Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75759

rescinding this Acquiescence Ruling, we

are restoring uniformity to our

nationwide system of rules in

accordance with our commitment to the

goal of administering our programs

through uniform national standards as

discussed in the preamble to the 1998

acquiescence regulations, 63 FR 24927

(May 6, 1998).

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security—

Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.005

Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners;

96.006 Supplemental Security Income)

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Kenneth S. Apfel,

Commissioner of Social Security.

[FR Doc. 00–30700 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191–02–U

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Social Security Ruling, SSR 00–4p.;

Titles II and XVI: Use of Vocational

Expert and Vocational Specialist

Evidence, and Other Reliable

Occupational Information in Disability

Decisions

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social

Security gives notice of Social Security

Ruling, SSR 00–4p. This Ruling clarifies

our standards for the use of vocational

experts, vocational specialists, and other

reliable sources of occupational

information in the evaluation of Social

Security disability claims under title II,

Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and

Disability Insurance, and title XVI,

Supplemental Security Income for the

Aged, Blind, and Disabled, of the Social

Security Act.

In view of the clarification provided

by this Ruling, AR 00–3(10) Haddock v.

Apfel, ‘‘Use of Vocational Expert

Testimony and the Dictionary of

Occupational Titles Under 20 CFR

404.1566, 416.966—Titles II and XVI of

the Social Security Act,’’ is being

rescinded through a separate notice in

the Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Georgia E. Myers, Regulations Officer,

Social Security Administration, 6401

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD

21235–6401, 1–410–965–3632 or TTY

1–800–966–5609.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although

we are not required to do so pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are

publishing this Social Security Ruling

in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).

Social Security Rulings make

available to the public precedential

decisions relating to the Federal old-age,

survivors, disability, supplemental

security income, and black lung benefits

programs. Social Security Rulings may

be based on case decisions made at all

administrative levels of adjudication,

Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s

decisions, opinions of the Office of the

General Counsel, and policy

interpretations of the law and

regulations.

Although Social Security Rulings do

not have the same force and effect as the

statute or regulations, they are binding

on all components of the Social Security

Administration, in accordance with 20

CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are to be relied

upon as precedents in adjudicating

cases.

If this Social Security Ruling is later

superseded, modified, or rescinded, we

will publish a notice in the Federal

Register to that effect.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,

Program Nos. 96.001, Social SecurityDisability Insurance; 96.002, Social SecurityRetirement Insurance; 96.004, Social

Security-Survivors Insurance; 96.006,

Supplemental Security Income.)

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Kenneth S. Apfel,

Commissioner of Social Security.

Policy Interpretation Ruling

Titles II and XVI: Use of Vocational

Expert and Vocational Specialist

Evidence, and Other Reliable

Occupational Information in Disability

Decisions

Purpose: This Ruling clarifies our

standards for the use of vocational

experts (VEs) who provide evidence at

hearings before administrative law

judges (ALJs), vocational specialists

(VSs) who provide evidence to

disability determination services (DDS)

adjudicators, and other reliable sources

of occupational information in the

evaluation of disability claims. In

particular, this ruling emphasizes that

before relying on VE or VS evidence to

support a disability determination or

decision, our adjudicators must:

• Identify and obtain a reasonable

explanation for any conflicts between

occupational evidence provided by VEs

or VSs 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 (SCO),

published by the Department of Labor,

and

• Explain in the determination or

decision how any conflict that has been

identified was resolved.

Citations (Authority): Sections 216(i),

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

Social Security Act, as amended; 20

CFR Part 404, sections 404.1566–

404.1569, 20 CFR Part 404, subpart P,

appendix 2, § 200.00(b), and 20 CFR

Part 416, sections 416.966–416.969.

Pertinent History: To determine

whether an individual applying for

disability benefits (except for a child

applying for Supplement Security

Income) is disabled, we follow a 5-step

sequential evaluation process as

follows:

1. Is the individual engaging in

substantial gainful activity? If the

individual is working and the work is

substantial gainful activity, we find that

he or she is not disabled.

2. Does the individual have an

impairment or combination of

impairments that is severe? If the

individual does not have an impairment

or combination of impairments that is

severe, we will find that he or she is not

disabled. If the individual has an

impairment or combination of

impairments that is severe, we proceed

to step 3 of the sequence.

3. Does the individual’s impairment(s)

meet or equal the severity of an

impairment listed in appendix 1 of

subpart P of part 404 of our regulations?

If so, we find that he or she is disabled.

If not, we proceed to step 4 of the

sequence.

4. Does the individual’s impairment(s)

prevent him or her from doing his or her

past relevant work (PRW), considering

his or her residual functional capacity

(RFC)? If not, we find that he or she is

not disabled. If so, we proceed to step

5 of the sequence.

5. Does the individual’s impairment(s)

prevent him or her from performing

other work that exists in the national

economy, considering his or her RFC

together with the ‘‘vocational factors’’ of

age, education, and work experience? If

so, we find that the individual is

disabled. If not, we find that he or she

is not disabled.

The regulations at 20 CFR 404.1566(d)

and 416.966(d) provide that we will take

administrative notice of ‘‘reliable job

information’’ available from various

publications, including the DOT. In

addition, as provided in 20 CFR

404.1566(e) and 416.966(e), we use VEs

and VSs as sources of occupational

evidence in certain cases.

Questions have arisen about how we

ensure that conflicts between

occupational evidence provided by a VE

or a VS and information in the DOT

(including its companion publication,

75760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices

1 In accordance with Acquieescence Ruling 90–

3(4), we do not use VEs at step 4 of the sequential

evaluation process in the Fourth Circuit.

the SCO) are resolved. Therefore, we are

issuing this ruling to clarify our

standards for identifying and resolving

such conflicts.

Policy Interpretation

Using Occupational Information at

Steps 4 and 5

In making disability determinations,

we rely primarily on the DOT (including

its companion publication, the SCO) for

information about the requirements of

work in the national economy. We use

these publications at steps 4 and 5 of the

sequential evaluation process. We may

also use VEs and VSs at these steps to

resolve complex vocational issues.1 We

most often use VEs to provide evidence

at a hearing before an ALJ. At the initial

and reconsideration steps of the

administrative review process,

adjudicators in the DDSs may rely on

VSs for additional guidance. See, for

example, SSRs 82–41, 83–12, 83–14,

and 85–15.

Resolving Conflicts in Occupational

Information

Occupational evidence provided by a

VE or VS generally should be consistent

with the occupational information

supplied by the DOT. When there is an

apparent unresolved conflict between

VE or VS evidence and the DOT, the

adjudicator must elicit a reasonable

explanation for the conflict before

relying on the VE or VS evidence to

support a determination or decision

about whether the claimant is disabled.

At the hearings level, as part of the

adjudicator’s duty to fully develop the

record, the adjudicator will inquire, on

the record, as to whether or not there is

such consistency.

Neither the DOT nor the VE or VS

evidence automatically ‘‘trumps’’ when

there is a conflict. The adjudicator must

resolve the conflict by determining if

the explanation given by the VE or VS

is reasonable and provides a basis for

relying on the VE or VS testimony rather

than on the DOT information.

Reasonable Explanations for Conflicts

(or Apparent Conflicts) in Occupational

Information

Reasonable explanations for such

conflicts, which may provide a basis for

relying on the evidence from the VE or

VS, rather than the DOT information,

include, but are not limited to the

following:

• Evidence from VEs or VSs can

include information not listed in the

DOT. The DOT contains information

about most, but not all, occupations.

The DOT’s occupational definitions are

the result of comprehensive studies of

how similar jobs are performed in

different workplaces. The term

‘‘occupation,’’ as used in the DOT, refers

to the collective description of those

jobs. Each occupation represents

numerous jobs. Information about a

particular job’s requirements or about

occupations not listed in the DOT may

be available in other reliable

publications, information obtained

directly from employers, or from a VE’s

or VS’s experience in job placement or

career counseling.

• The DOT lists maximum

requirements of occupations as

generally performed, not the range of

requirements of a particular job as it is

performed in specific settings. A VE,

VS, or other reliable source of

occupational information may be able to

provide more specific information about

jobs or occupations than the DOT.

Evidence That Conflicts With SSA

Policy

SSA adjudicators may not rely on

evidence provided by a VE, VS, or other

reliable source of occupational

information if that evidence is based on

underlying assumptions or definitions

that are inconsistent with our regulatory

policies or definitions. For example:

• Exertional Level

We classify jobs as sedentary, light,

medium, heavy and very heavy (20 CFR

404.1567 and 416.967). These terms

have the same meaning as they have in

the exertional classifications noted in

the DOT.

Although there may be a reason for

classifying the exertional demands of an

occupation (as generally performed)

differently than the DOT (e.g., based on

other reliable occupational information),

the regulatory definitions of exertional

levels are controlling. For example, if all

available evidence (including VE

testimony) establishes that the

exertional demands of an occupation

meet the regulatory definition of

‘‘medium’’ work (20 CFR 404.1567 and

416.967), the adjudicator may not rely

on VE testimony that the occupation is

‘‘light’’ work.

• Skill Level

A skill is knowledge of a work activity

that requires the exercise of significant

judgment that goes beyond the carrying

out of simple job duties and is acquired

through performance of an occupation

that is above the unskilled level

(requires more than 30 days to learn).

(See SSR 82–41.) Skills are acquired in

PRW and may also be learned in recent

education that provides for direct entry

into skilled work.

The DOT lists a specific vocational

preparation (SVP) time for each

described occupation. Using the skill

level definitions in 20 CFR 404.1568

and 416.968, unskilled work

corresponds to an SVP of 1–2; semiskilled work corresponds to an SVP of

3–4; and skilled work corresponds to an

SVP of 5–9 in the DOT.

Although there may be a reason for

classifying an occupation’s skill level

differently than in the DOT, the

regulatory definitions of skill levels are

controlling. For example, VE or VS

evidence may not be relied upon to

establish that unskilled work involves

complex duties that take many months

to learn, because that is inconsistent

with the regulatory definition of

unskilled work. See 20 CFR 404.1568

and 416.968.

• Transferability of Skills

Evidence from a VE, VS, or other

reliable source of occupational

information cannot be inconsistent with

SSA policy on transferability of skills.

For example, an individual does not

gain skills that could potentially transfer

to other work by performing unskilled

work. Likewise, an individual cannot

transfer skills to unskilled work or to

work involving a greater level of skill

than the work from which the

individual acquired those skills. See

SSR 82–41.

The Responsibility To Ask About

Conflicts

When a VE or VS provides evidence

about the requirements of a job or

occupation, the adjudicator has an

affirmative responsibility to ask about

any possible conflict between that VE or

VS evidence and information provided

in the DOT. In these situations, the

adjudicator will:

• Ask the VE or VS if the evidence he

or she has provided conflicts with

information provided in the DOT; and

• If the VE’s or VS’s evidence appears

to conflict with the DOT, the

adjudicator will obtain a reasonable

explanation for the apparent conflict.

Explaining the Resolution

When vocational evidence provided

by a VE or VS is not consistent with

information in the DOT, the adjudicator

must resolve this conflict before relying

on the VE or VS evidence to support a

determination or decision that the

individual is or is not disabled. The

adjudicator will explain in the

determination or decision how he or she

resolved the conflict. The adjudicator

must explain the resolution of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75761

conflict irrespective of how the conflict

was identified.

Effective Date: This Ruling is effective

on the date of its publication in the

Federal Register. The clarified standard

stated in this ruling with respect to

inquiring about possible conflicts

applies on the effective date of the

ruling to all claims for disability

benefits in which a hearing before an

ALJ has not yet been held, or that is

pending a hearing before an ALJ on

remand. The clarified standard on

resolving identified conflicts applies to

all claims for disability or blindness

benefits on the effective date of the

ruling.

Cross-References: SSR 82–41, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Work Skills and Their

Transferability as Intended by the

Expanded Vocational Factors

Regulations Effective February 26,

1979,’’ SSR 82–61, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:

Past Relevant Work—The Particular Job

or the Occupation as Generally

Performed,’’ SSR 82–62, ‘‘Titles II and

XVI: A Disability Claimant’s Capacity to

Do Past Relevant Work, In General,’’

SSR 83–10, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:

Determining Capability to Do Other

Work—The Medical-Vocational Rules of

Appendix 2,’’ 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

85–15, ‘‘Titles II and XVI: Capability to

Do Other Work—The MedicalVocational Rules as a Framework for

Evaluating Solely Nonexertional

Impairments’’; AR 90–3(4), 837 F.2d 635

(4th Cir. 1987)–Use of Vocational

Experts or Other Vocational Specialist

in Determining Whether a Claimant Can

Perform Past Relevant Work—Titles II

and XVI of the Social Security Act;

Program Operations Manual System,

Part 04, sections DI 25001.001, DI

25005.001, DI 25020.001–DI 25020.015,

and DI 25025.001–DI 25025.005.

[FR Doc. 00–30701 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191–02–U

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Secretary

[Public Notice: 3488]

Extension of the Restriction of the Use

of United States Passports for Travel

to, in, or Through Libya

On December 11, 1981, pursuant to

the authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a and

Executive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603),

and in accordance with 22 CFR 51.73

(a)(3), all United States passports were

declared invalid for travel to, in or

through Libya unless specifically

validated for such travel. This

restriction has been renewed yearly

because of the unsettled relations

between the United States and the

Government of Libya and the possibility

of hostile acts against Americans in

Libya.

In light of these events and

circumstances, I have determined that

Libya continues to be an area ‘‘* * *

where there is imminent danger to the

public health or physical safety of

United States travelers’’ within the

meaning of 22 U.S.C. 211a and 22 CFR

51.73(a)(3).

Accordingly, all United States

passports shall remain invalid for travel

to, in or through Libya unless

specifically validated for such travel

under the authority of the Secretary of

State.

The Public Notice shall be effective

upon publication in the Federal

Register and shall expire at midnight

November 24, 2001, unless extended or

sooner revoked by Public Notice.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Madeleine K. Albright,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 00–30813 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3487]

Privacy Act of 1974; Altered System of

Records

Notice is hereby given that the

Department of State proposes to alter

two existing systems of records,

STATE–35 and STATE–40, pursuant to

the provisions of the Privacy Act of

1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 522a (r)),

and the Office of Management and

Budget Circular No. A–130, Appendix I.

The Department’s report was filed with

the Office of Management and Budget

on November 27, 2000.

It is proposed that the current systems

STATE–35 and STATE–40 will be

merged and renamed ‘‘Information

Access Programs Records,’’ and due to

the expanded scope of the current

system, the altered system description

will include revisions and/or additions

to all other sections. Relevant

information in STATE–40 has been

incorporated in STATE–35 and STATE–

40 will be deleted in the near future.

Changes to the existing system

descriptions are proposed in order to

reflect more accurately the Bureau of

Administration’s record-keeping

systems and a reorganization of

activities and operations.

Any person interested in commenting

on these altered systems of records may

do so by submitting comments in

writing to Margaret Peppe, Chief;

Programs and Policies Division; Office

of IRM Programs and Services; A/RPS/

IPS/PP; U.S. Department of State, SA–2;

Washington, D.C. 20522–6001.

This system of records will be

effective 40 days from the date of

publication, unless we receive

comments that will result in a contrary

determination.

The altered system description,

‘‘Information Access Programs Records,

STATE–35’’ will read as set forth below.

Dated: November 27, 2000.

Patrick F. Kennedy,

Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of

Administration, Department of State.

STATE–35

SYSTEM NAME:

Information Access Programs Records.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

Unclassified and classified.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Department of State; SA–2; 515 22nd

Street, NW; Washington, DC 20522–

6001.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM:

Individuals requesting access to

Department of State records under the

Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy

Act, the Ethics in Government Act, the

access provisions of Executive Order

12958 or a successor order on national

security information, and Touhy

regulations. Also covered are

individuals requesting access to

Department of State records pursuant to

certain other authorities for special

documents requests and discovery and

litigation support requests.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

These records contain information

documenting the processing of all

requests pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act, the Privacy Act, the