2668 Federal Register / Vol. 5, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Notices

individual victims should the

enhancement be based?

The Commission also invites

comment on whether it should provide

an additional increase, cumulative to

the 2-level increase already proposed in

Option 1, for cases involving specified

numbers of individual victims or

unauthorized identification means. For

example, such an enhancement could

provide an additional [4-level]

enhancement if the offense involved

more than [10–25] unauthorized

identification means and/or more than

[5–25] individual victims. Alternatively,

should the Commission provide an

upward departure for cases involving a

large number of unauthorized

identification means and/or a large

number of individual victims?

2. The proposed amendment in

Option 1 limits the enhancement for

identity theft to the fraud guideline.

Given the breadth of offense conduct

covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1028, should the

Commission also provide a similar

sentencing increase (including, if

appropriate, an enhancement that ties

offense level increases to specified

numbers of identification means) for

identity theft conduct in [any or] all

other economic crime guidelines (e.g.,

§ 2B1.1 (Theft), § 2S1.1 (Laundering of

Monetary Instruments), § 2T1.4 (Tax

Fraud))?

3. Given the breadth of offense

conduct covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1028, as

an alternative to amending Chapter

Two, should the Commission amend

Chapter Three of the Guidelines

Manual, relating to general adjustments,

to provide a new adjustment that would

apply in every case that involves the

unauthorized use of an identification

means? If so, how should that

adjustment be structured (e.g., should

there be a table or tiered adjustment

based on the number of unauthorized

identification means involved in the

offense)? Should the adjustment also

include the unauthorized use of any

identification document or the use of

any false identification document?

4. As an alternative to a Chapter Three

adjustment, should the Commission

amend Chapter Five, Part K, of the

Guidelines Manual, relating to

departures, to encourage a departure

above the authorized guideline sentence

in any case involving the unauthorized

use of an identification means if the

guideline range does not adequately

reflect the seriousness of the offense

conduct?

5. The Treasury Department has

recommended that the Commission

amend its current minimum loss

amount rule for stolen credit card

offenses in § 2B1.1 (a minimum loss

amount of $100 per credit card) to

include all access devices, and that the

minimum loss amount be increased to

$1000 per access device. Given that the

Identity Theft and Assumption

Deterrence Act of 1998 included access

devices in the definition of ‘‘means of

identification,’’ the Commission invites

comment on whether it should consider

amending that rule to include all access

devices (such as debit cards, bank

account numbers, electronic serial

numbers, and mobile identification

numbers) and to place that amended

rule in § 2F1.1. Such a rule would have

the effect of subjecting an offense that

involves an unauthorized identification

means that is a credit card number to

the same minimum loss amount as an

offense that involves the stolen credit

card itself. If the Commission should

consider such an amendment, should

the Commission additionally amend the

rule to increase the minimum loss

amount per access device, for example

[$500][$750][$1000] per access device?

(Such an amendment may need to be

coordinated with efforts to revise the

theft guideline in connection with

offenses involving access devices and

cellular phone cloning.)

6. Commission data indicate that a

high portion of offenders involved in

identity theft conduct have previously

been convicted of similar offense

conduct at either the state or federal

level. Although Chapter Four addresses

criminal history, the Commission has

provided enhancements in certain

Chapter Two guidelines for prior similar

conduct (e.g., §§ 2L2.1(b)(4) and

2L2.2(b)(2), which provide two- and

four-level increases if ‘‘the defendant

committed any part of the instant

offense after sustaining one or more

convictions for felony immigration and

naturalization offenses’’). Should the

Commission provide an enhancement in

the relevant Chapter Two guideline

(§ 2F1.1, if the Commission adopts a

limited approach to identity theft) or

guidelines (the economic crime

guidelines, if the Commission adopts a

more expansive approach to identity

theft) if the defendant had previously

been convicted of conduct similar to

identity theft? If so, what is the

appropriate number of levels for the

enhancement? Should such an

enhancement require a minimum

offense level?

[FR Doc. 00–1075 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210–40–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3205]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Music

in the Age of Confucius’’

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

following determinations: Pursuant to

the authority vested in me by the Act of

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C.

2459 ), the Foreign Affairs Reform and

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat.

2681, et seq.), Delegation of Authority

No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and

Delegation of Authority of October 19,

1999, I hereby determine that the objects

to be included in the exhibition ‘‘Music

in the Age of Confucius,’’ imported from

abroad for the temporary exhibition

without profit within the United States,

are of cultural significance. These

objects are imported pursuant to loan

agreements with foreign lenders. I also

determine that the exhibition or display

of the exhibit objects at the

Smithsonian’s, Freer Gallery of Art and

Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, from on or

about April 30 to September 17, 2000,

is in the national interest. Public Notice

of these Determinations is ordered to be

published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, including a list of

exhibit objects, contact Carol Epstein,

Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal

Adviser, U.S. Department of State

(telephone: 202–619–6981). The address

is U.S. Department of State, SA–44;

301–4th Street, S.W., Room 700,

Washington, D.C. 20547–0001.

Dated: January 9, 2000.

William B. Bader,

Assistant Secretary for Educational and

Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 00–1077 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–U

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3205]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘The

Topkapi Palace: Jewels and Treasures

of the Sultans’’

DEPARTMENT: United States Department

of State.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

following determinations: Pursuant to

the authority vested in me by the Act of

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C.

2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and

Federal Register / Vol. 5, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Notices 2669

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat.

2681, et seq.), Delegation of Authority

No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and

Delegation of Authority of October 19,

1999, I hereby determine that the objects

to be included in the exhibition ‘‘The

Topkapi Palace: Jewels and Treasures of

the Sultans,’’ imported from abroad for

the temporary exhibition without profit

within the United States, are of cultural

significance. These objects are imported

pursuant to loan agreements with

foreign lenders. I also determine that the

exhibition or display of the exhibit

objects at the Corcoran Gallery of Art,

the San Diego Museum of Art and the

Fort Lauderdale Museum of Art from on

or about March 1, 2000, to on or about

October 15, 2001, is in the national

interest. Public Notice of these

Determinations is ordered to be

published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, including a list of

exhibit objects, contact Carol Epstein,

Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal

Adviser, U.S. Department of State

(telephone: 202–619–6981). The address

is U.S. Department of State, SA–44;

301–4th Street, S.W., Room 700,

Washington, D.C. 20547-0001.

Dated: January 9, 2000.

William B. Bader,

Assistant Secretary for Educational and

Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 00–1076 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–U

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 3187]

Shipping Coordinating Committee;

Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea

and Associated Bodies Working Group

on Stability and Load Lines and on

Fishing Vessels Safety; Notice of

Meeting

The Working Group on Stability and

Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels

Safety of the Subcommittee on Safety of

Life at Sea will conduct an open

meeting at 9 a.m. on Monday, January

31, 2000, in Room 6103, at U.S. Coast

Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593–

0001. This meeting will discuss the

upcoming 43RD Session of the

Subcommittee on Stability and Load

Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety

(SLF) and associated bodies of the

International Maritime Organization

(IMO) which will be held on September

11–15, 2000, at the IMO Headquarters in

London, England.

Items of discussion will include the

following:

a. Review of results from last SLF

meeting (SLF 42),

b. Harmonization of damage stability

provisions in the IMO instruments,

c. Revision of technical regulations of

the 1966 International Load Line

Convention,

d. Revision of the High Speed Craft

Code,

e. Development of the damage

consequence diagrams for inclusion in

damage control plan guidelines, and

f. Revisions to the Fishing Vessel

Safety Code and Voluntary Guidelines

Members of the public may attend

this meeting up to the seating capacity

of the room. Interested persons may

seek information by writing: Mr. Paul

Cojeen, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

Commandant (G–MSE–2), Room 1308,

2100 Second Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20593–0001 or by calling (202) 267–

2988.

Dated: January 5, 2000.

Stephen M. Miller,

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating

Committee.

[FR Doc. 00–984 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

To Use the Revenue From a Passenger

Facility Charge (PFC) at Hector

International Airport, Fargo, North

Dakota

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on

Application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to use the revenue from a

PFC at Hector International Airport

under the provisions of the Aviation

Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of

1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received or

before February 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Federal Aviation

Administration, Bismarck Airports

District Office, 2000 University Drive,

Bismarck, North Dakota 58504.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Shawn

Dobberstein, Executive Director, of the

Municipal Airport Authority, Fargo,

North Dakota at the following address:

Municipal Airport Authority, P.O. Box

2845, Fargo, North Dakota 58108.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the Municipal

Airport Authority, Fargo, North Dakota

under § 158.23 of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Irene R. Porter, Manager, Bismarck

Airports District Office, 2000 University

Drive, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504,

(701) 250–4385. The application may be

reviewed in person at this same

location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invite public

comment on the application to use the

revenue from a PFC at Hector

International Airport under the

provisions of the Aviation Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title

IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On December 29, 1999, the FAA

determined that the application to use

the revenue from a PFC submitted by

the Municipal Airport Authority, Fargo,

North Dakota was substantially

complete within the requirements of

§ 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than March

29, 2000.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

PFC application number: 00–04–U–

00–FAR.

Level of the PFC: $3.00.

Actual charge effective date: January

1, 1997.

Estimated charge expiration date:

February 1, 2000.

Total approved net PFC revenue:

$1,720,410.00.

Brief description of proposed project:

Install a box culvert in Cass County

Drain 10.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi/

Commercial Operator (ATCO) Class

Carriers filing FAA Form 1800–31.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under ‘‘FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.’’

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Municipal

Airport Authority, Fargo, North

Dakota—Executive Directors offices at

the Hector International Airport.