Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51923

lower evidentiary standard at sentencing

permits sentencing court’s consideration of

acquitted conduct); Witte v. United States,

515 U.S. 389, 399–401 (1995) (noting that

sentencing courts have traditionally

considered wide range of information

without the procedural protections of a

criminal trial, including information

concerning criminal conduct that may be the

subject of a subsequent prosecution); Nichols

v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 747–48 (1994)

(noting that district courts have traditionally

considered defendant’s prior criminal

conduct even when the conduct did not

result in a conviction). Any information may

be considered, so long as it has sufficient

indicia of reliability to support its probable

accuracy. Watts, 117 U.S. at 637; Nichols,

511 U.S. at 748; United States v. ZuletaAlvarez, 922 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1990), cert.

denied, 500 U.S. 927 (1991); United States v.

Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir.), cert.

denied, 497 U.S. 1038 (1990). Reliable

hearsay evidence may be considered. United

States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1040 (1994); United

States v. Sciarrino, 884 F.2d 95 (3d Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 997 (1989). Out-of-court

declarations by an unidentified informant

may be considered where there is good cause

for the non-disclosure of the informant’s

identity and there is sufficient corroboration

by other means. United States v. Rogers, 1

F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United

States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 508 U.S. 980 (1993); United States v.

Fatico, 579 F.2d 707, 713 (2d Cir. 1978), cert.

denied, 444 U.S. 1073 (1980). Unreliable

allegations shall not be considered. United

States v. Ortiz, 993 F.2d 204 (10th Cir. 1993).

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment updates the case law

references in the commentary to § 6A1.3

to include references to sentencing

guideline cases.

10. Amendment: Appendix A

(Statutory Index) is amended by

inserting, in the appropriate place by

title and section:

18 U.S.C. 514 2F1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 611 2H2.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 669 2B1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 758 2A2.4’’;

18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(7) 2B3.2’’;

18 U.S.C. 1035 2F1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 1347 2F1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 1518 2J1.2’’;

18 U.S.C. 1831 2B1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 1832 2B1.1’’;

18 U.S.C. 2261A 2A6.2’’;

21 U.S.C. 841(b)(7) 2D1.1’’;

21 U.S.C. 960(d)(7) 2D1.11’’;

47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C) 2A6.1’’;

47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(D) 2A6.1’’;

47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(E) 2A6.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 5124 2Q1.2’’;

49 U.S.C. 32703 2N3.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 32704 2N3.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 32705 2N3.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 32709(b) 2N3.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 60123(d) 2B1.3’’;

49 U.S.C. 80116 2F1.1’’;

49 U.S.C. 80501 2B1.3’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1281’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2B1.3’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1983’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1984’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1985’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1986’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1987’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1988’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘15 U.S.C.

1990c’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2N3.1’’;

by deleting ‘‘18 U.S.C. 1008 2F1.1,

2S1.3’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

1030(a)(2)’’ by deleting ‘‘2F1.1’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2B1.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

1030(a)(3)’’ by deleting ‘‘2F1.1’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2B2.3’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

1030(a)(5)’’ by deleting ‘‘2F1.1’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2B1.3’’;

by deleting:

‘‘18 U.S.C. 2258(a), (b) 2G2.1, 2G2.2’’,

and inserting in lieu thereof:

‘‘18 U.S.C. 2260 2G2.1, 2G2.2’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

2261’’ by deleting ‘‘2A1.1, 2A1.2,

2A2.1, 2A2.2, 2A2.3, 2A3.1, 2A3.4,

2A4.1, 2B3.1, 2B3.2, 2K1.4’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2A6.2’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘18 U.S.C.

2262’’ by deleting ‘‘2A1.1, 2A1.2,

2A2.1, 2A2.2, 2A2.3, 2A3.1, 2A3.4,

2A4.1, 2B3.1, 2B3.2, 2K1.4’’ and

inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘2A6.2’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘21 U.S.C. 959’’

by inserting ‘‘, 2D1.11’’ immediately

after ‘‘2D1.1’’.

in the line referenced to ‘‘49 U.S.C. 121’’

by inserting ‘‘(for offenses committed

prior to July 5, 1994)’’ immediately

after ‘‘2F1.1’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘49 U.S.C.

1809(b)’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2Q1.2’’;

in the line referenced to ‘‘49 U.S.C. App.

§ 1687(g)’’ by inserting ‘‘(for offenses

committed prior to July 5, 1994)’’

immediately after ‘‘2B1.3’’; and

by deleting ‘‘49 U.S.C. 14904 2B4.1’’.

The Commentary to § 2G2.1 captioned

‘‘Statutory Provisions’’ is amended by

deleting ‘‘2258(a), (b)’’ and inserting in

lieu thereof ‘‘2260’’.

The Commentary to § 2G2.2 captioned

‘‘Statutory Provisions’’ is amended by

deleting ‘‘2258(a), (b)’’ and inserting in

lieu thereof ‘‘2260’’.

Section 2K2.1(a)(3) is amended by

inserting ‘‘felony’’ before ‘‘prior’’.

Reason for Amendment: This

amendment makes Appendix A

(Statutory Index) more comprehensive.

This amendment adds references for

additional offenses, including offenses

created by recently enacted legislation.

In addition, this amendment revises

Appendix A to conform to the revision

of existing statutes and to reflect the

codification of Title 49, United States

Code. This amendment also corrects

clerical errors in §§ 2G2.1 and 2G2.2.

Finally, this amendment corrects a

clerical error in § 2K2.1(a)(3), as

amended by amendment 522, effective

November 1, 1995. During the execution

of that amendment, which equalized

offense levels for semiautomatic assault

weapon possession with machinegun

possession, the word ‘‘felony’’ was

inadvertently omitted from the phrase

‘‘prior conviction’’ in subsection (a)(3).

[FR Doc. 97–26312 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210–40–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Social Security Ruling, SSR 97–3]

Disability Insurance Benefits;

Reduction Due to Receipt of State

Workers’ Compensation; Validity of an

Amended Stipulation on a Prior

Workers’ Compensation Settlement

Award; Minnesota

AGENCY: Social Security Administration

(SSA).

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner

of Social Security gives notice of Social

Security Ruling, SSR 97–3. This Ruling,

based on an SSA Regional Chief

Counsel opinion, concerns whether the

Social Security Administration should

give effect to an amended stipulation on

a prior lump-sum workers’

compensation settlement and whether

workers’ compensation offset was

properly computed on the basis of the

amended stipulation. Although this case
51924 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

1SSR 72–37c (C.E. 1971–1975, p. 466).

involves a Minnesota workers’

compensation stipulation, this Ruling

addresses an issue that is becoming a

problem nationwide, i.e., the practice of

obtaining an addendum to a workers’

compensation settlement merely to state

that the workers’ compensation

settlement was based on a low weekly

rate using life expectancy, thus

attempting to avoid the offset provisions

of section 224 of the Social Security Act.

This Ruling clearly illustrates the Social

Security Administration’s policy of not

being bound by the terms of a second,

or amended, stipulation that would

circumvent the workers’ compensation

offset provisions of section 224 of the

Social Security Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanne K. Castello, Division of

Regulations and Rulings, Social Security

Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although

we are not required to do so pursuant

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

publishing this Social Security Ruling

in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).

Social Security Rulings make

available to the public precedential

decisions relating to the Federal old-age,

survivors, disability, supplemental

security income, and black lung benefits

programs. Social Security Rulings may

be based on case decisions made at all

administrative levels of adjudication,

Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s

decisions, opinions of the Office of the

General Counsel, and other

interpretations of the law and

regulations.

Although Social Security Rulings do

not have the same force and effect as the

statute or regulations, they are binding

on all components of the Social Security

Administration, in accordance with 20

CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are to be relied

upon as precedents in adjudicating

cases.

If this Social Security Ruling is later

superseded, modified, or rescinded, we

will publish a notice in the Federal

Register to that effect.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,

Programs 96.001 Social Security—Disability

Insurance; 96.005 Special Benefits for

Disabled Coal Miners)

Dated: September 22, 1997.

John J. Callahan,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

Section 224(a)–(b) of the Social Security

Act (42 U.S.C. 424a (a)–(b)) Disability

Insurance Benefits—Reduction Due to

Receipt of State Workers’

Compensation—Validity of an

Amended Stipulation on a Prior

Workers’ Compensation Settlement

Award—Minnesota

20 CFR 404.408

Under section 224 of the Social Security

Act (the Act), title II disability insurance

benefits may be offset if the disabled worker

receives workers’ compensation (WC)

benefits. The issue here is whether WC offset

was properly computed on the basis of an

amended stipulation to a prior WC settlement

award.

The disabled worker became entitled to

Social Security disability insurance benefits

in September 1993. Periodic WC payments

were paid to the disabled worker January 31,

1993 through July 11, 1994. The disabled

worker subsequently received a lump-sum

payment on August 19, 1994. The lump sum

was prorated at the weekly rate at which the

disabled worker had been receiving benefits

before the lump-sum settlement. The lumpsum proration ended December 1997.

After offset was imposed, and nearly 2

years after the date of the original lump-sum

settlement agreement, the disabled worker

obtained an amended lump-sum award in

which an attempt was made to subject the

lump-sum award to proration over the

disabled worker’s life expectancy to remove

the offset.

Based on section 224 of the Act, case law,

and Social Security Administration (SSA)

policy, SSA is not necessarily bound by the

terms of a second, or amended, stipulation.

Instead, SSA will evaluate both the original

and amended stipulations and will disregard

any language which has the effect of altering

the terms in the original lump-sum

settlement where, as here, the terms in the

amended document are illusory or conflict

with the terms of the first stipulation

concerning the actual intent of the parties,

and would have the effect of circumventing

the WC offset provisions of section 224 of the

Act.

A question was raised concerning

whether SSA should give effect to a

Minnesota amended stipulation on a

prior lump-sum WC settlement award

which originally resulted in offset of the

disabled worker’s claim. For the reasons

stated below, effect need not be given to

an amended stipulation to a WC award

if it was amended solely to circumvent

the WC offset provisions of section 224

of the Act.

Background

The disabled worker became entitled

to Social Security disability insurance

benefits in September 1993. He received

WC periodic payments of $458.99

weekly from January 31, 1993 through

January 30, 1994, and $477.35 weekly

from January 31, 1994 through July 11,

1994. The disabled worker subsequently

received a lump-sum payment of

$85,000 less $10,000 withheld for

attorney fees based on a stipulation

dated August 19, 1994. This lump sum

was prorated at the weekly rate of

$477.35, the rate at which the disabled

worker had been receiving benefits just

before the lump-sum award. The lumpsum proration ended December 8, 1997,

with a remainder of $31.70 for

December 1997.

After offset was imposed, and nearly

2 years after the date of the original

lump-sum settlement agreement, the

disabled worker obtained an amended

lump-sum award in which an attempt

was made to prorate the lump-sum

award over the disabled worker’s life

expectancy, which would result in a

weekly benefit of $64.97 and thereby

trigger removal of the offset.

Discussion

Section 224 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

424a, places a ceiling on an individual’s

combined Social Security disability

insurance benefits and State WC

benefits. The statute provides that

where an individual is receiving both

Social Security disability insurance

benefits and State WC benefits on

account of a disability, his or her Social

Security benefits ‘‘shall be reduced’’ by

the amount necessary to ensure that the

sum of the State and Federal benefits

does not exceed 80 percent of the

individual’s average pre-disability

earnings. 42 U.S.C. 424a(a); see also 20

CFR 404.408. As the Supreme Court has

explained, ‘‘by limiting total state and

federal benefits to 80% of the

employee’s average earnings prior to the

disability, [section 224 of the Act]

reduce[s] the duplication inherent in the

programs and at the same time allow[s]

a supplement to workmen’s

compensation where the state payments

[are] inadequate.’’ Richardson v.

Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 83 (1971).1

The Act refers only to ‘‘periodic

benefits’’ arising under a State worker’s

compensation program based upon the

claimant’s ‘‘total or partial disability

(whether or not permanent).’’ 42 U.S.C.

424a(a)(2). By its own terms, the statute

encompasses virtually every

conceivable form of WC benefits. The

Act also requires that lump-sum

settlements, if they substitute for

periodic benefits, be offset, at a rate that

will ‘‘approximate as nearly as

practicable’’ the rate at which the award

would have been paid on a monthly
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51925

2SSR 85–6c (C.E. 1981–1985, p. 692).

3 In addition, it is the disabled worker’s burden

to prove that a lump-sum payment paid by a WC

carrier is not subject to offset against the claimant’s

Social Security disability insurance benefits.

Campbell, 14 F.3d at 427–28.

4Under Minnesota law, after permanent total

disability benefits of $25,000 have been paid, WC

will reduce permanent total disability benefits in

order to reflect the disability insurance benefits that

an individual is receiving from SSA. Minn. Stat.

Ann. § 176.101, Subd. 4; McClish v. Pan-O-Gold

Baking Co., 336 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 1983).

Acknowledging this ‘‘reverse offset,’’ SSA stops its

own offset. POMS DI 52001.226.

5This Ruling does not address the related issue

of the validity of stipulated lump-sum settlements

where the original settlement contains a term

purporting to prorate a lump sum over the life

expectancy of the worker. This Ruling only

addresses later-added amendments, addenda, etc.

whose terms conflict with or change the original

terms and where the purpose of these amendments

is to circumvent the offset provisions of the Act.

6As noted above, Federal law requires that lumpsum awards be offset at a rate that will

‘‘approximate as nearly as practicable’’ the rate at

which the award would have been paid on a

monthly basis. 42 U.S.C. 424a(b); 20 CFR

404.408(g). The Commissioner has issued

guidelines for calculating the rate at which lumpsum awards should be prorated based on an

established weekly rate. See POMS DI

52001.555C.4. The guidelines provide a 3-step

priority for establishing weekly rates: first, the rate

specified in the award; second, if no rate is

specified in the award, the periodic rate paid prior

to the lump sum; and third, if no rate was

established in the award and there was no

preceding periodic benefit, the State’s WC

maximum weekly rate in effect at the time of the

WC injury. POMS DI 52001.555C.4.a–DI

52001.555C.4.c.

basis and explicitly delegates to the

Commissioner the authority to

determine the appropriate method of

prorating such a lump-sum benefit. 42

U.S.C. 424a(b). As a result, receipt of

WC compensation benefits, whether or

not in a lump sum, may subject Social

Security benefits to reduction.

The issue of whether SSA correctly

reduced or offset Social Security

benefits due to the settlement of a WC

claim is governed by Federal, not State,

law. The Eighth Circuit, which is

controlling for Minnesota cases, has

expressly concluded that the resolution

of these issues is entirely a ‘‘federal

question’’ to be answered by ‘‘the

federal statute and its underlying policy,

notwithstanding conflicting state law.’’

Munsinger v. Schweiker, 709 F.2d 1212,

1217 (8th Cir. 1983); 2 see also Campbell

v. Shalala, 14 F.3d 424, 427 (8th Cir.

1994) (holding that Federal, not State,

law governs whether WC payments

could be offset against Social Security

disability insurance benefits); 3

Krysztoforski v. Secretary of Health and

Human Services, 55 F.3d 857, 859 (3rd

Cir. 1994) (noting that section 224 of the

Act does not refer to or defer to State

law for the determination of whether a

person’s periodic benefits are subject to

offset, the Third Circuit held that

Federal law governs in determining

whether a WC award should be offset

against disability benefits).

In Munsinger, the Eighth Circuit held

that the terms of the lump-sum

settlement represented periodic

payments which, without an offset,

would result in duplicate benefits and

that ‘‘to deny [the Commissioner] an

offset of the settlement would frustrate

congressional intent.’’ This same

reasoning applies to amendments or

addenda to lump-sum settlements—that

is, the terms of both the original

stipulations and the amendments to

stipulations for settlements should be

evaluated in light of the Federal statute

and its underlying policy to avoid

duplication in benefits. If the original

language of the settlement establishes

receipt of benefits, establishes the

classification of benefits, triggers an

offset, and/or establishes an appropriate

offset rate, SSA is not bound by any

language in a subsequent amendment or

addendum which conflicts with, or

alters, those terms. If the amended terms

have no factual basis or were made

solely to circumvent the offset

provisions of section 224 of the Act, the

use by SSA of such amended terms

would frustrate congressional intent to

avoid duplicate benefits and will be

disregarded.

This is the approach followed in Fox

v. Chater, No. 4–95–235 (D. Minn. Feb.

20, 1996), in which the District Court

agreed that SSA was not bound by the

terms of an amended stipulation. In Fox,

after plaintiff received partial disability,

temporary partial disability and

permanent partial WC benefits, he

entered into a stipulation for settlement

which was approved by a WC judge,

and he was awarded a lump-sum

settlement as full and final settlement of

any claims for WC benefits. The parties

disputed, and left unresolved, whether

plaintiff was permanently and totally

disabled. In the meantime, the plaintiff

applied for, and was awarded, Social

Security disability insurance benefits.

SSA subsequently determined that the

lump-sum payment was subject to offset

and reduced the plaintiff’s disability

benefits. After offset was imposed, the

parties entered into a second stipulation

which added a provision indicating that

the parties agreed that the plaintiff had

been permanently and totally disabled

as a result of his personal injuries and

that the WC benefits he received prior

to the stipulation were subject to

Minnesota’s Social Security offset

provisions and that the lump-sum

payment agreed upon included a 5

percent reduction in the benefits

payable for the Social Security offset.

The plaintiff argued that the two

stipulations established that the

payments made before the stipulation

were subject to SSA offset and that the

subsequent lump-sum settlement was,

therefore, subject to the reverse offset

provisions of the Minnesota WC

statute.4

In Fox, the District Court rejected the

plaintiff’s arguments and affirmed the

administrative law judge’s (ALJ)

determination not to apply reverse offset

on the basis of the ‘‘illusory’’ terms of

the amended stipulation. The Court

concluded that Mr. Fox’s belated claim

that the Social Security offset had been

considered in the first stipulation was

illusory. Noting that the parties did not

recognize an offset in the first

stipulation and never provided for

additional WC benefits if the Social

Security disability insurance benefit

claim were denied, the Court found that,

despite his belated claim in his second

stipulation, the plaintiff failed to make

a sufficient showing that he had made

a settlement which accounted for future

Social Security benefits. The Court also

rejected plaintiff’s argument that both

stipulations showed that the parties

intended the lump-sum payment to be

a permanent total disability benefit

because, despite the language in the

second stipulation that both parties

agreed that Mr. Fox was permanently

and totally disabled, the first stipulation

was ‘‘very clear that the parties do not

agree that Fox was permanently and

totally disabled.’’ Thus, the Court found

that the ALJ was not bound to accept the

illusory terms of the second stipulation.

Although unpublished, the holding of

Fox is directly applicable to this case.

Like Mr. Fox, the disabled worker’s

belated claim that the original award

was to be prorated over his life

expectancy appears illusory.5 The

original award did not state that the

lump-sum settlement was subject to

proration over the disabled worker’s life

expectancy. A lump sum of $85,000,

less attorney’s fees, was awarded

pursuant to the 1994 lump-sum

stipulated settlement. Although the

original stipulation did not specify the

rate at which the lump sum would be

prorated, it noted that a prior weekly

rate had been paid. The original

stipulation contained no other reference

to the proration rate of the lump-sum

award, much less any reference to the

life expectancy of the disabled worker.

The lump sum was prorated, then, at the

prior weekly rate of $477.35.6

Two years later, in 1996, after offset

was imposed, the disabled worker

obtained an amended stipulation which
51926 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

expressly confirmed the 1994

Stipulation for Settlement. Nevertheless,

the amendment purports to ‘‘clarify’’ the

terms of the settlement by attempting to

characterize the lump-sum award as

prorated over the disabled worker’s life

expectancy. The amended stipulation,

however, did not change the dollar

amounts of the award, did not involve

any appeal of the award sought or

change in the actual amount of WC

benefits, and did not affect in any way

the rights, liabilities or obligations of the

parties with respect to the actual WC

award. Its terms modify the original

document which did not specify that

the lump sum should be prorated over

the disabled worker’s life expectancy. It

contained no supporting factual

information that the original stipulation

had, in fact, been based on life

expectancy.

Conclusion

Based on section 224 of the Act, case

law, and SSA policy, SSA is not

necessarily bound by the terms of a

second, or amended, stipulation in

determining whether and by what rate

a disabled worker’s Social Security

disability insurance benefits should be

offset on account of a WC lump-sum

payment. SSA will evaluate both the

original and amended stipulations and

disregard any language which has the

effect of altering the terms in the

original lump-sum settlement where the

terms in the amended document are

illusory or conflict with the terms of the

first stipulation concerning the actual

intent of the parties, and where, as here,

the terms in the amended document

would have the effect of circumventing

the WC offset provisions of section 224

of the Act. To give effect to such illusory

terms would frustrate Congress’ intent

to avoid duplicate benefits.

[FR Doc. 97–26258 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

[Public Notice 2614]

Imposition of Chemical and Biological

Weapons Proliferation Sanctions on

Foreign Entities and Persons

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The United States

Government has determined that two

entities have engaged in chemical

weapons proliferation activities that

require the imposition of sanctions

pursuant to the Arms Export Control

Act and the Export Administration Act

of 1979 (the authorities of which were

most recently continued by Executive

Order 12924 of August 19, 1994).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vann H. Van Diepen, Office of

Chemical, Biological, and Missile

Nonproliferation, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State

(202–647–1142).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 81(a) of the Arms Export

Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2798(a)), Section

11C(a) of the Export Administration Act

of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2410c(a)),

Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 1993,

and State Department Delegation

Authority No. 145 of February 4, 1980,

as amended, the United States

Government determined that the

following foreign entities have engaged

in chemical weapons proliferation

activities that require the imposition of

the sanctions described in Section 81(c)

of the Arms Export Control Act (22

U.S.C. 2798(c)) and Section 11C(c) of

the Export Administration Act of 1979

(50 U.S.C. app. 2410(c)):

1. Hans-Joachim Rose (German

citizen)

2. Rose Import-Export GMBH (German

company)

Accordingly, the following sanctions

are being imposed:

(A) Procurement Sanction. The

United States Government shall not

procure, or enter into any contract for

the procurement of, any goods or

services from the sanctioned entities;

and

(B) Import Sanction. The importation

into the United States of products

produced by the sanctioned entities

shall be prohibited.

Sanctions on each entity described

above may apply to firms or other

entities with which that entity is

associated. Questions as to whether a

particular transaction is affected by the

sanctions should be referred to the

contact listed above. The sanctions shall

commence on September 25, 1997. They

will remain in place for at least one year

and until further notice.

These measures shall be implemented

by the responsible agencies as provided

in the Executive Order 12851 of June 11,

1993.

Dated: September 26, 1997.

Thomas E. McNamara,

Assistant Secretary of State for PoliticalMilitary Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–26305 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–25–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2608]

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs;

Notice of a Public Meeting Regarding

Government Activities on International

Harmonization of Chemical

Classification and Labeling Systems

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocenans and

International Envoronmental and

Scientific Affairs (OES), Department of

State.

SUMMARY: This public meeting will

provide an update on current activities

related to international harmonization

since the previous public meeting,

conducted July 30, 1997. (See

Department of State Public Notice 2570,

on page 38337 of the Federal Register

of July 17, 1997.) The meeting will also

offer interested organizations and

individuals the opportunity to provide

information and views for consideration

in the development of U.S. government

policy positions. For more complete

information on the harmonization

process, please refer to State Department

Public Notice 2526, pages 15951–15957

of the Federal Register of April 3, 1997.

The meeting will take place from 10

am until noon on October 17 in Room

S4215 ABC, U.S. Department of Labor,

200 Constitution Avenue NW,

Washington, D.C. Attendees should use

the entrance at C and Third Streets NW.

To facilitate entry, please have a picture

ID available and/or a U.S. government

building pass if applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information or to submit written

comments or information, please

contact Mary Frances Lowe, U.S.

Department of State, OES/ENV, Room

4325, 2201 C Street NW, Washington

D.C. 20420. Phone (202) 647–9266, fax

(202) 647–5947.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of State is announcing a

public meeting of the interagency

committee concerned with the

international harmonization of chemical

hazard classification and labeling

systems. The purpose of the meeting is

to provide interested groups and

individuals with an update on activities

since the July 30 public meeting, a

preview of key upcoming international

meetings, and an opportunity to submit

additional information and comments

for consideration in developing U.S.

government positions. Representatives

of the following agencies participate in

the interagency group: the Department

of State, the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Department of