Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29773

5 In making a finding of a claimant’s residual

functional capacity or other finding required to be

made at a step in the applicable sequential

evaluation process for determining disability

provided under the specific sections of the

regulations described above, an ALJ or the Appeals

Council may have made certain subsidiary findings,

such as a finding concerning the credibility of a

claimant’s testimony or statements. A subsidiary

finding does not constitute a finding that is required

at a step in the sequential evaluation process for

determining disability provided under 20 CFR

404.1520, 416.920 or 416.924.

concluded that SSA was bound by its

previous finding that the claimant was

limited to sedentary work. The Court of

Appeals thereupon reversed the

judgment of the district court and

remanded with instructions for the

district court to remand the case to SSA

for an award of benefits.

Statement as to How Drummond Differs

From SSA 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.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that

where a final decision of SSA after a

hearing on a prior disability claim

contains a finding of a claimant’s

residual functional capacity, SSA may

not make a different finding in

adjudicating a subsequent disability

claim with an unadjudicated period

arising under the same title of the Act

as the prior claim unless new and

additional evidence or changed

circumstances provide a basis for a

different finding of the claimant’s

residual functional capacity.

Explanation of How SSA Will Apply

The Drummond Decision Within The

Circuit

This Ruling applies only to disability

findings in cases involving claimants

who reside in Kentucky, Michigan,

Ohio, or Tennessee 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 a

finding of a claimant’s residual

functional capacity 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, as

appropriate, which was made in a final

decision by an ALJ or the Appeals

Council on a prior disability claim.5

When adjudicating a subsequent

disability claim with an unadjudicated

period arising under the same title of

the Act as the prior claim, adjudicators

must adopt such a finding from the final

decision by an ALJ or the Appeals

Council 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. 98–14265 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–F

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2827]

Statutory Debarment Under the

International Traffic in Arms

Regulations

AGENCY: Office of Defense Trade

Controls, State.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Department of State has imposed

statutory debarment pursuant to Section

127.7(c) of the International Traffic in

Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR Parts

120–130) on persons convicted of

violating or conspiring to violate

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control

Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. § 2778).

EFFECTIVE DATE: Date of conviction as

specified for each person.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip S. Rhoads, Chief, Compliance

and Enforcement Branch, Office of

Defense Trade Controls, Department of

State (703–875–6644).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

38(g)(4) of the AECA prohibits licenses

and other approvals for the export of

defense articles and the furnishing of

defense services to be issued to a

person, or any party to the export,

convicted of violating or conspiring to

violate the AECA. Pursuant to Section

127.7(c) of the ITAR, statutory

debarment is imposed upon persons

convicted of violating or conspiring to

violate the AECA. Statutory debarment

is based solely upon a conviction in a

criminal proceeding, conducted by a

United States court, and as such the

administrative proceedings outlined in

Part 128 of the ITAR are not applicable.

This notice is provided in order to

make the public aware that the persons

listed below are prohibited from

participating directly or indirectly in

any brokering activities and in any

export from or temporary import into

the United States of defense articles,

related technical data, or defense

services in all situations covered by the

ITAR:

1. Mohammad Iqbal Badat, 11025

Maidencane Court, Houston, TX

77086. Conviction date: March 13,

1996, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to

violate the AECA), U.S. v.

Mohammad Iqbal Badat, U.S. District

Court for the Western District of

Louisiana, 6:93CR60013–002

2. Sanford B. Groetzinger, 82 Dennison

Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, 22

U.S.C. § 2778 (violation of the AECA).

Conviction date: June 13, 1997, U.S. v.

Sanford B. Groetzinger, U.S. District

Court for the District of

Massachusetts, 1:96CR10326–001

3. Alfred Peter Harms, Merkurstr. 32,

76461 Muggensturm, Germany.

Conviction date: October 25, 1996, 18

U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to violate the

AECA), U.S. v. Alfred Peter Harms,

U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Texas, 3:96–CR–280–R(1)

4. James Lee, 410 Auburn Way, No. 34,

San Jose, CA 95129. Conviction date:

June 18, 1997, 22 U.S.C. § 2778

(violation of the AECA), U.S. v. James

Lee, U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California,

5:95CR20142–002

5. Thomas McGuinn, Cloommull

Drumcliffe, County Sligo, Republic of

Ireland. Conviction date: April 19,

1996, 22 U.S.C. § 2778 (violation of

AECA), U.S. v. Thomas McGuinn,

U.S. District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, 94–170–CR–

UNGARO–BENAGES

6. Penny Ray, 7100 Rainbow Drive #30,

San Jose, CA 95129. Conviction date:

June 18, 1997, 22 U.S.C. § 2778

(violation of AECA), U.S. v. Penny

Ray, U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California,

5:95CR20142–001

7. Salvador Romavi-Orue, 15400 S.W.

75 Circle Lane, Apt. 104, Miami, FL

33193. Conviction date: February 16,

1996, 22 U.S.C. § 2778 (violation of

AECA) U.S. v. Salvador Romavi-Orue,

U.S. District Court for the Southern
29774 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

District of Florida 95–118–CR–

UNGARO–BENAGES

8. Wayne P. Smith, 2333 Big Woods,

Edgerly Road, Vinton, LA 70668.

Conviction date: October 3, 1995, 22

U.S.C. § 2778 (violation of AECA),

U.S. v. Wayne P. Smith, U.S. District

Court for the Western District of

Louisiana, 2:95CR20069–001

9. Erickson Trouillot, 8840 N.W. 23rd

Street, Coral Springs, FL. Conviction

date: October 29, 1996, 22 U.S.C.

§ 2778 (violation of AECA), U.S. v.

Erickson Trouillot, U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of Florida,

95–6138–CR–GONZALES(s)

Specific case information may be

obtained from the Office of the Clerk for

each respective U.S. District Court.

This notice involves a foreign affairs

function of the United States

encompassed within the meaning of the

military and foreign affairs exclusion of

the Administrative Procedure Act.

Because the exercise of this foreign

affairs function is discretionary, it is

excluded from review under the

Administrative Procedure Act.

Dated: May 11, 1998.

William J. Lowell,

Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls,

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S.

Department of State.

[FR Doc. 98–14315 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–25–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG–1998–3880]

Vessel Traffic Management Measures

in the Monterey Bay National Marine

Sanctuary; Public Workshop Notice

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public workshops;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The United States Coast

Guard (USCG) and the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) will hold four Public

Workshops to obtain views and

comments regarding the need for

offshore vessel management in the

Monterey Bay National Marine

Sanctuary (MBNMS) for the protection

of the marine environment.

DATES: Public Workshops will be held

on the following dates:

June 17, 1998, 7 p.m., Half Moon Bay,

CA

June 18, 1998, 7 p.m., Oakland, CA

June 29, 1998, 7 p.m., Santa Cruz, CA

June 30, 1998, 7 p.m., Monterey, CA

Oral presentations are encouraged to

promote an open forum with group

participation, however if interested

parties are unable to attend the

workshop, written comments will be

accepted and should reach the Eleventh

Coast Guard District Aids to Navigation

and Waterways Management Branch on

or before July 14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Public workshops will be

held at the following locations:

Half Moon Bay, CA—Ted Adcock

Community/Senior Center, 535 Kelly

Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Oakland, CA, Port of Oakland, 2nd

Floor Board Room, 530 Water Street,

Oakland, CA 94607

Monterey, CA—Doubletree Hotel at the

Intersection of Del Monte Avenue and

Alvarado Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Santa Cruz, CA—Cocoanut Grove Hotel,

400 Beach Street, Santa Cruz, CA

95060

You may mail your comments to the

Docket Management Facility, (USCG–

1998–3880), U.S. Department of

Transportation, room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington DC

20590–0001, or deliver them to room

PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif

Building at the same address between

10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is 202–366–9329. You may also deliver comments or

other written materials for inclusion in

the public docket to Commander (Pow),

Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building

50–6, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA

94501; Attn: MBNMS Public Comment,

between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal

Holidays. The telephone number is

(510) 437–2982.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for these

workshops. Comments and other

submitted documents will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room PL–401

on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building

at the same address between 10 a.m. and

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. You may also access

this docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LTJG Kati Sylvester, Waterways

Management Officer, Eleventh Coast

Guard District, Building 50–6, Coast

Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501. The

telephone number is (510) 437–2982.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Workshop

Public Workshops to discuss the need

for Vessel Traffic Management Measures

in the Monterey Bay National Marine

Sanctuary will be held in the following

locations: • Half Moon Bay, 7 p.m., Wednesday

June 17, 1998, Ted Adcock Community/

Senior Center, 535 Kelly Avenue, Half

Moon Bay, CA.

• Oakland, 7 p.m., Thursday, June 18,

1998, Port of Oakland, 2nd Floor Board

Room, 530 Water Street, Oakland, CA.

• Santa Cruz, 7 p.m., Monday, June

29, 1998, Cocoanut Grove Hotel, 400

Beach Street, Santa Cruz, CA.

• Monterey, 7 p.m., Tuesday, June 30,

1998, Doubletree Hotel, intersection of

Del Monte Avenue & Alvarado Street,

Monterey, CA.

The doors for the public workshops

will open at 6:30 p.m. for registration.

The workshops will begin at 7 p.m. with

a brief presentation. The presentation

will cover the steps leading to the

workshops, a description of the vessel

activity in and near the Sanctuary, an

overview of the sensitive Sanctuary

resources and their value to the coastal

culture and economy, a description of a

work group process used by the Coast

Guard and NOAA to shape the analysis,

and lastly a set of management measures

believed to increase Sanctuary resource

protection while preserving the

economic viability of California ports.

Meeting attendees will then be invited

to present comments or direct questions

to a panel of representatives from a

work group assembled by NOAA and

the Coast Guard to help frame the

issues. We are particularly interested in

comments relating to:

• Distance Off Shore—Identification

of a distance off shore for tankers, tank

barges, vessels carrying hazardous

materials, and large commercial vessels

that would provide adequate protection

to the sensitive marine resources of the

Sanctuary without imposing undue

economic stress to the shipping

industry.

• Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS)—

Implementation of pre-approved

adjustments to existing TSSs, including

a western rotation of the southern leg of

the San Francisco TSS to provide a true

north/north alignment and an eighteen

miles extension on the western end of

the Santa Barbara Channel TSS.

• Rescue—Identification of vessels of

opportunity available to assist vessels

which become disabled during coastal

transit.

• Implementation Mechanisms—To

include Industry Agreements and

Recommended Routes approved by the

International Maritime Organization

(IMO).

• Reporting Systems:—Voluntary

Reporting System, approved by the

IMO, to monitor vessel transits along the

California coastline via radio call-in

points and/or Automated Information

System (AIS).