Attorney General of Arkansas — Opinion
Opinion Delivered June 16, 2010
Page 1
DUSTIN McDANIEL, Attorney General
The Honorable Donna Hutchinson State Representative
24 Rillington Drive Bella Vista, Arkansas 72714-3204
Dear Representative Hutchinson:
This is in response to your request for my opinion on the following question concerning the substance known as “K2,” which you describe as “a legal smoking blend of herbs and spices that is sprayed with synthetic cannabinoids”:
Does the Director of the Department of Health have authority under Arkansas Code § 5-64-201 — 5-64-216 to adopt an emergency rule to place K2 among the state’s listed controlled substances?
RESPONSE
In my opinion, the answer to this question depends upon the requisite findings under A.C.A. § 5-64-201, which is part of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (A.C.A. § 5-64-101 et seq. (Repl. 2005 and Supp. 2009)). As a general matter, the answer is “yes” if, as discussed further below, the necessary findings are made and all applicable procedures are followed. I cannot offer a more definitive opinion because the question ultimately turns on factual determinations which are outside the scope of an opinion from this office.
The Director of the Department of Health (hereinafter “Director”) is given authority to designate controlled substances pursuant to A.C.A. § 5-64-201 as follows:
The Director of the [Department of Health] shall administer this chapter and may add a substance to or delete or reschedule any
Page 2
substance enumerated in a schedule pursuant to the procedures of the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq.[1]
A.C.A. § 5-64-201(a)(1)(A) (Repl. 2005) (emphasis added).[2]
The Director thus has the authority to issue a rule pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) regarding controlled substances. With regard to your specific question concerning an “emergency rule,” the APA provides:
(1) If an agency finds that imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare or compliance with federal laws or regulations requires adoption of a rule upon less than thirty (30) days’ notice and states in writing its reasons for that finding, it may proceed without prior notice or hearing, or upon any abbreviated notice and hearing that it may choose, to adopt an emergency rule.
(2) The rule may be effective for no longer than one hundred twenty (120) days.
A.C.A. § 25-15-204(b) (Supp. 2009).[3]
Page 3
This emergency rulemaking authority under the APA would appear to be included within A.C.A. § 5-64-201(a)(1)(A)’s general reference to the entire APA. Section 5-64-201 contains no express language stating that the Director has no emergency rulemaking authority. I believe it reasonably follows, as a general proposition, that the Director may utilize the APA’s emergency rulemaking procedures.
With regard, specifically, to scheduling “K2” as a controlled substance, however, reference must be made to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and specifically the following requirement:
In making a determination regarding a substance, the director shall consider the following:
(A) The actual or relative potential for abuse;
(B) The scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;
(C) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the substance;
(D) The history and current pattern of abuse;
(E) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
(F) The risk to public health;
(G) The potential of the substance to produce psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(H) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
A.C.A. § 5-64-201(a) (Repl. 2005).
After considering these factors, the Director must, additionally, “make findings with respect to the factors and issue a rule controlling the substance if he or she finds the substance has a potential for abuse.” Id. at (b).
Page 4
In adding K2 to a schedule under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, therefore, the Director must make the requisite findings under A.C.A. § 5-64-201. Additionally, in enacting an emergency rule under the APA, the Department must “state in writing” the reasons for finding that “imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare” requires adoption of the emergency rule without prior notice. A.C.A. § 25-15-204(b), supra. See also Wagnon v. Health Services Agency, 73 Ark. App. 269, 40 S.W.3d 849 (2001). No rule is valid unless it has been adopted and filed in substantial compliance with section 25-15-204. Wagnon, 73 Ark. App. at 273 (citing A.C.A. § 25-15-204(f)).
Thus, in my opinion, the answer to your question is generally “yes” if the necessary findings are made and all applicable procedures are followed.
Deputy Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General
Acts 2007, No. 384, § 1.
Page 1