### ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS of Final Rule on Controlled Substances and List I Chemical Registration a nd

Reregistration Fees, DEA

- 346

Drug Enforcement Administration U.S. Department of Justice February 2012

### Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3

CHAPTER 2: STATEMENT OF NEED FO R A NEW FEE SCHEDULE

................................ ................................ ........... 4

2.1 S TATUTORY A UTHORITY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4 2.2 R EGISTRATION AND R EREGISTRATION FEES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 5

CHAPTER 3: REGISTRANT LANDSCAPE

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 8

CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVE FEE CALC ULATION METHODOLOGIE S CONSIDERED

................................ ................ 11

4.1 S COPE OF A NALYSIS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 11 4.2 W EIGHTED

- R ATIO O PTION (S ELECTED M ETHODOLOGY )

................................ ................................ ............................ 14 4.2.1 Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 14 4.2.2 Anal

ysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 15

CHAPTER 5: IMPACT ANALYSIS OF N EW FEES

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18

5.1 A NNUAL E CONOMIC E FFECT L ESS T HAN $100 MILLION

................................ ................................ ............................. 18 5.2 N O M ATERIAL A DVERSE A FFECT

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 5.2.1 Registration Fees as Business Expense

................................ ................................ ................................ 19 5.2.2 Registration Fees as Percentage of Income

................................ ................................ ......................... 20 5.2.3 Fee

- Exempt Registrants

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 21 5.2.4 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 22

CHAPTER 6: IMPACT OF RULE ON SM ALL ENTITIES

................................ ................................ ........................... 23

6.1 I MPACT OF F EES ON S MALL B USINESSES

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 23 6.2 I MPACT OF F EES ON O THER R EGISTRANTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 25 6.2.1 Impact on Pharmacies

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 25 6.2.2 Impact on Manufacturers and Distributors

................................ ................................ ......................... 26

CHAPTER 7: COST

- BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY ACTION

................................ ................................ ....... 28

7.1 C OSTS OF THE R ULE

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 28 7.2 B E NEFITS OF THE R ULE

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 28 7.3 E VALUATION OF C OSTS AND B ENEFITS OF R ULE ( THRESHOLD ANALYSIS )

................................ ................................ ........ 31 7.4 A LTERNATIVE E VALUATION OF C OSTS AND B ENEFITS OF R ULE

................................ ................................ ..................... 343 

### CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE

Pursuant to the final rule
, DEA

- 346, the fee schedule for DEA registratio n and

reregistration fees is adjusted as necessary to recover the full costs of the Diversion Control

Program (DCP) relating to the registration and control of th e manufacture, distribution,

dispensing, importation and exportation of controlled substances and List I chemicals a s
mandated by the C ontrolled Substances Act (CSA)

. The purpose of this document is to:

Describe the need for the new fee schedule

. Analyze alternative methodologie s considered for calculating fees across

registrant groups/business activities.

Demonstrate that the annual impact of the fee is not a significant regulatory action

under Executive Order (E

. O

. ) 12866 and E

. O

. 13563.

Describe the small entities that are impacted by the rule and the impact of the rule

on those small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibili ty Act (5 U.S.C.

601

- 612).

Provide an a nalysis of c osts and b enefits

. Since publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) , DEA has revised the

fee calculation based on end of year financial information for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 and updated

budg et and registrant population estimates for FY 2013 and FY 2014. The update resulted in

minor reductions in fees from the fees described in the NPRM for some registrant groups . The

economic impact of the selected alternative has been updated to reflect th e revised fees.4



### CHAPTER 2: STATEMENT OF NEED FO R A NEW FEE SCHEDULE

2.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY

A new fee schedule is required by statute and the final rule, DEA

- 346, implements a new
fee calculated pursuant to federal law. Th e final rule adjust s the registration and re

- registration

fees relating to the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, dispensing,

importation
, and exportation of controlled substances and List I chemicals. For calculation

purposes, t h e collection of the n ew fee is estimated to begin on March 1, 2012
, for the Fiscal

Year 2012

- 2014 period.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces Titles II and III

of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, often referred to a s the

Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act

(CSIEA) (21 U.S.C. 801

- 971), as amended (hereinafter “CSA”). 1 DEA drafts and publishes the

implementing regulations for these statutes in Title 21 of the Code of Fed eral Regulations (CFR),

Parts 1300 to 1321. The Diversion Control Program ( DCP ) is a strategic component of DEA that

carries out the mandates of the CSA and its regulations to prevent, detect, and eliminate the

diversion of controlled substances and liste d chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring a

sufficient supply of controlled substances and listed chemicals for legitimate medical, scientific,

research, and industrial purposes.

All manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers
, and export ers of controlled

substances and List I chemicals are required to maintain an annual registration with DEA (21

U.S.C. 822 and 958(f)). Under the CSA, DEA is authorized to charge reasonable fees relating to

1 The Attorney General’s delegation of authority to DEA may be found at 28 CFR 0.100.5

the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, import ation , and

export ation of controlled substances and listed chemicals. 21 U.S.C. 821 and 958(f). DEA must

set fees at a level that ensures the recovery of the full costs of operating the various aspects of its

DCP. 21 U.S. C. 886a. Each year, DEA is required by statute to transfer the first $15 million of

fee revenue s into the G eneral F u nd of the Treasury and the remainder of the fee revenues is

deposited into a separate fund of the Treasury called the Diversion Control Fee Account

(DCFA). 21 U.S.C. 886a(1). On at least a quarterly basis, the Secretary of the Treasury is

required to reimburse DEA an amount from the DCFA “in accordance with estimates made in

the budget request of the Attorney General for those fiscal years” for the operation of the DCP

. 2

21 U.S.C. 886a(1)(B) and (D). The first $15 million of fee revenues that are transferred to the

Treasury do not support any DCP activities.

2.2 REGISTRATION AND RER EGISTRATION FEES

Currently, handlers of controlled substance s and List I chemicals pay registration and

reregistration fees as required by statute. These fees (some of which are paid annually and some
of which are paid every three years) range from $184 to $2,293, depending on registrant

category. Practitioners, mid

- level practitioners, dispensers, researchers, and narcotic treatment
programs pay an annual registration or annual equivalent of $184 (practitioners pay a registration
fee of $551 every three years). Distributors, importers, and exporters pay an annua l fee of
$1,147, and manufacturers pay an annual fee of $2,293.

In accordance with the statutory requirement s of the CSA, DEA continually monitors the

anticipated budget and collections to determine whether the registration fees need to be adjusted.

2 The diversion control program (DCP) consists of the controlled substance and chemical diversion control activities of DEA. These activities are related to the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importation, and exporta tion of controlled substances and listed chemicals (21 U.S.C. 886a(2)).6

DEA has determined that the fees need to increase in Fiscal Year ( FY ) 2012 to the amounts

indicated in Table 1: Registration and Reregistration Fees by Class/Business in order to fully

fund the DCP . For purposes of calculating the fee, collections are estimated to begin on March

1, 2012

. Table 1: Registration and Reregistration Fee by Class/Business
Registrants on Three Y

ear R egistration C

ycle Registrant Class/Business Current Three Year Fee * New Three

Year Fee* Difference

Per Year

Pharmacy $551 $ 731 $ 60 Hospital/Clinic $551 $ 731 $ 60 Practitioner $551 $ 731 $ 60 Teaching Institution $551 $ 731 $ 60 Mid

- Level Practitioner $551 $ 731 $ 60 *Pharmacies, hospitals/clinics, practitioners, teaching institutions, and mid

- level practitioners currently pay a fee for a three year period. This current three

- year fee is $551. The new fee for the three

- year registration period would be $ 731 . The three year difference is $ 180 or an annual difference of $ 60

. Registrants on A nnual R egistration C ycle Registrant Class/Business Current Annual Fee New Annual

Fee Difference

Researcher/Canine Handler $184 $ 244 $ 60 Analytical Lab $184 $ 244 $ 60 Maintenance $184 $ 244 $ 60 Detoxification $184 $ 244 $ 60 Maintenance and Detoxification $184 $ 244 $ 60 Compounder/Maintenance $184 $ 244 $ 60 Compounder/Detoxification $184 $ 244 $ 60 Compounder/Maintenance/ Detoxification $184 $ 244 $ 60 Distributor (chemical and controlled substances) $1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 Reverse distributor $1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 Importer (chemical and controlled substances) $1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 Exporter (chemical and controlled substances) $1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 Manufacturer (chemical and controlled substances) $2,293 $ 3,047 $ 754

DEA last adjusted the registration fees in 2006 for the Fiscal Year 2006

- 2008 period.

Since th at time
, the diversion control responsibilities and activities of the DCP have grown but

the fees have not. For example, Congress has passed several amendments to the CSA which7

have resulted in additional responsibilities and activities within the DCP. Such amendments

include the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 200 8 , the Ryan Haight Online

Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, and the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act

of 2010. Wit hout an adjustment of the fees, DEA w ill face a projected budgetary shortfall by

mid FY 2012 that would require dramatic program reductions to maintain budget solvency.8 

### CHAPTER 3: REGISTRANT LANDSCAPE

Th is rule affects those manufacturers, distributors, dispens ers, importers
, and exporters of

controlled substances and List I chemicals that are required to obtain and pay a registration fee

with DEA pursuant to the CSA (21 U.S.C. 822 and 958(f)). As of August 2011
, there were

1,407,119 controlled substances and c hemical registrants ( 1,406,021 controlled substances

registrants and 1,098 chemical registrants), as shown in Table 2.

Pharmacies, hospitals/clinics, practitioners, teaching institutions, and mid

- level

practitioners make up 98.9 percent of all registrants. These registrants register every three years.

Other registrants maintain an annual registration. Registration and rereg is tration costs vary by

registrant category as described in more detail in the sections below

.

Table 2 : Number of Regi strants by Business Activity

Registrant Class/Business Controlled Substances Chemicals Pharmacy 66,934 Hospital/Clinic 15,737 Practitioner 1,115,398 Teaching Institution 336 Mid

- Level Practitioner 193,877 Researcher/Canine Handler 9,120 Analytical Lab 1,500 Narcotic Treatment Program 1,267 Distributor 828 550 Reverse Distributor 60 Importer 209 182 Exporter 233 159 Manufacturer 522 207 Total 1,406,021 1098 Total (all registrants) 1,407,119

*Data as of August 2011

.

The fees affect a wide variety of entities. Table 3 indicates the sectors affected by the

rule and their average annual revenue/income

. Most DEA registrants are small entities under9

Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. Almost all practitioners
, which are the largest

category of registrants
, are considered small businesses (annual revenues of less than $6 million
to $8.5 million, depending on specialty) . P ractitioners and mid

- level practitioners make up the

largest registration category with to tal 1,309,275 registrants (as of August 2011 )

.

Table 3 : Industrial Sectors of DEA Registrants

Sector NAICS Code Average Annual Revenue

per Establishment
Manufacturers

Petro

- chemical Manufacturing (organic, inorganic) 32511 $1,390,485,971 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing 325411 $27,601,834 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 325412 $144,173,821 Adhesive Manufacturing 325520 $17,482,468 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 325620 $50,322,290 Other Chemical Manufacturing 325998 $13,720,807 Distributors Drugs and Druggist Sundries Wholesalers 424210 $64,793,480 General Line Grocery Wholesalers 424410 $45,518,407 Confectionary Merchant Wholesalers 424450 $17,175,982 Chemical Wholesalers 424690 $12,856,993

Tobacco Wholesalers 424940 $71,437,205 Miscellaneous Wholesalers 424990 $2,741,857 Pharmacies Supermarkets 445110 $7,247,540 Drug Stores 446110 $4,829,487

Discount Stores 452112 $26,535,201 Warehouse Clubs and Superstores 452910 $76,300,280 Other Testing Labs 541380 $1,907,414 Packaging and Labeling Services 561910 $2,696,904 Other Practitioners
Professional Schools 611310 $1,373,855 Ambulatory Health Care Services 621 $1,236,852 Hospitals 622 $108,286,641

Source: 2007 Economic Census. http://www.census.gov/econ/census07

.10

Supermarkets, discount stores, warehouse clubs, and superstores handle controlled

substances through their distribution centers and pharmacies. Drug products containing List I

chemicals are primarily distributed as over

- the

- counter medicines. These are distributed by drug

wholesalers who specialize in non

- prescription drugs, wholesalers who supply convenience

stores, and grocery, pharmacy, and discount stores (e.g., superstores) that operate their own

distribution c enters.11



### CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVE FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOG IES CONSIDERED

4.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

As presented in the NPRM and analyzed in the Economic Impact Analysis o f the Proposed

Fee Rule , DEA considered four methodologies to calculate registration and reregi stration fees:

Past

- Based Option, Future

- Based Option, Flat Fee Option, and Weighted

- Ratio Option.

Although the increase in the fees may be passed down to the registrants’ customers, the

alternatives are analyzed assuming that the increase in the fee is absorbed fully by the registrants.

Some commenters have confirmed this statement and have indicated some registrants may

decide not to renew their registration as a result of the higher fees.

For each of the alternatives considered, the calculated fees a re analyzed for

reasonableness by examining: (1) the absolute amount of the fee increase, (2) the change in fee

as a percentage of revenue from 2007 to 2012, and (3) the relative fee increase across registrant

groups. Additionally, each calculation metho dology is re

- evaluated for its overall strengths and

weaknesses in recovering the full costs of the DCP.

Based on the analysis provided in the NPRM, DEA did not adopt the “Past

- Based
Option.” There are two key reasons for rejecting this methodology. Firs t, the fee increase would

be disproportionately burdensome to a small number of registrants. Distributors’ fees would

increase by over three fold, while the fees for the remaining registrant groups would increase

from 10 percent to 32 percent. DEA believ es this is unreasonable. Second, the past

- based

option is backward looking and implicitly assumes that the future will be similar to the past.

DEA cannot assume that future workload will reflect past DEA work hour data. For example,

DEA plans to conduct more scheduled investigations in accordance with the new scheduled12

investigation work plan. As a result, DEA has concluded that past data is not the best basis for

the calculation of registration fees.

The second option analyzed in the NPRM is the “Futur e

- Based Option” which is based

on projected work hours for each registrant class using scheduled investigation work plan goals

and anticipated/planned resources. Under this option, DEA based its calculations on projected

work hour data by registrant group for FY 2012

- 2014. In other words, the future

- based option is
based on DEA’s projection of work plan goals and the resources required for these years

— specifically examining the direct cost of anticipated scheduled investigations.

DEA rejects this method ology because DEA believes it would result in an unreasonable

increase in fees for some registrants and reflect a severe disparity of increased fees among the

registrant groups. The large proportional increase in fees for two registrant categories would n ot
pass the “reasonable” standard required by statute. The vast disparity in the increase, where fees

for manufacturers increase by more than 700 percent while fees for dispensers increase by 26

percent, is unreasonable.

The third option analyzed in the NPRM is called the “Flat Fee Option.” This

methodology would provide equal fees across all registrant groups regardless of the proportion

of DCP costs and resources the registrant group may require (e.g. investigation resources). The

fee calculation is s traightforward: the total amount needed to be collected over the three year

period is divided by the total number of registration fee transactions over the three year period,

adjusting for registrants on the three year registration cycle.

DEA did not sel ect this methodology because of the great disparity in fees among

registrant groups. Under this option, the calculation results in reduced fees for manufacturers

and distributors by 89 percent and 78 percent respectively, while practitioner fees would inc rease13

by 34 percent. Thus, setting the fees at the same level across all registrant groups is not

“reasonable.” DEA registrants include some of the largest corporations in the world although the

vast majority of registrants are practitioners, such as phy sicians, dentists and nurse practitioner s.
To satisfy the “reasonable” standard, registration fees should not be a flat fee regardless of the

category of registrant. There are cost differences for scheduled investigations and other DCP

costs among the re gistrant categories.

The fourth methodology evaluated and selected for the calculation in the NPRM is the

“Weighted

- Ratio Option.” In this option, fees are assigned to different registrant categories

based on DEA’s historical cost data. This option disti nguishes among the categories to establish

a “reasonable” fee for each category. The different fees are expressed in ratios: 1 for

researchers, canine handlers, analytical labs, and narcotics treatment programs; 3 for registrants

on three year registrati on cycles such as pharmacies, hospitals/clinics, practitioners, teaching

institutions, and mid

- level practitioners; 6.25 for distributors and importers/exporters; and 12.5

for manufacturers. The adopted ratios are applied for administrative convenience si nce
historically costs vary and a fee must be set in advance. To determine the fee, a weighted ratio is

assigned based on registrant group, and the amount needed to be collected over the FY 2012

– FY 2014 period to cover the costs of the DCP is divided by the weighted number of estimated

registrations to determine the fees.

The weighted

- ratio methodology, much like the flat fee methodology, is straightforward

and easy to understand, but unlike the flat fee, this method applies historic weighted ratios to

differentiate fees among registrant groups. The fees calculated using this methodology are

similar to fees calculated in the past

- based option, which allocates historical pre

- registration and

scheduled investigations costs to registrant groups. This met hod, however, does not create a14

disproportionate fee increase in any registrant group. The proposed fee published in the NPRM

calculated proposed fees using this methodology with an increase of approximately 33 percent
from current fees for all registrant groups.
Since the publication of the NPRM, DEA has revised the fee calculation based on new

financial information for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 and updated budget and registrant population

estimates for FY 2013 and FY 2014. The update resulted in minor reduc tions in fees for some

registrant groups from the fees described in the NPRM. The economic impact of the weighted

ratio methodology has been updated to reflect the revised fees. The revised fees result in an

increase of approximately 33 percent from curr ent fees for all registrant groups.

4.2 WEIGHTED

- RATIO OPTION ( Selected Methodology)

4.2.1 Description

Option 4 is called the Weighted

- Ratio Option . In this option, fees are assign ed to
different registrant categories based on DEA’s historical cost data . This option distinguish es
among the categories to establish a “reasonable” fee for each category. The different fees are

expressed in ratios : 1 for researchers, canine handlers, analytical labs, and narcotics treatment

programs ; 3 for registrant s on t hree year registration cycles, pharmacies, hospitals/clinics,

practitioners, teaching institutions, and mid

- level practitioners (all of such registrants are on a

three

- year cycle, meaning the ratio is equivalent to a 1 ratio on an annual basis) ; 6.25 for

d istributors and importers/exporters ; and 12.5 for manufacturers

. The adopted ratios are applied

for administrative convenience s ince historically costs vary and a fee must be set in advance

. To

determine the fee, a w eight ed ratio is assigned based on reg istrant group
, and the amount needed

to be collected over the FY 2012

– FY 2014 period is divided by the weighted number of

estimated registrations to determine the fees.15 Table 4 : Annual Registrant Fees Under Weighted

- Ratio Option

Registrants on Three Y

ear R egistration C

ycle Registrant Class/Business Current Three Year Fee * New Three

Year Fee* Difference

Per Year

Pharmacy $551 $ 731 $ 60 Hospital/Clinic $551 $ 731 $ 60
Practitioner $551 $ 731 $ 60 Teaching Institution $551 $ 731 $ 60 Mid

- Level Practitioner $551 $ 731 $ 60 *Pharmacies, hospitals/clinics, practitioners, teaching institutions, and mid

- level practitioners currently pay a fee for a three y ear period. This current three year fee is $551. The new fee for the three year r egistration period would be $ 731 . The three year difference is $ 180 or an annual difference of $ 60

. Registrants on A nnual R egistration C ycle Registrant Class/Business Current Annual Fee New Annual

Fee Difference

Researcher/Canine Handler $184 $ 244 $ 60 Analytical Lab $184 $ 244 $ 60 Maintenance $184 $ 244 $ 60 Detoxification $184 $ 244 $ 60 Maintenance and Detoxification $184 $ 244 $ 60 Compounder/Maintenance $184 $ 244 $ 60 Compounder/Detoxification $184 $ 244 $ 60 Compounder/Maintenance/ Detoxification $184 $ 244 $ 60 Distributor (chemical and controlled substances) $1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 Reverse distributor $1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 Importer (chemical and controlled substances) $1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 Exporter (chemical and controlled substances) $1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 Manufacturer (chemical and controlled substances) $2,293 $ 3,047 $ 754

4.2.2 Analysis
Analysis of Fees

In the weighted

- ratio option, the registration fees for all registrant groups increase 33

percent from current fees

. The new registration fees range from $ 244 annually (or annual

equivalent) to $ 3,047

. Registration fees are collected by location and by registered business16

activity. Most small registrants are expected to pay a single registra tion fee of $ 244 ($ 60 annual

increase), $ 1,523 ($ 376 annual increase) or $ 3,047 ($ 754 annual increase)

. ( See Chapter 6 for analysis of fees as percentage of revenue )

. Registration fees for all registrant groups increase by 33 percent and
, as a result, the re is

no disparity in the fee increase among registrant groups.

Evaluation of Methodology

The weighted

- ratio methodology , much like the flat fee
, is straightforward and easy to

understand , b ut unlike the flat fee , this method applies historic weight ed ratios to di fferentiate

fees among registrant groups. Additionally
, the fees calculated u sing this methodology are

similar to fees calculated in the past

- based option
, which allocates historical pre

- registration and

scheduled investigations costs to regi strant groups. Finally, this method does not create a

dis proportionate fee increase in any registrant groups.

Conclusion

DEA selected the weighted

- ratio option to calculate the new fee schedule

. This approach

has been used sin ce Congress established regi strant fees and continues to be a reasonable

reflection of differing costs. The registration fees under the weighted

- ratio option result in

differentiated fees among registrant groups
, where registrants with larger revenues pay higher

fees than registrant s with lower revenues. Furthermore, the weighted

- ratio does not creat e a
disparity in the relative increase in fees from the current to the new fees

. The weighted ratios

used by DEA to calculate the new fee have proven effective and reasonable over time.

Additionally, the selected calculation methodology accurately reflects the differences in activity

level, such as in pre

- registration and scheduled investigations by registrant category; for17

example, these costs are greatest for manufacturers. DEA selected t his option because it is the

only option that resulted in “reasonable” fees for all registrant groups.18 

### CHAPTER 5: IMPACT ANALYSIS OF NEW FEE S

Executive Order 12866 provides that agencies must submit a regulatory impact analysis only

for those regulatory actions that are "significant

. " A regulatory action is significant if it is anticipated

to: (1) h ave an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more

, (2) adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, comp etition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities
, (3) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency
, (4)

materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
, or the rights

and obligations of recipients thereof
, or (5) raise s novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities

, or the principles set forth in Executiv e Order 12866. 3

DEA has concluded that this rule is not a n economically significant regulatory action

pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) as supplemented and

affirmed by Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 2011). This rule does not meet

any of the criteri a set forth for “significant” regulatory action , including :

1. Annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

2. 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.

5.1 ANNUAL ECONOMIC EFFE CT LESS THAN $100 MI LLION

DEA estimates that it w ould collect approximate ly $812,254,676 in registration fees at

current fee level s for the F iscal Y ear 2012

– FY2014 period. This estimated collection amount is

3 E.O. 12866. See also Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions,” February 7, 2011.19

insufficient to fully fund the DCP as mandated by law. However, the new fees are estimated to

result in a total registration fee collection of $ 1,040,934,380 for th e FY 2012

- 2014 period. The

estimated increase in collections is $ 228,679,704 for the three year period. The average annual

increase in estimated registration fee collections is $ 76,226,568 . Therefore, the annual effect on
the economy is less than $100 million and does not meet the “annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more” criteria for “significant” regulatory action.

5.2 NO MATERIAL ADVERSE AFFECT

The fee is expect ed to have two levels o f impact. Initially, the increase in the fee will

impact the registrants. Then the fee increase or portion of the fee increase is expected to

eventually be pass ed on to the general public. T he analysis below assumes that the impact of the

fee increase i s absorbed entirely by the registrants. Some commenters have confirmed this

statement and have indicated some registrants may decide not to renew their registration as a

result of the higher fees.

5.2.1 Registration Fees as Business Expense

DEA assumes that t h e registration fees are business expenses for all registrants. As a

result, t he increase in the fee will be dampened by reduc ed tax liability from the increase in
registration fee expense. For example, if a practitioner pays an additional $ 60 per year in

registration fees and the combined feder al and state income tax is 35 percent , the net cash impact

is $ 39 , not $ 60 . The additional $ 60 causes income/profit to decrease by $ 60 , decreasing the tax
liability by $21. The net cash outlay is $ 39

. 4

4 Th is example is for illustration purposes only. Each entity should seek competent tax advice for tax consequences of the fees established by this rule.20

5.2.2 Registratio n Fees as Percentage of Income

DEA examined the new fees as a percentage of income for physicians, dentists, and

physician ’ s assistants. The fee increase is expected to have the greatest effect on small

businesses

. The m ajority of practitioners and mid

- level practitioners work in small businesses

. Physicians, dentists, and physician’s assistants reflect a representative sub

- group of the

practitioner and mid

- level practitioner registrant groups.

The table below describe s the average income for physicians
, dentists, and physician’s

assistants from 2004 to 2012 . The table below also reflects the impact of the fee increase as a

percentage of average income. This analysis assumes that the fee increase is absorbed personall y
by each practitioner/mid

- level practitioner. The analysis ignores the dampening effect of

registration fees as a business expense and the potential that the fee increase might be pass ed on

to customers

. Table 8: Fee as Percentage of Income FY 2004

- 2 012

Average Income 5 Fee Fee as % of Average Income

Year Physicians Dentists Physician Assistants (Annual

Basis) Physicians Dentists Physician Assistants
2 004 137,610 130,300 68,780
2005 138,910 133,680 71,070
2006 142,220 140,950 74,270 184 0.129% 0.131% 0.248%
2007 155,150 147,010 77,800 184 0.119% 0.125% 0.237%
2008 165,000 154,270 81,610 184 0.112% 0.119% 0.225%
2009 173,860 156,850 84,830 184 0.106% 0.117% 0.217%
2010 179,370 163,901 87,933 184 0.103% 0.112% 0.209%
2011 187,154 169,632 91,230 184 0.098% 0.108% 0.202%
2012 194,939 175,363 94,528 244 0.125% 0.139% 0.258 %

Incr ease from 2007 to 2012 26% 19% 22% 33 % 6 % 11% 9%

5 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov

.21

Increase from 2006 to 2012 37% 24% 27% 33 %

- 3 % 7 % 4%

* Average income data for 2004 to 2009 is provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010 to 2012 are estimated figures based on linear regression, where a straight

- line increase is calculated from years 2004 to 2009, then using the line to estimate average income for 2010 to 2012.

In 2007, the current fee of $ 184 on an annual basis represented 0. 119 percent , 0. 125

percent , and 0. 237 percent of average annua l income for physicians, dentists, and physician’s

assistants respectively. In 2012, the fee of $ 244 ( on an annual basis ) would represent

approximately 0. 125 percent , 0. 139 percent , and 0.258 percent of average annual income for

physicians, dentists, and physician’s assistants respectively. This is a negli gi ble difference.

While fees are 33 percent above the current fees implemented at the end of 2006, average

incomes for physicians, dentists, and physician’s assistants increased 26 percent , 19 percent , and

22 percent respectively over the same period

. This estimated increase in average income

dampens the effect of the fee increase as a percentage of average income. The 33 percent fee

increase as a percentage of average income is 6 percent for physician s (0.125%/0.119 %

- 1) , 11

percent for dentists , and 9 percent for physician’s assistants from 2007 to 2012. The diminishing

effect is more apparent when comparing 2012 to 2006, the year for which the current fee was

calculated and implemented. Additionally, as the average income gr ows in 2013 and 2014, the

adjusted fees relative to average income are not any h igher than in recent history.

5.2.3 F ee - Exempt Registrants

Exempt from the payment of registration fees are a ny hospital or other institution that is

operated by an agency of the United States, of an y S tate, or any political subdivisi on of an
agency thereof . Likewise, an individual who is required to obtain a registration in order to carry22

out his/ her duties as an official of a f ederal or State agency is also exempt from registration fees

. 6

Fee exempt registrants are not affected by the fees.

5.2.4 Conclusion

DEA concludes that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because it does not

result in a materially adverse effect on the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment, public hea lth or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments

or communities. 7 The fee will initially affect all fee paying registrants. The fees may eventually

be passed on to the general public
, diminishing the impact of the fee increase on individual

registrants

. T he impact of the fee on registrants is also diminished by a reduction in tax

liabilities and an increase in average income . Additionally, h ospitals a nd institutions operated by

f ederal, State, or local governments and for the ir employees are exempt from registration fees. 8

Moreover, DEA believes that this rule will enhance public health and safety.

6 See 21 CFR 1301.21 for complete fee exemption requirements. 7 In accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1616q, employees of a tribal health or urban Indian organization are exempt from “payment of licensing, registration, and any other fees imposed by a Federal agency to the same extent that officer of the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and other employees of the Service are exempt from those fees.” To the extent that any hospital or other institution operated by or any individual practitioner associa ted with

an Indian Tribal Government must pay fees, the economic impact is not substantial. 8 See 21 CFR 1301.21 for complete requirements for exemption of registration fees.23



### CHAPTER 6: IMPACT OF RULE ON SM ALL ENTITIES

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601

- 612) (RFA),

DEA has evaluated the impact of this rule on small entities and has determined that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed

in Chapter 3, most DEA registrants are small entities under Small Bu siness Administration

(SBA) standards. DEA has concluded that the adjustments in registration fees will not have a

significant effect on these small business entities.

6.1 IMPACT OF FEES ON SM ALL BUSINESSES

To assess whether the new fee s chedule could impos e a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, DEA compared the fees as a percentage of revenue in 2012

to the current fees as a percentage of revenue in 2007

. 9 DEA has determined that the rule will

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Economic

impact by registrant classes is discussed in the following sections. Practitioners and mid

- level

practitioners represent 93 percent of all registrants and nearly all practitioners and mid

- level

practitioners are employed by small businesses pursuant to SBA standards. Among all

registrants, practitioners and mid

- level practitioners have the lowest annual revenues. While

there are many specialists listed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics income data, incomes for

physicians, dentists, and physician’s assistants are representative of the practitioner and mid

level practitioner registrant groups.

Below is the table from Chapter 5.

9 2007 is the first full year of the previous registration fee increase. DEA pro poses that 2012 be the first full year of the proposed new fee increase. Due to annual increases in annual income, the fees as a percentage of income would also change. Comparing the fees to annual income at the first full year of fee increase would be a like comparison.24 Table 6: Fee as Percentage of Income FY 20 04

- 2012

Average Income 10 Fee Fee as % of Average Income

Year Physicians Dentists Physician Assistants (Annual

Basis) Physicians Dentists Physician Assistants

2 004 137,610 130,300 68,780

2005 138,910 133,680 71,070

2006 142,220 140,950 74,270 184 0.129% 0.131% 0.248%

2007 155,150 147,010 77,800 184 0.119% 0.125% 0.237%

2008 165,000 154,270 81,610 184 0.112% 0.119% 0.225%

2009 173,860 156,850 84,830 184 0.106% 0.117% 0.217%

2010 179,370 163,901 87,933 184 0.103% 0.112% 0.209%

2011 187,154 169,632 91,230 184 0.098% 0.108% 0.202%

2012 194,939 175,363 94,528 244 0.125% 0.139% 0.258 % Incr ease from 2007 to 2012 26% 19% 22% 33 % 6 % 11% 9% Incr ease from 2006 to 2012 37% 24% 27% 33 %

- 3 % 7 % 4%

For practitioners and mid

- level practitioners , the new fee, on an annual basis, is $ 244 ; the

annual increase is $ 60 from the current fee. Physicians constitute the largest percentage of all

practitioner registrants. Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics annual salary data, the current fee in

2007, the first full year of the current fee, represented 0.119 percent , 0.125 percent , and 0.237

percent of annual income for physicians, dentists, and physician’s as sistants respectively. In

10 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov . Average income data for 2004 to 2009 is provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010 to 2012 are estimated figures based on linear regression, where a straight

- line increase i s calculated from years 2004 to 2009, then using the line to estimate average income for 2010 to 2012.25

2012, the fee of $ 244 , on an annual basis, is estimated to be approximately 0.125 percent , 0.139

percent , and 0.258 percent of annual income for physicians, dentists, and physician’s assistants

respectively. The annual impact of the rule is the difference between the fee as a percentage of

income in 2012 to the current fee as a percentage of income in 2007, which are 0.007 percent

(0.125%

- 0.119% = 0.007%, rounded)
, 0.014 percent , and 0.022 percent for physicians, dentists,

and physician’s assistant s respectively. (Numbers are rounded to the third decimal point .)

As discussed in Chapter 5
, there are additional mitigating factors not included in the

above analysis. The fee increase may be passed on to consumers ; however, this an alysis does

not consider that the fees may be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices for medical

services or products. The fees may be treated as business expenses where after

- tax impact is

diminished ; however, this analysis does not take pote ntial deductions into account

. For consideration of the impact of the fee increase on small businesses, DEA analyzed

the registration fee as a percentage of annual income for a representative group: physicians,

dentists, and physician’s assistants. The impact of the fees, $ 60 per year increase from current

fees , were found to be 0.007 percent , 0.014 percent , and 0.022 percent of annual income for

physicians, dentists, and physician’s assistant s respectively, when normalized for income

increases. In cons ideration of the calculated impact and potentially further mitigating factors

discussed in Chapter 5, DEA concludes that the rule will not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

.

6.2 IMPACT OF FEES ON OT HER R EGISTRANTS

6.2.1 Impact on Pharmacies

Pharmacies represent 4.8 percent of all registrants. Many pharmacies are parts of chains,

and some chains have thousands of stores. A corporate chain has the choice of having each store26

in the chain pay a registration fee on the ind ividual location’s behalf or having the corporation

pay for all locations at one time. Regardless of how the fee is paid, registration fee s for a large

chain can be substantial . For example, the registration fee for each pharmacy is $ 244 on an

annual bas is . Therefore, a chain with 4,000 stores would have a combined annual fee equivalent

of $ 976,000 . The increase in fee s would be $ 240,000

. S uch fees are large, but compared to

revenue, they are a much smaller percentage than those for physicians and dent ists. The

incremental increase in the fee from current fees as a percentage of revenue is even lower. Table

9 shows the new fees (annual equivalent) as percentage of average yearly revenue for various

types of pharmacies.

Table 7 : New Fees as Percentage of Revenue for Pharmacies

Pharmacy Types Current fee (annual) New fee

(annual) Amount of

increase from Current fee Ratio:

New fee to Current fee % of

Annual Revenue Current fee** % of

Annual Revenue New fee**

Supermarkets $ 184 $ 244 $ 60 1.33 0.003% 0.003% Drug Stores $ 184 $ 244 $ 60 1.33 0.004% 0.005% Discount Stores $ 184 $ 244 $ 60 1.33 0.001% 0.001%
Warehouse Clubs and Superstores $ 184 $ 244 $ 60 1.33 0.000% 0.000%

Source: 2007 Economic Census. ** Current and Prop osed Fees divided by average re venue in 2007, first full year the current fee.

6.2.2 Impact on Manufacturers and Distributors

The impact of the fee increase on manufacturers and distributors is minimal. For

manufacturers, the new fee as a percentage of revenue ranges from 0.000 to 0.022 percent of a

manufacturing establishment. For distributors, it is slightly higher: 0.002 to 0.055 percent. The27

incremental increase in the fee from current fees as a percentage of revenue is even lower.

Manufacturers’ and distributors’ fees are high re lative to practitioners’ fees, but they are a much

lower fraction of revenue than is the case for individual practitioners. Most manufacturers and

distributors do not qualify as small businesses under SBA standards.

Even for manufacturers and distributor s that have multiple facilities and pay a registration

fee for each facility, the percentage of revenue (economic impact) does not change. The

percentages cited above are based on average revenue per establishment; increasing the number

of establishments will not change the fee as a fraction of revenue.

Table 8 : New Fees as Percentage of Annual Revenue for Manufacturers and Distributors

Business Types Current fee (annual) New fee

(annual) Amount of

increase from Current fee Ratio:

New fee to Current fee % of

Annual Revenue Current fee** % of

Annual Revenue New fee**

Manufacturer Petrochemical Manufacturing $ 2,293 $ 3,047 $ 754 1.33 0.000% 0.000%

Medicinal & Botanical Manufacturing $ 2,293 $ 3,047 $ 754 1.33 0.008% 0.011%

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing $ 2,293 $ 3,047 $ 754 1.33 0.002% 0.002%

Adhesive Manufacturing $ 2,293 $ 3,047 $ 754 1.33 0.013% 0.017%

Toilet Preparation Manufacturing $ 2,293 $ 3,047 $ 754 1.33 0.005% 0.006%

Other Chemical Manufacturing $ 2,293 $ 3,047 $ 754 1.33 0.017% 0.022%

Distributor Drugs and Druggist Sundries Wholesalers $ 1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 1.33 0.002% 0.002%

General Line Grocery Wholesalers $ 1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 1.33 0.003% 0.003%

Confectionary Merchant Wholesalers $ 1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 1.33 0.007% 0.009%

Chemical Wholesalers $ 1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 1.33 0.009% 0.012%28

To b acco Wholesalers $ 1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 1.33 0.002% 0.002%
Miscellaneous Wholesalers $ 1,147 $ 1,523 $ 376 1.33 0.042% 0.056%

Source: 2007 Economic Census. ** Current and Proposed Fees divided by average revenue in 2007, first full year the current fee.



### CHAPTER 7: COST

- BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF REGULATO RY ACTION

In developing the Cost

- Benefit Analysis (CBA), DEA focused on the cost s and benefit s

that accrue to citizens and residents of the United States over the three year period, 2012 to 2014.

The costs and benefits are measured against a baseline to capture the incremental costs and

benefits of the rule.

7.1 COST S OF THE R ULE

The cost of the rule is the incremental increase in the combined registration fees paid by

registrants. DEA estimates that it will collect approximate ly $812,254,676 in registration fees at

current fee levels for the FY 2012

– FY2014 period. This figure, $812,254,676

, represents the

baseline. The fees are estimated to result in a total registration fee collection of $1,040,934,380

for Fiscal Year s 2012

- 2014. The estimated increase in collections above the baseline is

$ 228,679,704 for the three year period. Thus, t he average annual increase in estimated
registration fee collections is $ 76,226,568 . Therefore, the cost of the rule is $ 76,226,568 per

year during FY 2012

– FY2014. Although registration fees are paid by registrants, some or all of

the registration fees a re passed on to the citizens and residents of the United States. For this

CBA, DEA assumes the annual cost of the rule is $ 76,226,568

.

7.2 B ENEFIT S OF THE R ULE29

Benefits of the rule are an extension of the benefits of the DCP. The DCP is a strategic

componen t of DEA that carries out the mandates of the CSA and its regulations to prevent,

detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit

market while ensuring a sufficient supply of controlled substances and list ed chemicals for

legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial purposes.

The citizens and residents of the United States bear an enormous cost from the diversion

of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market. T o capture the benefit s of

the rule, DEA estimated the cost of diversion to the citizens and residents of the United States :
(1) at a baseline , without implementation of the rule
, and (2) under the rule.

DEA used “Economic Costs of Nonmedical Use of Prescription Opio ids” 11 and

“Estimated Costs of Prescription Opioid Analgesic Abuse in the United States in 2001” 12 as
primary sources for obtaining costs to the citizens and residents of the U. S. associated with the

diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals in to the illicit market. While opioids

discussed in the publications represent a subset of all controlled substances regulated by the

DCP, the cost estimates in the publication s represent a conservative estimated cost of diversion

of all controlled substanc es and listed chemicals from a reputable source.

The researchers gathered data from numerous sources including emergency department

information from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), nonmedical use of prescription

opioids information from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), substance

abuse treatment information from the Treatment Episode Data Sets (TEDS), statistical

information from the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Burea u of

11 Clin J Pain (The Clinical Journal of Pain), Volume 27, Number 3, March/April 2011. 12 Clin J Pain (The Clinical Journal of Pain), Volume 22, Number 8, October 2006.30

Investigation, National Forensic Laboratory, and Drug Enforcement Administration Budget

Summaries. Data related to the total cost of treatment for the abuse of prescription opioids also

included input from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Servic es Administration at the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

According to the research published in The Clinical Journal of Pain , cost s associated

with the nonmedical use of prescription opioids increase d from $8.6 billion in 2001 to $53.4

billi on in 2006.

Table 9 : U.S. Costs of Nonmedical Use of Prescription Opioids 2001 and 2006

($ million) 2001 2006 % Increase Total Cost $ 8,600 $ 53,400 521% Health Care $ 2,600 $ 3,200 23% Criminal Justice 13 $ 1,400 $ 8,200 486% Workplace & Lost Productivity $ 4,600 $ 42,000 813%

The baseline cost of diversion to the citizens and residents of the Unite d States is the

estimated cost in 2012 without the rule. The increase from $8.6 billion in 2001 to $53.4 billion

in 2006 represents a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 44 percent

. At the present time, it

is reasonable to assume that the baseline cost of nonmedical use of prescription opioids to the
citizens and residents of the United States is now much greater than the $53.4 billi on identified

in 2006

.
In FY 2010, the most recent year for which a full year of data is available, DEA initiated

1,011 criminal diversion investigations, imposed 1,519 administrative/civil/criminal sanctions,

13 DCFA budget is understood to be included in the Criminal Justice cost figure. However, the DCFA budget is relatively low compared to the total Criminal Justice and even lower compared to the Total Cost. Therefore, the analysis does not bac k out the DCFA budget because it is not material to the discussion and to maintain integrity of the published research.31

and conducted 3,553 scheduled investigations. In FY 2012
, DEA estimates that it will have

1,802 administrative/civil/criminal sanctions and 3,906 scheduled investigations

. 14 DEA

believes that each administrative/civil/criminal sanction prevents the diversion of controlled

substances a nd listed chemicals into the illicit market and that scheduled investigations deter the

diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market.

An increase in scheduled investigations and administrative/civil/criminal sanctions
, in

addition to added resources for criminal diversion investigations
, is expected to
, at a minimum,

slow down the growth in the cost of nonmedical use of prescription opioids and diversion as a

whole.

Th is rule provides additional resources to enhance t he performance of the DCP and slow

down the growth in the cost of controlled substances and listed chemicals diverted into the illicit

market. Although difficult to accurately quantify, the benefit of th is rule is the slowdown in the

growth of the cost of diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit

market.

7.3 EVALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF R ULE (THRESHOLD ANALYSIS)

In evaluating the costs and benefits of the rule, the annual cost of the rule of $ 76,226,568
, which represe nts 0.14 percent of the cost of diversion

– $53.4 billion

– is compared with the

anticipated reduction in the growth rate of costs associated with diversion of controlled

substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market. The CBA uses the costs associated with

the nonmedical use of prescription opioids as a conservative estimate of the total cost associated

with diversion of controlled substances and liste d chemicals into the illicit market.

14 FY 2012 Performance Budget Congressional Submission, p. DEA

- 70.32

It is preferable to conduct a discounted cash flow analysis where the costs and benefits

are quantified and the net benefits are calculated and presented in today’s dollar value.

However, the baseline cost s associated with diversion of controlled substances and listed

chemicals into the illicit market is unreliable. Therefore, a quantitative analysis is not possible

and a threshold analysis is utilized.

The threshold analysis considers whether the benefits of the rule are greater than or equal

to the cost of the rule.

As discussed above, the cost of the rule is $76,226,568 per year.

The b enefits of the rule are represented as the difference between the costs associated

with diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market at the baseline

and the costs associated with the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals i nto the

illicit market under the rule. 

### Benefits of Rule $0.076 billion33

The baseline costs associated with the diversion of controlled substances and listed

chemicals into the illicit market is estimated to be at least $53.4 billion (the cost associated with

the nonmedical use of prescription opioids in 2006).

Rearranging the equation,

Therefore, the break

- even would occur if the costs associated with diversion of controlled

substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market are reduced to $0.076 billion from a

baseline of “at least $53.4 billion.” 

### $0.076 billion Cost Associated with Diversion to illicit market (rule) 

# - Cost Associated with Diversion to illicit market (baseline)

$0.076 billion Cost Associated with Diversion to illicit market (rul e) 

# - At least $53.4 billion

$0.076 billion Cost Associated with Diversion to illicit market (rule) 

# - At least $53.4 billion34

7.4 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RULE

As an alternative way to present the threshold analysis, D EA offers an overall cost

benefit analysis comparing the increased fee collections under this rule, which support essential

enhancement in the effective operations of the Diversion Control Program (DCP), in correlation

to the societal costs from deaths resulting from the abuse of controlled substance

pharmaceuticals.

T he DCP is a strategic component of DEA that carries out the mandates of the CSA and

its regulations to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and li sted

chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring a sufficient supply of controlled substances and

listed chemicals for legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial purposes. The citizens

and residents of the United States bear an enormous cost from the abuse of controlled substance

pharmaceuticals. The National Drug Control Strategy is focused on all aspects of the problem

— supply, demand, and treatment. The DCP is focused on the supply side of this serious threat to

the public health and safety. DCP enforcement activities are designed to maintain the integrity

of the closed system of distribution for controlled substances in order to prevent, detect, and

eliminate diversion, thereby reducing the supply of dangerous controlled substance

pharmaceuticals available for abuse and the potential for deadly overdoses.

DEA notes that the Department of Transportation, for rulemaking purposes, calculates the
value of a statistical life (VSL) saved at an estimated $6.2 million each for purposes o f cost

- benefit

analyses. The last two updates to its estimate and its sources can be found at:

http://regs.dot.gov/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202008%20and%202009rev.pdf and

http://regs.dot.gov/docs/Value_of_Life_July_29_2011.pdf . See also OMB Circular A

- 4, which

contains more information on the factors that typically go into such an estimate.35

For the purposes of this cost

- benefit analysis, DEA is using $6.2 million as an appropriate

VSL estimate.

With respect to the prevalence of drug overdose deaths, DEA note s that t he Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that the number of poisoning deaths involving

any opioid analgesics increased from 4,041 in 1999 to 14, 800 in 200 8 , more than tripling in 9

years. 15

The estimated annual increase in regis tration and reregistration fees under this rule is $76

million.
Using these figures, only 13 lives (at a VSL of $6.2 million ) would need to be saved

each year through enhanced enforcement by the Diversion Control Program in order for the

benefits of such increased enforcement to exceed the cost of the additional fees collected in

support of the DCP.

15 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, November 4, 2011.