Proposed Rules Comments


  1. Do not prohibit delivery across county lines. That is not in statute and would be an overreach by the executive. -Rep. Masters

  2. Dear Director: thank you for all your work. A few things. I don’t think the delivery portion of state law grants the Division to collect any information pertaining to the purchaser of alcohol via delivery. This is a tremendous overreach by the executive, is overly burdensome of small business and has no basis in public policy. These proposed rules should be struck. This would also effect the questions being asked on the Restaurant B license application.

    The law states that a restaurant may deliver 6, 12 ounce containers of an “alcoholic beverage.” Changing this to “beer” in rule would be contrary to law.

    Please change 19 to 18 as it relates to the minimum age of the server. Thank you.

    -Rep. Antonio Maestas

  3. To whom it may concern,

    My name is Pat Block, and today I am providing input on behalf of the New Mexico Retail Association, and Walmart Incorporated.

    I am providing comment in favor of the proposed language in section of the New Mexico Administrative Code.

    We support the language permitting the sales of items in which 10 containers of three fluid ounces or less are packaged together by the manufacture and meant for sale as a single unit. We would suggest examining the proposed language in this to ensure you intend to use the word “manufacture”, and not “manufacturer.

    We have not identified any other concerns with the draft language, so we support adoption of the proposed rule as presented (with the possible exception of the manufacture/manufacturer language).

    Thank you,
    Pat Block
    (505) 699-9812

  4. Andrew Vallejos, Esq.
    Alcoholic Beverage Control Division
    P.O. Box 25101
    Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

    Re: Comment on Proposed Rules
    Director Vallejos:
    Thank you very much for taking public comment on the Proposed Rules necessary to successfully implement the changes in HB 255. We respectfully offering the following feedback:
    Chapter 10 Part 2
    I. Cider definition does not match statute. The definition in proposed (existing) rule limits cider to seven percent (7%) alcohol by volume, however 13 line 17-21 of HB255 Final Signed lists the limit at eight-point five percent (8.5%).
    T. Changes definition of Growler. Growler is defined in statute on page 3 line 11-14 of HB255 Final Signed. Point of questions: Does the word “traditionally” in this case mean that a growler can be any size as long as it is less than one gallon? If so, then we cannot see harm in this change.
    U. Defines Howler but does not include what is eligible to be filled into one. There is later mention of Howlers in15.11.20.10 C 4 which makes this problematic.

    Chapter 10 Part 2
    D. and C. in this section pertain to roads and parking lots being excluded from Licensed Premises and Controlled Access Areas. During the pandemic, your division issued temporary licenses to our membership to expand into these areas. We would respectfully ask that you add “unless an exception is approved in writing by the Director” in case the issue should ever come up again.
    This section defines Outdoor Controlled Access Areas. Several in our membership have brought up concerns surrounding the need to be connected and contiguous with an indoor controlled access area, particularly because parking lots and roads are not permitted to be included or considered per Additionally, those in rural areas who are permitting acreage of land will have a disproportionate burden when presented with having to enclose the area with a physical barrier as opposed to letting distance define
    the space. For instance, one of our members is looking a large property, 8 acres, and the requirement to fence the entire area is daunting. In such a large are the idea that customer will leave the premises is not a concern. We would ask that you take this feedback into consideration and adjust if needed.

    Chapter 11 Part 20
    (1) This section pertains to what types of package are allowed to be delivered. By leaving out Howler as an allowable option as defined above, distilleries are at a distinct disadvantage. We would respectfully ask that Howlers be included in this section.
    (2) Limits delivery to local option district. This was not part of statute in HB 255 and poses significant problems for our members who are in Los Ranchos, Corrales, those who are close to Rio Rancho but in Albuquerque and those who are in Espanola. Please consider removing this requirement.
    (4) Lists the types of beverages that Restaurant license types can deliver. Other license types don’t have the same privilege in B (1) with regards to Howlers of cocktails. This section also does not allow for restaurants to deliver prepackaged canned cocktails since the words “spirituous liquors” are left out and the Howler is inserted instead. We would recommend that this be added since it appears permissive under statute.
    This section outlines documentation that is required for delivery. The wording implies “all delivery employees must have on their person, during delivery all of the info listed in #1
    through #4, for a period of 6 months”. We agree with the requirement to have the documentation of that particular day’s deliveries, however if the requirement is implying that 6 months’ worth of records be with the employee every day that is onerous and extreme. Could you please clarify?
    Thank you again for your time and consideration. We realize that your department is working hard every day to ensure the safe consumption of alcohol in New Mexico, and we appreciate your efforts.

  5. Chris Chant -Comment on Proposed Regulation (Outdoor Controlled Access Areas)

    Chris Chant Comment

  6. Please see the attached document for Comments on behalf of 505 Spirits

    Comments on proposed rules

  7. Subject: My Regulation Comments

    Please see attached. I found this email in my outbox this morning. Not sure why it didn’t go.

    Linda L. Aikin
    530B Harkle Road
    Santa Fe, NM 87505
    (505) 982-6224
    fax 992-8378

    Linda Aikin Regulation Comments

  8. Ms. Griego,

    Please see the attached comments on behalf of the New Mexico Alcohol Alliance.


    Sr. Vice President, Government Affairs
    C 505.231.0504

    SANTA FE, NM 87501

    ANTHONY (T.J.) J. TRUJILLO NMAA – Comments on Draft Rules (Final)

  9. 1. Concerning page 2(3-f) Detailed Floor Plan with Photos; I have talked to many bars since the Governor closed all bars for 55 weeks (March 17, 2020 to April 26, 2021). Given the Governors closure of bars during this pandemic period, how is the ABC going to control Restaurant Licenses (A or B) from turning their food counters as outlined on page 2 (3-f) into regular bars? The regulations do not contain language strictly prohibiting these Restaurant Licensees from turning their food counters into regular bars.

    The ABC Director, Andrew Vallejos, sent out a summary of HB-255, shortly after the session, to all Liquor Licensees and In that summary, he stated the following:

    “One of the key considerations in adopting the new restaurant with spirits licenses was to draw a distinction so that, as a practical matter, restaurants don’t morf into bars.”

    I strongly recommend and it is obviously important to the Director, that page 2 (3-f) include Director Vallejos’ language prohibiting food counters to morf into bars…

Skip to content