Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices 25785

the same substantive rules.’’ 62 FR 6408, February

11, 1997, at 6413.

4 In accordance with 20 CFR 416.926(a), SSA

considers all relevant evidence in the case record

when it makes a finding on medical equivalence.

Although the companion regulation for title II, 20

CFR 404.1526(a), does not contain this language,

SSA applies the same equivalency policy under

both titles.

The Seventh Circuit concluded that

Hickman had a medical condition that

was medically equivalent to the

impairment set forth in Listing 101.03.

The Seventh Circuit reversed the

judgment of the district court and

remanded the case with instructions to

enter judgment in Hickman’s favor.

Statement as to How Hickman Differs

From SSA’s Interpretation of the

Regulations

The Seventh Circuit based its findings

on 20 CFR 416.926(b), which states,

‘‘[w]e will always base our decision

about whether your impairment(s) is

medically equal to a listed impairment

on medical evidence only.’’ However,

we intended the phrase ‘‘medical

evidence only’’ in this context only to

exclude consideration of the vocational

factors of age, education, and work

experience. Other than such vocational

factors, however, in accordance with 20

CFR 416.926(a), SSA considers all

relevant evidence in the case record

when it makes a finding on medical

equivalence.4

The Seventh Circuit decision differs

from SSA’s national rule by requiring it

to consider only a narrow definition of

medical evidence, that is, evidence from

medical sources, in determining

medical equivalence and not permitting

the use of other relevant evidence. The

agency, on the other hand, interprets

‘‘medical evidence’’ broadly so as to

include not just objective test results or

other findings reported by medical

sources, but other information about a

claimant’s medical conditions and their

effects, including the claimant’s own

description of his or her impairments.

Thus, the court’s decision that medical

equivalence is decided based solely on

evidence from medical sources

interprets the ‘‘medical evidence only’’

language of the regulation more

narrowly than we intend.

Explanation of How SSA Will Apply

The Hickman Decision Within the

Circuit

This Ruling applies only to cases in

which the claimant resides in Illinois,

Indiana or Wisconsin at the time of the

determination or decision at any level of

administrative review; i.e., initial,

reconsideration, ALJ hearing or Appeals

Council review.

In determining medical equivalence,

we will use only information obtained

from health care professionals. We will

not use any evidence from a source

other than a health care professional in

determining medical equivalence.

We intend to clarify the language at

issue in this case at 20 CFR 404.1526

and 416.926 through the issuance of a

regulatory change, and we may rescind

this Ruling once we have clarified the

regulations.

[FR 00–10934 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45am]

Billing Code 4191–02–F

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3304]

Amendment to Bureau of Educational

and Cultural Affairs Request for

Proposals: Small Grants Competition;

Grassroots Citizen Participation in

Democracy

SUMMARY: The Office of Citizen

Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and

Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department

of State announces the addition of

Brazil to the Latin American geographic

region for which proposals will be

accepted.

The Small Grants Competition was

announced on April 20, 2000 in the

Federal Register (Volume 65, pg.

21061). The deadline for proposals is

June 2, 2000.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Interested

organizations should contact Laverne

Johnson, 202/619–5337; E-Mail

ljohnson@usia.gov.

Dated: April 26, 2000.

Evelyn S. Lieberman,

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and

Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 00–11023 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–11–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3306]

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs;

Certifications Pursuant to Section 609

of Public Law 101–162

April 27, 2000.

SUMMARY: On April 25, 2000, the

Department of State certified, pursuant

to Section 609 of Public Law 101–162

(‘‘Section 609’’), that 16 nations have

adopted programs to reduce the

incidental capture of sea turtles in their

shrimp fisheries comparable to the

program in effect in the United States.

The Department also certified that the

fishing environments in 25 other

countries do not pose a threat of the

incidental taking of sea turtles protected

under Section 609. Shrimp imports from

any nation not certified were prohibited

effective May 1, 2000 pursuant to

Section 609.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Hogan, Office of Marine

Conservation, Bureau of Oceans and

International Environmental and

Scientific Affairs, Department of State,

Washington, DC 20520–7818; telephone:

(202) 647–2335.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

609 of Public Law 101–162 prohibits

imports of certain categories of shrimp

unless the President certifies to the

Congress not later than May 1 of each

year either: (1) that the harvesting

nation has adopted a program governing

the incidental capture of sea turtles in

its commercial shrimp fishery

comparable to the program in effect in

the United States and has an incidental

take rate comparable to that of the

United States; or (2) that the fishing

environment in the harvesting nation

does not pose a threat of the incidental

taking of sea turtles. The President has

delegated the authority to make this

certification to the Department of State.

Revised State Department guidelines for

making the required certifications were

published in the Federal Register on

July 2, 1999 (Vol. 64, No. 130, Public

Notice 3086).

On April 25, 2000, the Department

certified 16 nations on the basis that

their sea turtle protection program is

comparable to that of the United States:

Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,

El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana,

Indonesia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria,

Panama, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad

and Tobago, and Venezuela. Honduras,

certified on these grounds in 1998, did

not retain their certification. Honduras

failed to demonstrate that its regulations

requiring the use of sea turtle excluder

devices (TEDs) were being adequately

enforced. The Department expects that

Honduras will take steps necessary to

regain certification in 2000.

The Department also certified 25

shrimp harvesting nations as having

fishing environments that do not pose a

danger to sea turtles. Sixteen nations

have shrimping grounds only in cold

waters where the risk of taking sea

turtles is negligible. They are:

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile,

Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland,

Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand,

Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United

Kingdom, and Uruguay. Nine nations

only harvest shrimp using small boats