Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 1997 / Notices 64039

judicata to the first administrative law

judge’s ultimate finding against

disability.’’ In addition, the court

concluded that ‘‘[t]he first

administrative law judge’s findings

concerning the claimant’s residual

functional capacity, education, and

work experience are entitled to some res

judicata consideration in subsequent

proceedings.’’

Statement As To How Chavez Differs

From Social Security Policy

Under SSA policy, if a determination

or decision on a disability claim has

become final, the Agency may apply

administrative res judicata with respect

to a subsequent disability claim under

the same title of the Act if the same

parties, facts and issues are involved in

both the prior and subsequent claims.

However, if the subsequent claim

involves deciding whether the claimant

is disabled during a period that was not

adjudicated in the final determination

or decision on the prior claim, SSA

considers the issue of disability with

respect to the unadjudicated period to

be a new issue that prevents the

application of administrative res

judicata. Thus, when adjudicating a

subsequent disability claim involving an

unadjudicated period, SSA considers

the facts and issues de novo in

determining disability with respect to

the unadjudicated period. SSA does not

adopt findings from the final

determination or decision on the prior

disability claim in determining whether

the claimant is disabled with respect to

the unadjudicated period. Further,

under SSA policy, a prior final

determination or decision that a

claimant is not disabled does not give

rise to any presumption of a continuing

condition of nondisability. When a

subsequent claim involves an

unadjudicated period, the determination

or decision as to whether a claimant is

disabled with respect to that period is

made on a neutral basis, without any

inference or presumption that a

claimant remains ‘‘not disabled.’’

The United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit held that a final

decision by an ALJ that a claimant is not

disabled gives rise to a presumption that

the claimant continues to be not

disabled after the period adjudicated,

and that this presumption of continuing

nondisability applies when adjudicating

a subsequent disability claim with an

unadjudicated period arising under the

same title of the Act as the prior claim.

In order to rebut the presumption of

continuing nondisability, a claimant

must prove ‘‘‘changed circumstances’

indicating a greater disability.’’ In

addition, the court indicated that where

the claimant rebuts the presumption by

proving a ‘‘changed circumstance,’’

principles of res judicata require that

certain findings contained in the final

decision by the ALJ on the prior claim

be given some res judicata consideration

in determining whether the claimant is

disabled with respect to the

unadjudicated period involved in the

subsequent claim. The court concluded

that where the final decision by the ALJ

on the prior claim, which found the

claimant not disabled, contained

findings of the claimant’s residual

functional capacity, education, and

work experience, SSA may not make

different findings in adjudicating the

subsequent disability claim unless there

is new and material evidence relating to

the claimant’s residual functional

capacity, education or work experience.

Explanation of How SSA Will Apply

The Chavez Decision Within The Circuit

This Ruling applies only to disability

cases involving claimants who reside in

Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam,

Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,

Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon or

Washington at the time of the

determination or decision on the

subsequent claim at the initial,

reconsideration, ALJ hearing or Appeals

Council level. It applies only to cases

involving a subsequent disability claim

with an unadjudicated period arising

under the same title of the Act as a prior

claim on which there has been a final

decision by an ALJ or the Appeals

Council that the claimant is not

disabled.

When adjudicating the subsequent

claim involving an unadjudicated

period, adjudicators will apply a

presumption of continuing

nondisability and determine that the

claimant is not disabled with respect to

that period, unless the claimant rebuts

the presumption. A claimant may rebut

the presumption by showing a ‘‘changed

circumstance’’ affecting the issue of

disability with respect to the

unadjudicated period, e.g., a change in

the claimant’s age category under 20

CFR 404.1563 or 416.963, an increase in

the severity of the claimant’s

impairment(s), the alleged existence of

an impairment(s) not previously

considered, or a change in the criteria

for determining disability.

If the claimant rebuts the

presumption, adjudicators then must

give effect to certain findings, as

explained below, contained in the final

decision by an ALJ or the Appeals

Council on the prior claim, when

adjudicating the subsequent claim. For

this purpose, this Ruling applies only to

a finding of a claimant’s residual

functional capacity, education, or work

experience, or other finding required at

a step in the sequential evaluation

process for determining disability

provided under 20 CFR 404.1520,

416.920 or 416.924, or a finding

required under the evaluation process

for determining disability provided

under 20 CFR 404.1578, as appropriate,

which was made in the final decision on

the prior disability claim. Adjudicators

must adopt such a finding from the final

decision on the prior claim in

determining whether the claimant is

disabled with respect to the

unadjudicated period unless there is

new and material evidence relating to

such a finding or there has been a

change in the law, regulations or rulings

affecting the finding or the method for

arriving at the finding.

[FR Doc. 97–31591 Filed 12–2–97; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–F

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. 301–116]

Cancellation of Public Hearing in

Section 302 Investigation: Honduran

Protection of Intellectual Property

Rights

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On October 31, 1997, the

United States Trade Representative

(USTR) initiated an investigation under

section 302(b) of the Trade Act of 1974

with regard to acts, policies, and

practices of the Government of

Honduras with respect to the protection

of intellectual property rights, and

proposed to determine that these acts,

policies and practices are actionable

under section 301(b) and that the

appropriate response is a partial

suspension of tariff preference benefits

accorded to Honduras under the

Generalized System of Preferences

(GSP) and Caribbean Basin Initiative

(CBI) programs (62 FR 60299 of

November 7, 1997). The annex to that

notice set forth a list of articles of

Honduras which could be subject to the

suspension of tariff preference benefits.

The USTR also invited interested

persons to submit written comments

and to participate in a public hearing on

December 4, 1997, concerning the

proposed determinations and action.

Due to a lack of response, the December

4, 1997 hearing is hereby canceled.

Written comments are still due by

December 10, 1997.
64040 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 1997 / Notices

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Morrissy, Office of Trade and

Development, Office of the United

States Trade Representative, (202) 395–

6971, or William Busis, Office of the

General Counsel, Office of the United

States Trade Representative, (202) 395–

3150.

Irving A. Williamson,

Chairman, Section 301 Committee.

[FR Doc. 97–31603 Filed 12–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

(97–03–C–00–BUF) To Impose and Use

the Revenue From a Passenger Facility

Charge (PFC) at Buffalo Niagara

International Airport, Buffalo, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose and use the

revenue from a PFC at Buffalo Niagara

International Airport under the

provisions of the Aviation Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title

IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Mr. Philip Brito, Manager, New

York Airports District Office, 600 Old

County Road, Suite 446, Garden City,

New York 11530.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Ms. Carol J.

Sampson, Senior Grants Specialist, for

the Niagara Frontier Transportation

Authority at the following address:

Niagara Frontier Transportation

Authority, 181 Ellicott Street, Buffalo,

New York 14203.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the Niagara

Frontier Transportation Authority under

section 158.23 of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Philip Brito, Manager, New York

Airports District Office, 600 Old County

Road, Suite 446, Garden City, New York

11530 (Telephone 516–227–3800). The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at

Buffalo Niagara International Airport

under the provisions of the Aviation

Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of

1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On November 20, 1997, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by the Niagara Frontier

Transportation Authority was

substantially complete within the

requirements of section 158.25 of Part

158. The FAA will approve or

disapprove the application, in whole or

in part, no later than February 6, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Application number: 97–03–C–00–

BUF.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: May 1,

2006.

Proposed charge expiration date:

March 31, 2011.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$6,509,194.

Brief description of proposed projects:

Use Only Projects

—Purchase One (1) Front End Loader

—Strengthen Pavement

—Taxiway C & Perimeter Road

—Overlay Taxiways D&F

—Conduct Pavement Study

—Rehabilitate and Overlay Runway 14/

32

Impose & Use Projects

—Relocate Airport Beacon

—Construct Aircraft & Glycol Storage

Facility

—Rehabilitate Aircraft Deicing Area

—Renovate Common-Use Gate Positions

and Holdrooms

—Rehabilitate Storm Drain

—Purchase Snow Removal, Safety,

Police and Aircraft Rescue and Fire

Fighting (ARFF) Emergency

Equipment

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi/

Commercial Operators (ATCO) filing

FAA Form 1800–31.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

regional Airports office located at:

Fitzgerald Federal Building, John F.

Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica,

New York, 11430.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the offices of

the Niagara Frontier Transportation

Authority.

Issued in Jamaica, New York, on November

25, 1997.

Thomas Felix,

Manager, Planning & Programming Branch,

Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 97–31699 Filed 12–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Announcing the Fifth Meeting of the

Crashworthiness Subcommittee of the

Motor Vehicle Safety Research

Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Meeting announcement.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

fifth meeting of the Crashworthiness

Subcommittee of the Motor Vehicle

Safety Research Advisory Committee

(MVSRAC). MVSRAC established this

Subcommittee at the April 1992 meeting

to examine research questions regarding

crashworthiness of vehicles under

10,000 pounds GVW.

DATES AND TIME: The meeting is

scheduled for December 15, 1997, from

10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in

room 9230 of the U.S. Department of

Transportation building, which is

located at 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In May

1987, the Motor Vehicle Safety Research

Advisory Committee was established.

The purpose of the Committee is to

provide an independent source of ideas

for safety research. MVSRAC will

provide information, advice, and

recommendations to NHTSA on matters

relating to motor vehicle safety research,

and provide a forum for the

development, consideration, and

communication of motor vehicle safety

research, as set forth in the MVSRAC

Charter.

The topic of discussion for this

meeting of the MVSRAC

Crashworthiness Subcommittee is the

agency’s Advanced Air Bag Technology