Waiver of Missile Proliferation Sanctions, 92995 [2024-27492]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2024 / Notices
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
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
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.
2 For example, an adjudicator might consider
such factors as: (1) whether the fact on which the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Nov 22, 2024
Jkt 265001
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
[Public Notice: 12594]
Waiver of Missile Proliferation
Sanctions
Notice of determination.
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.
SUMMARY:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ACTION:
92995
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27492]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email protected].
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
