```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 97158-97161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28508]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 97159]]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 20 CFR part 404 subpart P appendix 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 97160]]

support a conclusion at step four or step five.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 20 CFR 404.1566(d) and 416.966(d).
    \5\ 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-adversarial,\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 20 CFR 404.1560(b)(2) and 416.960(b)(2).
    \7\ 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e).
    \8\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 97161]]

comparisons between the DOT and SOC \13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ When 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.
    \14\ The 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.
    \15\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. OEWS, May 2022. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353023.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Our 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.

[FR Doc. 2024-28508 Filed 12-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
```