norml23 - Page 52

 relied on extensivemy in the decision in NORML v. DEA, and referred to
 in the DENs finaf decision below, 44 Fed. Reg. at 36123 fn. 5. The
 Reports are also quoted as the only authorities in two articJes
 discussion Section 201(c) findings, Drug Enforcernent Administration,
 "The Controlled Substances Act," in Drug Enforcement (July 1979), at
 pgs. 8-9 Vodra, "The Controlled Substances Act," in Drug Enforcement
 (Spring 1975), at pgs. 37-38.
 in addition to the specific findings required by the House and
 Senate Reports, the DEA must also comply with the general requirement
 the Administrative agency decisions be supported by specific, detailed,
 and non-conclusionary findings. Braniff Airways, Inc. w C.A.B., 113
 U.So App. D.C. i32, 135, 306 F.2d 739, 742 (1962). This requirement has
 been held to apply to CSA rescheduling proceedings. Hoffman-LaRoche,
 Inc. DEA, the Court: v. Kteindienst, 478 Fo2d 1, 6 (3d Cir. 1973)o Jn
 NORML v. concluded that the letter from the Assistant Secretary for
 Health did not contain sufficient detail to satisfy-the findings
 required by Section 201 of the CSA:
 The one-page letter makes conclusionary
 statements without providing a basis or explanation
 for its findings .... The basis of his evaluation
 shouad be eJaborated.
 NORML v. DEA, supra, 559 F.2d at 749.
 The Administrative Procedure Act also requires a reviewing Court
 to set aside agency findings which are arbitrary, capricious or
 "otherwise not in accordance with lawo" 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A)°
 DEA did not make separate findings on most of the areas listed in
 Section 201(c), but instead adopted the HEW findings. DEA merely
 quoted statutory language in Section 201(c) and then referred to the
 HEW findings, which were incorporated by reference. 44 Fed. Reg. at
 36124 Cots. 2-3. The DEA decision acknowledges that the medical and
 scientific findings of HEW were "statutori_y binding" on DEA. 44 Fed.
 Reg. at 361 24, Col. 3; CSA Sec. 201(b).
 a. Potential for Abuse
 The first factor which must be considered is the substance's
 actual or relative potential for abuse," Section 201(c)(1). The DEA's
 consideration of this factor was inadequate because it focused