Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2005-02-23 · SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice of proposed amendments to sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary

13,503 words·~61 min read·/register/2005/02/23/05-3427

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51209; File No. SR-Amex-2005-007] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by the American Stock Exchange LLC To Require Members To Use and Maintain a Back-up Automatic Quote System in ANTE Classes February 15, 2005. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 12, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by the Amex.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Amex proposes to require members to use and maintain a back-up quoting system in ANTE classes and to incorporate violations of this requirement in the Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan (“Plan”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at the Amex's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1.
Purpose The Exchange seeks to amend Amex Rule 950-ANTE(l), Commentary .02(a) to require a Specialist utilizing an Exchange-approved proprietary automatic quote system in a class trading on Amex's ANTE system to have available for immediate use the Exchange-provided automatic quote system that is independent of the Specialist's primary automatic quote system. Specialists would be required to take appropriate provisions to immediately fall back onto the Exchange-provided automatic quotation system should their Exchange-approved proprietary automatic quote system fail.
Included within “appropriate provisions” would be the requirement that Specialists be diligent in keeping their theoretical values current in their back-up system. This requirement would apply at all times during market hours. The Amex believes that the back-up system would need to be independent in order to ensure that any event that could cause a failure to the primary automatic quote system would not corrupt the back-up system. The Exchange believes that the failure of a proprietary automatic quote system could result in the Amex's inability to open an entire group of listed options classes for a brief or sometimes lengthy time period.
Thus, the Amex seeks to require that Specialists have the Exchange-provided automatic quotation system ready, as a back-up, should their primary automatic quote system fail. The Exchange believes that failure to comply with the proposed requirement should be subject to sanction under the Plan. The Exchange has had the Plan since 1976, which provides a simplified procedure for the resolution of minor rule violations. Codified in Amex Rule 590, the Plan has three distinct sections:
Part 1 (“General Rule Violations”) which covers more substantive matters that, nonetheless, are deemed “minor” by the Commission and the Amex; Part 2 (“Floor Decorum”) which covers Floor Decorum and operational matters; and Part 3 (“Reporting Violations”) which covers the late submission of routine reports. Accordingly, the Amex proposes to amend Part 1(g) of Amex Rule 590 to allow for the issuance of minor fines when a Specialist fails to comply with the Exchange's procedures regarding maintaining and utilizing the Exchange-provided automatic quote system as a back-up to the Specialist's Exchange-approved proprietary automatic quote system. 2.
Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 3 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 4 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange on this proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2005-007 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-007. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-007 and should be submitted on or before March 16, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E5-695 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51208; File No. SR-Amex-2005-019] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amending Amex Rule 26 February 15, 2005. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 8, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the Amex. The Exchange has filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 The Amex asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. *See* Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Amex seeks to amend Amex Rule 26 to remove references to the “Minor Floor Violation Disciplinary Committee.” The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web site *http://www.amex.com,* at the Amex's Office of the Secretary, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On July 24, 2003 the Exchange submitted a proposal to eliminate the Minor Floor Violation Disciplinary Committee (the “Committee”) and remove all references to the Committee from Amex rules. Specifically, an amendment was approved to remove references from the Commentary to Amex Rule 26. 6 Unfortunately, there are remaining references to the Committee contained within the body of Amex Rule 26 that were inadvertently overlooked. This filing merely seeks to remove the additional references to the Committee in order to keep published rules accurate. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48557 (September 29, 2003), 68 FR 57494 (October 3, 2003) (order approving File No. SR-Amex-2003-71). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(1) 8 in particular in that it is designed to enforce compliance by Exchange members and persons associated with its members with the rules of the Exchange. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 10 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires that the exchange give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change. The Exchange satisfied this requirement. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 11 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), and designate the proposed rule change immediately operative. 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 12 The Commission notes that accelerating the operative date will allow for the expeditious and accurate publication of Amex rules. For these reasons, the Commission designates that the proposed rule change has become effective and operative immediately. 12 For purposes of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2005-019 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-019. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-019 and should be submitted on or before March 15, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-696 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51213; File No. SR-NASD-2004-180] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Regarding Waiver of California Arbitrator Disclosure Standards February 16, 2005. I. Introduction On December 9, 2004, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change relating to the waiver of California Arbitrator Disclosure Standards. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2005. 3 For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50971 (January 6, 2005), 70 FR 2685 (January 14, 2005) (the “Notice”). II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change A. Description of the Proposal Effective July 1, 2002, the California Judicial Council adopted a set of rules, “Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration” (“California Standards”), 4 which contain extensive disclosure requirements for arbitrators. According to NASD, the rules were designed to address conflicts of interest in private arbitration forums that are not part of a federal regulatory system overseen on a uniform, national basis by the SEC. NASD states that the California Standards impose disclosure requirements on arbitrators that conflict with the disclosure rules of NASD and the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”). Because NASD could not both administer its arbitration program in accordance with its own rules and comply with the new California Standards at the same time, NASD initially suspended the appointment of arbitrators in cases in California, but offered parties several options for pursuing their cases. 5 In response to the adoption of the California Standards and the conflict between the California Standards and the NASD Rules, NASD, the NYSE, and other claimants filed various actions in both the federal court system and the California state court system. These cases are presently proceeding through both the California and the federal court systems. 6 4 California Rules of Court, Division VI of the Appendix. 5 These measures included providing venue changes for arbitration cases, using non-California arbitrators when appropriate, and waiving administrative fees for NASD-sponsored mediations. 6 For a more complete discussion of the various pending cases, please see the Notice, *supra* note 3. To allow arbitrations to proceed in California while the litigation regarding the applicability of the California Standards to SRO arbitrations is pending, NASD implemented a pilot rule to require all industry parties (member firms and associated persons) to waive application of the California Standards to the case, if all the parties in the case who are customers, associated persons with claims against industry parties, member firms with claims against other member firms, or member firms with claims against associated persons that relate exclusively to promissory notes, have done so. 7 7 Originally, the pilot rule applied only to claims by customers, or by associated persons asserting a statutory employment discrimination claim against a member, and required a written waiver by the industry respondents. In July 2003, NASD expanded the scope of the pilot rule to include all claims by associated persons against another associated person or a member. At the same time, the rule was amended to provide that when a customer, or an associated person with a claim against a member or another associated person, agrees to waive the application of the California Standards, all respondents that are members or associated persons will be deemed to have waived the application of the standards as well. The July 2003 amendment also clarified that the pilot rule applies to terminated members and associated persons. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48187 (July 16, 2003), 68 FR 43553 (July 23, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-106). In October 2003, NASD again expanded the scope of the pilot rule to include claims filed by members against other members and to claims filed by members against associated persons that relate exclusively to promissory notes. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48711 (October 29, 2003), 68 FR 62490 (November 4, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-153). The pilot rule, which was originally approved for six months on September 26, 2002, 8 has been extended and is now due to expire on March 31, 2005. 9 NASD believes all the pending litigation regarding the California Standards is unlikely to be resolved by March 31, 2005. The Commission is approving NASD's request to extend the effectiveness of the pilot rule through September 30, 2005, in order to permit NASD to avoid disrupting the administration of cases covered by the pilot rule under the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46562 (September 26, 2002), 67 FR 62085 (October 3, 2002) (SR-NASD-2002-126). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50447 (September 24, 2004), 69 FR 58567 (September 30, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-126). B. Comment Summary The proposal was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2005. 10 We received no comments on the proposal. 10 *See* note 3, supra. III. Discussion and Findings The Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and in particular with section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that NASD's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 11 The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of the Act noted above because, in the event that the pending litigation regarding the California Standards is not resolved by March 31, 2005, the current pilot expiration date, the extension of the effectiveness of the pilot rule through September 30, 2005, will permit NASD to avoid disrupting the administration of cases covered by the pilot rule under the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure. The Commission believes that NASD's current system provides an appropriate forum for the resolutions of cases covered by the pilot rule. Under the pilot rule, the arbitration proceeds under the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure, which already contains extensive disclosure requirements and provisions for challenging arbitrators with potential conflicts of interest. 12 The Commission believes that the extension of the pilot rule will provide claimants with a continuing, consistent, and appropriate forum in which to arbitrate their claims, allowing claimants to proceed rather than requiring them to suspend their claims until the litigation is completed. The Commission believes that providing claimants with such a forum is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 11 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). 12 NASD notes that the NYSE has a similar rule, NYSE Rule 600(g). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act 13 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2004- 180) be, and hereby is, approved through September 30, 2005. 14 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 14 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E5-734 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51214; File No. SR-NASD-2005-014] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Revisions to the Series 11 Examination Program February 16, 2005 Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 31, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by NASD. NASD filed this proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) 3 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 U.S.C 78s(b)(1). 2 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 U.S.C 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 4 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the Assistant Representative—Order Processing (Series 11) examination program. 5 The proposed revisions update the material to reflect changes to the laws, rules, and regulations covered by the examination. NASD is not proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws, or Rules of NASD. 5 NASD also is proposing corresponding revisions to the Series 11 question bank, but based upon instruction from the Commission staff, NASD is filing SR-NASD-2005-014 for immediate effectiveness, and is not filing the question bank for Commission review. *See* letter to Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, from Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is available for Commission review. The revised study outline is available at NASD and at the Commission. However, NASD has omitted the Series 11 selection specifications from this filing and has submitted the specifications under separate cover to the Commission with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Act. 6 6 CFR 240.24b-2. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for its proposal and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Pursuant to section 15A(g)(3) of the Act, 7 which requires NASD to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons associated with NASD members, NASD has developed examinations, and administers examinations developed by other self-regulatory organizations, that are designed to establish that persons associated with NASD members have attained specified levels of competence and knowledge. NASD periodically reviews the content of the examinations to determine whether revisions are necessary or appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject matter covered by the examinations. 7 U.S.C 78 *o* -3(g)(3). The Series 11 examination qualifies an individual to function as an assistant representative to accept unsolicited securities orders from existing customers of a member firm. A Series 11 assistant representative may not solicit transactions or new accounts on behalf of the member, render investment advice, make recommendations to customers regarding the appropriateness of securities transactions, or effect transactions in securities markets on behalf of the member. Further, a Series 11 assistant representative may not be registered concurrently in any other capacity.A committee of industry representatives, together with NASD staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 11 examination program. As a result of this review, NASD is proposing revisions to the examination program to reflect changes to the laws, rules, and regulations covered by the examination, to include new securities products, such as exchange-traded funds, and to focus the examination more on the handling of customer accounts and orders. Based on these revisions, the title of Section 2 was changed from “Processing Customer Orders; Providing Price Information; and Order Processing” to “Customer Accounts and Orders.” NASD is further proposing revisions to the study outline to reflect the new SEC short sale requirements. 8 In addition, the number of questions on each section of the study outline were modified as follows: Types of Securities, decreased from 11 to 10 questions; Customer Accounts and Orders, increased from 19 to 24 questions; Securities Markets, decreased from 8 to 5 questions; and Securities Industry Regulations, decreased from 12 to 11 questions. 8 Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48008 (August 6, 2004)(S7-23-2003). NASD is proposing similar changes to the corresponding sections of the Series 11 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 11 examination will remain at 50, and candidates will have one hour to complete the exam. Also, each question will continue to count one point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to receive a passing grade. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 11 examination program are consistent with the provisions of sections 15A(b)(6) 9 and 15A(g)(3) of the Act, 10 which authorize NASD to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons associated with NASD members. 9 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). 10 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(g)(3). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 12 in that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization. NASD proposes to implement the Series 11 examination program no later than April 29, 2005. NASD will announce the implementation date in a *Notice to Members* to be published no later than 60 days after SEC Notice of this filing. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-014 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-014. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-014 and should be submitted on or before March 16, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-736 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51215; File No. SR-NASD-2005-015] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Revisions to the Series 55 Examination Program February 16, 2005. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 31, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by NASD. NASD filed this proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) 3 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the Limited Representative—Equity Trader (Series 55) examination program. 5 The proposed revisions update the material to reflect changes to the laws, rules, and regulations covered by the examination. NASD is not proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws, or Rules of NASD. 5 NASD also is proposing corresponding revisions to the Series 55 question bank, but based upon instruction from the Commission staff, NASD is filing SR-NASD-2005-015 for immediate effectiveness, and is not filing the question bank for Commission review. *See* letter to Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, from Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is available for Commission review. The revised study outline is available at NASD and at the Commission. However, NASD has omitted the Series 55 selection specifications from this filing and has submitted the specifications under separate cover to the Commission with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Act. 6 6 17 CFR 240.24b-2. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for its proposal and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Pursuant to section 15A(g)(3) of the Act, 7 which requires NASD to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons associated with NASD members, NASD has developed examinations, and administers examinations developed by other self-regulatory organizations, that are designed to establish that persons associated with NASD members have attained specified levels of competence and knowledge. NASD periodically reviews the content of the examinations to determine whether revisions are necessary or appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject matter covered by the examinations. 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(g)(3). The Series 55 examination is required, with certain limited exceptions, for registered representatives who are engaged in proprietary trading, the execution of transactions on an agency basis, or the direct supervision of such activities, with respect to transactions in equity, preferred or convertible debt securities effected otherwise than on a securities exchange. There is an exception from the requirement for the Series 55 examination for any person associated with a member whose trading activities are conducted principally on behalf of an investment company that is registered with the Commission pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 8 and that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the member. 8 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* A committee of industry representatives, together with NASD staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 55 examination program. As a result of this review, NASD is proposing revisions to the section on The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“NASDAQ”) Automated Execution and Trading Systems in the study outline to better reflect the importance of the NASDAQ Market Center—Execution Service (SuperMontage). NASD also is proposing revisions to the study outline to remove certain portions (such as SEC Rules 11Ac1-7 9 and 17a-4, 10 Overallotments (Greenshoe), Tender Offers, and NASD Rule 11810 (Buying-In)) that relate more to a firm's sales practice or operations department than to the firms' NASDAQ trading desk. As a result of the revisions, the title of Section 2 was changed from “NASDAQ Automated Execution and Trading Systems” to “NASDAQ Display, Execution and Trading Systems.” NASD is further proposing revisions to the study outline to reflect the new SEC short sale requirements. 11 In addition, the number of questions on each section of the study outline was modified as follows: NASDAQ and Over-The-Counter Markets, decreased from 45 to 42 questions; NASDAQ Display, Execution and Trading Systems, increased from 9 to 15 questions; Trade Reporting Requirements, decreased from 18 to 16 questions; and General Industry Standards, decreased from 28 to 27 questions. 9 17 CFR 240.11Ac1-7. 10 17 CFR 240.17a-4. 11 Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48008 (August 6, 2004) (S7-23-2003). NASD is proposing similar changes to the corresponding sections of the Series 55 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 55 examination will remain at 100, and candidates will have three hours to complete the exam. Also, each question will continue to count one point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to receive a passing grade 2. Statutory Basis. NASD believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 55 examination program are consistent with the provisions of sections 15A(b)(6) 12 and 15A(g)(3) of the Act, 13 which authorize NASD to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons associated with NASD members. 12 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). 13 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(g)(3). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 14 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 15 in that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization. NASD proposes to implement the Series 55 examination program no later than April 29, 2005. NASD will announce the implementation date in a *Notice to Members* to be published no later than 60 days after SEC Notice of this filing. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-015 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-015. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-015 and should be submitted on or before March 16, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-737 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51216; File No. SR-NASD-2005-025] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Revisions to the Series 4 Examination Program February 16, 2005. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 31, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by NASD. NASD filed this proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) 3 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the Limited Principle—Registered Options (Series 4) examination program. 5 The proposed revisions update the material to reflect changes to the laws, rules, and regulations covered by the examination. NASD is not proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws, or Rules of NASD. 5 NASD also is propoosing corresponding revisions to the Series 4 question bank, but based upon instruction from the Commission staff, NASD is filing SR-NASD-2005-025 for immediate effectiveness, and is not filing the question bank for Commission review. *See* letter to Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, from Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is available for Commission review. The revised study outline is available at NASD and at the Commission. However, NASD has omitted the Series 4 selection specifications from this filing and has submitted the specifications under separate cover to the Commission with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Act. 6 6 17 CFR 240.24b-2. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for its proposal and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Pursuant to section 15A(g)(3) of the Act, 7 which requires NASD to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons associated with NASD members, NASD has developed examinations, and administers examinations developed by other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), that are designed to establish that persons associated with NASD members have attained specified levels of competence and knowledge. NASD periodically reviews the content of the examinations to determine whether revisions are necessary or appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject matter covered by the examinations. 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(g)(3). NASD Rule 1022(f) states that member firms engaged in, or intending to engage in, transactions in security futures or put or call options with the public must have at least one Registered Options and Security Futures Principal. In addition, every individual engaged in the management of the day-to-day options or security futures activities of a firm must be registered as a Registered Options and Security Futures Principal. The Series 4 examination, an industry-wide examination, qualifies an individual to function as a Registered Options and Security Futures Principal, but only for purposes of supervising a member firm's options activities. 8 The Series 4 examination tests a candidate's knowledge of options trading generally, the NASD rules applicable to trading of option contracts, and the rules of registered clearing agencies for options. The Series 4 examination covers, among other things, equity options, foreign currency options, index options, and options on government and mortgage-backed securities. 8 A Registered Options and Security Futures Principal also must complete a firm-element continuing education program that addresses security futures and a principal's responsibilities for security futures before such person can supervise security futures activities. The Series 4 examination program is shared by NASD and the following SROs: the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the Pacific Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. NASD understands that the other SROs also will file with the Commission similar revisions to the Series 4 examination program. A committee of industry representatives, together with NASD staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 4 examination program. As a result of this review and as part of an ongoing effort to align the examination more closely to the supervisory duties of a Series 4 principal, NASD is proposing to modify the content of the examination to track the functional workflow of a Series 4 principal. More specifically, NASD is proposing to revise the main section headings and the number of questions on each section of the Series 4 study outline as follows: Options Investment Strategies, decreased from 35 to 34 questions; Supervision of Sales Activities and Trading Practices, increased from 71 to 75 questions; and Supervision of Employees, Business Conduct, and Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, decreased from 19 to 16 questions. NASD is further proposing revisions to the study outline to reflect the new SEC short sale requirements. The revised examination continues to cover the areas of knowledge required to supervise options activities. NASD is proposing similar changes to the corresponding sections of the Series 4 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 4 examination will remain at 125, and candidates will have three hours to complete the exam. Also, each question will continue to count one point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to receive a passing grade. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 4 examination program are consistent with the provisions of sections 15A(b)(6) 9 and 15A(g)(3) of the Act, 10 which authorize NASD to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons associated with NASD members. 9 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). 10 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(g)(3). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 12 in that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization. NASD proposes to implement the Series 4 examination program no later than April 29, 2005. NASD will announce the implementation date in a *Notice to Members* to be published no later than 60 days after SEC Notice of this filing. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-025 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-025. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-025 and should be submitted on or before March 16, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-738 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51190; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Increase Annual Fee to be Paid by Participants in the Medallion Guarantee Program February 11, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on January 7, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by the NYSE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the application and annual charge to be paid by participants in the medallion signature guarantee program maintained by the NYSE from $300.00 per year to $1,000.00 per year. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 2 2 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by the NYSE.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule is to change the application and annual charge to be paid by participants in the medallion signature program (“MSP”) maintained by the NYSE from $300.00 to $1000.00 per year. In 1992, the Commission approved NYSE's implementation of its signature guarantee program, now referred to as the MSP. 3 At that time, the NYSE specified that participants in the MSP would bear the administrative expenses in connection with the program, which at that time was a charge of $300.00 to be paid upon filing an application to the program and annually thereafter. The $300.00 charge to participants in the MSP has remained unchanged since 1992. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31388 (October 30, 1992), 57 FR 53366 (November 9, 1992), [SR File No. NYSE-92-16] (order approving implementation of a signature guarantee program). The MSP is governed by NYSE Rule 200. In recent years the administrative costs for the MSP have increased substantially. These increases relate not only to internal costs but also to the costs for liability insurance premiums for blanket insurance coverage under the program, and for an outside vendor to provide administrative assistance, and for a website for use by participants in the program. Effective January 2005, the charge to members participating in the MSP will increase to $1,000.00 and will be payable upon a participant's filing an application to the MSP and annually thereafter. The NYSE will bill MSP participants the increased fee for 2005 in January 2005. The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 4 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the NYSE because it provides for equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The NYSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been solicited or received. The NYSE will notify the Commission of any written comments received by the NYSE. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 5 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 6 thereunder because the proposed rule is establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge. At any time within sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 6 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ) or • Send an E-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-FICC-2005-04 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-06. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE and on the NYSE's Web site at *http://www.nyse.com* . All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-06 and should be submitted on or before March 16, 2005. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-735 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-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: Pursuant to section 994(a), (o), and
(p)of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission is considering promulgating certain 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 provides multiple issues for comment, some of which are contained within proposed amendments. The specific proposed amendments and issues for comment in this notice are as follows:
(1)A proposed amendment to implement sections 2 and 5 of the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, Public Law 108-275 and a related issue for comment;
(2)a proposed amendment to implement the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-237 and related issues for comment;
(3)an issue for comment on how to implement the directive to the Commission in section 3 of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, Public Law 108-358; and
(4)proposed amendments that make various technical and conforming amendments to the guidelines. DATES:
(1)Proposed Amendments and Issues for Comment.—Written public comment regarding the proposed amendments and issues for comment set forth in this notice should be received by the Commission not later than March 25, 2005.
(2)Public Hearing.—The Commission has scheduled a public hearing on its proposed amendments for April 12, 2005, at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC 20002-8002. A person who desires to testify at the public hearing should notify Michael Courlander, Public Affairs Officer, at
(202)502-4590, not later than March 10, 2005. Written testimony for the public hearing must be received by the Commission not later than March 28, 2005. Timely submission of written testimony is a requirement for testifying at the public hearing. The Commission requests that, to the extent practicable, commentators submit an electronic version of the comment and of the testimony for the public hearing. The Commission also reserves the right to select persons to testify at any of the hearings and to structure the hearings as the Commission considers appropriate and the schedule permits. Further information regarding the public hearing, including the time of the hearing, will be provided by the Commission on its Web site at *http://www.ussc.gov* . ADDRESSES: Public comment should be sent to: United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, NE., Suite 2-500, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Courlander, Public Affairs Officer, telephone:
(202)502-4590. 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 of each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p). The Commission seeks comment on the proposed amendments, issues for comment, and any other aspect of the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary. 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 or commentary. Bracketed text within a proposed amendment indicates a heightened interest on the Commission's part on comment and suggestions regarding alternative policy choices; for example, a proposed enhancement of [2] 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. The Commission also requests public comment regarding whether the Commission should specify for retroactive application to previously sentenced defendants any of the proposed amendments published in this notice. The Commission requests comment regarding which, if any, of the proposed amendments that may result in a lower guideline range should be made retroactive to previously sentenced defendants pursuant to § 1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range). Additional information pertaining to the proposed amendments described in this notice may be accessed through the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ussc.gov* . Authority: 28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o), (p), (x); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 4.4. Ricardo H. Hinojosa, Chair. *1. Proposed Amendment:* Aggravated Identity Theft. *Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:* This proposed amendment implements sections 2 and 5 of the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, Public Law 108-275, 118 Stat. 831 (“the Act”), which creates two new criminal offenses and provides a specific directive to the Sentencing Commission regarding the upward adjustment at § 3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust/Special Skill). First, the Act creates a new offense at 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1) that prohibits the unauthorized transfer, use, or possession of a means of identification of another person during, or in relation to, specific enumerated felonies. These felonies consist of various types of fraud, including false statements and documents in connection with immigration and citizenship laws, passports, visas, the Social Security Act, and the acquisition of firearms. A conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1) carries a two-year mandatory sentence that must run consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, including the sentence for the underlying felony conviction. The new criminal offense at 18 U.S.C. 1028A(b)(1) prohibits the unauthorized transfer, use, or possession of a means of identification of another person during, or in relation to, specific felonies enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B) (“federal crimes of terrorism”). Section 1028A(b)(1) provides a five-year mandatory sentence that must run consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, including the sentence for the underlying felony conviction. In response to the creation of these new offenses, the proposed amendment creates a new guideline at § 2B1.6 (Aggravated Identity Theft). The proposed guideline is patterned after § 2K2.4 (Use of a Firearm, Armor-Piercing Ammunition, or Explosive During or in Relation to Certain Crimes). Because the new offenses carry a mandatory consecutive term of imprisonment, the proposed guideline, as does § 2K2.4, provides that the “guideline sentence is the term of imprisonment required by statute”. Second, section 5 of the Act directs the Commission to amend § 3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill) to include a “defendant [who] exceeds or abuses the authority of his or her position in order to obtain unlawfully or use without authority any means of identification. * * *” The Act also includes a general directive to the Commission to review and amend its guidelines and policy statements to ensure that the guideline offense levels and enhancements appropriately punish identity theft offenses involving an abuse of trust. In response to the directive, the proposed amendment amends § 3B1.3 to ensure that an adjustment under this guideline applies to “a defendant who uses his or her position in order to obtain unlawfully, or use without authority, any means of identification”. To avoid double-counting, the amendment proposes an application note that prohibits the application of any specific offense characteristic for the transfer, possession, or use of a means of identification when determining the sentence for the underlying offense in cases in which a sentence under the new guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense. Finally, the proposal simplifies the application of the enhancement at § 2B1.1(b)(10), which currently covers offenses involving identity theft, access devices, and counterfeit devices, by changing it from an enhancement based on relevant conduct to an enhancement based on the offense of conviction. This is in response to comments from practitioners, since the enhancement's promulgation in 1998, that the enhancement in its current form is confusing and applied inconsistently. *Proposed Amendment:* Section 2B1.1(b)(10) is amended by striking “offense involved (A)” and all that follows through “of, another means of identification,” and inserting “defendant was convicted of an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(5), (a)(7), or § 1029(a)(4),”. The Commentary to § 2B1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended by striking Application Note 9 and inserting the following: “9. Application of Subsection (b)(10).—Subsection (b)(10) provides a 2-level increase, and a minimum offense level of level 12, if the defendant was convicted of an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(5) or (a)(7), or § 1029(a)(4).”. Chapter Two, part B, subpart 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new guideline and accompanying commentary: “§ 2B1.6. Aggravated Identity Theft
(a)If the defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1028A, the guideline sentence is the term of imprisonment required by statute. Chapters Three (Adjustments) and Four (Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood) shall not apply to that count of conviction. Commentary *Statutory Provision:* 18 U.S.C. 1028A. Application Note 1. Inapplicability of Chapter Two Enhancement.—If a sentence under this guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense, do not apply any specific offense characteristic for the transfer, possession, or use of a means of identification when determining the sentence for the underlying offense. A sentence under this guideline accounts for this factor for the underlying offense of conviction, including any such enhancement that would apply based on conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). “Means of identification” has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7).”. The Commentary to § 3B1.3 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 1 by inserting “'Public or Private Trust'.—” before “'Public or private trust” refers to”; and by striking the second paragraph and inserting the following: “Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, an abuse of position of trust will apply to—
(A)any employee of the U.S. Postal Service who engages in the theft or destruction of undelivered United States mail, due to the special nature of the United States mail; or
(B)a defendant who uses his or her position in order to obtain unlawfully, or use without authority, any means of identification. “Means of identification” has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7).”. The Commentary to § 3B1.3 captioned “Application Notes” is amended by inserting at the end the following: 5. “Inapplicability of Adjustment.”Do not apply this adjustment if the defendant is convicted of 18 U.S.C. 1028A or the base offense level or specific offense characteristic in Chapter Two incorporates this factor.”. The Statutory Index (Appendix A) is amended by inserting after the line referenced to 18 U.S.C. 1028 the following new line: “18 U.S.C. 1028A 2B1.6”. *Issue for Comment:* The Commission seeks comment regarding whether, and if so, how, the guidelines should be amended to address section 2 of the Identify Theft Penalty Enhancement Act. For example, is policy guidance at § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction) appropriate to prevent disproportionate sentences that can arise from multiple convictions of statutes carrying mandatory, consecutive penalties sentenced at the same time? Section 2 of the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act amends 18 U.S.C. 1028A(b)(4) to provide that “a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a violation of this section may, in the discretion of the court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same time on that person for an additional violation of this section, provided that such discretion shall be exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. * * *” *2. Proposed Amendment:* Antitrust Offenses. *Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:* This proposed amendment responds to the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-237, Title II (the “Act”). Section 215 of the Act increases both the fines and statutory maximum terms of imprisonment for Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Act increased the maximum term of imprisonment from 3 years to 10 years, increased the maximum fine for corporations from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000, and increased the maximum fine for individuals from $350,000 to $1,000,000. Congress has expressed an expectation that the Commission modify the antitrust guideline, § 2R1.1. The Act's Legislative History states: This section (Section 215 of the Act) will require the United States Sentencing Commission to revise the existing antitrust sentencing guidelines to increase terms of imprisonment for antitrust violations to reflect the new statutory maximum. No revision in the existing guidelines is called for with respect to fines, as the increases in the Sherman Act statutory maximum fines are intended to permit courts to impose fines for antitrust violations at current guideline levels without the need to engage in damages litigation during the criminal sentencing process. (Supplemental Legislative History, Cong. Rec. H 3658, June 2, 2004). The proposed amendment provides for a base offense level of level [12][14] at the guideline for antitrust offenses, § 2R1.1 (Bid-Rigging, Price-Fixing or Market-Allocation Agreements Among Competitors). This increase in the base offense level recognizes congressional concern that some of the offenses currently referenced to § 2R1.1 do not receive punishment commensurate with their social impact. The increased base offense level also fosters greater proportionality between § 2R1.1 offenses and fraud offenses sentenced pursuant to § 2B1.1. Sentences for fraud offenses were made more severe due to various changes, notably an expansion of the number of additional offense levels at the “loss table” found at § 2B1.1(b)(1), effective November 1, 2001. The proposed amendment also eliminates the 1-level increase for “bid-rigging” cases at § 2R1.1(b)(1). Commission data indicate that a significant majority of the cases historically sentenced under § 2R1.1 are “bid-rigging” cases. Because of the demonstrated frequency of such offenses, this aggravating behavior has been incorporated into the new base offense level. *Proposed Amendment:* Section 2R1.1(a) is amended by striking “10” and inserting “[12][14]”. Section 2R1.1(b) is amended by striking subdivision (1); and by redesignating subdivision
(2)as subdivision (1). The Commentary to § 2R1.1 captioned “Background” is amended by striking the fifth paragraph. *Issues for Comment:*
(1)The Commission seeks comment regarding whether the base offense level in § 2R1.1 (Bid-Rigging, Price-Fixing or Market-Allocation Agreements Among Competitors) for antitrust offenses should be raised and, if so, to what extent.
(2)The Commission requests comment regarding whether the volume of commerce table at subsection (b)(2) of § 2R1.1 should
(A)be amended to change the threshold values that trigger the offense level enhancements therein;
(B)be modified to reduce the number of levels in the volume of commerce table; and/or
(C)be modified to include an additional category or categories for offenses that affect volumes of commerce significantly in excess of $100,000,000. *3. Issue for Comment:* Anabolic Steroids. *Issue for Comment:* Section 3 of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, Public Law 108-358 (the “Act”), directs the Commission to: “(1) review the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to offenses involving anabolic steroids;
(2)consider amending the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide for increased penalties with respect to offenses involving anabolic steroids in a manner that reflects the seriousness of such offenses and the need to deter anabolic steroid trafficking and use; and
(3)take such other action that the Commission considers necessary to carry out this section.”. Anabolic steroids are Schedule III controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 812. Under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(D), any person who knowingly or intentionally trafficks in, or possesses with intent to traffic in, a Schedule III controlled substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years' imprisonment, or if the person committed the offense after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, not more than 10 years' imprisonment. A defendant who has a prior anabolic steroid offense is subject to the 10-year maximum term of imprisonment because section (2)(a)(2) of the Act amended 21 U.S.C. 802(44) to include anabolic steroid offenses within the meaning of “felony drug offense(s)” for purposes of the increased statutory maximum term of imprisonment. Currently § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy) of the guidelines provides in the Drug Equivalency Tables that one unit of a Schedule III substance is the equivalent of one gram of marihuana for purposes of determining the defendant's base offense level under the Drug Quantity Table. For all Schedule III controlled substances except anabolic steroids, one unit equals one tablet or, if in liquid form, 0.5 milliliter. For anabolic steroids, one unit equals 50 tablets, or if in liquid form, 10 cubic centiliters. The Commission requests comment regarding how the Commission should implement the directive in section 3 of the Act. Specifically, should the Commission amend the Drug Equivalency Tables and/or the Notes to the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1 to provide a heightened marihuana equivalency for anabolic steroids, and, if so, what should be the amended equivalency rate? For example, should the Commission treat anabolic steroids the same as other Schedule III controlled substances so that one tablet of anabolic steroids would equal one unit of Schedule III controlled substance and hence would equal one gram of marihuana? *4. Proposed Amendment:* Miscellaneous Amendments Package. *Synopsis of Proposed Amendment:* This proposed amendment makes changes to various sentencing guidelines as follows:
(A)Makes technical amendments to several guidelines to conform to changes made in the public corruption guidelines in the 2004 amendment cycle (see Appendix C to the Guidelines Manual, Amendment 666). Specifically, the proposed amendment corrects title references to § 2C1.1 in §§ 2B3.3(c)(1), 2C1.3(c)(1), and 2C1.8(c)(1) and strikes references to § 2C1.7 in §§ 3D1.2(d) and 8C2.1.
(B)Clarifies Application Note 15 of the fraud guideline, § 2B1.1, to make clear that, in order for § 2B1.1(c)(3) to apply, the conduct set forth in the count of conviction must establish a fraud or false statement-type offense. Currently, there is some confusion with regard to whether the cross reference is applicable if the defendant only lied about another offense.
(C)Corrects the heading to § 5C1.2 (Limitation on Applicability of Statutory Minimum Sentence in Certain Cases) in Application Note 2 of § 5D1.2 (Terms of Supervised Release).
(D)Corrects a typographical error in § 2M6.1 (Unlawful Production, Development, Acquisition, Stockpiling, Alteration, Use, Transfer, or Possession of Nuclear Material, Weapons, or Facilities, Biological Agents, Toxins, or Delivery Systems, Chemical Weapons, or Other Weapons of Mass Destruction; Attempt or Conspiracy).
(E)Conforms § 2D1.11 (Unlawfully Distributing, Importing, Exporting or Possessing a Listed Chemical; Attempt or Conspiracy) to changes made to the drug guideline, § 2D1.1, in the 2004 amendment cycle (see Appendix C to the Guideline Manual, amendment 667). Specifically, the proposed amendment amends the Chemical Quantity Table in § 2D1.11(e) so that the amount of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), at any particular offense level, is the amount that provides a 100 percent yield of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB).
(F)Clarifies Application Note 5 in the drug guideline, § 2D1.1, regarding drug analogues. The current note suggests that a drug analogue is less potent than the drug for which it is an analogue; however, by statute, an analogue can only be the same or more potent.
(G)Redesignates incorrect references in a number of Application Notes in the drug guideline, § 2D1.1. *Proposed Amendment:*
(A)Conforming Amendments Related to Public Corruption Amendments of 2004. Section 2B3.3(c)(1) is amended by inserting “; Fraud Involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions” after “; Extortion Under Color of Official Right”. Section 2C1.3(c)(1) is amended by inserting “; Fraud Involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions” after “; Extortion Under Color of Official Right”. Section 2C1.8(c)(1) is amended by inserting “; Fraud Involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions” after “; Extortion Under Color of Official Right”. Section 3D1.2(d) is amended by striking “2C1.7,”. Section 8C2.1 is amended in subsection
(a)by striking “, 2C1.7”.
(B)Commentary to Fraud Cross-Reference in § 2B1.1 The Commentary to § 2B1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 15 in the first sentence by inserting “involving fraudulent conduct that is” before “more aptly covered by another guideline.”; in the second sentence by inserting “involves fraudulent conduct that” before “is also covered by a more specific statute.”; and at the end by inserting the following: “Subsection (c)(3) does not apply in a case in which a defendant is prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 1001, or a similar statute, only for making false statements to a probation officer about other criminal conduct.”.
(C)Commentary to § 5D1.2 The Commentary to § 5D1.2 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 2 by inserting “Limitation on” before “Applicability of Statutory”.
(D)Asterisked Note in § 2M6.1(b)(1)(A) Section 2M6.1(b)(1) is amended in subdivision
(A)by striking the asterisk after “(a)(4)” and inserting “(A)”; and after subsection (b)(2) by striking “* **Note:** The reference to ‘(a)(4)’ should be to ‘(a)(4)(A)'.”.
(E)Ratio of GBL to GHB in § 2D1.11 Section 2D1.11(e) is amended in subdivision
(1)by striking “2271 L or more of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “1135.5 L or more of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; in subdivision
(2)by striking “At least 681.3 L but less than 2271 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “At least 340.7 but less than 1135.5 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; in subdivision
(3)by striking “At least 227.1 L but less than 681.3 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “At least 113.6 L but less than 340.7 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; in subdivision
(4)by striking “At least 159 L but less than 227.1 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “At least 79.5 L but less than 113.6 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; in subdivision
(5)by striking “At least 90.8 L but less than 159 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “At least 45.4 L but less than 79.5 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; in subdivision
(6)by striking “At least 22.7 L but less than 90.8 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “At least 11.4 L but less than 45.4 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; in subdivision
(7)by striking “At least 18.2 L but less than 22.7 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “At least 9.1 L but less than 11.4 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; in subdivision
(8)by striking “At least 13.6 L but less than 18.2 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “At least 6.8 L but less than 9.1 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; in subdivision
(9)by striking “At least 9.1 L but less than 13.6 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “At least 4.5 L but less than 6.8 L of Gamma-butyrolactone;”; and in subdivision
(10)by striking “Less than 9.1 of Gamma-butyrolactone;” and inserting “Less than 4.5 of Gamma-butyrolactone;”.
(F)Analogues of Controlled Substances The Commentary to Section 2D1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 5 by striking “whether a greater quantity of the analogue is needed to produce a substantially similar effect on the central nervous system as” and inserting “whether the same quantity of analogue produces a greater effect on the central nervous system than”.
(G)Redesignation of Incorrect References in § 2D1.1 The Commentary to § 2D1.1 captioned “Application Notes” is amended in Note 19 by striking “(b)(5)(A)” and inserting “(b)(6)(A)”; in Note 20 by striking “(b)(5)(B) or (C)” and inserting “(b)(6)(B) or (C)”, and by striking “(b)(5)(C)” and inserting “(b)(6)(C)”; and in Note 21 by striking “(b)(6)” each place it appears and inserting “(b)(7)”. The Commentary to § 2D1.1 captioned “Background” is amended by striking “(b)(5)(A)” and inserting “(b)(6)(A)”, and by striking “(b)(5)(B) and (C)” and inserting “(b)(6)(B) and (C)”. [FR Doc. 05-3427 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 15
Traces to 15 documents
20 references not yet in our index
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 1 USC 78s(b)(1)
  • 2 CFR 240.19
  • 3 USC 78s(b)(3)(A)(i)
  • 4 CFR 240.19
  • 6 CFR 240.24
  • 9 USC 78
  • 10 USC 78
  • 17 CFR 240.24
  • 15 USC 78
  • 17 CFR 240.11
  • 17 CFR 240.17
  • Pub. L. 108-275
  • Pub. L. 108-237
  • Pub. L. 108-358
  • 118 Stat. 831
  • 18 USC 1028A(a)(1)
  • 18 USC 1028A(b)(1)
  • 18 USC 1028A
  • 18 USC 1028A(b)(4)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of proposed amendments to sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 78o–3
U.S.C.§ 78
U.S.C.§ 80a–1
U.S.C.§ 994
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite1 USC 78s(b)(1)
Cite2 CFR 240.19
Cites 35 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.