action and then re-worth rule three as necessary to be in compliance with whatever the legislature may do this coming session yeah I mean I think all the changes that folks may want to see with the medical program and I think we to some extent want to see them do the legislative process not really throw a rule we're bound on rule three also by that whatever we do with medical program can be no more restrictive than the pre-existing rule so unless that changes there's not a lot that we can do to rule three that's exactly right we are largely stuck on rule three I think and another reason to let the legislature make some changes and perhaps reconsider that or define that in a way that makes more sense the board can figure that out so there's actually only one change rule four so I'm not going to scroll through the whole thing I'm just going to skip right to the single change which is that we are putting in rule the administrative appellate process and this refers to the process that happens if somebody disagrees with the final decision of the board and wants to appeal it above the board so basically you know we make a bunch of decisions have a lot of authority to do that but if somebody doesn't like one of our decisions there is a mechanism to ask a higher authority to check that and the legislation the legislature said that the way that's going to happen for the board is that administrative appellate officer is the one that's going to hear those appeals initially so this is the process by which those appellate appeals will happen the other state entity or one of the other state entities where this happens is the office of professional responsibility and these are so we really are queuing closely to the rules that they use in adopting this and I should also know to clarify that these processes are enforced right now this is the process that will be used for any appeals that are currently have been noticed with the executive director and are going to be ongoing in the coming months they've been adopted as a matter of policy by the board but we thought it made sense to just stick them in the rule as well to make sure that there's sort of maximum clarity about what the process will be and I won't read through all of that it's not particularly exciting or relevant to the actual business of running a cannabis establishment but these will be posted in probably within the week and you can read through it if you're curious and that's it awesome thank you David okay it's the final reminder that this is the very beginning of the rule amendment process this is the very first step in it we will take extensive public comment on any other rules that need to change or any of these proposed changes in the coming weeks and months but why don't we continue down the agenda Bryn if you have the recommendations for I'll always be here for this okay so here is this week's register for the adult use applications and the patient program or the medical program also so this the data that is is being shown in this register is for the last two weeks since we missed a board meeting we skipped a board meeting last week for the holiday so starting with the medical cannabis program in the last two weeks we received about 300 a little bit over 300 renewal applications I'm sorry 170 not 300 170 renewal applications 61 patient applications issued 150 patient cards this is a this is basically on par with the number of applications that we've been receiving in the last several weeks so it seems like big numbers but since it's too it accounts for two weeks so it's about the same as what we've been getting each week medical staff are processing applications received on and after October 28 so we are very nearly within our 30-day window move on to the adult adult use license applications data put it all on one page in the last two weeks we've received about 35 new employee ID card applications and seven cannabis establishment and those seven applications two of them are for manufacturing licenses four of them are for small cultivation licenses and one is for a retail license and speaking of retail licenses here's our list of the location of retail licensees and applicants for a retail license that are in the queue so we've gone up this total number has gone up by one in the last two weeks the latest applicant for a retail license is in Burlington so that increases our total number of retail licensees and retail applicants in the Burlington in the city of Burlington to eight so a little flag for the board and also today we issued our 25th retail license so that's a good milestone I will move on to our list of recommendations for cannabis establishment license as always these applicants have demonstrated compliance with all of the requirements for their license that are set forth in statute and rule so this week we have highly rooted applying for a tier two manufacturing license bliss point chocolate applying for a tier one manufacturing license tier nanog edibles applying for a tier two manufacturing license green queen incredible edibles applying for a tier two manufacturing license the tea house applying for a retail license border town apothecary applying for a tier one manufacturing license leapers garden applying for an indoor tier one cultivation license and Cambridge cannabis company applying for a retail license that is your group that the staff is recommending for approval for licensure this week for new license amendments in the last two weeks and we do have one new social equity applicant in the queue as of this week all right any questions for Bryn nope all right is there a motion to approve the staff recommendations I move that the board accept each of the recommendations as presented to us by staff in this meeting second all in favor hi hi great all right great work um let's shift to public comment if you'd like to make a public comment join via the video link please just raise your virtual hands and we will do our best to call on you in the order that you raise your hand then we'll move to people that joined by the phone Alice do you want to get a start yeah hi I'm I guess I have two comments just that I picked out I'm not sure how concerned I am about these two things yet the first thing that I'm a little concerned about is the allowance of lighting for outdoor cultivators extra lighting so that they can have it during a time where they want to keep their their plants in the right I'm going to say format but that's a computer term in the right place for cultivation one of the things in my town weightsfield is that we're have some significant lighting requirements and ordinances and regulations and the select board the planning commission and residents in general are concerned about light pollution and this is one of the things that was talked about immediately with indoor cultivation we have a botanical vegetable grower here that has quite a significant indoor cultivation that's in like the type of structure that really it really lights up at night and causes light pollution and it's really a talking point so one of the things we'd be concerned about moving forward is how much more light pollution or lighting that this requires we also because of this have some strict regulations on the brightness of lighting allowed the lumens and the type of lighting required we require downward facing illumination and that type of illumination can wind up being more expensive for the user than just putting up lights any kind of lights in general so that that's just a comment I wanted to make on light pollution and allowing more outdoor lighting the other one I'm kicking around in my head now is the water and wastewater letters that you're now going to require that I guess it's mostly going to be growers that would have enough water for their growing our cultivators our cultivators are going to be out in our ag res district where we don't have public water utility or waste public wastewater utility so that's not something we could accommodate anybody who's cultivating in our ag res district and we don't plan on bringing those services there in our business district looking at the location of where our businesses are going to be we could they're all on the public water utility so our water commission could accommodate them they're probably going to roll their eyes at me when I tell them they need to do this for the user but I just wanted to make that comment about water and wastewater moving forward I don't see any cultivation happening anywhere other than ag res where there are no utilities so I guess they would need to go to the DEC permitting for that to see what their water capability and or wastewater capability would and that's it yeah thank you thank you Alice it's always nice having someone with some municipal background tuning in to help us think through these things we will certainly take those comments under consideration okay Dave I'd like to start by thanking Dave Chair for his service to the stakeholders of the cannabis community I was really sad to hear that Dave found a really great job that's even better than this one and he'll be missed bye Dave really enjoy working with you that's out of the bag now Dave well I mean you posted his job so lots covered today and you know we'll definitely get you lots of comments once we have some time to review the the red lines but some things that come to mind as kind of high level and big impact as you make any changes to packaging you know packaging has been labeling has been really hard for a lot of licensees and a lot of licensees have invested heavily in purchasing packaging and labels that comply with your current rules and it would be I think unfair to make them throw away their existing inventory so as you're thinking about changing those things and look I mean the health warning is is not good it needs change but as you think about you know changing those things and adding new terms you know previously the health warning had to be in the marketing layer now it has to be on the interior layer you know when this rule goes into effect that that you allow people to use things that were produced prior to the effective date of the real change or or even the publication date of the rule change right so we're not you know you're not incentivizing us to go and rush in a bunch of of orders in advance right but you know there are there have been tens and tens of thousands of dollars invested in complying with your existing labeling rules which are difficult to comply with also adding the words and pets to the 10-point font bold disclosure may make it difficult to fit that thing on many packages come to the shop let me show you some packaging and and and how it's difficult to already difficult to squeeze all this stuff in so making thing making that line in particular longer is is is problematic and and the thing about disposable vapes I'm not surprised you know given the the position the board has taken on you know sort of the environmental impact and the plastic span it's it's certainly consistent and it's not surprising but these are products that are sold in massachusetts they will be sold across the lake in new york they're popular products they're convenient products for tourists and I you know you're putting some of the retailers especially in border communities at a significant disadvantage and I think your licensees in places like Bennington and Brattleboro are in particular going to be hurt by this they're already struggling to compete or will be struggling to compete as they get open with their messachusetts existing messachusetts market participants that you know don't have the 50 milligram per package limit don't have the plastic span and are able to sell vape products so just please give some thought to that and the economic sustainability of market participants particularly you know in border communities more to come in writing thank you very much for all you and again thank you Dave thank you Dave hi guys chris pressen from Cambridge cannabis company just wanted to take the time to thank you for what you guys do and appreciate everything so looking forward to you know jumping into the legal market thank you again thank you congrats you're not gettables hi this is robert here not gettables I just wanted to jump in and say thank you for issuing us our license today I really look forward to working with everybody here and while I'm at it I'd really like to second what mr silverman said about the changes to packaging and uh you know if I know for us personally it's like a five week lead out anytime we get something printed and honestly it's tens of thousands of dollars at a time and it would really really hurt us in our growing business if we had to toss all that to get new stuff printed but that being said thank you so much for everything and I look forward to working with all you thank you congrats anyone else who joins by video just feel free to raise your virtual hand if you want to make a public comment and if you join via phone you can hit star six to unmute your phone if you'd like to make a comment Ernie is first hello I just have a question about the document that you guys opened the meeting with today specifically just the line about um agreements and cultivators being allowed to make an agreement such as putting their label on for them um can you is that a financial agreement and uh if it is will the ccb be issuing any guidance on how a separate financial licensee agreement should accompany a cannabis transaction um I'm just curious about as a manufacturing applicant like I'm going to be applying for manufacturing license and typically you know doing water extracts it's toll processing by strain for the cultivator and generally the cultivator wants that product back because the concentrate is a direct representation of the flower that they grew um and you can say that about gummies that you know are made by preserving terpenes and you know you're running with strain batches and stuff so I get that based on legislation the cultivator is not allowed to possess this but i'm curious like if the cultivator and the manufacturer enter an agreement where the manufacturer is going to sell that product for the cultivator and then pay them on the back end based on what they were able to sell it for is that legal because the cultivators technically earning off of the sale of a product that they're not allowed to possess without sell um I'm just like where it how does this how does this work out where it happens cleanly for both the cultivator the manufacturer and the retailer who is the final you know buyer within the industry um I don't know if you guys have given this any thought and how easy it would be to just allow the cultivator to carry product from flour that was cultivated by them since everything's already tracked and traced I know that you know there's a lot of room for like commentary like this in terms of rule change coming up so I hope to be able to give further input and I know a lot of cultivators are kind of like you know the expectation was they would be able to transfer product back to the cultivator from the manufacturer and that's not the case so how can we facilitate this for small cultivators that do not have the possibility to get a wholesaler license or a manufacturing license since they're operating out of their houses I'm also mainly thinking of outdoor cultivators who now are like in a rush to sell all of their flowers quickly as they can because that product kind of expires as quickly as you know it's the fastest to expire whereas you know if they were farmers for meat for example they would send the meat to the butcher and they could freeze the meat and sell it throughout the rest of the year etc I really appreciate you guys listening to this and you know I hope that there is room for discussion and I'm you know hope to see you guys internally discuss this just to consider the effects that this has on specific specifically tier one cultivators and outdoor cultivators thank you thanks Bernie yeah we'll we'll keep this conversation going especially as the legislature comes back into town and we are amending our roles to see what makes the most sense Austin oh yeah I find the guidance documents really helpful and I thank you for those and I was hoping that we could get one on the product registration process and like expectations and timelines and stuff like that just like the application was all right thank you that was my comment thank you anyone else with a public comment just either hit star six stun you your phone or raise your virtual hands Bobby yes thank you for all you guys do I have a simple question kind of a high level we hear about New York being flooded with flowers and I know you're giving out a lot of cultivation tier ones and are we concerned about being over flooded I mean when is our stopping point I don't think we have any I'm just a little concerned about entering the market where there's so much going you know being produced already and maybe there is a market for mine yeah thanks Bobby yeah anyone else all right I will close the public comment window just on that last point I would just say we do have a very sophisticated market analysis tool that's available on our website for download it shows what the supply and demand is likely to look like based upon our current number of licensees you can plug that in and see how that changes you know there's a lot of adjustable assumptions that are in that document where you can change things like you know market share vetables or flower and see how that affects price points and things like that so I would encourage anyone who has the patience to deal with it to download it and play around with it and see how the people that were licensing might affect the supply and demand and the price of cannabis most complex excel sheet I've ever had the privilege of playing with but I think we're we're in pretty good shape market yeah so David I forgot when we were in that section of our agenda if we wanted to vote pre-file I think you should vote too yes and just to clarify again in case it pairs repeating it's just like this vote is simply saying you approve these initial proposed rules and you think they're ready to be prefiled with the amendments you discussed around the rule waivers and rule one for two or one cultivators and I'll make those changes as you discuss them so I'd note that when you make a motion and then this will give me the go ahead to pre-file and start the process and then the pre-file process you don't have to give me the exact timelines but that's an initial filing and there's a public comment window and then we make amendments based on those public comments and then we file with that's exactly right yeah that's the summary yeah okay and the there's a couple filings that happen and then that public comment period opens like I was saying before probably late January so then is there a motion to pre-file rules one two and four with the amendments shown today and discussed in our meeting so moved seconded all in favor bye bye okay that's it and I think I will adjourn the meeting thank you all for joining sticking with us and we'll see you next week