Drug Enforcement Administration
The Order further explained that it was not necessary for the Attorney General to issue a scheduling order for Epidiolex through normal notice-and-comment rulemaking according to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because the FDA approval of Epidiolex represented an expedited scheduling action.
As we noted previously, by statute, the DEA had 90 days from the approval date (technically September 23, a Sunday or the next business day September 24) to issue a scheduling decision, even though it could have potentially opted for the full APA process scheduling process, which would have taken much longer.
Regulatory Analyses
Administrative Procedure Act
The CSA provides for an expedited scheduling action where control of a drug is required by the United States' obligations under the Single Convention. 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1). Under such circumstances, the Attorney General must “issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations,” without regard to the findings or procedures otherwise required for scheduling actions. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, section 811(d)(1) expressly requires that this type of scheduling action not proceed through the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which generally apply to scheduling actions; it instead requires that such scheduling action occur through the issuance of an “order.”
Although the text of section 811(d)(1) thus overrides the normal APA considerations, it is notable that the APA itself contains a provision that would have a similar effect. As set forth in 21 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), the section of the APA governing rulemaking does not apply to a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” An order issued under section 811(d)(1) may be considered a foreign affairs function of the United States because it is for the express purpose of ensuring that the United States carries out its obligations under an international treaty.
Scottsdale Research Institute v. DEA, No. 19-1120 (DC Circuit)
Washington v. Barr, No. 18-859 (2nd Circuit)
Footnote 4: Petitioners also quarrel with the Administrator's decision that marijuana lacks "accepted safety for use." Since the Administrator based this determination on his decision that no medical uses are possible (and thus any use lacks "accepted safety"), we do not see that "safety" issue as raising a separate analytical question.
Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
The scheduling criteria of the Controlled Substances Act appear to treat the lack of medical use and lack of safety as separate considerations. Prior rules of this Agency purport to treat safety as a distinct factor. 53 FR 5156 (February 22, 1988). In retrospect, this is inconsistent with scientific reality. Safety cannot be treated as a separate analytical question.
57 FR 10499, Vol. 57, No. 59, p. 10504, Thursday, March 26, 1992
DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg (2016):
Schedule I includes some substances that are exceptionally dangerous and some that are less dangerous (including marijuana, which is less dangerous than some substances in other schedules). That strikes some people as odd, but the criteria for inclusion in Schedule I is not relative danger.
DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young (1988):
Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.