34464 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

2Rule G–36 requires underwriters to provide

copies of final official statements and advance

refunding documents within certain specified time

frames for most new issues issued since January 1,

1990.

3This fee was filed with the Commission. See

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30306 (Jan. 30,

1992) 57 FR 4657.

4Currently, several business day’s worth of

documents are on each tape in an annual collection.

The backlog fee plus delivery costs for 1994 is

$7,000; 1993 is $9,000; 1992 is $7,000; 1991 is

$8,000; 1990 is $6,000. These fees were filed with

the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act

Release Nos. 35848 (June 14, 1995) 60 FR 32817

(1994 fee); 32482 (June 16, 1993) 58 FR 34115 (1992

and 1990 fees); 34602 (Aug. 25, 1994) 59 FR 45319

(1993 and 1991 fees). The fees for the backlog

collections vary based on the number of documents

received and processed in any given year.

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28197

(July 12, 1990) 55 FR 29436.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

Board included statements concerning

the purpose of and basis for the

proposed rule change and discussed any

comments it received on the proposed

rule change. The texts of these

statements may be examined at the

places specified in item IV below. The

Board has prepared summaries, set forth

in Section A, B, and C below, of the

most significant aspects of such

statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The OS/ARD subsystem, which was

activated on April 20, 1992, is a central

electronic facility through which

information collected and stored

pursuant to MSRB rule G–36 is made

available electronically and in paper

form to market participants and

information vendors.2 Since 1992, the

annual subscription fee for daily tapes

of images of current year documents

from the OS/ARD system has been

$12,000.3 The Board proposes to

increase the annual subscription fee to

$14,000 because of the rise in the cost

of operation of the system since the

subscription fee was first instituted.

The fees for backlog document

collections are substantially less than

fees for an annual subscription because

an annual subscription requires the

Board to send a computer tape to the

subscriber each business day, but a

backlog collection requires fewer tapes.4

The Board is establishing a price of

$9,000 (plus delivery or postage

charges) for the 1995 backlog collection.

The daily tape subscription service

currently has eight subscribers. The

$14,000 yearly subscription fee for the

daily tape of images will not cover the

complete costs of operation of the OS/

ARD system. In its prior filings with the

Commission, the Board stated that it

intends to use its general revenues to

help fund collecting, indexing and

storing the OS/ARD subsystem’s

documents. However, the Board states

its intention that the costs of producing

and disseminating magnetic tapes (and

paper copies) would be completely

covered by user fees.5 The Board is

increasing the annual subscription fee

and establishing the 1995 backlog fee to

defray its costs of disseminating the

collection tapes. This is consistent with

the Commission’s policy that selfregulatory organizations’ fees be based

on expenses incurred in providing

information to the public. The Board

believes that employing cost-based

prices is in the public interest since it

will ensure that a complete collection of

vital information will be available, at

fair and reasonable prices, for the life of

the municipal securities.

2. Statutory Basis

The Board believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with Section

15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, which requires,

in pertinent part, that the Board’s rules

shall:

be 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 municipal

securities, to remove impediments to and

perfect the mechanism of a free and open

market in municipal securities, and, in

general, to protect investors and the public

interest.

The MSIL system is designed to

increase the integrity and efficiency of

the municipal securities market by,

among other things, helping to ensure

that the price charged for an issue in the

secondary market reflects all available

official information about that issue.

The Board believes that the annual

subscription fee and the 1995 backlog

fee are fair and reasonable in light of the

costs associated with disseminating the

information, and that the services

provided by the MSIL system are

available on reasonable and

nondiscriminatory terms to any

interested person.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Board does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impose any

burden on competition not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received from

Members, Participants, or Others

Written comments were neither

solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The rule change is effective upon

filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of

the Act, because the proposal is

‘‘establishing or changing a due, fee or

other charge.’’ At any time within sixty

days of filing of the proposed rule

change, the Commission may summarily

abrogate such rule change if it appears

to the Commission that such action is

necessary or appropriate in the public

interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

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

submissions, 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 in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of the filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the Board’s principal offices. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–MSRB–96–4 and should be

submitted by July 23, 1996. For the

Commission by the Division of Market

Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority, 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16773 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34465

UNITED STATES SENTENCING

COMMISSION

Sentencing Guidelines for United

States Courts

AGENCY: United States Sentencing

Commission

ACTION: Notice of priority areas for

Commission research and amendment

consideration. Request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing

statutory responsibility to analyze

sentencing issues, including the

operation of the federal sentencing

guidelines, the Commission

preliminarily has identified certain

priorities as the principal focus of its

work in the coming year and, in some

cases, beyond. Following the practice of

past years, the Commission invites

comment on identified priorities

(including the scope and manner of

study, particular problem areas and

possible solutions, and any other

matters relevant to an identified

priority). The Commission also invites

comment on any other aspect of

guideline application that it should

address during the coming year.

DATES: Public comment should be

received not later than August 30, 1996,

to be considered by the Commission in

shaping its work during the next year.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: United

States Sentencing Commission, One

Columbus Circle, NE, Suite 2–500,

Washington, DC 20002–8002, Attention:

Public Information—Priorities

Comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Courlander, Public Information

Specialist, Telephone: (202) 273–4590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

United States Sentencing Commission,

an independent agency in the judicial

branch of the United States

Government, is empowered by 28 U.S.C.

994(a) to promulgate sentencing

guidelines and policy statements for

federal sentencing courts. The statute

further directs the Commission to

periodically review and revise

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).

As in previous years, the Commission

uses this announcement to solicit formal

and informal comment regarding certain

areas upon which the Commission

expects to concentrate its attention

during the coming year. This notice

provides interested persons with an

opportunity to inform the Commission

of legal, operational, or policy concerns

within the identified areas relating to

the guidelines and to suggest specific

solutions and alternative approaches.

Following are the anticipated priority

areas for amendment study, research, or

other planned actions identified by the

Commission. In some cases, a general

time frame for the initiative is indicated.

These time frames are subject to change

as the Commission deems necessary.

The Commission welcomes comments

on these priorities as well as any other

aspect of guideline application or

implementation of the Sentencing

Reform Act.

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

Richard P. Conaboy,

Chairman.

I. Implementation of New Laws

Affecting Criminal Penalties

The Commission will continue to give

priority to developing guideline

amendments that implement legislation

enacted by Congress. In this regard,

Congress has recently enacted, or is

expected to pass in this Session, a

number of bills that may necessitate

changes in the sentencing guidelines.

Some of the more significant legislative

initiatives are:

• The Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–132

(April 24, 1996). This Act contains

several directives to amend the

guidelines in specific ways, including a

provision (section 730) granting the

Commission emergency authority to

amend the enhancement in USSG

§ 3A1.4 (International Terrorism) so that

it applies broadly to any ‘‘Federal Crime

of terrorism’’ as defined in 18 U.S.C.

2332b(g). The Act also contains

numerous other provisions (e.g.,

increases in statutory maximum

penalties, new offenses) that the

Commission must analyze in order to

ascertain whether guideline

amendments are needed and, if so, what

changes are appropriate.

• The Telecommunications Act of 1996,

104–104 (February 8, 1996). This Act

contains several provisions on obscene,

harassing, or wrongful use of

telecommunications facilities that may

necessitate guideline amendments. The

Commission recently promulgated an

amendment to USSG § 2G1.2 to

implement a new offense created by

section 508 of the Act (involving the

solicitation of a minor to engage in

prohibited sexual conduct). See 61 FR

20308–09 (May 6, 1996).

• The Sex Crimes Against Children

Prevention Act of 1995, 104–71

(December 23, 1995). The Commission

recently promulgated amendments to

USSG §§ 2G2.1, 2G2.2, and 2G1.1 to

implement directives of that Act. See 61

FR 20306–09, supra. The Commission is

now considering additional conforming

amendments to the child pornography

guidelines in Chapter Two, Part G and

possible amendments to the sexual

abuse guidelines in Chapter Two, Part

A, Subpart 3.

• Immigration Bill, Other Legislation.

Congress is finalizing an Immigration

Bill and is considering other bills

affecting criminal penalties. Enactment

of any such legislation may necessitate

additional guideline amendments in the

coming year.

II. Guideline Simplification and

Modification

In 1995, the Commission announced

that it was initiating a multi-year project

to comprehensively assess and simplify

provisions of the Guidelines Manual.

See 60 F.R. 49316–17 (Sept. 22, 1995).

After considering a number of staff

papers and input from interested

individuals and groups, the Commission

anticipates focusing its attention and

possible amendment consideration on

the following specific issues:

• Relevant Conduct. Priority issues

for the 1996–97 amendment cycle

include: (1) Clarifying/streamlining the

relevant conduct guideline assuming no

substantive policy changes; and (2)

developing options to limit the use of

acquitted conduct at sentencing. Issues

of lower priority that may be further

explored during future amendment

cycles include: (1) Substantively

changing the relevant conduct guideline

to limit the extent to which unconvicted

conduct can affect the sentence; and (2)

increasing the burden of proof at

sentencing to a ‘‘clear and convincing’’

standard.

• Level of Detail/Guideline

Complexity. Priority issues for the

1996–97 amendment cycle include: (1)

Simplification of guideline/specific

offense characteristics through

consolidation or elimination; (2)

clarification of the definition of loss; (3)

examination of problematic cross

references; and (4) revision of

Acceptance of Responsibility

adjustment.

• Departures/Offender

Characteristics. Priority issues for the

1996–97 amendment cycle include: (1)

Developing options for revising/

clarifying the language describing the

‘‘heartland concept’’ in Chapter One and

departure policy statements in Chapter

Five in light of the recent U.S. Supreme

Court decision in Koon v. U.S., No. 94–

1664, 1996 WL 315800 (U.S. June 17,

1996); and (2) focusing on family and
34466 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

community ties, age, and combination

of factors.

• Criminal History. Priority issues for

the 1996–97 amendment cycle include:

(1) Re-ordering and streamlining

Chapter Four; and (2) revising

assignment of criminal history points to

better target serious, repeat offenders.

• Sentencing Table. Issues of lower

immediate priority for discussion

during future amendment cycles

include: (1) Options to streamline

sentencing table to reduce significantly

the number of offense levels; (2) options

to revise the current sentencing table’s

‘‘zone’’ structure; and (3) additional or

expanded sentencing options.

• Appellate Litigation and Other

Statutory Issues. Priority issues for the

1996–97 amendment cycle include: (1)

Consideration of the impact of the

recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in

Koon v. United States, supra, on

appellate review of guideline sentences

and on the need to revise the

introduction to the Guidelines Manual

and Departure Section (§ 5K2.0) to

address the deference appellate courts

should afford district courts on

guideline determinations; and (2)

consideration of widening the bands in

monetary and drug tables to decrease

litigation.

• Drug Sentencing/Role in the

Offense. Priority issues for 1996–97

amendment cycle include: (1) Revising

the Role in the Offense guideline to

better reflect actual experience, case law

development, and to provide sufficient

flexibility when sentencing drug

offenders.

• Introduction to Guidelines Manual.

Priority issues for 1996–97 amendment

cycle include: (1) Updating the

introduction to reflect the evolution of

the guideline sentencing process.

III. Circuit Conflicts, Miscellaneous

Amendments

As part of the 1996–97 amendment

cycle, the Commission expects to

consider and propose for comment

amendments that address some of the

more important application issues

involving conflicting court

interpretations of guideline language.

IV. Cocaine Offenses

Under Public Law No. 104–38 (Oct.

30, 1995), the Commission is directed to

submit recommendations to Congress

regarding changes in the penalty

statutes and sentencing guidelines for

cocaine offenses (including crack). See

61 FR 80 (January 2, 1996). The

Commission has been gathering and

analyzing data and other relevant

information, including public comment,

in preparation for formulating the

required recommendations. It expects to

continue this process during the coming

months and again invites comment

regarding implementation of this

congressional directive. Comment

should focus on (1) the quantity ratio

that should be substituted for the

current 100-to-1 ratio in the relevant

penalty statutes and sentencing

guidelines (see USSG § 2D1.1(c)), and

(2) appropriate enhancements in § 2D1.1

for violence and other harms associated

with crack and powder cocaine.

V. Revisions to Money Laundering

Guidelines

As directed by Public Law 104–38,

supra, the Commission will respond to

an expected Department of Justice

report on money laundering charging

and plea practices and will continue its

study of the money laundering

guidelines (U.S.S.G. §§ 2S1.1–2S1.2).

VI. Guideline Assessment, Research

Initiatives

Under the direction of an outside

consultant, Commission staff have

initiated a number of research projects

designed to assess the success of the

guidelines. See 60 FR 49316–17 (Sept.

22, 1995). These efforts will continue in

the coming year, focusing primarily on

the use of an intensive study sample

(ISS) of cases to better evaluate

operation of the Relevant Conduct and

Criminal History guidelines.

V. Administrative Initiatives

As indicated in its 1995 work

priorities notice, see 60 FR 49316, 17

(Sept. 22, 1995), the Commission is

engaged in an ongoing effort to

maximize the efficiency of its limited

staff resources. Additionally, the

Commission expects to soon publish for

comment a set of Rules of Practice and

Procedure describing its internal

operating practices and the manner in

which interested persons can participate

in the Commission’s work.

[FR Doc. 96–16873 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210–40–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96–6p.

Titles II and XVI: Consideration of

Administrative Findings of Fact by

State Agency Medical and

Psychological Consultants and Other

Program Physicians and

Psychologists at the Administrative

Law Judge and Appeals Council

Levels of Administrative Review;

Medical Equivalence

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

422.406(b)(1), the Commissioner of

Social Security gives notice of Social

Security Ruling SSR 96–6p. This Ruling

clarifies Social Security Administration

policy regarding the consideration of

findings of fact by State agency medical

and psychological consultants and other

program physicians and psychologists

by adjudicators at the administrative

law judge and Appeals Council levels.

Also, the Ruling restores to the Rulings

and clarifies policy interpretations

regarding administrative law judge and

Appeals Council responsibility for

obtaining opinions of physicians or

psychologists designated by the

Commissioner of Social Security

regarding equivalence to listings in the

Listing of Impairments (appendix 1,

subpart P of 20 CFR part 404) formerly

in SSR 83–19, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:

Finding Disability on the Basis of

Medical Considerations Alone—The

Listing of Impairments and Medical

Equivalency.’’ SSR 83–19 was rescinded

without replacement by SSR 91–7c (C.E.

1990–1991, p. 92) as a result of the

Supreme Court’s decision in Sullivan v.

Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), which

invalidated the use of a medical

‘‘listings only’’ approach to evaluating

disability claims of individuals under

18 years of age under the supplemental

security income program. That decision

has no bearing on the aspects of SSR

83–19 that we are restoring in this

Ruling.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanne K. Castello, Division of

Regulations and Rulings, Social Security

Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although

we are not required to do so pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are

publishing this Social Security Ruling

in accordance with 20 CFR

422.406(b)(1).

Social Security Rulings make

available to the public precedential

decisions relating to the Federal old-age,

survivors, disability, supplemental

security income, and black lung benefits

programs. Social Security Rulings may

be based on case decisions made at all

administrative levels of adjudication,

Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s

decisions, opinions of the Office of the

General Counsel, and other policy

interpretations of the law and

regulations.

Although Social Security Rulings do

not have the force and effect of the law