Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34489

1This definition of disability applies to

individuals claiming disability benefits under title

II and individuals age 18 or older claiming

disability benefits under title XVI. For title XVI, an

individual under age 18 will be considered disabled

if he or she is suffering from a medically

determinable physical or mental impairment of

comparable severity to an impairment that would

disable an adult.

2 20 CFR 404.1528, 404.1529, 416.928, and

416.929 provide that symptoms, such as pain,

fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness or

nervousness, are an individual’s own perception or

description of the impact of his or her physical or

mental impairment(s). (20 CFR 416.928 further

provides that, for an individual under age 18 who

is unable to adequately describe his or her

symptom(s), the adjudicator will accept as a

statement of this symptom(s) the description given

by the person most familiar with the individual,

such as a parent, other relative, or guardian.)

However, when any of these manifestations is an

anatomical, physiological, or psychological

abnormality that can be shown by medically

acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques, it

represents a medical ‘‘sign’’ rather than a

‘‘symptom.’’

impairment-related symptom that

determines whether the impact of the

symptom is exertional, nonexertional, or

both.

4. The application of the medicalvocational rules in appendix 2 of

subpart P of Regulations No. 4 depends

on the nature of the limitations and

restrictions imposed by an individual’s

medically determinable physical or

mental impairment(s), and any related

symptoms.

Citations (Authority): Sections 216(i),

223(d) and 1614(a)(3) of the Social

Security Act, as amended; Regulations

No. 4, sections 404.1505, 404.1508,

404.1520, 404.1528(a), 404.1529,

404.1569a and subpart P, appendix 2;

and Regulations No. 16, sections

416.905, 416.908, 416.920, 416.924,

416.928(a), 416.929 and 416.969a.

Policy Interpretation

Need To Establish the Existence of a

Medically Determinable Physical or

Mental Impairment

The Act defines disability as the

inability to do any substantial gainful

activity by reason of any medically

determinable physical or mental

impairment that can be expected to

result in death or which has lasted or

can be expected to last for a continuous

period of not less than 12 months.1 An

‘‘impairment’’ must result from

anatomical, physiological, or

psychological abnormalities that can be

shown by medically acceptable clinical

and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Although the regulations provide that

the existence of a medically

determinable physical or mental

impairment must be established by

medical evidence consisting of signs,

symptoms,2 and laboratory findings, the

regulations further provide that under

no circumstances may the existence of

an impairment be established on the

basis of symptoms alone. Thus,

regardless of how many symptoms an

individual alleges, or how genuine the

individual’s complaints may appear to

be, the existence of a medically

determinable physical or mental

impairment cannot be established in the

absence of objective medical

abnormalities; i.e., medical signs and

laboratory findings.

No symptom or combination of

symptoms by itself can constitute a

medically determinable impairment. In

claims in which there are no medical

signs or laboratory findings to

substantiate the existence of a medically

determinable physical or mental

impairment, the individual must be

found not disabled at step 2 of the

sequential evaluation process set out in

20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920 (or, for an

individual under age 18 claiming

disability benefits under title XVI, 20

CFR 416.924).

In addition, 20 CFR 404.1529 and

416.929 provide that an individual’s

symptoms, such as pain, fatigue,

shortness of breath, weakness, or

nervousness, will not be found to affect

the individual’s ability to do basic work

activities (or, for an individual under

age 18 claiming disability benefits under

title XVI, to function independently,

appropriately, and effectively in an ageappropriate manner) unless medical

signs and laboratory findings show that

there is a medically determinable

physical or mental impairment(s) that

could reasonably be expected to

produce the symptom(s) alleged.

Exertional and Nonexertional

Limitations

Once the existence of a medically

determinable physical or mental

impairment(s) that could reasonably be

expected to produce the pain or other

symptoms alleged has been established

on the basis of medical signs and

laboratory findings, allegations about

the intensity and persistence of the

symptoms must be considered with the

objective medical abnormalities, and all

other evidence in the case record, in

evaluating the functionally limiting

effects of the impairment(s). In addition,

for determinations or decisions at step

5 of the sequential evaluation process

for individuals claiming disability

benefits under title II and individuals

age 18 or older claiming disability

benefits under title XVI, 20 CFR

404.1569a and 416.969a explain that an

individual’s impairment(s) and related

symptoms, such as pain, may cause

limitations of function or restrictions

that limit an individual’s ability to meet

certain demands of jobs. These sections

divide limitations or restrictions into

three classifications: Exertional,

nonexertional, and combined exertional

and nonexertional. Exertional

limitations or restrictions affect an

individual’s ability to meet the seven

strength demands of jobs (sitting,

standing, walking, lifting, carrying,

pushing, and pulling), while

nonexertional limitations or restrictions

affect an individual’s ability to meet the

nonstrength demands of jobs (all

physical limitations and restrictions that

are not reflected in the seven strength

demands, and mental limitations and

restrictions). The nature of the

limitations or restrictions affects

whether the rules in appendix 2 to

subpart P of Regulations No. 4 may be

used to direct a decision or must be

used as a framework for

decisionmaking.

Likewise, under the regulations,

symptoms in themselves are neither

exertional nor nonexertional. An

individual’s symptoms, however, can

cause limitations or restrictions that are

classified as exertional, nonexertional,

or a combination of both. For example,

pain can result in an exertional

limitation if it limits the ability to

perform one of the strength activities

(e.g., lifting), or a nonexertional

limitation if it limits the ability to

perform a nonstrength activity (e.g.,

fingering or concentrating). It is the

nature of the limitations or restrictions

resulting from the symptom (i.e.,

exertional, nonexertional, or both) that

will determine whether the medicalvocational rules in appendix 2 may be

used to direct a decision or must be

used as a framework for

decisionmaking. For additional

discussion of this longstanding policy,

see SSR 96–8p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:

Assessing Residual Functional Capacity

in Initial Claims.’’

Effective Date: This Ruling is effective

on July 2, 1996.

Cross-References: SSR 96–3p, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Considering Allegations of

Pain and Other Symptoms in

Determining Whether a Medically

Determinable Impairment is Severe,’’

SSR 96–7p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:

Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability

Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an

Individual’s Statements,’’ and SSR 96–

8p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI: Assessing

Residual Functional Capacity in Initial

Claims;’’ and Program Operations

Manual System, sections DI 24501.020,

DI 24515.061, and DI 24515.063.

[FR Doc. 96–16687 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P
34490 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

[Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96–2p.]

Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling

Weight To Treating Source Medical

Opinions

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

422.406(b)(1), the Commissioner of

Social Security gives notice of Social

Security Ruling 96–2p. This Ruling

explains terms used in the Social

Security Administration regulations on

evaluating medical opinions concerning

when treating source medical opinions

are entitled to controlling weight, and

clarifies how the policy is applied.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanne K. Castello, Division of

Regulations and Rulings, Social Security

Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1711.

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

422.406(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 other policy

interpretations of the law and

regulations.

Although Social Security Rulings do

not have the force and effect of the law

or regulations, they are binding on all

components of the Social Security

Administration, in accordance with 20

CFR 422.406(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,

Programs 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: June 7, 1995.

Shirley S. Chater,

Commissioner of Social Security.

Policy Interpretation Ruling

Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling

Weight To Treating Source Medical

Opinions

Purpose: To explain terms used in our

regulations on evaluating medical

opinions concerning when treating

source medical opinions are entitled to

controlling weight, and to clarify how

the policy is applied. In particular, to

emphasize that:

1. A case cannot be decided in

reliance on a medical opinion without

some reasonable support for the

opinion.

2. Controlling weight may be given

only in appropriate circumstances to

medical opinions, i.e., opinions on the

issue(s) of the nature and severity of an

individual’s impairment(s), from

treating sources.

3. Controlling weight may not be

given to a treating source’s medical

opinion unless the opinion is wellsupported by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques.

4. Even if a treating source’s medical

opinion is well-supported, controlling

weight may not be given to the opinion

unless it also is ‘‘not inconsistent’’ with

the other substantial evidence in the

case record.

5. The judgment whether a treating

source’s medical opinion is wellsupported and not inconsistent with the

other substantial evidence in the case

record requires an understanding of the

clinical signs and laboratory findings

and what they signify.

6. If a treating source’s medical

opinion is well-supported and not

inconsistent with the other substantial

evidence in the case record, it must be

given controlling weight; i.e., it must be

adopted.

7. A finding that a treating source’s

medical opinion is not entitled to

controlling weight does not mean that

the opinion is rejected. It may still be

entitled to deference and be adopted by

the adjudicator.

Citations (Authority): Sections 205(a),

216(i), 223(d), 1614(a)(3), and 1631(d) of

the Social Security Act, as amended;

Regulations No. 4, sections 404.1502

and 404.1527, and Regulations No. 16,

sections 416.902 and 416.927.

Pertinent History: Our regulations at

20 CFR 404.1502, 404.1527, 416.902,

and 416.927 were revised on August 1,

1991, to define who we consider to be

a ‘‘treating source’’ and to set out

detailed rules for evaluating treating

source medical opinions and other

opinions. Among the provisions of these

rules is a special provision in 20 CFR

404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2) that

requires adjudicators to adopt treating

source medical opinions (i.e., opinions

on the issue(s) of the nature and severity

of an individual’s impairment(s)) in one

narrowly defined circumstance. As we

stated in the preamble to the publication

of the final rules:

The provision recognizes the deference to

which a treating source’s medical opinion

should be entitled. It does not permit us to

substitute our own judgment for the opinion

of a treating source on the issue(s) of the

nature and severity of an impairment when

the treating source has offered a medical

opinion that is well-supported by medically

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques and is not inconsistent with other

substantial evidence.

56 FR 36932, 36936 (1991).

Policy Interpretation: Explanation of

Terms

Controlling weight. This is the term

used in 20 CFR 404.1527(d)(2) and

416.927(d)(2) to describe the weight we

give to a medical opinion from a treating

source that must be adopted. The rule

on controlling weight applies when all

of the following are present:

1. The opinion must come from a

‘‘treating source,’’ as defined in 20 CFR

404.1502 and 416.902. Although

opinions from other acceptable medical

sources may be entitled to great weight,

and may even be entitled to more

weight than a treating source’s opinion

in appropriate circumstances, opinions

from sources other than treating sources

can never be entitled to ‘‘controlling

weight.’’

2. The opinion must be a ‘‘medical

opinion.’’ Under 20 CFR 404.1527(a)

and 416.927(a), ‘‘medical opinions’’ are

opinions about the nature and severity

of an individual’s impairment(s) and are

the only opinions that may be entitled

to controlling weight. (See SSR 96–5p,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Medical Source

Opinions on Issues Reserved to the

Commissioner.’’)

3. The adjudicator must find that the

treating source’s medical opinion is

‘‘well-supported’’ by ‘‘medically

acceptable’’ clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques. The adjudicator

cannot decide a case in reliance on a

medical opinion without some

reasonable support for the opinion.

4. Even if well-supported by

medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques, the

treating source’s medical opinion also

must be ‘‘not inconsistent’’ with the

other ‘‘substantial evidence’’ in the

individual’s case record.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34491

If any of the above factors is not

satisfied, a treating source’s opinion

cannot be entitled to controlling weight.

It is an error to give an opinion

controlling weight simply because it is

the opinion of a treating source if it is

not well-supported by medically

acceptable clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques or if it is

inconsistent with the other substantial

evidence in the case record. However,

when all of the factors are satisfied, the

adjudicator must adopt a treating

source’s medical opinion irrespective of

any finding he or she would have made

in the absence of the medical opinion.

For a medical opinion to be wellsupported by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques, it is not necessary that the

opinion be fully supported by such

evidence. Whether a medical opinion is

well-supported will depend on the facts

of each case. It is a judgment that

adjudicators must make based on the

extent to which the opinion is

supported by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques and requires an

understanding of the clinical signs and

laboratory findings in the case record

and what they signify.

It is not unusual for a single treating

source to provide medical opinions

about several issues; for example, at

least one diagnosis, a prognosis, and an

opinion about what the individual can

still do. Although it is not necessary in

every case to evaluate each treating

source medical opinion separately,

adjudicators must always be aware that

one or more of the opinions may be

controlling while others may not.

Adjudicators must use judgment based

on the facts of each case in determining

whether, and the extent to which, it is

necessary to address separately each

medical opinion from a single source.

Medically acceptable. This term

means that the clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques that the medical

source uses are in accordance with the

medical standards that are generally

accepted within the medical community

as the appropriate techniques to

establish the existence and severity of

an impairment. The requirement that

controlling weight can be given to a

treating source medical opinion only if

it is well-supported by medically

acceptable clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques helps to ensure

that there is a sound medical basis for

the opinion.

Not inconsistent. This is a term used

to indicate that a well-supported

treating source medical opinion need

not be supported directly by all of the

other evidence (i.e., it does not have to

be consistent with all the other

evidence) as long as there is no other

substantial evidence in the case record

that contradicts or conflicts with the

opinion.

Whether a medical opinion is ‘‘not

inconsistent’’ with the other substantial

evidence is a judgment that adjudicators

must make in each case. Sometimes,

there will be an obvious inconsistency

between the opinion and the other

substantial evidence; for example, when

a treating source’s report contains an

opinion that the individual is

significantly limited in the ability to do

work-related activities, but the opinion

is inconsistent with the statements of

the individual’s spouse about the

individual’s actual activities, or when

two medical sources provide

inconsistent medical opinions about the

same issue. At other times, the

inconsistency will be less obvious and

require knowledge about, or insight

into, what the evidence means. In this

regard, it is especially important to have

an understanding of the clinical signs

and laboratory findings and any

treatment provided to determine

whether there is an inconsistency

between this evidence and medical

opinions about such issues as diagnosis,

prognosis (for example, when deciding

whether an impairment is expected to

last for 12 months), or functional effects.

Because the evidence is in medical, not

lay, terms and information about these

issues may be implied rather than

stated, such an inconsistency may not

be evident without an understanding of

what the clinical signs and laboratory

findings signify.

Substantial evidence. This term

describes a quality of evidence.

Substantial evidence is ‘‘* * * more

than a mere scintilla. It means such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.’’ (Richardson v. Perales, 402

U.S. 389 (1971), SSR 71–53c, C.E. 1971–

1975, p. 418.) The term is intended to

have this same meaning in 20 CFR

404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2). It is

intended to indicate that the evidence

that is inconsistent with the opinion

need not prove by a preponderance that

the opinion is wrong. It need only be

such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind would accept as adequate to

support a conclusion that is contrary to

the conclusion expressed in the medical

opinion.

Depending upon the facts of a given

case, any kind of medical or nonmedical

evidence can potentially satisfy the

substantial evidence test. For example,

a treating source’s medical opinion on

what an individual can still do despite

his or her impairment(s) will not be

entitled to controlling weight if

substantial, nonmedical evidence shows

that the individual’s actual activities are

greater than those provided in the

treating source’s opinion. The converse

is also true: Substantial evidence may

demonstrate that an individual’s ability

to function may be less than what is

indicated in a treating source’s opinion,

in which case the opinion will also not

be entitled to controlling weight.

When a Treating Source’s Medical

Opinion Is Not Entitled to Controlling

Weight

Adjudicators must remember that a

finding that a treating source medical

opinion is not well-supported by

medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques or is

inconsistent with the other substantial

evidence in the case record means only

that the opinion is not entitled to

‘‘controlling weight,’’ not that the

opinion should be rejected. Treating

source medical opinions are still

entitled to deference and must be

weighed using all of the factors

provided in 20 CFR 404.1527 and

416.927. In many cases, a treating

source’s medical opinion will be

entitled to the greatest weight and

should be adopted, even if it does not

meet the test for controlling weight.

Also, in some instances, additional

development required by a case—for

example, to obtain more evidence or to

clarify reported clinical signs or

laboratory findings—may provide the

requisite support for a treating source’s

medical opinion that at first appeared to

be lacking or may reconcile what at first

appeared to be an inconsistency

between a treating source’s medical

opinion and the other substantial

evidence in the case record. In such

instances, the treating source’s medical

opinion will become controlling if, after

such development, the opinion meets

the test for controlling weight.

Conversely, the additional development

may show that the treating source’s

medical opinion is not well-supported

by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques or may

create an inconsistency between the

medical opinion and the other

substantial evidence in the case record,

even though the medical opinion at first

appeared to meet the test for controlling

weight. Ordinarily, development should

not be undertaken for the purpose of

determining whether a treating source’s

medical opinion should receive

controlling weight if the case record is

otherwise adequately developed.

However, in cases at the administrative

law judge (ALJ) or Appeals Council (AC)

level, the ALJ or the AC may need to
34492 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

consult a medical expert to gain more

insight into what the clinical signs and

laboratory findings signify in order to

decide whether a medical opinion is

well-supported or whether it is not

inconsistent with other substantial

evidence in the case record.

Explanation of the Weight Given to a

Treating Source’s Medical Opinion

Paragraph (d)(2) of 20 CFR 404.1527

and 416.927 requires that the

adjudicator will always give good

reasons in the notice of the

determination or decision for the weight

given to a treating source’s medical

opinion(s), i.e., an opinion(s) on the

nature and severity of an individual’s

impairment(s). Therefore:

• When the determination or

decision:

—Is not fully favorable, e.g., is a denial;

or

—is fully favorable based in part on a

treating source’s medical opinion,

e.g., when the adjudicator adopts a

treating source’s opinion about the

individual’s remaining ability to

function;

the notice of the determination or

decision must contain specific reasons

for the weight given to the treating

source’s medical opinion, supported by

the evidence in the case record, and

must be sufficiently specific to make

clear to any subsequent reviewers the

weight the adjudicator gave to the

treating source’s medical opinion and

the reasons for that weight.

• When the determination or decision

is fully favorable and would be even

without consideration of a treating

source’s medical opinion, the notice of

the determination or decision must

contain an explanation of the weight

given to the treating source’s medical

opinion. This explanation may be brief.

Effective Date: This Ruling is effective

on July 2, 1996.

Cross-References: SSR 96–5p, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on

Issues Reserved to the Commissioner;’’

Program Operations Manual System,

sections DI 22505.001, and DI

24515.001–24515.003; Hearings,

Appeals, and Litigation Law manual,

sections I–2–530, I–2–532, I–2–534, I–2–

539, I–2–540, I–2–825, I–3–111, I–3–

712, I–3–812, and Temporary

Instruction 5–310.

[FR Doc. 96–16685 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain

Cotton, Wool and Man-Made Fiber

Textile Products Produced or

Manufactured in Costa Rica

June 26, 1996.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs increasing

limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Aldrich, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212. For information on the

quota status of these limits, refer to the

Quota Status Reports posted on the

bulletin boards of each Customs port or

call (202) 927–5850. For information on

embargoes and quota re-openings, call

(202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854); Uruguay Round Agreements

Act.

The current limits for certain

categories are being increased for

carryover.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 60 FR 65299,

published on December 19, 1995). Also

see 61 FR 3002, published on January

30, 1996.

The letter to the Commissioner of

Customs and the actions taken pursuant

to it are not designed to implement all

of the provisions of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, but

are designed to assist only in the

implementation of certain of their

provisions.

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

June 26, 1996.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on January 24, 1996, by the

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directive

concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and

man-made fiber textile products, produced or

manufactured in Costa Rica and exported

during the twelve-month period which began

on January 1, 1996 and extends through

December 31, 1996.

Effective on June 27, 1996, you are directed

to increase the limits for the following

categories, as provided for under the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act and the Uruguay

Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

Category Adjusted twelve-month

limit 1

340/640 .................... 987,044 dozen.

342/642 .................... 364,373 dozen.

347/348 .................... 1,663,387 dozen.

443 ........................... 216,806 numbers.

447 ........................... 12,517 dozen.

1The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December

31, 1995.

The guaranteed access levels for the

foregoing categories remain unchanged.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 96–16820 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

Establishment of an Import Limit for

Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber

Textile Products Produced or

Manufactured in El Salvador

June 26, 1996.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs establishing a

limit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Aldrich, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212. For information on the

quota status of this limit, refer to the

Quota Status Reports posted on the

bulletin boards of each Customs port or

call (202) 927–5850. For information on

embargoes and quota re-openings, call

(202) 482–3715. For information on

categories on which consultations have

been requested, call (202) 482-3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the