40648 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 

The Commission will also recess the 

meetings around noon for a lunch break. 

At the beginning of the lunch break, the 

Chairman will announce what time the 

meetings will reconvene. 

Authority: Congress created the U.S.- 

China Economic and Security Review 

Commission in 2000 in the National Defense 

Authorization Act (Public Law 106–398), as 

amended by Division P of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 

108–7), as amended by Pub. L. 109–108 

(November 22, 2005), as amended by Public 

Law 113–291 (December 19, 2014). 

Dated: August 21, 2017. 

Michael Danis, 

Executive Director, U.S.-China Economic and 

Security Review Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18018 Filed 8–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1137–00–P 

UNITED STATES SENTENCING 

COMMISSION 

Sentencing Guidelines for United 

States Courts 

AGENCY: United States Sentencing 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In August 2017, the 

Commission indicated that one of its 

policy priorities would be the 

‘‘[c]ontinuation of its multiyear study of 

offenses involving synthetic cathinones 

(such as methylone, MDPV, and 

mephedrone) and synthetic 

cannabinoids (such as JWH–018 and 

AM–2201), as well as 

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), fentanyl, 

and fentanyl analogues, and 

consideration of appropriate guideline 

amendments, including simplifying the 

determination of the most closely 

related substance under Application 

Note 6 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1.’’ 

See 82 FR 39949 (Aug. 22, 2017). As 

part of its continuing work on this 

priority, the Commission is publishing 

this request for public comment on 

issues related to synthetic cathinones, 

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and 

synthetic cannabinoids. The issues for 

comment are set forth in the 

Supplementary Information portion of 

this notice. 

DATES: Public comment regarding the 

issues for comment set forth in this 

notice should be received by the 

Commission not later than October 27, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: All written comment should 

be sent to the Commission by electronic 

mail or regular mail. The email address 

for public comment is Public_

Comment@ussc.gov. The regular mail 

address for public comment is United 

States Sentencing Commission, One 

Columbus Circle NE., Suite 2–500, 

Washington, DC 20002–8002, Attention: 

Public Affairs. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Leonard, Director, Office of 

Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 

502–4500, pubaffairs@ussc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Sentencing Commission is 

an independent agency in the judicial 

branch of the United States 

Government. The Commission 

promulgates sentencing guidelines and 

policy statements for federal courts 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The 

Commission also periodically reviews 

and revises previously promulgated 

guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) 

and submits guideline amendments to 

the Congress not later than the first day 

of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

994(p). 

In August 2016, the Commission 

indicated that one of its priorities would 

be the ‘‘[s]tudy of offenses involving 

MDMA/Ecstasy, synthetic cannabinoids 

(such as JWH–018 and AM–2201), and 

synthetic cathinones (such as 

Methylone, MDPV, and Mephedrone), 

and consideration of any amendments 

to the Guidelines Manual that may be 

appropriate in light of the information 

obtained from such study.’’ See U.S. 

Sentencing Comm’n, ‘‘Notice of Final 

Priorities,’’ 81 FR 58004 (Aug. 24, 2016). 

On August 17, 2017, the Commission 

revised the priority to study offenses 

involving synthetic cathinones (such as 

methylone, MDPV, and mephedrone) 

and synthetic cannabinoids (such as 

JWH–018 and AM–2201), as well as 

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), fentanyl, 

and fentanyl analogues. See U.S. 

Sentencing Comm’n, ‘‘Notice of Final 

Priorities,’’ 82 FR 39949 (Aug. 22, 2017). 

The Commission also stated that, as part 

of the study, the Commission will 

consider possible approaches to 

simplify the determination of the most 

closely related substance under 

Application Note 6 of the Commentary 

to § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, 

Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking 

(Including Possession with Intent to 

Commit These Offenses); Attempt or 

Conspiracy). The Commission expects 

to solicit comment several times during 

the study period from experts and other 

members of the public. 

On December 19, 2016, the 

Commission published a notice inviting 

general comment on synthetic 

cathinones (MDPV, methylone, and 

mephedrone) and synthetic 

cannabinoids (JWH–018 and AM–2201), 

as well as about the application of the 

factors the Commission traditionally 

considers when determining the 

marihuana equivalencies for specific 

controlled substances to the substances 

under study. See U.S. Sentencing 

Comm’n, ‘‘Request for Public 

Comment,’’ 81 FR 92021 (Dec. 19, 2016). 

On April 18, 2017, the Commission 

held a public hearing relating to this 

priority. The Commission received 

testimony from experts on the synthetic 

drugs related to the study, including 

testimony about their chemical 

structure, pharmacological effects, 

trafficking patterns, and community 

impact. 

On June 21, 2017, the Commission 

published a second notice requesting 

public comment on issues specifically 

related to MDMA/ecstasy and 

methylone, one of the synthetic 

cathinones included in the 

Commission’s study. See U.S. 

Sentencing Comm’n, ‘‘Request for 

Public Comment,’’ 82 FR 28382 (June 

21, 2017). 

As part of its continuing work on this 

priority, the Commission is publishing 

this third request for public comment. 

The request for public comment 

contains two parts (Part A and Part B). 

Part A focuses on issues related to 

synthetic cathinones. Part B focuses on 

issues related to tetrahydrocannabinol 

(THC) and synthetic cannabinoids. 

In addition to the substance-specific 

topics discussed below, the Commission 

anticipates that its work will continue to 

be guided by the factors the Commission 

traditionally considers when 

determining the marihuana 

equivalencies for specific controlled 

substances, including their chemical 

structure, pharmacological effects, 

legislative and scheduling history, 

potential for addiction and abuse, the 

patterns of abuse and harms associated 

with their abuse, and the patterns of 

trafficking and harms associated with 

their trafficking. 

The Commission will also consider 

possible approaches to simplify the 

determination of the most closely 

related substance under Application 

Note 6 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1. 

The Commission has received comment 

from the public suggesting that 

questions regarding ‘‘the most closely 

related controlled substance’’ arise 

frequently in cases involving the 

substances included in the study, and 

that the Application Note 6 process 

requires courts to hold extensive 

hearings to receive expert testimony on 

behalf of the government and the 

defendant. 

The synthetic cathinones and 

synthetic cannabinoids included in the 

study are not specifically listed in either 

the Drug Quantity Table or the Drug 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 40649 

Equivalency Tables in § 2D1.1. For this 

reason, in cases involving these 

substances, courts are required by 

Application Note 6 of the Commentary 

to § 2D1.1 to ‘‘determine the base 

offense level using the marihuana 

equivalency of the most closely related 

controlled substance referenced in 

[§ 2D1.1].’’ Section 2D1.1 provides a 

three-step process for making this 

determination. See USSG § 2D1.1, 

comment. (n.6, 8). First, a court 

determines the most closely related 

controlled substance by considering, to 

the extent practicable, the factors set 

forth in Application Note 6. Next, the 

court determines the appropriate 

quantity of marihuana equivalent of the 

most closely related controlled 

substance, using the Drug Equivalency 

Tables at Application Note 8(D). Finally, 

the court uses the Drug Quantity Table 

in § 2D1.1(c) to determine the base 

offense level that corresponds to that 

amount of marihuana. 

(A) Synthetic Cathinones 

Synthetic Cathinones.—According to 

the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 

synthetic cathinones, also known as 

‘‘bath salts,’’ are human-made drugs 

chemically related to cathinone, a 

stimulant found in the khat plant. See 

National Institute on Drug Abuse, 

DrugFacts: Synthetic Cathinones (‘‘Bath 

Salts’’) (January 2016), available at 

https://www.drugabuse.gov/ 

publications/drugfacts/syntheticcathinones-bath-salts. Khat is a shrub 

grown in East Africa and southern 

Arabia. Around 1975, scientists 

identified cathinone as the active 

chemical in the khat plant and, once its 

molecular structure was discovered, 

synthetic cathinones began to be 

produced. 

According to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration and other sources, 

synthetic cathinones are typically 

purchased in powder or crystal form 

over the Internet from suppliers in 

China and are delivered to the United 

States by common carriers. See, e.g., 

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs 

and Drug Addiction, Synthetic 

Cathinones Drug Profile (2017), 

available at http://

www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/ 

drug-profiles/synthetic-cathinones. 

The scientific literature and other 

sources suggest that the effects 

produced by a synthetic cathinone can 

vary compared to both natural 

cathinones and other synthetic 

cathinones. For example, the synthetic 

cathinones methylone (3,4- 

methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone) 

and mephedrone (4- 

methylmethcathinone) have been 

reported to have hallucinogenic effects 

broadly similar to MDMA (3,4- 

methylenedioxy-methamphetamine), 

also known as ‘‘ecstasy.’’ In contrast, 

studies have reported that MDPV (3,4- 

methylenedioxypyrovalerone) may 

produce a stimulant effect similar to, 

but more potent than, cocaine. 

Public comment on the Commission’s 

priority, testimony at the April 2017 

hearing, and other sources indicate that 

(1) there are many different synthetic 

cathinones, and (2) new synthetic 

cathinones are regularly developed, 

displacing the existing ones that are 

trafficked illegally. Given this 

information, it would likely be difficult, 

if not impossible, for the Commission to 

provide individual marihuana 

equivalencies for each synthetic 

cathinone in the Guidelines Manual. 

Issues for Comment 

1. The Commission invites general 

comment on synthetic cathinones, 

particularly on their chemical 

structures, their pharmacological effects, 

potential for addiction and abuse, the 

patterns of abuse and harms associated 

with their abuse, and the patterns of 

trafficking and harms associated with 

their trafficking. How are synthetic 

cathinones manufactured, distributed, 

possessed, and used? What are the 

characteristics of the offenders involved 

in these various activities? What harms 

are posed by these activities? How do 

these harms differ from those associated 

with other controlled substances such as 

marihuana, cocaine, heroin, 

methamphetamine, or MDMA/Ecstasy? 

2. The Commission invites general 

comment on whether and, if so, how the 

guidelines should be amended to 

account for synthetic cathinones. For 

example, should the Commission 

establish marihuana equivalencies for 

specific synthetic cathinones such as 

methylone, MDPV, and mephedrone? If 

so, what equivalencies should the 

Commission provide for methylone, 

MDPV, and mephedrone, and why? 

What factors should the Commission 

consider when deciding whether to 

account for these synthetic cathinones? 

3. As stated above, the Commission 

has received comment indicating that a 

large number of synthetic cathinones are 

currently available, and that new 

synthetic cathinones are regularly 

developed for illegal trafficking. Instead 

of providing marihuana equivalencies 

for individual synthetic cathinones, 

should the Commission consider 

establishing a single marihuana 

equivalency applicable to all synthetic 

cathinones? Are synthetic cathinones 

sufficiently similar to one another in 

chemical structure, pharmacological 

effects, potential for addiction and 

abuse, patterns of trafficking and abuse, 

and associated harms, to support the 

adoption of a broad class-based 

approach for sentencing purposes? If so, 

what marihuana equivalency should the 

Commission provide for synthetic 

cathinones as a class and why? What 

factors should the Commission account 

for if it considers adopting a broad classbased approach for synthetic 

cathinones? Should the Commission 

define ‘‘synthetic cathinones’’ for 

purposes of this broad class-based 

approach? If so, how? Are there any 

synthetic cathinones that should not be 

included as part of a broad class-based 

approach and for which the 

Commission should provide a 

marihuana equivalency separate from 

other synthetic cathinones? If so, what 

equivalency should the Commission 

provide for each such synthetic 

cathinone, and why? 

What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of a broad class-based 

approach for synthetic cathinones? If 

the Commission were to provide a 

different approach to account for 

synthetic cathinones in the guidelines, 

what should that different approach be? 

(B) Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 

Synthetic Cannabinoids 

Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC.— 

Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the 

primary psychotropic substance in 

marihuana, the most commonly used 

controlled substance. Although 

marihuana is the most common method 

by which THC is consumed, THC can 

also be extracted from marihuana in 

concentrated resins, such as hash oil. 

Synthetic cannabinoids mimic the 

effects of THC. 

The Drug Equivalency Tables in the 

Commentary to § 2D1.1 set forth the 

marihuana equivalency for two types of 

THC—organic THC and synthetic THC. 

The marihuana equivalencies for both 

types of THC have the same ratio: 1 

gram of THC = 167 grams of marihuana. 

The marihuana equivalencies for both 

types of THC have remained unchanged 

since they were established in the first 

edition of the Guidelines Manual in 

1987. 

Synthetic Cannabinoids.—According 

to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, 

synthetic cannabinoids are man-made 

mind-altering chemicals that are related 

to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the 

psychoactive chemical found in the 

marihuana plant. However, the available 

scientific literature on this subject 

strongly suggests that synthetic 

cannabinoids are substantially different 

than marihuana or organic THC. See 

National Institute of Drug Abuse, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
40650 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 

DrugFacts: Synthetic Cannabinoids 

(Revised November 2015), available at 

https://www.drugabuse.gov/ 

publications/drugfacts/syntheticcannabinoids. The Commission has 

received comment suggesting that these 

substances are manufactured as a dry 

powder or crystal, mixed with a solvent, 

such as acetone, then sprayed on 

shredded plant material. After the 

solvent evaporates, the resulting dry 

mixture is packaged and sold as a 

‘‘legal’’ alternative to marihuana. JWH– 

018 and AM–2201 are two examples of 

synthetic cannabinoids. 

Public comment on the Commission’s 

priority and testimony at the April 2017 

hearing indicated that (1) there are 

many different synthetic cannabinoids, 

and (2) new synthetic cannabinoids are 

regularly developed, displacing the 

existing ones that are trafficked illegally. 

Given this information, it would likely 

be difficult, if not impossible, for the 

Commission to provide individual 

marihuana equivalencies for each 

synthetic cannabinoid in the Guidelines 

Manual. Commission data indicates that 

the courts have typically identified THC 

as the most closely related controlled 

substance referenced in the guidelines 

in cases involving synthetic 

cannabinoids. 

Public comment on the Commission’s 

priority and testimony at the April 2017 

hearing suggested that applying the 

marihuana equivalency for THC to a 

synthetic cannabinoid, such as JWH– 

018 or AM–2201, is inappropriate 

because the equivalency for THC itself 

lacks any empirical support and is too 

severe. Some commenters also 

suggested that the current marihuana 

equivalency for THC may be too severe 

in cases involving a synthetic 

cannabinoid as a part of a mixture (i.e., 

mixed with a solvent or sprayed on a 

quantity of plant material) when 

compared to cases involving a synthetic 

cannabinoid in pure form (i.e., dry 

powder or crystals). 

Issues for Comment 

1. The Commission invites general 

comment on organic and synthetic 

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), 

particularly on its chemical structure, 

its pharmacological effects, potential for 

addiction and abuse, the patterns of 

abuse and harms associated with its 

abuse, and the patterns of trafficking 

and harms associated with its 

trafficking. How is THC manufactured, 

distributed, possessed, and used? What 

are the characteristics of the offenders 

involved in these various activities? 

What harms are posed by these 

activities? How do these harms differ 

from those associated with other 

controlled substances such as 

marihuana, cocaine, heroin, or 

methamphetamine? 

The Commission further seeks 

comment on whether, and if so how, the 

Commission should change how the 

guidelines account for THC. As stated 

above, the marihuana equivalencies of 

both types of THC, organic and 

synthetic, have the same ratio—1 gm of 

THC = 167 gm of marihuana. Is the 

1:167 ratio in marihuana equivalency 

for both types of THC appropriate? 

Should the Commission establish a 

different ratio for both types of THC? If 

so, what ratio should the Commission 

establish and why? Should THC 

(organic) and THC (synthetic) have the 

same ratio in marihuana equivalency? 

Should the Commission instead 

establish one ratio for THC (organic) and 

a different ratio for THC (synthetic)? If 

so, what ratio should the Commission 

establish for each substance and why? 

2. The Commission invites general 

comment on synthetic cannabinoids, 

particularly on their chemical 

structures, their pharmacological effects, 

potential for addiction and abuse, the 

patterns of abuse and harms associated 

with their abuse, and the patterns of 

trafficking and harms associated with 

their trafficking. How are synthetic 

cannabinoids manufactured, 

distributed, possessed, and used? What 

are the characteristics of the offenders 

involved in these various activities? 

What harms are posed by these 

activities? How do these harms differ 

from those associated with other 

controlled substances such as 

marihuana, cocaine, heroin, or 

methamphetamine? 

3. As noted above, courts frequently 

identify tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as 

the most closely related controlled 

substance referenced in the guidelines 

in cases involving synthetic 

cannabinoids. Under the current 

guidelines, including Application Note 

6 to § 2D1.1, is this determination 

appropriate? Is organic and synthetic 

THC the most closely related controlled 

substance to (1) JWH–018, (2) AM–2201, 

and (3) synthetic cannabinoids in 

general? If not, is there any controlled 

substance referenced in § 2D1.1 that is 

most closely related to synthetic 

cannabinoids? If so, what substance? 

The Commission further seeks 

comment on whether and, if so, how the 

guidelines should be amended to 

account for synthetic cannabinoids. For 

example, should the Commission 

establish marihuana equivalencies for 

specific synthetic cannabinoids such as 

JWH–018 and AM–2201? If so, what 

equivalencies should the Commission 

provide for JWH–018 and AM–2201, 

and why? What factors should the 

Commission consider when deciding 

whether to account for these synthetic 

cannabinoids? 

4. As stated above, the Commission 

has received comment indicating that a 

large number of synthetic cannabinoids 

are currently available, and that new 

synthetic cannabinoids are regularly 

developed for illegal trafficking. Instead 

of providing marihuana equivalencies 

for individual synthetic cannabinoids, 

should the Commission consider 

establishing a single marihuana 

equivalency applicable to all synthetic 

cannabinoids? Are synthetic 

cannabinoids sufficiently similar to one 

another in chemical structure, 

pharmacological effects, potential for 

addiction and abuse, patterns of 

trafficking and abuse, and associated 

harms, to support the adoption of a 

broad class-based approach for 

sentencing purposes? If so, what 

marihuana equivalency should the 

Commission provide for synthetic 

cannabinoids as a class and why? What 

factors should the Commission account 

for if it considers adopting a broad classbased approach for synthetic 

cannabinoids? Should the Commission 

define ‘‘synthetic cannabinoids’’ for 

purposes of this broad class-based 

approach? If so, how? Are there any 

synthetic cannabinoids that should not 

be included as part of a broad classbased approach and for which the 

Commission should provide a 

marihuana equivalency separate from 

other synthetic cannabinoids? If so, 

what equivalency should the 

Commission provide for each such 

synthetic cannabinoid, and why? 

What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of a broad class-based 

approach for synthetic cannabinoids? If 

the Commission were to provide a 

different approach to account for 

synthetic cannabinoids in the 

guidelines, what should that different 

approach be? 

5. If the Commission was to establish 

a single marihuana equivalency 

applicable to all synthetic cannabinoids 

as a class, should this class-based 

equivalency also apply to synthetic 

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)? Is 

synthetic THC sufficiently similar to 

other synthetic cannabinoids in 

chemical structure, pharmacological 

effects, potential for addiction and 

abuse, patterns of trafficking and abuse, 

and associated harms, to be included as 

part of a broad class-based approach for 

synthetic cannabinoids? Should the 

Commission instead continue to provide 

a marihuana equivalency for synthetic 

THC separate from other synthetic 

cannabinoids? 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 40651 

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

USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 4.4. 

William H. Pryor, Jr., 

Acting Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18077 Filed 8–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–40–P 

UNITED STATES SENTENCING 

COMMISSION 

Sentencing Guidelines for United 

States Courts 

AGENCY: United States Sentencing 

Commission 

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments 

to sentencing guidelines, policy 

statements, and commentary. Request 

for public comment, including public 

comment regarding retroactive 

application of any of the proposed 

amendments. Notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The United States Sentencing 

Commission is considering 

promulgating amendments to the 

sentencing guidelines, policy 

statements, and commentary. This 

notice sets forth the proposed 

amendments and, for each proposed 

amendment, a synopsis of the issues 

addressed by that amendment. This 

notice also sets forth several issues for 

comment, some of which are set forth 

together with the proposed 

amendments, and one of which 

(regarding retroactive application of 

proposed amendments) is set forth in 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this notice. 

DATES: (1) Written Public Comment.— 

Written public comment regarding the 

proposed amendments and issues for 

comment set forth in this notice, 

including public comment regarding 

retroactive application of any of the 

proposed amendments, should be 

received by the Commission not later 

than October 10, 2017. Written reply 

comments, which may only respond to 

issues raised in the original comment 

period, should be received by the 

Commission not later than November 6, 

2017. Public comment regarding a 

proposed amendment received after the 

close of the comment period, and reply 

comment received on issues not raised 

in the original comment period, may not 

be considered. 

(2) Public Hearing.—The Commission 

may hold a public hearing regarding the 

proposed amendments and issues for 

comment set forth in this notice. Further 

information regarding any public 

hearing that may be scheduled, 

including requirements for testifying 

and providing written testimony, as 

well as the date, time, location, and 

scope of the hearing, will be provided 

by the Commission on its Web site at 

www.ussc.gov. 

ADDRESSES: All written comment should 

be sent to the Commission by electronic 

mail or regular mail. The email address 

for public comment is Public_

Comment@ussc.gov. The regular mail 

address for public comment is United 

States Sentencing Commission, One 

Columbus Circle NE., Suite 2–500, 

Washington, DC 20002–8002, Attention: 

Public Affairs. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Leonard, Director, Office of 

Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 

502–4500, pubaffairs@ussc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Sentencing Commission is 

an independent agency in the judicial 

branch of the United States 

Government. The Commission 

promulgates sentencing guidelines and 

policy statements for federal courts 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The 

Commission also periodically reviews 

and revises previously promulgated 

guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) 

and submits guideline amendments to 

the Congress not later than the first day 

of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

994(p). 

Publication of a proposed amendment 

requires the affirmative vote of at least 

three voting members of the 

Commission and is deemed to be a 

request for public comment on the 

proposed amendment. See Rules 2.2 and 

4.4 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. In contrast, the 

affirmative vote of at least four voting 

members is required to promulgate an 

amendment and submit it to Congress. 

See Rule 2.2; 28 U.S.C. 994(p). 

The proposed amendments in this 

notice are presented in one of two 

formats. First, some of the amendments 

are proposed as specific revisions to a 

guideline, policy statement, or 

commentary. Bracketed text within a 

proposed amendment indicates a 

heightened interest on the 

Commission’s part in comment and 

suggestions regarding alternative policy 

choices; for example, a proposed 

enhancement of [2][4][6] levels indicates 

that the Commission is considering, and 

invites comment on, alternative policy 

choices regarding the appropriate level 

of enhancement. Similarly, bracketed 

text within a specific offense 

characteristic or application note means 

that the Commission specifically invites 

comment on whether the proposed 

provision is appropriate. Second, the 

Commission has highlighted certain 

issues for comment and invites 

suggestions on how the Commission 

should respond to those issues. 

In summary, the proposed 

amendments and issues for comment set 

forth in this notice are as follows: 

(1) A multi-part proposed amendment 

to respond to the Bipartisan Budget Act 

of 2015, Public Law 114–74 (Nov. 2, 

2015), including (A) revisions to 

Appendix A (Statutory Index), and a 

related issue for comment; and (B) 

amending § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property 

Destruction, and Fraud) to address new 

increased penalties for certain persons 

who commit fraud offenses under 

certain Social Security programs, and 

related issues for comment; 

(2) a multi-part proposed amendment 

relating to the findings and 

recommendations contained in the May 

2016 Report of the Commission’s Tribal 

Issues Advisory Group, including (A) 

amending the Commentary to § 4A1.3 

(Departures Based on Inadequacy of 

Criminal History Category (Policy 

Statement)) to set forth a non-exhaustive 

list of factors for the court to consider 

in determining whether, and to what 

extent, an upward departure based on a 

tribal court conviction is appropriate, 

and related issues for comment; and (B) 

amending the Commentary to § 1B1.1 

(Application Instructions) to provide a 

definition of ‘‘court protection order,’’ 

and a related issue for comment; 

(3) a multi-part proposed amendment 

to Chapters Four (Criminal History and 

Criminal Livelihood) and Five 

(Determining the Sentence), including 

(A) setting forth options for a new 

Chapter Four guideline, at § 4C1.1 (First 

Offenders), and amending § 5C1.1 

(Imposition of a Term of Imprisonment) 

to provide lower guideline ranges for 

‘‘first offenders’’ generally and increase 

the availability of alternatives to 

incarceration for such offenders at the 

lower levels of the Sentencing Table, 

and related issues for comment; and (B) 

revising Chapter Five to (i) amend the 

Sentencing Table in Chapter Five, Part 

A to expand Zone B by consolidating 

Zones B and C and (ii) amend the 

Commentary to § 5F1.2 (Home 

Detention) to revise language requiring 

electronic monitoring, and related 

issues for comment. 

(4) a proposed amendment to the 

Commentary to § 3E1.1 (Acceptance of 

Responsibility) setting forth options to 

revise how a defendant’s challenge to 

relevant conduct should be considered 

in determining whether the defendant 

has accepted responsibility for purposes 

of the guideline, and a related issue for 

comment; 

(5) a multi-part proposed amendment 

to the Guidelines Manual to respond to 

recently enacted legislation and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES