47322 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

required by Section 403 of the Tax 

Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 

which imposes an excise tax on certain 

transfers of qualifying mineral or 

geothermal interests. 

Current Actions: There is no change 

in the paperwork burden previously 

approved by OMB. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

20. 

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 5 

hours, 33 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 111. 

The following paragraph applies to all 

of the collections of information covered 

by this notice: 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

Books or records relating to a collection 

of information must be retained as long 

as their contents may become material 

in the administration of any internal 

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and 

tax return information are confidential, 

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. 

Request for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and/or included in the 

request for OMB approval. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (e) estimates of capital or start-up 

costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide information. 

Approved: October 4, 2017. 

L. Brimmer, 

Senior Tax Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21922 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–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 fentanyl and fentanyl 

analogues. 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 November 

13, 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, it would 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 related 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 47323 

Public Comment,’’ 82 FR 28382 (June 

21, 2017). 

On August 25, 2017, the Commission 

published a third notice requesting 

public comment on issues related to (1) 

synthetic cathinones and (2) 

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 

synthetic cannabinoids. See U.S. 

Sentencing Comm’n, ‘‘Request for 

Public Comment,’’ 82 FR 40648 (Aug. 

25, 2017). 

As part of its continuing work on this 

priority, the Commission is publishing 

this fourth request for public comment 

focusing on issues related to fentanyl 

and fentanyl analogues. 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. 

Fentanyl and Fentanyl Analogues.— 

According to the National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, fentanyl is a powerful 

synthetic opioid analgesic that is similar 

to morphine but 50 to 100 times more 

potent. See National Institute on Drug 

Abuse, DrugFacts: Fentanyl (June 2016), 

available at https://www.drugabuse.gov/ 

publications/drugfacts/fentanyl. 

Fentanyl is a prescription drug that can 

be diverted for illicit use. Nonpharmaceutical fentanyl and analogues 

of fentanyl are also produced in 

clandestine laboratories for illicit use. 

See, e.g., U.N. Office on Drugs & Crime, 

Fentanyl and Its Analogues—50 Years 

On, Global Smart Update 17 (March 

2017), available at https://

www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/ 

Global_SMART_Update_17_web.pdf. 

The clandestinely manufactured 

fentanyl and fentanyl analogues have 

frequently been identified as the 

substances associated with recent 

increases in drug overdose deaths. 

These substances are sold in the illicit 

drug market as powder, pills, absorbed 

on blotter paper, mixed with or 

substituted for heroin, or as tablets that 

may mimic the appearance of other 

opioids. 

The Controlled Substances Act (21 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) classifies fentanyl as 

a Schedule II controlled substance, 

along with heroin and other opiates. 

While there is no other specific 

reference to the term ‘‘fentanyl’’ in Title 

21, United States Code, a subsequent 

section establishes a mandatory 

minimum penalty for a substance 

identified as ‘‘N-phenyl-N-[1-(2- 

phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] 

propenamide.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

841(b)(1)(A)(vi). A Department of Justice 

regulation explains that N-phenyl-N-[1- 

(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] 

propenamide is the substance 

‘‘commonly known as fentanyl.’’ 28 CFR 

50.21(d)(4)(vii). The Controlled 

Substances Act prescribes a mandatory 

minimum penalty of five years for 

trafficking 40 or more grams of the 

substance, or ten or more grams of an 

analogue of the substance. 21 U.S.C. 

841(b)(1)(A)(vi); (b)(1)(B)(vi). 

The Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1 

contains entries for both ‘‘fentanyl’’ and 

‘‘fentanyl analogue,’’ at ratios equivalent 

to those established by statute. The Drug 

Equivalency Tables in the Commentary 

to § 2D1.1 clearly identify fentanyl with 

the specific substance associated with 

the statutory minimum penalty by 

providing a marihuana equivalency for 

1 gm of ‘‘Fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2- 

phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] 

Propenamide)’’ equal to 2.5 kg of 

marihuana (i.e., a 1:2,500 ratio). The 

Drug Equivalency Tables also sets forth 

the marihuana equivalencies for two 

other substances, Alpha-Methylfentanyl 

and 3-Methylfentanyl. Both substances 

have the same marihuana equivalency 

ratio, 1:10,000, as fentanyl analogue. 

Alpha-Methylfentanyl and 3- 

Methylfentanyl are pharmaceutical 

analogues of fentanyl that were 

developed in the 1960s or 1970s. See, 

e.g., T.J. Gillespie et al., Identification 

and Quantification of AlphaMethylfentanyl in Post Mortem 

Specimens, 6(3) J. of Analytical 

Toxicology 139 (May–June 1982). 

In cases involving a fentanyl analogue 

other than the two listed above, 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. 

Issues for Comment.— 

1. The Commission invites general 

comment on fentanyl and fentanyl 

analogues, 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 fentanyl and 

fentanyl analogues 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 opioids 

such as heroin, morphine, hydrocodone, 

or oxycodone? How, if at all, do the 

harms associated with pharmaceutical 

fentanyl differ from the harms 

associated with non-pharmaceutical 

fentanyl? To the extent the harms posed 

by these substances are different, should 

the guidelines provide different 

penalties for pharmaceutical fentanyl 

and non-pharmaceutical fentanyl? 

2. Fentanyl, when identified as Nphenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4- 

piperidinyl] propenamide, and 

analogues of that specific chemical, are 

subject to mandatory minimum 

penalties under current law, with 

analogues punished four times more 

harshly than fentanyl itself. Those 

penalties have shaped the guidelines 

provisions related to fentanyl since 

1987. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether there are controlled 

substances that might commonly be 

regarded as ‘‘fentanyl analogues’’ that 

are not analogues of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2- 

phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] 

propenamide and therefore do not meet 

the statutory definition of an 

‘‘analogue.’’ If so, should the guidelines 

provide penalties for such controlled 

substances consistent with the 

mandatory minimum provisions 

applicable to fentanyl analogues that 

meet the statutory definition? Should 

the guidelines instead account for such 

substances in a different manner than 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47324 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Notices 

substances to which the mandatory 

minimum penalty applies? 

3. The Commission invites general 

comment on whether and, if so how, the 

guidelines should be amended to 

account for fentanyl and fentanyl 

analogues. How, if at all, should the 

guideline provisions related to fentanyl 

and the fentanyl analogues specifically 

listed in § 2D1.1 be amended? For 

example, should the Commission revise 

the marihuana equivalencies already 

provided for fentanyl, AlphaMethylfentanyl, and 3-Methylfentanyl? 

If so, what equivalency should the 

Commission provide for each substance, 

and why? 

Should the Commission amend 

§ 2D1.1 to account for other unlisted 

fentanyl analogues? For example, 

should the Commission establish 

marihuana equivalencies for fentanyl 

analogues currently not listed in 

§ 2D1.1? If so, what specific fentanyl 

analogues should the Commission 

include in the Drug Equivalency Tables 

and what equivalency should the 

Commission provide for each such 

substance? What factors should the 

Commission consider when deciding 

whether to account for these 

substances? 

4. The Commission has received 

anecdotal information about the 

availability of several fentanyl 

analogues. How are these novel fentanyl 

analogues developed, manufactured and 

trafficked? To what extent are these 

substances legally manufactured for 

pharmaceutical purposes and then 

diverted for illicit trafficking and use, as 

opposed to having been manufactured 

illegally? How complex is the procedure 

to develop these substances and how 

frequently are they introduced into the 

illicit drug market? 

Instead of providing marihuana 

equivalencies for individual fentanyl 

analogues, should the Commission 

consider establishing a single 

marihuana equivalency applicable to all 

fentanyl analogues? Are fentanyl 

analogues 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 fentanyl 

analogues as a class and why? What 

factors should the Commission account 

for if it considers adopting a broad classbased approach for fentanyl and its 

analogues? Should the Commission 

define ‘‘fentanyl analogues’’ for 

purposes of this broad class-based 

approach? If so, how? Are there any 

fentanyl analogues 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 fentanyl analogues? If so, what 

equivalency should the Commission 

provide for each such fentanyl analogue, 

and why? 

What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of a broad class-based 

approach for fentanyl analogues? If the 

Commission were to provide a different 

approach to account for fentanyl 

analogues in the guidelines, what 

should that different approach be? 

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. 2017–21820 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–40–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–0209] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activity: Application for Work Study 

Allowance; Student Work-Study 

Agreement (Advance Payment); 

Extended Student Work-Study 

Agreement; Student Work-Study 

Agreement 

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 

this notice announces that the Veterans 

Benefits Administration (VBA), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, will 

submit the collection of information 

abstracted below to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and comment. The PRA 

submission describes the nature of the 

information collection and its expected 

cost and burden; it includes the actual 

data collection instrument. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before November 13, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

on the collection of information through 

www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20503 or sent through 

electronic mail to oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. Please refer to ‘‘OMB 

Control No. 2900–0209’’ in any 

correspondence. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, VA Clearance 

Officer—Office of Quality Privacy and 

Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs, 

810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20420, (202) 461–5870 or email 

Cynthia.harvey.pryor@va.gov. Please 

refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0209’’ 

in any correspondence. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: Section 3485 of title 38, 

United States Code, and section 21.4145 

of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations 

necessitate these collections of 

information. 

Title: Application for Work Study 

Allowance; Student Work-Study 

Agreement (Advance Payment); 

Extended Student Work-Study 

Agreement; Student Work-Study 

Agreement (VA Forms 22–8691, 22– 

8692, 22–8692a, and 22–8692b). 

OMB Control Number: 2900–0209. 

Type of Review: Renewal of a 

currently approved collection. 

Abstract: VA uses the VA Forms 22– 

8691, 22–8692, 22–8692a, and 22–8692b 

collecting information to determine the 

individual’s eligibility for the workstudy allowance, the number of hours 

the individual will work, the amount 

payable, whether the individual desires 

an advance payment, and whether the 

individual wants to extend the workstudy contract. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The Federal Register Notice with a 60- 

day comment period soliciting 

comments on this collection of 

information was published at 82 FR 

35876 on August 1, 2017. 

Affected Public: Individuals and 

households. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 17,865 

hours. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Respondent = 23 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: Once 

Annually. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

113,851. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, 

VA Clearance Officer, Office of Quality 

Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21823 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES