Bill > PR26-0318

Introduced Session

FROM: Glen Lee Chief Financial Officer DATE: August 13, 2025 SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Statement - Medical Cannabis Modernization Rulemaking Approval Resolution of 2025 REFERENCE: Draft Resolution as provided to the Office of Revenue Analysis on August 4, 2025 Conclusion Funds are sufficient in the proposed revised fiscal year 2025 budget and proposed fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2029 budget and financial plan to implement the resolution. Background The resolution approves a proposed rulemaking1 by the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) that makes technical changes to regulations, polices, procedures, and interpretations to align the regulation of medical cannabis with the regulation of alcohol. This includes creating a proposed application process, protest and enforcement hearing process, and a violation and penalty system based upon the District’s current alcohol laws and regulations. Financial Plan Impact Funds are sufficient in the proposed revised fiscal year 2025 budget and proposed fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2029 budget and financial plan to implement the resolution. ABCA can implement the proposed rulemaking with current resources. 1 Pursuant to section 14(b) of the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1999, effective July 27, 2010 (D.C. Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.13(b)). 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 203, Washington, DC 20004 (202)727-2476 www.cfo.dc.gov GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BRIAN L. SCHWALB ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Jonathan Berman Interim General Counsel Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration FROM: Adele El-Khouri Deputy Attorney Legal Counsel Division DATE: July 24, 2025 SUBJECT: Legal Sufficiency Review of Medical Cannabis Eighth Emergency Rulemaking (AR-24-73 F) This memorandum responds to your request that the Office of the Attorney General conduct a legal sufficiency review of the above-referenced rulemaking. This is the eighth round of rules that the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (“ABCA”) has adopted, on an emergency basis, to comprehensively implement the Medical Cannabis Amendment Act of 2022 (“Act”),1 and subsequent statutory amendments, pursuant to its authority to issue regulations governing the District’s medical cannabis program.2 This eighth emergency rulemaking is substantively and technically identical to the sixth rulemaking that we previously approved, and required only minor adjustments to its Preamble. One of those adjustments was to clarify that part of the emergency circumstances necessitating this emergency rulemaking was the steady pace of legislative amendments to the medical cannabis program. You have advised us that the sixth emergency and proposed rulemaking concerning medical cannabis—an omnibus rule substantially similar to this one—is pending OPLA review for submission to the Council. To avoid the significant legal concerns that would flow from the issuance of a ninth emergency rulemaking,3 we advise that this sixth rulemaking be promptly submitted for Council approval. 1 Effective Mar. 22, 2023 (D.C. Law 24-332; 70 DCR 1582). 2 See D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.13. 3 See id. § 2-505(c) (delineating when emergency rules may be issued); Office of Documents and Admin. Issuances, Rulemaking Handbook and Publications Style Manual 13 (2023), available from https://www.dcregs.dc.gov/ (noting that delay caused by “inaction by an agency” does not constitute a valid emergency). 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 409, Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone (202) 262-6402 Email: adele.el-khouri@dc.gov The rulemaking, which incorporates changes we recommended and you approved, is legally sufficient. I have attached a rulemaking transmittal form for your use. In keeping with the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act, you should publish the rulemaking in the D.C. Register as quickly as possible. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Joshua A. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Counsel Division, at (202) 442-9834, or me at (202) 262-6402. AME/jat ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND CANNABIS BOARD ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND CANNABIS ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING as transmitted to the Council for its review and approval pursuant to section 14(b) of the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1999, effective July 27, 2010 (D.C. Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.13(b)) The Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board (“Board”), pursuant to Section 14 of the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1999, effective July 27, 2010 (D.C. Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.13); and Mayor’s Order 2020-099, dated September 30, 2020; hereby gives notice of the adoption of the following amendments to Subtitle C (Medical Marijuana) of Title 22 (Health) of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (“DCMR”). PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 22, 2023, the Medical Cannabis Amendment Act of 2022, effective March 22, 2023 (D.C. Law 24-332; D.C Official Code § 7-1761.01 et seq.) (“Act”), took effect. Among other changes, the Act allows qualifying patients to self-certify to participate in the Medical Cannabis Program (“Program”), provides a mechanism for unlicensed cannabis businesses to obtain medical cannabis facility licenses, creates new license categories and endorsements, creates various benefits for qualified social equity applicants and medical cannabis certified business enterprises, reforms the license application process, allows for Advisory Neighborhood Commissions to protest the issuance of cultivation center, manufacturer, retailer, and internet retailer licenses, and permits the Board to enforce section 1761 of Title 7 of the D.C. Official Code and Title 22-C of the DCMR. On April 12, 2023, the Board, by a vote of five (5) to one (1), approved a Notice of Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Act. As part of the implementation of the Act, the Board adopted rules to implement a new license application protest process, enforcement procedures, patient purchase limits, patient self-certification requirements, elaborate on manufacturing and testing standards, and other changes to modernize the District’s medical cannabis program in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The emergency rules were set to expire on August 10, 2023. As part of its approval, the Board gave notice of its intent to adopt the proposed rules as final rules, after submission to the Council for review. On June 7, 2023, the Board held a public hearing and received extensive testimony on the emergency and proposed rules. On August 9, 2023, the Board, by a vote of five (5) to zero (0), enacted a Notice of Second Emergency and Proposed rulemaking in response to the numerous comments that were received. The updated rulemaking also included changes resulting from the Medical Cannabis Clarification and Non-Resident Patient Access Emergency Amendment Act of 2023, which took effect on July 31, 2023; the Medical Cannabis Clarification and Non-Resident Patient Access Temporary Amendment Act of 2023, which took effect on November 28, 2023; and the Medical Cannabis Clarification and Non-Resident Patient Access Temporary Amendment Act of 2024, effective November 27, 2024 (D.C. Law 25-225, 71 DCR 15779) (Clarification Act). The Clarification Act makes temporary patient cards available to non-residents for periods other than 30 days, expands the definition of a social equity applicant to include arrests and convictions of qualifying family members related to drug-related offenses, and adds siblings and grandparents to the list of eligible family members. The legislation clarifies that the 50 percent set aside requirement does not include medical cannabis cultivation center, manufacturer, or retailer license applications that are statutorily permitted to be filed with ABCA outside of an open application period. The legislation further clarifies that the five cultivation center applicants that scored 150 points or more during the prior open application period are automatically eligible to receive a manufacturer’s license provided they register with the Board and pay the annual fee. Finally, the legislation permits the waiver of the application fee for testing laboratories, allows the issuance of conditional licenses to testing laboratories, allows testing laboratories to test products submitted by qualifying patients and caregivers, and allows testing for the purposes of quality assurance and research and development. On December 6, 2023, by a vote of three (3) to zero (0), the Board approved a Notice of Third Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking, which made amendments to the rules in order to comply with the Medical Cannabis Patient Access Clarification Emergency Amendment Act of 2023, effective October 30, 2023, (D.C. Act 25-276; 70 DCR 14480), and the Medical Cannabis Patient Access Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2023, effective January 23, 2024 (D.C. Law 25-103; 70 DCR 15444). That emergency and proposed rulemaking also included changes resulting from comments that were received regarding employee training requirements and caregiver patient limits. On April 3, 2024, the Board unanimously voted to approve a Notice of Fourth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking. Subsequently, on April 11, 2024, an amended version of the fourth emergency and proposed rule was adopted by unanimous vote of the Board to further clarify rules related to the documents non-District residents must submit to retailers to qualify to purchase medical cannabis. The Board adopted an amended version of the rule on April 11, 2024, because the Board determined that the original proposed versions of subsections 503.7 and 503.8 failed to provide a method for individuals who recently changed their place of residence and lack identification from their new state at the time of purchase to participate in the program to comply with the regulations. The rules were subsequently amended by the Board to allow patients to comply by providing a completed written certification form from an authorized practitioner from the state or jurisdiction where they currently reside. Thus, on April 11, 2024, in a 3-0 vote, the Board reconsidered and voted to replace the rules passed on April 3, 2024, with an amended version of the rules. On July 31, 2024, the Board, by a vote of three (3) to zero (0), approved a Notice of Fifth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking. On November 20, 2024, the Board, by a vote of five (5) to zero (0), approved a Notice of Sixth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking. On March 19, 2025, the Board, in a five (5) to zero (0) vote, approved the Notice of Seventh Emergency Rulemaking. Each rulemaking was posted to the agency’s website while the rulemaking underwent legal sufficiency review. The initial emergency rules were published on the agency’s website on April 12, 2023; the second emergency rulemaking was published on the agency’s website on August 11, 2023; the third emergency rulemaking was published on the agency’s website on December 11, 2023; the original fourth emergency rulemaking was published on the agency’s website on April 3, 2024; and the amended fourth emergency rulemaking was published on the agency’s website on April 11, 2024. The fifth emergency rulemaking was published on the agency’s website on July 31, 2024. The sixth emergency and proposed rulemaking was published on the agency website on November 20, 2024. The seventh emergency and proposed rulemaking was published on the agency’s website on March 20, 2025. The Notice of Fifth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking was published in the District of Columbia Register on December 13, 2024, at 71 DCR 15088. The Notice of Sixth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking was published in the District of Columbia Register on April 25, 2025, at 72 DCR 5051. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Board has reviewed and duly considered the comments it received at the public hearing and in writing. Below is a summary of those comments and the Board’s response in italics. The Board notes that many commentators broadly supported the emergency and proposed regulations and only took issue with a few aspects of the proposed rules. The Board’s responses, while largely the same during the prior rulemakings, have been revised in light of changes made as part of the rulemaking process. Kinner & McGowan PLLC, the Generational Equity Movement, and other commentators requested that the Board revise the rules to modify the social equity criteria; and refrain from applying the 50 percent set aside to unlicensed establishments or delay implementation of the set aside until a later date. Response: The revised rulemaking has been amended to modify the social equity criteria based upon recently enacted legislation. The other proposed changes require modification of the statute and are beyond the scope of the Board’s authority to change by rulemaking. Of note, D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.06a(e)(1) states that “At least half of all licenses issued to unlicensed establishments shall be issued to social equity applicants.” Kinner & McGowan PLLC, the Generational Equity Movement, and other commentators requested that the Board eliminate consideration of unlicensed establishment applications on a first come, first serve basis. Applications must be considered in the order that they are filed because the statute requires that unlicensed establishment applications be considered on a first in time basis pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.06a(d)(2). As a result, the Board cannot select different criteria. Various public comments requested that the Board lower the purchase limit of medical cannabis to an amount lower than 8 ounces. ANC Commissioner Gwendolyn Lohse, ANC Commissioner Zach Adams, and other commentators urged the agency to increase the minimum distance from schools to 400 feet as required by the District’s alcohol laws, rather than 300 feet, as noted in the regulations. The minimum distance requirement of 300 feet from schools and recreation centers was placed in the regulations because it is required by D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.06(q). The Board is not authorized to change the statutory distance requirement by regulation. The Board notes that it is still authorized to consider the appropriateness of an application for a proposed location that is more than 300 feet from a school or recreation center notwithstanding the 300-feet threshold. Antoine Pritchett, II, commented that the regulations unfairly prevent employees of licensees from consuming medical cannabis on-site even though such consumption would be for medical purposes. On the issue of employee consumption of medical cannabis, the Board notes that permitting employees to consume cannabis at a licensed medical cannabis facility in most cases would require a change to D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.03(b). Nevertheless, if a retailer has a safe-use treatment facility or summer garden, nothing prevents employees of a licensee from consuming medical cannabis in that location in accordance with the rules of those facilities. The Board reminds licensees that they remain responsible for the behavior of their employees if they are intoxicated while working. ANC Commissioner Jeffrey Rueckgauer expressed concern that unlike alcohol licenses, only ANCs have been given the right to protest an application and no other groups have been given standing to protest a license. Jen Brunenkant indicated that requiring notice to all ANCs in a Ward was excessive. On the issue of standing, the Board is aware that the standing requirement to protest a medical cannabis license is different than the alcohol license process. Nevertheless, the Board has no authority to change statutory standing requirements through rulemaking. On the issue of requiring notice of an application to all ANCs within a Ward, the Board notes that this requirement is mandated by the statute and cannot be altered by the Board. ANC Commissioner Zach Adams requested that criminal background checks be eliminated for all medical cannabis facility applicants. On the issue of criminal background checks, the statute requires some consideration of an applicant’s criminal background, and thus cannot be eliminated by regulation (D.C. Code § 7- 1671.06(u)). The Board notes that the proposed rules significantly limit the review as described in D.C. Code § 7-1671.06(u). Jen Brunenkant and Linda Greene suggested that insurance be required to cover medical cannabis use in certain circumstances. On the issue of requiring insurance coverage for medical cannabis, the Board notes that imposing such a requirement goes beyond the scope of the Board’s authority. Kinner & McGowan PLLC and other commentators asked the Board to modify the open application timeline for unlicensed operators and stated that “ABCA has complete discretion over the open application timeline.” Response: Current law requires the Board to open the open application period for unlicensed establishments no earlier than 180 days after the effective date of the Medical Cannabis Amendment Act of 2022 and mandates that the period be open for 90 days. D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.06a(a)(1). The Board cannot shorten or extend the 90-day application period. The Board further finds that the current start date for this application period is appropriate and best serves the interests of the program and the public. Kinner & McGowan PLLC requested that the rules address and permit the use of management agreements. Response: The Board agrees that the medical cannabis industry requires guidance on this common business practice and the matter should be addressed by the rules. The rules have been revised to adopt the current management agreement rulemaking requirements found in Title 25 of the D.C. Official Code. Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) Commissioner Chander Jayaraman and other commentators suggested that the Board delay the implementation of the safe-use treatment facility and summer garden endorsement privileges based upon concerns regarding potential health and nuisance concerns regarding smoke both inside and outside of the facility and its impact on neighboring properties. ANC Commissioner Chuck Elkins, ANC 3D, and Laurence J. Schoen requested that the Board include more technical requirements and elicit more information regarding the applicant’s plans to abate smoking nuisances in safe-use treatment facilities and summer gardens. ANC 3D and ANC 3B further requested the elimination of the requirement that windows and doors be closed and ANC 3B specifically requested that smoking be banned in summer garden spaces. Jen Brunenkant commented that it was unreasonable to mandate that summer garden holders prevent odor, smoke, and smells from entering private indoor space. Response: The Board does not believe it is authorized to further delay the issuance of summer garden permits since the law passed by the Council permits retailers to apply for a summer garden. In writing the law, the Council can select the start date of when specific privileges become available and the choice not to do so implies that the privilege is intended to be available as soon as practicable. Moreover, regarding potential impact on neighboring properties, a recent court case related to cannabis smoke puts medical cannabis businesses on notice that their impact on neighboring properties may subject them to injunction and liability and it is their responsibility to ensure that they do not create a private nuisance. Josefa Ippolito-Shepherd v. Angella Farserotu, Case No. 2020 CA 004616 B, 28-34 (D.C. Super. Ct. Jun. 5, 2023). As a result, medical cannabis businesses already have a legal obligation to ensure that smoke and smells from their business do not invade separately owned indoor private space. The Board does not agree that the requirement that windows and doors of the residence remain closed should be eliminated because the requirement ensures that the odor or smoke nuisance is pervasive and not a one-time or infrequent occurrence and that the resident has taken reasonable means to secure their property from outdoor odors. Finally, unlike safe-use treatment facilities, the legislation did not propose a specific standard regarding summer garden smoke emanating into private outdoor space; as a result, the Board is limiting its regulation of odor, smells, and smoke emanating from summer gardens to the nuisance standard set by the Ippolito-Shepard case, as the appropriateness standard is generally influenced by nuisance law. As to banning smoking entirely, as suggested by ANC 3B, the Board is not convinced that such an across-the-board requirement is necessary. The Board notes that an ANC can argue that smoking should be banned in a specific area during a protest and such a restriction could appear in a settlement agreement, as noted in § 5445.11(c). The ANC can also further argue for additional restrictions and conditions related to odor, smoke, and smells, as noted in § 5421.5(d). The Board is also not persuaded that additional technical requirements related to odor control and smoke emanation need to be expounded in the regulations where D.C. Official Code § 7- 1671.06c(c)(3) provides a clear standard for medical cannabis businesses to adhere to and the failure to comply with this standard could subject a licensee to penalties, loss of privileges, and conditions placed on the license. The Board also finds limiting the issuance of safe-use treatment facility and summer garden privileges to a few licensees would be unfair to licensees. Also, any delay to the issuance of such privileges is harmful to the interests of patients who need access to a location to consume medical cannabis necessary for their treatment or condition. Additionally, summer garden endorsement applications are subject to a 45-day public comment period with notice provided to all ANCs in an affected ward where additional conditions or requirements can be agreed upon with the ANC in a settlement agreement. Finally, it should be further noted that implementing technical standards could result in a conflict of law and authority between ABCA, the Department of Buildings, the Department of Health, and the Department of Energy and Environment. Therefore, if technical requirements are warranted, the Board prefers such requirements be undertaken by the appropriate agency that oversees the specific discipline governed by the suggested technical requirement. Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) Commissioner Chander Jayaraman and other commentators suggested that the renewal period for retailers not coincide with the renewal of on- premises and tavern retail alcohol licenses. ANC Commissioner Jeffrey Rueckgauer requested that the renewal period be two years rather than three years. Jen Brunenkant also asked how existing licensees will be treated under the new renewal schedule. Response: The rules have been amended to address ANC Commissioner Jayaraman’s concern by not having the renewal period for medical cannabis retailers coincide with the on-premises renewal period of alcohol retailers. The Board does not agree that the license renewal period should be reduced to two years because two years is an insufficient period to assess the impact of a licensee on the community and will be too burdensome for licensees, ANCs, and the agency. The three-year time frame is also consistent with alcohol license renewals. Finally, existing licensees will be subject to the new renewal calendar based on their license class so that all licenses of the same class are renewed at the same time, similar to how alcohol licenses are renewed. ANC Commissioner Gwendolyn Lohse, Rabbi James Kahn, and other commentators expressed concerns about the maximum number of medical cannabis businesses that may be permitted. The I-71 Committee and other commentators further expressed concerns about the potential maximum number of licenses and the supply of medical cannabis available to businesses. Response: The Board notes that the overconcentration of medical cannabis businesses and other negative impacts are addressed through distance limitations between retailers, schools, recreation centers, and protests against problematic licensees, which may consider overconcentration (22-C DCMR § 5421.3). The set-aside requirement acts as a limit on the total number of licenses. Unlike alcohol applications, medical cannabis applications may not be filed at any time but rather only when the Board elects to schedule an open application period. As a result, there are adequate tools in place in the law and regulations to address concerns regarding overconcentration. Moreover, the same rules allowing the limitation of licenses may be activated if supply issues are having a detrimental impact on patients. Finally, the Board finds that setting a limit on retail licensees may discourage cultivation center applicants from applying because potential cultivator applicants may deem the market too small to support their business. ANC Commissioner Gwendolyn Lohse raised questions about how ABCA will verify ownership. Response: This comment did not specify a specific regulation or concern regarding identifying or verifying ownership that the regulations failed to address but rather raises questions about operational issues. The application process is designed to elicit and confirm the ownership of the applicant and the failure to disclose all required information regarding the ownership could result in the denial or revocation of the license, as well as other penalties. The current application process is based upon the same process used for alcohol licenses and no specific concerns regarding that process to elicit appropriate information about the ownership have been brought to the Board’s attention to date. It should also be noted that all information submitted by applicants may be subject to verification and investigation. If there is a specific question regarding ownership verification, such as a specific fact scenario, then such questions should be addressed to ABCA or the Board for guidance or an advisory opinion. If a third party has a concern regarding a specific ownership’s compliance, then that complaint may be forwarded to ABCA’s Enforcement Division or the Board for investigation and review. Finally, false statements regarding ownership made in the application may be punishable under the criminal law. See, e.g., D.C. Code § 22-2405 (False Statements). ANC Commissioner Gwendolyn Lohse and ANC Commissioner Jeffrey Rueckgauer suggest that a licensed medical cannabis business may have a negative impact on traffic and parking due to courier activities and therefore the Board should require a District Department of Transportation (“DDOT”)-approved traffic control plan. Response: Commentators did not establish that this requirement is necessary or that DDOT is even mandated or willing to undertake such a requirement in the context of the medical cannabis industry. If commentators are interested in having DDOT engage in traffic control related to pick up and deliveries, then those comments and requests should be addressed to DDOT. Finally, the Board notes that alcohol retailers and other businesses engage in similar pickup and delivery activities related to food and beverage sales; yet, the Board is not aware of similar plans being requested or utilized for those types of businesses. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence in the record that such a plan is warranted at this time. ANC Commissioner Gwendolyn Lohse requested that the agency develop a verification process related to out-of-state cannabis purchases by minors due to the risk of fraudulent parental permission and to delay this part of the program. Response: The Board agrees with the commentator that it is critical that medical cannabis businesses avoid providing medical cannabis to unapproved minors. Medical cannabis facilities cannot facilitate the purchase of cannabis by minors except under limited, statutorily approved circumstances and with sufficient safeguards to ensure that the medical cannabis was duly recommended by an authorized practitioner and with knowledge and permission of a parent or guardian. The Board is not aware of any case of a minor forging their parent or guardian’s approval to obtain access to the District or another state’s medical cannabis program. Furthermore, any patient application filed with the agency is saved and ABCA can contact any minor’s parents or legal guardians to confirm their approval and signatures, conduct its own investigation of an application, and report the issue to law enforcement and child welfare authorities for further investigation. In addition, it should be noted that even though minors may participate in the program (1) minors are not eligible for self-certification pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.02(c)(1)(A), which is limited to persons 21 years of age and older; and (2) a minor may only register in the District’s medical cannabis program if approved by their parent or guardian and with the recommendation of an authorized practitioner in accordance with D.C. Official Code § 71671.02(e)(1)-(2) and 22- C DCMR §§ 504.2 and 504.3. Finally, the Board emphasizes that it remains committed to ensuring that licensed medical cannabis businesses do not distribute medical cannabis to unapproved minors and that licensees that violate these rules may face severe sanctions. Antoine Pritchett, II, indicated that rules related to adulterated cannabis should be amended to remediate adulterated product and that testing occur before the product is in its finished state. He also suggested that the Board look to the remediation rules adopted by Maryland. Response: This comment is addressed by the Board’s adoption of testing and remediation rules in the Notice of Emergency and Proposed Rules adopted by the Board and published in the District of Columbia Register at 71 DCR 16357. Antoine Pritchett, II, indicated concerns regarding the disclosure of fertilizers and nutrients to testing facilities, which could threaten the cultivation centers intellectual property and recipes for plant growth. Instead, Mr. Pritchett suggested adopting the nutrient management plan used by the State of Maryland. Response: Current law requires that testing labs test for the presence and concentration of fertilizers and other nutrients; therefore, the regulations need to obtain this result. Antoine Pritchett, II, indicated that leaf tissue sampling is too expensive and unnecessary. Response: 22-C DCMR § 6510.2 does not require a “leaf tissue sample” and also permits other tests that elicit the necessary information; therefore, licensees may elect a different testing method if one is cheaper than a leaf tissue sample. Antoine Pritchett, II, indicated the regulations permit a cultivation center to “only include the very best and top colas for testing” which may skew the results. Response: 22-C DCMR § 6503.1 requires that products be divided into “homogenous batches”; therefore, if the actual product selected for testing is not sufficiently homogenous to the other products in the batch, then this may be deemed a violation or an improper test. Antoine Pritchett, II, suggested that the industry standard for measuring residual solvents should be measured in parts per million (PPM) not milligrams per gram (mg per g). Response: The microgram per gram standard for measuring residual solvents is used in California, which renders the regulations in accord with one of the largest cannabis markets in the United States on the issue of measuring residual solvents. ABCA will continue to study this issue and may in the future develop alternative testing measures as practices develop. Mr. Pritchett did not provide sufficient evidence that the proposed standard in his comment represents the industry standard. Nevertheless, the Board is willing to consider such evidence if provided. Antoine Pritchett, II and other commentators indicated that the proposed regulations need to consider that Colorado’s cannabis limits are based on daily limits and not monthly limits like the District. Antoine Pritchett, II, expressed concern that the regulations will encourage patients to buy more edibles and disadvantage cultivation centers that primarily sell dried flower. Many commentators expressed concern that the limit on concentrates and maximum THC limit was too low to satisfy patient demand and need as part of managing treatment plans for various conditions. Jen Brunenkant suggested that any problems regarding persons under 21 accessing concentrated cannabis products could be addressed by requiring a practitioner recommendation. Response: The rulemaking has been amended to address this concern regarding the use of Colorado's cannabis purchase limits. The Board is willing to review the purchase limits in the future if the purchase limits are having a negative impact on patients or the industry. The Board will continue to study practices in other states and to review the concerns of patients, regulators, and the medical community regarding this issue. The Board agrees with public comments that the amount of medical cannabis concentrate that can be possessed and consumed needs to be increased to reflect patient needs over a 30-day period and that the prior limits contained in the first rulemaking did not consider that Colorado’s limits, including limits in its medical cannabis program, are daily limits and not monthly limits. The Board also changed the total amount of medical cannabis products that may be purchased or possessed in any form based upon the limits of Colorado’s medical cannabis program. The Board notes that the medical cannabis concentrate limits for persons under 21 has been modified to take into account that Colorado’s limits are daily limits and not monthly limits. The Board further intends to leave in the medical cannabis concentrate limits for persons under 21 as the Board is persuaded by the reasoning relied upon by Colorado in enacting the limitation to address the health, safety and welfare of persons under 21. Antoine Pritchett, II, expressed concern regarding the burden the submission of plans puts on applicants and licensees. Response: In the prior and current version of the rules, the Board has eliminated the requirement to file various plans, which were part of the prior competitive application process, except for security plans. In particular, the Board has eliminated the previously required staffing plan, product safety and labeling plan, business plan, educational material plan, environmental plan, cultivation plan, and the laboratory testing plan. The Board further notes that similar to the District’s alcohol system, licensees will be permitted to change security plans by submitting them to the Board to replace any existing plan on file. Antoine Pritchett, II, expressed concern about whether his business is eligible for social equity status. Response: The Board cannot comment on whether a specific business is eligible for social equity status as part of the rulemaking process. Nevertheless, an existing licensee is welcome to apply to convert their existing license into a social equity license if they qualify for such status. Antoine Pritchett, II, suggested that the Board should permit “tamper evident” packaging rather than “tamper proof” packaging, which is cheaper for licensees. Response: The revised rulemaking has been amended to allow for licensees to utilize either “tamper proof” or “tamper evident” packaging that is difficult for children under 5 years of age to open. The Board notes that tamper evident packaging is permitted in other jurisdictions such as California and Maine. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 26120; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 2423-F. Antoine Pritchett, II, and other commentators support the creation of a social equity advisory panel. Kinner & McGowan PLLC and Linda Greene suggested creating a subcommittee on the Advisory Committee comprised of medical cannabis licensees and industry stakeholders before November 1, 2023. Response: There are adequate alternative means of providing advice and guidance to the agency and the Board. The Board notes that any person or group may provide Aproposed legislation, rules, and other policy changes to the Board for consideration on its weekly agenda. Rabbi James Kahn and Linda Greene support implementing temporary card changes earlier than the proposed October 2, 2023, date. Response: The rulemaking was amended to implement the temporary card changes for non- residents with an earlier date of Monday, September 25, 2023, during a prior emergency. The current rules maintain this change. Stephanie Kahn requested that the Board consider a workaround when ABCA is not open to address problems registering new non-resident patients. Response: The rulemaking significantly addresses this concern by creating non-resident cards that are 90, 180, and 365 days in length. Specifically, issues that have arisen for patients regularly attempting to renew a 30-day non-resident card will be reduced as a result of patients being able to obtain non-resident patient cards that are valid for up to 1 year. Former Councilmember Yvette Alexander, on behalf of the D.C. Cannabis Trade Association, requested a reduction in fees for temporary patient cards. Other commentators also supported such a change. Response: The rules reduce the fee for a 30-day temporary non-resident card from $30 to $20. The rules also create a new less expensive 3-day card that is available for $10. The D.C. Cannabis Trade Association and other commentators advocated for ABCA to conduct a study as to the anticipated supply and demand of medical cannabis in order to inform the licensing process. Response: The proposed study falls outside the scope of the present rulemaking, but commentators are welcome to submit suggested information and data that the Board should collect and consider in making licensing and other policy decisions. The D.C. Cannabis Trade Association recommended that internet retailers be limited to businesses with brick-and-mortar locations. Response: Additionally requiring internet retailers to operate a brick-and-mortar location would require a legislative change as it appears contrary to the Council’s decision to create separate license classes for retailer and internet retailer businesses and the statute prohibits an internet retailer from operating an establishment open to the public. D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.06(a)(4). The D.C. Cannabis Trade Association requested the elimination of the sliding scale discount report required by the regulations. Norbert Pickett, Linda Greene, and Jen Brunenkant requested the elimination of the sliding scale discount. Response: The Board agrees to eliminate the sliding scale reporting requirement. Further legislation would be required to eliminate the sliding scale discount program which is required by statute; however, the Board understands that it is having a harmful impact on licensees serving low-income neighborhoods. Robin Walker Salas asked the Board to support providing additional education resources for patients. Response: Production of such materials falls outside the scope of the rulemaking to implement the legislation enacted by the Council, but commentators are welcome to suggest topics, data, and information that should be generated or included in educational materials provided to patients or posted on ABCA’s website or presented at community events for consideration. ANC Commissioner Jeffrey Rueckgauer asked whether the 50 percent social equity set aside requirement applied to the system as a whole or to specific areas. Response: The 50 percent set aside requirement applies to each of the specific retailer, internet retailer, courier, cultivation center, and manufacturer license categories. The 50 percent set aside requirement does not apply to the overall number of medical cannabis business licenses issued as a whole nor is it location dependent. ANC Commissioner Jeffrey Rueckgauer requested that safe-use treatment facilities be required to have someone on staff certified to provide medical aid present. Response: The Board considered the request to have staff present with certified medical training in medical cannabis consumption facilities; however, the Board is not aware of any other jurisdiction having such a requirement or evidence that such a costly requirement is necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of patients. ANC Commissioner Jeffrey Rueckgauer requested that the smoking of cannabis products be prohibited within 25 feet of the property. Response: The Board considered the request to create a 25 foot no smoking requirement around medical cannabis facilities; however, the Board does not have the authority to issue or enforce rules governing the behavior of non-licensees in public space. It should be further noted that public consumption of cannabis is already prohibited by law. D.C. Code § 48-911.01. Barbara Biddle requested that the Board clarify the legality of hemp-derived food products and industrial hemp products and liberalize rules related to hemp derived products. She further suggested that the Board create licenses for cannabidiol (CBD) only businesses. Response: Modifying the status of hemp derived products and cannabidiol (CBD) requires additional legislation modifying the legal definition of cannabis under District law and cannot be addressed by rulemaking. The Board agrees that this area of the law could benefit from clarification. Terrance White, Linda Greene, Grace Hyde and other commentators asked that the Board liberalize its advertising and signage rules. Response: The commentators have not clearly articulated any specific issue with current medical cannabis advertising and signage rules. The Board requires additional feedback from stakeholders as to any issues and concerns that they may have. Jen Brunenkant asked whether the revision to § 503.5 “implies that the internet retailer or retailer does not need to retain a copy of the ABCA issued non-resident card and their government-issued ID.” Response: The amendment to Title 7 creates three categories of patients: (1) a District resident; (2) a non-District resident registered in another state; and (3) a non-resident cardholder. Section 503.5 addresses the internet retailer and retailer’s document retention requirement regarding a qualifying patient enrolled in another state’s medical cannabis program; therefore, the patient may not have and is not required to have an ABCA issued card under that specific scenario, as they will be able to present their own state-issued documents. Jen Brunenkant asked to exempt THC syringes sold in 250 mg, 500 mg, and 2,500 mg sizes similarly to how capsules and tinctures are exempted in § 5608.7. Response: The Board has concerns regarding high THC products. As noted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), high THC products “deliver extremely large amounts of THC to the body, and their use has sent some people to the emergency room.” National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Cannabis (Marijuana) DrugFacts,” available at https://nida.nih.gov/publications/ drugfacts/cannabis-marijuana (last visited Jul. 28, 2023). Furthermore, according to NIDA, high THC products carry a risk of mental health issues, including hallucinations, delusions, and psychosis. Id. These products carry further risks to new and inexperienced patients because if taken in edible form they may “consume more to feel the effects faster, leading to dangerous results.” Id. Finally, “Higher THC levels may also mean a greater risk for addiction.” Id. Nevertheless, in the case of non-injectable syringes, which is generally taken orally, the Board will include them in the exemption for capsules and tinctures for two reasons. First, there is no evidence at this time that persons under 21 years of age are abusing this specific category of products or that this specific type of product is leading to harmful outcomes in other jurisdictions or the District. And second, where it has been shown that these products have been on the market for several years without objection from the Department of Health, the Board finds it appropriate to “grandfather” or carve out an exemption to the regulation’s THC limits for this class of products. Jen Brunenkant suggested that § 504.2 add the word “foreign” to permit “international patients” to participate in the medical cannabis program. Response: This change is not needed as the term “non-resident cardholder” as defined in D.C. Code § 7-1671.01(13B) now includes the term “foreign country” and “foreign territory.” Jen Brunenkant asked whether § 1001.4 requires the printing out of records if stored electronically. Response: If a licensee elects to solely use electronic records there is no obligation to create physical records. Electronic records may be transferred digitally or provided through the submission of a digital storage device if required to be submitted to ABCA. Jen Brunenkant commented that internet and retailer licenses should be limited to one per person to promote ownership diversity. Response: The combined limit in the proposed rules not allowing a licensee to hold more than 3 retailer and internet retailer licenses is consistent with D.C. Code § 7-1671.06(e)(1)(D), which contains the very same restriction. Jen Brunenkant asked that the spousal conflict of interest rule found at § 5424 be eliminated in order to prevent spousal control of licenses as a way to collude to avoid the impact of the conflict- of-interest rules. Response: Section 5424 is adapted from Title 23 of the D.C. Official Code. The Board generally opposes the adoption of rules and requirements that may violate the policy behind the D.C. Human Rights Act. Therefore, the Board opposes prohibiting both spouses from holding separate licenses because such a prohibition is inconsistent with District of Columbia policy as expressed by the D.C. Human’s Right Acts prohibition on discrimination based on family relationships and marital status. D.C. Official Code § 2-1501.01 (“Every individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life of the District and to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life ”); D.C. Official Code § 2-1402.11. Section 5424 creates clear guidelines for situations when both spouses own separate licenses in order to ensure compliance with existing law, and that without this section there would be no additional requirements.. Jen Brunenkant commented that delivery drivers should be permitted to deliver to patients curbside at their residence. Response: Section 5624.7 allows for deliveries of medical cannabis to occur anywhere on the resident’s property but not on public property, such as the sidewalk or curb. Current law requires delivery to the qualifying patient’s address and not “on District government . . . property.” D.C. Code § 7-1671.06E(a). Jen Brunenkant expressed concern that the regulations do not indicate the legal responsibility of a retailer or internet retailer when using a courier. Response: Retailers and internet retailers may be liable for the violations of a courier when it is shown the retailer engaged in a violation of a specific statute or regulation as part of the delivery transaction. Questions regarding specific scenarios that require clarification should be addressed to ABCA or the Board. The Board notes that in assessing the liability under the statute the Board will consider how the statutory language assigns responsibility and may consider other general legal principles if relevant such as vicarious liability or respondeat superior in administrative enforcement actions on a fact-specific basis, but in general, the licensee is responsible for the acts of its agents. This is especially true in a regulated industry where the Board’s powers to ensure compliance are strongest over licensees. Jen Brunenkant raised concerns regarding the curbside delivery camera requirement. Response: The Board has eliminated the requirement formerly in § 5703.4(e) for curbside sales to be within view of the retailer’s security camera system because the requirement is of limited utility when off-premise delivery is permitted without video recording being required, the sales are still tracked through METRC, and there is a low risk of diversion where illegal cannabis is generally cheaper than product sold through a licensed medical cannabis retailer. Jen Brunenkant raised concerns regarding the regulation’s allowance for the use of a summary suspension in the case of an assault on a government official in or around the establishment. Response: The requirement in § 6203.2 mirrors a similar and long-standing authority in Title 25 of the D.C. Official Code governing the operation of the alcohol industry. The requirement is necessary because an assault on a government official raises questions about the operation of and the security measures in place at the medical cannabis facility. Furthermore, such a suspension may be warranted to permit an appropriate investigation of the incident. The Board notes that this type of suspension is short term and is subject to the right to an almost immediate hearing and decision on the suspension. Further, this type of authority is also necessary where the on-premises consumption of medical cannabis is now authorized by the additional safe-use treatment facility and summer garden endorsements. Lauren Berlekemp asked that the Board consider allowing patients to engage in testing at testing labs. She further advocated for the creation of a public-private partnership to establish a testing laboratory. Response: Recent legislation passed by the Council allows for patient and caregiver testing at testing labs and this version of the rulemaking addresses this new privilege enacted by D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.05(11A)(A). Public investment or partnership with a testing laboratory likely would require the enactment of legislation authorizing such activity and appropriate funding that falls outside the scope of the Board’s authority. Phyto Cultivation requested that licensees should be permitted to provide their own training in lieu of providing a Board-certified trainer due to the expense. Response: Nothing in the current regulations prevents a licensee from creating their own program for their own employees, having it certified by the Board, and then conducting their own in-house training and certification under the program. Phyto Cultivation requested that the Board adjust the definition of waste to allow for the disposal of green waste. Response: The matter of waste disposal requires additional study because waste disposal rules are administered by a separate District Government agency and the transportation of medical cannabis waste, even if no THC is present, may create interstate commerce and federal law issues that need to be examined before any rule change to medical cannabis waste disposal can be implemented. Linda Greene requested that the Board eliminate the sales tax on medical cannabis. Response: The elimination of the 6% medical cannabis sales tax is outside the authority of the Board and requires a statutory change. Michael Bobo suggested that caregivers be permitted to assist an unlimited number of patients. Response: The Board agrees that this limit does not serve the interests of patients, and the Board has removed the previous limit of five (5) patients per caregiver. Linda Greene, Camille Tindal, and others took issue with current mandatory training requirements and suggested that the mandatory certified training of all employees be eliminated. Response: The Board agrees with this change in part. The rules have been amended to only require managers to obtain mandatory training once every three-years from a Board-approved certified provider. Medical cannabis licensees are responsible for ensuring that their directors, officers, members, incorporators, agents, and employees have received training on District law, medical cannabis use, security and theft prevention once every three years; however, this training is not required to be from a Board-approved certified provider. These changes will help to reduce costs on the medical cannabis industry because the mandatory training can be provided in-house. Managers are still being required to obtain training from a Board approved certified provider once every three years because this position requires an additional level of knowledge to ensure compliance with the medical cannabis laws and regulations and mirrors the requirement for alcohol licensees. FINAL RULEMAKING ACTION The final rulemaking substantially adopts the proposed rules included in the Notice of Sixth Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking without making any changes. For the purposes of clarity, in this version of the rules, the Board provides the entire revised text of the amended regulations in Chapters 64 and 65 of the final rulemaking. On MONTH DAY, 2025, the Board voted XXX (X) to YYY (Y) to adopt this proposed final rulemaking for transmittal to the Council for its review and approval pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.13(b). On MONTH DAY, 2025, the Mayor transmitted the proposed final rules to the Council for its review and approval pursuant to the Medical Cannabis Technical Rulemaking Approval Resolution of 2025 (P.R. 26-XXX). In accordance with D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.13(b), “If the Council does not approve or disapprove the proposed rules, in whole or in part, by resolution, within the 30-day review period excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and Council recesses, after the Mayor submits the proposed final rules to the Council, the proposed rules shall be deemed approved.” The Council not having taken action to approve or disapprove the proposed final rules before the end of the 30-day review period, the proposed final rules were deemed approved by the Council on MONTH DAY, 2025. / The Council voted to approve the Medical Cannabis Technical Rulemaking Approval Resolution of 2025 on ------ ----, 2025. As such, the rules are now ripe for the Board to take final action. Therefore, on MONTH DAY, 2025, the Board voted XXX (X) to YYY (Y) to adopt the rules as final. These final rules shall take effect five (5) days after this Notice of Final Rulemaking is published in the District of Columbia Register, and the final rules shall supersede the emergency rules that were previously adopted by the Board and published in the District of Columbia Register on ----- -----, ---, at -- DCR -----, . The rules are as follows: Subtitle C, MEDICAL MARIJUANA, of Title 22, HEALTH, of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, is amended as follows: Strike the phrase “Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration” wherever it appears and insert the phrase “Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration” in its place. Strike the phrase “Alcoholic Beverage Control Board” wherever it appears and insert the phrase “Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board” in its place. Strike the phrase “ABRA” wherever it appears and insert the phrase “ABCA” in its place. Strike the word “marijuana” wherever it appears and insert the word “cannabis” in its place. Strike the phrases “dispensary, cultivation center, or testing laboratory”; “cultivation center, dispensary, or testing laboratory”; “cultivation center, or dispensary or testing laboratory”; “cultivation centers, dispensaries, and testing laboratories”; “cultivation center, dispensary, or testing laboratory”; “ registered cultivation center, dispensary, or testing laboratory”; “cultivation center or dispensary”; “dispensary, cultivation center or testing laboratory”; “registered cultivation center or dispensary” wherever they appear and insert the phrase “medical cannabis business” or “a medical cannabis business” in their places and as appropriate. Strike the words “dispensary” or “a dispensary” where they appear and insert the phrases “internet retailer or retailer” or “an internet retailer or retailer” in their respective places. Strike the phrase “his or her” wherever it appears and insert the word “their” in its place. The heading is amended to read as follows: Subtitle C, MEDICAL CANNABIS Chapter 1, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 100, APPLICABILITY, is amended as follows: Subsections 100.3 and 100.4 are repealed. A new section 101, SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS, is added to read as follows: SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS 101.1 Where the Act or this subtitle requires a signature, the requirement shall be satisfied by a wet ink signature, e-signature, digital signature, clickwrap signature, or any other mark demonstrating an intent to sign unless a specific type of signature is specifically required by the Act or this subtitle. Chapter 2, CONDITIONS OF REGISTRATION, is amended as follows: Section 200, GENERAL PROVISIONS, is amended as follows: Subsection 200.4 is amended to read as follows: 200.4 The applications for a patient or caregiver registration shall specifically recite, verbatim, each of the following notices: (a) Limitation of Liability -- To the extent provided by Section 12 of the Act (D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.11), the District of Columbia shall not be liable to the registrant, its employees, agents, business invitees, licensees, customers, clients, family members or guests for any damage, injury, accident, loss, compensation or claim, based on, arising out of, or resulting from a person’s participation in the District of Columbia’s medical cannabis program, including: any fire, robbery, theft, mysterious disappearance or any other casualty; or injury arising from the use of medical cannabis obtained through the program. This Limitation of Liability provision shall survive expiration or the earlier termination of this registration if such registration is granted; and (b) Federal Prosecution -- The United States Congress has determined that cannabis is a controlled substance and has placed cannabis in Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act. Growing, distributing, and possessing cannabis in any capacity, other than as a part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal laws. The District of Columbia’s law authorizing the District’s medical cannabis program will not excuse any person from any violation of the federal laws governing cannabis or authorize any person to violate federal laws. Subsection 200.11(a) is amended to read as follows: (a) Within forty-eight (48) hours after discovery, provide verbal notification to the Board or the Board’s designee; Chapter 3, USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, is amended as follows: The heading is amended to read as follows: Chapter 3, USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS Section 300, USE BY QUALIFYING PATIENT, TRANSPORTATION BY CAREGIVER, AND LIMITATIONS ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA, is amended to read as follows: MEDICAL USE OF CANNABIS 300.1 A qualifying patient shall only purchase, possess, and administer medical cannabis, or use paraphernalia, for treatment of a qualifying medical or dental condition or the side effects of a qualifying medical treatment after: (a) Obtaining a signed, written recommendation from an authorized practitioner within the last two (2) years in accordance with the Act, except for individuals twenty-one (21) years of age and older, who shall be permitted to self-certify on a form provided by ABCA that they are utilizing cannabis for medical purposes as part of the registration process, and registering with ABCA; or (b) Enrolling in another jurisdiction’s medical cannabis program. 300.2 A qualifying patient or caregiver shall only purchase, possess, dispense, use, administer, or assist in the administration of medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, and paraphernalia obtained from an internet retailer or retailer licensed with the Board. A qualifying patient or caregiver may purchase medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, and paraphernalia at any internet retailer or retailer that is licensed with the Board. 300.3 A qualifying patient or caregiver shall only transport medical cannabis and medical cannabis products in a container or sealed package bearing the label received from the internet retailer or retailer. 300.4 A qualifying patient or caregiver shall not use or administer medical cannabis or medical cannabis products at a medical cannabis business, except that a qualifying patient or caregiver may use or administer medical cannabis at a Board-approved safe-use treatment facility, summer garden, or educational activity that occurs at a licensed retailer. 300.5 Medical cannabis shall only be administered by or to a qualifying patient at: (a) The qualifying patient’s residence, if permitted by the property owner; (b) If permitted by the landlord, the residence of an individual who has given permission to the qualifying patient to administer medical cannabis at their residence; (c) A medical treatment facility when receiving medical care for a qualifying medical or dental condition or a qualifying medical or dental treatment, if permitted by the medical treatment facility; (d) A Board-approved safe-use treatment facility, summer garden, or educational activity that occurs at a licensed retailer; or (e) To the extent consistent with federal law, a school where the qualifying patient is enrolled, if the school has a policy in place for allowing the administration of medication at school and medical cannabis is administered in a non-smokeable form. 300.6 A qualifying patient who is a minor shall only purchase, possess, use, and administer medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, and paraphernalia after receiving: (1) a recommendation from an authorized practitioner and registering with ABCA and (2) a signed, written statement from the minor’s parent or legal guardian that is submitted with the minor’s ABCA registration. The signed, written statement shall affirm that the parent or legal guardian: (a) Understands the qualifying medical or dental condition or qualifying medical or dental treatment of the minor; (b) Understands the potential benefits and adverse effects of the use of medical cannabis in general, and specifically, in the case of the minor; (c) Consents to the use of medical cannabis for the minor’s qualifying medical or dental condition or qualifying medical or dental treatment; (d) Consents to, or designates another adult to, serve as the caregiver for the minor qualifying patient; and (e) Consents that the caregiver shall control the acquisition, possession, dosage, and frequency of use of medical cannabis by the minor qualifying patient. 300.7 Nothing in the Act or this subtitle shall be construed as permitting a qualifying patient to: (a) Undertake any task under the influence of medical cannabis when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice; or (b) Operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, scooter, bicycle, e-bike, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of medical cannabis. 300.8 No qualifying patient or caregiver shall use butane or other explosive gases to extract or separate resin from cannabis, or tetrahydrocannabinol from cannabis, or in any other manner. Section 301, BARRING NOTICES, is renumbered as Section 302. A new section 301, MEDICAL CANNABIS POSSESSION AND PURCHASE LIMITS, is added to read as follows: MEDICAL CANNABIS POSSESSION AND PURCHASE LIMITS 301.1 The maximum amount of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products a qualifying patient or caregiver may possess at any time or purchase from a licensed internet retailer or retailer within a 30-day period, whether individually or in combination, is: (a) Eight (8) ounces of dried medical cannabis; or (b) Two hundred and forty (240) grams of medical cannabis concentrate for a patient twenty-one (21) years old of age or older, or sixty (60) grams of medical cannabis concentrate for a patient between eighteen (18) and twenty (20) years old; or (c) Medical cannabis products in any form containing a combined total of six hundred thousand milligrams (600,000 mg) of THC. Chapter 5, QUALIFYING PATIENTS, is amended as follows: Section 500, QUALIFICATION FOR PATIENT REGISTRATION, is amended as follows: Subsection 500.1(c) is amended to read as follows: (c) Have a signed recommendation from an authorized practitioner, or if twenty-one (21) years of age or older, self-certify on a form provided by ABCA, for the use of medical cannabis meeting the requirements of this chapter; and Section 501, RESIDENCY, is amended as follows: Subsection 501.2(b) is amended to read as follows: (b) At least one (1) of the following items: (1) A valid unexpired lease or rental agreement in the name of the applicant on a District of Columbia residential property; (2) A pay stub issued less than forty-five (45) days prior to the application date which shows evidence of the applicant’s withholding of District income tax; (3) Current official documentation of financial assistance received by the applicant from the District Government including, but not limited to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), housing assistance, or other governmental programs; (4) A current motor vehicle registration in the name of the applicant evidencing District residency; (5) A valid unexpired District motor vehicle operator’s permit or other official non-driver identification in the name of the applicant; (6) Bank statements, utility bills, and telephone bills, including cell phone bills from a period within the two (2) months immediately preceding the application date in the name of the applicant on a District of Columbia residential address; or (7) Any other document that, in the judgment of the Board, demonstrates that the applicant is a current resident. Section 502, QUALIFYING PATIENTS APPLICATION, is amended as follows: Subsection 502.1(e) is amended to read as follows: (e) Either a signed and dated authorized practitioner’s recommendation for the use of medical cannabis meeting the requirements of this chapter, that is dated not more than two (2) years prior to the application date, or a signed ABCA self-certification form; Section 503, NONRESIDENT QUALIFYING PATIENTS, is amended as follows: Subsection 503.1 is amended to read as follows: 503.1 Before dispensing medical cannabis to a nonresident qualifying patient, a registered internet retailer or retailer shall: (a) Verify the nonresident qualifying patient’s identity through comparison of their unexpired government-issued identification card and either their temporary medical cannabis patient card issued by ABCA or a valid, unexpired nonresident patient card or state-issued or U.S. territory-issued document from the jurisdiction that the patient resides; and (b) Confirm through the real-time electronic records system that the nonresident qualifying patient has not reached the allowable medical cannabis purchase limits for the thirty (30)-day period. Subsection 503.2 is amended to read as follows: 503.2 An internet retailer or retailer shall not dispense medical cannabis to a nonresident qualifying patient that does not hold either a temporary medical cannabis patient card issued by ABCA or a valid unexpired nonresident patient card or state-issued or U.S. territory-issued document from the jurisdiction that the patient resides. Subsection 503.3 is repealed. Subsection 503.4 is amended to read as follows: 503.4 A licensed internet retailer or retailer shall not dispense medical cannabis to a nonresident qualifying patient if ABCA determines that there is a shortage of medical cannabis, or the real-time electronic records system is inactive. Subsection 503.5 is amended to read as follows: 503.5 In the case of purchase by a nonresident qualifying patient that does not hold a temporary medical cannabis patient card issued by ABCA, the internet retailer or retailer shall retain a copy of both the nonresident patient card or state-issued or U.S. territory-issued document, and a copy of the government-issued identification card. New subsections 503.7 and 503.8 are added to read as follows: 503.7 Notwithstanding § 503.1(a) and § 503.2, an internet retailer or retailer may satisfy § 503.1(a) and § 503.2 and dispense medical cannabis and medical cannabis products to a nonresident patient by verifying the nonresident patient’s identity through a comparison of: (a) An unexpired government-issued identification card of the patient; (b) If required by the issuing jurisdiction, proof of residency in the other jurisdiction, along with any other document necessary to prove enrollment in the other jurisdiction’s program; and (c) A written certification form issued by the patient’s state or jurisdiction of residence that has been completed by an authorized practitioner provided the state or jurisdiction’s written certification form contains: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the practitioner; (2) The name of the qualifying patient presenting the written certification form; (3) The date the certification form was issued by the practitioner; (4) The signature or electronic signature of the practitioner; and (5) Confirmation that the authorized practitioner has determined that medical cannabis is appropriate for the treatment of a qualifying medical or dental condition or a side effect of a qualifying medical or dental treatment, that is consistent with the standard of care in that jurisdiction. 503.8 In the case of purchase by a nonresident qualifying patient utilizing a written certification form issued by another state or jurisdiction that has been completed by an authorized practitioner, the internet retailer or retailer shall use the number on the unexpired government issued identification card as the non-resident’s patient number. New sections 504 and 505 are added to read as follows: TEMPORARY NON-RESIDENT MEDICAL CANNABIS PATIENT CARD 504.1 A non-resident qualifying patient visiting the District of Columbia may apply to ABCA to receive a temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card that is either 3 days, 30 days, 90 days, 180 days or 365 days in length. 504.2 To apply for a temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card, an applicant shall submit a complete application to ABCA on the required forms, which shall include: (a) The applicant’s full legal name and date of birth; (b) One (1) recent passport-type photograph of the applicant’s face measuring two inches by two inches (2 in. x 2 in.), which clearly expose the area from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin; (c) One (1) clear photocopy of a photo ID issued by a U.S. state, U.S. territory, the District of Columbia, or a foreign government-, such as a driver’s license or passport, as proof of identity; (d) A signed and dated written authorized practitioner’s recommendation for the use of medical cannabis meeting the requirements of this chapter, that is dated not more than two (2) years prior to the application date, except for individuals twenty-one (21) years of age and older, who shall be permitted to self-certify on a form provided by ABCA that they are utilizing cannabis for medical purposes as part of their application; (e) Designation of the individual who will serve as the patient’s caregiver, if applicable; and (f) Payment of the required application fee. 504.3 An applicant applying for a temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card who is a minor shall further provide that the application is completed by the parent or legal guardian of the minor, and includes (a) All of the information required by Section 504.2; and (b) A signed written statement from the minor’s parent or legal guardian attesting to the information set forth in § 300.6. 504.4 A minor shall not be issued a temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card until a registered caregiver is designated on the application and the caregiver has been issued a medical cannabis caregiver registration card from ABCA. 504.5 After the expiration of a temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card, the nonresident cardholder may apply to ABCA to be issued another temporary non- resident identification card. SELF-CERTIFICATION FORM 505.1 The ABCA Self-Certification Form shall require the following information: (a) Name; (b) Address; (c) Date of Birth; (d) Age; and (e) Whether the applicant has any condition for which treatment with medical cannabis would be beneficial, as determined by an authorized practitioner, or is undertaking a qualifying medical or dental treatment. 505.2 The ABCA Self-Certification Form shall require the qualifying patient to make the certifications required by D.C. Official Code §§ 7-1671.02(c) and 7-1671.05(b)(3). 505.3 Any qualifying patient registration card containing a self-certification form that was issued to a person under the age of twenty-one (21) or who has otherwise falsified information contained in the self-certification form shall be revoked. 505.4 If the Board has cause to believe that a self-certification form is false or otherwise filed in violation of this title or this subtitle, the Board may require the qualifying patient to demonstrate through the submission of evidence that the self-certification is valid. 505.5 A qualifying patient required to submit proof of their self-certification shall have 15 calendar days unless extended by the Board to file appropriate documentation of their condition or treatment. If the qualifying patient fails to respond, then the Board may immediately revoke their registration. Chapter 6, CAREGIVERS, is amended as follows: Section 601, CAREGIVER QUALIFICATIONS, is amended as follows: Subsections 601.1(c) and 601.1(d) are amended to read as follows: (c) Not previously had its registration revoked by the Board to serve as a caregiver; and (d) Be at least eighteen (18) years of age. Subsection 601.1(e) is repealed. Section 602, CAREGIVER APPLICATION, is amended as follows: Subsection 602.1(b) is amended by striking the phrase “Two recent passport type photographs” and inserting the phrase “One (1) recent passport-type photograph” in its place. Subsections 602.1(c) and 602.1(d) are amended to read as follows: (c) One (1) clear photocopy of a photo ID issued by a U.S. state, U.S. territory, the District of Columbia, or a foreign government-, such as a driver’s license or passport, as proof of identity; and (d) The caregiver’s residential address, which shall not be a post office box number. Subsection 602.1(e) is repealed. Subsection 602.1(f) is repealed. Subsection 602.2 is repealed. Section 603, MARIJUANA OBTAINED FROM DESIGNATED DISPENSARY, is amended as follows: The heading is amended to read as follows: MEDICAL CANNABIS OBTAINED FROM INTERNET RETAILER OR RETAILER Subsection 603.1(b) is amended to read as follows: (b) Purchase medical cannabis from unlicensed sources; or CHAPTER 7, REGISTRATION CARDS, is amended as follows: Section 700, ISSUANCE OF REGISTRATION CARDS, is amended as follows: Subsection 700.2 is amended to read as follows: 700.2 A registration identification card issued pursuant to this chapter shall expire two (2) years after the date of issuance and may be renewed in accordance with the renewal provisions under this chapter. Upon receipt of a complete application, ABCA shall issue the applicant a temporary patient registration card that shall be valid for thirty (30) days. Section 701, CONTENTS OF REGISTRATION CARDS, is amended to read as follows: Subsection 701.1(f) is amended to read as follows: (f) The District of Columbia medical license number of the recommending physician, if the qualifying patient is a minor. Subsection 701.2(f) is amended to read as follows: (f) The District of Columbia medical license number of the recommending physician, if the qualifying patient is a minor. Section 702, RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION CARDS, is amended as follows: Subsection 702.1(a)(3) is amended to read as follows: (3) A signed and dated written recommendation from an authorized practitioner for the use of medical cannabis meeting the requirements of this chapter, that is dated not more than two (2) years prior to the application date or, for patients twenty-one (21) years of age and older, a signed ABCA self-certification form; and Subsection 702.2(c) is amended to read as follows: (c) A signed and dated written recommendation from an authorized practitioner for the use of medical cannabis meeting the requirements of this chapter, that is dated not more than two (2) years prior to the application date or, for patients twenty-one (21) years of age and older, a signed ABCA self- certification form; Chapter 8, RECOMMENDING AUTHORIZED PRACTITIONERS, is amended as follows: The heading is amended to read as follows: Chapter 8 AUTHORIZED PRACTITIONERS Section 801, FORM OF RECOMMENDATION, is amended follows: Section 801.1(h) is amended to read as follows: (h) The authorized practitioner’s signature and date. Section 801.1.(i) is amended to read as follows: (i) The qualifying patient's signed consent for the release of medical or dental information related to the patient's qualifying medical or dental condition or treatment. Section 803, NO OFFICE AT A DISPENSARY, CULTIVATION CENTER, OR TESTING LABORATORY, is amended as follows: The heading is amended to read as follows: PROHIBITED OFFICE LOCATIONS Chapter 10, ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, is amended as follows: The heading is amended to read as follows: Chapter 10 ENFORCEMENT Section 1000, COMPLAINTS AGAINST PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS OR RECOMMENDING AUTHORIZED PHYSICIANS, is amended to read as follows: ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY 1000.1 The Board and ABCA shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of the Act and this subtitle with respect to licensees, any premises where an application pursuant to the Act has been filed, and unlicensed establishments. 1000.2 ABCA investigators may issue citations for civil violations of the Act and this subtitle that are set forth in the schedule of civil penalties. 1000.3 A citation for any violation for which the penalty includes the suspension of a license shall be issued under the direct authority of the Board as a result of an investigation carried out by ABCA investigators. 1000.4 Violations committed by an unlicensed person selling cannabis in violation of the provisions of the Act and the regulations may be referred by the Board to the Office of the Attorney General for investigation and prosecution. 1000.5 ABCA investigators may request and check the identification of a patient or caregiver inside of or attempting to enter a licensed medical cannabis facility. ABCA investigators may seize evidence that substantiates a violation under the Act and the regulations, which may include seizing cannabis and cannabis products sold to unregistered minors and unauthorized persons and fake identification documents used by minors and other unauthorized persons to register or be licensed with ABCA. 1000.6 ABCA investigators may seize a medical cannabis license or registration from an establishment or individual if: (a) The license has been suspended, revoked, or cancelled by the Board; (b) The license has expired; (c) The license has been tampered with, altered, belongs to another person, or otherwise used in a fraudulent manner; (d) The medical cannabis facility is no longer in existence; or (e) The medical cannabis facility has been closed by another District government agency. 1000.7 ABCA investigators are authorized to conduct announced and unannounced, as well as undercover, inspections and investigations of all licensees and any premises where an application for licensure has been filed. Section 1001, REPEALED, is amended to read as follows: EXAMINATION OF PREMISES AND BOOKS AND RECORDS 1001.1 An applicant for a license, and each licensee, shall allow an ABCA investigator or any member of ABCA’s enforcement division a full opportunity to examine, at any time during business hours: (a) The premises where medical cannabis or medical cannabis products are cultivated, manufactured, kept, sold, delivered, tested, or consumed for which an application for a license or endorsement has been made or for which a license or endorsement has been issued; and (b) The books and records of the business for which an application for a license has been made or for which a license has been issued. This shall include the license holder’s confidential records, including those related to qualifying patients, nonresident qualifying patients, caregivers, and authorized practitioners. 1001.2 ABCA investigators shall examine the premises and books and records of each licensed medical cannabis facility in the District at least once each year. The investigators shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the licensee will know in advance the date of the inspection. 1001.3 All books and records required to be maintained by a licensee shall be maintained at the licensed premises unless a separate location in the District is approved by the Board. 1001.4 Notwithstanding § 1001.3, a medical cannabis facility may store its books and records electronically; provided that they provide the ABCA investigator, or another employee of ABCA’s enforcement division with access to the electronic records during normal business hours and produce the physical books and records within forty-eight (48) hours of notice of an inspection. Section 1002, REVOCATION, SUSPENSION, OR FINES - GENERAL PROVISIONS, is amended to read as follows: NOTICE OF INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS 1002.1 ABCA shall provide a licensee with an ABCA investigative report that may result in a show-cause civil enforcement hearing by ABCA within 90 days of the date upon which the incident occurred. 1002.2 The requirement in subsection § 1002.1 of this section shall be stayed if the report is referred to another federal, state, or District agency for investigation and such investigation remains pending. 1002.3 A licensee that has not received an investigative report in compliance with § 1002.1 may petition the Board to obtain a copy of the document. Section 1003, NOTICE OF CONTEMPLATED ACTION AND HEARING, is amended to read as follows: AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE FINES, SUSPEND, AND REVOKE LICENSES 1003.1 The Board may fine, as set forth in the schedule of civil penalties, and suspend or revoke the license of, any licensee during the license period if the licensee violates any provision of the Act or this subtitle. Section 1004, NOTICE OF SUMMARY SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION ACTION AND HEARING, is amended to read as follows: GENERAL VIOLATIONS 1004.1 It shall be a violation when: (a) The licensee violates any of the provisions of the Act or this subtitle; (b) The licensee fails to superintend in person, or through a manager approved by the Board, the facility for which the license was issued; (c) The licensee interferes or fails to cooperate with an ABCA investigation; (d) The licensee fails to follow its settlement agreement; (e) The licensee fails to follow its security plan or other plan submitted as part of its license application; (f) The licensee fails to follow a Board order or condition; (g) The licensee fails to follow the terms of its license approved by the Board; (h) The licensee purposely or knowingly destroys evidence of a crime; (i) The licensee directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to an ABCA investigator, or offers or promises any ABCA investigator to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with the intent to: (1) Influence any official act or investigation; (2) Influence an ABCA investigator to commit or aid in committing, collude in, or allow any fraud on the Board; or (3) Induce an ABCA investigator to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of the ABCA investigator; or (j) The licensee knowingly tampers with evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “tampers with evidence” means any action that destroys, alters, conceals, or falsifies any sort of evidence. New sections 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, and 1010 are added to read as follows: UNLAWFUL AND DISORDERLY PURPOSE VIOLATION 1005.1 It shall be a violation for the licensee to allow the licensed establishment to be used for any unlawful purpose contrary to District law. 1005.2 A single incident of criminal assault as defined in Chapter 4 of Title 22 of the D.C. Official Code, criminal sexual abuse as defined in Chapter 30 of Title 22 of the D.C. Official Code, or crime of violence as defined in D.C. Official Code § 23- 1331(4) shall be sufficient to prove a violation of subsection 1005.1 of this section; provided, that the licensee has engaged in a method of operation that is conducive to unlawful or disorderly conduct. 1005.3 A violation of 1005.1 shall not require the showing of a criminal conviction but only substantial evidence that the criminal conduct occurred. RESERVED PROHIBITION ON UNAUTHORIZED SALES 1007.1 A licensee shall not deliver, dispense, give, sell, or serve medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, or paraphernalia to the following persons at the time of purchase: (a) A person who is not a registered qualifying patient, caregiver, or otherwise authorized to purchase medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, or paraphernalia; or (b) A minor unless the person holds a valid and unexpired medical cannabis patient card issued by ABCA or another jurisdiction and is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. 1007.2 No licensee shall permit the possession or consumption of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products by a minor at the licensed facility unless the minor: (a) is a qualifying patient at a Board-approved safe-use treatment facility, summer garden, or educational activity; (b) Holds a valid and unexpired medical cannabis patient card issued by ABCA or another jurisdiction; and (c) Is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. 1007.3 Any stayed suspension days imposed by the Board shall activate and be served by the licensee upon a finding by the Board that the licensee has committed another violation of this section within one year of the date that the violation that resulted in the stayed suspension was adjudicated. 1007.4 It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge under this section that the licensee or the licensee’s agent was shown and inspected a fake or fraudulent identification document from the patient of such quality, and that lacked any of the indicia of a fake or fraudulent identification document, that a reasonable person would believe that it was valid. For the purposes of this subsection, if at the time of inspection, any of the following were present, the presumption shall be that a reasonable person would not believe that the identification document shown by the patient or the patient’s caregiver was valid: (a) The identification was visibly damaged; (b) The identification lacked the physical materials or features of the valid identification being imitated; (c) The photograph contained in the identification that was shown did not match the bearer; (d) The identification is displayed past the printed expiration date; or (e) The licensee or their agent knew or had reason to know the person who self- certified to obtain a patient registration card from ABCA was under the age of twenty-one (21). ILLEGAL CONSUMPTION 1008.1 A licensee that does not hold a safe-use treatment facility endorsement, summer garden, or an education tasting endorsement shall not allow any person to consume, inhale, or otherwise use medical cannabis or medical cannabis products on the premises or possess medical cannabis or medical cannabis products on the premises in an open or unsealed container. OPEN CONTAINERS 1009.1 No licensee shall knowingly permit a person to leave the premises with an open or unsealed container of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products. MANDATORY REVOCATION 1010.1 The Board shall revoke the license of a licensee as a result of any of the following events during the period for which the license was issued: (a) The licensee has been convicted of multiple violations of the terms of the Act or this title in accordance with 22-C DCMR § 6301.1(e); (b) The licensee has knowingly permitted, in the licensed establishment: (1) The illegal sale, or negotiations for sale, or the use, of any controlled substance identified in the Controlled Substances Act; or (2) The possession, other than for personal use, or sale, or negotiations for sale, of drug paraphernalia in violation of the Controlled Substances Act or the Drug Paraphernalia Act of 1982, effective September 17, 1982 (D.C. Law 4-149; D.C. Official Code § 48-1101 et seq.), except for medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, and medical cannabis paraphernalia; (c) The licensee has been convicted of a felony after the issuance of the license if the felony constitutes a crime of violence, a gun offense, tax evasion, fraud, or credit card fraud; or (d) The licensee has been convicted of assaulting an ABCA investigator or other District government official while the investigator or other official was conducting an investigation or performing other governmental functions. 1010.2 For the purposes of this section: (a) The term “personal use” means the possession of drug paraphernalia in circumstances where there is no evidence of an intent to distribute or manufacture a controlled substance; and (b) Successive sales or negotiations for sale shall be deemed evidence of knowing permission. Chapter 12, INVESTIGATIONS AND INSPECTIONS, is amended to read as follows: Chapter 12 RESERVED Chapter 13, FEES, is amended as follows: Section 1300, REGISTRATION, RENEWAL, AND REPLACEMENT FEES, is amended to read as follows: PATIENT AND CAREGIVER REGISTRATION FEES 1300.1 The registration, renewal, and replacement fees for a two (2) year patient or caregiver registration or other patient card are as follows: (a) Initial registration fee for a qualifying patient - $0.00; (b) Initial registration fee for a caregiver - $0.00; (c) Renewal fee for a qualifying patient - $0.00; (d) Renewal fee for a caregiver - $0.00; (e) Replacement card fee - $10.00; (f) The fee for a physical patient or caregiver registration card beginning on August 11, 2023 - $10.00; (g) The fee for a 30-day temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card shall be $30.00 until September 24, 2023; (h) Beginning on September 25, 2023, the fees for a temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card fee are as follows: (1) Temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card fee (3 days) - $10.00; (2) Temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card fee (30 days) - $20.00; (3) Temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card fee (90 days) - $50.00; (4) Temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card fee (180 days) - $75.00; and (5) Temporary non-resident medical cannabis patient card fee (365 days) - $100.00. 1300.2 Notwithstanding the initial or renewal application fees for a qualifying patient set forth in § 1300.1(a)-(d), a qualifying patient who files an initial or renewal application by August 10, 2023, shall receive a two-year registration card at no cost. 1300.3 Beginning on August 11, 2023, ABCA shall only issue a qualifying patient or caregiver a digital registration card. On or after August 11, 2023, a qualifying patient or caregiver may request a physical card from ABCA for a fee of $10.00. 1300.4 A qualifying patient who establishes pursuant to § 1300.5 that their income level is equal to or less than two hundred percent (200%) of the federal poverty level, shall be entitled to purchase medical cannabis directly, or through a caregiver, on a sliding scale from a licensed internet retailer or retailer in the District of Columbia if the qualifying patient satisfies the Board of the following: (a) That the individual is a current Medicaid or DC Alliance recipient or eligible for Medicaid or to participate in the DC Alliance program; or (b) Documentation verifying that the individual’s total gross income and other financial resources, including child support payments, alimony and rent payments received, and any other income received on a regular basis, is equal to or less than two hundred percent (200%) of the federal poverty level, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and (c) The Board is otherwise satisfied that the qualifying patient lacks sufficient income and existing financial resources to obtain a sufficient supply of medical cannabis. 1300.5 To verify income for the purposes of § 1300.4(b), an individual shall submit an affidavit providing the following, if applicable: (a) Earning statements received within the previous thirty (30) days; (b) District of Columbia or Federal tax filings for the most recent tax year; (c) For newly employed applicants, a verifiable copy of an offer of employment that states the amount of salary to be paid; (d) A copy of a social security or worker’s compensation benefit statement; (e) Proof of child support or alimony received; (f) Proof of any other unearned income or assets, including but not limited to, stocks, bonds, annuities, private pension and retirement accounts; and (g) Any other item(s) of proof deemed by the Board, the Director or the Director’s agent reasonably calculated to demonstrate a person’s income. 1300.6 An individual shall submit the required verifying information set forth in § 1300.5 for each renewal or request for a replacement card in order to continue to purchase medical cannabis from a licensed internet retailer or retailer on a sliding scale. A new section 1301, PAYMENT OF MEDICAL CANNABIS FACILITY ANNUAL FEES, is added to read as follows: PAYMENT OF MEDICAL CANNABIS FACILITY ANNUAL FEES 1301.1 Medical cannabis facility license fees shall be paid annually. The fee for the first year shall be paid within sixty (60) calendar days of Board approval but prior to license issuance. The renewal fee shall be paid on or before the anniversary date of issuance of the license. 1301.2 The applicant shall pay the annual license fee for the first year to the D.C. Treasurer. The applicant’s duplicate receipt shall accompany the annual license fee payment. 1301.3 A licensee’s failure to timely remit the annual license fee shall be cause for the Board to suspend a previously approved or issued license until the licensee pays the fee and any late fees imposed by the Board for late payment not to exceed the annual cost of the license. If a licensee is delinquent thirty (30) days or more on payment of the annual license fee, the Board shall give notice to the licensee of its intent to cancel the license. The licensee shall have fourteen (14) days to respond to the notice in writing. If the Board thereafter determines that the failure to pay the annual fee and late fee is not for good cause, the Board shall cancel the license. 1301.4 Nothing in this section shall preclude a medical cannabis business from paying in advance the second or third-year annual license fee. A new section 1302, APPLICATION FEES, is added to read as follows: APPLICATION FEES 1302.1 The application filing fees for standard medical cannabis business applicants are as follows: (a) Retailer, Internet Retailer, Cultivation Center - $8,000; (b) Manufacturer, Courier - $4,000; (c) Testing Laboratory - $0; (d) Transfer to New Location - $5,000; (e) Facility Capacity or Physical Plant Change - $2,000; (f) Transfer of Ownership Change - $2,000; (g) Change of Director, Officer, Member, Incorporator, or Agent - $100; and (h) Corporate or Trade Name Change - $100. 1302.2 The application filing fees for social equity medical cannabis business and substantial change applicants are as follows: (a) Retailer, Internet Retailer, Cultivation Center - $2,000; (b) Manufacturer, Courier - $1,000; (c) Testing Laboratory - $0; (d) Transfer to New Location - $5,000; (e) Facility Capacity or Physical Plant Change - $2,000; (f) Transfer of Ownership Change to Another Social Equity Applicant - $625; (g) Change of Director, Officer, Member, Incorporator, or Agent - $100; and (h) Corporate or Trade Name Change - $25. 1302.3 The application filing fees for both standard and social equity applicants for a retailer endorsement or permit are as follows: (a) Retailer Delivery Endorsement, Summer Garden Endorsement - $ 300; (b) Safe-Use Treatment Facility Endorsement - $1,000; (c) Education Tasting Endorsement - $130; and (i) Certified Training Provider Permit - $100. 1302.4 The application fees for conditional licenses are as follows: (a) For a standard applicant for a cultivation center, manufacturer, retailer, internet retailer, or courier, the applicant shall pay an application fee of $800 and an additional $1,200 fee if approved; (b) For a social equity applicant for a cultivation center, manufacturer, retailer, internet retailer, or courier, the applicant shall pay an application fee of $200 and an additional $300 fee if approved; (c) For either a standard or social equity applicant for a testing laboratory, the applicant shall pay an application fee of $0; (d) For a standard applicant for a testing laboratory, the applicant shall pay a $0 fee if approved; and (e) For a social equity applicant for a testing laboratory, the applicant shall pay a $0 fee if approved. A new section 1303, LICENSE AND ENDORSEMENT FEES, is added to read as follows: LICENSE AND ENDORSEMENT FEES 1303.1 The annual license fees for standard cultivation center, manufacturer, internet retailer, retailer, courier, and testing laboratory licensees are as follows: (a) Cultivation Center Tier 1 -$11,000; (b) Cultivation Center Tier 2 -$16,000; (c) Cultivation Center Tier 3 -$21,000; (d) Cultivation Center Tier 4 -$26,000; (e) Cultivation Center Tier 5 -$31,000; (f) Cultivation Center Tier 6 -$36,000; (g) Manufacturer -$4,000; (h) Manufacturer and Extraction -$8,000; (i) Retailer -$16,000; (j) Internet Retailer License -$16,000; (k) Courier - $8,000; and (l) Testing Laboratory License -$7,500. 1303.2 The annual license fees for social equity cultivation center, manufacturer, internet retailer, retailer, courier, and testing laboratory licensees for the first three (3) years of operation shall be as follows: (a) Cultivation Center Tier 1 -$2,750; (b) Cultivation Center Tier 2 -$4,000; (c) Cultivation Center Tier 3 -$5,250; (d) Cultivation Center Tier 4 -$6,500; (e) Cultivation Center Tier 5 -$7,750; (f) Cultivation Center Tier 6 -$9,000; (g) Manufacturer -$1,000; (h) Manufacturer and Extraction -$2,000; (i) Retailer -$4,000; (j) Internet Retailer License -$4,000; (k) Courier - $2,000; and (l) Testing Laboratory License -$1,875. 1303.3 The annual endorsement and permit fees for both standard and social equity licensees are as follows: (a) Retailer Delivery -$300; (b) Summer Garden - $300; (c) Education Tasting - $130; (d) Safe-Use Treatment Facility - $2,000; and (e) Medical Cannabis Certification Training Permit - $300. 1303.4 The fee for a duplicate, replacement, or lost license, permit, or endorsement shall be $25. 1303.5 The fee for a returned or declined check shall be $100. 1303.6 Late fees for failing to timely renew a license shall be $50 per day, up to a maximum of the fee for the relevant license. A new section 1304, DETERMINING CULTIVATION CENTER TIER, is added to read as follows: DETERMINING CULTIVATION CENTER TIER 1304.1 A cultivation center shall be deemed to qualify for a specific Tier for the purposes of assessing fees based upon the following criteria: (a) Tier 1 - Mature cannabis plant grow canopy area greater than 0 square feet but no more than 10,000 square feet; (b) Tier 2 - Mature cannabis plant grow canopy area greater than 10,000 square feet but no more than 25,000 square feet; (c) Tier 3 - Mature cannabis plant grow canopy area greater than 25,000 square feet but no more than 50,000 square feet; (d) Tier 4 - Mature cannabis plant grow canopy area greater than 50,000 square feet but no more than 75,000 square feet; (e) Tier 5 - Mature cannabis plant grow canopy area greater than 75,000 square feet but no more than 100,000 square feet; and (f) Tier 6 - Mature cannabis plant grow canopy area greater than 100,000 square feet. 1304.2 The size of the mature cannabis plant grow canopy area shall be assessed at the greatest size at any point or time during the licensing period for the entire license period. 1304.3 A cultivation center that permits the mature cannabis plant grow area to grow in size sufficient to qualify under a higher Tier shall pay the fee for the new Tier immediately upon reaching the new Tier or within thirty (30) days written notice provided by ABCA. A cultivation center that fails to pay the required fee shall be subject to the suspension of its license until the appropriate Tier fee is paid. 1304.4 A cultivation center shall not be able to obtain a refund should the mature cannabis plant growth area be reduced sufficiently to qualify for a lower Tier. 1304.5 The mature cannabis plant grow canopy area shall include all plant grow areas in the facility whether adjoined or in separate locations. A new section 1305, CANOPY MEASUREMENT, is added to read as follows: CANOPY MEASUREMENT 1305.1 In order to measure the cannabis grow canopy area to determine the appropriate Tier, the measurement shall be calculated in square feet and measured using clearly identifiable boundaries of all areas(s) that will contain flowering or vegetative plants larger than eight (8) inches tall and eight (8) inches wide at any point in time, including all of the space(s) within the boundaries. 1305.2 A canopy may be noncontiguous, but each separate area included in the total canopy calculations shall be separated by an identifiable boundary which includes: interior walls, shelves, greenhouse walls, hoop house walls, garden benches, hedge rows, fencing, garden beds, or garden plots. If flowering or vegetative plants larger than eight (8) inches tall and eight (8) inches wide are being cultivated using a shelving system, the surface area of each level shall be included in the total canopy calculation. A new section 1306, DETERMINING MANUFACTURER CATEGORY, is added to read as follows: DETERMINING MANUFACTURER CATEGORY 1306.1 There shall be two types of manufacturing license categories: (a) A Type 1 manufacturing license shall authorize the production of all medical cannabis products except for those authorized by a Type manufacturing license; and (b) A Type 2 manufacturing and extraction license shall be required if the medical cannabis facility intends to manufacture medical cannabis products utilizing hazardous materials, flammable and combustible liquids, compressed gases, cryogenic fluids, or extraction equipment that requires an operational permit from the Office of the Fire Marshal, Fire Prevention Division, DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (Office of the Fire Marshal). A listing of when an operational permit is required from the Office of the Fire Marshal is set forth in Sections F-107.10.1 through F- 107.10.43 of the D.C. Fire Prevention Code (2008). Chapter 14, MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVISORY COMMITTEE, is amended as follows: The header is amended to read as follows: Chapter 14, MEDICAL CANNABIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Section 1400, COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, is amended as follows: Section 1400.5 is amended to read as follows: 1400.5 Each member of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, the appointing agency director, or City Administrator. Public members of the Committee shall serve a maximum term of three (3) years from the date of appointment and may be reappointed. Section 1401, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, is amended as follows: Subsection 1401.1 is replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 1401.1 The Advisory Committee shall convene as needed to monitor best practices in other states, monitor scientific research on the use of medical cannabis, monitor the effectiveness of the District’s medical cannabis program, the adequacy of the medical cannabis supply in the District of Columbia, and make recommendations to the Mayor, the Council, the Board, or consult with other agencies. A new CHAPTER 19, INQUIRIES TO THE BOARD, is added to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 INQUIRIES TO THE BOARD. COMPLAINTS 1900.1 The Board shall receive, at any time during the license period, complaints from any person, or an affected ANC, alleging a violation by a licensee of the terms of its license or an unlicensed person. 1900.2 Complaints shall be in writing and set forth enough information to allow the Board or its staff to investigate the matter. 1900.3 In addition to written complaints identifying the complainant, any person may make an anonymous complaint in writing to the Board or orally to any ABCA investigator. 1900.4 Anonymous complaints shall be investigated to the best of the Board’s ability but may result in no action being taken if an anonymous complainant fails to provide the Board or the ABCA investigator with sufficient information. 1900.5 All written complaints under this section that identify the complainant by name and address shall be responded to by the Board or its staff within ninety (90) days of receipt of the complaint. The response shall advise the complainant of the action that the Board or its staff has taken on the matter or provide a copy of the establishment’s investigative history. 1900.6 The Board shall maintain records documenting complaints received and the action taken in response to the complaint. 1900.7 In the case where a complainant has not received a timely response, the complainant may petition the Board to release a copy of the target licensee’s investigative history for review. LETTERS OF INFORMATION 1901.1 Any person, group, licensee, or business organization may make a written request to the Board for general information concerning staff procedures, Board procedures, the Act, this title, or any other matter of a general nature affecting the licensing of medical cannabis in the District of Columbia. 1901.2 The Board shall respond to all such letters in writing and may refer the writer directly to a member of the ABCA Staff, to a specific section of the Act or this title, or to other District of Columbia government officials. The response may also suggest that the writer retain the services of an attorney to properly advise the individual as to how to proceed in a particular matter. If the writer’s inquiry is so broad, inexact, or vague that the Board is unable to respond, the Board shall so advise the writer and may request that the writer provide additional information. 1901.3 Any statement contained in the Board’s letters of information provides only general guidance to the writer and shall not be binding on the writer or binding on the Board if the Board is later presented with a more particularized factual situation. Further, the Board’s responses shall not provide any basis for appeal to any court in the District of Columbia. ADVISORY OPINIONS 1902.1 Any ANC, person, group, licensee, or business organization may make a written request to the Board for an advisory opinion when: (a) The requestor is confronted with a situation involving the Act or this title which requires, or may require, the individual to take action; and (b) The legality or propriety of the action to be taken is not clear from the plain text of the Act or this title. 1902.2 Any request for an advisory opinion shall set forth sufficient information to allow the Board to understand the issues involved and to frame a response. The requestor shall also state which section of the Act or section of this title the requestor wishes the Board to interpret or clarify, with respect to the stated set of facts. 1902.3 If the requestor presents insufficient facts in any request for an advisory opinion, the Board may, in its discretion, issue a letter of information; engage in fact-finding through investigation or a discretionary hearing; request the requestor to provide by letter more facts or details in support of their request; or decline to issue an advisory opinion. 1902.4 The decision to issue or not issue an advisory opinion shall be solely in the discretion of the Board. 1902.5 If issued, an advisory opinion is not binding upon the requestor but shall constitute guidance to the requestor as to how the Board may interpret the Act or this title on a particular matter, the facts of which are consistent with those raised by the requestor. Where the requestor is also a licensee, the Board may issue a show- cause notice pursuant to § 6204 of this title in the instance where the facts raised by the requestor provide the Board with reasonable cause to believe that the licensee should be fined, suspended, or revoked. 1902.6 If the requestor disagrees with the Board’s advisory opinion in any respect, the individual may, within twenty (20) calendar days after issuance of the opinion, petition the Board in writing to reconsider its opinion, setting forth in detail the reasons and legal argument which support the requestor’s points of disagreement, or may request the Board to issue a declaratory order, pursuant to § 1903. Advisory opinions shall not be deemed a final order of the Board. 1902.7 All advisory opinions of the Board shall be made available to the public on the agency’s website. DECLARATORY ORDERS 1903.1 Any ANC, person, group, licensee, or business organization may make a written request to the Board to issue a declaratory order in accordance with the DC APA regarding the applicability of the Act, this subtitle or any other statute or regulation enforceable by the Board, to terminate a controversy other than a contested case or to remove uncertainty regarding a specific factual situation. If the request for a declaratory order involves an existing settlement agreement, the Board, in its discretion, may decline to issue an order or require a party to provide notice of the request to the other signatories to an existing settlement agreement and permit the other parties to intervene in the matter. 1903.2 Any request for a declaratory order shall: (a) Set forth a particular and specific set of facts; and (b) State in detail the reasons for uncertainty as to the applicability of the Act, this title or other statutes enforceable by the Board or state in detail why a controversy exists. 1903.3 Any declaratory order issued by the Board shall state the Board’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. If the circumstances so warrant, the declaratory order may include an order by the Board to the requestor to cease and desist any practice or activity which is violative of applicable statutes or this title. 1903.4 All facts asserted in a request for a declaratory order shall be supported by sworn affidavit of the requestor. If the Board determines that further facts are necessary, it shall request the requestor to provide those facts by written affidavit or may receive those facts by stipulation at a non-contested case fact-finding hearing. 1903.5 Any requestor may appeal the order by petitioning the Board, in writing, within twenty (20) calendar days after issuance of the declaratory order, to reconsider its order by setting forth, in detail, either newly discovered facts or legal arguments that show one (1) or more errors of law in the Board’s order. 1903.6 All declaratory orders of the Board determined to be in the public interest in accordance with section 9 of the DC APA (D.C. Official Code § 2-508), shall be published in the District of Columbia Register and shall be available for public inspection and copying at a reasonable charge at the offices of the Board. Chapter 50, REGISTRATION, LICENSING, AND ENFORCEMENT OF CULTIVATION CENTERS, DISPENSARIES, AND TESTING LABORATORIES, is amended as follows: The heading is amended to read as follows: Chapter 50 LICENSED MEDICAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES Section 5000, MEASURING DISTANCES, is amended as follows: Section 5000.1 is amended to read as follows: 5000.1 In establishing the distance between one (1) or more places, (such as the actual distance of a medical cannabis business from a school or recreation center, as defined in the Act), the distance shall be measured linearly by the Board and shall be the shortest distance between the property lines of the places. Section 5002, PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES AND LIMITATIONS ON CULTIVATION CENTERS, DISPENSARIES, AND TESTING LABORATORIES, is repealed. Section 5003, LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP, is renumbered section 5002, and its subsections are renumbered accordingly. CHAPTER 51, REGISTRATION AND PERMIT CATEGORIES, is amended as follows: Section 5100.1, REGISTRATION PERIODS, shall be amended to read as follows: 5100.1 Each license issued by the Board shall be valid for three (3) years unless otherwise stated in this title, except in the following circumstances: Section 5101, RENEWAL PERIODS, is replaced in its entirety and amended to read as follows: 5101.1 The three (3) year renewal period for each medical cannabis facility license listed below shall occur sequentially every three (3) years starting with the following dates: License Classification Licensure Period Ending Year Courier Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Cultivation Center Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Internet Retailer Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Manufacturer Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Retailer Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Testing Laboratory Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 Section 5103, REGISTRATION AND PERMIT FEES, is amended as follows: Subsections 5103.2 through 5103.9, 5103.12 through 5103.13, and 5103.15 through 5103.21 are repealed and the remaining subsections are renumbered accordingly. Section 5105, MEDICAL MARIJUANA CERTIFICATION PROVIDER PERMIT, is amended as follows: The header is amended to read as follows: MEDICAL CANNABIS CERTIFICATION PROVIDER PERMIT Subsection 5105.2 is amended by striking the phrase "Department" and inserting the phrase "Board" in its place. Subsection 5105.3(a) is amended by striking the phrase "Department" and inserting the phrase "Board" in its place. Subsection 5105.5 is amended by striking the phrase "Department" and inserting the phrase "Board" in its place. Subsection 5105.7 is added to read as follows: 5105.7 When a person completes the approved education training program provided by a medical cannabis certification provider, the provider shall issue the person a medical cannabis training certificate. The certificate shall be valid for three (3) years and may be reissued to the holder upon completion of the training necessary to qualify for the initial certificate. Section 5106, MANAGER CERTIFICATION, is amended as follows: The header is amended to read as follows: MANAGER LICENSE Sections 5106.1 and 5106.2 are amended to read as follows: 5106.1 A manager’s license shall authorize the licensee to manage a licensed medical cannabis business. 5106.2 The holder of a manager’s license may be employed by one or more licensed medical cannabis facilities without further investigation, subject to compliance by the licensed business. A manager’s license issued to a manager may be utilized by the manager at any licensed medical cannabis facility. Section 5107, NOTICE TO ADVISORY COMMISSIONS, is amended to read as follows: RESERVED Section 5108, POSTED NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC, is amended to read as follows: RESERVED Section 5109, COMMENTS FROM ANCS LOCATED IN THE AFFECTED WARD, is amended to read as follows: RESERVED Chapter 52, REGISTRATION LIMITATIONS, is amended as follows: Section 5200, LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF DISPENSARIES, CULTIVATION CENTERS, AND TESTING LABORATORIES, is repealed. Section 5201, REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS NEAR SCHOOLS AND RECREATION CENTERS, is renumbered as section 5200 and amended to read as follows: DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS 5200.1 A medical cannabis business, except for a courier license, shall not locate within three hundred feet (300 ft.) of a preschool, primary or secondary school, or recreation center unless the main entrance to the preschool, primary, or secondary school, or recreation center, or the nearest property line of the school or recreation center, is actually on or occupies ground zoned commercial or industrial according to the official atlases of the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia. 5200.2 No new retailer license shall be issued for a location that is within four hundred feet (400 ft.) of another retailer. 5200.3 An academy or other facility providing educational services operated by the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services or the D.C. Department of Corrections at a residential facility subject to mandatory detention at the facility shall not be deemed to be a school. Chapter 54, REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS, is amended as follows: Section 5400, GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR ALL APPLICANTS, is amended as follows: The heading is amended to read as follows: QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE Subsection 5400.1(c) is amended to read as follows: (c) The applicant has not had a felony conviction for a crime of violence as defined in D.C. Official Code § 23-1331(4), a gun offense, tax evasion, fraud, or credit card fraud within the three (3) years preceding the date the application is filed with ABCA unless the applicant demonstrates rehabilitation and fitness for licensure in accordance with section 7 of the Act (D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.06); A new subsection 5400.3 is added to read as follows: 5400.3 In addition to the requirements of § 5400.1, an applicant for a licensed medical cannabis facility shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant is the true and actual owner of the facility for which the license is sought and the individual intends to carry on the business for himself or herself and not as the agent of any other individual, partnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation not identified in the application. Section 5401, OPEN APPLICATION PERIOD AND REQUIRED LETTER OF INTENT, is amended as follows: The heading is amended to read as follows: OPEN APPLICATION PERIOD Subsections 5401.1 through 5401.4 are amended to read as follows: 5401.1 Applications for a new medical cannabis business license shall only be accepted by the Board during an open application period as specified by the Board by publishing a Notice in the District of Columbia Register. The period selected by the Board shall not be extended. 5401.2 An application for a new testing laboratory may be filed with the Board at any time. 5401.3 At the start of each open application period for a new cultivation center, manufacturer, internet retailer, retailer, or courier license the Board shall publish a notice in the District of Columbia Register setting forth the process for submission of the applications, which shall include: (a) The opening and ending dates for the submission of applications for a new cultivation center, manufacturer, internet retailer, retailer, or courier license; (b) The address and email address to submit an application to the Board; and (c) The process for obtaining application materials from the Board. 5401.4 The Notice required in § 5401.3 of this chapter shall appear, at a minimum, in the District of Columbia Register and on ABCA’s website. Section 5402, SELECTION PROCESS, is amended to read as follows: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 5402.1 A person applying for issuance, transfer to a new owner, or renewal of a license, endorsement, or permit, or for approval of substantial changes in operation, including a transfer to a new location related to a licensed medical cannabis facility, shall file with the Board an application in the form prescribed by the Board. 5402.2 The application shall contain the information set forth in this chapter and any additional information that the Board may require. 5402.3 A separate application shall be filed for each medical cannabis facility for which a license is sought. 5402.4 The Board may require an applicant to submit additional documents and information needed to properly process an application. 5402.5 The Board shall not accept as filed, and shall take no action upon, any application that is not complete. 5402.6 An applicant for a medical cannabis business may amend or correct its license application at any time prior to Board approval. 5402.7 Any changes to an applicant’s listed contact information, including mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number, and other information as required by this chapter and provided on its license application that has been submitted to or approved by the Board shall be reported to ABCA within thirty (30) calendar days of the change. The failure to comply with this subsection after a written warning has been issued concerning the licensee’s timely compliance shall be deemed a violation if not corrected within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the warning. Section 5403, SELECTION CRITERIA, is amended to read as follows: APPLICATION CONTENTS 5403.1 The application of a person or entity applying for a medical cannabis business license shall include: (a) In the case of a partnership or limited liability company applicant, the names and addresses of each member of the partnership or limited liability company and their ownership shares; (b) In the case of a corporation, the legal name of the corporation, the proposed trade name of the business, place of incorporation, principal place of business, and the names and addresses of each of the corporation’s principal officers, directors, and shareholders holding, directly or beneficially, one percent (1%) or more of its common stock; (c) Whether the corporation is for-profit or non-profit; (d) The name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the owners of the medical cannabis facility for which the license is sought; (e) The address of the premises where the license is sought; (f) The name and e-mail address of either an owner of the medical cannabis facility or the owner’s designee, for purposes of receiving communications from ABCA, including correspondence, hearing notices and other types of service of process, and Board orders; (g) The type of license, endorsements, and other permits sought through submission of the application; (h) The proximity of the facility to the nearest public or private, elementary, middle, charter, junior high, or high school and recreation center, and the name of the school and recreation center; (i) Proposed hours of operation of the facility; hours of sale of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products; summer garden hours; and safe- use treatment facility hours if applicable; (j) The size and design of the facility, which shall include the number of occupants permitted both inside and on any safe-use treatment facility or summer garden; (k) The location of all restricted access areas closed to the public; (l) An affidavit that complies with § 47-2863; (m) Documents or other written statements or evidence establishing to the satisfaction of the Board that the person applying for the license, endorsement, or permit meets all of the qualifications set forth in the Act and this subtitle; (n) The size and design of the facility; (o) A lease or deed for the proposed location; (p) A zoning certificate authorizing the proposed business activity or a certificate of occupancy for the proposed location; (q) A food manufacturing permit and other permits from the Department of Health, if required; (r) An operational permit from the Office of the Fire Marshal, if required. (s) A certificate of good standing for the corporation; (t) A site plan showing the entire structure of the medical cannabis facility, including the street(s), parking lot(s), other tenants within the facility, any other entities in facilities that physically border the applicant; and the area designated for trash disposal; and (u) The medical cannabis facility applicant acknowledgment attestation form. 5403.2 An applicant for a medical cannabis business license shall file a security plan with their application. 5403.3 If protested by an affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission, the applicant for a cultivation center, manufacturer, internet retailer, or retailer license shall also provide information at the Board protest hearing related to the appropriateness of the facility regarding: (a) The facility’s impact on peace, order, and quiet, including measures to prevent noise disturbances and litter, and measures to foster public safety; (b) The facility’s impact on residential parking and vehicular and pedestrian safety, including the availability of parking at or near the establishment and the proximity of the business to public transportation and shared transportation services (e.g., Metro, bus, bike share station); and (c) The facility’s impact on real property values, including measures to prevent blight and maintain its building and efforts to prevent odor nuisances from impacting neighboring properties, and whether the property was subject to any building code violations while under the ownership or control of the applicant, and whether the violations indicated have been

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Phil Mendelson (D)*, 

Referred to Committee on Business and Economic Development (on 10/07/2025)

Official Document