On August 21, 2020, the U.S. DEA proposed its much-anticipated Interim Final Rule regarding hemp…
On August 21, 2020, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) proposed its much-anticipated Interim Final Rule regarding hemp. The rule was mandated under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill), which legalized hemp under federal law.
According to the DEA, the rule “merely conforms DEA’s regulations to the statutory amendments to the [Controlled Substances Act] that have already taken effect, and it does not add additional requirements to the regulations.” However, the proposed regulations will like will have an impact on the hemp industry and will be subject to public comment.
Amending CSA to Address Hemp Legalization
As we have discussed in several prior articles, the 2018 Farm Bill fundamentally changed the way hemp is regulated in the United States by removing “hemp” from the Controlled Substances Act’s (CSA) definition of marijuana. Accordingly, cannabis plants and derivatives that contain no more than 0.3% THC on a dry-weight basis are no longer controlled substances under the CSA.
To conform with the 2018 Farm Bill, the DEA is amending its regulation of marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols under the CSA. The Interim Final Rule makes the following key changes:
It modifies 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(31) by adding language stating that the definition of “Tetrahydrocannabinols” does not include “any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp set forth in 7 U.S.C. 1639o.”
It removes from control in schedule V under 21 CFR 1308.15(f) a “drug product in finished dosage formulation that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that contains cannabidiol (2-[1R-3-methyl-6R-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-1,3-benzenediol) derived from cannabis and no more than 0.1% (w/w) residual tetrahydrocannabinols.”
It also removes the import and export controls described in 21 CFR 1312.30(b) over those same substances.
It modifies 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58) by stating that the definition of “Marihuana Extract” is limited to extracts “containing greater than 0.3 percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry weight basis.”
Of particular interest to the hemp industry, the DEA’s Interim Final Rule emphasizes that the definition of hemp does not automatically exempt any product derived from a hemp plant, regardless of the THC content of the derivative. In order to meet the definition of “hemp,” and thus qualify for the exemption from schedule I, the derivative must not exceed the 0.3% THC limit.
The DEA’s definition of “marihuana” further states that “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,” and “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant,” are Schedule I controlled substances unless they meet the definition of “hemp” (by falling below the 0.3% THC limit on a dry weight basis) or are from exempt parts of the plant (such as mature stalks or non-germinating seeds). Accordingly, a cannabis derivative, extract, or product that exceeds the 0.3% THC limit is a Schedule I controlled substance, even if the plant from which it was derived contained 0.3% or less on a dry weight basis. This raises concern for the hemp industry as it suggests that partially processed hemp extract, which is not intended for consumption (often referred to as “intermediary hemp”), will still be treated as a Schedule I controlled substance.
In addition, under the DEA’s Interim Final Rule, CBD in a mixture with a THC concentration greater than 0.3% by dry weight is not exempted from the definition of “marihuana” or “tetrahydrocannabinols.” As a result, all such mixtures exceeding the 0.3% limit remain controlled substances under Schedule I.
The DEA’s Interim Final Rule also addresses synthetic THC. “The [2018 Farm Bill] does not impact the control status of synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols (for Controlled Substance Code Number 7370) because the statutory definition of ‘hemp’ is limited to materials that are derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L,” the Interim Final Rule states. “For synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, the concentration of Δ9-THC is not a determining factor in whether the material is a controlled substance.”
What’s Next?
While the Interim Final Rule took effect on August 21, 2020, the DEA is accepting feedback from the public. Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before October 20, 2020.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
This article is a part of a series pertaining to cannabis legalization in New Jersey and the United States at large. Prior articles in this series are below:
Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
DEA Issues Interim Final Rules Regulating Hemp
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
On August 21, 2020, the U.S. DEA proposed its much-anticipated Interim Final Rule regarding hemp…
On August 21, 2020, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) proposed its much-anticipated Interim Final Rule regarding hemp. The rule was mandated under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill), which legalized hemp under federal law.
According to the DEA, the rule “merely conforms DEA’s regulations to the statutory amendments to the [Controlled Substances Act] that have already taken effect, and it does not add additional requirements to the regulations.” However, the proposed regulations will like will have an impact on the hemp industry and will be subject to public comment.
Amending CSA to Address Hemp Legalization
As we have discussed in several prior articles, the 2018 Farm Bill fundamentally changed the way hemp is regulated in the United States by removing “hemp” from the Controlled Substances Act’s (CSA) definition of marijuana. Accordingly, cannabis plants and derivatives that contain no more than 0.3% THC on a dry-weight basis are no longer controlled substances under the CSA.
To conform with the 2018 Farm Bill, the DEA is amending its regulation of marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols under the CSA. The Interim Final Rule makes the following key changes:
It modifies 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(31) by adding language stating that the definition of “Tetrahydrocannabinols” does not include “any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp set forth in 7 U.S.C. 1639o.”
It removes from control in schedule V under 21 CFR 1308.15(f) a “drug product in finished dosage formulation that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that contains cannabidiol (2-[1R-3-methyl-6R-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-1,3-benzenediol) derived from cannabis and no more than 0.1% (w/w) residual tetrahydrocannabinols.”
It also removes the import and export controls described in 21 CFR 1312.30(b) over those same substances.
It modifies 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58) by stating that the definition of “Marihuana Extract” is limited to extracts “containing greater than 0.3 percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry weight basis.”
Of particular interest to the hemp industry, the DEA’s Interim Final Rule emphasizes that the definition of hemp does not automatically exempt any product derived from a hemp plant, regardless of the THC content of the derivative. In order to meet the definition of “hemp,” and thus qualify for the exemption from schedule I, the derivative must not exceed the 0.3% THC limit.
The DEA’s definition of “marihuana” further states that “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,” and “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant,” are Schedule I controlled substances unless they meet the definition of “hemp” (by falling below the 0.3% THC limit on a dry weight basis) or are from exempt parts of the plant (such as mature stalks or non-germinating seeds). Accordingly, a cannabis derivative, extract, or product that exceeds the 0.3% THC limit is a Schedule I controlled substance, even if the plant from which it was derived contained 0.3% or less on a dry weight basis. This raises concern for the hemp industry as it suggests that partially processed hemp extract, which is not intended for consumption (often referred to as “intermediary hemp”), will still be treated as a Schedule I controlled substance.
In addition, under the DEA’s Interim Final Rule, CBD in a mixture with a THC concentration greater than 0.3% by dry weight is not exempted from the definition of “marihuana” or “tetrahydrocannabinols.” As a result, all such mixtures exceeding the 0.3% limit remain controlled substances under Schedule I.
The DEA’s Interim Final Rule also addresses synthetic THC. “The [2018 Farm Bill] does not impact the control status of synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols (for Controlled Substance Code Number 7370) because the statutory definition of ‘hemp’ is limited to materials that are derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L,” the Interim Final Rule states. “For synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, the concentration of Δ9-THC is not a determining factor in whether the material is a controlled substance.”
What’s Next?
While the Interim Final Rule took effect on August 21, 2020, the DEA is accepting feedback from the public. Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before October 20, 2020.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
This article is a part of a series pertaining to cannabis legalization in New Jersey and the United States at large. Prior articles in this series are below:
Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
