97158 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2024 / Notices 

Modality of completion Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Estimated 

total annual 

burden 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly cost 

amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

wait time in 

field office 

or for 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Total annual 

opportunity cost 

(dollars) *** 

SSA–773–U4 ......................................... 4,356 1 3 218 * $13.30 ** 24 *** $26,068 

* We based this figure on average DI payments based on SSA’s current FY 2024 data (https://mwww.ba.ssa.gov/legislation/2024FactSheet.pdf). 

** We based this figure on the average FY 2024 wait times for field offices, based on SSA’s current management information data.

*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the 

application. 

5. Function Report—Child (Birth to 

1st Birthday, Age 1 to 3rd Birthday, Age 

3 to 6th Birthday, Age 6 to 12th 

Birthday, Age 12 to 18th Birthday)—20 

CFR 416.912 and 416.924a(a)(2)—0960– 

0542. As part of SSA’s disability 

determination process, we use Forms 

SSA–3375–BK through SSA–3379–BK 

to request information from a child’s 

parent or guardian for children applying 

for SSI. The five different versions of the 

form contain questions about the child’s 

day-to-day functioning appropriate to a 

particular age group; thus, respondents 

use only one version of the form for 

each child. The adjudicative team 

(disability examiners and medical or 

psychological consultants) of State 

disability determination services offices 

collect the information on the 

appropriate version of this form (in 

conjunction with medical and other 

evidence) to form a complete picture of 

the children’s ability to function and 

their impairment-related limitations. 

The adjudicative team uses the 

completed profile to determine: (1) if 

each child’s impairment(s) results in 

marked and severe functional 

limitations; and (2) whether each child 

is disabled. The respondents are parents 

and guardians of child applicants for 

SSI. 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Modality of completion Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Estimated 

total annual 

burden 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly cost 

amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

wait time in 

field office 

or for 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Total annual 

opportunity cost 

(dollars) *** 

SSA–3375 ............................................. 26,864 1 20 8,955 * $31.48 ** 21 *** $577,878 

SSA–3376 ............................................. 53,347 1 20 17,782 * 31.48 ** 21 *** 1,147,540 

SSA–3377 ............................................. 108,745 1 20 36,248 * 31.48 ** 21 *** 2,339,247 

SSA–3378 ............................................. 193,800 1 20 64,600 * 31.48 ** 21 *** 4,168,896 

SSA–3379 ............................................. 142,006 1 20 47,335 * 31.48 ** 21 *** 3,054,725 

Totals ............................................. 524,762 ........................ ........................ 174,921 ........................ ........................ *** 11,288,286 

* We based this figure on the average U.S. worker’s hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm). 

** We based this figure on averaging the average FY 2024 wait times for field offices and teleservice Centers, based on SSA’s current management information 

data. 

*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to respondents to complete the 

application. 

Dated: December 2, 2024. 

Naomi Sipple, 

Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28509 Filed 12–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No. SSA–2024–0049] 

Social Security Ruling, SSR 24–3p.; 

Titles II and XVI: Use of Occupational 

Information and Vocational Specialist 

and Vocational Expert Evidence in 

Disability Determinations and 

Decisions 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling 

(SSR). 

SUMMARY: We are providing notice of 

SSR 24–3p. This SSR rescinds and 

replaces ‘‘SSR 00–4p: Titles II and XVI: 

Use of Vocational Expert and Vocational 

Specialist Evidence, and Other Reliable 

Occupational Information in Disability 

Decisions’’, and explains our standard 

for evaluating whether vocational 

evidence is sufficient to support a 

disability determination or decision. 

DATES: We will apply this notice on 

January 6, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick McGuire, Social Security 

Administration, Office of Analytics, 

Review, and Oversight, Appellate 

Operations, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, (703) 605– 

7100, 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.ssa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although 

5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not 

require us to publish this SSR, we are 

publishing it in accordance with 20 CFR 

402.35(b)(1). 

SSRs represent precedential final 

opinions, orders, and statements of 

policy and interpretations that we have 

adopted relating to the Federal Old Age, 

Survivors, and Disability Insurance 

program, and Supplemental Security 

Income program. We may base SSRs on 

determinations or decisions made in our 

administrative review process, Federal 

court decisions, decisions of our 

Commissioner, opinions from our Office 

of the General Counsel, or other 

interpretations of law and regulations. 

Although SSRs do not have the same 

force and effect as law, they are binding 

on all SSA components in accordance 

with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). 

This SSR will remain in effect until 

we publish a notice in the Federal 

Register that rescinds it, or until we 

publish a new SSR that replaces or 

modifies it. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2024 / Notices 97159 

1We will use this SSR beginning on its applicable 

date. We will apply this SSR to new applications 

filed on or after the applicable date of the SSR and 

to claims that are pending on or after the applicable 

date. This means that we will use this SSR on and 

after its applicable date in any case in which we 

make a determination or decision. We expect that 

Federal courts will review our final decisions using 

the rules that were in effect at the time we issued 

the decisions. If a court reverses our final decision 

and remands a case for further administrative 

proceedings after the applicable date of this SSR, 

we will apply this SSR to the entire period at issue 

in the decision we make after the court’s remand. 

2 During the 1980s and 1990s, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) led the effort to 

standardize various occupational classification 

systems then in use across the federal government 

with a SOC system to ‘‘promote a common language 

for categorizing occupations in the world of work.’’ 

62 FR 36338, 36338 (July, 1997), available at 

https://www.bls.gov/soc/2000/frn-july-7-1997.pdf. 

3 20 CFR part 404 subpart P appendix 2. 

4 20 CFR 404.1566(d) and 416.966(d). 

5 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e). 

The Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, Carolyn W. Colvin, 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. 

Policy Interpretation Ruling 

SSR 24–3p: Titles II and XVI: Use of 

Occupational Information and 

Vocational Specialist and Vocational 

Expert Evidence in Disability 

Determinations and Decisions 

This SSR rescinds and replaces SSR 

00–4p: Titles II and XVI: Use of 

Vocational Expert and Vocational 

Specialist Evidence, and Other Reliable 

Occupational Information in Disability 

Decisions. 

Citations (Authority): Sections 216(i), 

223(d)(2)(A), and 1614(a)(3)(B) of the 

Social Security Act, as amended and 20 

CFR 404.1560, 404.1566–404.1569, Part 

404 Subpart P Appendix 2, 416.960, and 

416.966–416.969. 

Dates: We will apply this notice on 

January 6, 2025.1

Purpose: When we make disability 

determinations and decisions, we may 

ask impartial vocational specialists (VS) 

or vocational experts (VE) to provide 

evidence about work. VSs and VEs give 

us evidence tailored to the specific facts 

of the cases about which we consult 

them, based on their professional 

knowledge, training, and experience 

and the vocational data available to 

them. 

In 2000, we issued SSR 00–4p, which 

explains that, before relying on VS and 

VE evidence to support a disability 

decision, our adjudicators must (1) 

identify and obtain a reasonable 

explanation for any conflicts between 

occupational information provided by a 

VS or VE and information in the 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles 

(DOT), including its companion 

publication, the Selected Characteristics 

of Occupations Defined in the Revised 

Dictionary of Occupational Titles; and 

(2) explain in the determination or 

decision how any conflict that has been 

identified was resolved. 

We continue to recognize the DOT as 

a valid and reliable source of 

occupational information, and we will 

continue to use it in adjudication. 

However, we acknowledge that the DOT 

is not the only reliable source of 

occupational information. We note that 

recent federal statistical data relating to 

work in the national economy uses the 

Standard Occupational Classification 

(SOC) system 2 and that the SOC system 

for classifying occupations is different 

from that of the DOT. The requirements 

of SSR 00–4p make it difficult to use 

these other sources, because it is not 

clear how a VS, VE or adjudicator can 

fulfill the requirement to identify and 

resolve conflicts with the DOT when 

primarily using a data source that is, 

structurally, very different from the 

DOT. We do not want to discourage use 

of occupational information that is 

reliable and commonly used in the 

vocational profession. In addition, our 

adjudicative experience since we issued 

SSR 00–04p has shown that requiring 

our adjudicators, VSs, and VEs to 

identify and explain conflicts with the 

DOT is time consuming. At the hearing 

level, the requirements of SSR 00–4p 

have led to unnecessary remands to 

resolve apparent conflicts that were not 

identified at the hearing when the VE 

testified, and the requirements of SSR 

00–4p might discourage VSs and VEs 

from using occupational data in sources 

other than the DOT. 

This ruling explains our standard for 

evaluating whether vocational evidence 

is sufficient to support a determination 

or decision. We are rescinding SSR 00– 

04p and will no longer require our 

adjudicators to identify and resolve 

conflicts between occupational 

information provided by VSs and VEs 

and information in the DOT. 

Pertinent History: We use a five-step 

sequential evaluation process to 

determine whether an individual is 

disabled. We may use VS or VE 

evidence at steps four and five in that 

process. 

At step four of the sequential 

evaluation process, we consider 

whether an individual, given their 

residual functional capacity (RFC), can 

perform any of their past relevant work 

(PRW) either as the individual actually 

performed it or as the work is generally 

performed in the national economy. If 

we find that the individual can perform 

any of their PRW, we will find that the 

individual is not disabled. If the 

individual cannot perform any of their 

PRW, we go to the fifth step of the 

sequential evaluation process. 

At step five of the sequential 

evaluation process, we consider 

whether an individual’s impairment(s) 

prevents them from adjusting to other 

work that exists in significant numbers 

in the national economy, considering 

their RFC and the vocational factors of 

age, education, and work experience. If 

we find that the individual cannot 

adjust to other work, we will find that 

the individual is disabled. If we find 

that the individual can adjust to other 

work, we will find that the individual 

is not disabled. 

In appropriate instances, we use the 

medical-vocational guidelines to decide 

whether work exists in the national 

economy.3 When an individual’s RFC 

and vocational factors of age, education, 

and work experience correspond to a 

rule in the medical-vocational 

guidelines, that rule applies and directs 

a decision of ‘‘disabled’’ or ‘‘not 

disabled.’’ Where our finding of fact 

about an individual’s RFC or a 

vocational factor does not correspond 

precisely to a medical-vocational rule, 

the guidelines provide a framework to 

guide our decision-making. 

Our regulations state that we will take 

administrative notice of reliable job 

information.4 In certain cases, we use 

VSs and VEs as sources of job-related 

evidence 5 including evidence about 

whether an individual’s work skills can 

be used in other work, the specific 

occupations in which they can be used, 

or a similarly complex issue. VSs and 

VEs provide expert vocational evidence 

and rely on the publications listed in 20 

CFR 404.1566(d) and 416.966(d) or 

other reliable sources of occupational 

information. VEs and VSs may use any 

reliable source of occupational 

information that is commonly used by 

vocational professionals and is relevant 

under our rules, along with their 

professional knowledge, training, and 

experience. VEs and VSs may use a 

combination of these sources when 

providing occupational evidence. 

Adjudicators must weigh the VE or VS 

evidence in the context of the overall 

record and determine whether it can 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
97160 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2024 / Notices 

6 20 CFR 404.1560(b)(2) and 416.960(b)(2). 

7 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e). 

8See 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e). See also 

SSR 83–12 Titles II and XVI: Capability to Do Other 

Work—The Medical-Vocational Rules as a 

Framework for Evaluating Exertional Limitations 

Within a Range of Work or Between Ranges of 

Work, SSR 83–14 Titles II and XVI: Capability to 

Do Other Work—The Medical-Vocational Rules as 

a Framework for Evaluating a Combination of 

Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments, and 

SSR 96–9p Titles II and XVI: Determining 

Capability to Do Other Work—Implications of a 

Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full 

Range of Sedentary Work. 

9 20 CFR 404.900(b) and 416.1400(b). The rules of 

evidence used in federal courts do not apply. 42 

U.S.C. 405(b)(1). 

10 20 CFR 404.1740 and 416.1540. Raising 

relevant questions about or challenges to the VE’s 

testimony at the time of the hearing, when the VE 

is ready and available to answer them, furthers the 

efficient, fair, and orderly conduct of the 

administrative decision-making process. 

11For example, SOC 11–9171 Funeral Home, 

Manager matches to one DOT Code 187.167–030 

Funeral Director; however, SOC 51–9061 

Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers 

matches to 782 DOT codes. 

12 If VEs rely only on sources that use the same 

classification systems, then they do not need to 

provide a crosswalk. For example, if a VE uses ORS 

and OEWS, which both use the SOC system, then 

no crosswalk is necessary. Similarly, if a VE relies 

only on the DOT, no crosswalk is necessary. The 

DOT, however, does not provide information about 

job numbers. 

support a conclusion at step four or step 

five. 

Policy Interpretation 

The DOT 

Our rules, such as regulatory terms 

and definitions, and our guidance are 

controlling for our adjudicators. The 

DOT, which, as noted above, we 

continue to take administrative notice of 

as a reliable source, corresponds to 

many of our rules and guidance. For 

example, the maximum requirements of 

occupations as generally performed in 

the DOT correspond directly to our 

rules and guidance. We classify jobs as 

sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and 

very heavy, using the same meaning as 

those terms have in the DOT. Our 

categorization of skills also corresponds 

with the DOT. The DOT lists a specific 

vocational preparation (SVP) level for 

each occupation it describes. Our skill 

level definitions in 20 CFR 404.1568 

and 416.968, of unskilled, semi-skilled, 

and skilled work as corresponding to 

DOT SVP levels of 1 to 2, 3 to 4, and 

5 to 9. 

VS and VE Occupational Evidence 

We may also ask a VS or VE to 

provide evidence concerning a variety 

of case-specific factual issues. A VS or 

VE may offer evidence concerning the 

physical and mental demands of an 

individual’s past relevant work, either 

as actually performed by the individual 

or as generally performed in the 

national economy,6 evidence 

concerning whether an individual’s 

work skills can be used in other work 

and the specific occupations in which 

they can be used, or evidence regarding 

similarly complex issues.7 We may ask 

VSs and VEs to offer examples of other 

occupations an individual can perform. 

Additionally, VEs may offer estimates of 

the number of jobs that exist in the 

national economy in such occupations.8

We do not dictate any specific approach 

to estimating job numbers, and the 

numbers provided are only general 

estimates. Our adjudications are nonadversarial,9 and we process millions of 

cases each year. Our adjudicators must 

determine whether VS or VE evidence is 

adequate to decide the claim and must 

do so efficiently. 

VSs and VEs may provide evidence 

based on their professional experience 

and any reliable source of occupational 

information that is commonly used in 

the vocational profession and relevant 

under our rules. VSs and VEs are in the 

best position to determine the most 

appropriate sources of data to support 

the evidence they offer. We expect VSs 

and VEs to identify the sources of the 

data they use and, where applicable, to 

explain their general approach to 

estimating job numbers. If the VS or VE 

uses a data source that defines exertion, 

education, or skill levels differently 

than our regulations, we expect the VS 

or VE to explain the difference. We may 

instruct VSs or VEs to address other 

concerns as needed. For example, VSs 

and VEs should identify and explain if 

they cite an occupation that is 

performed in a different way than 

identified in the source of data they 

used. Because VEs and VSs are 

impartial and qualified professionals 

whom we consult because of their 

expertise, a more detailed inquiry into 

the sources of data or approaches used 

is not usually required. At the hearing 

level, when the claimant is represented, 

we expect the representative to raise any 

relevant questions or challenges about 

the VE’s testimony at the time of the 

hearing and to assist in developing the 

record through appropriate questions to 

the VE.10 Based on the vocational 

evidence in the case and the record 

overall, an adjudicator will determine 

whether the evidence provided by a VS 

or VE is adequate to support a decision 

at step four or five. 

Some sources of occupational data 

use definitions of exertion level, skill 

level, and education level that align 

closely with our program rules. The 

DOT is such a source. If a VS or VE uses 

a source that defines exertion, skill, or 

education level differently than our 

program rules, we expect the VS or VE 

to acknowledge the difference and 

explain whether or how they have 

accounted for the difference. 

In addition, the VS or VE may cite to 

multiple acceptable sources of 

occupational data that do not precisely 

correspond to each other. In some 

instances, it may be necessary for the VS 

or VE to explain how they accounted for 

the differences in classification. For 

example, Federal agencies that collect 

occupational data now use the SOC 

system. One difference between the 

DOT and the SOC system is that the 

SOC system aggregates occupational 

data at a higher level. While there are 

some SOC codes that correspond to a 

single DOT code, other SOC codes may 

correspond to a large number of DOT 

codes.11 VSs and VEs may rely on 

occupational sources that use the SOC 

system. Examples of these data sets 

include, but are not limited to, the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational 

Employment and Wage Statistics 

(OEWS), and the Occupational 

Requirements Survey (ORS). 

For example, VEs may cite 

occupations from the DOT but derive 

estimates of job numbers from the 

OEWS when providing evidence to us 

in our hearings process. Because the 

DOT uses a different classification 

taxonomy from the SOC system, VEs 

would need to explain the general 

approach of how they compared the 

DOT data to the data about estimates of 

job numbers in OEWS, a SOC-based 

classification system.12 In this example, 

the VE could address the SOC group for 

the corresponding DOT code and 

explain how the estimates of job 

numbers for the specific occupation are 

derived from the overall numbers for the 

SOC group. A detailed inquiry is not 

required, but if a VE does not provide 

any explanation about the general 

approach, our adjudicators should ask 

them to provide one. 

Consider the following illustration: at 

a hearing, an ALJ presents a 

hypothetical question to a VE regarding 

a younger individual with a high school 

education and no transferable skills, 

who can perform a reduced range of 

light work. The VE explains that the 

DOT and OEWS are the data sources 

used for the testimony. The VE then 

testifies that the hypothetical individual 

can perform work in the DOT 

occupation of Fast-Foods Worker (DOT 

Code 311.472–010). The VE relies on 

their experience along with published 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2024 / Notices 97161 

13When OMB mandated the SOC system for 

occupational data collection, Federal agencies 

developed crosswalks from the existing taxonomies 

to the SOC. 64 FR 53136, 53139 (1999), available 

at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999- 

09-30/pdf/99-25445.pdf. The DOT crosswalk file is 

available at https://www.onetcenter.org/crosswalks.

html. 

14The other five DOT codes are: DOT Code 

311.477–014 Counter Attendant, Lunchroom or 

Coffee Shop; DOT Code 311.477–038 Waiter/ 

Waitress, Take Out; DOT Code 311.674–010 

Canteen Operator; DOT Code 311.677–014 Counter 

Attendant, Cafeteria; DOT Code 319.474–010 

Fountain Server. 

15U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. OEWS, May 

2022. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353023.

htm. 

16Our determinations and decisions are based on 

the preponderance of the evidence standard. See 20 

CFR 404.902, 404.920, 404.953, 416.1402, 416.1420, 

and 416.1453. 

comparisons between the DOT and 

SOC13 to identify the closest related 

SOC group as 35–3023 Fast Food and 

Counter Workers. The VE explains that 

five additional DOT occupations 

crosswalk to the same SOC group,14 and 

that OEWS data shows there are 

3,325,050 jobs nationally for the Fast 

Food and Counter Workers SOC 

group.15 Considering the limitations in 

the hypothetical question, the VE 

explains that the Fast-Foods Worker 

(DOT Code 311.472–010) occupation 

occurs more frequently in the labor 

market than the other five DOT jobs in 

the same SOC group. Then, the VE 

states that the Fast-Food Worker 

occupation accounts for 1,300,000 jobs 

in the SOC group. The VE explains that 

the response was based on the VE’s 

experience, training, observation of how 

the job is performed in multiple settings 

and industries, and familiarity with the 

job market estimates. 

Adjudicator Responsibilities 

Our adjudicators are responsible for 

evaluating the VS or VE evidence within 

the context of the overall evidence in 

the claim. If the VS or VE does not 

provide the expected information and 

explanation outlined above, the 

adjudicator will usually need to develop 

the record with sufficient evidence to 

make a supported finding at step four or 

step five of the sequential evaluation 

process.16

[FR Doc. 2024–28508 Filed 12–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice: 12599] 

Notice of Determinations; Additional 

Culturally Significant Objects Being 

Imported for Exhibition— 

Determinations: ‘‘Caspar David 

Friedrich: The Soul of Nature’’ 

Exhibition 

SUMMARY: On September 30, 2024, 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register of determinations pertaining to 

a certain object to be included in an 

exhibition entitled ‘‘Caspar David 

Friedrich: The Soul of Nature.’’ Notice 

is hereby given of the following 

determinations: I hereby determine that 

certain additional objects being 

imported from abroad pursuant to 

agreements with their foreign owners or 

custodians for temporary display in the 

aforesaid exhibition at The Metropolitan 

Museum of Art, New York, New York, 

and at possible additional exhibitions or 

venues yet to be determined, are of 

cultural significance, and, further, that 

their temporary exhibition or display 

within the United States as 

aforementioned is in the national 

interest. I have ordered that Public 

Notice of these determinations be 

published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 

Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. 

Department of State (telephone: 202– 

632–6471; email: section2459@

state.gov). The mailing address is U.S. 

Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street 

NW (SA–5), Suite 5H03, Washington, 

DC 20522–0505. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

foregoing determinations were made 

pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 

985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 

12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign 

Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 

1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 

6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 

Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, 

Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 of 

August 28, 2000, and Delegation of 

Authority No. 523 of December 22, 

2021. The notice of determinations 

published on September 30, 2024, 

appears at 89 FR 79683. 

Nicole L. Elkon, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional 

and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28535 Filed 12–5–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

[Docket Number USTR–2024–0023] 

Request for Comments and Notice of 

a Public Hearing Regarding the 2025 

Special 301 Review 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative (USTR). 

ACTION: Request for comments and 

notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: Each year, USTR conducts a 

review to identify countries that deny 

adequate and effective protection of 

intellectual property (IP) rights or deny 

fair and equitable market access to U.S. 

persons who rely on IP protection. 

Based on this review, the U.S. Trade 

Representative determines which, if 

any, of these countries to identify as 

Priority Foreign Countries. USTR 

requests written comments that identify 

acts, policies, or practices that may form 

the basis of a country’s identification as 

a Priority Foreign Country or placement 

on the Priority Watch List or Watch List. 

DATES: 

January 27, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. EST: 

Deadline for submission of written 

comments, hearing statements, and 

notices of intent to appear at the hearing 

from the public. 

February 10, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. EST: 

Deadline for submission of written 

comments, hearing statements, and 

notices of intent to appear at the hearing 

from foreign governments. 

February 19, 2025: The Special 301 

Subcommittee will hold a public 

hearing at the Office of the United State 

Trade Representative, 1724 F Street NW, 

Rooms 1&2, Washington, DC. If 

necessary, the hearing may continue on 

the next business day. Those who 

intend to testify at the public hearing 

must submit a notice of intent to appear 

by the deadlines stated above. Please 

consult the USTR website at https://

ustr.gov/issue-areas/intellectualproperty/Special-301, for confirmation 

of the date and location and the 

schedule of witnesses. 

February 26, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. EST: 

Deadline for submission of post-hearing 

written comments from persons who 

testified at the public hearing. 

On or about April 30, 2025: USTR 

will publish the 2025 Special 301 

Report within 30 days of the publication 

of the National Trade Estimate Report. 

ADDRESSES: USTR strongly encourages 

electronic submissions made through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// 

www.regulations.gov (Regulations.gov). 

Follow the submission instructions in 

section IV below. The docket number is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1