Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Postponement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada cannabis board delays contested lab and testing rules after industry objections
Summary
Following extensive testimony from testing labs and industry groups, the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board voted to postpone consideration of a package of lab‑related regulations (NCCR 11 / LCB regs 61–73) for 60 days and approved the remainder of the regulation package. The postponement is intended to allow further workshops and alignment with recent legislative changes.
The Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board voted to postpone consideration of a cluster of laboratory and testing rules for 60 days after sustained objections from testing laboratories and industry groups about technical and statutory changes in the version returned by the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Chair Guzman Freilich, who opened the meeting by noting this was her final session as chair, said the board would hold sections tied to NCCR 11 — specifically the LCB changes labeled 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 72 and 73 on the agenda — for further work. She moved to postpone those sections to a future board meeting; the motion was amended to a 60‑day postponement and passed by roll call.
Industry speakers said the LCB alterations differ from the 2024 workshopped drafts and raised specific concerns. Lake Martin of the Nevada Cannabis Association pressed the board to delay adopting a proposed 20‑gram minimum sample size (section 68.3), arguing the change could conflict with Senate Bill 157, which links sample sizes to lot sizes. “Doubling the current sample size but not increasing the lot size is contrary to legislative intent,” Martin said.
Laboratory counsel Kimberly Max of Rushton, appearing for RSR Analytical and other labs, described section 61 as “problematic,” saying LCB’s version added a broad list of secondary publications and standards that would be costly and unclear for labs to apply. Max said labs need clearer, codified expectations and suggested additional workshops to reconcile the list with practical lab operations.
CCB staff and enforcement officials answered several technical points: Chief Cronkite said current processes allow the CCB to hold certificates of analysis (COAs) in Metrc while payment disputes are resolved and that the proposed rule change would offer a clearer, alternative process allowing labs to withhold COAs if they have not been paid. He also said the 20‑gram sample size had been workshopped and approved in 2024 as a minimum for certain lot sizes, but that SB157 and the board’s upcoming workshops could still change those numbers.
Legal counsel from the Attorney General’s Office told the board that the options after the 60‑day delay included approving the LCB edits as drafted, rejecting them, or returning disputed language to formal workshop if substantive changes were required; substantive edits would require reapproval by LCB.
After debate, the board adopted the 60‑day postponement for NCCR 11 sections and then approved the remainder of the regulation package (agenda items a–l excluding the held item). Staff said they will hold workshops in December and encouraged industry participation.
The postponement leaves open multiple technical questions — sample‑size alignment with SB157, whether a centralized list of standards is appropriate for labs, COA posting and withholding procedures, and the scope of allowable retesting — which the board and staff said they will address in the follow‑up workshops and the 60‑day review period.
