Conforming Amendment Regarding the Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act of 2002
The Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act of 2002 ("Technical Amendments Act") became law on November 2, 2002, as part of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations A...
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
The Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (“Technical Amendments Act”) became law on November 2, 2002, as part of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. The Technical Amendments Act amended sections 401(d), 402(c), and 403 of the Controlled Substances Act by replacing outmoded fine amounts with a reference to title 18 of the United States Code in each place that a specific fine amount had appeared. In this rulemaking, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is amending its regulations to conform them to the statutory amendments made to the Controlled Substances Act by the Technical Amendments Act.
DATES:
This final rule is effective on November 2, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather E. Achbach, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 776-3882.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Legal Authority
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, often referred to as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, as amended.[1]
The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in 21 CFR parts 1300 through 1399.
On November 2, 2002, the Technical Amendments Act was enacted as part of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.[2]
The Technical Amendments Act amended sections 401(d), 402(c), and 403 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 841(d), 842(c), and 843(d), respectively). Of particular relevance to this rulemaking, section 4002 of the Technical Amendments Act replaced the terms “of not more than $30,000” and “of not more than $60,000” with “under title 18, United States Code” each time the terms appeared in 21 U.S.C. 843(d). However, DEA regulations at 21 CFR 1301.17 continue to list “a fine of not more than $30,000” or a fine “not exceeding $30,000” as a possible penalty for providing false information on a registration application, intentionally misusing the affidavit procedure, and obtaining controlled substances through registration by fraudulent means.[3]
In this final rule, DEA is amending its regulations to conform to the amendments made to the CSA by the Technical Amendments Act. This rule replaces those terms with “under title 18, United States Code” each time the terms appear in 21 CFR 1301.17.
Regulatory Analysis
Administrative Procedure Act
An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),[4]
including those requiring the publication of a prior notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the opportunity for public comment, if such actions are determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest. DEA finds that there is good cause within the meaning of the APA to issue this amendment as a final rule without opportunity for public comment and with an immediate effective date.
This final rule amends DEA regulations only to the extent necessary to be consistent with current Federal law, as modified by the Technical Amendments Act. The Technical Amendments Act amended the penalty provisions of the CSA that DEA previously implemented in its regulations. Therefore, DEA is obligated to update those regulations. DEA is not exercising discretion with this final rule because this final rule merely amends the regulations to conform to the change to the CSA made by the Technical Amendments Act. Thus, publishing an NPRM or soliciting public comment is unnecessary.[5]
In addition, because the statutory changes addressed in this rule have already been in effect since November 2, 2002, DEA finds good cause exists to make this rule effective immediately upon publication.
6
( printed page 68886)
Therefore, DEA is issuing this amendment as a final rule, effective upon publication in the
Federal Register
(FR).
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
DEA has determined that this rulemaking is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). Accordingly, this final rule has not been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This final rule was developed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 1(b), Principles of Regulation; Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation; and Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
As stated above, this final rule amends DEA regulations only to the extent necessary to be consistent with current Federal law, as modified by the Technical Amendments Act. DEA has no discretion with respect to this amendment. This final rule merely codifies legal requirements that have been in effect since 2002, when the Technical Amendments Act became law. Therefore, DEA anticipates that this final rule will have no economic impact.
This final 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.
This final rule does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). The final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Executive Order 13175, (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments)
This final rule does not have Tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA. As explained above, DEA determined that there is good cause to exempt this final rule from notice and comment. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this final rule. In any event, as explained above, this rule is a conforming amendment that makes no change to the status quo.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.,
DEA has determined that this final rule does not include a Federal mandate that might result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year and that it would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency plan nor any other action is required under the UMRA.
Executive Order 14294 specifies that all NPRMs and final rules published in the FR, the violation of which may constitute a criminal regulatory offense, must identify the authorizing statute and the mens rea requirement for each element of the offense. This final rule does not involve a criminal regulatory offense, and thus Executive Order 14294 does not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule does not involve a collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This final rule does not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
Congressional Review Act
This final rule is not a major rule as defined by subtitle E of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. This final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
a. In paragraph (a), in the “Affidavit for New Pharmacy”, removing the text “of not more than $30,000” and adding in its place the text “under title 18, United States Code”;
b. In paragraph (b), in the “Affidavit for Transfer of Pharmacy”, removing the text “of not more than $30,000” and adding in its place the text “under title 18, United States Code”; and
c., In paragraph (d), removing the text “not exceeding $30,000” and adding in its place the text “under title 18, United States Code”
( printed page 68887)
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on October 23, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register
.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
5.
See EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
v.
E.P.A.,
795 F.3d 118, 134 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (notice and comment are “unnecessary” when an agency “lacks discretion” in deciding how to amend its regulations).
6.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) (relating to notice and comment procedures). “[W]hen regulations merely restate the statute they implement, notice-and-comment procedures are unnecessary.”
Gray Panthers Advocacy Comm.
v.
Sullivan,
936 F. 2d
1284, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1991);
see also Komjathy
v.
Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd.,
832 F.2d 1294, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (notice-and-comment procedures are not required when a rule “does no more than repeat, virtually verbatim, the statutory grant of authority”). A delayed effective date is similarly unwarranted here because—by virtue of the Technical Amendments Act already being effective—“affected parties” will not need any “time to adjust their behavior” to the changes in this rule.
See Riverbend Farms, Inc.
v.
Madigan,
958 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir. 1992).
21 CFR parts 1300
21 U.S.C. 841(d)