[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14490-14494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05396]



Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Parts 1301 and 1311

[Docket No. DEA-445N]

Program To Hire Special Assistant United States Attorneys in 
Targeted Federal Judicial Districts Utilizing Diversion Control Fee 
Account Funds

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.


SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is proposing a rule 
that would expand and enhance the enforcement component of the 
Diversion Control Program (DCP) as previously outlined in the December 
30, 1996, Federal Register document ``Registration and Reregistration 
Application Fees,'' hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Rule. The 1996 
Rule specified six types of investigations involving the diversion of 
controlled substances, which could be pursued by the DCP utilizing 
funding from the Diversion Control Fee Account (DCFA). Those 
investigations included the theft or robbery of pharmaceutical 
controlled substances, the acquisition of pharmaceutical controlled 
substances through fraud or deceit, and other illegal diversion 
activities. The 1996 Rule also authorized the continued use and 
expansion by the DCP of Tactical Diversion Squads (TDSs), defined as, 
``enforcement teams consisting of Federal, state, and local law 
enforcement personnel fully dedicated to the investigation and 
prosecution of persons involved in the diversion of controlled 

DATES: Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must 
be postmarked, on or before April 20, 2017. Commenters should be aware 
that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept 
comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment 

ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference 
``Docket No. DEA-445N'' on all correspondence, including any 
    The Drug Enforcement Administration encourages that all comments be 
submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the 
ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the 
Web page or to attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to 
http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions at that 
site for submitting comments. Upon completion of your submission you 
will receive a Comment Tracking Number for your comment. Please be 
aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for 
public view on Regulations.gov. If you have received a Comment Tracking 
Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no 
need to resubmit the same comment. Paper comments that duplicate an 
electronic submission are not necessary and are discouraged. Should you 
wish to mail a paper comment in lieu of an electronic comment, it 
should be sent via regular or express mail to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control 
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule would expand on the 
already-recognized investigative activities funded by the DCFA and 
allow for the hiring of attorneys in support of these activities. The 
attorneys, hired by DEA and paid with funds from the DCFA, will be 
detailed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as Special Assistant United 
States Attorneys (SAUSAs), and will assist in the investigation and 
prosecution of those diversion crimes outlined in the 1996 Rule, and 
related civil actions. DCFA-funded SAUSAs in the program would be 
exclusively engaged in duties which provide investigative and 
prosecutorial support to federal criminal and related civil diversion 
investigations conducted by the DEA and its partnering law enforcement 
agencies. The investigations, and the companion support provided by the 
attorneys detailed as SAUSAs in this program, will adhere to the 
guidelines for the use of DCFA funding found in Title 21, United States 
Code, 821, 822, and 886a; the 1996 Rule, 76 FR 39318, July 6, 2011; and 
77 FR 15234, March 15, 2012.
    In addition, the proposed rule would authorize the SAUSAs hired by 
DEA and detailed to DOJ to prosecute crimes that are derivative or 
ancillary criminal violations to the diversion crimes outlined in the 
1996 Rule. Examples of these ancillary or derivative crimes would 
include money laundering or other financial crimes involving the 
proceeds of diversion activity; firearms and crimes of violence related 
to or caused by diversion activity; use of a communication facility to 
commit diversion crimes; and the forfeiture of assets which facilitate 
or are derived from diversion activity.
    In addition to protecting the public, the proposed rule will 
enhance the protections provided to the DEA registrant community by the 
DCP by ensuring that those engaged in criminal and related civil 
violations affecting the DEA registrant population are apprehended, 
and, equally as important, prosecuted. The proposed rule will ensure 
that illegal activities that

[[Page 14491]]

endanger the safety of registrants and their employees (burglary and 
robbery of registered locations); threatens the credibility and 
financial stability of registrants and their employees (prescription 
forgery, fraud, and theft); and damages the public perception and 
reputation of the registrant community (prescribing or dispensing 
outside the course of medical practice and other offenses committed by 
registrants) will be fully addressed through robust investigation and 
    The proposed rule is a continuation of the concepts outlined in 
``Controlled Substances and List 1 Chemical Registration and 
Reregistration Fees,'' 77 FR 15234 (Mar. 15, 2012), hereinafter 
referred to as the 2012 Rule. The 2012 Rule provides that ``it is 
essential to utilize a diverse skilled workforce and constantly review 
and modify all aspects of the DCP to help successfully execute the drug 
trafficking disruption goals of the National Drug Control Strategy and 
effectively prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled 
substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring 
a sufficient supply of these substances for legitimate medical 
purposes.'' It is in furtherance of that constant review--and 
modification when necessary--that this rule is proposed.
    This proposed rule does not request an increase in Registration and 
Reregistration Fees.

Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received in response to this docket 
are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable 
cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement 
Administration for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying 
information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to all 
comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying 
information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, 
but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the 
phrase ``PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of 
your comment. You must also place the personal identifying information 
you do not want to be made publicly available in the first paragraph of 
your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of 
your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you 
must include the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the 
first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify 
confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
    Comments containing personal identifying information and 
confidential business information identified as directed above will 
generally be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has 
so much confidential business information or personal identifying 
information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that 
comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to http://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information 
(such as name, address, and phone number) or confidential business 
information included in the text of your electronic submission that is 
not identified as directed above as confidential.

Legal Authority/Diversion Control Fee Account

    Through the enactment of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention 
and Control Act of 1970, as amended (CSA), Congress has established a 
closed system of distribution making it unlawful to handle any 
controlled substance or listed chemical except in a manner authorized 
by the CSA. In order to maintain this closed system of distribution, 
the CSA imposes registration requirements on some handlers of 
controlled substances and list I chemicals.\1\ 21 U.S.C. 822 and 957; 
21 CFR 1301.13 and 1309.25. Under the CSA, the DEA is authorized to 
charge reasonable fees relating to the registration and control of the 
manufacture, distribution, dispensing, import, and export of controlled 
substances and listed chemicals.\2\ 21 U.S.C. 821 and 958(f). However, 
the DEA must set fees at a level that ensures the recovery of the full 
costs of operating the various aspects of its diversion control program 
as outlined in 21 U.S.C. 886a. This is known as the Diversion Control 
Fee Account (DCFA). The diversion control program consists of the 
controlled substance and chemical diversion control activities of the 
DEA which are related to the registration and control of the 
manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importation, and exportation of 
controlled substances and listed chemicals.\3\ 21 U.S.C. 886a(2). The 
DCFA is then utilized by the DEA in strict compliance with 21 U.S.C. 
821, 822, and 886a; the 1996 Rule; 76 FR 39318, July 6, 2011; the 2012 
Rule; as well as all applicable laws, regulations, and DEA policy to 
establish and implement the DEA registration process; to provide 
regulatory oversight of DEA registrants; and to prevent, detect, and 
investigate diversion from the legal channels prescribed by law into 
illegal channels that violate the CSA.

    \1\ Pursuant to the CSA, certain entities are exempted from 
registration, from paying the registration fee entirely, or are 
exempted from the requirement of a separate registration for 
activities performed as a coincident activity under a registered 
business activity.
    \2\ The Attorney General delegated authorities under the CSA 
(found in titles II and III of the Act) to the Administrator of the 
DEA, who in turn redelegated many of these authorities to the 
Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division. 28 
CFR 0.100 et seq.
    \3\ The Diversion Control Division is the strategic focus area 
within the Administration that carries out the mandates of the CSA 
to ensure that adequate supplies of controlled substances and listed 
chemicals are available to meet legitimate domestic medical, 
scientific, industrial, and export needs. The Diversion Control 
Division carries out the mission of the DEA to prevent, detect, and 
eliminate the diversion of these substances into the illicit drug 
market. Activities in support of the Diversion Control Division and 
its mission include: Determination of program priorities; field 
management oversight; coordination of major investigations; drafting 
and promulgating regulations; the design and proposal of national 
legislation; advice and leadership on State legislation/regulatory 
initiatives; oversight of the importation and exportation of 
tableting and encapsulating machines, controlled substances, and 
listed chemicals; establishment of national drug production quotas; 
activities related to drug scheduling and compliance with 
international treaty obligations; the design and execution of 
diplomatic missions; computerized monitoring and tracking of the 
distribution of certain controlled substances; planning and 
allocation of program resources; and liaison efforts with industry 
and their representative associations as well as to the DEA's 
regulatory and law enforcement counterparts at the federal, State, 
tribal, and local levels.

The Tactical Diversion Squad Program

    As part of the DCP, and pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821 and 886a, and the 
1996 Rule, DEA has created Tactical Diversion Squad (TDS) units staffed 
by DEA Special Agents, Diversion Investigators, Task Force Officers 
(TFOs) \4\ and Intelligence Analysts to work collaboratively to 
investigate the criminal and related civil aspects of the illegal 
diversion of controlled substances. These illegal practices are 
outlined in the 1996 Rule and include prescribing or dispensing of 
controlled substances outside the course of practice, the theft of 
controlled substances, pharmacy burglary and robbery, prescription 
forgery and fraud, distribution of diverted controlled substances, and 
other violations of Federal law related to the diversion of

[[Page 14492]]

controlled substances. In response to growing drug-related threats, 
particularly the threats posed by opioid abuse, the DEA has continued 
to grow the TDS program. Currently, the DEA has staffed 79 TDS groups 
across the United States to attack the illegal diversion and 
trafficking of pharmaceuticals.

    \4\ A TFO is a sworn officer of a state or local law enforcement 
agency seconded to DEA and credentialed by DEA as a Federal law 
enforcement officer.

    Of particular note, state and local law enforcement agencies have 
invested 283 of their officers to work as TFOs with the TDS Squads 
across the United States. These TFOs represent the growing 
understanding in the law enforcement community of the threat posed by 
the diversion of pharmaceutical drugs into our society. The TFOs 
represent a tremendous return on investment for the DCFA as the 
salaries for these officers are borne by their respective departments, 
with the DCFA reimbursing the departments for overtime expenses and 
providing the TFOs with vehicle expenses, travel expenses, and 
investigative expenses. These groups have been extremely effective in 
attacking the prescription drug diversion and abuse problem when allied 
with our critical prosecution partners within the various United States 
Attorney's Offices. As the TDS program continues to grow, it is 
critical that more resources, such as SAUSAs, are available to 
prosecute these cases when necessary.

The DEA's Special Assistant United States Attorney Pilot Program

    The United States is currently in the midst of an epidemic of 
opioid abuse and overdose death. Drug overdose has overtaken deaths 
from firearms and automobile accidents as the leading cause of 
accidental or unintentional injury death in the United States.\5\ In 
2014, according to the Centers for Disease Control, opioid overdoses 
killed 28,000 people in the United States, with more than half of those 
deaths caused by prescription opioids. Drug overdose death increased by 
11.4% from 2014 to 2015 alone (52,404 deaths to 47,055 deaths).\6\ 
Since 1999, the amount of opioid pain medicine prescribed in the United 
States has quadrupled, with a corresponding rise in the number of 
deaths from prescription opioids. In addition to the direct harm caused 
by the abuse of opioid drugs diverted from legitimate use, it is clear 
that the use and abuse of prescription opioids is a gateway to the use 
of other illegal substances. For example, more than 80% of heroin users 
in the United States used prescription drugs as a gateway to their 
eventual use of heroin.

    \5\ Centers for Disease Control 2014 Deaths, Final Data Report.
    \6\ Centers for Disease Control, Increases in Drug and Opioid-
Involved Overdose Deaths--United States, 2010-2015.

    Additionally, in a 2012 study by the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of emergency room visits for 
drug related overdose in young adults aged 18 to 25, more than 11% were 
admitted for misuse/abuse of benzodiazepines; more than were admitted 
for use of heroin (9.9%), cocaine (8.8%), or methamphetamine (5.6%).\7\

    \7\ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
December 2012 Report entitled Admissions Reporting Benzodiazepine 
and Narcotic Pain Reliever Abuse at Treatment Entry.

    As indicated above, to answer this drug abuse epidemic, DEA has 
dedicated increasing resources to the DCP through the expansion of the 
TDS program, which has resulted in dramatic program growth over the 
past decade. In 2006, DEA had five TDS groups in operation with only 70 
Special Agents dedicated to diversion investigations and funded by the 
DCFA. By 2016, the number of TDS groups had grown to 79, with 340 
Special Agents dedicated to diversion investigations.
    The prosecution of those responsible for, and engaged in, criminal 
and related civil diversion activity is integral to public safety. As 
the number of personnel dedicated to diversion investigations has 
increased, the arrests and potential defendants identified for 
prosecution have also increased. Should prosecutions not keep pace with 
these increased activities, the reduction of the diversion of 
controlled substances cannot be accomplished. To help ensure that the 
increased investment of DCFA resources into the investigation of 
diversion activity outlined in the 1996 Rule are fully realized with 
prosecution efforts, the DEA, in cooperation with the Executive Office 
for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) \8\ and the United States 
Attorneys' Offices, proposes to institute a program to hire attorneys 
with the requisite experience and education to serve as Special 
Assistant United States Attorneys (SAUSAs) in targeted federal judicial 
districts. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821 and 886a, the 1996 Rule, and the 
2012 Rule, the hiring, training, and activities of these attorneys will 
be funded by the DCFA. Once hired, these attorneys will be provided 
with additional specialized training under this program for prosecuting 
crimes resulting from DCFA-funded investigations. The criteria utilized 
in determining the appropriate geographic placement of detailed SAUSAs 
will be based on an examination of several factors in each district, 
including prescription drug abuse rates; drug overdose death rates; an 
analysis of opioid prescribing and ordering; input from other Federal, 
state, and local officials; the number of DCFA-funded DEA personnel in 
the district; and the input from the United States Attorney, the 
Diversion Control Division, and the DEA Special Agent in Charge for 
each judicial district.

    \8\ The Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) is 
the Department of Justice component that provides administrative and 
policy oversight to the 94 Offices of the United States Attorney.

    DEA proposes that the attorneys hired as a part of this program 
will be directly employed by DEA, and funded through the DCFA. Once 
hired, they would be detailed to DOJ and receive authorization to serve 
as SAUSAs from EOUSA, the United States Attorney, and the U.S. District 
Court in the district of hire to serve in the capacity of a SAUSA. In 
this role, the SAUSAs would be permitted to represent the United States 
in criminal and civil proceedings before the courts and apply for 
various legal orders. All of the anticipated activities will relate to, 
and result from, those investigations conducted pursuant to the 1996 
    While the use of DEA attorneys detailed as SAUSAs and funded 
through the DCFA is a new concept, the use of attorneys detailed as 
SAUSAs to complement the capabilities of the United States Attorneys' 
Offices is not. Applicable Department of Justice policy states the 
following regarding SAUSAs employed by other agencies:

    Attorneys employed in other departments or agencies of the 
federal government may be appointed as Special Assistants to United 
States Attorneys, without compensation other than that paid by their 
own agency, to assist in the trial or presentation of cases when 
their services and assistance are needed. Such appointments, and 
appointments of Assistant United States Attorneys from one United 
States Attorney's office to another, may be made by the United 
States Attorney requiring their services.\9\

    \9\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, United States Attorneys' Manual, 
Sec.  3-2.300 (1998), available at https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-3-2000-united-states-attorneys-ausas-special-assistants-and-agac.

    In many areas, SAUSAs have been designated from state and local 
prosecutors' offices to allow a greater volume of specific types of 
cases (firearms cases primarily) to be presented in federal court than 
would otherwise be possible with the resources allocated to the United 
States Attorneys' Office. Likewise, funds from the Federal High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) grant program have been 
utilized to hire attorneys to serve as SAUSAs that specifically provide 
prosecutorial and legal services to

[[Page 14493]]

narcotics task forces funded by the HIDTA program. Both of these 
programs have been highly effective and serve as good models for the 
proposed use of DCFA-funded SAUSAs to prosecute diversion-related 
    The goal of this proposed effort is to ensure the effective and 
efficient use of DCFA resources dedicated to the TDS program by 
providing resources to help ensure that criminal and related civil 
cases with sufficient evidence are prosecuted in a timely manner. All 
DCFA-funded SAUSAs in the program would be utilized exclusively to 
support DCFA-funded investigations conducted by the DEA and its 
partnering law enforcement agencies. The types of investigations in 
which the SAUSAs will assist, and the crimes they will prosecute will 
stem from the types of investigations identified in the 1996 Rule, 
which states: ``The targets and types of investigations conducted by 
the DCP pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821 are identified below.
    (1) Registrants and their agents or employees suspected of 
diverting controlled substances from legitimate channels;
    (2) Persons who engage in the smuggling, theft, robbery and/or 
trafficking of pharmaceutical controlled substances, including, where 
appropriate, identifying and immobilizing their sources of supply, 
whether domestic or foreign, through enforcement of the controls 
relating to the manufacture, distribution, import, export, and 
dispensing of controlled substances;
    (3) Persons, both registered and nonregistered, who conduct 
controlled substances activities for which they do not have the 
required DOA or state authorization;
    (4) Persons who obtain pharmaceutical controlled substances from 
registrants through fraud, deceit, or circumvention of the controls on 
manufacturing, distribution, or dispensing, i.e. fraudulent use of 
another person's DEA registration number to obtain controlled 
substances, doctor shoppers, prescription forgers, etc.;
    (5) The trafficking by non-registrants in controlled substances 
which are fraudulently promoted as legitimate therapies (such as 
``herbal remedies'' sold ``under the counter'' which actually contain a 
controlled substance);
    (6) Persons who use their DEA registrations to assist in the 
diversion or misuse of controlled substances for other than medical 
purposes, such as health care fraud, self-abuse, trading controlled 
substances for non-medical purposes, etc.'' 61 FR 68629.
    During the course of the investigations described in paragraphs 1 
through 6 of the 1996 Rule, additional criminal activity may be 
uncovered. To the extent this additional criminal activity is committed 
by an individual or group of individuals whose primary criminal 
activity is described in paragraphs 1 through 6 of the 1996 Rule, and 
the additional criminal activity is derivative of, or ancillary to, the 
illegal activity described in those paragraphs, the investigations have 
included this additional criminal activity, and these crimes will be 
prosecuted by the SAUSAs described in this proposed rule. Examples of 
this type of additional criminal activity would include weapons 
offenses or crimes of violence in support of diversion offenses; money 
laundering, structuring or other financial violation to support 
diversion offenses, or utilizing monies derived from diversion 
offenses; the use of a telecommunication device in support of diversion 
offenses; and the forfeiture of assets derived from, or facilitating, 
diversion offenses.

Cost of the SAUSA Program

    The DEA proposes to initially hire 20 attorneys utilizing funding 
from the DCFA to implement the program. The initial 20 attorneys would 
be selected to serve in a minimum of 12 and maximum of 20 federal 
judicial districts at an estimated annual cost of $3.8 million.\10\ 
With an annual, Congressionally-approved budget of more than 
$371,000,000.00 (Fiscal Year 2016), the expenditures related to the 
SAUSA program would comprise only 1% of the annual DCFA budget. As a 
result of the low cost in comparison to the overall DCFA budget, as 
well as the reprioritization of other DCFA expenditures, this project 
is not expected to result in an increase to the registration fee 
schedule. If finalized, this program would be continually evaluated by 
the DEA to ensure that DCFA funding is spent in accordance with 
guidelines for the use of DCFA funding found in 21 U.S.C. 821, 822, and 
886a; the 1996 Rule; 76 FR 39318, July 6, 2011; and the 2012 Rule. DEA 
would also continuously evaluate the program to ensure that the project 
is successful in securing the criminal and civil prosecutions necessary 
to justify the continued expenditure of DCFA funding.

    \10\ The cost estimate for the 20 positions is based on the U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management 2016 General Schedule (GS) Locality 
Pay Table for ``Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA'' at 
the GS-15 Step 5 level of $145,162. The ``Washington-Baltimore-
Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA'' is used to be conservative. Including an 
estimated 30% for benefits, the estimated cost per position is 
$188,711 per year, or $3,774,212 ($3.8 million) per year for all 20 

Regulatory Analyses

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This proposed rule was developed in accordance with the principles 
of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. As described previously, the 
estimated annual cost of $3.8 million is less than 1% of the annual 
DCFA budget and sufficient funding exists in the DCFA budget to allow 
for this program due to the reprioritization of other budgetary items 
within the DCP. This program will result in a net zero economic effect 
and no impact on registration fees. Therefore, the DEA does not 
anticipate that this rulemaking will have an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way 
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, 
the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal 
governments or communities.
    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f).

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 
Reform to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear 
legal standards, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13132

    This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting 
the application of Executive Order 13132. The rule does not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by state, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one 
year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 
Therefore, no actions were deemed

[[Page 14494]]

necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA), has reviewed this proposed rule and by 
approving it certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
There are nearly 1.7 million DEA registrations, of which, a large 
majority either are held by small entities or are those employed by 
small entities. As discussed above, the DEA estimates the estimated 
annual cost of $3.8 million is offset by reprioritization of other DCFA 
expenditures, resulting in a net zero economic effect and no impact on 
registration fees for any registrants. Therefore, the DEA estimates 
that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant effect on a 
substantial number of these small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This action does not impose a new collection of information 
requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-

    Dated: March 11, 2017.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-05396 Filed 3-20-17; 8:45 am]