51920 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

10With respect to the DIAMONDS Trust, the

Sponsor has the discretionary right to terminate the

Trust if the value of Trust Securities (as defined in

the Trust registration statement) falls below

$150,000,000 at any time after six months

following, and prior to three years following,

inception of the Trust. Following such time, the

Sponsor has the discretionary right to terminate if

Trust Securities fall below $350,000,000 in value,

adjusted annually for inflation.

11Amex Rule 918C(b)(3).

12Amex Rule 918C(b)(4). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

specified amount.10 The DIAMONDS

Trust may also terminate if the license

agreement with Dow Jones terminates.

Trading Halts: Prior to

commencement of trading in

DIAMONDS, the Exchange will issue a

circular to members informing them of

Exchange policies regarding trading

halts in such securities. The circular

will make clear that, in addition to other

factors that may be relevant, the

Exchange may consider factors such as

those set further in Rule 918C(b) in

exercising its discretion to halt or

suspend trading. These factors would

include whether trading has been halted

or suspended in the primary market(s)

for any combination of underlying

stocks accounting for 20% or more of

the applicable current index group

value 11; or whether other unusual

conditions or circumstances detrimental

to the maintenance of a fair and orderly

market are present.12

Terms and Characteristics: Under

Amex Rule 1000, Commentary .01,

Amex members and member

organizations are required to provide to

all purchasers of DIAMONDS a written

description of the terms and

characteristics of such securities, in a

form prepared by the Exchange, not

later than the time a confirmation of the

first transaction in each series is

delivered to such purchaser. The

Exchange also requires that such

description be included with any sales

material on DIAMONDS that is

provided to customers or the public. In

addition, the Exchange requires that

members and member organizations

provide customers the prospectus for

DIAMONDS upon request.

A member or member organization

carrying an omnibus account for a nonmember broker-dealer is required to

inform such non-member that execution

of an order to purchase DIAMONDS for

such omnibus account will be deemed

to constitute agreement by the nonmember to make such written

description available to its customers on

the terms as are directly applicable to

members and member organizations.

Prior to commencement of trading of

DIAMONDS, the Exchange will

distribute to Exchange members and

member organizations an Information

Circular calling attention to

characteristics of the DIAMONDS Trust

and to applicable Exchange rules.

Adoption of Rule 1005: The Exchange

proposes to adopt Rule 1005 (‘‘Dow

Jones Indexes’’) stating that Dow Jones

has licensed the Exchange to use certain

Dow Jones indexes for purposes of the

listing and trading of particular series of

Portfolio Depositary Receipts on the

Exchange, and stating, among other

things, that Dow Jones and the Exchange

make no warranty, express or implied,

as to results to be obtained by any

person or entity from the use of the

Indexes or any data included therein.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

Section 6(b) of the Act in general and

furthers the objectives of Section

6(b)(5) 13 in particular in that it is

designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade, to foster cooperation and

coordination with persons engaged in

regulating, clearing, settling, processing

information with respect to, and

facilitating transactions in securities,

and, in general, to protect investors and

the public interest. The Exchange

believes that Portfolio Depositary

Receipts, generally, and DIAMONDS

specifically, have the potential to

benefit the markets by providing an

alternate trading instrument, such as

those encouraged by the Division of

Market Regulation in its report, ‘‘The

October 1987 Market Break,’’ that may

help temper market volatility and

reduce stress on individual index

component stocks during unusual

market conditions.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any inappropriate burden on

competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

No written comments were either

solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register or

within such longer period (i) as the

Commission may designate up to 90

days of such date if it finds such longer

period to be appropriate and publishes

its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to

which the self-regulatory organization

consents, the Commission will:

(A) By order approve the proposed

rule change, or

(B) Institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the Exchange. All

submissions should refer to File No. SRAmex-97-29 and should be submitted by

October 24, 1997.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–26285 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

UNITED STATES SENTENCING

COMMISSION

Sentencing Guidelines for United

States Courts

AGENCY: United States Sentencing

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of: (a) Final action

regarding amendments to sentencing

guidelines and policy statements

effective November 1, 1997; and (b) an

amendment to correct a clerical error in

USSG § 2K2.1(a)(3), as amended by

amendment 522 (November 1, 1995).

SUMMARY: The Sentencing Commission

hereby gives notice of: (a) Several

amendments to policy statements and

commentary made pursuant to its

authority under 28 U.S.C. 994(a); (b)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51921

conforming and technical amendments

to several amendments submitted to

Congress on May 1, 1997; and (c) an

amendment to correct a clerical error

that omitted the word ‘‘felony’’ from the

phrase ‘‘prior felony’’ in USSG

§ 2K2.1(a)(3), as amended by

amendment 522 (November 1, 1995).

DATES: The effective date of these

amendments is November 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Courlander, Public Information

Specialist, Telephone: (202) 273–4590.

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 994 (a), (o), (x).

Richard P. Conaboy,

Chairman.

1. Amendment: The Commentary to

new guideline § 2A6.2 (see 62 F.R.

26615 (1997)) captioned ‘‘Application

Notes’’ is amended in Note 1 by

inserting at the beginning the following:

For purposes of this guideline—

‘Bodily injury’ and ‘dangerous weapon’ are

defined in the Commentary to § 1B1.1

(Application Instructions).

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment incorporates into § 2A6.2

the definitions of ‘‘bodily injury’’ and

‘‘dangerous weapon’’ found in § 1B1.1

(Application Instructions). The

definition of bodily injury found in the

guidelines differs from the definition of

bodily injury in 18 U.S.C. 2266 that is

applicable to interstate stalking and

interstate domestic violence offenses.

The definition of ‘‘bodily injury’’ in 18

U.S.C. 2266 explicitly include sexual

abuse, but the guideline definition of

‘‘bodily injury’’ does not. However, the

Commission is fully aware that criminal

sexual abuse often is part of a domestic

violence offense under 18 U.S.C. 2261

and 2262 and may be part of a stalking

offense under 18 U.S.C. 2261A. It is the

view of the Commission that the new

guideline provides an adequate

mechanism for taking into account the

occurrence of criminal sexual abuse in

any of these offenses. This is because

the guideline definition of ‘‘serious

bodily injury’’ in § 1B1.1 deems serious

bodily injury—a more serious gradient

of bodily injury—to have occurred if the

offense involved conduct constituting

criminal sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C.

2241 or 2242 or any similar offense

under state law. Under the new

guideline, any offense that involved

criminal sexual abuse almost certainly

will be subject to the cross reference to

another offense guideline and to the rule

deeming such conduct to be serious

bodily injury (for purposes of applying

a serious bodily injury enhancement in

that other guideline to the offense).

Therefore, in all likelihood, the sentence

will be enhanced for the occurrence of

criminal sexual abuse because the case

will be cross referenced to another

guideline that enhances for serious

bodily injury.

2. Amendment: The Commentary to

§ 2B4.1 captioned ‘‘Statutory

Provisions’’ is amended by deleting

‘‘§§ 11907(a), (b)’’ and inserting in lieu

thereof ‘‘§ 11902’’.

The Commentary to § 2N3.1 captioned

‘‘Statutory Provisions’’ is amended by

deleting ‘‘15 U.S.C. §§ 1983–1988,

1990c’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘49

U.S.C. §§ 32703-32705, 32709(b).’’.

The Commentary to § 2Q1.2 captioned

‘‘Statutory Provisions’’ is amended by

deleting ‘‘§ 1809(b)’’ and inserting in

lieu thereof ‘‘§ 60123(d)’’.

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment makes technical corrections

to § 2B4.1 (Bribery in Procurement of

Bank Loan and Other Commercial

Bribery), § 2N3.1(Odometer Laws and

Regulations), § 2Q1.2 (Mishandling of

Hazardous or Toxic Substances or

Pesticides; Recordkeeping, Tampering,

and Falsification; Unlawfully

Transporting Hazardous Materials in

Commerce), to reflect changes made to

statutory references when Congress

codified Title 49 (Transportation),

United States Code. Pub. L. 103–272,

§ 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1356; Pub.

L. 104–88, Title I, § 102(a), December

29, 1995, 109 Stat. 850.

3. Amendment: The Commentary to

§ 2D1.11 captioned ‘‘Application Notes’’

is amended in Note 4(a) in the fourth

sentence by deleting ‘‘14’’ and inserting

in lieu thereof ‘‘16’’.

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment corrects a clerical error.

4. Amendment: The Commentary to

§ 2K1.5 captioned ‘‘Background’’ is

amended by deleting:

Except under the circumstances specified

in 49 U.S.C. 46505(c), the offense covered by

this section is a misdemeanor for which the

maximum term of imprisonment authorized

by statute is one year;

by deleting ‘‘An’’ and inserting in lieu

thereof ‘‘This guideline provides an’’;

and by deleting ‘‘is provided’’

immediately after ‘‘enhancement’’.

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment strikes background

commentary in guideline § 2K1.5 that is

no longer correct because of a recent

change in statutory penalties.

Specifically, the Antiterrorism Act of

1996 increased the statutory maximum

penalty for violations of 49 U.S.C.

46505(b) from not more than one year to

not more than 10 years. This increase

changes the classification of an offense

under subsection (b) from a class A

misdemeanor to a class D felony.

5. Amendment: The Commentary to

§ 4B1.1 captioned ‘‘Application Notes’’

is amended in Note 2 by deleting ‘‘not’’

after ‘‘offense,’’ in the first sentence; by

deleting ‘‘(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C), and

(b)(1)(D)’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘(B), (C), and (D)’’; by deleting ‘‘where’’

and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘in a case

in which’’; by inserting ‘‘for that

defendant’’ after ‘‘Maximum’’’; by

deleting ‘‘twenty years and not thirty

years’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘thirty years and not twenty years’’; by

deleting ‘‘authorizes’’ and inserting in

lieu thereof ‘‘has’’; and by deleting

‘‘maximum term of imprisonment’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘offense

statutory maximum’’.

The Commentary to § 4B1.1 captioned

‘‘Background’’ is amended by deleting:

The legislative history of this provision

suggests that the phrase ‘maximum term

authorized’ should be construed as the

maximum term authorized by statute. See S.

Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 175

(1983); 128 Cong. Rec. 26, 511–12 (1982) (text

of ‘Career Criminals’ amendment by Senator

Kennedy); id. at 26,515 (brief summary of

amendment); id. at 26,517–18 (statement of

Senator Kennedy).

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment responds to United States v.

LaBonte, 117 S.Ct. 1673. In LaBonte, the

Supreme Court held that the way in

which the Commission defined

‘‘maximum term authorized’’, for

purposes of fulfilling the requirement

under 28 U.S.C. 994(h) to specify

sentences for certain categories of career

offenders at or near the maximum term

authorized for those offenders, is

inconsistent with section 994(h)’s plain

and unambiguous language and is

therefore invalid. The Commission

defined ‘‘maximum term authorized’’ to

mean the maximum term authorized for

the offense of conviction not including

any sentencing enhancement provisions

that apply because of the defendant’s

prior criminal record. The Supreme

Court held that under section 994’s

plain and unambiguous language,

‘‘maximum term authorized’’ must be

read to include all applicable statutory

sentencing enhancements. The

proposed amendment makes a

straightforward change to the

commentary to § 4B1.1, the career

offender guideline, to reflect the

LaBonte decision. Specifically, the

definition of ‘‘maximum term

authorized’’ is proposed to be changed

to reflect that the ‘‘maximum term

authorized’’ includes all sentencing

enhancements that apply because of the

defendant’s prior criminal record.

6. Amendment: The Commentary to

§ 2K1.3 captioned ‘‘Application Notes’’

is amended in Note 2 by deleting ‘‘Note

3’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Note

1’’.
51922 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

The Commentary to § 2K2.1 captioned

‘‘Application Notes’’ is amended in

Note 5 by deleting ‘‘Note 3’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Note 1’’.

The Commentary to § 7B1.1 captioned

‘‘Application Notes’’ is amended in

Note 2 by deleting ‘‘§ 4B1.2(1)’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘§ 4B1.2(a)’’;

and by deleting ‘‘Notes 1 and 2’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Note 1’’.

The Commentary to § 7B1.1 captioned

‘‘Application Notes’’ is amended in

Note 3 by deleting ‘‘§ 4B1.2(2)’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘§ 4B1.2(b)’’.

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment conforms §§ 2K1.3, 2K2.1

and 7B1.1 to § 4B1.2, as amended

November 1, 1997 (see 62 FR 26615

(1997)).

7. Amendment: The replacement

guideline for § 5B1.3 (see 62 FR 26615

(1997)) is amended in subsection (a)(2)

by inserting the following additional

paragraph:

Note: Section 3563(a)(2) of Title 18, United

States Code, provides that, absent unusual

circumstances, a defendant convicted of a

felony shall abide by at least one of the

conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3563(b)(2),

(b)(3), and (b)(13). Before the enactment of

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996, those conditions were a fine

((b)(2)), an order of restitution ((b)(3)), and

community service ((b)(13)). Whether or not

the change was intended, the Act deleted the

fine condition and renumbered the

restitution and community service conditions

in 18 U.S.C. 3563(b), but failed to make a

corresponding change in the referenced

paragraphs under 18 U.S.C. 3563(a)(2).

Accordingly, the conditions now referenced

are restitution ((b)(2)), notice to victims

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3555((b)(3)), and an

order that the defendant reside, or refrain

from residing, in a specified place or area

((b)(13)).

The Commentary to § 2X5.1 captioned

‘‘Application Note’’ is amended in Note

1 by deleting: ‘‘§ 5B1.4 (Recommended

Conditions of Probation and Supervised

Release);’’.

Section 5H1.3 is amended by deleting

‘‘recommended condition (24) at § 5B1.4

(Recommended Conditions of Probation

and Supervised Release)’’ and inserting

in lieu thereof ‘‘§§ 5B1.3(d)(5) and

5D1.3(d)(5)’’.

Section 5H1.4 is amended in the

second paragraph by deleting

‘‘recommended condition (23) at § 5B1.4

(Recommended Conditions of Probation

and Supervised Release)’’ and inserting

in lieu thereof ‘‘§ 5D1.3(d)(4)’’; and in

the third paragraph by deleting

‘‘recommended condition (23) at § 5B1.4

(Recommended Conditions of Probation

and Supervised Release)’’ and inserting

in lieu thereof ‘‘§ 5B1.3(d)(4)’’.

Section 8D1.3(a) is amended by

deleting ‘‘shall’’ immediately after

‘‘organization’’.

Section 8D1.3(b) is amended by

deleting ‘‘a fine, restitution, or

community service,’’ and inserting in

lieu thereof ‘‘(1) restitution, (2) notice to

victims of the offense pursuant to 18

U.S.C. 3555, or (3) an order requiring

the organization to reside, or refrain

from residing, in a specified place or

area,’’;

and by adding at the end:

Note: Section 3563(a)(2) of Title 18, United

States Code, provides that, absent unusual

circumstances, a defendant convicted of a

felony shall abide by at least one of the

conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3563 (b)(2),

(b)(3), and (b)(13). Before the enactment of

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996, those conditions were a fine

((b)(2)), an order of restitution ((b)(3)), and

community service ((b)(13)). Whether or not

the change was intended, the Act deleted the

fine condition and renumbered the

restitution and community service conditions

in 18 U.S.C. 3563(b), but failed to make a

corresponding change in the referenced

paragraphs under 18 U.S.C. 3563(a)(2).

Accordingly, the conditions now referenced

are restitution ((b)(2)), notice to victims

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3555((b)(3)), and an

order that the defendant reside, or refrain

from residing, in a specified place or area

((b)(13)).

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment conforms §§ 2X5.1, 5H1.3,

and 5H1.4 to the replacement guideline

for § 5B1.3 and the deletion of § 5B1.4

(see 62 FR 26615 (1997)). The

amendment also adds a note to §§ 5B1.3

and 8D1.3 explaining an ambiguity

created by the enactment of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104–132,

110 Stat. 1227.

8. Amendment: Section 5K2.0 is

amended in the third paragraph by

deleting ‘‘immigration violations’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘other

guidelines’’; and by deleting ‘‘for an

immigration violation’’ and inserting in

lieu thereof ‘‘under one of these other

guidelines’’.

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment conforms § 5K2.0 to § 2L1.1

(see 62 FR 26615 (1997)).

9. Amendment: The Commentary to

§ 6A1.3 is amended in the first

paragraph by deleting ‘‘will no longer

exist’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘no

longer exists’’; by deleting ‘‘will usually

have’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘usually has’’;

and by deleting:

Although lengthy sentencing hearings

should seldom be necessary, disputes about

sentencing factors must be resolved with

care. When a reasonable dispute exists about

any factor important to the sentencing

determination, the court must ensure that the

parties have an adequate opportunity to

present relevant information. Written

statements of counsel or affidavits of

witnesses may be adequate under many

circumstances. An evidentiary hearing may

sometimes be the only reliable way to resolve

disputed issues. See United States v. Fatico,

603 F.2d 1053, 1057 n.9 (2d Cir. 1979) cert.

denied, 444 U.S. 1073 (1980). The sentencing

court must determine the appropriate

procedure in light of the nature of the

dispute, its relevance to the sentencing

determination, and applicable case law.

and inserting in lieu thereof:

Although lengthy sentencing hearings

seldom should be necessary, disputes about

sentencing factors must be resolved with

care. When a dispute exists about any factor

important to the sentencing determination,

the court must ensure that the parties have

an adequate opportunity to present relevant

information. Written statements of counsel or

affidavits of witnesses may be adequate

under many circumstances. See, e.g., United

States v. Ibanez, 924 F.2d 427 (2d Cir. 1991).

An evidentiary hearing may sometimes be

the only reliable way to resolve disputed

issues. See, e.g., United States v. Jimenez

Martinez, 83 F.3d 488, 494–95 (1st Cir. 1996)

(finding error in district court’s denial of

defendant’s motion for evidentiary hearing

given questionable reliability of affidavit on

which the district court relied at sentencing);

United States v. Roberts, 14 F.3d 502,

521(10th Cir. 1993) (remanding because

district court did not hold evidentiary

hearing to address defendants’ objections to

drug quantity determination or make

requisite findings of fact regarding drug

quantity); see also, United States v. Fatico,

603 F.2d 1053, 1057 n.9 (2d Cir. 1979), cert.

denied, 444 U.S. 1073 (1980). The sentencing

court must determine the appropriate

procedure in light of the nature of the

dispute, its relevance to the sentencing

determination, and applicable case law.

The Commentary to § 6A1.3 is

amended by deleting:

In determining the relevant facts,

sentencing judges are not restricted to

information that would be admissible at trial.

18 U.S.C. 3661. Any information may be

considered, so long as it has ‘‘sufficient

indicia of reliability to support its probable

accuracy.’’ United States v. Marshall, 519 F.

Supp. 751 (E.D. Wis. 1981), aff’d, 719 F.2d

887 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Fatico,

579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 444

U.S. 1073 (1980). Reliable hearsay evidence

may be considered. Out-of-court declarations

by an unidentified informant may be

considered ‘‘where there is good cause for the

nondisclosure of his identity and there is

sufficient corroboration by other means.’’

United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d at 713.

Unreliable allegations shall not be

considered. United States v. Weston, 448

F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1971) cert. denied, 404

U.S. 1061 (1972).

and inserting in lieu thereof:

In determining the relevant facts,

sentencing judges are not restricted to

information that would be admissible at trial.

See 18 U.S.C. 3661; see also United States v.

Watts, 117 U.S. 633, 635 (1997) (holding that
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51923

lower evidentiary standard at sentencing

permits sentencing court’s consideration of

acquitted conduct); Witte v. United States,

515 U.S. 389, 399–401 (1995) (noting that

sentencing courts have traditionally

considered wide range of information

without the procedural protections of a

criminal trial, including information

concerning criminal conduct that may be the

subject of a subsequent prosecution); Nichols

v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 747–48 (1994)

(noting that district courts have traditionally

considered defendant’s prior criminal

conduct even when the conduct did not

result in a conviction). Any information may

be considered, so long as it has sufficient

indicia of reliability to support its probable

accuracy. Watts, 117 U.S. at 637; Nichols,

511 U.S. at 748; United States v. ZuletaAlvarez, 922 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1990), cert.

denied, 500 U.S. 927 (1991); United States v.

Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir.), cert.

denied, 497 U.S. 1038 (1990). Reliable

hearsay evidence may be considered. United

States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1040 (1994); United

States v. Sciarrino, 884 F.2d 95 (3d Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 997 (1989). Out-of-court

declarations by an unidentified informant

may be considered where there is good cause

for the non-disclosure of the informant’s

identity and there is sufficient corroboration

by other means. United States v. Rogers, 1

F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United

States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 508 U.S. 980 (1993); United States v.

Fatico, 579 F.2d 707, 713 (2d Cir. 1978), cert.

denied, 444 U.S. 1073 (1980). Unreliable

allegations shall not be considered. United

States v. Ortiz, 993 F.2d 204 (10th Cir. 1993).

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment updates the case law

references in the commentary to § 6A1.3

to include references to sentencing

guideline cases.

10. Amendment: Appendix A

(Statutory Index) is amended by

inserting, in the appropriate place by

title and section:

18 U.S.C. 514 2F1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 611 2H2.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 669 2B1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 758 2A2.4’’;

18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(7) 2B3.2’’;

18 U.S.C. 1035 2F1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 1347 2F1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 1518 2J1.2’’;

18 U.S.C. 1831 2B1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 1832 2B1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 2261A 2A6.2’’;

21 U.S.C. 841(b)(7) 2D1.1’’;

21 U.S.C. 960(d)(7) 2D1.11’’;

47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C) 2A6.1’’;

47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(D) 2A6.1’’;

47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(E) 2A6.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 5124 2Q1.2’’;

49 U.S.C. 32703 2N3.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 32704 2N3.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 32705 2N3.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 32709(b) 2N3.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 60123(d) 2B1.3’’;

49 U.S.C. 80116 2F1.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 80501 2B1.3’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1281’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2B1.3’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1983’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1984’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1985’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1986’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1987’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1988’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1990c’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

by deleting ‘‘18 U.S.C. 1008 2F1.1,

2S1.3’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

1030(a)(2)’’ by deleting ‘‘2F1.1’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2B1.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

1030(a)(3)’’ by deleting ‘‘2F1.1’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2B2.3’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

1030(a)(5)’’ by deleting ‘‘2F1.1’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2B1.3’’;

by deleting:

‘‘18 U.S.C. 2258(a), (b) 2G2.1, 2G2.2’’,

and inserting in lieu thereof:

‘‘18 U.S.C. 2260 2G2.1, 2G2.2’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

2261’’ by deleting ‘‘2A1.1, 2A1.2,

2A2.1, 2A2.2, 2A2.3, 2A3.1, 2A3.4,

2A4.1, 2B3.1, 2B3.2, 2K1.4’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2A6.2’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

2262’’ by deleting ‘‘2A1.1, 2A1.2,

2A2.1, 2A2.2, 2A2.3, 2A3.1, 2A3.4,

2A4.1, 2B3.1, 2B3.2, 2K1.4’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2A6.2’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘21 U.S.C. 959’’

by inserting ‘‘, 2D1.11’’ immediately

after ‘‘2D1.1’’.

in the line referenced to ‘‘49 U.S.C. 121’’

by inserting ‘‘(for offenses committed

prior to July 5, 1994)’’ immediately

after ‘‘2F1.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘49 U.S.C.

1809(b)’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2Q1.2’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘49 U.S.C. App.

§ 1687(g)’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2B1.3’’; and

by deleting ‘‘49 U.S.C. 14904 2B4.1’’.

The Commentary to § 2G2.1 captioned

‘‘Statutory Provisions’’ is amended by

deleting ‘‘2258(a), (b)’’ and inserting in

lieu thereof ‘‘2260’’.

The Commentary to § 2G2.2 captioned

‘‘Statutory Provisions’’ is amended by

deleting ‘‘2258(a), (b)’’ and inserting in

lieu thereof ‘‘2260’’.

Section 2K2.1(a)(3) is amended by

inserting ‘‘felony’’ before ‘‘prior’’.

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment makes Appendix A

(Statutory Index) more comprehensive.

This amendment adds references for

additional offenses, including offenses

created by recently enacted legislation.

In addition, this amendment revises

Appendix A to conform to the revision

of existing statutes and to reflect the

codification of Title 49, United States

Code. This amendment also corrects

clerical errors in §§ 2G2.1 and 2G2.2.

Finally, this amendment corrects a

clerical error in § 2K2.1(a)(3), as

amended by amendment 522, effective

November 1, 1995. During the execution

of that amendment, which equalized

offense levels for semiautomatic assault

weapon possession with machinegun

possession, the word ‘‘felony’’ was

inadvertently omitted from the phrase

‘‘prior conviction’’ in subsection (a)(3).

[FR Doc. 97–26312 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210–40–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Social Security Ruling, SSR 97–3]

Disability Insurance Benefits;

Reduction Due to Receipt of State

Workers’ Compensation; Validity of an

Amended Stipulation on a Prior

Workers’ Compensation Settlement

Award; Minnesota

AGENCY: Social Security Administration

(SSA).

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner

of Social Security gives notice of Social

Security Ruling, SSR 97–3. This Ruling,

based on an SSA Regional Chief

Counsel opinion, concerns whether the

Social Security Administration should

give effect to an amended stipulation on

a prior lump-sum workers’

compensation settlement and whether

workers’ compensation offset was

properly computed on the basis of the

amended stipulation. Although this case