Acting Chair Bruce Stebbins: “All right, commissioners, we will now move on to item number seven, which is enforcement actions. And I’ll invite back in our enforcement counsel, Tim Gooden, and our first assistant enforcement counsel, Jacob Nielson.”

Enforcement Counsel Tim Gooden: Thank you. Acting Chair. And I will also note as well, that I believe our Chief Investigations and Enforcement Nomxilisi Jones is also here with us as well. So we just want to, start off. Good afternoon, Acting Chair and Commissioners. For your consideration, this afternoon is a proposed final order and stipulated agreement that follows the issuance of a Summary Suspension Order to Assured Testing Laboratories, LLC. License number IL281360. That was issued on June 30th, 2025 and became effective, at midnight on July 4th. This agreement is the culmination of investigative and enforcement efforts, relative to this matter. And much of the facts, as presented by the Commission in this agreement, are similar to and will follow those established in the underlying summary suspension order.”

Counsel Gooden: “So just to briefly, I will briefly summarize the facts here. Through the department’s investigation, the department found that from April 1st of 2024 through April 15th of 2025, Assured engaged in a practice of reporting testing results in a non-compliant manner. The department’s investigation initially focused on, total yeast and mold compliance testing results.”

“Through that investigation. The department found that the licensee did not report the measured value in metric for approximately 7000 lab samples which received results between 0 to 10,000 colony forming units or ‘C-F-Us’. And further, they did not report failing test results, those results in excess of the commission’s established limit of 10,000 years, for 544 lab samples during that time period.

“The commission has since and, as discussed earlier today, we have since issued a public health advisory relative to those 544 samples and have identified packages that stemmed from those test samples on the corresponding public health advisory page. The department also found that Assured’s non-compliant reporting extended to some other areas of compliance testing. Notably, microbial component testing, pesticides, potency and heavy metals.”

“In that vein, there were two periods, one June 2024 and then again December 2024 to February 2025, where assured, reported that certain compliance samples passed pesticide and mycotoxins testing before those tests were actually completed and test results were obtained. However, I will note that those samples subsequently passed the required compliance testing. But they were not reported at the time of the initial test.”

Counsel Gooden: “Based on the department’s investigation, it appears that the non-compliant reporting practices stemmed from an SOP that Assured has since amended and no longer uses. The final order and stipulated agreement that is before you for consideration provides a more detailed outline of the stipulated facts of record ss well as the Commission’s findings.

“So I just want to note that the Summary Suspension Order, as indicated before, has remained in place since July 4th of this year and continues to remain in place, based on the terms of the proposed order. Following the imposition of that order, the licensee, through their counsel, proposed terms to settle this matter, which resulted in further negotiation, and ultimately the proposed agreement that is before you today.”

“So pursuant to this agreement, Assured has stipulated to the facts of record and applicable law as laid out by the Commission. However, they are neither admitting to nor denying the Commission’s specific findings. So I will now briefly summarize those findings. Through its investigation, the department and the agency found the following violations:”

“Violation number one, the licensee did not report test results for marijuana lab samples indicating contamination to the commission in violation of General Laws, Chapter 94G, section 15, subsection A, clause three, as well as regulations 935 CMR 500.160 sub four, clause B, in the corresponding medical regulation 935 CMR 500.160 sub four, clause B.”

“The second violation is that the licensee reported testing results of marijuana lab samples to the commission in violation of our regulations. Specifically 935 CMR 500.450 subsection two and the corresponding medical regulation 935 CMR 500.450 subsection two.”

“For the third violation, or the Commission’s third finding, is a violation, failure to comply with the Commission’s statute and regulations by implementing and following a standard operating procedure that was inconsistent with the Commission’s independent testing laboratory reporting requirements and re-analysis processes, which is in violation of 935 CMR 500.450 subsection three, as well as the corresponding medical cite: 935 CMR 501.450 subsection three.”

“The statutory requirement and general laws. Chapter 94G, section 15, subsection A, clause three, as well as Commission regulations contained in 935, CMR 501.60, subsection four, clause B, and subsection 13, clause A, as well as the medical regulations. 935 CMR 501.160, subsection four, clause B and subsection 13, clause A.”

“And the fourth and final finding of the Commission is that the licensee’s conduct posed a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare in violation of 935 CMR 500.450, subsection 15.”

Counsel Gooden: “Through this proposed agreement, we have stipulated to remedies, which I will now summarize for you. I would like to note that the parties have jointly agreed to resolve this matter through payment of a fine, as well as affirmative relief, and continued suspension, which are proposed for the board’s consideration today. The terms and conditions are summarized as follows.”

“The licensee has agreed to pay a $300,000 monetary penalty, which is payable in three installments over the course of 180 days. There will be, the… the Summary Suspension Order that was imposed on June 30th and effective July 4th will be lifted on September 15th, 2025, with an opportunity to lift the suspension earlier on or after August 21st, 2025, subject to the conditions identified in the stipulated agreement.”

“There will be a 12 month suspension of the current owner and CEO. During that period of time, an interim CEO will be appointed, subject to the terms proposed in the agreement. There is also a 24 month probationary period for the licensee, during which time they will be subject to certain additional required reporting requirements.”

“And in addition Assured has also agreed to the following affirmative relief. First they will cease all alleged non-compliant operations. Further, they will contract with an independent auditor who will be providing quarterly reports on certain testing information and data to the Commission. They will submit revised SOPs to the Commission. They will hire an internal Quality Control Manager.”

Counsel Gooden: “Prior to the lifting of the suspension, they will also notify the commission of any personnel changes that they are effectuating during this time. During the probationary period, they will submit biweekly reports to the Commission relative to certain testing data. And finally, they will also enroll their staff and management in continuing education: notably, relative to ISO or International Standards Organization requirements that are imposed in regulation, as well as certain ethics trainings.

“So I would like to note at this point that, a agreed to monetary penalty. Excuse me. I just want to clarify one piece. The quality control manager, does not need to be hired prior to the lifting of the suspension. But according to the terms of the the agreement, there is a period of time for them to hire, for the licensee to hire that internal Quality Control Manager.”

“So I would like to note at this time that the agreed to monetary penalty, if approved, will be deposited in the Marijuana Regulation Fund pursuant to General Laws Chapter 94G Section 14A. This fund is subject to appropriation by the legislature, and funds are used in part to fund the Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture Resources to implement and enforce applicable marijuana laws.”

“But in addition to that funding, it also is used to fund, public and behavioral health initiatives, public safety, municipal police training, funding, the Prevention and Wellness Trust Fund, as well as programing for restorative justice, jail diversion, workforce development, industry specific technical assistance and mentoring services for economically disadvantaged persons and communities disproportionately harmed or impacted by high rates of arrest and incarceration for marijuana offenses.”

“A further 15% of the Marijuana Regulation Fund is transferred to the Cannabis Social Equity Trust Fund, which is established by statute. And those funds are used to encourage full participation in the marijuana industry by entrepreneurs and communities disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition and enforcement. Before concluding and making myself and my colleagues available for any questions, I do want to specifically thank and recognize the efforts by folks within our organization that contributed to the underlying investigation as well as the agreement that’s before you today.”

“So notably, I want to thank our Chief of Investigations and Enforcement, Nomxilisi Jones, Interim Director of Testing, Timothy Barwise, investigations manager, Ryan Basting, as well as investigator Carrie Lewis, laboratory and testing analyst Cody Chengdu-Ali, project coordinator Juliana Kazuski, as well as members of my team: First Assistant Enforcement Counsel Jacob Nielsen, Associate Enforcement Counsel Chiza Capuezi, and Enforcement Paralegal Amanda Dupuy. I also want to take a moment to thank the other investigators, testing enforcement. and I.T. and data teams that also contributed to this. It really is quite an extensive list of folks. So I apologize for not naming everybody specifically. But please know that, you have my gratitude and appreciation for all of the work you did on this.”

“And I would also be remiss if I did not thank those members of the public who came forward to report certain observations to us through this process as well. So, without that collaboration and support from the members of the public as well; the commission is not– those efforts really help the commission to effectively monitor and assure compliance of all licenses, not just in this particular instance.”

“So with that, Enforcement staff recommend ratification of this agreement as an appropriate resolution of the violations outlined before you. Taken as a whole, the agreed to fine, periods of suspension, as well as affirmative relief, are intended to ensure assure future compliance moving forward and represents, and, to represent a deterrence to future violations by this licensee and others in the industry who may consider or conduct matters in the same or similar manner.”

Counsel Gooden: “I will note that if additional actions are discovered or found by the Commission too, we would take additional actions in those instances. Also, this agreement reinforces the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that marijuana sold to the public is safe, and meets our required testing protocols, as well as upholding the obligations of our licensees to the public.”

“Resolution of this matter is appropriate where Assured has cooperated with the commission and has continued– and has committed and agreed to operating within this heightened oversight. Thank you for your time and attention. I’m available to answer any questions as well as First Assistant Enforcement Counsel Jacob Nielson, and Chief of Investigations and Enforcement Nomxilisi Jones.”

Stebbins: “Thank you, Enforcement Counsel. I’m happy to recognize you, E.D., or Chief Jones if there’s anything you want to add before we jump into questions.”

Executive Director Travis Ahern: “I’ll defer to Chief Jones if there is anything that you’d like to add, but I’m ready for the Q&A from Commissioners.”

Stebbins: “Chief? Do you have anything you would like to add?”

Chief of Investigations and Enforcement Nomxilisi Jones: “Yes, if I may Acting Chair, I just want to echo what E.C Gooden said here today, I just want to thank you, the , for everyone that was involved, and the collaboration from other departments, related to this enforcement action, or this matter that’s before the board. We truly appreciate all the time that, you know, was dedicated and put into ensuring that we got to this point. So thank you so much.

Stebbins: “Thank you. Chief. Happy to turn it over to my colleagues that if they have any questions. Go ahead, Commissioner Roy.”

Commissioner Kim Roy: “Acting Chair, Thank you, E.C. Gooden. Thank you for this presentation.”

“And, to the entire team that you mentioned, everyone involved to get it, to this place before us today. My question is specifically, in the document, number 59E if I may ask the question around that, I’m going to read from the document: ‘Respondent did not report the failing heavy metal result for at least one marijuana lab sample that produced a numerical value for arsenic that was above 200 parts per billion.’”

“So my question, and I don’t know if you’re able to provide this to us, what was the numerical value and what was the product type?”

Stebbins: “Enforcement counsel?”

Counsel Gooden: “Thank you, Acting chair. And thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I do not have that information directly in front of me, but we would be happy to follow up with you on those specifics.”

Roy: “Okay. If I if I may, Acting Chair?”

Stebbins: ”Go ahead.”

Roy: “Yeah. Thank you, E.C. Gooden. And I’d be highly curious to learn that information; and the reason I bring it up is because Massachusetts has some of the strictest testing protocols in the country, and we have rigorous testing standards around analytes, specifically heavy metals, and the big four are arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.”

“And, and the reason we have these is that, they can be highly toxic, or carcinogens, to folks. And there are health considerations. Cannabis plants can accumulate heavy metal from soil, water, fertilizers, and even equipment during cultivation and processing. Health concerns: heavy metals contamination in cannabis products can pose serious health risk to consumers, especially when inhaled, which does necessitate the need for rigorous testing.”

“So, my question. I would love to learn that information. What was the numerical value and what was the product type? Because it can be even more concerning if it’s inhalation. And so also my other question is around the Affirmative Relief that I see they have ISO training, and will there be any specific training around heavy metals?”

Stebbins: “Enforcement Counsel?”

Gooden: “Thank you, acting chair. Commissioner Roy, the… relative to specific training on heavy metals, this ISO training is ISO auditor competency training. I cannot tell you specifically if that is going to cover heavy metals or the specific requirements in Massachusetts. But the, the regulations and testing protocols, are clear in this matter.”

“And, we will ensure future compliance through our investigative efforts. Also, just relative to your question about specific details that are not contained within this proposed agreement, as well as the Summary Suspension Order, I would also defer to the general counsel, because this matter is still active, and may result in further M.G.L. Chap. 30A action depending on the outcome of this matter today.”

“So just to preserve the nature of the board as the final arbiters, I would defer to general counsel on any further advice relative to that.”

General Counsel Kajal Chattopadhyay: “Acting chair, if I may?”

Stebbins: “G.C., go ahead.”

Chattopadhyay: “and, thank you. And yes, just to reiterate, what E.C. just said, I’m going to caution against going– asking questions that go into, facts of the investigation that are not already– that are not disclosed in the agreement for M.G.L. 30A reasons.”

“So, I’ll leave it at that. But I do want to make sure that we are mindful of requirements under [M.G.L.] 30A.”

Stebbins: “Commissioner. Go ahead.”

Roy: “I’m not sure if I’m able to ask this in light of that, but, for the 544 products that were above the action limits, just because folks in the public are asking, what do we say to the public over those 544? What was the prescribed protocol for those products?”

Chattopadhyay: “yeah, same, same, same advice as I just previously gave. I’m going to ask the, the, the board and EC to keep questions and responses to, information that is disclosed– already disclosed, or contained in the agreement. Again, the issue here is, pursuant to [M.G.L.] 30A, should this agreement not be ratified, then the board will be called upon to adjudicate this matter. And so it is important that the board retain its impartiality and not be privy to the information that’s nonpublic.”

Gooden: “And Acting Chair– Oh, sorry.”

Stebbins: “Go ahead, Enforcement Counsel– Enforcement Counsel and then Commissioner Roy.”

Gooden: “I’m sorry. I’ll defer I believe executive director, Ahern has who was speaking up as well.”

Ahern: “Thank you very much. And to the Acting Chair, I was actually going to ask E.C., with that feedback from G.C., which I think is a good reminder for us all as well, that the 544 is certainly within the S.S.O. So, so if there was something sort of specific to that and, and information that we’ve shared, that there might be a– some information not restricted by 30A that could be shared specific to Commissioner Roy’s question on the 544.”

Gooden: “Yes. Absolutely. And I can, I can respond generally to your your inquiry Commissioner.”

And this also, you know, calls back to the discussion earlier today relative to the public health advisory portal and the, public health advisory that was issued as well. So with respect to the, so in general, first off, I would just want to say that, the Commission did that– as articulated previously, the commission has developed that portal as a general resource.”

“So it will be utilized for, to identify products for past public health advisories, such as those issued in, January or February of earlier this year, but also moving forward as a resource for the public. So in this instance, the Commission utilized our seed to sale tracking system, to identify products that stemmed from those 544 failed test samples.”

“I do want to note that this process was somewhat labor and time intensive, which, goes toward that, the, the difference in timing there, due to– and that, labor and time intensive nature was due to the nature of the tracking system generally and how child packages are created and then tracked, from the initial batch and test sample.”

“So we in essence, each test sample can result potentially in hundreds or potentially even thousands of child packages, as they go through. So our team did a lot of work, particularly the Data team as well as members of our Investigations team, to track those down so they can be identified on the Public Health Advisory Portal.”

Gooden: “So once those packages were identified, particularly those that were being marketed or available to consumers, we noted them through that portal, and that, like I said, will be used for future advisories as well, or a similar sort of process. As well, concurrently, the agency has issued administrative holds of two dispensing or retail licensees, to halt the further sale of affected products.”

Stebbins: “Commissioner, are you okay, do you have other questions?”

Roy: “So that’s, very, very helpful. Thank you, E.D., for flagging that that was already publicly available. Thank you, E.C. Gooden, for explaining it to the public who might not have been aware. So I appreciate that.”

Stebbins: “Thank you. Commissioner Concepción, do you have questions?

Concepción: “I don’t have a question. I just had a comment, because I did really want to recognize and acknowledge the team for the amount of work that went into this in such a short time frame. You know, just reading through the information and in our, meeting in preparation for the conversation, it was just really evident that there was a lot of work. So I just wanted to thank you all for everything that you guys have put into this to get it to this point.”

“I, I had questions, but, after going through our own review, I don’t have any at this time because we were pretty thorough in the breakdown in terms of, what’s before us today. So thank you.”

Stebbins: “Thank you, Commissioner, and Commissioner Roy, go:”

Roy: “Thank you. I have a general question. Not that directly related, to the stipulated agreement. Just general, a question about our regulations. If a, sample, fails and, they ask for it to be reanalyzed, it must be reanalyzed by the same I.T.L.. And if it passes from that original I.T.L., then it needs to go to a second I.T.L. So my question is with the 72 hours, the notification to the Commission upon failure, who is that incumbent upon?

“Is it a comment upon, well, the just the I.T.L., or is it incumbent upon the cultivator or product manufacturer as well to notify the Commission within that time frame of the failure?”

Gooden: “So, Commissioner—”

First Assistant Enforcement Counsel Jacob Nielsen: “Tim, do you mind if I take this, this question?”

Stebbins: “Go ahead.”

Nielsen: “Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Roy, for that, for that question. So so it’s actually both, Commissioner. The statute requires the reporting of any results of contamination within 72 hours. But then our regulations, with respect to failing test results goes further than that and requires, the notice to the commission to be both from the ITL and from, the marijuana establishment that sent it. So it’s a dual requirement.”

Stebbins: “Commissioner Roy, go ahead.”

Roy: “In light of that, and, thank you, Attorney Nielsen, for that explanation, which I did know the answer, but it was for the public to hear as well. So I do appreciate that. So in light of current facts, I’m wondering if the commission should send a friendly reminder to our product manufacturers and our cultivators that it is also incumbent upon them to notify the commission upon an initial failure.”

Stebbins: “Are you directing that question to staff or E.D., or Chief—

Roy: “I just want whoever anybody wants to take it. I.

I don’t want to do anything that would put in peril [M.G.L.] 30A so I’m trying to be very mindful of that. What I’m just trying to get across is that we have– when there’s, according to our regulations it’s incumbent upon the ITL as well as the product manufacturer or the cultivator to notify the commission within 72 hours of a failure. So I guess I’m just trying to stress that—”

Stebbins: “certainly, no, understood. E.D.”

Ahern: “through the Acting Chair and if, if it would please the board, you know, certainly happy to look at that and, and determine sort of the last time that we’ve expressed those sentiments, and look for an appropriate mechanism to do so, at some point here in the future.

“I don’t know, quite honestly, the answer to whether that needs to be done immediately, if we’ll have other communications that we can build that into. But happy to look at that if that satisfies the question, or if there’s follow up, I can we can try to kind of come up with something else, to, to review at the moment.”

Stebbins: “Commissioner, is that satisfied?”

Roy: “Yes it is. Thank you, Executive Director, I appreciate that. Thank you very much.”

Ahern: “Thank you for that point.”

Stebbins: “Thank you. Just, just a couple of quick questions. And I also want to compliment the staff, not only the investigative team that worked on this, but, our data team, which I understand pored over lots of information.”

“So appreciate that. Again, it always speaks to, you know, my awareness that not every investigation is the same. Enforcement Counsel, as you were going through it, I’m not sure I might have missed it, but touching on the, the, suspension of the license for the, the CEO, could you talk a little bit more about the Interim CEO Stipulations in this agreement?”

Gooden: “Thank you, Acting Chair, I can, you know, summarize what is contained within the proposed agreement. Briefly here, so there will be a 12 month suspension of the current CEO, who, and there will be an appointment of an interim or potentially, other permanent CEO, during that time period. The, interim or new CEO will be subject to, regular registration requirements, through our regulations, including potential suitability review, etc..”

“The appointment must occur no later than 90 days after the license suspension is lifted. And, during that time, the current CEO will not serve as CEO or retain any decision making capacity or authority with the licensee. We have included one particular condition here. To limit, that interim CEO from being a relative of the current CEO or his spouse or domestic partner, as applicable.”

“And there will be, they will also be providing us with, that individual’s CV or resume, as applicable, as well.”

Stebbins: “Okay. Just– just to, just to follow up on that, in this, in this potentially this intervening period before consideration of this Stipulated Agreement and, you know, an interim or new permanent CEO being hired, how do we operationalize this in terms of understanding who’s who’s running the organization? If– if again, the, the previous CEO would be under that 12 month suspension.”

Gooden: “Thank you, Acting chair. And I think through the appointment of an interim or new permanent CEO that would follow our standard regulatory process, which has many controls on individuals, including those would be, persons with direct or indirect control, in particular, which, a CEO, as somebody that can actually direct the company would fall under those definitions, as well.”

Stebbins: “Okay. I’m again, just trying to be mindful of, if there is a gap in this intervening period and who– who has responsibility or who would be in that position of responsibility?

Gooden: “Uh, the agreement, Acting Chair does allow a certain period of 90 days for that Interim CEO to be appointed. And after that point, there will be, the suspension for the current CEO.

Stebbins: “Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Enforcement Counsel or staff on the proposed Stipulated Agreement? Commissioner Concepcion, you look like you’re pondering?”

Concepción: “I am it was based on that last response. I’m just wondering, we said that there’s a 90 day time frame in which they have to name who that, that person will be.

“I guess I’m just wondering about, are we then, sort of, what action is the Commission taking in reviewing that individual, so on and so forth. Just well, flesh that out a little bit more. I just want to make sure I’m solid in my understanding.”

Stebbins: “Enforcement Counsel? Go Ahead.”

Gooden: “Acting Chair, if I may. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner. So yes, we did incorporate a 90 day period in which, the current CEO and the licensee can identify somebody who is qualified and suitable to serve in that interim or permanent role. So we need to, or we wanted to, you know, recognize the practical realities here where this is an independent testing laboratory.”

“This is a highly regulated industry, and we want to ensure that the work that is being performed is compliant and also benefits the public health, safety and welfare. So just given all of those factors, rather than, pushing or rushing for an immediate appointment, we did want to incorporate some time for them to find a suitable and appropriate individual.”

“But again, to the point of, our regulations do have a robust registration system, particularly for folks that are in positions of authority over licenses. So they will go through that process. Other than this specific notation that this person cannot be a direct relative, specifically within the fourth degree of consanguinity. So to decipher that slightly for the public, that essentially goes out to first cousins, up to great grandparents, etc. And they will go through the regular registration and review process, as an agent and in particular as a person with direct control over the license. I hope that helps to answer that.

Concepción: “I believe so, and that’s what I was– so 90 days to identify the individual, and then the Commission will do our review to determine suitability and appropriateness of that individual.”

Gooden: “OK, that is correct. Yes. And it’s the, appointment, must be no later than 90 days and registration– So, just want to clarify that, it ought to be done before that period of time, and we will be performing that review during that period.”

Stebbins: “All set, Commissioner Concepción?”

Concepción: “You know what, Attorney Gooden, you just said something at the tail end that made me– it made my antennae go up because you said that both in that period, it’s, technically speaking, the way that it sounds is this process of having a new—an interim person there, extends beyond the 90 days, 90 days is only when you need to have a response of an individual identified.

“But then we have our process internally that can go beyond that 90 day timeframe.

Gooden: “Acting Chair?”

Stebbins: “Enforcement Counsel, go ahead.”

Gooden: “Thank you. And– so I don’t want to get too far into the technical details of it, because I know the licensing team does handle that process primarily, too. But yes, generally, I think you’re correct here, Commissioner. So we would follow that. I will say the, in the Interim, CEO will be serving, at least according to these terms, throughout the suspension of the current CEO, which will be 12 months beginning on the day that the Interim CEO is appointed there.”

Stebbins: “Okay. And in this, if I’m looking at the language correctly under 67, it does say the respondent appoints an interim or permanent CEO who shall be registered in accordance with the Commission regulations, which in no case shall be later than 90 days. So it does sound, through the language, that the registration and the appointment all happen to have– ALL have to happen within that 90 day period.”

Stebbins: “Okay. Commissioner Roy, you had your hand up.”

Roy: “I did, thank you, acting Chair. My question is, not just for this stipulated agreement, but, for the public listening applies to all stipulated agreements that we have, boilerplate language or safeguards, if you will. And I will read it. Any substantial noncompliance with this order or any commission laws by, not just this respondent, any respondent, or any person having direct or indirect control over respondents shall constitute an adequate grounds for further administrative or disciplinary action, up to and including revocation of a license.”

“And the reason I read this is because we’ve had many stipulated agreements, and it’s important for the public and folks listening to know that, that we are monitoring these for compliance. And these safeguards are built in and we, and I want to thank the team and Chief Jones for not only, assessing a monetary penalty, but this Affirmative Relief, which in some ways can be more painful than the monetary side of the equation.”

“So I want to thank them, for, for this. But we put in language, so that we are monitoring for substantial compliance. And it’s important for, for folks to know that.”

Stebbins: “Thank you, Commissioner. Appreciate that. Any other questions from my colleagues?”

“All right. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to approve the stipulated agreement as recommended by enforcement counsel for Assured Testing Laboratories, LLC. Do I have such a motion? Commissioner Concepción?”

Concepción: “So moved.”

Stebbins: “Do I have a second Commissioner Roy?”

Roy: “Second.”

Stebbins: “Motion made and seconded. Any further comments or questions? Seeing none, I’ll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Concepción?

Concepción: “Aye”

Stebbins: “Commissioner Roy?”

Roy: “Aye”

Stebbins: “and Commissioner Stebbins votes ‘Aye’. Three in favor, none opposed. Again, thanks to enforcement counsel and members of your team and the entire team that, worked on this, worked on this effort. Greatly appreciate that. And, again, thank you for the good work. And again, as I’m reminded, I’ll say, this, proves to me again that, no investigation is the same. All right, Commissioner Roy, go ahead.”

Roy: “Yeah. Just to wrap this up. Thank you, Acting Chair. Will this be posted, like other enforcement actions, To the Commission’s website?”

Stebbins: “I see Attorney Nielsen shaking his head, but, Enforcement Counsel, do you want to confirm that or did the head shake from Attorney Nielsen do that?”

Roy: “I don’t know, he’s off camera. So, folks, perhaps.”

Ahern: “Oh, sorry– Mr. Acting Chair?”

Stebbins: “Go ahead.”

Ahern: “I looked at this as well, obviously. As soon as appropriate, we’ll get this executed, and up on the website for the public use. I’ve looked at the last few, and tt seems like about three business days is what we average, I’m not committing to that, but that would put us into probably early next week. I’m happy to keep the Board updated as soon as that is available online. And I assume that we’ll also be getting some questions about it. But ultimately the answer is: the Stipulated Agreement will be online. Yes. Most likely early next week.”

Roy: “Thank you.”

Stebbins: “Thank you, Commissioner. All right.”