82 FR 40648 - Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 164 (August 25, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 164 (August 25, 2017)
| Page Range | 40648-40651 | |
| FR Document | 2017-18077 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 40648-40651] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-18077] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sec. 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 [email protected]. 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, [email protected]. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 [[Page 40649]] Equivalency Tables in Sec. 2D1.1. For this reason, in cases involving these substances, courts are required by Application Note 6 of the Commentary to Sec. 2D1.1 to ``determine the base offense level using the marihuana equivalency of the most closely related controlled substance referenced in [Sec. 2D1.1].'' Section 2D1.1 provides a three-step process for making this determination. See USSG Sec. 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 Sec. 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/synthetic-cathinones-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 class-based 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 Sec. 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, [[Page 40650]] DrugFacts: Synthetic Cannabinoids (Revised November 2015), available at https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cannabinoids. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 class-based 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 class-based 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? [[Page 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
![40648 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices
The Commission will also recess the States Sentencing Commission, One considers when determining the
meetings around noon for a lunch break. Columbus Circle NE., Suite 2–500, marihuana equivalencies for specific
At the beginning of the lunch break, the Washington, DC 20002–8002, Attention: controlled substances to the substances
Chairman will announce what time the Public Affairs. under study. See U.S. Sentencing
meetings will reconvene. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comm’n, ‘‘Request for Public
Authority: Congress created the U.S.- Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Comment,’’ 81 FR 92021 (Dec. 19, 2016).
China Economic and Security Review Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) On April 18, 2017, the Commission
Commission in 2000 in the National Defense 502–4500, pubaffairs@ussc.gov. held a public hearing relating to this
Authorization Act (Public Law 106–398), as priority. The Commission received
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
amended by Division P of the Consolidated testimony from experts on the synthetic
Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. United States Sentencing Commission is
drugs related to the study, including
108–7), as amended by Pub. L. 109–108 an independent agency in the judicial
testimony about their chemical
(November 22, 2005), as amended by Public branch of the United States
structure, pharmacological effects,
Law 113–291 (December 19, 2014). Government. The Commission
trafficking patterns, and community
Dated: August 21, 2017. promulgates sentencing guidelines and
impact.
Michael Danis, policy statements for federal courts On June 21, 2017, the Commission
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The published a second notice requesting
Executive Director, U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission. Commission also periodically reviews public comment on issues specifically
and revises previously promulgated related to MDMA/ecstasy and
[FR Doc. 2017–18018 Filed 8–24–17; 8:45 am]
guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) methylone, one of the synthetic
BILLING CODE 1137–00–P
and submits guideline amendments to cathinones included in the
the Congress not later than the first day Commission’s study. See U.S.
of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sentencing Comm’n, ‘‘Request for
UNITED STATES SENTENCING 994(p).
COMMISSION Public Comment,’’ 82 FR 28382 (June
In August 2016, the Commission 21, 2017).
Sentencing Guidelines for United indicated that one of its priorities would As part of its continuing work on this
States Courts be the ‘‘[s]tudy of offenses involving priority, the Commission is publishing
MDMA/Ecstasy, synthetic cannabinoids this third request for public comment.
AGENCY: United States Sentencing (such as JWH–018 and AM–2201), and The request for public comment
Commission. synthetic cathinones (such as contains two parts (Part A and Part B).
ACTION: Request for public comment. Methylone, MDPV, and Mephedrone), Part A focuses on issues related to
and consideration of any amendments synthetic cathinones. Part B focuses on
SUMMARY: In August 2017, the to the Guidelines Manual that may be issues related to tetrahydrocannabinol
Commission indicated that one of its appropriate in light of the information (THC) and synthetic cannabinoids.
policy priorities would be the obtained from such study.’’ See U.S. In addition to the substance-specific
‘‘[c]ontinuation of its multiyear study of Sentencing Comm’n, ‘‘Notice of Final topics discussed below, the Commission
offenses involving synthetic cathinones Priorities,’’ 81 FR 58004 (Aug. 24, 2016). anticipates that its work will continue to
(such as methylone, MDPV, and On August 17, 2017, the Commission be guided by the factors the Commission
mephedrone) and synthetic revised the priority to study offenses traditionally considers when
cannabinoids (such as JWH–018 and involving synthetic cathinones (such as determining the marihuana
AM–2201), as well as methylone, MDPV, and mephedrone) equivalencies for specific controlled
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), fentanyl, and synthetic cannabinoids (such as substances, including their chemical
and fentanyl analogues, and JWH–018 and AM–2201), as well as structure, pharmacological effects,
consideration of appropriate guideline tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), fentanyl, legislative and scheduling history,
amendments, including simplifying the and fentanyl analogues. See U.S. potential for addiction and abuse, the
determination of the most closely Sentencing Comm’n, ‘‘Notice of Final patterns of abuse and harms associated
related substance under Application Priorities,’’ 82 FR 39949 (Aug. 22, 2017). with their abuse, and the patterns of
Note 6 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1.’’ The Commission also stated that, as part trafficking and harms associated with
See 82 FR 39949 (Aug. 22, 2017). As of the study, the Commission will their trafficking.
part of its continuing work on this consider possible approaches to The Commission will also consider
priority, the Commission is publishing simplify the determination of the most possible approaches to simplify the
this request for public comment on closely related substance under determination of the most closely
issues related to synthetic cathinones, Application Note 6 of the Commentary related substance under Application
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and to § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Note 6 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1.
synthetic cannabinoids. The issues for Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking The Commission has received comment
comment are set forth in the (Including Possession with Intent to from the public suggesting that
Supplementary Information portion of Commit These Offenses); Attempt or questions regarding ‘‘the most closely
this notice. Conspiracy). The Commission expects related controlled substance’’ arise
DATES: Public comment regarding the to solicit comment several times during frequently in cases involving the
issues for comment set forth in this the study period from experts and other substances included in the study, and
notice should be received by the members of the public. that the Application Note 6 process
Commission not later than October 27, On December 19, 2016, the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
requires courts to hold extensive
2017. Commission published a notice inviting hearings to receive expert testimony on
ADDRESSES: All written comment should general comment on synthetic behalf of the government and the
be sent to the Commission by electronic cathinones (MDPV, methylone, and defendant.
mail or regular mail. The email address mephedrone) and synthetic The synthetic cathinones and
for public comment is Public_ cannabinoids (JWH–018 and AM–2201), synthetic cannabinoids included in the
Comment@ussc.gov. The regular mail as well as about the application of the study are not specifically listed in either
address for public comment is United factors the Commission traditionally the Drug Quantity Table or the Drug
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_40812/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 40649
Equivalency Tables in § 2D1.1. For this reported to have hallucinogenic effects effects, potential for addiction and
reason, in cases involving these broadly similar to MDMA (3,4- abuse, patterns of trafficking and abuse,
substances, courts are required by methylenedioxy-methamphetamine), and associated harms, to support the
Application Note 6 of the Commentary also known as ‘‘ecstasy.’’ In contrast, adoption of a broad class-based
to § 2D1.1 to ‘‘determine the base studies have reported that MDPV (3,4- approach for sentencing purposes? If so,
offense level using the marihuana methylenedioxypyrovalerone) may what marihuana equivalency should the
equivalency of the most closely related produce a stimulant effect similar to, Commission provide for synthetic
controlled substance referenced in but more potent than, cocaine. cathinones as a class and why? What
[§ 2D1.1].’’ Section 2D1.1 provides a Public comment on the Commission’s factors should the Commission account
three-step process for making this priority, testimony at the April 2017 for if it considers adopting a broad class-
determination. See USSG § 2D1.1, hearing, and other sources indicate that based approach for synthetic
comment. (n.6, 8). First, a court (1) there are many different synthetic cathinones? Should the Commission
determines the most closely related cathinones, and (2) new synthetic define ‘‘synthetic cathinones’’ for
controlled substance by considering, to cathinones are regularly developed, purposes of this broad class-based
the extent practicable, the factors set displacing the existing ones that are approach? If so, how? Are there any
forth in Application Note 6. Next, the trafficked illegally. Given this synthetic cathinones that should not be
court determines the appropriate information, it would likely be difficult, included as part of a broad class-based
quantity of marihuana equivalent of the if not impossible, for the Commission to approach and for which the
most closely related controlled provide individual marihuana Commission should provide a
substance, using the Drug Equivalency equivalencies for each synthetic marihuana equivalency separate from
Tables at Application Note 8(D). Finally, cathinone in the Guidelines Manual. other synthetic cathinones? If so, what
the court uses the Drug Quantity Table Issues for Comment equivalency should the Commission
in § 2D1.1(c) to determine the base provide for each such synthetic
offense level that corresponds to that 1. The Commission invites general cathinone, and why?
amount of marihuana. comment on synthetic cathinones, What are the advantages and
particularly on their chemical disadvantages of a broad class-based
(A) Synthetic Cathinones structures, their pharmacological effects, approach for synthetic cathinones? If
Synthetic Cathinones.—According to potential for addiction and abuse, the the Commission were to provide a
the National Institute on Drug Abuse, patterns of abuse and harms associated different approach to account for
synthetic cathinones, also known as with their abuse, and the patterns of synthetic cathinones in the guidelines,
‘‘bath salts,’’ are human-made drugs trafficking and harms associated with what should that different approach be?
chemically related to cathinone, a their trafficking. How are synthetic
stimulant found in the khat plant. See cathinones manufactured, distributed, (B) Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and
National Institute on Drug Abuse, possessed, and used? What are the Synthetic Cannabinoids
DrugFacts: Synthetic Cathinones (‘‘Bath characteristics of the offenders involved Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC.—
Salts’’) (January 2016), available at in these various activities? What harms Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the
https://www.drugabuse.gov/ are posed by these activities? How do primary psychotropic substance in
publications/drugfacts/synthetic- these harms differ from those associated marihuana, the most commonly used
cathinones-bath-salts. Khat is a shrub with other controlled substances such as controlled substance. Although
grown in East Africa and southern marihuana, cocaine, heroin, marihuana is the most common method
Arabia. Around 1975, scientists methamphetamine, or MDMA/Ecstasy? by which THC is consumed, THC can
identified cathinone as the active 2. The Commission invites general also be extracted from marihuana in
chemical in the khat plant and, once its comment on whether and, if so, how the concentrated resins, such as hash oil.
molecular structure was discovered, guidelines should be amended to Synthetic cannabinoids mimic the
synthetic cathinones began to be account for synthetic cathinones. For effects of THC.
produced. example, should the Commission The Drug Equivalency Tables in the
According to the Drug Enforcement establish marihuana equivalencies for Commentary to § 2D1.1 set forth the
Administration and other sources, specific synthetic cathinones such as marihuana equivalency for two types of
synthetic cathinones are typically methylone, MDPV, and mephedrone? If THC—organic THC and synthetic THC.
purchased in powder or crystal form so, what equivalencies should the The marihuana equivalencies for both
over the Internet from suppliers in Commission provide for methylone, types of THC have the same ratio: 1
China and are delivered to the United MDPV, and mephedrone, and why? gram of THC = 167 grams of marihuana.
States by common carriers. See, e.g., What factors should the Commission The marihuana equivalencies for both
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs consider when deciding whether to types of THC have remained unchanged
and Drug Addiction, Synthetic account for these synthetic cathinones? since they were established in the first
Cathinones Drug Profile (2017), 3. As stated above, the Commission edition of the Guidelines Manual in
available at http:// has received comment indicating that a 1987.
www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/ large number of synthetic cathinones are Synthetic Cannabinoids.—According
drug-profiles/synthetic-cathinones. currently available, and that new to the National Institute of Drug Abuse,
The scientific literature and other synthetic cathinones are regularly synthetic cannabinoids are man-made
sources suggest that the effects developed for illegal trafficking. Instead mind-altering chemicals that are related
produced by a synthetic cathinone can of providing marihuana equivalencies to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
vary compared to both natural for individual synthetic cathinones, psychoactive chemical found in the
cathinones and other synthetic should the Commission consider marihuana plant. However, the available
cathinones. For example, the synthetic establishing a single marihuana scientific literature on this subject
cathinones methylone (3,4- equivalency applicable to all synthetic strongly suggests that synthetic
methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone) cathinones? Are synthetic cathinones cannabinoids are substantially different
and mephedrone (4- sufficiently similar to one another in than marihuana or organic THC. See
methylmethcathinone) have been chemical structure, pharmacological National Institute of Drug Abuse,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_40812/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2017 / Notices 40651
Authority: 28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o), (p), (x); scope of the hearing, will be provided suggestions on how the Commission
USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 4.4. by the Commission on its Web site at should respond to those issues.
William H. Pryor, Jr., www.ussc.gov. In summary, the proposed
Acting Chair.
amendments and issues for comment set
ADDRESSES: All written comment should forth in this notice are as follows:
[FR Doc. 2017–18077 Filed 8–24–17; 8:45 am] be sent to the Commission by electronic (1) A multi-part proposed amendment
BILLING CODE 2210–40–P mail or regular mail. The email address to respond to the Bipartisan Budget Act
for public comment is Public_ of 2015, Public Law 114–74 (Nov. 2,
Comment@ussc.gov. The regular mail 2015), including (A) revisions to
UNITED STATES SENTENCING address for public comment is United Appendix A (Statutory Index), and a
COMMISSION States Sentencing Commission, One related issue for comment; and (B)
Columbus Circle NE., Suite 2–500, amending § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property
Sentencing Guidelines for United Washington, DC 20002–8002, Attention:
States Courts Destruction, and Fraud) to address new
Public Affairs. increased penalties for certain persons
AGENCY: United States Sentencing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: who commit fraud offenses under
Commission Christine Leonard, Director, Office of certain Social Security programs, and
ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) related issues for comment;
to sentencing guidelines, policy 502–4500, pubaffairs@ussc.gov. (2) a multi-part proposed amendment
statements, and commentary. Request SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
relating to the findings and
for public comment, including public United States Sentencing Commission is recommendations contained in the May
comment regarding retroactive 2016 Report of the Commission’s Tribal
an independent agency in the judicial
application of any of the proposed Issues Advisory Group, including (A)
branch of the United States
amendments. Notice of public hearing. amending the Commentary to § 4A1.3
Government. The Commission
(Departures Based on Inadequacy of
SUMMARY: The United States Sentencing promulgates sentencing guidelines and
Criminal History Category (Policy
Commission is considering policy statements for federal courts
Statement)) to set forth a non-exhaustive
promulgating amendments to the pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The
list of factors for the court to consider
sentencing guidelines, policy Commission also periodically reviews
in determining whether, and to what
statements, and commentary. This and revises previously promulgated
extent, an upward departure based on a
notice sets forth the proposed guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o)
tribal court conviction is appropriate,
amendments and, for each proposed and submits guideline amendments to and related issues for comment; and (B)
amendment, a synopsis of the issues the Congress not later than the first day amending the Commentary to § 1B1.1
addressed by that amendment. This of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. (Application Instructions) to provide a
notice also sets forth several issues for 994(p). definition of ‘‘court protection order,’’
comment, some of which are set forth Publication of a proposed amendment and a related issue for comment;
together with the proposed requires the affirmative vote of at least (3) a multi-part proposed amendment
amendments, and one of which three voting members of the to Chapters Four (Criminal History and
(regarding retroactive application of Commission and is deemed to be a Criminal Livelihood) and Five
proposed amendments) is set forth in request for public comment on the (Determining the Sentence), including
the Supplementary Information section proposed amendment. See Rules 2.2 and (A) setting forth options for a new
of this notice. 4.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Chapter Four guideline, at § 4C1.1 (First
DATES: (1) Written Public Comment.— Practice and Procedure. In contrast, the Offenders), and amending § 5C1.1
Written public comment regarding the affirmative vote of at least four voting (Imposition of a Term of Imprisonment)
proposed amendments and issues for members is required to promulgate an to provide lower guideline ranges for
comment set forth in this notice, amendment and submit it to Congress. ‘‘first offenders’’ generally and increase
including public comment regarding See Rule 2.2; 28 U.S.C. 994(p). the availability of alternatives to
retroactive application of any of the The proposed amendments in this incarceration for such offenders at the
proposed amendments, should be notice are presented in one of two lower levels of the Sentencing Table,
received by the Commission not later formats. First, some of the amendments and related issues for comment; and (B)
than October 10, 2017. Written reply are proposed as specific revisions to a revising Chapter Five to (i) amend the
comments, which may only respond to guideline, policy statement, or Sentencing Table in Chapter Five, Part
issues raised in the original comment commentary. Bracketed text within a A to expand Zone B by consolidating
period, should be received by the proposed amendment indicates a Zones B and C and (ii) amend the
Commission not later than November 6, heightened interest on the Commentary to § 5F1.2 (Home
2017. Public comment regarding a Commission’s part in comment and Detention) to revise language requiring
proposed amendment received after the suggestions regarding alternative policy electronic monitoring, and related
close of the comment period, and reply choices; for example, a proposed issues for comment.
comment received on issues not raised enhancement of [2][4][6] levels indicates (4) a proposed amendment to the
in the original comment period, may not that the Commission is considering, and Commentary to § 3E1.1 (Acceptance of
be considered. invites comment on, alternative policy Responsibility) setting forth options to
(2) Public Hearing.—The Commission choices regarding the appropriate level revise how a defendant’s challenge to
may hold a public hearing regarding the of enhancement. Similarly, bracketed
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
relevant conduct should be considered
proposed amendments and issues for text within a specific offense in determining whether the defendant
comment set forth in this notice. Further characteristic or application note means has accepted responsibility for purposes
information regarding any public that the Commission specifically invites of the guideline, and a related issue for
hearing that may be scheduled, comment on whether the proposed comment;
including requirements for testifying provision is appropriate. Second, the (5) a multi-part proposed amendment
and providing written testimony, as Commission has highlighted certain to the Guidelines Manual to respond to
well as the date, time, location, and issues for comment and invites recently enacted legislation and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_40812/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-24 12:40:53
Document Modified: 2018-10-24 12:40:53
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Request for public comment. | |
| 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. | |
| Contact | Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502-4500, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 40648 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR