DCC-2025-01-R: Cultivation Updates; Sanitation Standards Final Statement of Reasons

UPDATE TO INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

Section 15048.5(a) was modified in response to commenters’ request for clarification regarding whether the identified methods of delineating different harvest batches represented an exhaustive list. The modifications clarify that the listed methods are merely examples and identify an additional example (separate drying racks). Use of separate drying racks is a common method of delineating harvest batches and commenters were concerned that this method would no longer be allowed under the initially proposed text. The text has been modified to explicitly allow this common method of delineation to reduce potential confusion.

Section 15060(a)(1) was modified to exclude animals only from indoor areas where unpackaged cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are present. The contamination risks intended to be mitigated by this regulation are most acute at times when cannabis and nonmanufactured cannabis products are directly exposed to animals. In response to comments received, the Department has reconsidered the policy goals and determined that the revised requirement does not pose a significant health risk.

Section 15060(b) was modified to clarify that the requirement to remove animal waste immediately upon discovery will only apply to areas containing cannabis plants or harvested cannabis, plus a reasonably small buffer zone of 30 feet around these areas. Several commenters stated that the proposed requirement to immediately remove and dispose of animal waste found anywhere on the licensed premises would create an unreasonable burden on outdoor cultivators, considering that a licensed premises may be the entire parcel, including large areas that are not technically canopy or are not used for commercial cannabis cultivation at all. The 30-foot buffer zone was suggested by Origins Council in comment A005 in the first 15-day comment period. The Department determined that a 30-foot buffer zone was a reasonable compromise that would achieve the stated policy goal of reducing the potential for contamination while not overly burdening licensees.

Section 15061(a) was modified to limit the scope of subsections (a)(1) through (a)(3), rendering the requirements applicable only to post-harvest activities. Many commenters voiced concerns about the impracticability of requiring outdoor cultivation equipment to remain free of dust, dirt, debris, considering the nature of outdoor farming, growing, and harvesting practices. The Department understands these concerns and believes that focusing on the cleanliness of processing, packaging, and other post-harvest activities removes the burden on farmers and growers yet still mitigates contamination and protects the health and safety of licensees, inspectors, and consumers as intended.

Subsection (a)(3) was further modified to expressly allow the use of new, single-use container liners in lieu of cleaning and sanitizing containers. Numerous commenters noted that the use of container liners is common industry practice. Employing single-use, disposable liners can be considered analogous to the use of gloves. As the proposed regulation allows the use of gloves in lieu of handwashing, the Department determined that allowing container liners similarly provides sufficient public health protection.

Finally, subsection (a)(3) was modified to revise the frequency of required cleaning and sanitizing. Commenters expressed concern that the proposed intervals of “between storage and transport of each harvest batch” and “at the beginning and end of each harvest season” were unclear. The modified regulation simply requires cleaning and sanitizing of a container, or utilization of a new container liner, before the container is used to transport or store harvested cannabis. This change still effectuates the Department’s goal of minimizing the potential for contamination to spread while providing licensees with a clearer, more straightforward standard to meet.

Section 15061(b) was modified to temper the definition of “clean” in the context of these proposed rules. While reasonableness has always been implied, feedback received during prior comment periods indicates a need for clarity. The purpose of section 15061 is to combat contamination and unsafe conditions by establishing simple measures that can be followed by licensees in ways that impose as little burden or disruption as possible. The Department does not expect or require licensees to maintain hospital-grade cleanliness on their premises, such that discovery of a speck of dust on a processing tool constitutes a violation of law. It is necessary to clarify that licensees may not allow dust, dirt, debris, etc. to accumulate to the point at which it becomes visible to the naked eye. Discovery during an inspection of accumulated substances is a reasonable indicator that the licensee is not cleaning their tools or equipment properly or at required intervals.

Section 15061(c) was modified to expand the list of sanitizing agents allowable for use by licensees. Numerous commenters expressed concern that the originally proposed list of four substances was too restrictive and could have unintended consequences for licensees, such as rendering them unable to earn or maintain certain third-party environmental certifications. To accommodate these concerns, the Department is instead proposing to allow any substance currently approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a food contact surface sanitizer, provided the substance is used in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.), the USEPA has authority to establish safe residue levels for a variety of chemical substances, including antimicrobial substances, used in agricultural and food manufacturing contexts. USEPA codified the list of antimicrobial substances and residue levels permissible on food contact surfaces in title 40, part 180.940 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Department has incorporated by reference into subsection (c). The substances included in this list have been vetted by the USEPA for safety at the levels specified when used in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions. The Department determined that it is more appropriate to rely on the USEPA’s expertise and experience regarding the safety of antimicrobial chemicals than develop a new, independent list specifically for some commercial cannabis licensees. Requiring use in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions will ensure that the substance is applied in a manner that reduces microbial contamination without rendering tools or surfaces injurious to consumers through transfer of unsafe substances.

Section 15070 was proposed during the second 15-day comment period. It was subsequently modified from the original proposal to focus on prohibiting illegal pesticide products that are labeled exclusively in a language other than English from being possessed on Department-licensed premises.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 40, part 156.10(a)(3) which the Department has incorporated by reference in section 15070, requires pesticide products to include all required labeling information in English in order to be registered for use. There is no circumstance in which a pesticide product labeled exclusively in a foreign language is lawful to possess or use in the United States, yet Department inspectors are finding these products on licensed premises. Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 26039.6(a)(1) establishes that cannabis and cannabis products are adulterated if they have been produced, prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions in which they may have become contaminated with filth or in which they may have been rendered injurious. Department regulations do not exhaustively define “unsanitary conditions,” leaving some ambiguity as to the nature of the circumstances that create an unsanitary premises.

Although the Department has authority under BPC section 26039.3 to embargo cannabis or cannabis product that it has probable cause to believe is adulterated or misbranded, without a specific statutory or regulatory tie to the circumstance that created an unsanitary condition, it can be difficult for the Department to establish probable cause. Therefore, the Department has deemed it necessary to explicitly state that, because of the significant public health, safety, and environmental threat posed by a pesticide product that does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 156.10(a)(3), the presence of such product renders the conditions on the premises unsanitary.

Pesticides that are unlawful to possess, such as those labeled exclusively in a foreign language, may include substances that are banned for use in the United States. It is not possible for the Department to test cannabis or cannabis products for every potential substance, as the number of potential chemical substances numbers in the thousands. Some of these products are so exotic or new that not only is their presence not currently required to be tested for under Department regulations, but validated and reliable test methods do not yet exist.

Still, it is commonly understood that many of these products are extremely dangerous to use, store, or even be around, the latter of which presents a critical health hazard for Department inspectors who encounter these products onsite. These products present a severe danger to the health and safety of consumers who might use or consume cannabis or cannabis products that have been contaminated with illegal pesticides, but the Department’s enforcement abilities are hampered by the near impossibility of confirmatory testing, which is usually determinative in product condemnation matters. Because there is no lawful way or reason to possess or use such products and because of the significant harm that these products pose, it is reasonable for possession of such products to be cause for immediate action by the Department. The Department has determined that the most efficient way for immediate action in such circumstances is to consider the premises unsanitary and all cannabis and cannabis products located there as held under unsanitary conditions, giving the Department probable cause to issue an embargo or take other appropriate administrative actions.

LOCAL MANDATE DETERMINATION

The proposed regulations do not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts.

ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LESSEN THE ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

No alternative was proposed to the Department that would effectuate the same purpose and lessen any adverse economic impact on small businesses.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

No alternative considered by the Department would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulations are proposed, as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulations, or more cost-effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the underlying statutory policies.

The changes related to cultivation updates are the only regulatory provisions identified by or brought to the attention of the Department that accomplish the goals of reduced application and operational burdens on licensees and the Department, improved opportunities to reduce inversion and diversion, and improved enforcement consistency.

The changes related to minimum sanitation standards are the only regulatory provisions identified by or brought to the attention of the Department that accomplish the goal of ensuring licensees throughout the supply chain implement basic practices to reduce the potential for contamination of cannabis or cannabis products in a manner harmful to human health.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

The federal regulations incorporated by reference in this action were, at all times during the course of the rulemaking period, available from the Department upon request and reasonably available from a commonly known source. Publication of the incorporated documents in full in the California Code of Regulations would be cumbersome and impractical.

SUMMARIES OF, AND RESPONSES TO, COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE 45-DAY COMMENT PERIOD

General

Commenters appreciate streamlining of regulations.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter 002, 014
Commenter recommends that DCC revise the proposed regulations to employ clear, specific, and unambiguous language, thereby minimizing the risk of misinterpretation and inconsistent enforcement.
The commenter provided no specific examples of language considered insufficiently clear nor suggestions for revisions. The Department believes the final proposed text is clear, specific, and unambiguous.

Commenter 005
Commenter suggests that DCC conduct a comprehensive assessment of the potential economic impact of the proposed regulations on cannabis cultivators, particularly small and medium-sized operations. This assessment should include an analysis of both direct compliance costs and potential indirect costs, such as lost productivity.
The Department conducted a thorough economic and fiscal assessment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. This assessment is available to the public with the rest of the rulemaking documents.

Commenter 005
Commenter posits new regulatory requirements that strain DCC resources and may lead to increased license fees should be supported by a strong rationale.
The Department disagrees that the provisions of this regulation will unduly strain the Department’s resources as reported in the Economic Impact Analysis included in the Department’s ISOR. This assessment is available to the public with the rest of the rulemaking documents.

Commenter 010
Commenter recommends extending the comment period to allow for more comprehensive feedback.
The Department complied with the minimum standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, and believes that 45 calendar days was a sufficient amount of time for reviewing and commenting on the proposed action

Commenter 005
Commenters indicate support for a number of the proposed regulations.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter 003, 012, H1.2.1
Commenter asserts that the proposed regulations lack regulatory authority and are overreaching, cumbersome, and detrimental to the industry.
Adoption of the proposed regulations is well within the Department’s regulatory authority under BPC §26013.

Commenter 011
Commenters support Origins Council comments.
The Department acknowledges this comment.

Commenter H1.3.4, H1.14.1, H1.18.1, H1.19.1

Section 15006

Commenter opposes requirement for mature plants to be located in the canopy area, even if those plants are used for research and development or seed production purposes and are not intended to enter the commercial market. Commenter recommends instead allowing mature plants to be grown outside the canopy area as long as they are clearly identified on the premises diagram and do not enter the commercial market.
Existing regulation (§16300) already requires all flowering (mature) plants to be located in the designated canopy area. As explained in the ISOR, the definition of canopy did not specifically state that plants for seed production or research and development needed to be contained within the canopy, leaving some ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation. The proposed regulation clarifies the existing responsibilities of licensees to eliminate this potential for misinterpretation and ensure consistency in compliance.

Commenter 010

Section 15020

Commenters express support for removing energy reporting requirements.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter 006, 012

Section 15048.5

Commenter expresses support for the amendment to require physical separation of harvest batches, but requests that the language be clarified by adding “including, but not limited to” to eliminate ambiguity and provide flexibility for cultivators.
The Department has proposed clarifying language to provide the requested flexibility.

Commenter 013
Commenter recommends the regulation be amended to include the use of fully labeled drying racks as an acceptable demarcation between harvest batches.
The text was modified to provide the requested flexibility.

Commenter 004
Commenter requests amendment to allow licensees the option to label areas containing a harvest batch with another unique identifier that correlates to the batch, rather than just the harvest batch name.
The proposed change is unnecessary because there is no limitation on the type of name or unique identifier that can be given to a harvest batch.

Commenter 013
Commenter believes that the proposed 24-hour timeframe in subsection (b) is inconsistent with existing section 15049.1(a)(4), and recommends changing “24” to “72” to harmonize the rules.
The drying, curing, and trimming process is the only time during the entirety of the commercial chain where plant material is not associated to either a plant or package tag. The Department has determined that a 24-hour time in which to move fully processed plant material onto a package tag is necessary in order to comply with the intent of the track and trace system and protect the integrity of seed to sale tracking.

Commenter 013
Commenter requests clarification of whether the harvest batch labeling requirement excludes the labeling of a harvest with a package tag. It is unclear whether both types of labeling are required for harvest batches that are hanging, drying, and/or curing. The proposed text can be interpreted to imply that only the harvest batch name is required for labeling during the processing phase. The extra step of an additional package tag when harvests are received by a processing licensee does not serve the intended purpose of the proposed regulations and further burdens all operators.
The Department does not find section 15048.5 to be unclear. Under subsection (a), while harvested plants are hanging, drying, or curing, only the harvest batch name is required to be labeled on the batch. Under subsection (b), when the harvest batch has finished with any processing to be done on site, a package tag must then be assigned to the batch.

Commenter 017

Article 8

Commenters indicate support for minimum sanitation standards.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter 001, 004
Commenters support reasonable, science-based sanitation standards, but believe that the proposed sanitation standards are not viable for working farms.
The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking action, indicating that the requirements are viable for working farms.

Commenter 010, H1.6.1, H1.10.6, H1.14.1, H1.16.3, H1.17.1, H1.20.1, H1.21.1
Commenter asserts that no other agricultural product is regulated as stringently as cannabis in regard to cleanliness and sanitation.
The manner in which other agricultural products are regulated are specific to their own statutory requirements and are not relevant to the Department’s obligations under its authorizing statute. The Department has a statutory obligation to protect public health and believes the minimum standards imposed by this regulation are necessary to meet this obligation.

Commenter H1.21.3
Commenter asserts that the proposed sanitation standards should not apply to non-medical cannabis.
The Department is responsible for protecting public health and to that end believes all consumers deserve to be protected from potential microbial contamination. Additionally, there is no way for a cultivation licensee to know which market their product will be sold in, as cannabis can cross markets throughout the supply chain.

Commenter 007
Commenters assert that the proposed sanitation standards are not in alignment with traditional agricultural practices or requirements.
The Department does not agree that the proposed requirements are out of step with requirements and practices for traditional agriculture. Under the Food Safety Modernization Act Produce Safety Rule (21 C.F.R. Part 112), growers of produce consumed raw are required to reduce the potential for microbial contamination of produce in numerous ways that go far beyond the provisions of this proposal. Growers of produce that could be consumed raw, but instead will be processed in a manner with a known kill step, as well as growers of produce that is not consumed raw, do not have to comply with the same rules to reduce microbial contamination because any microbes of concern are expected to be destroyed by processing or consumer preparation methods. Cannabis cultivators do not always know if the plant material will be further processed with a potential kill step, so the Department has determined it is appropriate to address all cannabis material as if it will not.

Commenter 005, 007, 010, 012, 014, 018, H1.6.9, H1.8.2, H1.12.1, H1.20.2
Commenters state that regulatory requirements are not necessary because they already keep their operations clean, wear gloves, and regularly clean tools.
The Department acknowledges that many licensees do implement good sanitation practices; however, compliance inspections have found other licensees that do not implement adequate or even basic hygienic practices, which poses a threat to consumer safety. The Department has determined that a baseline requirement for minimum sanitation standards is necessary for accountability and protection of consumer safety.

Commenter 008, 019, H1.10.2, H1.12.2, H1.15.1
Commenter notes that existing microbial testing occurs when cannabis is in possession of a distributor, not a cultivator. Microbial contamination found during testing may have occurred after the cannabis left the cultivator’s possession; therefore, following minimum sanitation standards will not necessarily eliminate the potential for contamination prior to testing. Further, other ancillary tests that reflect or predict contamination are already required by law.
Microbial contamination can indeed occur at any step in the commercial chain, which is why licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control. The potential for contamination to occur at a later step does not negate the responsibility of individual licensees to exercise due diligence under their license, including complying with conditions imposed by the Department as necessary to protect public health.

Commenter 010
Commenters note that many of the recent recalls stem from Aspergillus contamination, which will not be solved by sanitation standards. Aspergillus contamination is primarily caused by inadequate ventilation, humidity, or temperature controls beyond the scope of the proposed regulation.
Although aspergillus contamination can be caused by inadequate ventilation, humidity, or temperature controls, its spread can be reduced through basic sanitation of surfaces to remove or destroy mold spores. Proper sanitary practices – such as cleaning and sanitizing surfaces and tools or wearing gloves – are a common recommendation to prevent the growth of aspergillus and other molds. Furthermore, aspergillus is only one type of microbial contamination, and it is not the only potential threat to consumer health that the Department is addressing with the proposed standards.

Commenter 007, 008, 010
Commenter points out that while the ISOR states that standards that are applicable to other consumer products are not necessarily applicable to cannabis cultivation, the reverse is in fact true. Cannabis’ unique status has led to more regulation (e.g., mandatory testing, proposed sanitation standards) than for comparable legal products.
The level of overall regulatory oversight of cannabis compared with other consumer products is not relevant to whether there should be minimum standards for sanitation practices in the commercial cannabis chain. The Department was merely noting that many existing standards related to preventing contamination of consumer products do not currently apply to cannabis due to its unique legal status. Licensees at every step on the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control.

Commenter 010
Commenters state that sanitation standards should not be mandatory and should be issued instead as non-prescriptive, risk-based guidance, similar to, e.g., USDA’s voluntary Good Agricultural Practices (GAP).
The Department cannot enforce guidance, so the proposed sanitation standards must be adopted as regulations. Department compliance inspections and subsequent disciplinary actions have shown some licensees do not implement adequate or even basic hygienic practices, which poses a threat to consumer safety. Non-prescriptive, voluntary guidance, which already exists in the agricultural space as noted by the commenter, has not resulted in hygienic practices being adopted across the board, necessitating regulation.

Commenter 008, 009, 012, 014, H1.9.3, H1.10.4
Commenters assert that there is no evidence that improper sanitation is causing consumer illness, therefore regulations implementing sanitation standards are unnecessary.
The Department is tasked with prioritizing public health and safety and would be derelict in its obligations to wait until serious illness or death occurs before imposing minimum standards to reduce the potential for consumer harm.

Commenter 010, 018, 019, H1.2.3, H1.6.8, H1.16.4, H1.20.4
Commenters state that sanitation standards are unnecessary because all cannabis and cannabis products undergo testing before retail sale, and that DCC should focus regulatory efforts on laboratory testing rather than on cultivation practices.
Minimization of the potential for contamination is the bedrock principle of produce safety and food manufacturing requirements. Licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control. As described in the ISOR, the Department believes that minimum sanitation practices for any licensee that handles unpackaged cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products is a reasonable precaution that may prevent adulteration, remediation of failed test batches, recalls, and consumer harm.

Commenter 006, 008, 009, 010, 011, 014, 018, H1.2.2, H1.6.7, H1.9.2, H1.9.5, H1.15.5, H1.16.2, H1.21.4, H1.21.5
Commenters note that many of the recent recalls are related to pesticide contamination, which will not be addressed by changing sanitation standards.
The Department acknowledges that there have been recent recalls related to pesticide contamination. This does not negate the importance of preventing other types of contamination.

Commenter 007, 008, H1.12.3
Commenters express concern that they would be unable to maintain their “Sun & Earth” certification or meet other organic or regenerative standards due to the prescribed cleaning agents.
The Department has proposed amended text to expand the list of permissible sanitizing substances, which will allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that best meet the needs of their operation.

Commenter 009, H1.3.1, H1.13.1, H1.15.3
Commenters note that hemp regulations do not require the same sanitation standards.
Hemp cultivation is not under the authority of the Department.

Commenter 011, H1.8.3, H1.19.2
Commenter asserts that DCC is conflating illicit and legal market data, using testing results from contaminated unlicensed products to justify stricter rules on licensees.
The Department’s stated rationale for the proposed requirements, as provided in the ISOR, does not rely on illicit market data. Instead, the Department is relying on its own relevant experience in regulating the licensed market in determining appropriate minimum sanitation standards.

Commenter 008
Commenter states that neither hemp nor tobacco are subject to mandatory on-farm sanitation standards or mandatory final product testing.
The Department does not agree that hemp or tobacco are appropriate comparison crops. Hemp that is used for fiber or other industrial purposes is indeed not subject to the FSMA standards; however, hemp grown for these purposes is not directly analogous to cannabis. Additionally, cannabis is considered under state law to have medicinal uses; tobacco is not considered a medicinal product. Medicinal products (i.e. conventional drugs and devices) are subject to a higher set of safety standards than other consumer products. Cannabis used for medicinal purposes may be ingested by immunocompromised individuals; any contamination could have very serious health effects. The Department takes its obligation to protect consumers seriously, especially consumers using cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Commenter 010
Commenters express concern that the proposed standards would increase costs and force smaller cultivators to cease operations.
The Department shares the commenters’ concerns on the impact on small cultivators, which is why the minimum standards are limited in nature. Although the Department’s economic and fiscal impact analysis identified potential costs for cultivators of up to $4,200, this is expected to be a maximum and not the exact cost to each licensee. The Department has determined that the consumer protection benefits would justify the identified potential costs, and perhaps even save downstream costs by preventing contamination that could result in costly recalls or adverse health impacts.

Commenter 005, 008, H1.10.1, H1.12.7
Commenters state that the FDA document relied upon to develop the sanitation standards is an inappropriate model because it has been replaced by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and is outdated. Because the ISOR does not mention or discuss the FSMA, commenters believe it was not considered by DCC in developing these regulations.
The Department relied upon the 1998 document because it clearly articulated the principles upon which the requirements were based and discussed the importance of proper sanitation. Subsequent iterations of the standards for growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce for human consumption are still based on the same core principle of prevention of microbial contamination at the farm level.

Commenter 010, 018, H1.2.4
Commenter states that applying the standards in the FDA document to cannabis is inappropriate, as are any standards imposed by the updated FSMA, because those standards are guidance and are only applicable to produce consumed raw. Even if cannabis were federally legal, presumably the FSMA standards would not apply as cannabis is not produce consumed raw.
The Department takes no position on whether FSMA would apply to cannabis, even if cannabis were federally legal, as that determination is outside of the Department’s scope of expertise. However, the Department has an obligation under California law to protect public health and safety, and minimizing the potential for contamination of cannabis and nonmanufactured cannabis products is one element of that obligation.

Commenter 010
Commenters state that compliance with the proposed sanitation standards would necessitate substantial investments in infrastructure that are more appropriate in pharmaceutical manufacturing or food production than traditional farming, and that clear scientific evidence is necessary to justify requiring these investments.
The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking package.

Commenter 005, H1.12.8, H1.13.2, H1.17.2
Commenter believes the excessively stringent sanitation standards to essentially be punitive, perpetuating lingering stigmas and biases associated with cannabis rather than focusing on evidence-based risk management.
The Department disagrees that the proposed minimum standards are excessively stringent or punitive, as further detailed in the ISOR.

Commenter 005
Commenters state that the regulatory burden on cannabis farmers is already excessive and the policy work should be done to decrease unnecessary regulatory burdens on farmers, not increase them. As examples of excessive regulatory burdens, commenters list “expensive and disproportionate licensing fees, requirement for costly site-specific CEQA analysis, special environmental and land use requirements, required end-use product testing for each batch, special requirements for transport and distribution, and detailed operational requirements.”
The Department is committed to reducing unnecessary and excessive regulatory burdens, and has done so in other aspects of this proposed rulemaking. However, the Department disagrees that establishing minimum standards to reduce the potential for microbial contamination of cannabis and nonmanufactured cannabis products is unnecessary or excessive, as further detailed in the ISOR. Licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control.

Commenter 010, H1.6.8
Commenter states that farmers use a wide variety of cultivation methods in a wide range of cultivation conditions (climate, soils, etc.) and that the prescriptive and detailed rules are often inconsistent with the flexibility needed in agriculture.
The Department is confident that cleaning tools and containers, keeping animals out of specified areas, disposing of animal waste, and handwashing or using gloves can be accomplished in a variety of situations, cultivation conditions, and locations.

Commenter 010
Commenters state that the proposed standards in Article 8 are incommensurate with currentlyproposed legislation (AB 8) that would integrate hemp into the cannabis supply chain.
The proposed sanitation standards have been modified so that they are no longer applicable to cultivation activities that occur pre-harvest, which will create parity with hemp cultivation.

Commenter 010, H1.2.6, H1.2.7
Commenter notes that as the federal government increasingly contemplates cannabis legalization, quality control practices for cannabis are likely to be standardized at the federal level and implemented by agencies such as USDA and FDA that already have their own regulatory systems in place. Adopting further California-specific rules that may be subsumed by federal regulations or burgeoning interstate commerce standards in the near future may be an inefficient use of resources.
The timeline for potential federal legalization or interstate commerce is unknown at this time. The Department is tasked with prioritizing public health and safety and would be derelict in its obligation if it waited for federal actions with unknown implementation dates before imposing minimum standards to reduce the potential for consumer harm.

Commenter 010
Commenters are concerned that the requirements will be challenging for DCC employees to enforce.
The Department believes its staff are prepared and qualified to enforce the proposed regulatory changes.

Commenter H1.10.6, H1.13.3

Section 15060

Commenter’s farm hosts working animals, some of which play a vital role in pest management. The restrictions in proposed section 15060 may reduce the risk of contamination from animals but would increase the risk of contamination from rodents and other pests.
The final version of the proposed text restricts the prohibition on animals indoors to limited to areas in which exposed cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are present. Animals are permitted in outdoor areas of the premises, except areas used for processing, creating nonmanufactured cannabis products, or packaging, provided that animal waste is properly disposed of upon discovery.

Commenter 005
Commenter notes that they integrate livestock into crop and field management, using livestock to prepare and clean up beds. The proposed prescriptive regulation prohibiting manure would interfere with commenter’s environmental standards.
The proposed regulations allow for the use of manure as a fertilizing material. Furthermore, the prohibition on the presence of animals does not extend to cultivation areas as described in this comment (preparing and cleaning beds). The prohibition is on animals in areas used for processing harvested cannabis, creating nonmanufactured products, or packaging cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products.

Commenter H1.3.2
Commenters state that not all areas of a licensed premises risk contamination from pets and a licensee may reasonably want a dog or other pet in the area. Commenters further note that FSMA only excludes domestic animals in indoor areas where uncovered produce is present.
The final version of the proposed text restricts the prohibition on animals indoors to areas in which exposed cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are present.

Commenter 010, H1.6.5
Commenters note that requiring removal of animal waste immediately upon discovery will create a undue burden on licensees. One commenter indicates that farmers in the midst of time-pressured activities should not be interrupted, and that a licensed premises may be large enough that animal waste is far enough removed from cannabis plants as to present no risk of harm. One commenter states that the testing already required of the final product should be considered sufficient to determine if there has been contamination. One commenter requests that the requirement be modified to be applicable only to domestic animal waste. One commenter questions whether conventional farmers are required to remove wild animal dung from their fields. One commenter requests clarity on the enforcement fine that would be associated with this violation.
The regulation was modified to limit the requirement for animal waste removal and disposal to within 30 feet of cannabis plants or harvested cannabis. The Department determined that a 30-foot buffer zone was a reasonable compromise that would achieve the stated policy goal of reducing the potential for contamination while not overly burdening licensees.

Licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control.

Animal waste, regardless of whether it is from a domestic or wild animal, poses the same risk of microbial contamination to cannabis.

As to the question of the applicable fine for violation of this regulatory requirement, violations would be subject to the same progressive disciplinary process as all other violations.

Commenter 007, 010, 012, 018, H1.6.4, H1.9.4, H1.17.3
Commenter states that the requirement to remove animal waste is unnecessary because animals are not allowed in cultivation areas.
Numerous other comments, as well as DCC inspection staff experience in the field, indicate that animals in the cultivation area are very common. As such, it is necessary to require removal of animal waste to protect against contamination, and to protect public health.

Commenter H1.20.3
Commenter suggests adding “where cannabis is exposed” to subsection (a)(1).
The regulation was modified to clarify that the prohibition on animals indoors is limited to areas in which exposed cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are present.

Commenter 010
Commenter suggests rewriting subsection (b) to read: “Licensees shall not harvest cannabis that is reasonably likely to be contaminated with animal waste or that is visibly contaminated with animal waste.”
Preventing contamination through removal of animal waste is a reasonable method of minimizing potential contamination and does not rely on an individual noticing visible animal waste on plant material.

Commenter 010

Section 15061

Commenter believes subsection (c) is far too restrictive, and would be more stringent than CA Retail Food Code standards, which incorporate section 180.940 of title 40 of the CFR to allow for many other cleaning agents and methods.
The Department has proposed amendments to incorporate by reference 40 C.F.R section 180.940 to allow for additional sanitizing substances.

Commenter 010
Commenter does not want to use any chemicals on their farm.
The final version of the proposed text expands the list of permissible sanitizing substances, which will allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that best meet the needs of their operation.

Commenter H1.20.4
Commenters request inclusion of additional sanitizers in the list, such as hydrogen peroxide at 3%, peracetic acid at 200 ppm, vinegar, soap, dish soap, water, olive oil, and coconut oil.
The final version of the proposed text expands the list of permissible sanitizing substances, which will allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that best meet the needs of their operation.

Commenter 004, 009, 019
Commenter states that the proposed text is unnecessarily restrictive by mandating limited sanitizing agents, and that the Department should instead implement performance standards.
The final version of the proposed text expands the list of permissible sanitizing substances, which will allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that best meet the needs of their operation. However, a performance-based standard would in this case be more burdensome on licensees and the Department. Licensees would have to demonstrate that their tools and equipment were free of contamination, rather than demonstrating that they had a process in place to sanitize according to the minimum schedule.

Commenter 006
Commenters request inclusion of spraying as an acceptable application method.
The proposed regulations do not prohibit the use of spraying, provided that the sanitizing substance is further scrubbed or brushed on the tool.

Commenter 004, 013
Commenters note that high-pressure spraying of water or steam can clean equipment without chemical solvents.
The Department believes that the list of sanitizing substances under 40 C.F.R. 180.940 is sufficiently expansive to enable licensees to select substances that meet the needs of their operation.

Commenter 019, H1.6.6
Commenters state that the substances required for sanitation are considered hazardous waste and would require management under the Hazardous Waste Control Laws, necessitating either expensive hazardous waste disposal services or a hazardous waste treatment permit.
The text was modified to expand the list of permissible sanitizing substances, which will allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that best meet the needs of their operation.

Commenter 006, 014
Commenter states that the identified chemicals meet the definition of cleaning solvents under local air district regulations, necessitating additional permits, which are expensive and burdensome to obtain.
The text was modified to expand the list of permissible sanitizing substances, which will allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that best meet the needs of their operation. A licensee can simply select a solvent that does not necessitate additional permits.

Commenter 006
Commenter notes that the required sanitizing substances can damage equipment and products that they are not meant for such as porous plastic harvest bins or trim room surfaces. Commenter further notes that these substances pose hazards and can require ventilation and PPE.
The text has been modified to expand the list of permissible sanitizing substances, which will allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that best meet the needs of their operation.

Commenter 008
Commenter asserts that the proposed cleaning and sanitizing chemicals present safety concerns for workers, and that there is no published data or guidance from DCC on whether the chemicals affect flower quality, terpene retention, combustion safety, or extraction outcomes.
The list of sanitizing substances incorporated by reference in the modified text is expansive and such substances are commonly used in a variety of settings and conditions. Licensees should be sure to follow the manufacturer’s labeled instructions to ensure safety of workers.

DCC-licensed manufacturing operations similarly need to maintain clean and sanitized tools and equipment and have done so without guidance from DCC as requested by the commenter. The text was modified from the initial proposal to be more expansive in order to allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that meet the needs of the operation.

Commenter H1.12.5
Commenters state that cannabis resin is sticky and therefore the proposed standard of “clean” as “free of visual dust, dirt, debris, cannabis residue, and food residue” is impractical and unrealistic. Commenters note the difficulty in keeping tools and surfaces completely free of cannabis residue during harvesting and processing, and that that keeping farm tools and surfaces maintained at the defined level of cleanliness and sanitized daily is impractical and unrealistic. Commenters note that tools and equipment can be “clean” and sanitized while still retaining resin, kief, crystals, etc., which are indeed part of processing.
The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking package, indicating that the requirements are not unrealistic. However, the Department acknowledges the difficulty in keeping farm tools completely free of dust and other residue and the final version of the proposed text states instead that dirt and residue must not be allowed to visually accumulate on tools and equipment.

Commenter 007, 009, 010, 018, 019, 020, H1.2.5, H1.3.3, H1.6.2, H1.10.3, H1.15.2, H1.21.2
Commenter notes that existing DCC regulations for manufacturing operations do not define cleanliness and sanitation in the prescriptive manner as proposed in this rulemaking.
It is through the Department’s experience with enforcing the manufacturing regulations that the Department determined it was appropriate to more explicitly define clean and sanitize in order to ensure consistent application of minimum standards.

Commenter 010
Commenter states that the only DCC regulation pertaining to containers for manufacturers, §17212(a)(6), simply states that: “raw materials and other components shall be held in containers designed and constructed to protect against allergen cross-contact or contamination, and shall be held at a temperature and relative humidity and in a manner that prevents the cannabis products from becoming adulterated.” There is no requirement to clean and sanitize containers at regular intervals.
Containers are considered a utensil and under §17210, manufacturers are required to establish a quality control program that includes a detailed written procedure for cleaning, sanitizing, and maintaining utensils; a schedule for cleaning, sanitizing, and maintaining utensils; documenting dates and times of cleaning, sanitizing, and maintaining utensils; and a procedure to store clean and sanitized utensils.

It is through the Department’s experience with conducting inspections of all license types, and enforcing the manufacturing regulations, which were modeled after US FDA food manufacturing requirements, that the Department determined that it was appropriate to require a definitive schedule for cleaning and sanitizing, rather than allow licensees to determine the appropriate schedule.

Commenter 010
Commenters question the purpose of cleaning containers when bin liners are used. Commenters also find it unclear whether, if a liner is used, the liner or the container must be cleaned and sanitized at stated intervals.
The final version of the proposed text explicitly allows the use of container liners.

Commenter 010, H1.6.3
Commenters express concern that the standards are impractical – storage containers such as plastic totes cannot be kept clean of cannabis residue because static in the tote will immediately attract cannabis residue; shovels will get set down on dirt. Commenters further assert that the standards are not viable on an outdoor farm and provide no obvious public health benefit.
The Department understands that tools, equipment, and containers will become dirty through their intended use. Department acknowledges the difficulty in keeping farm tools completely free of dust and other residue and the final version of the proposed text states that tools and equipment must be kept free of the accumulation of dirt and residues.

Commenter 010, 018, H1.3.3, H1.6.3, H1.10.5
Commenter states that the specific wording of the proposed requirement to clean and sanitize containers is unclear – the period between storage and transport of each harvest batch may encompass several months. Commenter asks if the intended wording should be “prior to transport.” Additionally, commenter asks how the beginning and end of a growing season is defined. Commenter points out that FSMA rules are clearer regarding time periods and more reasonable regarding the level of cleanliness required.
The text has been modified to remove the reference to storage and transport and to the growing season.

Commenter 010
Commenters find it impractical and unnecessary to clean and sanitize tools and equipment at the stated time intervals. Some equipment is difficult to clean and need not be cleaned every day. Some tools may need to be cleaned many times per day in order to be compliant. By comparison, FSMA standards require cleaning to take place only “as frequently as necessary.”
“As necessary” does not provide an objective standard to which the Department can hold licensees accountable, nor does it provide sufficient specificity by which a licensee can determine whether they are adhering to regulatory requirements. The Department’s intent in this regulatory proposal is to minimize the potential microbial contamination of harvested cannabis and nonmanufactured cannabis products, including microbes that can harm human health as well as those that can harm cannabis plants.

Commenter 010, H1.6.2
Commenter suggests replacing prescriptive requirements in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) with requirements that tools, utensils, and equipment be “cleaned and sanitized as frequently as reasonably necessary to protect against contamination.”
“As reasonably necessary” does not provide an objective standard to which the Department can hold licensees accountable, nor does it provide sufficient specificity by which a licensee can determine whether they are adhering to regulatory requirements. The Department’s intent in this regulatory proposal is to minimize the potential microbial contamination of harvested cannabis and nonmanufactured cannabis products, including microbes that can harm human health, as well as those that can harm cannabis plants.

Commenter 010
Commenter suggests replacing subsections (a)(3) through (a)(3)(B) with: “Any container used to store or transport harvested cannabis is adequately clean before use in transporting cannabis. Tote liners may be used to effectuate the purpose of this section.”
The final version of the proposed text explicitly allows the use of container liners.

Commenter 010
Commenter suggests deleting subsections (b) and (c), explaining that definitions of cleanliness and identification of specific sanitizing methods are unnecessary and inconsistent with existing DCC manufacturing and laboratory regulations, as well as FSMA regulations.
It is through the Department’s experience with enforcing the manufacturing regulations, which were modeled after US FDA food manufacturing requirements, that the Department determined that it was appropriate to require a definitive schedule for cleaning and sanitizing, as well as defined methods, rather than allow licensees to determine the appropriate schedule.

Commenter 010
Commenter suggests replacing “and sanitized each day during periods” with “maintained, and, as appropriate for the nature of the process, sanitized at appropriate intervals” in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2).
“At appropriate intervals” does not provide an objective standard by which the Department can hold licensees accountable, nor does it provide sufficient specificity by which a licensee can determine whether they are adhering to regulatory requirements. The Department’s intent in this regulatory proposal is to minimize the potential microbial contamination of harvested cannabis and nonmanufactured cannabis products, including microbes that can harm human health as well as those that can harm cannabis plants.

Commenter 013
Commenter suggests amending proposed subsections (a)(3) to require cleaning and sanitizing of containers only when they “make direct contact” with their contents, and to not require cleaning or sanitizing of containers in which liners or similar barriers are used.
The text has been modified to allow the use of container liners.

Commenter 013
Commenter suggests amending the definition of “clean” in proposed subsection (b) to include guidance regarding the nature of cleanliness and prohibit only “excessive” amounts of debris, cannabis residue, and food residue.
The visual accumulation of any amount of dust, dirt, debris, cannabis residue, or food residue poses a contamination risk, regardless of whether it is considered “excessive.” The definitions for “clean” and “sanitize” provide sufficient requirements regarding the nature of cleanliness.

Commenter 013

Section 15062

Commenters state that portions of the proposed regulation are duplicative of existing OSHA standards related to handwashing, toilets, and potable water, which are applicable to all agricultural employers, including cannabis cultivators.
The regulatory requirements apply to more licensees than just those considered agricultural employers.

Commenter 010, 018

Section 15601

Commenters support the proposed amendments to this section.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter 010, 012
Commenter states that instead of changing the law for every potential event, it would make more sense to create a special exemption for state and county fairs that normally run longer than 4 days.
The Department does not find it necessary to adopt two different standards based on the location of the temporary event.

Commenter 001
Commenters would like DCC to reconsider allowing temporary cannabis events to run for 30 consecutive days, finding the proposed rule to be controversial and disruptive to the public.
As stated in the ISOR, the Department believes that 30 days is an appropriate time limit for temporary events and that the local jurisdiction is best suited to impose any additional restrictions.

Commenter H1.5.1, H1.7.1

Section 16300

Commenter strongly supports adoption of subsections (c) and (e).
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter 010
Commenter recommends that cultivation licensees be able to transfer nursery stock to another licensee on the same parcel without using a distributor.
BPC §26070 limits transportation of cannabis and cannabis product only to distribution licensees.

Commenter 012
Commenter recommends amendments to allow cultivation licensees to transfer nursery stock to any other cultivation licensee, regardless of whether the receiving licensee holds a nursery license.
As described in the ISOR, in order to protect the integrity of the nursery license, the Department has determined to not allow transfers of nursery stock between non-nursery cultivation licensees.

Commenter 012

Section 16305

Commenter is concerned about the repeal of this section, noting that energy use is important because we are still trying to achieve climate goals, and we should not give the cannabis industry a pass on meeting those goals.
The proposed repeal of the regulatory requirement is necessary because it relies upon an inaccurate reference to the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. The cannabis industry will still be subject to the same requirements as other businesses in California.

Commenter H1.4.2
Commenter states that 100% renewable energy should be required for indoor cultivators.
Mandating 100% renewable energy use is beyond the scope of this regulatory package.

Commenter 001

Section 16306

Commenters express support for the proposed changes related to generator use requirements.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter 010, 012
Commenter is concerned that repealing this section essentially removes important restrictions regarding air quality.
CARB and local air quality districts enforce Airborne Toxic Control Measures governing stationary and portable generators, and that enforcement will be unaffected by repeal of this section. Repeal of this section does not alter any existing rights or responsibilities, as the regulation is merely a crossreference to CARB regulations.

Commenter H1.1.2

Section 16307

Commenters are concerned that repealing this section essentially removes important restrictions regarding pesticide use.
DPR and County Agricultural Commissioners enforce regulations governing pesticide labeling, storage, application, etc., and that enforcement will be unaffected by repeal of subsections (b)-(b)(10). Repeal of these subsections does not alter any existing rights or responsibilities, as the subsections merely cross-reference DPR regulations.

Commenter H1.1.1, H1.4.1
Commenters express support for the removal of the pest management plan requirement.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter 006, 012
Commenters are concerned that the Department is removing the requirement for pest management plans, which can prevent systemic issues, and replacing them with insubstantial and performative sanitation practices.
As described in the ISOR, the Department has found that requiring submission of a pest management plan at the time of application provides limited value, as cultivators frequently need to adjust the plan to address emerging issues. Cultivators are still required to adhere to all state laws regarding pesticide use, including appropriate pesticides to use on cannabis.

Commenter 008, H1.12.6

Unrelated

Commenter requests that the Department add a definition of “vegetative plant” to further distinguish the plant stage from immature or mature plants.
The Department’s regulations only differentiate between immature and mature plants, therefore there is no need to add a definition of vegetative. The term is not used in DCC regulations.

Commenter 013
Commenter notes the high cost of licensing fees and requests that licensing fees be brought into alignment with hemp cultivation fees.
License fees are outside of the scope of this rulemaking action. The Department notes, however, that license fees are required by statute to be set at a level that covers the Department’s operating costs.

Commenter 015
Commenters expressed concern that “batch tagging” was not included in the proposed regulatory text and requested inclusion.
Batch tagging is outside the scope of this rulemaking action.

Commenter 002, 003, 006, 012, 015, H1.9.1, H1.11.1
Commenters express concern at the amount of plastic used in the cannabis industry and recommend that the Department focus on a more sustainable cannabis industry.
The use of plastic in the cannabis industry is outside the scope of this rulemaking action.

Commenter 019, H1.15.6
Commenter requests that the Department allow large cultivation licenses to hold a Type-11 distribution license.
The commenter’s request is outside the scope of this rulemaking action. The Department notes that the prohibition on Large licensees holding a distribution license is established in statute and the Department has no authority to change the requirement without a change in statute.

Commenter 015
Commenter requests the Department waive multiple application fees for operators who function as a single entity on one property.
Application fees are outside the scope of this rulemaking action. The Department will keep the suggestion on file for future rulemaking actions.

Commenter 015
Commenter states that the Department’s existing requirement to obtain at least $2 million in general liability insurance is an unreasonable burden on self-distribution, transport-only licensees and is unnecessary for licensees transporting their own cannabis only.
Liability insurance is outside the scope of this rulemaking action. The Department will keep the suggestion on file for future rulemaking actions.

Commenter 010
Commenter requests that the Department revisit the structure of licensing fees for temporary event organizers.
The fee structure for event organizers is outside of the scope of this regulatory proposal, but the Department will keep the suggestion on file for future rulemaking packages.

Commenter 010
Commenter requests amendment to the requirement that temporary events can be held at a venue expressly approved by a local jurisdiction to state that events can only be held at a centrally located site similar to a county fair site.
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking action.

Commenter 001
Commenter requests clarification on whether a cannabis event organizer can apply for a temporary event permit multiple times per year, and whether there is a limit on the number of events one organizer can hold.
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking action.

Commenter 016
Commenter requests that DCC consider a limit to the number of temporary events per year that an organizer can hold in order to prevent a recurring event from becoming a de facto retail location.
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking action.

Commenter 016

SUMMARIES OF, AND RESPONSES TO, COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE FIRST 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD

General

Commenters express support for numerous provisions of the proposed regulation.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter H2.33.1, H2.33.2, H2.33.3, H2.33.4
Commenter states that no other commenter has spoken in favor of the regulations.
This is incorrect as evidenced by the rulemaking file.

Commenter H2.26.1
Commenters believe this regulation was proposed by licensees who have recently been in the news for violations of other laws with the intent of pushing regenerative farmers out of the market.
The Department’s ISOR explains the genesis of, and the rationale for, the proposed requirements. The final version of the regulation limits sanitation requirements to post-harvest activities, which should not negatively impact regenerative farming practices.

Commenter H2.26.3, H2.27.1
Other than the goal for consumer benefits, commenter requests that the Department explain the ways different license types would benefit from these new regulations identifying what the specific benefits and co-benefits are.
The Department’s ISOR provides the anticipated benefits of this proposed action.

Commenter H2.25.1
Commenter is concerned with regulations and administrative procedures that may overburden the cultivation, production and manufacturing of high quality cannabis. Understanding the costs incurred by all cannabis farmers, especially small legacy cultivators should be a high priority whenever new regulatory standards are going to be considered.
While the Department disagrees with the comment that the proposed regulations create a burden on the regulated industry, the Department does take notice of the commenter’s concerns about regulations and the potential to overburden the industry and does take those concerns, amongst others, under consideration, when determining whether to make regulatory changes.

Commenter A005
Commenter notes support of state farming credits, lowering of fees and providing monetary grants specifically to sustain our rich and diverse cannabis cultivation community.
These issues are outside of the scope of this regulatory package.

Commenter A005
Commenter is concerned that the current regulatory changes may have unintended consequences for cannabis farmers not yet identified or measured and states that it is in the public interest to obtain as much data as possible from all farmers to help address best practices, flexibility in regulatory changes, guidelines and administrative procedures.
The Department disagrees with the commenter’s point regarding unintended consequences for cannabis farmers not yet identified but agrees with commenter on the principle of data-driven decision making; the Department is constantly seeking information and input from a variety of sources, including stakeholders, and using the available information to make decisions. The Department also encourages all interested parties to participate in all public rulemaking comment periods, public hearings, and Cannabis Advisory Committee hearings to provide input on pending regulatory actions, feedback on current Department actions, or suggestions on future Department changes.

Commenter A005

Article 8

Commenter states there is a lack of clear need for the proposed rule as existing testing and OSHA rules already address product safety.
The Department’s ISOR meets the evidentiary burden required under the Necessity standard of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Commenter A001
Commenters assert there is no regulatory precedent for the proposed rule, as similar rules don’t exist in comparable agriculture or cannabis settings.
The manner in which other agricultural products are regulated are specific to their own statutory requirements and are not relevant to the Department’s obligations under its authorizing statutes. The Department has a statutory obligation to protect public health and believes the minimum standards imposed by this regulation are necessary to meet this obligation.

Commenter A001, A002, H2.13.1, H2.23.3
Commenter states the proposed rule creates an unnecessary burden and that many of the proposed rules are duplicative, overly prescriptive, or unworkable for small farms.
The Department shares the commenters’ concerns on the impact on small cultivators, which is why the minimum standards are limited in nature. Although the Department’s economic and fiscal impact analysis identified potential costs for cultivators of up to $4,200, this is expected to be a maximum and not the exact cost to each licensee. The Department has determined that the consumer protection benefits would justify the identified potential costs, and perhaps even save downstream costs by preventing contamination that could result in costly recalls or adverse health impacts.

Commenter A001
Commenter states the proposed rules will have a disproportionate impact and that the rules risk harming small cultivators without clear public health benefit.
The Department shares the commenters’ concerns on the impact on small cultivators, which is why the minimum standards are limited in nature. Although the Department’s economic and fiscal impact analysis identified potential costs for cultivators of up to $4,200, this is expected to be a maximum and not the exact cost to each licensee. The Department has determined that the consumer protection benefits would justify the identified potential costs, and perhaps even save downstream costs by preventing contamination that could result in costly recalls or adverse health impacts.

Commenter A001
Commenter suggests it would be better for the Department to focus on testing and the existing regulations before trying to add any others.
The Department is committed to both regularly updating regulations to reduce regulatory burdens and improve public and environmental health and safety, as well as enforcing existing regulations. Licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control.

Commenter H2.32.2
Commenter states the purpose of the proposed regulations seems to be in the spirit of punitive fine-collecting rather than protecting public health.
The Department disagrees. Department compliance inspections have found that some licensees do not implement adequate or even basic hygienic practices, which poses a threat to consumer safety. Minimization of the potential for contamination is the bedrock principle of produce safety and food manufacturing requirements. As described in the ISOR, the Department believes that minimum sanitation practices for any licensee that handles unpackaged cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products is a reasonable precaution that may prevent adulteration, remediation of failed test batches, recalls, and consumer harm.

Commenter H2.32.1
Commenters state the ISOR provides no evidence of microbiological contamination posing a threat to public health under the existing regulatory framework and request that if DCC has data indicating broader issues, it should share that publicly.
The Department is tasked with prioritizing public health and safety and would be derelict in its obligations to wait until serious illness or death occurs before imposing minimum standards to reduce the potential for consumer harm.

Commenter A001, A002
Commenters state that agricultural products like hemp and tobacco are not subject to similar onfarm sanitation regulations. FSMA rules for food crops are also a poor comparison, as cannabis is not consumed raw, is subject to a 600-degree flame before consuming, and is already batchtested.
The Department does not agree that hemp or tobacco are appropriate comparison crops. Hemp that is used for fiber or other industrial purposes is not directly analogous to cannabis. Additionally, cannabis is considered under state law to have medicinal uses; tobacco is not considered a medicinal product. Medicinal products (i.e. conventional drugs and devices) are subject to a higher set of safety standards than other consumer products. Cannabis used for medicinal purposes may be ingested by immunocompromised individuals; any contamination could have very serious health effects. While heat, such as consuming cannabis via combustion, may kill some pathogenic bacteria and viruses, it does not kill all microbial contamination, including toxins produced by bacteria. The Department takes its obligation to protect consumers seriously, especially consumers using cannabis for medicinal purposes. Additionally, licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control.

Commenter A001, A002, H2.1.1, H2.2.3
Commenter states that the proposed sanitation standards will further cripple the economy of Northern California and remove many of the last remaining farms that are still operating up here, at least in the legal realm.
The regulation has been modified to limit the scope of the sanitation requirements to post-harvest activities only. This modification will relieve the potential burden on farmers commonly expressed by commenters.

Commenter H2.26.2
Commenter states that, compared to FSMA or even DCC’s own manufacturing standards, Article 8 is unusually rigid as it mandates:
- Daily cleaning of tools, even if lightly used
- Strict cleaning definitions (e.g., no visible dust or residue)
- Limited sanitation chemicals and methods
- Absolute bans on animals or manure anywhere on-site
Commenter notes other industries allow for flexibility and reasonable standards. Article 8 should too.

The manner in which other agricultural products are regulated is specific to their own statutory or regulatory requirements and is not relevant to the Department’s obligations under its authorizing statutes. However, the regulation has been modified to address several of the commenter’s concerns.

The Department’s manufacturing standards are significantly more extensive than those proposed in this rulemaking. Instead of the expansive, but somewhat flexible, requirements imposed upon manufacturers, the Department focused on just a few critical requirements to protect against potential contamination and made those requirements more specific.

Commenter A001
Commenter notes that cannabis farmers already face far more regulation than other crops, including CEQA review, testing, and licensing fees. Imposing more rules without clear benefit risks pushing small farms out of the market.
The Department acknowledges that different regulations apply to cannabis than to other agricultural crops, but notes that none of the cited examples are duplicative of the proposed regulations. Sanitation standards are an important consumer health protection measure, as explained in the Department’s ISOR.

Commenter A001
Commenter notes that distributors and manufacturers aren’t held to similar sanitation rules, despite also handling cannabis.
The requirements proposed in this rulemaking would also apply to distributors. Manufacturers are not included in this rulemaking because they are already subject to more extensive Good Manufacturing Practices that include sanitation requirements.

Commenter A001
Commenters note that extensive quality control procedures and testing are already part of the licensed cannabis framework. If final form cannabis can pass strict testing requirements, that should be the standard to which cannabis farms should be held. As a solution, commenters recommend allowing for final form testing to be the measurable indication that ensures a safe product is entering the marketplace.
Minimization of the potential for contamination is the bedrock principle of produce safety and food manufacturing requirements. Licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control. As described in the ISOR, the Department believes that minimum sanitation practices for any licensee that handles unpackaged cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products is a reasonable precaution that may prevent adulteration, remediation of failed test batches, recalls, and consumer harm.

Commenter H2.1.3, H2.9, H2.20.3
Commenters are concerned that the proposed regulation gives inspectors too much discretion. One inspector might ignore normal crop residue, another might write you up for it. Commenters further express concern that inspections will be weaponized to come down on people for things that are vague and impractical.
Regulation provides standardization and clarity to the Department as well as the industry.

Commenter A004, H2.2.4, H2.5.1, H2.8.7, H2.16.3, H2.30.2
Commenters express support for comments made by Origins Council.
The Department acknowledges this comment.

Commenter H2.4.1, H2.17.1, H2.18.5, H2.20.4, H2.22.1, H2.30.1
Commenter states additional regulations for onfarm sanitation are both unnecessary and inequitable. Cannabis is already comprehensively tested for contaminants to a much greater degree than any other agricultural product.
Department compliance inspections and subsequent disciplinary actions have shown some licensees do not implement adequate or even basic hygienic practices, which poses a threat to consumer safety. Minimization of the potential for contamination is the bedrock principle of produce safety and food manufacturing requirements. Licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control. As described in the ISOR, the Department believes that minimum sanitation practices for any licensee that handles unpackaged cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products is a reasonable precaution that may prevent adulteration, remediation of failed test batches, recalls, and consumer harm.

Commenter A002
Commenter states that additional regulations for on-farm sanitation are neither necessary nor equitable. Commenter expresses concern that the proposed Article 8 sanitation regulations draw inappropriately from the California Retail Food Code – which is applicable to restaurants, not farms – and superseded 1998 FDA standards, which were originally voluntary and are no longer operative even as guidance.
The Department has proposed modified text to limit sanitation requirements to post-harvest activities.

Commenter A002
Commenters note that AB 8 would allow hemp— and its cannabinoids—into the licensed cannabis supply chain as soon as October. Hemp cultivation remains regulated by CDFA and USDA, not by the Department, so the proposed Article 8 sanitation rules wouldn’t apply to hemp growers. If AB 8 passes, hemp-derived cannabinoids could enter dispensaries without DCC sanitation safeguards. Commenters are concerned that this would create the very contamination risk Article 8 aims to address, undermining the rule’s purpose. Commenters believe it’s important for both the DCC and the legislature to consider the interaction between these two proposed policies, and to work to establish a coherent and internally consistent policy direction. This is especially the case given that both policies are being considered for approval on approximately the same timeline. At a minimum, commenters believe that establishing internal consistency between these policies is a prerequisite for thoughtful policymaking.
The Department has proposed modified text to limit sanitation requirements to post-harvest activities, which will create parity in standards for hemp and cannabis cultivation.

Commenter A001, A002, H2.15.4, H2.24.2
Commenter appreciates several of the proposed modifications to sanitation regulations in the July 18 regulatory text, including modifications regarding animals in indoor areas of the premises (§15060(a)(1)), allowances for the use of tote liners on containers (§15061(a)(3)(A-B)), and expansion of allowable sanitation methods (§15061(c)). These modifications would make the proposed regulations more viable to comply with in comparison to the requirements of the original March 14 draft.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter A002
Commenters note that scientific studies, publicly available on sites such as PubMed and National Institute of Health website, have shown that cannabis may have antibiotic and antifungal properties. Commenters state that it is onerous and unreasonable to require small cultivators to remove resin and residue or require purchase of new totes each year because cannabis residue is antimicrobial and antifungal.
Potential antibiotic and antifungal properties do not negate the need for proper sanitation standards to prevent contamination of consumer products as such contamination can cause serious threats to human health.

Commenter H2.4, H2.29.1
Commenter requests that the proposed regulations instead be guidelines.
The Department cannot enforce guidelines; the only way to ensure that minimum standards are met is through the promulgation of regulations.

Commenter H2.7.1
Commenter expresses doubt that these proposed regulations will help create clean products as all of the testing failures are for pesticides and aspergillus, not cannabis residue.
The Department acknowledges that there have been recent recalls related to pesticide contamination. This does not negate the importance of preventing other types of contamination.

Commenter H2.22.2
Commenter is concerned that DCC has prevented use of biological controls such as beauvaria bassiana, metarhizium, actinovate, and others that are completely natural products, bacteria, fungi, and other biological controls that have zero impact on the local environment, zero impact on the local waterways. By forcing everything to be overly sterilized, the Department will lower the value of California cannabis.
The use of biological controls (a form of pesticide) on cannabis during the growing phase is not under the authority of the Department; it falls under the purview of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). DPR provides a list of acceptable pesticides to use on growing cannabis, which as of this writing, includes substances mentioned by the commenter. Further, the final version of the proposed text narrows the applicability of the requirements to post-harvest activities only.

Commenter H2.23.1
Commenter is concerned that establishing sanitation standards undermines the transition to the regulated market.
The Department shares the commenters’ concerns on the potential costs associated with adopting the new regulatory requirements, which is why the minimum standards are limited in nature. Although the Department’s economic and fiscal impact analysis identified potential costs to licensed cultivators of up to $4,200, this is expected to be a maximum and not the exact cost to implement the requirements. Consumers expect products from the licensed market to be free of contaminants and it is the Department’s obligation to ensure licensees adhere to reasonable precautions that may prevent adulteration, remediation of failed test batches, recalls, and consumer harm.

Commenter H2.24.2
Commenter states a recent case study out of Berkeley highlights how the current regulatory framework has marginalized rural cannabis farmers; this proposal would exacerbate that.
Commenter did not provide specific suggestions that would reduce potential marginalization of rural cannabis farmers. The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking package.

Commenter H2.28.1
Commenter is concerned the proposed regulations will create subjective standards that inspectors could use against cultivators that they perceive as existing or living in an unclean way.
Regulation provides standardization and clarity to the Department as well as the industry.

Commenter H2.9.4
Commenter requests the DCC consider how sanitation regulations would affect appellations and terroir prospects.
The establishment of appellations of origin is under the authority of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. However, the Department notes that it is unclear how minimum sanitation standards to prevent the contamination of consumer products would negatively impact the ability of cultivators to develop appellations of origin.

Commenter H2.28.2
Commenter recommends that rather than creating new rules and requirements, DCC should put more effort into education and ensuring farmers have necessary skills and resources.
The Department is statutorily mandated to adopt rules and requirements regarding the operation of cannabis businesses, with a mandatory prioritization of protection of the public (BPC §26011.5).

Commenter H2.31.1
Commenter asserts that small farms selling locally are exempt under FSMA, and that all small cannabis farmers in California would meet those exemption standards.
As described in the ISOR, FSMA was used as a model for the development of this regulatory proposal, but the proposal is not a direct duplication. The Department has determined that it is appropriate for the reasons described in the ISOR that the minimum sanitation requirements apply to cultivators of all sizes.

Commenter H2.1.2
Commenter notes that no indoor growers have provided comments, which indicates that the proposal will have a disproportionate regulatory burden on outdoor cultivators.
The final version of the proposed text limits sanitation requirements to post-harvest activities, which should reduce the impact on outdoor cultivators. Additionally, the proposed regulations apply to all licensees that process cannabis, not only to outdoor cultivators.

Commenter H2.34.1
Commenter states the new standards could create a fiscal burden on current operating farms if instated and asks whether there will be direct access to funding for compliance with the new standards to ensure that small farms currently in the program are empowered to continue operations?
The Department shares the commenters’ concerns on the impact on small cultivators, which is why the minimum standards are limited in nature. Although the Department’s economic and fiscal impact analysis identified potential costs for cultivators of up to $4,200, this is expected to be a maximum and not the exact cost to each licensee. The Department has determined that the consumer protection benefits would justify the identified potential costs, and perhaps even save downstream costs by preventing contamination that could result in costly recalls or adverse health impacts. The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking package.

Commenter’s question regarding direct access to funding is outside the scope of this rulemaking action.

Commenter H2.2.2
Commenter questions what small farmers can expect from DCC in terms of new inspection impacts.
Regulation provides standardization and clarity to the Department as well as the industry.

Commenter H2.25.4
Commenter questions whether the Department has a white paper showing the expense impact on farms and revenue generated by the product providers of the products needed to come in compliance.
The Department conducted a thorough economic and fiscal assessment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. This assessment is available to the public with the rest of the rulemaking documents.

Commenter H2.25.3
Commenter questions whether the Department has a study on the expected increase in chemical use and plastic impacts by these requirements.
The Department has proposed amended text to expand the list of permissible sanitizing substances, which will allow licensees to select sanitizing substances that best meet the needs of their operation. The proposed regulation does not mandate the use of plastic.

Commenter H2.25.5
Commenter asks for compliant alternatives that can be used by organic farmers.
The list of permissible sanitizing agents numbers in the hundreds, many of which are permissible for use in organic agricultural production.

Commenter H2.25.6
Commenters are concerned that the proposal will decrease the value of California cannabis in the national marketplace due to the loss of regenerative farming agricultural practices.
The final version of the regulation limits sanitation requirements to post-harvest activities, which should not negatively impact regenerative farming practices. The proposed regulations do not prevent or prohibit regenerative farming agricultural practices and instead establish minimum sanitation standards to prevent threats to public health.

Commenter H2.21.1, H2.23.2, H2.24.3
Commenter requests removing the definition of “clean” from the proposal as it is not clear why any explicit definition of “cleanliness” is necessary. Existing DCC regulation §17210(c) for cannabis manufacturers states that “equipment and utensils shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and kept in good repair,” but does not further define “clean.” Commenter states the same standard should be applied in the proposed sanitation regulations.
It is through the Department’s experience with enforcing the manufacturing regulations that the Department determined it was appropriate to more explicitly define “clean” and “sanitize” to ensure consistent application of minimum standards.

Commenter A002
Commenter states the proposed regulations will create understood harm and that they expect a resolution to the accountability for that harm.
The Department is uncertain as to what the commenter meant by “understood harm” or “resolution to the accountability for that harm. Regardless, the proposed regulations establish minimum sanitation standards to prevent harm to public health, not create it.

Commenter H2.18.3
Commenter recommends using the existing sanitation language that applies to cannabis manufacturer facilities in section 17207(b)(8) – “shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and kept in good repair so as to prevent the cannabis from being adulterated” – as the same standard for the proposed regulations as this language would more directly address the issue of contamination and adulteration while utilizing existing OAL-approved language.
It is through the Department’s experience with enforcing the manufacturing regulations that the Department determined it was appropriate to more explicitly define “clean” and “sanitize” in order to ensure consistent application of minimum standards.

Commenter A002
Commenter is concerned that establishing minimum sanitation standards has a harm, and serves to undermine the future of the regulated market in California.
The Department shares the commenters’ concerns on the impact on licensed cultivators, which is why the minimum standards are limited in nature. Although the Department’s economic and fiscal impact analysis identified potential costs to cultivators of up to $4,200, this is expected to be a maximum and not the exact cost to each licensee. The Department has determined that the consumer protection benefits would justify the identified potential costs, and perhaps even save downstream costs by preventing contamination that could result in costly recalls or adverse health impacts.

Commenter H2.33.7

Section 15060(a)

Commenter expresses support for the proposed changes that would prohibit animals only from indoor areas of a premises if unpackaged cannabis is present. A blanket restriction on animals is unnecessary in areas such as offices that don’t contain cannabis, and cultivators may reasonably want a dog or other pet in these areas. The proposed amendments resolve this concern.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter A002
Commenter states that a blanket indoor animal ban is too broad—e.g., office pets should be allowed.
This comment is directed at text as proposed in the initial 45-day comment period and the requested edit was included in the modified text made available during the first 15-day comment period.

Commenter A001

Section 15060(b)

Commenters express concern that this requirement is unreasonable on an outdoor farm where wildlife (birds, deer, bears, etc.) are present. Farmers in the midst of time-pressured cultivation or harvest activities should not be required to immediately remove (for example) bird droppings they find on a part of their farm that poses no risk of product contamination. Commenters note that the “licensed premises” may be quite a large area, and large portions of the “licensed premises” may be located far away from the canopy area, harvested cannabis, or cannabis products that might be contaminated. For comparison, FSMA regulations prohibit raw manure from contacting covered produce, but do not establish a blanket prohibition on animal waste anywhere on a farm. (CFR §112.835, §112.1226, and §112.1347)
The text was modified to limit the scope of where animal waste must be cleaned immediately upon discovery.

Commenter A002, H2.11.1, H2.11.2, H2.15.2, H2.15.3, H2.24.1
Commenter proposes two possible alternatives: Alternative #1: Animal waste, other than manure used as fertilizing material, found in any area of a licensed premises must be removed and disposed of immediately upon discovery. Licensees shall not harvest cannabis that is visibly contaminated with animal waste. Alternative #2: Animal waste, other than manure used as fertilizing material, found in any area of a licensed premises the vicinity of cannabis plants or harvested cannabis must be removed and disposed of immediately upon discovery. For purposes of this regulation, waste is in the vicinity of cannabis plants or harvested cannabis if it is located within 30 feet of the cannabis plants or harvested cannabis. Commenters state that animal waste does not pose a contamination risk if it is not in the vicinity of cannabis plants or harvested cannabis and that a thirty foot standard would provide a reasonable objective metric while clarifying that cultivators are not required to prioritize the disposal of animal waste located in distant reaches of the premises.
The Department accepts proposed Alternative #2 and agrees that a 30-foot buffer zone is a reasonable compromise that will achieve the stated policy goal of reducing the potential for contamination while not overly burdening licensees. The Department amended the second modified text accordingly.

Commenter A002
Commenters are concerned that the regulations would prohibit the use of grazing animals in the field and would require wildlife to be excluded from the premises.
The final version of the proposed text limits the requirement for animal waste removal and disposal to within 30 feet of cannabis plants or harvested cannabis. The Department determined that a 30-foot buffer zone was a reasonable compromise that would achieve the stated policy goal of reducing the potential for contamination while not overly burdening licensees. Animal waste, regardless of whether it is from a grazing animal or otherwise, poses a risk of microbial contamination to cannabis.

Commenter H2.12.2, H2.12.3, H2.13.2, H2.20.1
Commenter states a total ban on manure is incompatible with organic farming.
The Department disagrees with this comment. The proposed section does not enact a total ban on manure and explicitly provides an exception for manure used as fertilizing material as the Department recognizes that a total ban is not appropriate in an agricultural setting.

Commenter A001

Section 15061

Commenter notes that DCC manufacturing regulations discuss cleanliness without such a formal definition.
It is through the Department’s experience with enforcing the manufacturing regulations that the Department determined it was appropriate to more explicitly define clean and sanitize in order to ensure consistent application of minimum standards.

Commenter H2.1.6

Section 15061(a)

Commenter supports proposed changes to this section that would 1) clarify the required interval for cleaning, and 2) allow the use of container liners/tote liners to satisfy the requirements of the section.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter A002
Commenters state that daily sanitation is excessive, not required in comparable settings, and will be a time and money burden.
Department compliance inspections and subsequent disciplinary actions have shown some licensees do not implement adequate or even basic hygienic practices, which poses a threat to consumer safety. Minimization of the potential for contamination is the bedrock principle of produce safety and food manufacturing requirements. Licensees at every step of the process have a responsibility to minimize the potential for contamination when cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products are within their control. As described in the ISOR, the Department believes that minimum sanitation practices, including daily cleaning and sanitizing of certain tools and equipment, for any licensee that handles unpackaged cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products is a reasonable precaution that may prevent adulteration, remediation of failed test batches, recalls, and consumer harm.

Commenter A001, H2.9.2
Commenter states that container cleaning rules are unrealistic, unclear and may not account for common practices like tote liners.
This comment is directed at text as proposed in the initial 45-day comment period and the requested edit was included in the modified text made available during the first 15-day comment period.

Commenter A001

Section 15061(b)

Commenters assert that unrealistic cleanliness standards (e.g., “no visible dust”) risk penalizing farms unfairly.
The Department addressed this comment by further modifying the proposed text in a 2nd 15-day notice period to refine the definition of “clean” and limit sanitation requirements to post-harvest activities.

Commenter A001, H.2.5.3, H2.7.2
Commenters express concern that the proposed sanitation standards, as currently written, impose unrealistic mandates that are not compatible with actual farming practices. Commenters further express concern that the inclusion of “cannabis residue” in the definition of clean establishes a standard that is impossible to meet as cannabis is sticky and residue is difficult to remove. Commenters suggest removing the language that states the definition of “clean” includes ‘free of cannabis residue’.
The Department modified the text to refine the definition of “clean” and limit sanitation requirements to postharvest activities. The Department agrees that cannabis can make tools and utensils sticky, which can then trap other contaminants; this is why minimum sanitation standards are needed to prevent contamination and public health threats.

Commenter A002, A003, A004, H2.1.7, H2.4.2, H2.5.1, H2.7.3, H2.7.4, H2.8.6, H2.11.3, H2.16.1, H2.19.1, H2.20.2

Section 15061(c)

Commenter states that DCC’s ISOR relied heavily on good manufacturing or GMP requirements but that FDA’s website, in regard to title 21, section 211.67, states that equipment does not need to be clean enough to meet limits based on the most sensitive possible methods of residue detection or quantification because absolute cleanliness for multi-use equipment is neither valuable nor feasible in many circumstances.
The proposed regulations do not mandate absolute cleanliness. The Department has a statutory obligation to protect public health and believes the minimum standards imposed by this regulation are necessary to meet this obligation. The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking package.

Commenter H2.6.1
Commenters express concern that the regulation would require chemicals to be used on tools and surfaces and that the Department is requiring all sanitizers to come from a narrow federal list meant for food factories — not farms. That means many sustainable and organic options aren’t allowed.
The list of permissible sanitizing agents numbers in the hundreds, many of which are permissible for use in organic agricultural production.

Commenter A001, A004, H2.3.1, H2.8.1, H2.9.1
Commenter wants to be able to use steam, hot water, UV light, or OMRI-approved products without being forced into a chemical-only system that drives up costs and environmental impacts.
The Department believes that the list of sanitizing substances under 40 C.F.R. §180.940 is sufficiently expansive to enable licensees to select substances that meet the needs of their operation.

Commenter H2.8.3
Commenter states that the regulation would be burdensome on an organic farmer because those chemicals are not already currently being used on the farm to clean.
The list of permissible sanitizing agents numbers in the hundreds, many of which are permissible for use in organic agricultural production.

Commenter H2.9.1
Commenters express concern about the effect of sanitizing agents on HDPE or polypropylene bins. The 40 CFR list assumes stainless steel or other non-porous food factory surfaces. Commenters state there’s no research showing that repeated chemical use doesn’t leave residues in those plastics or transfer to sticky flower. Commenters are further concerned that use of sanitizing agents on bins might be introducing a bigger contamination risk than it is solving.
The Department believes that the list of sanitizing substances under 40 C.F.R. §180.940 is sufficiently expansive to enable licensees to select substances that meet the needs of their operation. Additionally, licensees may use container liners and container options beyond HDPE or polypropylene bins. Licensees should be sure to read labels and use products in accordance with the labeled directions if they have concerns about the impact of the substance on specific container material.

Commenter A004, H2.8.2, H2.8.4
Commenter supports the proposed July 18 amendments which would allow the use of any chemical sanitizer that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 180.940 as the original proposed wording would have limited cultivators to just four allowable sanitation methods.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter A002
Commenter states that July 18 amendments do not incorporate common and accepted non-chemical sanitation methods used by cultivators and recommends expanding allowable sanitation methods in this section to include these methods. Commenter recommends alternative language: (c) For purposes of this section, “sanitize” means application, by immersion, manual scrubbing, or brushing, of any chemical sanitizer that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 180.940 (rev. 4/28/2004), incorporated herein by reference, when used in accordance with the manufacturer’s use directions, or use of non-chemical sanitation methods with demonstrated effectiveness including UV-C, steam, or ozone.
The Department believes that the list of sanitizing substances under 40 C.F.R. §180.940 is sufficiently expansive to enable licensees to select substances that meet the needs of their operation.

Commenter A002
Commenters are concerned about the list of chemical substances required to be used as sanitizing agents and are worried that the requirement to use these substances will ban biological controls and regenerative farming.
The final version of the regulation limits sanitation requirements to post-harvest activities, which should not negatively impact regenerative farming practices. The proposed regulations do not prevent or prohibit regenerative farming agricultural practices but rather establish minimum sanitation standards to prevent threats to public health.

Commenter H2.10.3, H2.10.5, H2.12.1, H2.18.1
Commenters are concerned about the list of chemical substances required to be used as sanitizing agents and are worried that the requirement will threaten California waterways.
The Department believes that the list of sanitizing substances under 40 C.F.R. §180.940 is sufficiently expansive to enable licensees to select substances that meet the needs of their operation. The list of permissible sanitizing agents numbers in the hundreds, many of which are permissible for use in organic agricultural production. Licensees are still required to comply with all other applicable areas of California law, including requirements related to discharge into waterways.

Commenter H2.10.1, H2.10.2, H2.10.4

Section 15062

Commenter states that the proposed rule duplicates existing OSHA rules and may create privacy issues for homestead cultivators.
The Department cannot respond to this comment because the commenter does not specify how the proposed rule overlaps with existing OSHA requirements nor what privacy issues are raised by the proposed regulation. The Department does not believe there are any problematic conflicts with other laws or any privacy issues created by this proposed regulation. The Department notes that no other comment raised either of these concerns.

Commenter A001

Section 16306

Commenter does not support the removal of the requirement to submit energy usage reports and purchase carbon offsets and believes that California should be a model for the rest of the nation.
For reasons set forth in the ISOR, the Department has determined that the requirement to submit energy usage reports and purchase carbon offsets no longer is necessary.

Commenter H2.33.6

Sections 16307, 16309, 16310

Commenter is supportive of the removal of the pest management plan, provided DCC continues to work on cleaning up laboratory testing.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter H2.33.5

Unrelated

Commenter questions what type of support the Department will provide to keep as many licensed small farmers or any farmers as effective as possible.
Comment is outside the scope of this proposed rulemaking action.

Commenter H2.25.7
Commenter expresses concerns about a recent DCC social media post.
Comment is outside the scope of this proposed rulemaking action.

Commenter H2.14.1
Commenter requests the Department create language to exclude the need for a distribution license to transfer nursery stock if the stock is being transferred to a license on the same parcel.
Comment is outside the scope of this proposed rulemaking action. The Department will keep this suggestion on file for a potential future rulemaking package.

Commenter A003
Commenter recommends DCC focus on eliminating regulations that are wasteful, such as plant tags.
Comment is outside the scope of this proposed rulemaking action. The Department will keep this suggestion on file for a potential future rulemaking package.

Commenter H2.20.5
Commenter expresses concern that DCC is misallocating resources, focusing on compliant growers rather than addressing large growers who blatantly break the law. Commenter questions why such licensees have not had their licenses revoked.
Comment is outside the scope of this proposed rulemaking action.

Commenter H2.35.1

SUMMARIES OF, AND RESPONSES TO, COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE SECOND 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD

General

Commenter supports clear, fair rules, but is concerned the changes leave too much up to interpretation and place all the risk and cost on farms that are already struggling to survive.
The Department shares the commenters’ concerns on the impact on small cultivators, which is why the minimum standards are limited in nature. Although the Department’s economic and fiscal impact analysis identified potential costs for cultivators of up to $4,200, this is expected to be a maximum and not the exact cost to each licensee. The Department has determined that the consumer protection benefits would justify the identified potential costs, and perhaps even save downstream costs by preventing contamination that could result in costly recalls or adverse health impacts. Regulation provides standardization and clarity to the Department as well as the industry.

Commenter B001

Article 8

Commenter states that additional regulations for on-farm sanitation are both unnecessary and inequitable. Cannabis is already comprehensively tested for contaminants to a much greater degree than any other agricultural product, and other agricultural products are not held to the new sanitation standards proposed in DCC regulations.
Minimization of the potential for contamination is the bedrock principle of produce safety and food manufacturing requirements. As described in the ISOR, the Department believes that minimum sanitation practices for any licensee that handles unpackaged cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products is a reasonable precaution that may prevent adulteration, remediation of failed test batches, recalls, and consumer harm.

Commenter B005
Commenter expresses concern that while the passage of AB 8 in the 2025 legislative session created a pathway for the integration of hemp into the cannabis supply chain beginning in 2028, hemp cultivators will not be required to comply with the sanitation standards proposed in these regulations. Commenter asserts the purpose of the proposed rules is unclear if they are not applied evenly to all agricultural inputs into the cannabis supply chain.
The proposed sanitation standards have been modified so that they are no longer applicable to cultivation activities that occur pre-harvest, which will create parity with hemp cultivation.

Commenter B005

Section 15060

Commenter expresses support for proposed changes that would prohibit animal waste within 30 feet of cannabis plants or harvested cannabis, rather than unconditionally throughout the premise, as well as the prior changes to this section that allow manure to be used on premises.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter B005
Commenter wants to ensure the DCC inspectors understand rotational grazing animals during the off-season is a well studied practice and should be allowed to promote exemplary environmental stewardship. There are many studies which show the benefits of using animals to grow cash crops.
Nothing in the proposed regulation would prohibit the use of rotational grazing animals. The requirement is that animals be kept out of indoor areas when unpackaged cannabis is present and in outdoor areas used for postharvest activities (processing, creating nonmanufactured products, or packaging).

Commenter B002

Section 15060(b)

Commenter is concerned that the requirement for immediate removal and disposal of animal waste found anywhere within 30 feet of cannabis plants or harvested cannabis does not account for practical realities of outdoor cultivation. Outdoor farms often include buffer areas beyond the active canopy where wildlife waste may occur naturally due to migration, weather, or terrain. Immediate removal in such areas is not always operationally feasible and may not be necessary for product safety if the waste is outside or not adjacent to active canopy or processing zones. Commenter recommends, to maintain product safety and reduce unnecessary burdens, the rule be modified to focus on active canopy or processing areas. Suggested change: (b) Animal waste, other than manure used as fertilizing material, found within 30 feet of active canopy or processing areas must be removed and disposed of within 24 hours ~~immediately~~ upon discovery.
The Department disagrees with the proposed alternative language. Maximum area coverage and immediate response are necessary measures to ensure licensed premises are maintaining spaces in sanitary conditions. Limiting the requirement to dispose of animal waste to within 30 feet of only active canopy or processing areas would exclude areas such as immature plant areas and storage areas from the requirement, leaving these spaces vulnerable to contamination from animal waste. Additionally animal waste poses a significant and substantial risk to public health if contamination can spread. Allowing a gap between discovery and removal increases the chance that the waste could be spread to other areas of the premises, increasing risk of microbial contamination.

Commenter B004

Section 15061

Commenter expresses support for the proposed change that apply the regulatory requirements in this section to processed, rather than harvested, cannabis.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter B005

Section 15061(a)(1)

Commenter is concerned that the revised text requirement to sanitize tools and utensils “each day during periods when tools are in use” creates a significant operational burden in large-scale, seasonal environments. This requirement may not meaningfully reduce contamination risk beyond current testing and sanitation practices. Commenter states this does not align with established food-grade sanitation models that require cleaning and sanitation “as frequently as necessary to prevent contamination.” Such a standard would risk-based and not tied to a fixed daily cycle.
The Department disagrees with this comment. The Department has determined the proposed regulations do not create a significant operational burden and has observed during its development of the standards that many cultivation sites have already met or exceeded the minimum standards proposed in this rulemaking. Further, establishing minimum standards provides clarity and removes ambiguity, which allows the Department to hold licensees accountable, keeps licensees informed of their regulatory requirements, and keeps the public safe and protected by informing them of the minimum sanitation standards licensed cannabis businesses must adhere to. Additionally, alignment with food sanitation models would not be a more reasonable standard as there is no specific point at which an accumulation of dirt is reasonably likely to contaminate cannabis or cannabis products; therefore, minimum standards and a set schedule for sanitizing tools and utensils is the more reasonable method to reduce and prevent contamination.

Commenter B004

Section 15061(b)

Commenter asserts the language around “accumulation” is too vague as there’s no clear definition of what qualifies as “visible accumulation” of debris, dust, or residue. Commenter is concerned that this will give inspectors too much discretion, which can lead to unfair or inconsistent enforcement. Something this subjective should not be the basis for serious penalties. Commenter states there should be specific thresholds or examples that help farms know what’s expected.
The Department disagrees that “accumulation” is vague. “Accumulation” is defined in the dictionary as “a mass or quantity of something that has gradually gathered.” Tools and utensils that have visibly amassed or gradually gathered dust, dirt, debris, cannabis residue, and food residue would not be considered “clean”. The provision is further clarified by the requirement that tools and utensils be cleaned and sanitized each day during periods when the tools or utensils are in use, and between work on different harvest batches.

Commenter B001
Commenter expresses concern that the proposed regulation is vague and could be subjectively interpreted by inspectors. Commenter states that the expectation that “accumulation of cannabis residue” on trimming shears is problematic. Trimming shears can accumulate cannabis residue in a matter of minutes for certain sticky strains.
The proposed regulation requires that tools be cleaned on a daily basis. There is no requirement to repeatedly clean tools during times of active use.

Commenter B002
Commenter states that the zero-tolerance standard proposed for cleanliness is not necessary to ensure a sanitary environment and substantially exceeds the current standards applicable to cannabis manufacturers under DCC regulation or any other standard in traditional agricultural contexts. As a sticky, resinous plant, cannabis residue is pervasive and extremely difficult to entirely remove from tools, utensils, surfaces, containers, etc. – for example, on the handles of trimming scissors, the handles of containers, or the interior of a trimming machine. Any surface, tool, glove, or utensil put in contact with a resinous flower will accumulate residue, even if regularly cleaned and soaked in 99% isopropyl alcohol. Commenter notes, for comparison, the FSMA requires equipment and surfaces be cleaned “as frequently as reasonably necessary to protect against contamination of covered produce” and does not further define “cleanliness.” (CFR 112.113).
It is through the Department’s experience with enforcing the manufacturing regulations that the Department determined it was appropriate to establish an explicit schedule for cleaning and sanitation in order to ensure consistent application of minimum standards. The Department agrees that cannabis can make tools and utensils sticky, which can then trap other contaminants; this is why minimum sanitation standards are needed to prevent contamination and public health threats. The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking package, indicating that the requirements are not unrealistic. “As reasonably necessary” does not provide an objective standard by which the Department can hold licensees accountable, nor does it provide sufficient specificity by which a licensee can determine whether they are adhering to regulatory requirements. The Department’s intent in this regulatory proposal is to minimize the potential microbial contamination of harvested cannabis and nonmanufactured cannabis products, including microbes that can harm human health, as well as those that can harm cannabis plants.

Commenter B005
Commenter states it is unclear how the addition of “accumulation of” affects the proposed regulation and expected standard for cleanliness. Adding to the lack of clarity, the notice of proposed regulation states that “The Department does not expect or require licensees to maintain hospital-grade cleanliness on their premises, such that discovery of a speck of dust on a processing tool constitutes a violation of law. It is necessary to clarify that licensees may not allow dust, dirt, debris, etc. to accumulate to the point at which it becomes visible to the naked eye.” This is confusing as a “speck of dust” is visible to the naked eye, suggesting that the discovery of a speck of dust on a processing tool would in fact constitute a violation of law.
The Department disagrees that “accumulation” is vague. “Accumulation” is defined in the dictionary as “a mass or quantity of something that has gradually gathered.” Tools and utensils that have visibly amassed or gradually gathered dust, dirt, debris, cannabis residue, and food residue would not be considered “clean”. Furthermore, this is further clarified by the requirement that tools and utensils be cleaned and sanitized each day during periods when the tools or utensils are in use, and between work on different harvest batches.

Commenter B005
Commenter states that, in the practical context of DCC enforcement, it is unclear how the prior proposed wording of this regulation, “free of visual [cannabis residue, etc.]” would be enforced differently compared to the newly-proposed “free of visual accumulation of [cannabis residue, etc.]” Commenter states that OAL clarity standards consider a regulation presumptively unclear if “the regulation can, on its face, be reasonably and logically interpreted to have more than one meaning,” or if “the language of the regulation conflicts with the agency’s description of the effect of the regulation” – in this case, the proposed regulation is unclear in both senses.
The Department disagrees that “accumulation” is vague. “Accumulation” is defined in the dictionary as “a mass or quantity of something that has gradually gathered.” Tools and utensils that have visibly amassed or gradually gathered dust, dirt, debris, cannabis residue, and food residue would not be considered “clean”. Furthermore, this is further clarified by the requirement that tools and utensils be cleaned and sanitized each day during periods when the tools or utensils are in use, and between work on different harvest batches.

Commenter B005
Commenter states it is unclear why any explicit definition of “cleanliness” is necessary. Existing DCC regulation §17210(c) for cannabis manufacturers states that “equipment and utensils shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and kept in good repair,” but does not further define “clean.” Commenter asserts the same standard should be applied in the proposed sanitation regulations.
It is through the Department’s experience with enforcing the manufacturing regulations that the Department determined it was appropriate to more explicitly define clean and sanitize in order to ensure consistent application of minimum standards.

Commenter B005
Commenter states that among the elements specified in the current proposed regulation, the requirement to be free of “cannabis residue” is by far the most difficult to comply with. While dust, dirt, debris and food residue can be addressed by (for example) washing containers or surfaces with water, cannabis residue is far more pervasive and difficult to remove. Additionally, while dirt or food residue are foreign materials that could potentially pose a risk of contamination, cannabis residue is an inherent element (and the primary desired element) of cannabis farming, and has been found to exhibit antimicrobial and antifungal properties. Commenter further expresses concern that this section could lead to unreasonable outcomes even if cannabis residue is excluded, excluding cannabis residue would make compliance significantly more achievable.
The Department agrees that cannabis can make tools and utensils sticky, which can then trap other contaminants; this is why minimum sanitation standards are needed to prevent contamination and public health threats. Potential antibiotic and antifungal properties do not negate the need for proper sanitation standards to prevent contamination of consumer products that can cause serious threats to human health. The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking package, indicating that the requirements are not unrealistic.

Commenter B005
Commenter states that cannabis residue is uniquely difficult to clean on portions of tools, equipment, and containers that are not directly in contact with cannabis, such as the handles of trimming scissors, which are often textured for functional reasons (and therefore extremely challenging to “clean” to the standard prescribed in current regulation) and requests that the regulation be amended to exclude handles and other parts of tools and containers not in direct contact with cannabis from the requirement.
The Department has inspected many cultivation sites of a variety of sizes and in a variety of locations that already meet or exceed the standards proposed in this rulemaking package, indicating that the requirements are not unrealistic.

Commenter B005
Commenter states the definition in §15061(b) providing that “clean” means free of visual accumulation of dust, dirt, debris, cannabis residue, and food residue may be interpreted too rigidly in cultivation environments, particularly outdoor and mixed-use sites, where minimal residual plant resin may remain despite effective sanitation and pose no contamination risk. Suggested change: (b) For purposes of this section, “clean” means free of visual accumulations that could pose a contamination risk. This includes of dust, dirt, debris, cannabis residue, and food residue.
The Department disagrees that the proposed language would establish a clearer, more objective standard for licensees to follow and the Department to enforce. There is a significant amount of ambiguity in whether an accumulation could pose a contamination risk. A more straightforward standard is the one proposed by the Department – prohibition of accumulation at all. Further, “minimal” residue is again a more subjective standard than the language proposed by the Department, as is the concept of “reasonably likely” to contaminate cannabis.

Commenter B004

Section 15061(c)

Commenter believes that a rigid “daily during use” requirement does not reflect risk-based sanitation principles used in food and agricultural postharvest settings, where sanitation frequency corresponds to contamination risk and batch transitions, rather than calendar days. A riskbased, batch-focused approach maintains safety while aligning with operational realities. Suggested change: (a)(1) Tools and utensils used to trim, harvest, or process cannabis, create nonmanufactured cannabis products, or package cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products for retail sale shall be are cleaned and sanitized as necessary to prevent contamination~~, each day during periods when the tools or utensils are in use~~ including before initial use, ~~and~~ between work on different harvest batches or lot changes, and whenever they become visibly soiled or otherwise reasonably likely to contaminate cannabis, consistent with §15061(c). Tools and utensils subject to this section include, but are not limited to, scissors, funnels, sieves, and sifters.
The Department disagrees that the proposed language would establish a clearer, more objective standard for licensees to follow and the Department to enforce. There is a significant amount of ambiguity in determining at which point an accumulation of dirt is reasonably likely to contaminate cannabis; therefore, in order to ensure consistent application of minimum standards, a set schedule for cleaning is necessary and reasonable.

Commenter B004

Section 16307(b)

Commenter is concerned that if a farm is found to have a pesticide that’s unregistered or improperly labeled, there’s no clear process before embargo, destruction, or other punishment. That kind of action should only happen after the plants are tested — and the testing should be paid for by the DCC. It’s not fair to penalize someone based on suspicion or paperwork without verifying whether contamination actually occurred.
The proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes. BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require the Department to verify whether contamination actually occurred. Instead, it deems cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious.

Commenter B001
Commenter appreciates the Departments intention to prevent and significantly punish licensees using illegal, unregistered pesticides, but sees concerns with the proposed text: 1. The proposed language would effectively ban the use of FIFRA exempt pesticides. 2. If a material is exempted from registration (Federal and California state) based on its Section 25b status, then it is legitimately unregistered under Section 12803 of the Food and Agricultural code and Title 3 of the California Code of Regulation section 6147. Therefore, finding an ‘unregistered’ pesticide on a licensed premises, and citing Section 12811 of the Food and Agricultural code seems too broad. 3. Cultivators utilize food and food grade products to make their own nutrient and pesticide blends in accordance with Section 12802 of the Food and Agriculture code.
The text was modified to only apply to pesticides exclusively labeled in a foreign language, which alleviates the concerns raised by the commenter.

Commenter B003
Commenter expresses concern with the language that states: “…the Department will consider a licensed premises unsanitary upon discovery at that premises of any pesticide…” This language requires the Department to make a decision that is permanent rather than allow the Department the opportunity to speak with local regulators and Agricultural Commissioners staff. Commenter states that the language would prevent Department inspectors from thoroughly assessing situations which may cause great harm to licensees by requiring them to deem a premise unsanitary and effectively unlawful per the Business and Professions Code 26039.6.
Nothing in the proposed regulation would prohibit or restrict the Department from consulting with the County Agricultural Commissioner or any other relevant expert. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule prevents Department inspectors from thoroughly assessing situations. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter B003
To address staff and cultivator concerns, commenter recommends considering the following language for Section 16307(b): For purposes of Business and Professions Code section 26039.6(a)(1), the Department ~~will~~ may consider a licensed premises unsanitary upon discovery at that premises of any pesticide ~~that is unregistered~~ in violation of Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code ~~section 12811 or not labeled in accordance with 40 CFR part 156.10~~.
For reasons described in the FSOR, the Department decided to instead narrow the scope of the requirement to focus solely on pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language.

Commenter B003
Commenter states pesticide regulation and enforcement issues are typically housed with DPR and local county agricultural commissioners. Commenter notes pesticide-related issues can be highly technical: for example, differentiating between unregistered, exempt, and prohibited pesticides; assessing whether a pesticide is mislabeled; or engaging in a process to determine whether a crop has been adulterated by a pesticide. Even with significant experience and expertise, agricultural agencies can still face challenges given the complex landscape of pesticide enforcement, for example, cases where county agricultural departments initially misperceived organic registration-exempt pesticides as prohibited pesticides, and required additional information and discussion to affirm the legality of the pesticide. Commenter expresses concern that the proposed regulation would grant the DCC broad authority to enforce against “unregistered” or “mislabeled” pesticides and that the DCC and DCC personnel do not have the required training or experience to make these agricultural determinations. Additionally, commenter notes DPR and county agricultural commissioners have established processes for assessing potential pesticide violations, establishing due process, and enacting appropriate penalties for non-compliance.
For reasons described in the FSOR, the Department decided to instead narrow the scope of the requirement to focus solely on pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. Assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter B005
Commenter strongly recommends, given the complexity and potential impact, removing 16307(b) from the current proposal and only repromulgating the proposal upon significant additional consultation with experts and stakeholders.
The Department significantly reduced the complexity and potential impact of the requirement by focusing solely on pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. Assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter B005
Commenter states the proposed regulation is a substantial change which was not reasonably foreseeable and should trigger a 45-day comment period. Commenter states that the newly-proposed 16307(b) moves in the opposite direction from both the initial proposed regulations, and the reasoning for those regulations per the ISOR, and therefore was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the sanitation regulations were originally noticed.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, substantive text modifications made after the close of the initial (i.e., minimum 45-day) notice period are permissible if “sufficiently related to the original text that the public was adequately placed on notice that the change could result from the originally proposed regulatory action.” (Gov. Code, sec. 11346.8, subd. (c).) The California Code of Regulations states “Changes to the original text of a regulation shall be deemed to be “sufficiently related,” as that term is used in Government Code Section 11346.8, if a reasonable member of the directly affected public could have determined from the notice that these changes to the regulation could have resulted.” (1 CCR § 42) Proposed section 16307(b) (later relocated to new section 15070) is objectively a sanitation standard. The Department proposed this provision to implement BPC section 29036.9(a)(1) by clearly defining in regulation a specific set of unsanitary conditions under which cannabis and cannabis products become adulterated. The public could have reasonably foreseen the Department’s proposal of additional sanitation-related rules like section 16307(b) based on statements made in the 45-day Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action including, under the heading Objectives and Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations on page 3: “Further objectives are to address increasing cases of contamination and adulteration of cannabis goods and reduce associated expenditures of resources pursuing embargoes and recalls of those goods, resulting from unsanitary growing, harvesting, processing, and manufacturing practices.” New section 16307(b) is intended to address one such unsanitary practice.

Further, the Department significantly reduced the complexity and potential impact of the requirement by focusing solely on pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. Assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter B005
Commenter expresses concern that 16307(b) raises a wide range of complex issues, with a high degree of potential impact, that cannot adequately be worked through in the present 15-day comment period; particularly when this regulation is first being proposed for adoption over six months following the initial promulgation of this regulatory package. For this reason, commenter requests the removal of 16307(b) from this regulatory package, and that additional opportunity for open stakeholder input – including, but not limited to, the Cannabis Advisory Committee – is pursued prior to re-initiating rulemaking on this issue.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, substantive text modifications made after the close of the initial (i.e., minimum 45-day) notice period are permissible if “sufficiently related to the original text that the public was adequately placed on notice that the change could result from the originally proposed regulatory action.” (Gov. Code, sec. 11346.8, subd. (c).) The California Code of Regulations states “Changes to the original text of a regulation shall be deemed to be “sufficiently related,” as that term is used in Government Code Section 11346.8, if a reasonable member of the directly affected public could have determined from the notice that these changes to the regulation could have resulted.” (1 CCR § 42) Proposed section 16307(b) (later relocated to new section 15070) is objectively a sanitation standard. The Department proposed this provision to implement BPC section 29036.9(a)(1) by clearly defining in regulation a specific set of unsanitary conditions under which cannabis and cannabis products become adulterated. The public could have reasonably foreseen the Department’s proposal of additional sanitation-related rules like section 16307(b) based on statements made in the 45-day Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action including, under the heading Objectives and Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations on page 3: “Further objectives are to address increasing cases of contamination and adulteration of cannabis goods and reduce associated expenditures of resources pursuing embargoes and recalls of those goods, resulting from unsanitary growing, harvesting, processing, and manufacturing practices.” New section 16307(b) is intended to address one such unsanitary practice.

Further, the Department significantly reduced the complexity and potential impact of the requirement by focusing solely on pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. Assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter B005
Commenter is concerned that the proposed regulation effectively requires the destruction of all cannabis on premise based on a violation – an extraordinarily severe penalty that can only be justified based on a similarly high level of care and due process.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter B005
Commenter states requiring destruction of all cannabis on a premises would include destruction of mother plants, which may constitute unique or irreplaceable genetics.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter B005
Commenter is concerned that the premises itself is not an effective proxy for what cannabis may be contaminated, as how a licensee subdivides their cannabis across multiple premises for administrative reasons has no bearing on whether the cannabis is actually adulterated.
The text was modified to be limited to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was discovered.

Commenter B005
Commenter states that the word “will” in 16307(b) as proposed suggests that any presence of an unregistered or unlabeled/mislabeled pesticide onsite necessarily results in the premises being found unsanitary (and therefore all cannabis on premise being destroyed). DCC is not required to demonstrate – and there is no process for the cultivator to appeal – whether the pesticide was actually used on cannabis or whether any or all cannabis on site is actually adulterated. Commenter requests that the Department include provisions similar to those in FAC 12999.5, which establishes due process rights, including notices, hearings, and appeals, for farmers who are alleged to have committed pesticide violations. Commenter further states that the proposed regulation attempts to circumvent due process requirements, such as are mandated in the statute outlining the embargo process, and as such would likely be determined to be unconstitutional by the California Courts, and that the regulation be amended to require an affirmative demonstration of adulteration before destruction.
The text was modified to partially address this concern. The final text has been significantly narrowed and is limited to only pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language.

The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter B005
Commenter asserts that 16307(b), as proposed, triggers a finding that a premise is unsanitary based on the presence of “any pesticide that is unregistered in violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12811.” Not all legal pesticides, however, are required to be registered: current DPR guidelines state that pesticides exempt from registration may be used on cannabis products if the products are also exempt from residue tolerance requirements.
The text was modified to address this concern. The final text has been significantly narrowed and is limited to only pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language.

Commenter B005
Commenter is concerned that the proposal is too broad, as 40 CFR part 156.10 includes significant detail regarding the specifics of required pesticide labeling (e.g. specified font size, a requirement that text cannot be obscured). Notably, these requirements are geared towards the pesticide manufacturer rather than the pesticide user (farmer). If the intent of this section is to encompass every letter of 40 CFR part 156.10, the proposed penalty (rendering the whole premise unsanitary) is wholly inconsistent with the magnitude of the violation. If the intent of this section is to address pesticides which are entirely unlabeled in violation of state/federal law, this may be a more serious violation, but still in our view does not justify the destruction of an entire crop absent more specific evidence that a prohibited pesticide was actually used on/adulterated a given batch of cannabis.
The text was modified to only apply to pesticides exclusively labeled in a foreign language (40 CFR part 156.10(a)(3)), which alleviates the concerns raised by the commenter related to the extensive requirements of 40 CFR part 156.10.

Commenter B005
Commenter states existing embargo authority under §17801.5 already allows the DCC to embargo cannabis products based on “probable cause” that the cannabis is adulterated or their sale would violate state law. Additionally, §16307(a) already states that “licensed cultivators shall comply with all applicable pesticide statutes and regulations enforced by the Department of Pesticide Regulation,” and DCC enforcement rules impose the highest level of penalty, “severe,” for pesticide compliance violations under this section.
Commenter’s points about sections 16307(a) and 17801.5, while accurate, are irrelevant. Defining a specific set of conditions that are always considered unsanitary provides clarity and certainty to the Department and its licensees. The Department’s ability to efficiently and appropriately issue citations, impose civil penalties, and implement embargoes will only be strengthened by this necessary rule.

Commenter B005
Commenter states 16307(b) would automatically render the entirety of a licensed premises “unsanitary” under BPC 26039.6.(a)(1) if certain types of pesticides are found on-site. Commenter states that BPC 26039.6.(a)(1), however, does not provide statutory authority to render a licensed premises “unsanitary” based on this finding alone: “(a) Cannabis or a cannabis product is adulterated if it is any of the following: (1) It has been produced, prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions in which it may have become contaminated with filth or in which it may have been rendered injurious.” The plain wording of BPC 26039.6.(a)(1) states that a cannabis product is adulterated if it is “produced, prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions.” Simply finding a prohibited pesticide on a premises does not demonstrate that this is the case for some or all cannabis on-site; demonstrating a violation of BPC 26039.6.(a)(1) would require demonstrating that the pesticide was actually used on, and thereby adulterated, the cannabis.
The Department disagrees with commenter’s interpretation of BPC section 26039.6(a)(1). The key phrase is “may have been rendered injurious.”

Pesticides that are unlawful to possess, such as those labeled exclusively in a foreign language, may include substances that are banned for use in the United States. It is not possible for the Department to test cannabis or cannabis products for every potential substance, as the number of potential chemical substances numbers in the thousands. Some of these products are so exotic or new that not only is their presence not currently required to be tested for under DCC regulations, but validated and reliable test methods do not yet exist. Still, it is commonly understood that many of these products are extremely dangerous to use, store, or even be around, the latter of which presents a critical health hazard for DCC inspectors who encounter these products onsite. These products present a severe danger to the health and safety of consumers who might use or consume cannabis or cannabis products that have been contaminated with illegal pesticides.

The statute does not “require demonstrating that the pesticide was actually used on” cannabis or cannabis products on the premises. The Department may take action simply because the presence of these illegal and dangerous pesticides may have rendered cannabis or cannabis products on the premises injurious.

Commenter B005
Commenter opposes the proposed rule because it allows an uninformed DCC inspector without knowledge of organic farming and pest control the power to shut down an entire facility. Commenter states DIY, natural, low-cost organic methods for farming and pest control are well taught methods which must be allowed for. Such practices are not pre-made commercial products but rather methods for creating your own sprays and nutrients using ingredients like local soil, plants, and herbs, which can significantly reduce costs for farmers and gardeners. Commenter states the Department should promote organic and natural farming practices instead of shutting them down. Commenter recommends adding language to investigate premises where foreign pesticide labels are found instead of shutting them down.
Regarding the comment about “uninformed” inspectors, regulation provides standardization and clarity to the Department as well as the industry. All licensees, including organic farmers, can expect that Department inspectors will be trained to apply and enforce the new regulations consistently and fairly. Additionally, the text was modified to only apply to pesticides exclusively labeled in a foreign language. Assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter B002

SUMMARIES OF, AND RESPONSES TO, COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE THIRD 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD

General

Commenter urges DCC, given the ongoing federal rescheduling developments, to avoid relying on federal framing of cannabis as Schedule I.
As of the time of this rulemaking package, cannabis remains a federally illegal, Schedule I drug. The timeline for any policy shift at the federal level is unknown and the Department does not yet have a clear understanding of the exact nature of any potential shift. When the federal status of cannabis changes, the Department will reevaluate its requirements as warranted.

Commenter C014
Commenter states that the California Cannabis Industry Association appreciates the Department’s efforts to update regulations in a way that supports the struggling legal cannabis industry by streamlining regulations and removing unnecessary portions.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter C006
Commenter expresses concern that this proposal has caused significant back-and-forth and urges the Department to avoid introducing unreasonable measures at the last minute.
The Department has met its obligation for public comment periods under the Administrative Procedure Act and does not believe the proposal includes any unreasonable measures. Further, the Department sees the “back-and-forth” noted by the commenter as a valuable tool in ensuring the regulation effectuates the intended purpose of the proposal. This iterative exchange ensures that regulations are not developed in isolation but are informed by real-world perspectives, technical expertise, and potential impacts on affected stakeholders.

Commenter C007
Commenter notes that the cumulative impact of increasing regulatory complexity cannot be overstated. Requirements that exceed what is reasonably necessary to ensure consumer safety will further weaken compliant operators, reduce viable pathways for small businesses, and inadvertently strengthen the illicit market. Commenter states that California should be focused on policies that sustain the legal market— not regulations that make participation prohibitively difficult for the very farmers the state originally sought to bring into compliance.
The Department disagrees that the minimum sanitation standards required under this regulatory proposal will make participation in the regulatory market prohibitively difficult for reasons described in the ISOR, Economic Impact Analysis, and FSOR.

Commenter C014
Commenter appreciates the opportunity to provide public comment and would welcome continued dialogue on solutions that protect consumers while supporting a fair, workable, and sustainable regulated marketplace.
The Department acknowledges this comment.

Commenter C014
Commenter states that Mendocino County supports protecting public health and ensuring cannabis products are free from prohibited pesticides.
The Department acknowledges this comment.

Commenter C015
Commenter expresses concern that releasing modified text on December 30, 2025, with a shortened comment period over the holidays, limited stakeholder input.
The public comment period was for 15 calendar days in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Commenter C015

Article 8

Commenter notes that cannabis undergoes some of the strictest product safety testing in any regulated market. Every batch is screened for microbial contaminants, heavy metals, pesticides, and residual solvents before it reaches consumers. Commenter states that these mandatory tests ensure that any potential contamination is identified and addressed, making the proposed additional sanitation regulations extremely unnecessary.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C006
Commenter states that rather than adding more regulations on cultivators, the Department should focus on enforcing existing testing requirements to ensure consumer safety. Stricter enforcement of testing would be a far more effective way to maintain public health standards without imposing additional financial and administrative burdens on already struggling licensed operators.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C006
Commenter urges the Department to reconsider these sanitation standards and instead prioritize enforcement of the rigorous testing framework already in place and ensure compliance with the state’s directive to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Commenter stats that simplifying regulations while maintaining safety and quality standards is crucial for ensuring the success of California’s legal cannabis industry.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C006
Commenter states that California cultivators already operate under robust state-mandated testing requirements and quality assurance protocols, including microbial contamination screening, in addition to baseline OSHA sanitation standards that apply to agricultural employers. Given this existing framework, it is not clear why a new, highly prescriptive sanitation rulemaking is necessary—or how it meaningfully improves consumer safety beyond current safeguards. Commenter shares the historic concerns submitted to the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) by Origins Council.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C014
Commenter states the proposal is duplicative of existing rules because existing quality assurance testing for microbiological contamination, along with baseline OSHA sanitation standards for agricultural employers, already address many of the public health concerns this proposal seeks to solve.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C014
Commenter states the proposal lacks precedent as comparable prescriptive sanitation rules do not exist in other non-food agricultural contexts (such as cotton or tobacco), nor do they appear in federal Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) standards for raw produce.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C014
Commenter states the proposal is burdensome for small farms as the proposal’s prescriptive requirements (including daily cleaning mandates, specific chemical use requirements, and unconditional animal prohibitions) are difficult to implement on working farms with diverse cultivation methods and environmental conditions. This risks disproportionately harming small, legacy, and environmentally responsible farmers.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C014
Commenter states that the proposed definition of “clean” as “free of visual dust, dirt, debris, cannabis residue, and food residue” creates an unreasonable and subjective zero-tolerance standard, exposing cultivators to enforcement for minor, non-health-threatening issues.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C014
Commenter states that cannabis is agriculture, and cultivators should be regulated in alignment with comparable agricultural products. Other noncannabis agricultural crops are not subject to additional on-farm sanitation regulations of this nature and creating cannabis-specific requirements—especially when existing consumer protection tools are already in place—introduces unnecessary burden without measurable public benefit.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 3rd 15-day comment period.

Commenter C014

Section 15070

Commenter is concerned that under this proposal, the assumption that an entire crop is held under “unsanitary conditions,” rather than being actually contaminated, represents a subjective determination that lacks a scientific basis and raises due process concerns. Properly stored pesticides would not constitute “unsanitary conditions,” as contamination would only occur if the pesticide were applied. Under a “declaration of unsanitary,” there would be no evidence that such application had occurred.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter C001
Commenter states the arbitrary assumption that the pesticide being on one premises automatically indicates “unsanitary conditions” at a separate premises under the same ownership is an egregious overstep without due process. Only examination and testing of the primary and those additional premises could determine such.
The text was modified to limit the scope of enforcement under this section to the premises on which the foreignlabeled pesticide was discovered.

Commenter C001
This section would create extreme punitive repercussions without proof of any actual adulteration. Commenter asserts the term “unsanitary conditions” is getting an extremely broad definition under this proposed regulation and seems legally ambiguous.
Pesticides that are unlawful to possess, such as those labeled exclusively in a foreign language, may include substances that are banned for use in the United States. It is not possible for the Department to test cannabis or cannabis products for every potential substance, as the number of potential chemical substances numbers in the thousands. Some of these products are so exotic or new that not only is their presence not currently required to be tested for under DCC regulations, but validated and reliable test methods do not yet exist. Still, it is commonly understood that many of these products are extremely dangerous to use, store, or even be around, the latter of which presents a critical health hazard for DCC inspectors who encounter these products onsite. These products present a severe danger to the health and safety of consumers who might use or consume cannabis or cannabis products that have been contaminated with illegal pesticides.

BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require “proof of actual adulteration.” Instead, it deems cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious. The Department agrees that “unsanitary conditions” is a broad term, and section 15070 was proposed for adoption, in part, to lessen the “ambiguity” about which the commenter is concerned. Defining a specific set of conditions that are always considered unsanitary provides clarity and certainty to the Department and its licensees.

Commenter C001
Commenters state that the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), in conjunction with County Agricultural Commissioners, are the experts in the area of pesticide management and that adding additional regulations to those already in place is duplicative.
The proposal was modified to be limited only to pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose. Assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training. The Department disagrees that the proposal is duplicative of existing pesticide laws. The proposed regulation does not address the proper use of pesticides; rather it addresses the consequences for commercial cannabis licensees engaging in illegal activity, which is the jurisdiction of the Department.

Commenter C001, C013
Commenter states the Hayfork Chamber of Commerce supports the Origins Council’s position regarding the proposed Sanitation Regulations.
The Department acknowledges this comment.

Commenter C002
Commenters note that the December 30 amendments to the proposed rule would expand its applicability to other premises under the same ownership.
The text was modified to limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters state that their reading of BPC 26039.6 is that if a premises is found to be “unsanitary,” all cannabis on the premises must be destroyed. This interpretation is based on the understanding that “unsanitary” cannabis would be considered “adulterated,” and under BPC 26039.6(b), adulterated cannabis cannot be sold, held, or transferred. Commenters further note that the required destruction of all cannabis on-site is an extraordinarily punitive measure, potentially eliminating an individual’s entire livelihood.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters state that required destruction of all cannabis on-site includes destruction of mother plants, which may constitute unique and irreplaceable genetics.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter C003, C004, C011
Commenters state that the Department should be required to prove actual contamination with a harmful substance before cannabis is declared adulterated and destroyed.
BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require proof of “actual contamination.” Instead, it deems cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious. The Department may take action simply because the presence of illegal and dangerous pesticides may have rendered cannabis or cannabis products on the premises injurious.

Commenter C003, C004, C007, C011, C016
Commenters express concern about requiring destruction of all cannabis on a premises as this does not preclude the DCC or DPR from pursuing other penalties on operators based on the presence of an unauthorized pesticide. These violations are already considered “severe” in current DCC regulations.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters express concern about requiring destruction of all cannabis on a premises as this also does not preclude DCC from ordering the destruction of cannabis products which are actually adulterated, or embargoing products based on “probable cause” of adulteration under existing authority (§17801.5).
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters state that, despite its high degree of potential impact, the proposed regulation was put forward in a 15-day comment period with limited time for review and deliberation.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, substantive text modifications made after the close of the initial (i.e., minimum 45-day) notice period are permissible if “sufficiently related to the original text that the public was adequately placed on notice that the change could result from the originally proposed regulatory action.” (Gov. Code, sec. 11346.8, subd. (c).) The California Code of Regulations states “Changes to the original text of a regulation shall be deemed to be “sufficiently related,” as that term is used in Government Code Section 11346.8, if a reasonable member of the directly affected public could have determined from the notice that these changes to the regulation could have resulted.” (1 CCR § 42) Proposed section 16307(b) (later relocated to new section 15070) is objectively a sanitation standard. The Department proposed this provision to implement BPC section 29036.9(a)(1) by clearly defining in regulation a specific set of unsanitary conditions under which cannabis and cannabis products become adulterated. The public could have reasonably foreseen the Department’s proposal of additional sanitation-related rules like section 16307(b) based on statements made in the 45-day Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action including, under the heading Objectives and Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations on page 3: “Further objectives are to address increasing cases of contamination and adulteration of cannabis goods and reduce associated expenditures of resources pursuing embargoes and recalls of those goods, resulting from unsanitary growing, harvesting, processing, and manufacturing practices.” New section 16307(b) is intended to address one such unsanitary practice.

Further, the Department significantly reduced the complexity and potential impact of the requirement by focusing solely on pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. Assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters state the requisite agricultural expertise to formulate and enforce the proposed regulation sits with DPR and county agricultural commissioners, not with DCC.
The proposal was modified to be limited only to pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose. Further, assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters state that requiring destruction on multiple premises is a dramatic overreach.
The text was modified to limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters assert they do not understand the reasoning in the notice of modification which states that: “because licensees can transfer cannabis and cannabis products between their licensed premises, limiting the “unsanitary” designation strictly to the site at which the illegal pesticide was discovered would open a loophole that allows licensees to transfer cannabis and cannabis products to another premises to avoid an embargo.” Commenters state while it’s true that cannabis can be transferred to another site with the same ownership, it’s equally true that cannabis can be transferred to another site under different ownership. The critical question in either case is whether the cannabis – wherever it has been transferred – is actually contaminated, not the ownership of the site.
The text was modified to limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters state they do not understand why transferring product to another site under whatever ownership “avoids” an embargo, since state law allows the DCC to establish an embargo based on “probable cause” of adulteration. Commenters state the relevant question relates to whether the product is actually, in fact, contaminated.
The text was modified to limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found. Further, the Department disagrees with the commenters’ assertion that the relevant question is whether the product is actually contaminated. It is not possible for the Department to test cannabis or cannabis products for every potential substance, as the number of potential chemical substances numbers in the thousands. Some of these products are so exotic or new that not only is their presence not currently required to be tested for under DCC regulations, but validated and reliable test methods do not yet exist. Still, it is commonly understood that many of these products are extremely dangerous to use, store, or even be around, the latter of which presents a critical health hazard for DCC inspectors who encounter these products onsite. These products present a severe danger to the health and safety of consumers who might use or consume cannabis or cannabis products that have been contaminated with illegal pesticides. The statute does not require a finding that the cannabis or cannabis product is demonstrably contaminated. The Department may take action simply because the presence of these illegal and dangerous pesticides may have rendered cannabis or cannabis products on the premises injurious.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters note that the proposed regulation does not define the term “same ownership.” Does any overlapping ownership stake qualify?
The text was modified to limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters state that FAC 12658 [sic] establishes a balanced solution to the problem identified by DCC As this code section requires the state to demonstrate, under a rebuttable presumption standard, that a crop “presents a hazard to human health or the environment” prior to destruction, and establishes due process to make this determination. Commenters assert that this existing standard – and its application through county agricultural commissioners and DPR as subject-matter experts – appears to offer a wellestablished solution to the issue of potential pesticide contamination that both protects public safety and provides due process.
FAC section 12648 provides the Department of Pesticide Regulation the authority to declare plants, crops, or commodities a “public nuisance” if the site, plant, crop, or commodity has been treated with a pesticide not registered for that use. This section establishes the process for notice and hearing to determine the disposition of the plants.

Growers of other non-cannabis plants, crops, and commodities are generally not licensed to do so by the state and without specific statutory authority such as provided in FAC section 12648, there would be no mechanism for the state to address the disposition of plants potentially contaminated by pesticides.

However, as licensed entities, commercial cannabis operations are provided with structured and formalized due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law, and the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights. Once an embargo is issued, BPC section 26039.3 establishes the process for notice and hearing to be conducted by the Department and then an administrative law judge. Licensees further have the right to appeal any decision to the Cannabis Appeals Panel under BPC section 26043. There is no need to rely on or adopt the same provisions as FAC section 12648.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters provide an example of pesticide manufacturer error and state that if this occurred in the cannabis context, it would still be necessary to destroy cannabis adulterated with use of the product for the protection of public health; but this action should only be taken if the cannabis itself is actually adulterated.
The proposal was modified to be limited only to pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters note that some cultivators may have good-faith misunderstandings regarding the requirements of FAC 12995, or possess pesticides from years or decades ago that met prior CDPR requirements but do not meet current requirements. Commenters state that these errors – even if made in good faith – warrant appropriate penalties and certainly warrant destruction for crops actually adulterated with the pesticide; but this is distinct from unconditional destruction of all cannabis without a finding that the pesticide was used on the crop.
The proposal was modified to be limited only to pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters note that an employee may erroneously or negligently possess or use an unauthorized pesticide. While licensees are responsible for non-compliant actions by employees – and punitive action on the licensee may be justified in this case – it would be excessive to require the destruction of all cannabis on premise if it could not be shown that this cannabis was actually adulterated.
The proposal was modified to be limited only to pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose. Further, assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters express concern about the lack of clarity on boundaries of unauthorized pesticides and note that the state’s pesticide rules are not trivial to interpret or enforce. This is evident in the DCC’s initially-proposed 16307(b) from the November 6, 2025 proposed regulations, which the current notice of modification concedes inadvertently would have penalized the possession of legal pesticides. Commenters state they are aware of circumstances in which even county agricultural offices have been unclear on the precise scope, definition, or requirements relative to authorized and unauthorized pesticides. This is particularly the case for the class of registrationexempt organic pesticides which the November 6, 2025, DCC proposed regulations inadvertently penalized.
The proposal was modified to be limited only to pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose. Further, assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters state that the Department lacks statutory authority for the proposed regulation. If the statute read that cannabis is adulterated on the basis of e.g. “being produced, prepared, packed, or held on the same premises where unsanitary conditions exist,” the proposed regulation may align with the statute; but the statute is not written this way, presumably purposefully, in order to limit the “adulterated” classification to situations where the cannabis was actually “produced,” “held,” etc. under the unsanitary condition.
BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) deems a product adulterated if it was produced, prepared, packed, or held in conditions in which it may have been rendered injurious. There is no requirement for actual contamination to have occurred, merely the potential that it could have been, for a product to be considered adulterated.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters assert that, given the complexity and potential impact of the regulation, §15070 should be pulled from the current regulatory promulgation and only re-promulgated upon significant additional consultation with experts and stakeholders. In the interim, DCC embargo authority, adulteration and sanitation statute, and penalties for pesticide noncompliance; along with existing DPR and agricultural commissioner authority under FAC 12648 and other statutes; already provide extensive enforcement authority.
The Department significantly reduced the complexity and potential impact of the requirement by focusing solely on pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. Assessing whether a pesticide is exclusively labeled in a foreign language does not require any special training. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreignlabeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose.

For the reasons described in the FSOR, the Department determined that additional regulatory specificity was necessary to protect against the use of foreign-labeled pesticide products.

FAC 12648 provides the Department of Pesticide Regulation the authority to declare plants, crops, or commodities a “public nuisance” if the site, plant, crop, or commodity has been treated with a pesticide not registered for that use. This section establishes the process for notice and hearing to determine the disposition of the plants.

Growers of other non-cannabis plants, crops, and commodities are generally not licensed to do so by the state and without specific statutory authority such as provided in FAC section 12648, there would be no mechanism for the state to address the disposition of plants potentially contaminated by pesticides.

In contrast, cannabis businesses are licensed through the Department and under BPC section 26010.5, the Department has the duty and responsibility to regulate commercial cannabis activities. It is therefore reasonable for the Department to exercise its own distinct statutory mandate to protect public health and safety through oversight of the operating conditions on licensed premises, as well as the consequences for licensees engaging in illegal activities.

Commenter C003, C011
Commenters express concern that the proposal lacks necessary due process for licensees.
The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law.

Commenter C004, C007, C008, C009, C012, C013, C016
Commenter states that DCC already possesses the authority to institute significant penalties for pesticide violations and to require the destruction of cannabis that has been proven to be contaminated. Expanding this authority to allow for the destruction of “potentially” affected product without testing is an overreach. Commenter asserts that the Department can effectively protect the public using its current enforcement tools, such as targeted embargoes and mandatory testing, without resorting to the sweeping destruction protocols proposed here.
For the reasons described in the FSOR, the Department determined that additional regulatory specificity was necessary to protect against the use of foreign-labeled pesticide products.

Commenter C004
Commenter states that cannabis farmers deserve the same due process protections as all other agricultural producers in California. Under Food and Agriculture Code § 12648, if a crop is treated with an unregistered pesticide, the Director must provide evidence of a hazard and allow the owner a hearing to contest the seizure and rebut the presumptions before destruction is ordered. Commenter asserts that DCC’s current proposal bypasses these standard agricultural protections, creating a “guilty until proven innocent” framework that is inconsistent with how the state treats every other crop.
The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law.

Commenter C004
Commenter states that the required destruction of all cannabis on-site is an extraordinarily punitive measure. For many small and mid-sized farmers, a single order of total destruction is a “death penalty” for their business, potentially depriving them of their entire annual income and livelihood. Commenter asserts such a drastic step should only be taken when there is no other way to ensure consumer safety—a standard that is not met if the product itself has not been tested and failed.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter C004
Commenter requests that the Department revise Section 15070 to align with the due process standards of the Food and Agriculture Code, requiring empirical evidence of contamination and providing a clear path for licensees to prove their product is safe before destruction is mandated.
BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require “empirical evidence of contamination.” Instead, it deems cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious. The Department may take action simply because the presence of illegal and dangerous pesticides may have rendered cannabis or cannabis products on the premises injurious.

The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law.

Commenter C004
As a licensed cultivator, commenter opposes the proposed requirement to destroy all cannabis if any pesticides are found onsite. Commenter asserts that this approach is unreasonable and disproportionate, comparing it to finding a firearm in someone’s home and accusing them of murder despite no crime occurring. Commenter emphasizes that cannabis products are already subject to rigorous testing standards, making this proposed measure unnecessary and illogical.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter C005
Commenter states that Strong Agronomy strongly opposes the Department of Cannabis Control’s proposed Section 15070 regarding unsanitary conditions in cannabis cultivation.
The Department acknowledges this comment.

Commenter C007
Commenter notes that their interpretation of this section is that it mandates the destruction of all cannabis present on a premises, or any premises under the same ownership, if an unauthorized pesticide is found on site.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Further, the text was modified to limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found.

Commenter C007
Commenter states that while they recognize the necessity of appropriate penalties for the presence of unauthorized pesticides—penalties that are already enforced under existing laws and regulations—they have significant concerns about the approach outlined in the proposed regulation as it does not require a determination that any or all cannabis is actually contaminated before ordering the destruction of all cannabis on the premises or on sites under the same ownership. Commenter notes that current law for other agricultural crops, specifically Food and Agriculture Code Section 12648, provides due process procedures when crops are to be destroyed because of unauthorized pesticides. Importantly, this law mandates that there must be a finding that the crops pose a threat to human health prior to ordering their destruction. Furthermore, it sets forth specific due process protections to assess whether such a threat exists.
The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Further, BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require “a determination that any or all cannabis is actually contaminated.” Instead, it deems cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious.

Commenter C007
Commenter opposes the Department of Cannabis Control’s proposed Section 15070 concerning cannabis cultivation unsanitary conditions.
The Department acknowledges this comment.

Commenter C008, C016
Commenter states the proposed rule would require the destruction of all cannabis on a premises, or on any premises under the same ownership, based on the presence of an unauthorized pesticide on site.
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Further, the text was modified to limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found.

Commenter C008, C016
Commenter notes that existing law for other agricultural crops, Food and Agriculture Code Section 12648, establishes due process for the destruction of crops based on the presence of an unauthorized pesticide. This section establishes due process protection to determine whether a threat exists. Commenter notes they do not oppose enforcement actions against illegal use of pesticides, but that they expect the proper level of due process.
FAC section 12648 provides the Department of Pesticide Regulation the authority to declare plants, crops, or commodities a “public nuisance” if the site, plant, crop, or commodity has been treated with a pesticide not registered for that use. This section establishes the process for notice and hearing to determine the disposition of the plants.

Growers of other non-cannabis plants, crops, and commodities are generally not licensed to do so by the state and without specific statutory authority such as provided in FAC section 12648, there would be no mechanism for the state to address the disposition of plants potentially contaminated by pesticides.

However, as licensed entities, commercial cannabis operations are provided with structured and formalized due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law, and the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights.

Commenter C008, C016
Commenter states that they find it troubling that the DCC could assert authority over pesticide use unrelated to cannabis cultivation, such as for landscaping or termite control. Commenter notes that they live on a rural, residential, agriculturally zoned property and believe this proposed rule infringes on their rights as a property owner simply because a cannabis permit exists on the same parcel. Commenter asserts this represents an overreach of DCC’s authority and extends beyond the scope of cannabis regulation.
The Department is not asserting any regulatory oversight over the use of pesticides on land that is not part of a licensed cannabis premises. Further, the proposal was modified to be limited only to pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose.

Commenter C010
Commenter recommends harmonizing the proposed rule with existing Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) Section 12648. Commenter states that CCR 15070 and FAC 12648 both address enforcement responses to pesticide misuse, but they differ significantly in procedural safeguards. Section 15070 authorizes regulatory action against cannabis cultivation based on the presence of an unregistered pesticide with limited articulation of evidentiary standards or procedural protections afforded to the cultivator prior to enforcement action. In contrast, FAC 12648 establishes a more defined enforcement framework applicable to agricultural commodities generally, requiring a showing that the pesticide use either poses a hazard to human health or the environment, or was intended to confer an unfair business advantage. FAC 12648 further incorporates due process elements by conditioning seizure or destruction actions on the production of supporting evidence, thereby balancing regulatory authority with the rights of the regulated party. Commenter states that harmonizing CCR 15070 with the established statutory approach described in FAC 12648 would promote consistency across regulatory programs and ensure procedural protections for cannabis cultivators comparable to those afforded to other agricultural producers.
Section 15070 is not required to duplicate the evidentiary standard articulated in BPC section 26039.6(a)(1): cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions are adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious. Similarly, section 15070 is not required to duplicate or reiterate the procedural safeguards and due process rights established in existing law.

FAC section 12648 provides the Department of Pesticide Regulation the authority to declare plants, crops, or commodities a “public nuisance” if the site, plant, crop, or commodity has been treated with a pesticide not registered for that use. This section establishes the process for notice and hearing to determine the disposition of the plants.

Growers of other non-cannabis plants, crops, and commodities are generally not licensed to do so by the state and without specific statutory authority such as provided in FAC section 12648, there would be no mechanism for the state to address the disposition of plants potentially contaminated by pesticides.

However, as licensed entities, commercial cannabis operations are provided with structured and formalized due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law, and the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights. There is no need to “harmonize” FAC section 12648 and section 15070.

Commenter C012
Commenter greatly appreciates the Department’s intention to prevent and significantly punish licensees using illegal, unregistered pesticides.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter C013
Commenter is concerned about the choice of language in the proposed rule, and sees it as problematic for their staff and several cultivators within the County of Santa Cruz.
The text was significantly narrowed to address only pesticide products labeled exclusively in a foreign language, which should alleviate the concerns raised by the commenter.

Commenter C013
Commenter states they have observed several cultivators utilize food and food grade products to make their own nutrient and pesticide blends in accordance with Section 12802 of the Food and Agriculture code. Commenter states that the use of foods, which are registered pesticides (such as garlic) or are FIFRA exempt (such as cinnamon), by cultivators to make pesticides is legal. Commenter states that this type of activity is allowed in the current Department regulations as these types of activities are exempt from registrations requirements per the Food and Agricultural code which are allowed in Section 16307 (b) of Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Division 19.
The proposal was modified to be limited only to pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose.

Commenter C013
Commenter asserts that implementing this seems problematic for licensed businesses because this section would require the destruction of all cannabis on a premise (and any other premise under the same ownership, even if it’s not in the same locality).
This is an incorrect reading of the proposed regulatory provision. The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Further, the text was modified to limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found.

Commenter C013
Commenter notes that Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) section 12648 provides a legal mechanism for addressing the use of illegal / unregistered / improper use of pesticides. While the commenter supports the zero tolerance approach that the DCC appears to be taking on the illegal use of pesticides, this appears to be an attempt to sidestep the DPR on the basis of the crop to provide the DCC authority to regulate pesticides.
FAC 12648 provides the Department of Pesticide Regulation the authority to declare plants, crops, or commodities a “public nuisance” if the site, plant, crop, or commodity has been treated with a pesticide not registered for that use. This section establishes the process for notice and hearing to determine the disposition of the plants.

Growers of other non-cannabis plants, crops, and commodities are generally not licensed to do so by the state and without specific statutory authority such as provided in FAC section 12648, there would be no mechanism for the state to address the disposition of plants potentially contaminated by pesticides.

BPC section 26010.5 establishes that the Department has the responsibility to regulate commercial cannabis activity. This regulation does not provide the Department with any authority to regulate pesticide use; rather it addresses the acceptable conditions of operation on a licensed premises as well as the consequences for licensees engaging in already illegal activities, which are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Department.

Commenter C013
To meet the Department’s intention while addressing staff and local cannabis cultivator concerns, commenter requests that Department staff and the Department of Pesticide Regulations staff consider the following language for Section 15070: For purposes of Business and Professions Code section 26039.6(a)(1), possession of pesticide products on a licensed premises in violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12995 renders all cannabis and cannabis products located on that premises and all other premises under the same ownership as held under unsanitary conditions the Department may consider a licensed premise unsanitary upon discovery at that premise of any pesticide in violation of Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code and may embargo all cannabis and cannabis products at the premise, until a determination by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (or an authorized representative such as an Agricultural Commissioner) determines if the cannabis must be abated per Article 6 of Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code.
To address the same concerns noted by the commenter, the text was significantly narrowed to address only pesticide products labeled exclusively in a foreign language. This violation requires only a clear and straightforward assessment of the label and will not require a determination by the Department of Pesticide Regulation or an Agricultural Commissioner to determine if abatement is necessary. Nothing in this regulation limits the Department’s ability to consult with relevant experts such as DPR or the Agricultural Commissioner.

Commenter C013
Commenter asserts that the DCC has the ability to aggressively address clear illegal pesticide use within Section 17802(a) of the current regulations. This section allows the DCC to abate contaminated cannabis when businesses are found in violation of state law.
For the reasons described in the FSOR, the Department determined that additional regulatory specificity was necessary to protect against the use of foreign-labeled pesticide products.

Commenter C013
Commenter notes that when it comes to pesticides, Agricultural Commissioners can verify legality, and should be viewed as an asset to the DCC.
The Department agrees that the local County Agricultural Commissioner can be an asset to the Department and a valuable regulatory partner. Nothing in the regulatory proposal precludes the Department from consulting with an Agricultural Commissioner.

Commenter C013
Commenter respectfully opposes the proposed rule change as currently written.
The Department acknowledges this comment.

Commenter C015
Commenter voices concern that the proposed language deems all cannabis and cannabis products on a licensed premises—and on all other premises under the same ownership—unsanitary based solely on possession of a pesticide product in violation of Food and Agricultural Code 12995. This would trigger mandatory destruction without requiring evidence that the pesticide was used, that any cannabis is contaminated, or that a hazard exists.
The proposed text was significantly narrowed to address only pesticide products labeled exclusively in a foreign language and limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found.

The Department has a variety of enforcement options at its disposal, and nothing about the proposed rule requires destruction of adulterated cannabis or cannabis products in every instance. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require evidence of use or contamination. Instead, it deems cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious. The purpose of adopting section 15070 is to expressly notify licensees that the Department finds pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language to be hazardous.

Commenter C015
Commenter states that this approach lacks the procedural safeguards provided to other agricultural producers under Food and Agricultural Code 12648, which establishes notice, hearing rights, rebuttable presumptions, and evidentiary standards before seizure or destruction may occur. Commenter recommends harmonizing 15070 with FAC 12648 to ensure consistent, fair enforcement across agricultural commodities while maintaining strong protections against pesticide misuse. Commenter notes that the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the agency with primary jurisdiction over pesticide enforcement, does not appear to have been adequately consulted on this provision. Existing DPR and agricultural commissioner authorities already provide robust tools to address prohibited pesticide use.
The proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law.

Further, section 15070 is not required to duplicate the evidentiary standard articulated in BPC section 26039.6(a)(1): cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions are adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious. Similarly, section 15070 is not required to duplicate or reiterate the procedural safeguards and due process rights established in existing law.

FAC 12648 provides the Department of Pesticide Regulation the authority to declare plants, crops, or commodities a “public nuisance” if the site, plant, crop, or commodity has been treated with a pesticide not registered for that use. This section establishes the process for notice and hearing to determine the disposition of the plants.

Growers of other non-cannabis plants, crops, and commodities are generally not licensed to do so by the state and without specific statutory authority such as provided in FAC section 12648, there would be no mechanism for the state to address the disposition of plants potentially contaminated by pesticides.

BPC section 26010.5 establishes that the Department has the responsibility to regulate commercial cannabis activity. This regulation does not provide the Department with any authority to regulate pesticide use; rather it addresses the acceptable conditions of operation on a licensed premises as well as the consequences for licensees engaging in already illegal activities, which are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Department.

Commenter C015
Commenter states that Mendocino County opposes the proposed regulation as written and urges revisions to incorporate due process protections consistent with FAC 12648.
As licensed entities, commercial cannabis operations are provided with structured and formalized due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law, and the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights. Once an embargo is issued, BPC section 26039.3 establishes the process for notice and hearing to be conducted by the Department and then an administrative law judge. Licensees further have the right to appeal any decision to the Cannabis Appeals Panel under BPC section 26043. There is no need to rely on or adopt the same provisions as FAC section 12648.

Commenter C015
Commenter notes that if cannabis or a cannabis product fails compliance testing, it will be deemed unusable at testing. Declaring cannabis unusable because it is stored in the vicinity of certain pesticide products is overreaching, denies due process to licensees, and is potentially extremely damaging to business operations without introducing any risk to consumers.
The proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law.

For the reasons described in the FSOR, it is not sufficient to rely upon laboratory testing to protect consumers from the illicit use of foreign-labeled pesticides.

Commenter C006
Commenter requests the Department remove the requirement to individually tag cannabis plants.
This comment is not within the scope of the regulatory proposal.

Commenter C005
Commenter requests the Department more strictly enforce against unlicensed operations.
This comment is not within the scope of the regulatory proposal.

Commenter C005
Commenter requests that the Department cap cultivation licenses due to the lack of retail locations to sell.
This comment is not within the scope of the regulatory proposal.

Commenter C005
Commenter requests that the Department facilitate better access to retail, lower the excise tax, reduce testing costs, reduce the security requirements, and change federal tax code to reduce costs for the consumer.
This comment is not within the scope of the regulatory proposal.

Commenter C005

SUMMARIES OF, AND RESPONSES TO, COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE FOURTH 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD

General

Commenter objects to any loosening of requirements around events or risks to public safety, or environmental protections.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D008
Commenter requests that DCC fully study all the health risks of placing large commercial cannabis operations next to rural residential homes before allowing any more licenses within 2,000 feet of any rural residential home.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D008
Commenter states that the following items should not be allowed because it is unfair to neighbors:
- Allowing cultivation licensees to transfer immature plants and seeds to a nursery.
- Allowing cultivation licensees to transfer immature plants and seeds to another cultivation premises owned by that licensee.
- Deleting the requirement to submit a pest management plan at the time of application.
- Deleting the requirement to submit electricity reporting with a renewal application and to purchase carbon offsets.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D002
Commenters state that if the Department wants to allow counties to designate a site other than a county fair or district agricultural association event for a cannabis event location, there should be additional requirements, including mandatory security, fenced consumption areas, no outside food or music, ready access by public transportation, sufficient off street parking, within 10 minutes of first responders, ADA-compliant buildings and toilet facilities. The county should be limited to only two additional sites for cannabis events and the event holder should sign an agreement acknowledging that a state license is also required.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D003, D004, D008
Commenters express concern that the current language leaves it up to the local jurisdiction with no requirements for limitation of such additional event venues, security at the event site, for safe traffic especially on rural and often narrow roads, or for protection of neighbors and the public in general.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D003, D004

Section 15048.5

Commenter asserts that the requirement to assign package tags within 24 hours of “any part” of a harvest batch finishing processing is fundamentally flawed and hampers efficient inventory management.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D007

Section 15060(a)

Commenter states that the prohibition on animals entering any indoor area of a licensed premises where unpackaged cannabis is present, as well as any outdoor area used for processing harvested cannabis, is a significant departure from how animal presence is regulated in other agricultural sectors. Comparable frameworks do not impose categorical bans on animals in cultivation areas. Instead, they rely on risk-based standards.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D010

Section 15061(a)

Commenter requests that the Department clearly define what constitutes “between work on different harvest batches.”
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D007
Commenter is concerned that proposed sanitation standards requiring cleaning between harvest batches is arbitrary and would reduce operational efficiency with no benefit to public safety. Commenter requests that cleaning between harvest batches be required only when the new harvest batches are grown using different pesticides and agricultural chemicals.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D006

Section 15061(b)

Commenter is concerned that requiring the use of specific chemicals would conflict with existing air pollution control district permit conditions that restrict the amount of solvents that can be used on site for cleaning operations.
This comment is not directed at the proposed changes in the 4th 15-day comment period.

Commenter D006

Section 15070

Commenter asserts that oversight of pesticide use is the job of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and not DCC.
BPC section 26010.5 establishes that the Department has the responsibility to regulate commercial cannabis activity. This regulation does not provide the Department with any authority to regulate pesticide use; rather it addresses the acceptable conditions of operation on a licensed premises as well as the consequences for licensees engaging in already illegal activities, which are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Department.

Commenter D001
Commenter states that the proposal does not allow for due process.
The proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law.

Commenter D001
Commenter asserts that the Department should have to prove that cannabis is actually adulterated and the claim that tests don’t exist to corroborate does not absolve the Department of the responsibility to prove actual adulteration.
BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require the Department to prove that cannabis on a premises where a foreign-labeled pesticide is found is “actually adulterated.” The Department may take action simply because the presence of these illegal and dangerous pesticides may have rendered cannabis or cannabis products on the premises injurious.

Commenter D001
Commenter is concerned that in high-UV/moisture environments, labels often tear or bleach, yet deeming a damaged label an “unsanitary condition” that contaminates an entire multi-site inventory is excessively harsh and disregards good faith efforts and notes that the regulation fails to offer a process to rectify violations.
The proposed text was significantly narrowed to address only pesticide products labeled exclusively in a foreign language and limit the declaration of “unsanitary” to the premises on which the foreign-labeled pesticide was found. Additionally, the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Section 15070 is not required to duplicate or reiterate the procedural safeguards and due process rights established in existing law.

Commenter D007
The Notice of Modification asserts that the Department is increasingly encountering illegal, foreign-labeled pesticide products on licensed premises. However, the notice does not present data, enforcement summaries, inspection findings, or testing results to substantiate this claim. Absent such information in the rulemaking record, it is difficult for the regulated community to assess the scope of the alleged problem or to evaluate whether the proposed response is proportional or necessary. Regulatory expansion should be grounded in demonstrated need, particularly where the consequences include automatic findings of “injurious adulteration.”
Pesticide products labeled exclusively in a foreign language have been found to contain substances that are extremely dangerous to use, store, or even be around, and can pose a critical health hazard for DCC inspectors who encounter these products onsite. These products present a severe danger to the health and safety of consumers who might use or consume cannabis or cannabis products that have been contaminated by such illegal pesticides. Any threat posed by these substances is sufficiently severe.

Commenter D009
Commenter is concerned that the Notice of Modification relies heavily on an English-language labeling rationale, citing 40 CFR §156.10(a)(3), which governs labeling requirements for federally registered pesticide products and asserts that provision it is a narrow rule tied to registration and lawful use in commerce. It does not create a blanket prohibition applicable to all pest-control inputs, nor does it automatically render a product illegal solely due to labeling language in all contexts.
Even pesticide products that are exempted from federal registration under FIFRA 25(b) are not fully exempt from all labeling requirements. It is unlikely that a product used as a pesticide containing no English labeling is a lawful product. However, to the extent that pesticides exempt from federal registration may be exempt from some labeling requirements, the lawful use of any such product found onsite will be determined through the administrative hearing process.

Commenter D009
The modified language broadly references “illegal pesticide products” without explicitly referencing label language, incorporating the cited federal provision, or clarifying whether label language alone is determinative. This disconnect between the Notice’s stated rationale and the operative regulatory text creates ambiguity and grants enforcement discretion far beyond what the Department describes. If the Department’s intent is to address English-language labeling compliance, that limitation must be clearly and explicitly stated in the regulatory text itself.
The modified text makes no reference to “illegal pesticide products” and explicitly cites 40 CFR part 156.10(a)(3).

Commenter D009
Commenter is concerned that the modification fails to distinguish between federally registered pesticides and products that are lawfully exempt from federal registration, including EPA minimumrisk (25(b)) products, FIFRA-exempt materials, biological controls, soaps, oils, and other inputs commonly used in cannabis cultivation and regulated at the state and county level in California. These products are not governed in the same manner as federally registered pesticides, and their legality and enforcement are traditionally determined by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and County Agricultural Commissioners.
Even pesticide products that are exempted from federal registration under FIFRA 25(b) are not fully exempt from all labeling requirements. It is unlikely that a product used as a pesticide containing no English labeling is a lawful product. However, to the extent that pesticides exempt from federal registration may be exempt from some labeling requirements, the lawful use of any such product found onsite will be determined through the administrative hearing process.

Commenter D009
Commenter asserts that the proposed change appears to substitute expanded sanitation regulation for targeted enforcement and testing. California already relies on laboratory testing, DPR oversight, and county-level enforcement to identify actual pesticide misuse and contamination. Using sanitation standards to declare automatic adulteration based on possession—rather than demonstrated residue or misuse—shifts the regulatory burden onto compliant licensees while failing to directly address unlicensed operations that operate outside the regulatory framework altogether.
BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require the Department to “identify actual pesticide misuse and contamination” of cannabis or cannabis products on the premises. Instead, it deems cannabis and cannabis products held under unsanitary conditions adulterated if those conditions may have rendered the cannabis or cannabis products injurious.

Pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language pose a significant risk to consumers if ingested. As there is no circumstance in which possession of foreign-labeled pesticides is lawful in the United States, there is no possibility that a licensee may have a foreign-labeled pesticide in their possession inadvertently or for another lawful purpose. In other words, no burdens have been created or shifted: as they have always been, licensees remain responsible for ensuring that these products do not end up on their licensed premises.

Commenter D009
By treating the mere possession of broadly defined “illegal pesticide products” as an unsanitary condition and automatically deeming all cannabis on a premises “injuriously adulterated,” the Department is effectively creating a parallel pesticide enforcement regime under the guise of sanitation. This approach bypasses DPR expertise, county enforcement discretion, and laboratory testing that is specifically designed to determine whether contamination has actually occurred.
This regulation does not provide the Department with any authority to regulate pesticide use; rather, it addresses the consequences for licensees who engage in already illegal activities, which is clearly within the authority of the Department to do. Nothing in the proposed regulation prohibits the Department from consulting with relevant experts, including DPR and the Agricultural Commissioner.

BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not require the Department to “determine whether contamination has actually occurred.” The Department may take action simply because the presence of illegal and dangerous pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language may have rendered cannabis or cannabis products on the premises injurious.

Commenter D009
Commenter requests the regulation be modified to clearly limit its scope to situations involving actual misuse or contamination.
BPC section 26039.6(a)(1) does not limit the scope of proposed section 15070 to “situations involving actual misuse or contamination.” The Department may take action simply because the presence of illegal and dangerous pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language may have rendered cannabis or cannabis products on the premises injurious.

Commenter D009
Commenter requests the regulation be modified to explicitly exclude lawfully exempt pesticides.
Referencing 40 CFR part 156.10(a)(3) in the proposed rule does not contradict, infringe upon, or supersede any other state or federal law exempting a product label from that federal regulation. Section 15070 does not need to include an explicit statement to that effect.

Commenter D009
Commenter requests the regulation be modified to align enforcement with existing DPR and county authority.
DCC’s enforcement authority is contained within MAUCRSA. The Department believes proposed section 15070 is aligned and consistent with existing pesticide laws and MAUCRSA.

Commenter D009
Commenter requests the Department support any further regulatory expansion with transparent evidence in the rulemaking record.
The Department believes the rulemaking record meets the evidentiary standard under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Commenter D009
Commenter states that the proposed changes to §15070 are a substantive improvement on the prior proposal noticed on December 30, 2025 and that they appreciate that the regulation is now narrowlytailored to a specifically-identified problem (foreignlabeled pesticides on licensed cultivation sites). Pesticides not labeled in English are unconditionally prohibited in the U.S., providing a much clearer brightline for cultivators and inspectors; and we understand that there are cases where highly-toxic pesticides and fumigants have been found on cultivation sites, including – in a least one case we’re aware of – a licensed cultivation site. These instances are highly concerning from the perspective of consumer safety, as well as the integrity of the legal industry, and should be taken extraordinarily seriously.
The Department appreciates this comment.

Commenter D011
Commenter requests that the Department include provisions related to due process, specifically those included in FAC 12658 [sic].
As licensed entities, commercial cannabis operations are provided with structured and formalized due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law, and the proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights. Once an embargo is issued, BPC section 26039.3 establishes the process for notice and hearing to be conducted by the Department and then an administrative law judge. Licensees further have the right to appeal any decision to the Cannabis Appeals Panel under BPC section 26043. There is no need to rely on or adopt the same provisions as FAC section 12648.

Commenter D011
Commenter asserts that DCC has existing statutory authority to embargo any cannabis or cannabis products so long as there is “probable cause” of adulteration. The presence of a pesticide labeled in a foreign language – which is definitionally not legal in the U.S. – would thereby justify an embargo and initiation of condemnation proceedings, in addition to “severe” penalties related to the possession of the pesticide itself.
For the reasons described in the FSOR, the Department determined that additional regulatory specificity was necessary to protect against the use of foreign-labeled pesticide products.

Commenter D011
The proposed narrowing of language in §15070 lessens the opportunity for good-faith errors by cultivators or DCC compliance officers compared with prior iterations, but does not eliminate it. For example, it may not be apparent whether an item labeled in a non-English language on a licensed cultivation site is a pesticide at all. In such a situation, an embargo may be appropriate to allow subsequent due process to clarify this question of fact. Commenter further notes that due process is the mechanism by which the DCC’s legitimate and crucial interest in public safety and the licensee’s interest in fairness and accuracy can be effectively adjudicated.
The proposed rule does not override or abridge a licensee’s due process rights established under MAUCRSA and other provisions of law. Licensees retain their due process rights and destruction is only one of many possible outcomes.

Commenter D011
Commenter requests that the Department provide evidence of the prevalence of foreign-labeled and other novel pesticides on licensed and unlicensed cultivation sites. If foreign-labeled pesticides have been found on licensed cultivation sites in one or two instances, this is a much different circumstance than if such pesticides have been found on a hundred licensed sites.
Pesticides labeled exclusively in a foreign language have been found to contain substances that are extremely dangerous to use, store, or even be around, and can pose a critical health hazard for DCC inspectors who encounter these products onsite. These products present a severe danger to the health and safety of consumers who might use or consume cannabis or cannabis products that have been contaminated by such illegal pesticides. Any threat posed by these substances is sufficiently severe.

Commenter D011

Commenters

The Department received public comment during the initial 45-day public comment period and four 15-day public
comment periods. The Department would like to thank the following for providing comment:

45-day Comment Period

001: Bill Krawetz
002: Michele Schott
003: Emerald Eel
004: Chelsea Deusenberry
005: Shawn Cherry
006: Whitney Collie
007: Elise Timoney Jackson
008: Sarah Shipley
009: Becky Hake
010: Origins Council
011: Darren Story
012: Diana Gamzon
013: Carolyn Hillman
014: Amber Morris
015: Haleigh Roach
016: Michael Condon
017: Katy Hall
018: Genine Coleman
019: Jesse Hill
020: Amy Rouse
H1.1: Kathleen Lippit
H1.2: Ross Gordon
H1.3: Adrien Keys
H1.4: Kelly McCormick
H1.5: Judi Strang
H1.6: Natalynn HCGA
H1.7: Peggy Walker
H1.8: Tamara
H1.9: Diana Gamzon
H1.10: Hannah Whyte
H1.11: Michele Schott
H1.12: Sarah
H1.13: Craig
H1.14: Liza Wisniewski
H1.15: Jesse Hill
H1.16: Steve
H1.17: Dustin Gibbens
H1.18: Riley Morrison
H1.19: John Brower
H1.20: Darrel Davis
H1.21: Lorien Curran

First 15-day Comment Period

A001: Shanon and Casandra Taliaferro
A002: Ross Gordon
A003: Diana Gamzon
A004: Sarah Shipley
A005: Sam Rodriguez
H2.1: Ross Gordon
H2.2: Darren Story
H2.3: Craig Johnson
H2.4: Indy Riggs
H2.5: Shawn
H2.6: Samantha De Trinidad
H2.7: Hannah White
H2.8: Sarah
H2.9: Tim Dower
H2.10: Steve
H2.11: Marissa Corey
H2.12: Darren Story
H2.13: Sam de la Paz
H2.14: David Nogales Talley
H2.15: Ross Gordon
H2.16: Craig
H2.17: Sam de la Paz
H2.18: Anthony Avalos
H2.19: Jesse Hill
H2.20: Dylan Mattole
H2.21: Anira G’Acha
H2.22: Adrien Keys
H2.23: Steve
H2.24: John Brower
H2.25: Anira G’Acha
H2.26: Steve
H2.27: Anthony Avalos
H2.28: Shawn
H2.29: Indy Riggs
H2.30: Steve Amato
H2.31: Sequoyah Hudson
H2.32: Tamara
H2.33: John Brower
H2.34: Samantha De Trinidad
H2.35: Steve

Second 15-day Comment Period

B001: Sarah Shipley
B002: Darren Story
B003: Sam LoForti
B004: Caroline Hillman
B005: Ross Gordon

Third 15-day Comment Period

C001: Michelle Schott
C002: Dana Hauser
C003: Sam Rodriguez
C004: Scott Zarnes
C005: Trent Sanders
C006: Caren Woodsen
C007: Darren Story
C008: Trent Tuthill
C009: Nicholas Holliday
C010: Jesse Jeffries
C011: Ross Gordon
C012: Patrick Hoffman
C013: Sam LoForti
C014: Joyce Cenali
C015: Bernie Novell
C016: Jill Cox