14054 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(B) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on March 9, 1995.

Harry Thompson,

Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–6362 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

UNITED STATES SENTENCING

COMMISSION

Sentencing Guidelines for United

States Courts

AGENCY: United States Sentencing

Commission.

ACTION: Notice and request for public

comment regarding proposed

amendments to sentencing guidelines,

policy statements, and commentary.

SUMMARY: The Commission is

considering promulgating amendments

to the sentencing guidelines, policy

statements, and commentary. A

synopsis of issues to be addressed is set

forth below. The Commission may

report amendments to the Congress on

or before May 1, 1995. Comment is

sought on all proposals, alternative

proposals, and any other aspect of the

sentencing guidelines, policy

statements, and commentary relating to

the issues below.

DATES: Public comment should be

received by the Commission no later

than April 10, 1995, to be considered by

the Commission in the promulgation of

amendments due to the Congress by

May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Public comment should be

sent to: United States Sentencing

Commission, One Columbus Circle, NE.,

Suite 2–500, South Lobby, Washington,

DC 20002–8002, Attention: Public

Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Courlander, Public Information

Specialist, Telephone: (202) 273–4590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

United States Sentencing Commission is

an independent agency in the judicial

branch of the United States

Government. The Commission is

empowered under 28 U.S.C. 994(a) to

promulgate sentencing guidelines and

policy statements for federal sentencing

courts. The statute further directs the

Commission to review and revise

periodically guidelines previously

promulgated and authorizes it to submit

guideline amendments to the Congress

no later than the first day of May each

year. See 28 U.S.C. 994 (o), (p).

Ordinarily, the Administrative

Procedure Act rulemaking requirements

are inapplicable to judicial agencies;

however, 28 U.S.C. 994(x) makes the

Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553

applicable to the promulgation of

sentencing guidelines by the

Commission.

Section 1B1.10 of the United States

Sentencing Commission Guidelines

Manual sets forth the Commission’s

policy statement regarding retroactivity

of amended guideline ranges. Comment

is requested as to whether any of the

proposed amendments should be made

retroactive under this policy statement.

With the exception of proposed

amendment and issue for comment 4,

the issues below are derived specifically

from the Commission’s Special Report

to Congress: Cocaine and Federal

Sentencing Policy, submitted to

Congress on February 28, 1995. In

addition to requesting comment on

these issues, the Commission invites

suggestions for specific amendment

language. Publication of an issue for

comment reflects only the Commission’s

determination that the issue is worthy of

public comment by interested groups

and individuals. Publication should not

be regarded as an indication that the

Commission or any individual

Commissioner has formed a view on the

merits of the issue.

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

Richard P. Conaboy,

Chairman.

1. Issue for Comment

On February 28, 1995, the

Commission issued a special report to

Congress on cocaine and federal

sentencing policy. The report

recommended that changes be made to

the current cocaine sentencing

guidelines, including changes to the

100-to-1 quantity ratio between powder

cocaine and crack cocaine used in

determining sentences. The report

indicated that the Commission will

investigate the feasibility of creating

new guideline enhancements and

amending current enhancements to

address more fully and fairly the harms

associated with cocaine offenses

generally and, specifically, the added

harms associated with crack cocaine

offenses. Based on these new

enhancements, the Commission intends

to make appropriate adjustments in the

guideline quantity ratio.

The Commission requests comment

regarding implementation of the

recommendations in the report.

Specifically, the Commission requests

comment on the appropriateness of

adding specific offense characteristics to

§ 2D1.1 to enhance sentences for

violence and other harms associated

with some crack and powder cocaine

offenses as well as some other drug

offenses. In addition, the Commission

seeks comment on the usefulness of

adding or amending commentary and

policy statements regarding possible

departures to take account of the

increased harms associated with some

cocaine offenses. For example, how

should the social harm associated with

‘‘crack houses’’ or other establishments

where drugs are sold and consumed be

taken into account? The Commission

previously has requested commentary

on what quantity ratio should be

substituted for the current 100-to-1

ratio.

In addition, the Commission seeks

comment on the timing and scope of

guideline amendments for cocaine

offenses. For example, if the

Commission proceeds with guideline

amendments for cocaine offenses in this

amendment cycle, should the

amendments apply to drug offenses

generally or only to cocaine offenses? If

new enhancements (e.g., for use of a

firearm and victim injury) are made

generally applicable to drug offenses,

are other changes in the drug guidelines

necessary (e.g., in the relative emphasis

on drug quantity)? Should any of these

changes be made retroactive to cases

previously sentenced, and if so, how

might this process best be

accomplished?

A number of amendment proposals

and issues for comment relating to drug

sentencing policy were set forth in the

Federal Register of January 9, 1995. See

60 FR 2430. Additional issues for

comment raised by the Special Report

on Cocaine Sentencing are set forth

below.

2. Issue for Comment

In light of the Commission’s report to

Congress on cocaine and federal

sentencing policy and its

recommendations regarding sentences

for those convicted of simple possession

of crack cocaine, the Commission

requests comment on whether and how

it should amend § 2D2.1 for offenses

involving the simple possession of crack

cocaine.

3. Issue for Comment

The Commission invites comment as

to whether the enhancements for drug

offenses involving underage or pregnant

individuals, which are now included in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 14055

§ 2D1.2, should instead be made specific

offense characteristics under § 2D1.1.

Inclusion in § 2D1.1 would make

these enhancements applicable to all

drug defendants whose relevant conduct

involved juveniles or pregnant

individuals, regardless of whether the

defendant was convicted of the

particular statutes now indexed to

§ 2D1.2 (21 U.S.C. 859, 860, and 861).

The circuits appear to be split regarding

whether conviction under one of these

statutes is a prerequisite for application

of the § 2D1.2 enhancements. (Compare

United States v. Oppedahl, 998 F.2d 584

(8th Cir. 1993), with United States v.

Locklear, 24 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 1994),

cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 278, 457 (1994).)

4. Synopsis of Proposed Amendment

This amendment inserts additional

background commentary explaining the

Commission’s rationale and authority

for § 4B1.1 (Career Offender). The

amendment responds to a decision by

the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit in

United States v. Price, 990 F.2d 1367

(D.C. Cir. 1993). In Price, the court

invalidated application of the career

offender guideline to a defendant

convicted of a drug conspiracy because

28 U.S.C. 994(h), which the Commission

cites as the mandating authority for the

career offender guideline, does not

expressly refer to inchoate offenses. The

court indicated that it did not foreclose

Commission authority to include

conspiracy offenses under the career

offender guideline by drawing upon its

broader guideline promulgation

authority in 28 U.S.C. 994(a). See also

United States v. Mendoza-Figueroa, 28

F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 1994), vacated (Sept.

2, 1994); United States v. Bellazerius, 24

F.3d 698 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 115 S.

Ct. 375 (1994). Other circuits have

rejected the Price analysis and upheld

the Commission’s definition of

‘‘controlled substance offense.’’ The

Ninth Circuit considered the legislative

history to section 994(h) and

determined that the Senate Report

clearly indicated that section 994(h) was

not the sole enabling statute for the

career offender guidelines. United States

v. Heim, 15 F.3d 830 (9th Cir.) cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 445 (1994). See also

United States v. Hightower, 25 F.3d 182

(3d Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 370

(1994). United States v. Damerville, 27

F.3d 254 (7th Cir), cert. denied, 115 S.

Ct. 55 (1994).

Proposed Amendment

Application Note 1 of the

Commentary to § 4B1.2 is

repromulgated without change.

The Commentary to § 4B1.1 captioned

‘‘Background’’ is amended to read as

follows:

Background

28 U.S.C. 994(h) mandates that the

Commission assure that certain ‘‘career’’

offenders receive a sentence of

imprisonment ‘‘at or near the maximum

term authorized.’’ Section 4B1.1

implements this directive, with the

definition of a career offender tracking

in large part the criteria set forth in 28

U.S.C. 994(h). However, in accord with

its general guideline promulgation

authority under 28 U.S.C. 994(a)-(f) and

its amendment authority under 28

U.S.C. 994(o) and (p), the Commission

has modified this definition in several

respects to focus more precisely on the

class of recidivist offenders for whom a

lengthy term of imprisonment is

appropriate and avoid ‘‘unwarranted

sentencing disparities among

defendants with similar records who

have been found guilty of similar

criminal conduct * * * .’’ 28 U.S.C.

991(b)(1)(B). The Commission’s

refinement of this definition over time

is consistent with Congress’s choice of

a directive to the Commission rather

than a mandatory minimum sentencing

statute (‘‘The [Senate Judiciary]

Committee believes that such a directive

to the Commission will be more

effective; the guidelines development

process can assure consistent and

rational implementation for the

Committee’s view that substantial

prison terms should be imposed on

repeat violent offenders and repeat drug

traffickers.’’ S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong.,

1st Sess. 175 (1983)).

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).’’.

Additional Issue for Comment

The Commission invites comment on

whether, as an alternative to, or in

addition to, the proposed amendment to

§ 4B1.1, Chapter I, Part A of the

Guidelines Manual should be amended

to state that in its promulgation of

specific guidelines, the Commission

intends in all cases to rely on its general

authority under 28 U.S.C. 994(a) as well

as any other more specific grant of

statutory authority.

[FR Doc. 95–6330 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210–40–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Information Collection Under OMB

Review: VA MATIC Change, VA Form

29–0165

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Veterans Affairs

has submitted to OMB the following

proposal for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). This document lists the

following information: (1) The title of

the information collection, and the

Department form number(s), if

applicable; (2) a description of the need

and its use; (3) who will be required or

asked to respond; (4) an estimate of the

total annual reporting hours, and

recordkeeping burden, if applicable; (5)

the estimated average burden hours per

respondent; (6) the frequency of

response; and (7) an estimated number

of respondents.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed

information collection and supporting

documents may be obtained from Trish

Fineran, Veterans Benefits

Administration (20M30), Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–

6886.

Comments and questions about the

items on the list should be directed to

VA’s OMB Desk Officer, Joseph Lackey,

NEOB, Room 10102, Washington, DC

20503, (202) 395–7316. Do not send

requests for benefits to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information

collection should be directed to the

OMB Desk Officer on or before April 14,

1995.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

By direction of the Secretary.

Donald L. Neilson,

Director, Information Management Service.

Reinstatement

1. VA MATIC Change, VA Form 29–

0165

2. The form is used by the insured to

request VA to change the account

number and/or financial institution

from which a VA MATIC deduction

was previously authorized.

3. Individuals or households

4. 1,250 hours

5. 15 minutes