norml23 - Page 35

 The Acting Administrator also concluded that he was not required
 to refer the NORML petition to HEW for the report and findings
 contained in Section 20'1 (2)-(c) of the Act, because marijuana was
 controlled by the Single Convention, and Section 201 (d) of the CSA
 therefore applied, and displaced the Section 201(a)-(c) procedures.
 See 40 Fed. Rego at 44167.
 NORML filed a second petition for review in the D. Co Court of Ap-
 peals and on April 26, 1977, the Court again reversed and remanded,
 this time with a number of specific directions for DEA and HEW to
 follow. NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
 1. The Court's Decision In NORML v.
 DEA, 559 F.2d 735 (DoCo Cir. 1977).
 The NORML v. DEA decision focused on three pdncipaJ issues: (1)
 the degree of rescheduling for marijuana and its components which would
 be consistent with the Singte Convention treaty; (2) whether Section
 201(d) displaces the Section 201(a)-(c) procedures when an
 international obligation is involved; and (3) whether the letter from
 the Acting Assistant Secretary of Health was an adequate substitute for
 the Section 201(a)o(c) procedures.
 On the treaty issue, the Court concluded, had the Acting Adminis-
 trator, that al{ marijuana components could be rescheduBed consistent
 with the Single Convention. However, the Court went further than the
 DEA had on the precise degree of rescheduling that coumd be
 accompJished consistent with the treaty. The Court, after thoroughly
 reviewing the obligations imposed by the treaty, concJuded that
 synthetic THC could be rescheduled to Schedules IFV, cannabis seeds
 capable of germination could be reschedu_ed to Schedules IFV, and
 other materials defined as "cannabis" or "cannabis resin" could be
 rescheduled to Schedule IL NORML vo DEA, supra, 559 Fo2d 750-57.
 The second principa_ issue addressed by the Court was the
 interpretation of Section 201(d), and its reJationship to the Section
 201(a)-(c) referral procedures. In Section 201(a)-(c), Congress
 created a procedure by which any "interested person" couJd petition the
 Attorney General or his delegee to reschedule a control}ed substance.
 The proceeding must be conducted on the public record, and in
 accordance with the rulemaking procedures prescribed in the
 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 55t et Seqo See, Section
 201(a), 21 U.S.C. Sec. 81 l(a); NORML v. DEA, supra, 559 F.2d at 737_39.