75758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices

1Employment and Training Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational

Titles (Fourth Edition, Revised 1991) and its

companion publication, Selected Characteristics of

Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of

Occupational Titles, (1993).

Title IX common rule requires each

federal agency that awards federal

financial assistance to publish in the

Federal Register a notice of the federal

financial assistance covered by the Title

IX regulations within sixty (60) days

after the effective date of the final

common rule. The final common rule

for the enforcement of Title IX was

published in the Federal Register by the

twenty-one (21) federal agencies,

including SBA, on August 30, 2000 (65

FR 52857–52895). SBA’s portion of the

final common rule will be codified at 13

CFR Part 113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title IX

prohibits recipients of federal financial

assistance from discriminating on the

basis of sex in educational programs or

activities. Specifically, the statute that

‘‘[n]o person in the United States shall,

on the basis of sex, be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits

of, or be subjected to discrimination

under any education program or activity

receiving Federal financial assistance,’’

with specific exceptions for various

entities, programs, and activities. 20

U.S.C. 1681(a). Title IX and the Title IX

common rule prohibit discrimination on

the basis of sex in the operation of, and

the provision or denial of benefits by,

education programs or activities

conducted not only by educational

institutions but by other entities as well,

including, for example, SBA-funded

small business development centers and

for profit and nonprofit organizations

that receive SBA disaster loans.

List of Federal Financial Assistance

Administered by the U.S. Small

Business Administration to Which Title

IX Applies

Note: All recipients of federal financial

assistance from SBA are subject to Title IX,

but Title IX’s anti-discrimination

prohibitions are limited to the educational

components of the recipient’s program or

activity, if any.

Failure to list a type of federal

assistance below shall not mean, if Title

IX is otherwise applicable, that a

program or activity is not covered by

Title IX.

Information on SBA federal financial

assistance can be found by consulting

the Catalog of Domestic Financial

Assistance (CFDA) at http://

www.cfda.gov. If using the Internet site,

please select ‘‘Search Catalog,’’ select

‘‘Browse the Catalog—By Agency,’’ and

then click on ‘‘Small Business

Administration.’’ Catalog information is

also available by calling, toll free, 1–

800–699–8331 or by writing to: Federal

Domestic Assistance Catalog Staff

(MVS), General Services

Administration, Reporters Building,

Room 101, 300 7th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20407.

The following types of federal

financial assistance administered

through SBA are listed in the CFDA. For

further information on any of these

types of federal financial assistance,

please consult the CFDA.

Economic Injury Disaster Loans

Business Development Assistance to

Small Business

8(a) Business Development

Management and Technical Assistance

for Socially and Economically

Disadvantaged Businesses

Physical Disaster Loans

Procurement Assistance to Small

Businesses

Small Business Investment Companies

Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies

Service Corps of Retired Executives

Association

Small Business Development Centers

Certified Development Company Loans

(504 Loans)

Women’s Business Ownership

Assistance

Veterans Entrepreneurial Training and

Counseling

Microloan Demonstration Program

Office of Small Disadvantaged Business

Certification and Eligibility

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 1681–1688)

Dated: November 28, 2000.

James A. Westbrooks,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil

Rights Compliance.

[FR Doc. 00–30780 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–U

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Rescission of Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling 00–3(10)

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of Social

Security Acquiescence Ruling 00–

3(10)—Haddock v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 1084

(10th Cir. 1999).

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

402.35(b)(2), 404.985(e) and 416.1485(e)

the Commissioner of Social Security

gives notice of the rescission of Social

Security Acquiescence Ruling 00–3(10).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cassia W. Parson, Litigation Staff, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1695.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Social

Security Acquiescence Ruling explains

how we will apply a holding in a

decision of a United States Court of

Appeals that we determine conflicts

with our interpretation of a provision of

the Social Security Act or regulations

when the Government has decided not

to seek further review of the case or is

unsuccessful on further review.

As provided by 20 CFR 404.985(e)(4)

and 416.1485(e)(4), a Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling may be rescinded

as obsolete if we subsequently clarify,

modify or revoke the regulation or

ruling that was the subject of the circuit

court holding for which the

Acquiescence Ruling was issued.

On June 20, 2000, we issued

Acquiescence Ruling 00–3(10) (65 FR

38312) to reflect the holding in Haddock

v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999).

This circuit court holding interpreted 20

CFR 404.1566 and 416.966 to require

that, before an Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) may rely on evidence from

a Vocational Expert (VE) to support a

determination of nondisability at step

five of the sequential evaluation

process, he or she must ask the expert

how the testimony or information

corresponds to the information provided

in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles

(DOT) 1 and elicit a reasonable

explanation for any conflict.

We are publishing this notice of

rescission of the Acquiescence Ruling

concurrently with our publication of

Social Security Ruling (SSR) 00–4p

clarifying 20 CFR 404.1566 and 416.966.

The SSR clarifies our rules on

identifying and resolving conflicts or

apparent conflicts between the

testimony of the VE or a Vocational

Specialist (VS) and the information

contained in the DOT. The SSR explains

that 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 the information

provided in the DOT. The SSR also

provides that, before relying on VE or

VS evidence to support a disability

determination or decision, the

adjudicator must obtain a reasonable

explanation for any such conflict.

Because the SSR clarifies the

provision of our rules upon which the

holding in Haddock is based and our

standards for identifying and resolving

conflicts between occupational evidence

provided by a VE and the information

in the DOT, we are rescinding

Acquiescence Ruling 00–3(10). By

clarifying our regulations and

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,