62342 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

mortgagee may request an informal 

conference with the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Single Family Housing or 

designee. The conference will be 

conducted within 30 days after HUD 

receives a timely request for the 

conference. After the conference, the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (or designee) 

may decide to affirm the termination 

action or to reinstate the mortgagee’s 

Lender Insurance program approval. 

The decision will be communicated to 

the mortgagee in writing, will be 

deemed a final agency action, and, 

pursuant to section 256(d) of the 

National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z– 

21(d)), is not subject to judicial review. 

(3) Termination of an origination 

approval agreement under part 202 of 

this chapter or termination of Direct 

Endorsement approval under 

§ 203.3(d)(2) for a mortgagee or one or 

more branch offices automatically 

terminates Lender Insurance approval 

for the mortgagee or the branch office or 

offices, without imposing any further 

requirement on the mortgagee or such 

offices to comply with this paragraph. 

(4) Any termination instituted under 

this section is distinct from withdrawal 

of mortgagee approval by the Mortgagee 

Review Board under 24 CFR part 25. 

3. In § 203.255, revise paragraph (f)(1), 

remove paragraph (f)(4), and add 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 203.255 Insurance of mortgage. 

* * * * * 

(f) Lender Insurance. (1) Preinsurance review. For applications for 

insurance involving mortgages 

originated under the Lender Insurance 

program under § 203.6, the mortgagee is 

responsible for performing a preinsurance review that would otherwise 

be performed by HUD under 

§ 203.255(c) on the documents that 

would otherwise be submitted to HUD 

under § 203.255(b). The mortgagee’s 

staff that performs the pre-insurance 

review must not be the same staff that 

originated the mortgage or underwrote 

the mortgage for insurance. 

* * * * * 

(g) Indemnification. (1) General. By 

insuring the mortgage, a Lender 

Insurance mortgagee agrees to 

indemnify HUD, in accordance with this 

paragraph. 

(2) Definition of origination. For 

purposes of indemnification under this 

paragraph, the term ‘‘origination’’ means 

the process of creating a mortgage, 

starting with the taking of the initial 

application, continuing with the 

processing and underwriting, and 

ending with the mortgagee endorsing 

the mortgage note for FHA insurance. 

(3) Serious and material violation. 

The mortgagee shall indemnify HUD for 

an FHA insurance claim paid within 5 

years of mortgage insurance 

endorsement, if the mortgagee knew or 

should have known of a serious and 

material violation of FHA origination 

requirements, such that the mortgage 

loan should not have been approved 

and endorsed by the mortgagee and 

irrespective of whether the violation 

caused the mortgage default. Such a 

serious and material violation of FHA 

requirements in the origination of the 

mortgage may occur if the mortgagee 

failed to, among other actions: 

(i) Verify the creditworthiness, 

income, and/or employment of the 

mortgagor in accordance with FHA 

requirements; 

(ii) Verify the assets brought by the 

mortgagor for payment of the required 

down payment and/or closing costs in 

accordance with FHA requirements; or 

(iii) Address property deficiencies 

identified in the appraisal affecting the 

health and safety of the occupants or the 

structural integrity of the property in 

accordance with FHA requirements, or 

(iv) Ensure that the appraisal of the 

property serving as security for the 

mortgage loan satisfies FHA appraisal 

requirements, in accordance with 

§ 203.5(e). 

(4) Fraud or misrepresentation. The 

mortgagee shall indemnify HUD for an 

insurance claim if fraud or 

misrepresentation was involved in 

connection with the origination of the 

mortgage, regardless of when the 

mortgage was endorsed for insurance 

and irrespective of whether the fraud or 

misrepresentation caused the mortgage 

default. 

(5) Demand for indemnification. The 

demand for indemnification will be 

made by either the Secretary or the 

Mortgagee Review Board. Under an 

indemnification agreement, the Lender 

Insurance mortgagee agrees to either 

abstain from filing an insurance claim, 

or reimburse FHA if a subsequent 

holder of the mortgage files an 

insurance claim and FHA suffers a 

financial loss. 

Dated: September 16, 2010. 

David H. Stevens, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25441 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 2 

Paroling, Recommitting, and 

Supervising Federal Prisoners: 

Prisoners Serving Sentences Under 

the United States and District of 

Columbia Codes 

AGENCY: United States Parole 

Commission, Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Parole 

Commission seeks public comment on a 

proposed rule that would amend the 

Offense Behavior Severity Index in its 

paroling policy guidelines to equalize 

the ratings for crack cocaine and powder 

cocaine offenses. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification 

number USPC–2010–03 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 

Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase, 

Maryland 20815. 

• Fax: (301) 492–5563. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Johanna E. Markind, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Parole 

Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., 

Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815, 

telephone (301) 492–5959. Questions 

about this publication are welcome, but 

inquiries concerning individual cases 

cannot be answered over the telephone. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Parole Commission is 

responsible for making parole release 

decisions for those federal prisoners 

who are eligible for parole under the 

now-repealed indeterminate sentencing 

system. Under this system, a prisoner 

may be released to community 

supervision after he serves a minimum 

term required by his sentence or by 

operation of law. After the Commission 

makes a discretionary judgment to 

release the prisoner and imposes 

conditions of release, the released 

prisoner remains on supervision until 

the expiration of his sentence or his 

supervision is terminated early. Parole 

may be revoked and the offender 

returned to imprisonment for violating 

the conditions of release. The 

Commission carries out its duties under 

the statutes at 18 U.S.C. 4201–4218. The 

Commission also has similar 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62343 

responsibility for making parole release 

and revocation decisions for District of 

Columbia parole-eligible prisoners, 

under the National Capital 

Revitalization and Self-Government 

Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 

105–33. Regarding DC prisoners who 

committed their crimes after August 4, 

2000, the Commission has responsibility 

for imposing conditions of supervised 

release and revoking supervised release 

terms for violation of the conditions. 

The Parole Commission uses paroling 

policy guidelines in making decisions 

on parole release for parole-eligible 

federal prisoners, and federal and DC 

parolees whose paroles have been 

revoked and are eligible for reparole. 

These guidelines are also used for D.C. 

supervised releasees whose supervised 

release has been revoked. The 

guidelines are found at 28 CFR 2.20 and 

consist of an Offense Behavior Severity 

Index and a parole prognosis based on 

an actuarial tool known as the Salient 

Factor Score. The Offense Behavior 

Severity Index divides various crimes, 

including drug distribution crimes, into 

eight categories, from Category One 

(lowest severity) to Category Eight 

(highest severity). The guidelines also 

list four parole prognoses based on the 

Salient Factor Score from ‘‘very good’’ to 

‘‘poor’’. The offense categories are 

arrayed on a vertical axis and the parole 

prognoses on a horizontal axis. At the 

intersection of each offense category and 

parole prognosis, there is a suggested 

range of months to be served before 

release. For example, a prisoner with an 

offense severity rating of Category Five 

and a parole prognosis of poor has a 

suggested range of 60–72 months to be 

served. The Commission may set a 

release date that falls within the 

guideline range, or make a decision 

outside the guidelines. 

In February 2010, the Commission 

Chair appointed a committee to review 

the Commission’s rating of crack 

cocaine offenses and to recommend any 

changes it believed were needed. The 

committee’s findings are summarized 

below. Based on those findings, the 

committee recommended that the Parole 

Commission amend its Offense Behavior 

Severity Index to equalize the weight 

ratios between powder and crack 

cocaine. 

Study Committee Findings 

Effective April 5, 1987, the Parole 

Commission adopted its current 

guidelines for grading the severity of 

offenses involving cocaine distribution. 

See 52 FR 5761–63 (Feb. 26, 1987). 

The Commission created separate 

guidelines for freebase or ‘‘crack’’ 

cocaine, and powder cocaine, under 

which offenses involving crack are 

sanctioned more severely than offenses 

involving powder cocaine, generally 

under a 10-to-1 ratio. That is, an 

offender distributing (or intending to 

distribute) a given weight of crack is 

presumptively sanctioned the same as 

an offender distributing (or intending to 

distribute) ten times that weight of 

powder cocaine. The Commission 

instituted the change because it was 

concerned that its prior guidelines did 

not appropriately sanction offenses 

related to the freebase form of the drug 

given the addictive nature of crack 

cocaine, the violence associated with its 

manufacture and distribution, and its 

relatively inexpensive street sale price. 

Former Senator D’Amato apparently 

recommended the 10-to-1 ratio. 51 FR 

42594 (Nov. 25, 1986); 52 FR 5762. The 

basis for the selection of the 10-to-1 

ratio was not further explained. The 

Commission sought public comment 

about ‘‘the relative potency of ‘CRACK’ 

cocaine as compared with other forms of 

the drug,’’ but did not receive any 

response. 51 FR 42594; 52 FR 5762. 

The Commission’s current policy was 

adopted at about the same time 

Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse 

Act of 1986, Public Law 99–570, and at 

the time the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission was formulating its 

sentencing guidelines. Crack was a 

relatively new drug at the time but, in 

the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, it 

was ‘‘a matter of great public concern.’’ 

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 

85, 95 (2007). The 1986 Anti-Drug 

Abuse Act reflected that concern by 

adopting a 100-to-1 ratio that treated a 

single gram of crack as equivalent to 100 

grams of powder cocaine. The 

Sentencing Commission incorporated 

the 1986 law’s 100-to-1 ratio for crack 

offenses. Subsequently, the Sentencing 

Commission conducted research into 

cocaine usage and addiction as well as 

research into the application of the 

federal sentencing guidelines. The 

Sentencing Commission’s February 

1995 report Cocaine and Federal 

Sentencing Policy concluded that under 

the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity, lowlevel ‘street’ dealers potentially receive 

harsher punishments than major drug 

traffickers, whereas the 1986 Anti-Drug 

Abuse Act was intended to have the 

opposite effect. The Sentencing 

Commission’s May 2002 report on the 

same subject included the following 

findings: 

a. Crack is typically prepared at or 

near the end of the distribution chain. 

Two-thirds of federal crack cocaine 

offenders were street-level dealers and 

only 5.9% performed trafficking 

functions. 

b. ‘‘The overwhelming majority of 

offenders subject to the heightened 

crack cocaine penalties are black, about 

85 percent in 2000 * * *. This has 

contributed to a widely held perception 

that the current penalty structure 

promotes unwarranted disparity based 

on race.’’ 

c. Cocaine in any form produces the 

same physiological and psychotropic 

effects, but powder cocaine, because it 

is usually snorted, poses a lesser risk of 

addiction to the typical user than does 

crack cocaine, which is usually smoked. 

Precisely quantifying this difference in 

addictiveness is impossible. 

d. While serious, the relative 

harmfulness of crack has been 

exaggerated. Violence was associated 

only with a small minority of crack 

offenses. In 2000, three out of four crack 

offenders had no involvement with a 

weapon and even when offenders 

possessed weapons, the weapons were 

rarely used. Only 2.3% of crack 

offenders used a weapon, and only 7.9% 

of crack offenses involved bodily injury 

of any type. Research showed that the 

negative effects of prenatal exposure to 

crack were identical to the negative 

effects of cocaine powder. The feared 

epidemic of youth using crack did not 

materialize to the extent feared. 

The Commission’s study committee 

relied upon research collected by the 

Sentencing Commission as its starting 

point in reviewing Parole Commission 

policies for sanctioning crack cocaine 

offenses. Glen R. Hanson, then Acting 

Director, National Institute on Drug 

Abuse, National Institutes of Health, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, testified before the Sentencing 

Commission on February 25, 2002, that: 

‘‘Cocaine, in any form, produces the 

same effects once it reaches the brain. It 

produces similar physiological and 

psychological effects, but the onset, 

intensity and duration of its effects are 

related directly to the method of use and 

how rapidly cocaine enters the brain.’’ 

According to Dr. Hanson, a drug user 

snorting powder cocaine begins to feel 

the ‘‘high’’ within 3–5 minutes, the 

blood level peaks at 10–20 minutes, and 

fades within 45–60 minutes. 

Intravenous use, or injection—for which 

powder cocaine is also used—results in 

a cocaine ‘‘rush’’ within 30–45 seconds 

and the drug’s effects last for 10–20 

minutes. Inhalation, or smoking—i.e., 

using crack—produces the quickest and 

highest peak blood levels in the brain. 

The user experiences the ‘‘high’’ within 

only 8–10 seconds. On February 12, 

2008, the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs 

received similar testimony from Nora D. 

Volkow, current Director, National 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62344 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Institute on Drug Abuse, National 

Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, to the 

effect that crack and powder cocaine 

have the same effect on the brain but 

that the user experiences the high and 

low much faster by smoking crack than 

by snorting cocaine powder. 

Unlike the offense ratings for powder 

cocaine, the ratings for crack do not 

require the Parole Commission to 

determine its purity level before 

determining the severity category for the 

possession or distribution of the drug. 

The study committee examined whether 

the guidelines should be revised to 

consider purity level for a mixture 

containing cocaine base as it does for a 

mixture containing cocaine powder. 

When the guidelines were developed in 

the 1970s, the purity of cocaine powder 

and heroin varied widely from original 

production to street level distribution. It 

was not uncommon to see virtually pure 

cocaine powder diluted numerous times 

with cutting agents as it moved down 

the line through various levels of drug 

dealers. Therefore, the Commission 

determined that the only fair way to 

gauge the seriousness of a cocaine 

offense was to ascertain the purity of the 

substance and to sanction based only on 

the actual amount (weight) of pure 

cocaine involved. 

In considering the issue of an 

appropriate severity rating for crack 

cocaine, the Commission was aware that 

once crack rocks are produced, they can 

be cut into smaller rocks but they 

cannot readily be diluted. The purity 

remains the same as the product moves 

down the distribution chain. Moreover, 

the purity of crack produced for use 

generally does not vary much from one 

batch to the next. Much as the purity of 

marijuana remains rather constant from 

batch to batch, the seriousness of crack 

offenses seemed to be better judged 

strictly by gross quantity (weight) 

without regard for purity. 

More recent information indicates 

that there is some variance in the purity 

levels of crack, but less so than in the 

purity levels of powder cocaine. This 

conclusion is based on interviews 

conducted by committee members and 

by the written conclusions of the 

Sentencing Commission. The 

Sentencing Commission’s 1995 report 

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy 

states: ‘‘One gram of pure powder 

cocaine will convert to approximately 

0.89 grams of crack cocaine. The Drug 

Enforcement Administration estimates 

that crack rocks are between 75 and 90 

percent pure cocaine.’’ 

The bulk of the Parole Commission’s 

current caseload involving crack sales 

concerns small-time street sales in the 

District of Columbia. The Commission’s 

experience is that the DEA laboratory 

performs an analysis of crack 

confiscated by DC police only if a case 

appears headed for trial. If the case 

appears headed for a guilty plea or if a 

revocation hearing is held before a case 

is adjudicated, it is often difficult for the 

Commission to obtain a laboratory 

report. As a practical matter, 

Commission files frequently do not 

contain DEA lab reports in crack 

cocaine cases, and so it would be 

impossible in many cases to determine 

the purity level of crack involved. 

The committee sought feedback from 

Commission hearing examiners about 

the current policy and whether it should 

be changed. Those examiners who 

responded unanimously favored 

equalizing the treatment of crack and 

powder cocaine. The general consensus 

was that the existing sanctions for crack 

are too harsh and discriminatory 

(socioeconomically if not racially), and 

that many of those caught selling were 

not in fact hard-core dealers but were 

essentially addicts trying to fund their 

own habit. 

In sum, the study committee found: 

a. There was no empirical basis for 

the 10-to-1 ratio adopted by the Parole 

Commission in 1987 which is currently 

used in Commission guidelines. 

b. Cocaine in any form produces the 

same physiological and psychotropic 

effects on the brain. 

c. Crack cocaine is more addictive 

than powder cocaine because the 

method of taking the drug (inhalation) 

results in the user experiencing a faster 

‘‘high’’ and faster ‘‘crash.’’ Unfortunately, 

the committee was unable to identify 

any authoritative sources quantifying 

the increased risk of addiction that 

crack represents. Furthermore, a user 

who injects powder also experiences a 

rapid high and low from the drug, 

although the effects from injection are 

not felt quite as rapidly as from smoking 

crack, and powder is more often snorted 

than injected. 

d. According to the DEA and 

Sentencing Commission, one gram of 

cocaine powder converts/reduces to 

0.89 gram cocaine base. Conversely, one 

gram of cocaine base would convert to 

1.12 grams of cocaine powder. 

e. As a practical matter, establishing 

the exact purity ratio of crack in a 

transaction that is examined by the 

Commission but that did not result in a 

trial would be all but impossible in most 

revocation cases unless a practical 

means is found for hearing examiners to 

obtain laboratory analyses on a 

consistent basis. 

f. Commission hearing examiners who 

provided feedback to the committee 

unanimously favored equalizing the 

weight-based sanctions for crack and 

powder cocaine. 

Revision of Sentencing Guidelines 

Ratio 

In 1995, the Sentencing Commission 

recommended eliminating the 

sentencing guidelines’ 100-to-1 

disparity in rating powder cocaine and 

crack cocaine crimes. After Congress 

rejected that suggestion, the Sentencing 

Commission recommended reducing the 

disparity to 5-to-1. In 2007, the 

Sentencing Commission adopted an 

ameliorative change reducing the 

sentencing guidelines base offense score 

by two levels in crack cases to reduce 

the disparity; depending on the weight 

of drugs involved, the revised ratio 

varied from 25-to-1 to 50-to-1. 

In July 2009, the House Judiciary 

Committee approved legislation (H.R. 

3245, The Fairness in Cocaine 

Sentencing Act of 2009) that would 

completely eliminate the disparity 

between powder and crack cocaine. On 

October 15, 2009, Senator Durbin 

introduced a draft bill (S. 1789, The Fair 

Sentencing Act) in the Senate that 

would likewise have eliminated the 

disparity. On March 11, 2010, the 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

unanimously approved a revised 

version that reduced the disparity on 

new sentences to 18-to-1. The full 

Senate passed the bill (applying an 18- 

to-1 ratio) on March 17, 2010, and the 

House approved it on July 28, 2010. 

Now known as the Fair Sentencing Act 

of 2010, the President signed it into law 

on August 3, 2010. 

Opponents of equalization of crack 

and powder cocaine offenses have 

argued that differential treatment of 

powder and crack cocaine offenses is 

supported by the association of violence 

with crack crimes. The new law requires 

the Sentencing Commission to provide 

a sentencing enhancement ‘‘if the 

defendant used violence’’ or threatened 

or directed the use of violence. Parole 

Commission guidelines take violence 

into account through a different method. 

In the case of drug crimes involving 

violence, if the guidelines offense 

severity rating for the violent/assaultive 

conduct exceeds the rating for the drug 

offense, the former will be applied. 

Study Committee Recommendations 

and Commission Action 

After weighing the above findings, the 

study committee recommended that the 

Commission propose a rule change to 

the paroling guidelines at Chapter Nine 

of the Offense Behavior Severity Index 

that would equalize the offense severity 

ratings for crack and powder cocaine 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62345 

offenses. The Commission recently 

voted to promulgate a proposed rule for 

public comment that would remove the 

different ratings for crack and powder 

cocaine crimes. The proposed rule also 

makes minor revisions to the breakdown 

of drug weights in the interest of greater 

clarity and consistency. 

Executive Order 12866 

The U.S. Parole Commission has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not constitute a significant rule within 

the meaning of Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

require a Federalism Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact upon a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The rule will not cause State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

to spend $100,000,000 or more in any 

one year, and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. No 

action under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 is necessary. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act) 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by Section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act), now 

codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will 

not result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies. 

Moreover, this is a rule of agency 

practice or procedure that does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties, and 

does not come within the meaning of 

the term ‘‘rule’’ as used in Section 

804(3)(c), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 

804(3)(c). Therefore, the reporting 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 

apply. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Prisoners, Probation and 

parole. 

The Proposed Rule 

Accordingly, the U.S. Parole 

Commission is proposing the following 

amendment to 28 CFR part 2. 

PART 2—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 2 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 

4204(a)(6). 

2. Amend § 2.20, in the U.S. Parole 

Commission Offense Behavior Severity 

Index, Chapter Nine—Offenses 

Involving Illicit Drugs, by revising the 

entry entitled ‘‘921 Distribution or 

Possession With Intent To Distribute’’ in 

Subchapter C—Cocaine Offenses to read 

as follows: 

§ 2.20 Paroling policy guidelines: 

Statement of general policy. 

* * * * * 

U.S. Parole Commission Offense 

Behavior Severity Index 

* * * * * 

Chapter Nine—Offenses Involving Illicit 

Drugs 

* * * * * 

Subchapter C—Cocaine Offenses 

921 Distribution or Possession With 

Intent To Distribute 

(a) If extremely large scale (e.g., 

involving 15 kilograms or more cocaine 

powder of 100% purity, or equivalent 

amount; or 15 kilograms of a substance 

containing a detectable amount of 

cocaine base), grade as Category Eight 

[except as noted in (c) below]; 

(b) If very large scale (e.g., involving 

at least 5 kilograms but less than 15 

kilograms cocaine powder of 100% 

purity, or equivalent amount; or at least 

5 kilograms but less than 15 kilograms 

of a substance containing a detectable 

amount of cocaine base), grade as 

Category Seven [except as noted in (c) 

below]; 

(c) Where the Commission finds that 

the offender had only a peripheral role*, 

grade conduct under (a) or (b) as 

Category Six; 

(d) If large scale (e.g., involving at 

least 1 kilogram but less than 5 

kilograms cocaine powder of 100% 

purity, or equivalent amount; or at least 

1 kilogram but less than 5 kilograms of 

a substance containing a detectable 

amount of cocaine base), grade as 

Category Six [except as noted in (e) 

below]; 

(e) Where the Commission finds that 

the offender had only a peripheral role, 

grade conduct under (d) as Category 

Five; 

(f) If medium scale (e.g., involving at 

least 100 grams but less than 1 kilogram 

cocaine powder of 100% purity, or 

equivalent amount; or at least 100 grams 

but less than 1 kilogram of a substance 

containing a detectable amount of 

cocaine base), grade as Category Five; 

(g) If small scale (e.g., involving at 

least 5 grams but less than 100 grams 

cocaine powder of 100% purity, or 

equivalent amount; or at least 5 grams 

but less than 100 grams of a substance 

containing a detectable amount of 

cocaine base), grade as Category Four; 

(h) If very small scale (e.g., involving 

at least 1 gram but less than 5 grams 

cocaine powder of 100% purity, or 

equivalent amount; or at least 1 gram 

but less than 5 grams of a substance 

containing a detectable amount of 

cocaine base), grade as Category Three; 

(i) If extremely small scale (e.g., 

involving less than 1 gram cocaine 

powder of 100% purity, or equivalent 

amount; or less than 1 gram of a 

substance containing a detectable 

amount of cocaine base), grade as 

Category Two. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 17, 2010. 

Isaac Fulwood, 

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24648 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. RM 2009–4] 

Minimum Balance Requirement and 

Automatic Replenishment Option for 

Deposit Account Holders 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is 

proposing to amend its regulations to set 

the minimum level of activity required 

to hold a deposit account at 12 

transactions per year; require deposit 

account holders to maintain a minimum 

balance in that account; mandate the 

closure of a deposit account the second 

time it is overdrawn; and offer deposit 

account holders the option of automatic 

replenishment of their account via their 

bank account or credit card. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received in the Office of the General 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1