UPDATE TO INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
Section 15719
The Department initially proposed adopting the revised pesticide action levels recommended by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) in a memo to the Department dated December 2024 (“December Memo”). DPR acknowledged in the December Memo that some proposed action levels may be below the detection limit of current analytical testing equipment. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action, the Department specifically solicited input regarding whether the proposed action levels are achievable with current equipment and, if not, what levels are more reasonable.
Comments received during the 45-day public comment period indicated that the action levels for some pesticides were significantly lower than currently achievable levels. This feedback aligned with findings in the Standard Regulatory Impact Analysis, which determined that the costs of compliance at the proposed levels were significant and would lead to a loss of half of the licensed cannabis laboratories in California.
In August 2025, DPR provided an updated memo (“August Memo”) to the Department reflecting modified recommendations to the proposed action levels. As described in the August Memo, DPR reevaluated the recommended pesticide levels based on data from a cannabis consumption study conducted by California State University, Sacramento, and modified the action levels for non-inhalable products based on information gathered in that study. Part of the updated recommendation was to establish a third category of cannabis products to better reflect consumption patterns. This new category of beverages” would be assigned action levels lower than those for other non-inhalable products (such as edibles, tinctures, and topicals).
At this time, the Department has decided not to implement a third category of action levels. However, in furtherance of public health protection, the Department is proposing to adopt the recommended lower beverage action levels for all non-inhalable products whenever feasible. The Department has determined that 0.02 μg/g is the lowest feasible action level for pesticide testing at this time. For any given analyte in section 15719, if DPR’s recommended action level for beverage testing is below that threshold, 0.02 μg/g has been proposed instead.
This regulatory proposal will implement the changes to section 15719 in two phases. “Phase I” eliminates the distinction between Category I and Category II pesticides and establishes new, currently achievable action levels for all former Category I analytes. Phase I changes will become operative immediately upon the effective date of the amended regulation. “Phase II” establishes revised action levels for many analytes as well as revised limit of quantitation (LOQ) thresholds, which may require some testing laboratories to revise and revalidate their testing methods. To provide sufficient time for testing laboratories to complete that work, Phase II changes will not be operative until 18 months after the effective date of the amended regulation.
In addition, the following specific changes were made:
The title of this section is modified for consistency with terminology throughout the section.
New subsection (c) will implement Phase I and establish a sunset date for the testing requirements that follow.
Existing subsection (c) is renumbered to new subsection (c)(1) and was modified to establish an action level of 0.10 μg/g for each former Category I pesticide. The initially proposed requirement to establish an LOQ of no greater than 50% of the action level was deleted and replaced with the requirement to establish an LOQ at or below the action level for every pesticide.
Establishing the LOQ at 50% of the proposed action level was a commonly raised concern during the public comment period, especially for very low action levels. Additionally, establishing LOQs at 50% of all updated action levels would take time and therefore would not align with the proposed phased implementation. Because no action levels have been set lower than existing requirements, labs should be able to test to the action level and establish an equivalent LOQ immediately.
Existing subsection (d) is renumbered to new subsection (c)(2) and modified to remove the word “representative” to align with terminology used in existing sections 15720(e), 15721(d), 15722(f), and 15723(c), all of which refer to “sample” rather than “representative sample.” The reference to “the table” is modified for the reason stated above.
New subsection (d) will implement Phase II and establish an operative date of 18 months after the effective date of the regulation for the testing requirements that follow. The Department determined, based on prior experience in developing testing methods, that 18 months is a reasonable amount of time to allow licensed laboratories to develop new test methods without unnecessarily prolonging updates designed to protect human health.
New subsection (d)(1) establishes LOQs for testing of all pesticide analytes in new Table 2. Subsection (d)(1)(A) is proposed to require establishing the LOQ at or below 0.10 μg/g if the action level is greater than or equal to 0.10 μg/g. This aligns with the current LOQ requirement for existing Category I pesticides of 0.10 μg/g in existing section 15719(c) while allowing licensed laboratories to set a lower limit. Subsection (d)(1)(B) is proposed to require establishing the LOQ at or below the action level if the action level is less than 0.10 μg/g. The Department decided not to move forward with the initially proposed requirement to establish LOQs at 50% of the action level because for very low action levels, such as those below 0.10 μg/g, establishing an LOQ of half the level creates technical challenges and could require significant investment in laboratory equipment.
Modifications to Proposed Action Levels
In the final proposed text, the Department is aligning the action levels in non-inhalable products with those recommended by DPR in the August memo. As DPR is the department tasked in Business and Professions Code section 26060(c) with the responsibility for developing guidelines for pesticide residues, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to defer to DPR’s expertise regarding levels of contaminants. Any recommendations for higher action levels than are currently required have been included in Phase I. Laboratories can already test to the lower action levels and so will not need time to adjust their processes or equipment.
Table 1 (Phase I)
Abamectin will maintain the existing action level for Phase I and be updated in Phase II. The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number has also been updated as recommended by DPR in the December Memo.
Acephate will maintain the existing action level for Phase I and be updated in Phase II.
Acequinocyl will maintain the existing action level of 4.0 μg/g. In the August Memo, DPRrecommended an action level of 4.0 μg/g.
Acetamiprid is modified to an action level of 3.0 μg/g for inhalables and 6.5 μg/g for noninhalables, as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Aldicarb is lowered to 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products in Phase I, rather than the initially proposed 0.5 μg/g. Aldicarb is not registered for use in California and cannot be lawfully used on any agricultural product grown in this state (DPR December memo, pg. 26) This substance is considered highly toxic and emits toxic fumes when heated to high temperatures. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit. For noninhalable products, the action level for aldicarb is proposed to be established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included for Phase II.
Azoxystrobin will maintain the existing action level for Phase I and be updated in Phase II.
Bifenthrin is modified to an action level of 2.0 μg/g for non-inhalables as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Boscalid is modified to an action level of 14.0 μg/g for non-inhalables as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Buprofezin is removed from Table 1 and will be addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Captan is modified to an action level of 6.5 μg/g for non-inhalables as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Carbendazim is removed from Table 1 and will be addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Carbofuran is lowered to 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products in Phase I, rather than the previously proposed 0.5 μg/g. It is not registered for use anywhere in the United States and cannot be used lawfully on any agricultural product (DPR December memo, pg. 29). This substance is considered highly toxic and emits toxic fumes when heated to high temperatures. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit. For non-inhalable products, the action level for carbofuran is proposed to be established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included for Phase II.
Chlorantraniliprole is modified to an action level of 14.0 μg/g for non-inhalables as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Chlordane is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Chlorfenapyr is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the initially proposed 2.5 μg/g. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit.
Chlorpyrifos is established 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products in Phase I, rather than the initially proposed 0.5 μg/g. This substance is only registered for non-food uses in California and cannot be lawfully used on cannabis (DPR December memo, pg. 30). Chlorpyrifos emits toxic fumes when heated to high temperatures. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit. For non-inhalable products, the action level for chlorpyrifos is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Clofentezine is modified to an action level of 0.85 μg/g for non-inhalables as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Coumaphos is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the initially proposed 0.01 μg/g, as this level can be implemented immediately.
Cyfluthrin will maintain the existing action level for Phase I and be updated in Phase II.
Cypermethrin will maintain the existing action level for Phase I and be updated in Phase II.
Cyprodinil is removed from Table 1 and will be addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Dacthal (DPCA) is removed from Table 1 and will be addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
DDVP (Dichlorvos) is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the previously proposed 0.01 μg/g, as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Diazinon is maintained at the existing action level of 0.20 μg/g in Phase I for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Dimethoate is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the initially proposed 2.0 μg/g. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit.
Dimethomorph will maintain the existing action level for Phase I and be updated in Phase II.
Ethoprop(hos) is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the previously proposed 0.01 μg/g, as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Fenhexamid is established at 25.0 μg/g for non-inhalables as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Fenoxycarb is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, as this level can be implemented immediately. DPR recommended an action level of 0.05 μg/g for non-inhalable cannabis goods, which is established in Phase II.
Fenobucarb (BPMC) is removed from Table 1 and will be addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Fipronil is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the initially proposed 0.030 μg/g, as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Flonicamid is established at 7.9 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Fludioxonil is maintained at the existing action level of 30.0 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Fluopyram is removed from Table 1 and will be addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Hexythiazox is established at 6.0 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Imazalil is proposed to be lowered to 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products in Phase I, rather than the previously proposed 5.0 μg/g. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for noninhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit.
Isoprocarb (MIPC) is removed from Table 1 and is addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Imidacloprid is raised to 3.9 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Malathion is established at 8.0 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo and requested by the Mosquito Vector Control Association of California.
Methamidophos is removed from Table 1 and is addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Methiocarb is established at 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products in Phase I, rather than the previously proposed 0.20 μg/g. This substance is not registered for use in California for any agricultural product and cannot be lawfully used on cannabis (DPR December memo, pg. 38). Methiocarb emits toxic fumes when heated to high temperatures. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit. For noninhalable products, the action level is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I, as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Methomyl is maintained 0.1 μg/g for non-inhalable products in Phase I, as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Methyl parathion is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the previously proposed 0.0013 μg/g, as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Mevinphos is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for both inhalable and non-inhalable products, rather than the previously proposed 0.040 μg/g and 0.017 μg/g, respectively, as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Monocrotophos is removed from Table 1 and will be addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Naled is maintained at the existing action level in Phase I and will be addressed in Phase II.
Omethoate is removed from Table 1 and will be addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Oxamyl is maintained at the existing action level in Phase I and will be addressed in Phase II.
Paclobutrazol is proposed to be lowered to 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products in Phase I, rather than the previously proposed 5.0 μg/g. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit.
Pentachloronitrobenzene is established at 1.0 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo.
Phosmet is maintained at the existing action level in Phase I and is modified in Phase II.
Procymidone is removed from Table 1 and is addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Propoxur is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the previously proposed 0.019 μg/g, as this level can be implemented immediately. Further updates are included in Phase II.
Pymetrozine is removed from Table 1 and is addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Pyraclostrobin is removed from Table 1 and is addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Pyrimethanil is removed from Table 1 and is addressed in Phase II. This is a new analyte to be added to the testing panel and laboratories will need time to develop and validate their testing procedure.
Spinetoram is established at 3.2 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo. In addition, the CAS numbers for this analyte are reverted to existing law; the initially proposed revision was inaccurate.
Spinosad is established at 3.2 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August memo and requested by the Mosquito Vector Control Association of California. In addition, the CAS number for this analyte is reverted to existing law; the previously proposed revision was inaccurate.
Spiromesifen is maintained at the existing action level for Phase I and is addressed in Phase II.
Spiroxamine is established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the previously proposed 0.70 μg/g. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for noninhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit.
Tebuconazole is reverted to the existing action level of 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products in Phase I, rather than the previously proposed 18.0 μg/g. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that the existing action level for inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit. Tebuconazole is reverted to the existing action level of 2.0 μg/g for non-inhalable products. In their August Memo, DPR recommended an action level of 2.0 μg/g.
Thiacloprid is proposed to be established at 0.10 μg/g in Phase I for non-inhalable products, rather than the previously proposed 1.0 μg/g. Laboratories can already test to the lowered action level; the Department has determined that an action level of 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products is therefore not burdensome to the industry and will provide greater public health benefit.
Table 2
Note: Table 2 was added subsequent to the initial 45-day comment period. However, many of the analytes listed in Table 2 have action levels identical to their action levels as in existing law. Pesticides not listed below are proposed to remain at the same action level as existing law.
Abamectin is established at 0.10 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Acephate is established at 0.18 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Aldicarb is established at 0.02 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Azoxystrobin is established at 30.0 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Buprofezin is established at 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products and 60 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Captan has been modified to remove the requirement to test for 1,2,3,6- Tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI), a degradate of Captan, in Phase I. The requirement to test for this analyte will become effective in Phase II. Public comment noted that because laboratories currently do not have to test for THPI implementation time will be necessary to establish test methods. The Department agrees with this assessment and modified the text accordingly.
Carbendazim is established at 2.0 μg/g for inhalable products and 6.5 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Carbofuran is established at 0.02 μg/g for non-inhalable products. Although DPR recommended a lower action level in the August Memo, the Department does not consider that level feasible. Therefore, the Department is establishing the action level at 0.02 μg/g to be as health protective as possible within technical limitations.
Chlordane is established at 0.065 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Chlorpyrifos is established at 0.093 μg/g non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Cyfluthrin is established at 0.77 μg/g non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Cypermethrin is established at 0.92 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Cyprodinil is established at 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products and 50.0 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Dacthal (DPCA) is established at 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products and 0.07 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
DDVP (Dichlorvos) is established at 0.05 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Dimethomorph is established at 16.0 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Ethoprop(hos) is established at 0.02 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Fenoxycarb is established at 0.05 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Fenubucarb (BPMC) is established at 0.02 μg/g for inhalable products and 0.02 μg/g for non-inhalable products. This substance is banned for use in the United States but has been detected in cannabis grown at both licensed and unlicensed sites. In their memos to the Department, DPR recommended that this analyte be given an action level of “non-detect.” As discussed in the ISOR, the Department no longer considers “nondetect” to be an appropriate action level. Therefore, the lowest feasible action level of 0.02 μg/g is proposed for this analyte.
Fipronil established at 0.03 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Fluopyram is established at 5.0 μg/g for inhalable products and 33.0 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Isoprocarb (MIPC) is established at 0.02 μg/g for inhalable products and 0.02 μg/g for non-inhalable products. This substance is banned for use in the United States but has been detected in cannabis grown at both licensed and unlicensed sites. In their memos to the Department, DPR recommended that this analyte be given an action level of “non-detect.” As discussed in the ISOR, the Department no longer considers “nondetect” to be an appropriate action level. Therefore, the lowest feasible action level of 0.02 μg/g is established for this analyte.
Methamidophos is established at 1.0 μg/g for inhalable products and 0.064 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Methiocarb is established at 0.02 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Methyl parathion is established at 0.023 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Mevinphos is established at 0.04 μg/g for inhalable products and 0.022 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Monocrotophos is established at 0.30 μg/g for inhalable products and 0.056 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Naled is established at 0.21 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Omethoate is established at 0.10 μg/g for inhalable products and 2.0 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Oxamyl is established at 0.17 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Phosmet is established at 0.092 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Procymidone is established at 0.02 μg/g for inhalable products and 0.02 μg/g for noninhalable products. This substance is banned for use in the United States but has been detected in cannabis grown at both licensed and unlicensed sites. In their memos to the Department, DPR recommended that this analyte be given an action level of “nondetect.” As discussed in the ISOR, the Department no longer considers “non-detect” to be an appropriate action level. Therefore, the lowest feasible action level of 0.02 μg/g is established for this analyte.
Propoxur is established at 0.025 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Pymetrozine is established at 1.0 μg/g for inhalable products and 0.52 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Pyraclostrobin is established at 0.1 μg/g for inhalable products and 3.3 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Pyrimethanil is established at 1.0 μg/g for inhalable products and 15.0 μg/g for noninhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
Spiromesifen is established at 2.5 μg/g for non-inhalable products, as recommended by DPR in the August Memo.
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
The action levels included in this rulemaking action represent the alternative to the originally proposed action levels that would effectuate the same purpose and lessen any adverse economic impact on small businesses. No other alternative was proposed to the Department that would effectuate the same purpose and lessen any adverse economic impact on small businesses.
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The action levels included in this rulemaking action represent the alternative to the originally proposed action levels that would be as effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulations are proposed and less burdensome to affected person. No other 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.
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
None.
COMMENT SUMMARIES AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE FIRST MODIFIED TEXT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (February 11 – March 4)
General
- Commenter states that there is no reason to use pesticides on an agricultural product for human consumption.
This comment is rejected. The Department disagrees that pesticides should be prohibited from use on cannabis, as pesticides are commonly used on agricultural products for human consumption.
Commenter A001
- Time and money are wasted on testing as we believe the difference between each lab’s testing equipment may be leading to false positives. For example, they have extracts separated into THCA and HTE, both of which will pass testing but once combined, will fail for an LOD/LOQ amount of a Category I pesticide.
This comment is rejected. The Department disagrees that testing is wasteful. The intention of this regulatory package is to reduce some of the variability between laboratories, which contributes to what the commenter is categorizing as “false positives.” By establishing a more uniform method of setting LODs, the variability of detection between licensed laboratories will be reduced.
Commenter A002
- Commenters express support for the LOQ to be consistent across testing laboratories, expanding the list of regulated pesticides, and eliminating the distinction between Category I and Category II pesticides.
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenters’ support of the regulations.
Commenter A002, A003, A006, A008, A009, A011, A012
- Commenters express support for separate action limits for inhalable and noninhalable cannabis products.
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenters’ support of the regulations.
Commenter A002, A003, A006, A008, A009, A011
- Updating the standards strengthens consumer protections and reinforces confidence in the integrity of California’s regulated cannabis market.
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenter’s support of the regulations.
Commenter A006
- We support the Department’s efforts to standardize analytical methodologies across licensed laboratories, including updated requirements for limits of detection and quantitation.
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenter’s support of the regulations.
Commenter A006
- Commenters request that the DCC testing laboratory provide testing data demonstrating that they can consistently attain these values before implementing the requirement for licensed laboratories.
This comment is rejected. SOPs for DCC’s validated methods are available to the public upon request.
Commenter A004, A005
- Commenter notes that they welcomed the development of guidelines to help ensure the safety and integrity of cannabis products in 2018 and 2019, but were disappointed at that time that no action levels were established for Category I pesticides. This led to significant inconsistency between labs. Commenter supports the Department’s continued commitment to consumer safety and applauds the proposal to expand the list of regulated pesticides and establish action levels.
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenter’s support of the regulations.
Commenter A012
- Commenter is concerned about the potential financial impact of the regulation on small laboratories. Many small labs operate with limited budgets and narrow margins. The requirement for new instrumentation or detector upgrades represents a substantial capital investment that some facilities simply cannot absorb.
This comment is accepted. The Department conducted a thorough economic impact assessment as part of the rulemaking process as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Due to shared concerns about the financial impact of the originally proposed action levels, the Department modified action levels to reduce the fiscal impact on laboratories.
Commenter A008
- Commenter is concerned that the potential financial impact of the regulation will result in small laboratories closing and states that closing multiple laboratories will not benefit consumers or operators and could lead to significant economic and legal consequences for the industry.
This comment is accepted. The Department conducted a thorough economic impact assessment as part of the rulemaking process as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Due to shared concerns about the financial impact of the originally proposed action levels, the Department modified action levels to reduce the fiscal impact on laboratories.
Commenter A011
- Compliance testing expenses are expected to rise significantly. Those costs will ultimately be passed on to the licensees and in turn the consumer. Due to federal regulations, the cost of commercial lending for cannabis-related businesses is considerably higher than prevailing market rates. This, combined with the economic challenges faced by licensed industry operators—who consistently seek discounts on standard testing prices—places additional financial strain on an already fragile ecosystem that has experienced ongoing economic distress since 2022. Consequently, some laboratories may find it difficult to sustain their operations financially. The potential closure of laboratories due to these financial pressures would ultimately be detrimental to consumers, as it would diminish the availability of testing services in California. This may also inadvertently create testing monopolies or oligarchies.
This comment is accepted. The Department conducted a thorough economic impact assessment as part of the rulemaking process as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Due to shared concerns about the financial impact of the originally proposed action levels, the Department modified action levels to reduce the fiscal impact on laboratories.
Commenter A011
- Commenter asks if DCC will provide guidance or methods for testing the new analytes.
This comment is rejected. The regulation does not proscribe a single testing procedure for any analyte, as proscribing methods that each laboratory must follow can stifle innovation and scientific development. It is up to each licensed laboratory to develop its own scientifically valid testing method.
Commenter A003, A011
- Commenter asks if DCC will provide guidance on how metabolite THPI be converted to captan equivalents.
This comment is rejected. The regulation does not proscribe a single testing procedure for any analyte, as proscribing methods that each laboratory must follow can stifle innovation and scientific development. It is up to each licensed laboratory to develop its own scientifically valid testing method.
Commenter A011
Section 15719
- Commenter states that aligning pesticide action levels with current risk-based assessments and advancing more rigorous analytical validation standards shows the Department continuing to demonstrate leadership in prioritizing public health and safety.
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenter’s support of the regulations.
Commenter A006
- Commenter requests that the action level for malathion be adjusted to 8.0 μg/g for non-inhalable cannabis products and spinosad be raised to 3.2 μg/g as recommended by DPR. These substances are used in vector control and are an important public health protection measure.
This comment is accepted. The Department amended the action levels as recommended by the commenter.
Commenter A007
- Commenter requests that the Department address the potential economic burden on small laboratories through options such as phased implementation timelines, financial assistance programs, alternative compliance pathways, or grandfathering provisions for existing validated systems that continue to meet performance standards.
This comment is accepted in part. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, resulting in significantly reduced cost estimates (see revised Economic Impact Analysis) and added a phased implementation, which should address the commenter’s concern. Because regulations do not proscribe a single method or manner of compliance with the performance standards, alternative compliance pathways or grandfathering validated systems are already options and therefore this portion of the comment is rejected; it will not provide any meaningful difference from status quo. The commenter’s suggestion for financial assistance program is rejected as it is not within the Department’s authority to implement and would require statutory change.
Commenter A008
- The current proposal appears to overlook the time necessary for method development, matrix-specific validation, equipment calibration, and staff training, along with the DCC’s lab unit’s review, which can be quite lengthy. Imposing near impossible compliance deadlines undermines the very purpose of consumer protection and increases regulatory risk for compliant operators, especially where there is no immediate scientific justification for such changes.
This comment is accepted. The Department acknowledges and agrees that time is needed to come into compliance with updated action levels, which is why the regulation delays implementation of reduced action levels for 18 months. For reasons described in the Updates to the Initial Statement of Reasons, the Department believes 18 months is a sufficient time period for licensed laboratories to come into compliance with the new requirements.
Commenter A012
- For analytes with action limits greater than 0.1 μg/g, we recommend allowing laboratories to establish LOQs at or below 50% of the action level, which would provide reasonable flexibility to address both matrix-related challenges and analytespecific sensitivity limitations.
The Department agrees with this comment. The final text requires the LOQ for each analyte to be established at or below the action level for the analyte.
Commenter A009
- The inability of existing instrumentation in licensed laboratories to meet the newly suggested low limits of quantification (LOQs) indicates that the general marketplace views these proposed low LOQs as too stringent to be established as limits for consumer products. We recommend that the DCC establish LOQ levels that are feasible given the instrumentation currently used in many cannabis testing laboratories. We encourage the DCC to establish levels that can be consistently and reliably detected. Having reliably detectable levels would be beneficial for licensees and consumers. We urge the DCC to establish achievable levels by utilizing instrumentation that is already in place in the marketplace.
This comment is rejected. As described in the ISOR and two subsequent Notices of Modified Text, the proposed action levels are those recommended by DPR. DPR’s methodology and rationale can be found in the memos provided to the public as part of the rulemaking package. Furthermore, as described in the Notices of Modified Text and the Updated Informative Digest, the Department determined a lower bound of 0.02 μg/g was reasonable based on an assessment of state reference lab capabilities. The Department does not believe that raising action levels higher than that is necessary.
Commenter A011
- Commenter is concerned that §15719(d)(1)(B) effectively requires laboratories to establish LOQs at or below these lowest action levels (LOQ ≤ action level). Demonstrating LOQ at these levels typically requires calibration/validation of quantitation at the low end of the range, and it will drive method validation scope and ongoing QC requirements. For implementation clarity, DCC should confirm that this LOQ-at-or-below-action-level requirement is intentional for all Table 2 pesticides with action levels < 0.10 μg/g, and should provide implementation guidance describing acceptable approaches for demonstrating LOQ at these levels.
This comment is accepted in part. The final text requires the LOQ for each analyte to be established at or below the action level for the analyte, which will address the commenter’s underlying concern. The comment to provide implementation guidance is rejected as the regulations do not proscribe a single method for achieving compliance.
Commenter A010
- There is scarce, if any, available data that shows a consistent ability to reach these lower LOQs. Data has not been shared by the DCC showing that achieving these low levels of LOQs is possible and is consistent across daily runs. Lowering LOQs to the point where even the best instrumentation will not consistently hit those targets will lead to delays and frustrations amongst cultivators and manufacturers and ultimately consumers.
This comment is rejected. As described in the ISOR and two subsequent Notices of Modified Text, the proposed action levels are those recommended by DPR. DPR’s methodology and rationale can be found in the memos provided to the public as part of the rulemaking package.
Commenter A010
- The Department should be aware of the downstream implications of tightened pesticide action levels on licensed distribution and logistics infrastructure and the operational risks that could emerge, including increased batch hold frequency, release timing variability, inventory volatility, and various others. Alignment between laboratory standards and distribution compliance expectations is essential to prevent cascading operational risk.
The comment is rejected. This rulemaking adopts and modifies standards for testing of pesticides by licensed cannabis testing laboratories. However, the Department will continue to monitor how the revised pesticide action levels impact all licensed operators and the regulated industry as a whole.
Commenter A003
Section 15719: Table 1
- Because the proposed Phase I framework requires laboratories to demonstrate LOQs at or below 0.1 μg/g for all pesticides, laboratories with current LOQs above 0.1 μg/g for Category II analytes would need to modify and revalidate existing analytical methods in order to comply. Accordingly, the assumption that laboratories will be able to immediately comply with Phase I requirements without additional validation may not reflect the operational realities of currently validated methods.
The Department agrees with this comment. The final text requires the LOQ for each analyte to be established at or below the action level for the analyte.
Commenter A009
- Laboratories will not be immediately prepared to implement THPI testing, which is introduced as a new analytical requirement under the proposed regulations. The addition of a new analyte requires method development, validation, and quality control implementation. We recommend incorporating THPI testing into the second implementation phase, alongside the other additional pesticide requirements.
The Department agrees with this comment. The requirement to test for THPI has been moved to Phase II.
Commenter A009
Section 15719: Table 2
- For impacted analytes (Aldicarb, Carbofuran, Chlorpyrifos, Ethoprop, Fipronil, Methiocarb, Methyl parathion, Mevinphos, Monocrotophos, Propoxur), consider an LOQ of at least 0.04 μg/g or μg/ml to meet equipment capabilities.
This comment is rejected. As described in the ISOR and two subsequent Notices of Modified Text, the proposed action levels are those recommended by DPR. DPR’s methodology and rationale can be found in the memos provided to the public as part of the rulemaking package. Furthermore, as described in the Notices of Modified Text and the Updated Informative Digest, the Department determined a lower bound of 0.02 μg/g was reasonable based on an assessment of state reference lab capabilities. The Department does not believe that raising action levels higher than that is necessary.
Commenter A005
- We recommend that the Department avoid establishing action limits below 0.05 μg/g. Limits below this level will be challenging for laboratories to reliably achieve using a single multi-residue analytical method across the full pesticide panel and the diverse range of cannabis matrices encountered in routine testing.
This comment is rejected. As described in the ISOR and two subsequent Notices of Modified Text, the proposed action levels are those recommended by DPR. DPR’s methodology and rationale can be found in the memos provided to the public as part of the rulemaking package. Furthermore, as described in the Notices of Modified Text and the Updated Informative Digest, the Department determined a lower bound of 0.02 μg/g was reasonable based on an assessment of state reference lab capabilities. The Department does not believe that raising action levels higher than that is necessary.
Commenter A009
- For certain pesticides (e.g., aldicarb, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos), the proposed determination levels differ significantly. For example, under federal food regulations, the limit for carbofuran is 0.2 ppm, whereas the proposed regulation sets it at 0.005 ppm (Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR Part 180).
This comment is rejected. The action levels were established based on the recommendations from DPR and are specific to cannabis and cannabis consumption levels.
Commenter A011
- We urge the Department to adopt a single set of harmonized thresholds, unless and until it mandates pre-approval and category assignment of product types. Establishing different thresholds for inhalable and ingestible products introduces unnecessary complexity and places testing laboratories in an unsustainable enforcement role. The proposal appears to selectively borrow from EPA, USDA, and USP standards, but without a clearly defined rationale. This patchwork approach results in regulatory ambiguity.
This comment is rejected. Current regulations establish different thresholds for inhalable and non-inhalable products. As described in the ISOR, the proposed action levels are those recommended by DPR. DPR’s methodology and rationale can be found in the memos provided to the public as part of the rulemaking package.
Commenter A012
- Per the DCC’s definition from §15731, if the LOQ is set to 0.1 PPM the LOD must be 0.03 PPM (30PPB), which is impossible. The establishment of action levels in the parts-per-billion range for several pesticides will be lower than the established LOD, automatically failing samples at noise levels that falls out of DCC’s definition of LOD.
This comment is rejected. The LOD for each analyte is based on the specific performance of each laboratory’s test method. The Department has not established LODs in regulatory text.
Commenter A012
- Does the DCC possess peer-reviewed scientific literature demonstrating that these extremely low ppb-level thresholds can be reliably detected and validated in cannabis or similarly complex matrices such as hemp? If so, that literature should be made publicly available to laboratories to ensure that compliance expectations are grounded in sound science and feasible methodology.
This comment is rejected. As described in the ISOR and two subsequent Notices of Modified Text, the proposed action levels are those recommended by DPR. DPR’s methodology and rationale can be found in the memos provided to the public as part of the rulemaking package.
Commenter A012
- Commenter would like the Department to consider action levels for deltamethrin.
This comment is rejected. The Department relies on recommendations from DPR on which pesticides to incorporate into the testing protocol, as they are the regulatory agency with expertise on pesticide use. At this time, DPR has not recommended including deltamethrin in the testing panel.
Commenter A007
Section 15731
- There is no scientific justification for analytes summed up for reporting having a
summed up LOD and LOQ value. Each analyte should be compared against their
own LOD and LOQ. When analytes are independently determined and no
interactions are proven, there is no scientific reason to add the LOD and LOQ
values. The proper way of interpreting the results should be that each analyte is
valuated against their own LOD and LOC.This comment is rejected. Analytes with isomeric composition are treated in the
regulatory text as a single analyte, therefore only one LOD or LOQ is associated
with a single analyte. This is in line with how toxicity levels are established and in
line with practices from other regulatory bodies. If single analytes had multiple
LODs and LOQs associated it would result in confusion for the consumer and for
enforcement. Additionally, if analytes weren’t treated as single analyte, with
multiple LODs and LOQs allowed, an analyte’s isomers LOQs could surpass the
required action levels preventing analytes from being properly reported as failing.
The regulatory text does not prevent the laboratory from analyzing isomers
individually.Commenter: A005
- Please provide detailed explanations and example calculations for the new method
of calculating LOD values. The instructions are not clear, nor do we have a detailed
enough understanding of how a derived number is relating to the final reporting unit
of μg/g or μ/ml.This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the
modified text. The method for calculating LODs in this rulemaking package is not
new and is already provided for under existing law.Commenter: A005
Section 15731
- There is no scientific justification for analytes summed up for reporting having a summed up LOD and LOQ value. Each analyte should be compared against their own LOD and LOQ. When analytes are independently determined and no interactions are proven, there is no scientific reason to add the LOD and LOQ values. The proper way of interpreting the results should be that each analyte is valuated against their own LOD and LOC.
This comment is rejected. Analytes with isomeric composition are treated in the regulatory text as a single analyte, therefore only one LOD or LOQ is associated with a single analyte. This is in line with how toxicity levels are established and in line with practices from other regulatory bodies. If single analytes had multiple LODs and LOQs associated it would result in confusion for the consumer and for enforcement. Additionally, if analytes weren’t treated as single analyte, with multiple LODs and LOQs allowed, an analyte’s isomers LOQs could surpass the required action levels preventing analytes from being properly reported as failing. The regulatory text does not prevent the laboratory from analyzing isomers individually.
Commenter A005
- Please provide detailed explanations and example calculations for the new method of calculating LOD values. The instructions are not clear, nor do we have a detailed enough understanding of how a derived number is relating to the final reporting unit of μg/g or μ/ml.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text. The method for calculating LODs in this rulemaking package is not new and is already provided for under existing law.
Commenter A005
- Section 15731 uses a “minimum of 7 spiked blank samples” as part of the SD/slope LOD/LOQ calculation approach. To reduce variability in how laboratories design these required studies, could Department align the term “spiked blank samples” to the existing defined QC sample terms in Chapter 6 §15700 (for example, method blank, laboratory control sample, and matrix spike sample), either by using the defined term in §15731 or by stating explicitly which defined QC sample type is intended.
This comment is rejected. Spiked blank samples refer to the act of spiking blank matrix. LOD and LOQ spike levels are generally at the low end of the calibration range of a given analyte. The method blank, LCS, and matrix spike sample definitions do not accurately describe the samples described in 15731. The 7 spiked blank samples are not ongoing quality control samples such as the method blank, LCS, and matrix spike sample.
Commenter A010
- USFDA ICH Q2(R2), Section 3.2.3, already provides clear and internationally accepted definitions for determining LOD and LOQ, and should be adopted in full by DCC as scientific methods and principles cannot be left to subjective interpretations without harming the public and industry.
This comment is rejected. The calculation in USFDA ICH Q2(R2), specifically in section 3.2.3.3, is the same calculation DCC uses in the existing regulatory text. The LOD and LOQ calculations have not changed in the proposed regulatory text.
Commenter A012
- “For chromatographic analyses, the LOD must have a minimum signal-to-noise ratio of 3:1, which must be verified by visual inspection. For non-chromatographic analyses, the LOD must have a minimum signal-to-noise ratio of 3:1, which must be verified by software analysis or mathematical calculation.” This revision is highly ambiguous. It is unclear who determines the validity of “visual inspection”—the laboratory or the DCC reviewer. Additionally, the distinction between chromatographic and non-chromatographic analyses is unclear, as chromatographic data inherently rely on software integration and mathematical algorithms to calculate signal-to-noise ratios. The proposed language risks creating an endless cycle of subjective interpretation between laboratories and regulators regarding whose visual assessment or software algorithm is acceptable.
This comment is rejected. Chromatographic analyses refers to High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Liquid Chromatography- Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS), and Gas Chromatography- Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) techniques commonly used in cannabis testing. The results of these analyses produce chromatograms that can be visually inspected for noise and signal strength. While modern software is capable of calculating signal to noise ratios, the DCC has found many licensees are manipulating software calculations through selective noise inputs, in order to skew results. Visual inspection of a peak’s signal to noise ratio is common place in analytical chemistry for determining peak presence and acceptance.
Commenter A012
- Section 15731(d) requires chromatographic LOQ to have a minimum signal-to-noise ratio of 10:1 “verified by visual inspection.” If DCC intends to require LOQ at or below the lowest Table 2 action levels, can Department provide clear guidance on how laboratories are expected to determine and document S/N for “visual inspection” in a reproducible way (including what supporting records are expected), so this requirement is implemented consistently across laboratories.
This comment is rejected. Chromatograms will be visually inspected to determine if the ratios of 3:1 (LODs) and 10:1 (LOQs) have been met. The proposed regulatory text does not change a given laboratory’s record practices.
Commenter A010
- Questions for Clarification: Regarding “visual inspection,” does this mean laboratories must manually assess peak height or area, or is it acceptable to calculate these values using software and then confirm visually that the peak is genuine? It is most scientifically correct to allow the labs to calculate this value vs visual inspection.
This comment is rejected. Chromatograms will need to be visually inspected for noise and signal strength. While modern software is capable of calculating signal to noise ratios, the Department has found many licensees are manipulating software calculations through selective noise inputs, in order to skew results. Visual inspection of a peak’s signal to noise ratio is common place in analytical chemistry for determining peak presence and acceptance. This process of visual examination is as described in the comment: an analyst manually assessing the peak height/area of a given analyte and comparing that value to the peak height/area of the noise in the same chromatogram. In addition to the manipulation of noise inputs, the Department has also found many laboratories are using noise in calibration curves and to meet mandated action levels. This new text is needed to ensure a commonsense verification is adhered to due to the widespread abuse of using noise in lieu of a proper peak and ongoing manipulation of software calculations to obfuscate oversight of chromatographic analyses. The new regulatory text does not impact any additional quality control measures a laboratory may choose to take to ensure peaks are assessed appropriately.
Commenter A011
- Lastly the criteria set forth by the DCC for visual inspection of chromatograms is more in line with visual inspection of PDA chromatograms that have very little noise, and not MRM chromatograms that are inherently more noisy due to the low levels of analyte detection.
This comment is rejected. PDA and MRM chromatograms will be subject to visual inspection with this rulemaking action. Noisy MRM chromatograms underscore the need for a commonsense verification that an analyte’s signal is distinguishable from noise. This rulemaking action is necessary to address the widespread abuse of using noise in lieu of a proper peak and ongoing manipulation of software calculations to obfuscate oversight of chromatographic analyses.
Commenter A012
- There is no scientific justification for analytes summed up for reporting having a summed up LOD and LOQ value. Each analyte should be compared against their own LOD and LOQ. When analytes are independently determined and no interactions are proven, there is no scientific reason to add the LOD and LOQ values. The proper way of interpreting the results should be that each analyte is valuated against their own LOD and LOC.
COMMENT SUMMARIES AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE SECOND MODIFIED TEXT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (April 13 – May 5)
Section 15719: Table 1 and Table 2
- Commenter notes that some analytes have a lower action level in non-inhalables than inhalables. Inhalable cannabis products typically have higher Action Levels due to combustion byproducts potentially having adverse health effects, and the respiratory system absorbs toxins more efficiently and directly into the bloodstream than the digestive system. Request that DCC provide reasoning as to how and why the newly proposed Action Levels were determined. Additionally, consider increasing the Non-inhalable Action Levels to be similar to or higher than Inhalable Action Levels.
This comment is rejected. As described in the ISOR and two subsequent Notices of Modified Text, the proposed action levels are those recommended by DPR. DPR’s methodology and rationale can be found in the memos provided to the public as part of the rulemaking package. Specifically, DPR’s methodology and rationale for adopting lower action levels for Chlorpyrifos and Tebuconazole in non-inhalable products can be found in the memos provided to the public as part of the rulemaking package.
Commenters: B002, B003
- Commenter is supportive of THPI deferral to Phase II, but requests additional information related to implementation:
(a) Reporting convention. Confirmation that the listed action levels (0.70 μg/g inhalable, 6.5 μg/g non-inhalable) apply to the sum of captan and THPI, rather than each compound separately, would prevent inconsistent reporting across cannabis labs.
(b) Recovery acceptance. Captan recovery is well documented in the residue literature as variable due to its hydrolytic instability, with recoveries in roughly the 60-120% range commonly reported. Confirmation that this range is acceptable for the captan + THPI sum determination — provided method precision is met (RSD ≤ 20% at LOQ) — would avoid validation churn during Phase II onboarding.
(c) Reference standards. THPI (CAS 85-40-5) reference standards are commercially available but less widely stocked than captan; procurement lead time, isotopic-internal-standard availability for matrix correction, and demonstrated standard stability in cannabis matrix should factor into Phase II validation planning.
This comment is partially accepted. DCC appreciates commenter’s support and notes commenter’s request for additional guidance regarding implementation. DCC routinely provides education to licensees on new regulations and SOPs for validated methods are available to the public upon request.
Commenter B005
- PT samples spiked into cannabis matrix (not hemp, not food, not solvent surrogate) and covering the captan + THPI sum at action-level concentrations are not, to our knowledge, currently offered as a routine scheme by the ISO/IEC 17043 PT providers serving California cannabis labs. ISO/IEC 17025 §7.7.2 and 4 CCR § 15733 require demonstrated ongoing competence through PT participation; without cannabis-matrix PT for Captan + THPI in place before the Phase II effective date, all licensed cannabis labs face the same gap. Coordination between the Department and PT providers to confirm cannabis-specific scope coverage during the 18-month transition would close that gap.
This comment is accepted. The Department understands that the captan + THPI is not immediately available, which is one reason that the implementation of this requirement was delayed for 18 months. The gap noted by the commenter will be taken under advisement. While the Department does not have authority to dictate requirements for ISO/IEC, the Department appreciates the recommendation to work with PT providers regarding calibration-curve point requirements governed by the laboratory’s validated method under ISO/IEC 17025 §7.2.2.
Commenter B005
Irrelevant
- Commenter states that Category II pesticides currently have no required LOQ threshold, meaning many labs operate with validated methods above 0.1 μg/g forcertain Category II analytes while remaining compliant and Requiring LOQs ≤0.1 μg/g for all pesticides in Phase I would force labs to perform new LOD/LOQ studies and potentially require modification of existing methods, contradicting the assumption of immediate readiness. Commenter requests that the Department defer the LOQ <0.1 μg/g requirement to Phase II.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B006
- Commenter requests the Department allow, in Phase I, for previously accepted validations to utilize the previously approved LOQ(s) or include language of LOQs no greater than 50% the indicated action level for those with an action limit >0.10 μg/g. Alternatively, if validation work is going to be required with the implementation of these changes ensure there is sufficient time between finalization of proposed regulation and the ‘effective date’ to allow for method development, validation, and department review.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B003
- Commenter states that DCC’s reference laboratory be held to identical calibration, validation, and proficiency requirements will be critical to maintaining credibility and consistency across the program.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B003
- Commenter notes that they will have significant issues with the feasibility of meeting the required LOQ of 0.1ug/g for two analytes: Captan and Pyrethrins.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B004
- Commenter does not believe 18 months is needed to implement the proposed changes because they are currently able to analyze the additional proposed analytes and do so routinely in other methods.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B004
- Commenter suggests that when an operator fails a secret shopper test or any enforcement-related analysis, the DCC should be required to provide the full underlying test results to the affected operator. This should include, at a minimum, the specific analytes detected, their measured concentrations, and the methodology used in testing.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B002
- Commenter questions whether, for the first proposed update (18 months of using Table 1), an updated LOD/LOQ study is sufficient or if the department will require a new method validation.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B007
- Commenter questions whether the department will require a full validation for all analytes once Table 2 is implemented after 18 months. Alternatively, would it be acceptable to split the pesticide testing into two methods—one covering the original analytes and another for the newly added analytes?
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B007
- Commenter expresses concerns about the narrowed CAS for spinetoram and spinosad and requests clarification on several issues.
This comment is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B005
- Commenter notes four practical challenges related to the calculation methods in section 15731: (1) Visual inspection of S/N for chromatographic LOD/LOQ verification is more subjective in cannabis chromatograms than in food or environmental matrices; (2) manual visual inspection of every chromatogram is not operationally workable at scale; (3) There is no certified analyte-free cannabis matrix reference material, and cannabis flower in routine commerce frequently carries lowlevel background pesticide signal from environmental sources; and (4) §15731 does not specify which signal-to-noise calculation method applies.
This comment is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B005
- Commenter recommends the Department issue technical guidance specifying the signal-to-noise measurement methodology.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B001
- Commenter requests that the Department restore a meaningful buffer between the required LOQ and the applicable action level for both the interim Table 1 standard (Section 15719(c)(1)) and the permanent Table 2 standard (Section 15719(d)(1)). We recommend requiring that the LOQ be no greater than 50% of the action level, which is consistent with the Department’s own stated intent in the Statement of Reasons for this rulemaking.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the
modified text.Commenter B001
- Commenter recommends the Department condition the sub-0.10 μg/g LOQ requirements under Section 15719(d)(1)(B) on simultaneous adoption of the CRM standardization and reference method guidance measures described in Section 3 of this letter. For all analytes requiring LOQs below 0.05 μg/g, provide an extended implementation timeline.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B001
- Commenter recommends that the Department extend existing CRM requirements beyond method validation to encompass routine calibration. Specifically, require that the initial calibration standards used in each analytical sequence for residual pesticide compliance testing be prepared from, or verified against, a CRM traceable to a primary metrology standard (NIST, USFDA, or ISO/IEC 17034-accredited producer) with certified purity of 95% or better and documented measurement uncertainty of 2% or less at the 95% confidence level. Require that the CRM lot number and supplier be disclosed on each COA for traceability purposes.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B001
- Commenter recommends that the Department convene a technical working group made up of licensed laboratory scientists with cannabis matrix expertise, academic analytical chemists, and manufacturer representatives to develop and publish standardized reference method guidance for residual pesticide extraction and analysis in cannabis. Even a non-mandatory publicly available reference method would provide a basis for inter-laboratory comparison, proficiency evaluation, and investigation of discrepant results, consistent with approaches used in FDA food safety and EPA environmental programs.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B001
- Commenter recommends that the Department amend sections 15733 and 15734 in conjunction with the proposed pesticide regulation changes to: (a) add a pesticidespecific participation frequency requirement separate from the general semi-annual requirement in Section 15733(a), mandating that licensed laboratories participate in a residual pesticide proficiency testing program quarterly (or at least twice per year), not merely once annually as currently required under Section 15733(b); (b) require that proficiency samples for pesticide testing be cannabis-matrix matched and include analytes spiked at concentrations near the applicable action levels (not just at mid-range of); (c) specify a standardized statistical scoring methodology (Z-score or equivalent) for proficiency test evaluation, independent of provider-specific criteria; and (d) require public reporting of laboratory proficiency test results for residual pesticides, by analyte, to enable industry participants, regulators and consumers to evaluate laboratory performance. Consider including a grade scale that is published similar to restaurant health grades by city health inspectors. The existing structure is a sound foundation; these targeted amendments would make it effective.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B001
- Commenter recommends that the Department publish a clear side-by-side comparison of Table 1 and Table 2 action levels identifying, for each analyte and product category, whether the action level increases, decreases, or remains the same under Table 2. This document should be published concurrently with the final regulatory text so that manufacturers can assess the practical impact of the Table 2 transition on their products and supply chain protocols.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B001
- Commenter recommends that the Department establish a regulatory right to manufacturer-initiated split-sample confirmation testing at a second licensed laboratory or the Department’s reference laboratory when a batch fails residual pesticide testing within a margin at levels just above the action level. The confirmation sample should be drawn from the same retained primary sample under documented chain of custody. Where the confirmation result is below the action level, establish a clear adjudication protocol such as a third-laboratory referee analysis rather than defaulting automatically to the failing result. Publish the number of times each year a laboratory’s results are overturned following retesting.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text.
Commenter B001
COMMENT SUMMARIES AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE THIRD MODIFIED TEXT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (May 28 – June 12)
Irrelevant
- §15731(a) and (c) strike the signal-to-noise and USFDA/USEPA options, leaving the standard-deviation method using a minimum of seven spiked blank samples as the only permitted way to establish LOD and LOQ. This mandates a single prescriptive procedure that is not how trace pesticide LOD and LOQ are conventionally established; signal-to-noise and recovery and precision at the target level (SANTE, AOAC) are the standard approaches.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text. The Department will consider this suggestion in future rulemaking.
Commenter C001
- That seven-spiked-blank method derives the LOQ from replicate variability, so in cannabis matrix it can produce an LOQ above the action level for low-level analytes. For the analytes with action levels under 0.10 μg/g (Aldicarb, Carbofuran, Procymidone at 0.02, through Chlorpyrifos at 0.093), §15719(d)(1) requires the LOQ to be at or below the action level, yet the only permitted method can yield an LOQ above it, with no alternative available to demonstrate the lower limit.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text. The Department will consider this suggestion in future rulemaking.
Commenter C001
- “Captan + THPI” is listed as a single entry with one action level, but it is two compounds requiring separate validation. Captan is unstable and degrades to THPI throughout sample preparation and analysis at a variable rate, and THPI is itself difficult to quantify. The combined listing requires validating two difficult analytes to report a single value whose reliability is undermined by that variable conversion.
This comment is rejected as it is not directed at changes proposed in the modified text. The Department will consider this suggestion in future rulemaking.
Commenter C001
COMMENT SUMMARIES AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE 45-DAY COMMENT PERIOD
General
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenters’ support of the regulations.
Commenter W009, W010, W016, W019, W021, W027, H3.1
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, which resulted in significantly reduced cost estimates (see revised Economic Impact Analysis).
Commenter W001, W008, W022
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, resulting in significantly reduced cost estimates (see revised Economic Impact Analysis).
Commenter W001, W008
This comment is rejected. The Department has a statutory mandate to establish and enforce testing requirements for cannabis and cannabis products. The requirements for other agricultural products are not relevant to the requirements the Department must enforce.
Commenter W001
Section 15719
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenters’ support of the regulations.
Commenter W009, W010, W014, W021, H1.1, H2.1, H3.2
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, resulting in significantly reduced cost estimates (see revised Economic Impact Analysis), which should address the commenter’s concern.
Commenter W012, W017, W020, W022
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, decreasing the need for highly concentrated solutions, which should address the commenter’s concern.
Commenter W013, W014
This comment is accepted. The final text includes delayed implementation of the additional pesticides.
Commenter W013, W014, W016, W017, W020, W021, W023, W025, W027
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenters’ support of the regulations.
Commenter W014, W016, W018, W025, H1.2, H3.3
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, which should address the commenter’s concern.
Commenter W014, W015, W016, W021, W022, H1.3, H2.3, H3.4
This comment is accepted. DPR’s August memo updates its recommendations to action levels based on cannabis consumption data. The updated recommendations have been incorporated into the modified text.
Commenter W015, W020, H1.4
This comment is accepted. The final regulation text implements a two-phase approach which will address the commenters’ underlying concern.
Commenter W012, H2.4, H3.7
This comment is accepted. DPR’s August memo updates its recommendations to action levels based on cannabis consumption data. The updated recommendations have been incorporated into the modified text.
Commenter W014, W016, W024, W026, W028, W029, H3.5
This comment is rejected. The DPR August Memo establishes action levels based on factors described in the memo. The CPRMP data is not relevant to the action levels recommended by DPR and adopted by the Department. However, the Department has modified the text to raise many of the action levels, which should address the commenter’s underlying concern.
Commenter H3.6
This comment is accepted. The final text updates the action levels for these substances.
Commenter W029, H3.8
This comment is rejected. The Department acknowledges the concern raised by this commenter, but notes that “zero” is not a scientifically quantifiable measurement. A true action level of zero means that there is not a single molecule of the substance in the sample; testing instrumentation and methods are not sensitive enough to test to this level.
Commenter W006
This comment is rejected. The Department has relied on the expertise of the Department of Pesticide Regulation in determining which action levels should be amended. The proposed modified action levels reflect their expertise based on current available information.
Commenter W007
This comment is rejected. The Department has relied on the expertise of the Department of Pesticide Regulation in determining action levels. The proposed modified action levels reflect their expertise based on current available information.
Commenter W007, W021
This comment is rejected. The Department has relied on the expertise of the Department of Pesticide Regulation in determining action levels. The proposed modified action levels reflect their expertise based on current available information.
Commenter W008
This comment is rejected. The Department does not see a regulatory benefit in requiring all input materials for edible products to undergo pesticide testing on each individual component. Licensees are free, however, to conduct any additional testing beyond that mandated by the Department.
Commenter W008, W021
This comment is accepted. The Department acknowledges that LOQ at 50% of action levels may be challenging for some labs to achieve at this time and the Department modified the text to establish LOQs at action level or below.
Commenter W009
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, which should address the commenter’s concern.
Commenter W009
This comment is rejected. DPR provided recommended pesticide screenings based on available information. The Department has selected the current expansion based on levels that are currently achievable without significant costs that would put licensed laboratories out of business. The Department will continue to work with DPR and interested parties on future updates to laboratory testing requirements.
Commenter W014, W015, W016, W017, W021
Section 15731
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenter’s support of the regulations.
Commenter H2.2
This comment is accepted. This rulemaking will adopt LOD and LOQ standards for regulatory testing.
Commenter W001
This comment is rejected. At this time, the Department believes that a single, unified method of calculating LOD and LOQ is of most value. However, we will continue to evaluate this suggestion for future potential changes.
Commenter W009
This comment is rejected. Chromatograms will need to be visually inspected for noise and signal strength. While modern software is capable of calculating signal to noise ratios, the Department has found many licensees are manipulating software calculations through selective noise inputs, in order to skew results. Visual inspection of a peak’s signal to noise ratio is common place in analytical chemistry for determining peak presence and acceptance. This process of visual examination is as described in the comment: an analyst manually assessing the peak height/area of a given analyte and comparing that value to the peak height/area of the noise in the same chromatogram. In addition to the manipulation of noise inputs, the Department has also found many laboratories are using noise in calibration curves and to meet mandated action levels. This new text is needed to ensure a commonsense verification is adhered to due to the widespread abuse of using noise in lieu of a proper peak and ongoing manipulation of software calculations to obfuscate oversight of chromatographic analyses. The new regulatory text does not impact any additional quality control measures a laboratory may choose to take to ensure peaks are assessed appropriately.
Commenter W014
ISOR
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, resulting in more feasible action levels, which should address the commenter’s concern.
Commenter W010, W016, W021, W023, W025, W027, W029
This comment is accepted. The Department appreciates the commenter’s support of the regulations.
Commenter W010, W014, W018, W029
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, resulting in significantly reduced cost estimates (see revised Economic Impact Analysis), which should address the commenter’s concern.
Commenter W010, W019, W021, W026
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, which should address the commenters’ concern.
Commenter W010, W011, W014, W019, W023
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, which should address the commenters’ concern.
Commenter W010, W014, W016, W021, W024, W027
This comment is accepted. The proposal has been modified to establish a phased-in implementation of updated action levels so that testing labs have sufficient time to develop and validate test methods. The modified requirements are anticipated to have a significantly lower financial impact on the testing industry, and subsequently the rest of the cannabis industry.
Commenter W010, W020
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, which should address the commenters’ concern.
Commenter W010, W020, W023, W024, W027
This comment is accepted. The Department modified the text to raise action levels as recommended in the DPR August Memo, which should address the commenters’ concern.
Commenter W010
This comment is rejected. The proposed regulations are necessary to update standards related to pesticide testing. The Department will continue to engage in regulatory oversight and enforcement to ensure licensed laboratories are operating in compliance with the law.
Commenter W017, W018, W023
This comment is rejected. DPR provided recommended pesticide screenings based on available information. The Department has selected the current expansion based on levels that are currently achievable without significant costs that would put licensed laboratories out of business. The Department will continue to work with DPR and interested parties on future updates to laboratory testing requirements.
Commenter W014, W015, W016, W017, W021
This comment is rejected. The Department has determined that validation of the proposed methods will be completed prior to regulations taking effect.
Commenter W028
This comment is rejected. Licensees are required to maintain accreditation for all methods in accordance with the regulations. The Department has determined that the standards proposed in this rulemaking can be achieved by licensed laboratories within the time provided.
Commenter W027
Outside of the Scope / Irrelevant
This comment is rejected. This would necessitate a statutory change that is outside the scope of this rulemaking action.
Commenter W012, W028
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal, but the Department will take it under advisement.
Commenter W011
This comment is rejected. Standardized SOPs are outside of the scope of this rulemaking package. The Department will keep this suggestion on file for future rulemakings.
Commenter W001
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal, but the Department will take it under advisement.
Commenter W001
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal.
Commenter W001
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering
whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013
This comment is rejected. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this regulatory proposal and refers to early draft amendments that DCC is still considering whether to propose in a future rulemaking action.
Commenter W013