This question is in relation to the other post on the rescheduling process. My understanding is that when the Proposed Rule is brought to the public for the comment period, that it actually goes into provisional effect immediately. Is this not the case?
Hi, John. That is not the case. I think you're thinking of "interim final rules" or certain emergency rules that DEA issues from time to time in other contexts. The proposed rule that we're expecting here won't ever go into effect. It is merely a prep step for the eventual final rule that DEA will issue later. That final rule will itself not be effective immediately either but will instead go into effect at least 30 days after DEA publishes it in the Federal Register (barring a stay from a federal court).
Thank you Shane, understand and makes more sense given the material implication of a change. Is about 4-5 months the likely timing between proposed rule and the rule going into effect?
Historically, the wait is much, much longer. We’re in uncharted territory here in many ways, though, so we could move faster than normal. Still, 4-5 months would be staggeringly fast. Seems almost impossible.
Yeah, I guess it is the govt, but at least the only formal signature is from Garland. So, if Biden wants this law before November, to be "safe" he needs to have the DEA respond by March or so.
The only formal signature needed is Anne Milgram's actually. Garland has delegated his scheduling authority to the Administrator of DEA. And Biden may well want this done by November 2024, but it's outside his control in many ways. The law, for example, requires DEA to permit a period of public comment and allow interested parties to request ALJ hearings. It then requires DEA to respond to ALL significant comments (those that, if found persuasive, would require a change to the proposed rule). DEA can't control how many comments it receives and must respond to or how many ALJ hearings will be requested. Its budget and staff are limited. Getting all that done AND pushing a final rule out by next November could easily become literally impossible as a practical matter regardless of the President's preferences.
I see no harm in raising this issue. Amending the constitution is a valid option, and that is why there is a procedure for it. By the way, the link you provided to the lawsuit doesn't work.
This question is in relation to the other post on the rescheduling process. My understanding is that when the Proposed Rule is brought to the public for the comment period, that it actually goes into provisional effect immediately. Is this not the case?
Hi, John. That is not the case. I think you're thinking of "interim final rules" or certain emergency rules that DEA issues from time to time in other contexts. The proposed rule that we're expecting here won't ever go into effect. It is merely a prep step for the eventual final rule that DEA will issue later. That final rule will itself not be effective immediately either but will instead go into effect at least 30 days after DEA publishes it in the Federal Register (barring a stay from a federal court).
Thank you Shane, understand and makes more sense given the material implication of a change. Is about 4-5 months the likely timing between proposed rule and the rule going into effect?
Historically, the wait is much, much longer. We’re in uncharted territory here in many ways, though, so we could move faster than normal. Still, 4-5 months would be staggeringly fast. Seems almost impossible.
Yeah, I guess it is the govt, but at least the only formal signature is from Garland. So, if Biden wants this law before November, to be "safe" he needs to have the DEA respond by March or so.
The only formal signature needed is Anne Milgram's actually. Garland has delegated his scheduling authority to the Administrator of DEA. And Biden may well want this done by November 2024, but it's outside his control in many ways. The law, for example, requires DEA to permit a period of public comment and allow interested parties to request ALJ hearings. It then requires DEA to respond to ALL significant comments (those that, if found persuasive, would require a change to the proposed rule). DEA can't control how many comments it receives and must respond to or how many ALJ hearings will be requested. Its budget and staff are limited. Getting all that done AND pushing a final rule out by next November could easily become literally impossible as a practical matter regardless of the President's preferences.
Really appreciated. As will all in this sector, expect the worst, hope for just bad....
I see no harm in raising this issue. Amending the constitution is a valid option, and that is why there is a procedure for it. By the way, the link you provided to the lawsuit doesn't work.