92992 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2024 / Notices 

16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

designate 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 or disapprove 

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 (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

CboeBZX–2024–112 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to file 

number SR–CboeBZX–2024–112. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email 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 website (https://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 website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also 

will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of the 

Exchange. Do not include personal 

identifiable information in submissions; 

you should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. We may redact in part or 

withhold entirely from publication 

submitted material that is obscene or 

subject to copyright protection. All 

submissions should refer to file number 

SR–CboeBZX–2024–112 and should be 

submitted on or before December 16, 

2024. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.16

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27477 Filed 11–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #20732 and #20733; 

FLORIDA Disaster Number FL–20014] 

Presidential Declaration Amendment of 

a Major Disaster for Public Assistance 

Only for the State of Florida 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Amendment 4. 

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of Florida (FEMA–4828–DR), 

dated October 5, 2024. 

Incident: Hurricane Helene. 

DATES: Issued on November 1, 2024. 

Incident Period: September 23, 2024 

through October 7, 2024. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: December 4, 2024. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: July 7, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Visit the MySBA Loan 

Portal at https://lending.sba.gov to 

apply for a disaster assistance loan. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster 

Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, 409 3rd Street 

SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, 

(202) 205–6734. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 

of the President’s major disaster 

declaration for Private Non-Profit 

organizations in the State of Florida, 

dated October 5, 2024, is hereby 

amended to include the following areas 

as adversely affected by the disaster. 

Primary Counties: Collier, Lee, Marion, 

Sumter. 

All other information in the original 

declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 59008) 

Alejandro Contreras, 

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, 

Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27569 Filed 11–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8026–09–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No. SSA–2022–0002] 

Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 

24–1(6); Rescission of Social Security 

Acquiescence Ruling 98–3(6) and 

Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 

98–4(6) 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of Social Security 

Acquiescence Ruling (AR) and 

rescission of two Social Security ARs. 

SUMMARY: The Commissioner of Social 

Security is giving notice of Social 

Security Acquiescence Ruling 24–1(6) 

and rescission of Social Security 

Acquiescence Ruling 98–3(6) and Social 

Security Acquiescence Ruling 98–4(6). 

DATES: We will apply this ruling on 

December 2, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mona Ahmed, Office of the General 

Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social 

Security Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

(410) 965–0600, or TTY 410–966–5609, 

for information about this notice. For 

information on eligibility or filing for 

benefits, call our national toll-free 

number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1– 

800–325–0778, or visit our internet site, 

Social Security Online, at https://

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

rescinding Social Security Acquiescence 

Ruling (AR) 98–3(6) and Social Security 

AR 98–4(6) and publishing this Social 

Security AR, in accordance with 20 CFR 

402.35(b), 404.985(a), (b), and 

416.1485(a), (b), to explain how we will 

apply the holding in Earley v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 893 

F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018), regarding the 

effect of prior disability findings on the 

adjudication of a subsequent disability 

claim. 

An AR explains how we will apply a 

holding in a United States Court of 

Appeals decision that we determine 

conflicts with our interpretation of a 

provision of the Social Security Act 

(Act) or regulations when the 

Government has decided not to seek 

further review of that decision or is 

unsuccessful on further review. 

On June 1, 1998, we issued AR 98– 

3(6) (63 FR 29770) and AR 98–4(6) (63 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2024 / Notices 92993 

FR 29771) to explain how we would 

apply the holdings in Dennard v. 

Secretary of Health & Human Services, 

907 F.2d 598 (6th Cir. 1990), and 

Drummond v. Commissioner of Social 

Security, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997), 

respectively. Both ARs provided 

instructions for adjudicating a 

subsequent disability claim, with an 

unadjudicated period, arising under the 

same title of the Act as the prior claim, 

where the claimant resided within the 

Sixth Circuit. AR 98–3(6) (for Dennard) 

stated that adjudicators must adopt a 

finding from the final decision by an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) or the 

Appeals Council (AC) of the demands of 

the claimant’s past relevant work, or a 

finding of the claimant’s date of birth 

(for the purposes of ascertaining their 

age), education, or work experience 

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. Similarly, AR 98–4(6) (for 

Drummond) stated that adjudicators 

must adopt certain findings from the 

final decision by an ALJ or the AC in 

determining whether the claimant is 

disabled with respect to an 

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. AR 

98–4(6) stated that it applied only to a 

finding of a claimant’s residual 

functional capacity (RFC) ‘‘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.’’ 

On June 27, 2018, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

issued a decision in Earley v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 893 

F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018), in which it 

clarified its intent in Drummond and 

interpreted the holding in Drummond to 

be more limited than described in AR 

98–4(6). Whereas AR 98–3(6) and AR 

98–4(6) required the adjudicator to 

adopt findings in an earlier disability 

decision unless there is new and 

material evidence, Earley indicates that 

it is fair for the adjudicator to consider 

prior findings as legitimate, albeit not 

binding, in reviewing a subsequent 

application. The court in Earley 

recognizes that a new application 

covering a new period deserves a new 

review, but prior ALJ and AC findings 

and the earlier record may have 

probative value in that review. The 

court also indicates that res judicata 

principles would apply where the new 

application covers the same dates, and 

no new evidence is introduced. 

Although the Earley decision does not 

apply or discuss Dennard, the court’s 

explanations in Earley also clarify the 

Sixth Circuit’s view on the issues 

addressed in AR 98–3(6) (for Dennard). 

Indeed, in Drummond, which the Earley 

decision addresses in depth, the Sixth 

Circuit relied in part on Dennard. The 

Sixth Circuit in Earley interpreted 

Drummond more narrowly than the 

Social Security Administration (SSA) 

did in AR 98–4(6), and the Sixth 

Circuit’s explanations in Earley clarify 

the standard or the approach for the 

issues addressed in both AR 98–3(6) and 

AR 98–4(6). Therefore, we are 

rescinding ARs 98–3(6) and 98–4(6) and 

publishing this single, new AR to 

provide instructions on the effect of 

prior disability findings on the 

adjudication of a subsequent disability 

claim in the Sixth Circuit. 

We will apply the holding of the 

Court of Appeals’ decision as explained 

in this Social Security AR to claims at 

all levels of administrative adjudication 

within the Sixth Circuit. This Social 

Security AR will apply to all 

determinations and decisions made on 

or after December 2, 2024]. If we made 

a determination or a decision on an 

application for benefits between June 

27, 2018, the date of the Court of 

Appeals’ decision in Earley v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 893 

F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018), and December 

2, 2024, the effective date of this Social 

Security AR, an individual may request 

application of this Social Security AR to 

their claim. However, the individual 

must first demonstrate, pursuant to 20 

CFR 404.985(b)(2) or 416.1485(b)(2), 

that application of the ruling could 

change our prior determination or 

decision. 

If we later rescind this AR as obsolete, 

we will publish a notice in the Federal 

Register to that effect, as provided in 20 

CFR 404.985(e) and 416.1485(e). If we 

decide to relitigate the issue covered by 

this AR, as provided by 20 CFR 

404.985(c) and 416.1485(c), we will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

stating that we will apply our 

interpretation of the Act or regulations 

and explaining why we decided to 

relitigate the issue. 

(Federal Assistance Listings, Program Nos. 

96.001 Social Security Disability Insurance; 

96.002 Social Security Retirement Insurance; 

96.004 Social Security Survivors Insurance; 

96.006 Supplemental Security Income) 

The Commissioner of Social Security, 

Martin O’Malley, having reviewed and 

approved this document, is delegating 

the authority to electronically sign this 

document to Erik Hansen, a Federal 

Register Liaison for the Social Security 

Administration, for purposes of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Erik Hansen, 

Associate Commissioner for Legislative 

Development and Operations, Social Security 

Administration. 

Acquiescence Ruling 24–1(6) 

Earley v. Commissioner of Social 

Security, 893 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018) 

(Interpreting Drummond v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 126 

F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997)): Effect of Prior 

Disability Findings on Adjudication of a 

Subsequent Disability Claim—Titles II 

and XVI of the Act 

Issue 

Whether, in making a disability 

determination or decision on a 

subsequent disability claim with respect 

to an unadjudicated period, the Social 

Security Administration (SSA) must 

consider a finding of a claimant’s 

residual functional capacity (RFC) or 

other finding required under the 

applicable sequential evaluation process 

for determining disability, made in a 

final decision by an administrative law 

judge (ALJ) or the Appeals Council (AC) 

on a prior disability claim. 

Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation 

Sections 205(a) and (h) and 702(a)(5) 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

405(a) and (h) and 902(a)(5)), 20 CFR 

404.900(a), 404.957(c)(1), 416.1400(a), 

416.1457(c)(1), AR 98–3(6) (rescinded), 

AR 98–4(6) (rescinded). 

Circuit 

Sixth (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, 

Tennessee). 

Earley v. Commissioner of Social 

Security, 893 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018) 

(Interpreting Drummond v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 126 

F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997)) 

Applicability of Ruling 

This ruling applies to determinations 

and decisions at all administrative 

levels (i.e., the initial, reconsideration, 

ALJ hearing, and AC levels). 

The decision of the Sixth Circuit in 

Earley was based, in part, on the panel’s 

interpretation of the Sixth Circuit’s prior 

decision in Drummond. Drummond, in 

turn, relied in part on the Sixth Circuit’s 

earlier decision in Dennard. The 

following summaries of the two earlier 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
92994 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2024 / Notices 

cases are provided as background 

material. 

Dennard v. Secretary of Health & 

Human Services, 907 F.2d 598 (6th Cir. 

1990) 

Mr. Dennard argued that because SSA 

found him unable to do his past relevant 

work on his first application for 

benefits, SSA was precluded from 

reconsidering this issue and finding in 

a subsequent decision, involving an 

unadjudicated period, that Mr. Dennard 

could perform the same past relevant 

work. The Sixth Circuit observed that it 

seemed clear that SSA had reconsidered 

the nature and extent of Mr. Dennard’s 

exertional level in his former job. The 

court stated: ‘‘We are persuaded that 

under the circumstances, we must 

remand this case to [SSA] . . . to 

determine whether [Mr.] Dennard is 

disabled in light of the prior 

determination that he could not return 

to his previous employment.’’ 

Drummond v. Commissioner of Social 

Security, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) 

Ms. Drummond argued that, absent 

evidence of improvement in her 

condition, the ALJ’s finding in a prior 

claim that she was limited to sedentary 

work precluded SSA from finding in a 

subsequent claim that she could 

perform medium work. The Sixth 

Circuit stated that, ‘‘[a]bsent evidence of 

an improvement in a claimant’s 

condition, a subsequent ALJ is bound by 

the findings of a previous ALJ.’’ The 

court held that SSA could not 

reexamine issues previously decided, in 

the absence of new and additional 

evidence or changed circumstances. The 

court further stated that, ‘‘[j]ust as a 

Social Security claimant is barred from 

relitigating an issue that has been 

previously determined, so is the 

Commissioner.’’ After finding that there 

was not substantial evidence that Ms. 

Drummond’s condition had improved 

significantly in the time between the 

two ALJ decisions, the court concluded 

that SSA was bound by its previous 

finding that Ms. Drummond was limited 

to sedentary work. 

Earley v. Commissioner of Social 

Security, 893 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018) 

Description of Case 

In 2010, Ms. Earley applied for 

disability benefits, claiming that she 

was disabled starting on June 25, 2010. 

In 2012, an ALJ found that she remained 

capable of light physical exertion and 

that she was not disabled for the period 

from June 25, 2010, through May 15, 

2012. Ms. Earley applied again in July 

2012, arguing that she became disabled 

after the decision on her last claim. The 

same ALJ, invoking Drummond and AR 

98–4(6), stated that he was bound by his 

earlier findings, unless Ms. Earley 

offered new and material evidence of a 

changed condition. Because the ALJ 

found that Ms. Earley had failed to do 

that, the ALJ again found her not 

disabled and denied her claim. 

On review, the district court reversed. 

The district court construed Drummond 

to apply only if it would lead to a 

favorable outcome for the claimant. 

Since any preclusive effect of the ALJ’s 

prior findings would make it more 

difficult for Ms. Earley to be found 

disabled, the court found that 

Drummond did not apply. 

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit examined 

and clarified Drummond. The court 

found that the key principles protected 

by Drummond, consistency between 

proceedings and finality with respect to 

prior adjudicated claims, apply to both 

individuals and the government. At the 

same time, these principles do not 

prevent the agency from giving a fresh 

look to a new claim containing new 

evidence or satisfying a new regulatory 

threshold that covers a new period of 

alleged disability while being mindful 

of past rulings and the record in prior 

proceedings. 

The court rejected the argument that, 

‘‘[i]n reviewing a second application by 

the same individual . . . the 

administrative law judge should 

completely ignore earlier findings and 

applications.’’ The court explained that 

‘‘[f]resh review is not blind review’’ and 

that ‘‘a later administrative law judge 

may consider what an earlier judge did 

if for no other reason than to strive for 

consistent decision making.’’ Further, 

the court explained that ‘‘it is fair for an 

administrative law judge to take the 

view that, absent new and additional 

evidence, the first administrative law 

judge’s findings are a legitimate, albeit 

not binding, consideration in reviewing 

a second application’’ and, at the same 

time, that ‘‘an applicant remains free to 

bring a second application that 

introduces no new evidence or very 

little new evidence after a failed 

application.’’ The court cautioned, 

however, that a claimant ‘‘should not 

have high expectations about success if 

the second filing mimics the first one 

and the individual has not reached any 

new age (or other) threshold to obtain 

benefits.’’ 

Holding 

The Sixth Circuit stated that, ‘‘[w]hen 

an individual seeks disability benefits 

for a distinct period of time, each 

application is entitled to review.’’ The 

court explained that if an individual 

files a subsequent application for the 

same period and ‘‘offers no cognizable 

explanation for revisiting the first 

decision, res judicata would bar the 

second application.’’ The court further 

explained that an ALJ honors res 

judicata ‘‘principles by considering 

what an earlier judge found with respect 

to a later application and by considering 

the earlier record’’ and that, 

accordingly, ‘‘it is fair for an 

administrative law judge to take the 

view that, absent new and additional 

evidence, the first administrative law 

judge’s findings are a legitimate, albeit 

not binding, consideration in reviewing 

a second application.’’ Ms. Earley’s new 

claim involved a new period; therefore, 

the court held that res judicata did not 

apply. Accordingly, the court remanded 

the case for the ALJ to reconsider Ms. 

Earley’s claim for benefits under the 

correct standard. 

Statement as to How Earley Differs From 

The Agency’s Policy 

In a subsequent disability claim, SSA 

considers the issue of disability with 

respect to a period that was not 

adjudicated to be a new issue that 

requires an independent evaluation. 

Thus, when adjudicating a subsequent 

disability claim involving an 

unadjudicated period, SSA considers 

the facts and issues de novo in 

determining or deciding disability with 

respect to the unadjudicated period. 

SSA does not consider prior findings 

made in the final determination or 

decision on the prior claim as evidence 

in adjudicating disability with respect to 

the unadjudicated period in the 

subsequent claim. 

In Earley, the Sixth Circuit agreed 

with SSA’s policy that res judicata does 

not apply with respect to an 

unadjudicated period. Yet, the Sixth 

Circuit disagreed with SSA’s policy that 

prior disability findings are not to be 

considered in the adjudication of 

disability for a previously 

unadjudicated period in a subsequent 

claim. Rather, Earley indicates that such 

prior findings made at the ALJ hearing 

or AC level should be considered in the 

adjudication of disability for an 

unadjudicated period in a subsequent 

claim, stating that ‘‘it is fair for an 

administrative law judge to take the 

view that, absent new and additional 

evidence, the first administrative law 

judge’s findings are a legitimate, albeit 

not binding, consideration in reviewing 

a second application.’’ Earley indicates 

that an adjudicator honors the 

principles of res judicata ‘‘by 

considering what an earlier judge found 

with respect to a later application and 

by considering that earlier record.’’ 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2024 / Notices 92995 

1 In making a finding of a claimant’s RFC or other 

finding that is required at a step in the sequential 

evaluation process for adjudicating disability, an 

ALJ or the AC may have made certain subsidiary 

findings, such as an assessment of the claimant’s 

symptoms. A subsidiary finding does not constitute 

a finding that is required at a step in the sequential 

evaluation process for adjudicating disability, as 

provided under 20 CFR 404.1520, 416.920, or 

416.924. 

2For example, an adjudicator might consider 

such factors as: (1) whether the fact on which the 

prior finding was based is subject to change with 

the passage of time, such as a fact relating to the 

severity of the claimant’s medical condition; (2) the 

likelihood of such a change, considering the 

amount of time between the period adjudicated in 

the prior claim and the unadjudicated period in the 

subsequent claim; and (3) the extent to which 

evidence that was not considered in the final 

decision on the prior claim provides a basis for 

making a different finding for the unadjudicated 

period in the subsequent claim. These are only 

examples and not intended to create specific 

requirements as part of the sequential evaluation. 

SSA interprets Earley to require that, 

where a final decision after a hearing on 

a prior disability claim contains a 

finding of a claimant’s RFC or other 

finding required under the applicable 

sequential evaluation process for 

determining disability, SSA must 

consider such finding(s) as evidence 

when adjudicating a subsequent 

disability claim, arising under the same 

or a different title of the Act, involving 

an unadjudicated period. 

Explanation of How We Will Apply The 

Earley 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 AC 

level. Additionally, it applies only to a 

finding of a claimant’s RFC or other 

finding that is required at a step in the 

sequential evaluation process for 

adjudicating disability (provided under 

20 CFR 404.1520, 416.920, or 416.924, 

as appropriate), made in a final decision 

(favorable or unfavorable) by an ALJ or 

the AC on a prior disability claim.1

When a claimant seeks disability 

benefits for a new period in a 

subsequent claim, that subsequent claim 

is entitled to review following the 

applicable sequential evaluation 

process. However, such review does not 

exist in a vacuum. When adjudicating a 

subsequent claim (arising under the 

same or a different title of the Act as the 

prior claim), an adjudicator deciding 

whether a claimant is disabled during a 

previously unadjudicated period must 

consider findings from the decision on 

the prior claim. As the Court recognized 

in Earley, things change with the 

passage of time, such as age and 

physical condition. As a result, each 

claim covering a different period should 

be reviewed as a new claim. However, 

when a finding of a claimant’s RFC or 

other finding required under the 

sequential evaluation process for 

determining disability differs from that 

in the prior decision, the adjudicator 

must make clear that they considered 

the prior finding as evidence in light of 

all relevant facts and circumstances.2

Where the prior finding was about a 

fact that is subject to change with the 

passage of time, such as a claimant’s 

RFC or the severity of an impairment(s), 

the likelihood that the fact has changed 

generally increases as the time between 

the previously adjudicated period and 

the subsequent period increases. An 

adjudicator generally should pay 

particular attention to the lapse of time 

between the earlier claim and the later 

claim and the impact of the passage of 

time on the claim. In situations where 

minimal time has passed, and no or very 

little new evidence has been introduced, 

it is more likely that the prior finding 

will remain the same. But the 

adjudicator must consider all relevant 

facts and circumstances on a case-bycase basis. Additionally, a change in the 

law, regulations, or rulings affecting a 

relevant finding or the method for 

arriving at the finding may be a reason 

why the prior finding, considered as 

evidence, is properly departed from in 

the current determination or decision. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27466 Filed 11–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice: 12594] 

Waiver of Missile Proliferation 

Sanctions 

ACTION: Notice of determination. 

SUMMARY: A determination has been 

made pursuant to the Arms Export 

Control Act and Export Administration 

Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam 

Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, 

and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau 

of International Security and 

Nonproliferation, Department of State 

(202–647–4930). On import ban issues, 

Lauren Sun, Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the 

Treasury (202–622–4855). On U.S. 

Government procurement ban issues, 

Eric Moore, Office of the Procurement 

Executive, Department of State (703– 

875–4079), email: isn-mbc-sanctions@

state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent 

with section 654(c) of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 

notice is hereby given that the Secretary 

of State has made a determination 

pursuant to section 73 of the Arms 

Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b) 

and section 11B(b) of the Export 

Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 

app. 2410b(b)), as carried out under 

Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 

2001, and has concluded that 

publication of the determination would 

be harmful to the national security of 

the United States. 

Ann K. Ganzer, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, International 

Security and Nonproliferation, Department of 

State. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27492 Filed 11–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[Docket No. FHWA–2024–0067] 

Emergency Temporary Closure of 

Eastbound Traffic on the National 

Network for the Lewis and Clark 

Viaduct Bridge in Kansas City, Kansas 

and Kansas City, Missouri 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Kansas Department of 

Transportation (KDOT) closed for 

repairs the eastbound portion of 

Interstate 70 (I–70) on the Lewis and 

Clark Viaduct Bridge over the Kansas 

River on September 5, 2024. Closure of 

the bridge and detour routes extend 

from Kansas City, Kansas, into Kansas 

City, Missouri. 

The FHWA is providing notice that 

KDOT is continuing the temporary 

closure of the Lewis and Clark Viaduct 

Bridge in the eastbound direction until 

the bridge can be repaired, which is 

estimated to be by the end of December 

2024. The FHWA is requesting 

comments from the public on the 

alternate routes selected by KDOT and 

the Missouri Department of 

Transportation (MoDOT) due to the 

closure. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 26, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not 

duplicate your docket submissions, 

please submit them by only one of the 

following means: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES