[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51535-51538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25023]



  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 51535]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1308

[DEA-205]
RIN 1117-AA55


Clarification of Listing of ``Tetrahydrocannabinols'' in Schedule 
I

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In a separate document published today in the Federal 
Register, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an 
interpretive rule stating that under the Controlled Substances Act 
(CSA) and DEA regulations, any product that contains any amount of 
tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) is a schedule I controlled substance, even 
if such product is made from portions of the cannabis plant that are 
excluded from the CSA definition of ``marihuana.'' (Hereafter ``the 
interpretive rule''.) Consistent with the interpretive rule, this 
document proposes to revise the wording of the DEA regulations to 
clarify that the listing of ``Tetrahydrocannabinols'' in schedule I of 
the CSA refers to both natural and synthetic THC. In a third Federal 
Register document issued today (immediately following this document), 
DEA is issuing an interim rule exempting from the application of the 
CSA certain industrial products, processed plant materials, and animal 
feed mixtures made from those portions of the cannabis plant that are 
excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, to the extent such 
products and plant materials contain THC but are not used, or intended 
for use, for human consumption. The interim rule also provides a 120-
day grace period for persons to dispose of existing inventories of THC-
containing ``hemp'' products that are not exempted from control.

DATES: Comments must be received by DEA on or before December 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Washington, D.C. 20537; Attention: DEA Federal Register 
Representative/CCD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Sapienza, Chief, Drug and 
Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Washington, DC 20537; Telephone: (202) 307-7183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Does This Rule Accomplish and by What Authority Is It Being 
Issued?

    This proposed rule will clarify that, under the CSA and DEA 
regulations, the listing of ``Tetrahydrocannabinols'' in schedule I 
refers to both natural and synthetic THC.
    This proposed rule is being issued pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 
and 871(b). Sections 811 and 812 authorize the Attorney General to 
establish the schedules in accordance with the CSA and to publish 
amendments to the schedules in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 
1308 of Title 21. Section 871(b) authorizes the Attorney General to 
promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures which he 
may deem necessary and appropriate for the efficient enforcement of his 
functions under the CSA. The functions vested in the Attorney General 
by the CSA have been delegated to the Administrator of DEA. 21 U.S.C. 
871(a); 28 CFR 0.100.

Why Is There a Need To Clarify the Meaning of 
``Tetrahydrocannabinols''?

    It has become evident from correspondence that DEA has received in 
recent months that some members of the public are under the impression 
that the listing of ``Tetrahydrocannabinols'' in schedule I of the CSA 
and DEA regulations refers only to synthetic--but not natural--THC. As 
explained in detail in the interpretive rule, it is DEA's 
interpretation of the plain language of the CSA and DEA regulations, 
and the legislative history, that the listing of 
``Tetrahydrocannabinols'' in schedule I refers to both natural and 
synthetic THC. To eliminate any uncertainty, DEA is proposing to revise 
the wording of its regulations to refer expressly to both natural and 
synthetic THC.

While This Proposed Rule Is Pending, What Is the Current Legal 
Status of ``Hemp'' Products?

    As set forth in the interpretive rule, DEA interprets the current 
CSA and DEA regulations such that any product that contains any amount 
of tetrahydrocannabinols is a schedule I controlled substance, even if 
such product is a ``hemp'' product (i.e., a product made from portions 
of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of 
marijuana). However, as set forth in the interim rule, DEA is today 
exempting from control certain industrial ``hemp'' products, processed 
cannabis plant materials, and animal feed mixtures containing 
sterilized cannabis seeds, provided such items are not used, or 
intended for use, for human consumption. With the exception of such 
exempted products and materials, all other ``hemp'' products and 
materials that contain any amount of THC remain schedule I controlled 
substances.
    As specified in the interim rule, a 120-day grace period is being 
provided for persons to dispose of existing inventories of THC-
containing ``hemp'' products that are not exempted from control.

Regulatory Certifications

    Certain provisions of federal law and executive orders (specified 
below) require the agency to assess how a proposed rule might impact 
the economy, small businesses, and the states. (Hereafter in this 
document, these provisions will be referred to collectively as the 
``certification provisions.'') The certification provisions must be 
considered in light of the nature of this rule. This rule merely 
proposes to revise the wording of the DEA regulations to clarify for 
the public the agency's understanding of existing law. In other words, 
through this proposed rule, DEA is implementing what it understands to 
be the mandate of Congress under the CSA. (This mandate is that every 
substance containing THC be listed in schedule I, unless the substance 
is specifically exempted from control or listed in another schedule.) 
Regardless of how this proposed rule might impact the economy, small 
businesses, or the states, DEA has no choice but to carry out such 
mandate.
    Furthermore, when Congress enacted the CSA, it created a system of 
controls that was comprehensive in scope to protect the health and 
general welfare of the American people. Incidental restrictions on 
economic activity resulting from enforcement of the CSA have never been 
viewed as a proper basis to cease such enforcement. The certification 
provisions are no exception to this rule.
    Moreover, one of the chief aims of the certification provisions is 
to ensure that agencies consider the potential economic ramifications 
of imposing new regulations. The proposed rule, however, would not 
create any new category of regulation governing the handling of 
controlled substances. Rather, the proposed rule merely helps to 
clarify what products are, or are not, subject to existing CSA 
regulations.
    In a similar vein, it must be taken into account that this proposed 
rule does not alter existing legal obligations and rights

[[Page 51536]]

of members of the public. Since the proposed rule merely codifies DEA's 
interpretation of existing law, the legal status of THC-containing 
``hemp'' products is unchanged by this proposed rule. Therefore, this 
proposed rule has no impact on any ongoing lawful economic activity in 
the United States. No THC-containing product that may be distributed 
under current United States law will become prohibited under the rules 
DEA is proposing and issuing today. Nor will the proposed rule impose 
any new regulation over such lawful products. Thus, this proposed rule 
has no economic impact for purposes of the certification provisions.
    DEA recognizes, however, that some members of the public are either 
unaware of the current status of THC-containing products under federal 
law or disagree with DEA's interpretation of such law. As a result, 
there is ongoing economic activity in the United States related to the 
marketing of ``hemp'' products--despite the fact that such products are 
prohibited under current law to the extent they result in THC entering 
the human body. This proposed rule is intended to discourage such 
illegal trade in THC-containing products by clarifying the law. If this 
proposed rule succeeds in doing so, it will impact certain THC-related 
economic activity. However, since only unlawful economic activity will 
be affected, this impact should not preclude the promulgation of the 
rule.
    If one were to assume, however, for the sake of argument, that this 
proposed rule would indeed change (not merely clarify) existing law, 
DEA would be required to conduct the economic assessments in accordance 
with the certification provisions. I.e., if one assumes that, prior to 
the issuance of this rule, it was lawful to manufacture and distribute 
all ``hemp'' products whose use resulted in THC entering the human 
body, then the certification provisions require DEA to assess the 
extent of such economic activity that would become prohibited under the 
proposed rule.
    To conduct such an economic assessment, certain assumptions are 
made here. First, it is assumed that all products that are marketed as 
containing ``hemp,'' ``hempseed,'' or ``hemp oil'' are, in fact, made 
using portions of the cannabis plant.\1\ Next, it is assumed that 
legitimate industrial ``hemp'' products--such as paper, rope, clothing, 
and animal feed mixtures--need not be considered in this economic 
assessment because they are exempted from control under the interim 
rule that DEA is issuing today. Finally, to err on the side of 
inclusiveness, economic activity related to all personal care ``hemp'' 
products will be considered here, even though (as explained in the 
interim rule) DEA believes that most such products meet the criteria 
for exemption under the interim rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The word ``hemp'' is sometimes used to refer not only to the 
cannabis plant, but also to other plants grown for fiber, such as 
Musa textilis (``manila hemp''), Agave sisalina (``sisal hemp''), 
and Crotalaria juncea (``sunn hemp''), none of which contains any 
controlled substances. Furthermore, that the manufacturer placed the 
word ``hemp'' on the product label does not guarantee that the 
product truly contains such ingredient. If a product says ``hemp'' 
on the label but actually contains no portion of the cannabis plant, 
it is not affected by this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the foregoing assumptions, the ``hemp'' products that will be 
affected economically by the proposed rule can be placed into three 
categories: Edible ``hemp'' products, personal care ``hemp'' products, 
and ``hemp'' raw materials. The economic activity related to each of 
these three categories is addressed separately below.
    As a general matter, neither edible ``hemp'' products nor personal 
care ``hemp'' products have a long-standing and established history in 
the United States that provides a reliable source of market data. DEA 
found no official economic data on such products upon inquiring with 
the United States Department of Commerce, the United States Customs 
Service, and the Small Business Administration. A recent report of the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) does contain some 
general information about the ``hemp'' products industry. In addition, 
one company that distributes ``hemp'' personal care products has 
provided some information to DEA about its sales. DEA was also able to 
obtain some information from the Internet, as specified below. Relying 
on an Internet search for economic statistics on the ``hemp'' products 
industry, however, has obvious limitations. Accordingly, DEA urges any 
manufacturer or distributor of ``hemp'' products to submit within the 
comment period any relevant data and supporting documents that it 
wishes DEA to consider in assessing the economic impact of the proposed 
rule.

Edible ``Hemp'' Products

    As stated in the interim rule, all edible ``hemp'' products 
containing THC are not exempted from control, since use of these 
products results in THC entering the human body. Such products would 
remain prohibited schedule I controlled substances under the proposed 
rule.
    A recent USDA report states the following about edible ``hemp'' 
products: Companies are using hemp seed in their products. Natural-
product magazines, such as the Natural Food Merchandiser and Organic & 
Natural News, have advertised products containing hemp ingredients such 
as roasted hull seed, nutrition bars, tortilla chips, pretzels, and 
beer. At least two breweries in the United States, as well as breweries 
in Canada, Germany, and Switzerland, make hemp beer. One article touts 
hulled hemp seeds as more shelf-stable than flax and more digestible 
than soybeans and finds the seeds in snacks, spreads, salad dressings, 
cheese, and ice cream. The market potential for hemp seed as a food 
ingredient is unknown. However, it probably will remain a small market, 
like those for sesame and poppy seeds. Some consumers may be willing to 
pay a higher price for hemp-seed-containing products because of the 
novelty, but otherwise hemp seed will have to compete on taste and 
functionality with more common food ingredients.

Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential 
(January 2000) (citations omitted) (hereafter, ``USDA report'').
    DEA's search of the Internet indicates that at least 50 different 
companies located in the United States manufacture or distribute edible 
``hemp'' products. One such company located in California claims on its 
website that its ``hempseed bars'' are ``the top selling hemp food in 
the U.S.'' According to the website, the company has sold over 125,000 
``hempseed bars.'' The advertised price is approximately $40 for a box 
of 24 bars ($1.67 per bar). Using these figures for purposes of 
estimation, the company's total revenues from the sales of these bars 
is approximately $200,000. DEA is unable to determine from the 
company's website the time period during which these sales arose. Nor 
could DEA ascertain from the website the extent of revenue that the 
company might be generating from sales of other edible ``hemp'' 
products. If, however, the company's ``hempseed bars'' are indeed ``the 
top selling hemp food in the U.S.,'' one might preliminarily assume 
that the sales of this product represent at least one percent of all 
sales of edible ``hemp'' products in the United States.\2\ If so, then 
the approximately $200,000 per year that the company takes in on

[[Page 51537]]

the sale of its ``hempseed bars'' is at least one percent of the total 
sales of edible ``hemp'' products in the United States. If so, then the 
total sales of edible ``hemp'' products in the United States is no more 
than $20 million. DEA recognizes that this estimate is based on rough 
assumptions and might therefore be far from the actual sales figures. 
Accordingly, DEA again urges any members of the public with reliable 
data and documentation to submit such information to DEA during the 
comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The top-selling edible ``hemp'' product might represent 
significantly more than one percent of the total market. However, 
the one-percent assumption is made so as not to underestimate the 
entire market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information that DEA has thus far obtained, the number 
of employees in the edible ``hemp'' products industry cannot be 
accurately determined. To make a very rough estimate, if there were 100 
such companies in the United States, each of which had five employees 
whose jobs were dependent on the sale of edible ``hemp'' products, then 
500 jobs would be terminated if the companies followed the proposed 
rule and ceased their production and distribution of such products. 
Again, DEA will consider any relevant data and supporting documentation 
received during the comment period and adjust these economic 
assessments accordingly.

Personal Care ``Hemp'' Products

    As noted above, to err on the side of inclusion, all personal care 
``hemp'' products are being considered for purposes of this economic 
assessment, even though (as explained in the interim rule) it seems 
likely that most ``hemp'' personal care products meet the criteria for 
exemption under the interim rule.
    DEA's search of the Internet indicates that at least 34 firms 
manufacture or distribute ``hemp'' personal care products in the United 
States. Of these 34 firms, the one that appears to be the largest is a 
company based outside of the United States that sells a variety of 
personal care products worldwide. This company has advised DEA that 
four percent of its sales are attributable to ``hemp'' personal care 
products. Based on additional statistics provided by the company, it 
appears that the total of its retail sales of ``hemp'' products in the 
United States is approximately $10 million per year.
    According to the 1997 Economic Census of Manufacturing 
(``Manufacturing Census'') published by the United States Census 
Bureau, in the category of toilet preparations, the total value of 
shipments in the United States of creams, lotions, and oils in 1997 was 
approximately $3.5 billion, while the total value of shipments of 
shampoos was approximately $2.4 billion. (The Manufacturing Census 
contains no specific data on ``hemp'' products.) It seems reasonable to 
assume that no more than 0.5 percent of all such creams, lotions, oils 
and shampoos are ``hemp'' products.\3\ Thus, it seems reasonable to 
conclude that the total shipments of ``hemp'' personal care products in 
1997 was no more than $30 million. The Manufacturing Census also 
indicates that there are 134 establishments employing approximately 
22,000 persons in the cream, lotion, oil, and hair preparations 
industries. If 0.5 percent of these companies and jobs were dependent 
on the sale of ``hemp'' products, this would represent a total of 
approximately seven firms and 110 total jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As noted above, the company that appears to be the largest 
retailer of ``hemp'' personal care products in the United States has 
advised DEA that such products account for four percent of its sales 
of personal care products. It seems certain that most retail stores 
in the United States that sell personal care items do not carry any 
``hemp'' personal care products. Thus, it seems likely that ``hemp'' 
personal care products actually account for far less than 0.5 
percent of all personal care products sold in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Hemp'' Raw Materials

    For purposes of this part of the economic assessment, three 
categories of ``hemp'' raw materials used for industrial purposes are 
considered: unprocessed stalks, pure sterilized \4\ seeds (not mixed 
with other ingredients), and unprocessed seed oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Unsterilized cannabis seeds (which are capable of 
germination) fit within the CSA definition of marijuana regardless 
of their THC content. Therefore, unsterilized seeds are considered a 
schedule I controlled substance. Accordingly, the control status of 
unsterilized seeds is unaffected by this propose rule and need not 
be considered in this economic analysis. Also, sterilized seeds that 
mixed with seeds from other plants in an animal feed product are 
exempted from control under the interim rule and are, therefore, not 
being considered in this economic analysis. Economic activity 
related to sterilized seeds used in edible hemp products and 
personal care products is addressed in the preceding section of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unprocessed Stalks
    It appears that no significant quantities of unprocessed cannabis 
stalks are imported into the United States for industrial purposes. The 
USDA report (and documents cited therein) suggests that such stalks are 
generally processed into fiber or fabrics before they are imported into 
the United States. Such processed materials are exempted from control 
under the interim rule and, therefore, need not be considered for 
purposes of this economic assessment.
Pure Sterilized Seeds
    According to a recent study by the University of Kentucky,\5\ the 
total demand for ``hemp'' seed in North America is approximately 1,300 
tons per year. The University of Kentucky study indicates that the 
price of such seed is no more than $0.39 per pound. Using these 
figures, the total value of the demand for ``hemp'' seed in North 
America is approximately $1 million. The United States share of this 
demand is only a portion of this figure. Moreover, where sterilized 
cannabis seeds are sold in an animal feed product that contains other 
ingredients (not derived from the cannabis plant), the product is 
exempted from control under the interim rule and, therefore, need not 
be considered for purposes of this economic assessment. Accordingly, it 
can be inferred for purposes of this economic assessment that far less 
than $1 million worth of seeds will be impacted by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Thompson, Eric C., Mark C. Berger, & Steven Allen, Economic 
Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky, University of Kentucky, 
Center for Business and Economic Research, July 1998. [6]: See 
http://dataweb.usitc.gov. [7]: The economic activity related to 
``hemp'' oil used in edible products and personal care products is 
addressed in preceding sections of this document. Moreover, as noted 
above, processed ``hemp'' oil that is not used or intended for use 
for human consumption, and is not readily converted for human 
consumption, is exempted from control under the interim rule and is, 
therefore, not considered in this economic assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One significant portion of the ``hemp'' seeds imported into the 
United States is that used in bird seed. The University of Kentucky 
study states that 60 tons of ``hemp'' seed were imported into the 
United States for use in bird seed in 1990, and that such demand has 
decreased in recent years. Even if the current demand for ``hemp'' bird 
seed remained at 60 tons per year, this would constitute less than one 
percent of all bird seed imported into the United States in 1999, 
according to data compiled by the United States International Trade 
Commission (USITC).\6\ The USITC data indicates that the total value of 
all bird seed imported in the United States in 1999 was approximately 
$7.7 million. If one percent of this were ``hemp'' seed, this would 
mean that approximately $77,000 worth of ``hemp'' bird seed is imported 
into the United States per year. It is worth repeating here that any 
bird seed that consists of a mixture of sterilized cannabis seed and 
other noncannabis ingredients is exempted from control under this 
interim rule and can, therefore, be excluded from this economic 
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See http://dataweb.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unprocessed Seed Oil
    Based on the USDA report and the University of Kentucky study, it 
appears that no significant amount of

[[Page 51538]]

unprocessed ``hemp'' seed oil is imported into the United States for 
use in manufacturing industrial products (such as paints, sealants, 
inks, and lubricating oils).\7\ However, as with all products 
potentially impacted by this proposed rule, DEA invites members of the 
public with relevant economic data to submit such information during 
the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The economic activity related to ``hemp'' oil used in edible 
products and personal care products is addressed in preceding 
sections of this document. Moreover, as noted above, processed 
``hemp''oil that is not used or intended for use for human 
consumption, and is not readily converted for human consumption, is 
exempted from control under the interim rule and is, therefore, not 
considered in this economic assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act
    For the reasons provided above, the Administrator hereby certifies 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. `` 605(b)). The economic activity 
that would be disallowed under this proposed rule is already illegal 
under DEA's interpretation of existing law. Even if one were to assume 
that such economic activity were legal under current law, the 
prohibition on such activity resulting from this proposed rule 
(summarized above) would not constitute significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required for this proposed rule.
Executive Order 12866
    This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with 
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, Sec. 1(b), 
Principles of Regulation. This rule has been determined to be a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
Sec. 3(f). Accordingly, this interim rule has been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132
    This proposed rule does not preempt or modify any provision of 
state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any 
state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own 
laws. Accordingly, this proposed rule does not have federalism 
implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
    This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    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 in any one year. Therefore, no actions 
are necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    For the reasons provided above, this proposed rule is not likely to 
result in any of the following: an annual effect on the economy of 
$100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on 
the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets. The economic activity 
disallowed under this proposed rule is already illegal under DEA's 
interpretation of existing law. Even if one were to assume that such 
economic activity were legal under current law, the prohibition on such 
activity resulting from this proposed rule would not render the rule a 
major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. `` 804. Therefore, the provisions of SBREFA 
relating to major rules are inapplicable to this proposed rule. 
However, a copy of this proposed rule is being submitted to each House 
of the Congress and to the Comptroller General in accordance with 
SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 801).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    This proposed rule does not involve collection of information 
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Plain Language
    In writing this proposed rule, DEA has attempted to use plain 
language in an easy-to-read manner, consistent with the June 1, 1998 
directive of the President. See 63 FR 31885. If you have any 
suggestions to make this document easier to understand, call or write 
Patricia Good, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section, Office of Diversion 
Control, Washington, DC 20537; telephone: (202) 307-7297.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, 
Narcotics, Prescription drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Proposed Rule

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General under 
sections 201, 202, and 501(b) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811, 812, and 
871(b)), delegated to the Administrator pursuant to section 501(a) (21 
U.S.C. 871(a)) and as specified in 28 C.F.R. 0.100, the Administrator 
hereby orders that Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 
1308, is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1308--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 1308.11(d)(27) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1308.11  Schedule I.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

(27) Tetrahydrocannabinols....................................    7370
 

    Meaning tetrahydrocannabinols naturally contained in a plant of the 
genus Cannabis (cannabis plant), as well as synthetic equivalents of 
the substances contained in the cannabis plant, or in the resinous 
extractives of such plant, and/or synthetic substances, derivatives, 
and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological 
activity to those substances contained in the plant, such as the 
following:

\1\ cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical 
isomers
\6\ cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical 
isomers
3,4 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and its 
optical isomers


(Since nomenclature of these substances is not internationally 
standardized, compounds of these structures, regardless of numerical 
designation of atomic positions covered.)

 
                  *        *        *        *        *
 


    Dated: October 2, 2001.
Asa Hutchinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-25023 Filed 10-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P