[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45162-45167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21623]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 404

RIN: 0960-AE42


Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance; Determining 
Disability and Blindness; Revision to Medical-Vocational Guidelines

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Final rules.

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

SUMMARY: We are clarifying section 201.00(h) of the medical-vocational 
guidelines in appendix 2 of subpart P of regulations part 404. This 
section provides guidance for evaluating disability in individuals 
under age 50 who have a severe impairment(s) that does not meet or 
equal in severity the criteria of any listed impairment in appendix 1 
of subpart P, but who have a residual functional capacity for no more 
than the full range of sedentary work and cannot do any past relevant 
work. The revisions only clarify the current rules.

DATES: These rules will be effective September 27, 2001.

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. For information on 
eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 
1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Social Security Act (the Act) provides, 
in title II, for the payment of disability benefits to workers insured 
under the Act. Title II also provides, under certain circumstances, 
child's insurance benefits for persons who become disabled before age 
22 and widow's and widower's insurance benefits based on disability for 
widows, widowers, and surviving divorced spouses of insured 
individuals. In addition, the Act provides, in title XVI, for 
supplemental security income (SSI) payments to persons who are disabled 
and have limited income and resources.
    For adults under both the title II and title XVI programs, 
including persons claiming child's insurance benefits based on 
disability under title II,

[[Page 45163]]

``disability'' is defined in the Act as the ``inability to engage in 
any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 
determinable physical or mental impairment which 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.'' Sections 223(d) and 
1614(a) of the Act also state that the individual ``shall be determined 
to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or 
impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his 
previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work 
experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which 
exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists 
in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job 
vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for 
work.''
    Based upon this statutory definition, our longstanding regulations 
at Secs. 404.1520 and 416.920 provide for a five-step sequential 
evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled under 
the Act, which is 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. Otherwise, we proceed to step 2 
of the sequence.
    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 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 severe impairment(s) meet or equal in 
severity the criteria of an impairment listed in appendix 1 of subpart 
P of part 404? If so, and if the duration requirement is met, we find 
that he or she is disabled. If not, we proceed to step 4 of the 
sequence.
    4. Does the individual's severe impairment(s) prevent him or her 
from doing his or her past relevant work, considering his or her 
residual functional capacity? 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 residual functional capacity, age, education, and work 
experience? If so, and if the duration requirement is met, we find that 
he or she is disabled. If not, we find that he or she is not disabled.
    As discussed in Sec. 404.1569, at step 5 of the sequential 
evaluation process we provide medical-vocational rules in appendix 2 of 
subpart P of part 404. (By reference, Sec. 416.969 of the regulations 
provides that appendix 2 is also applicable to adults claiming SSI 
payments based on disability.) These rules take administrative notice 
of the existence of numerous unskilled occupations at exertional levels 
defined in the regulations, such as ``sedentary,'' ``light,'' and 
``medium,'' and, based upon a consideration of the individual's 
residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, 
either direct a decision or are used as a framework for making a 
decision at step 5.
    The revisions we are making clarify one paragraph in appendix 2, 
section 201.00(h), which discusses the evaluation of the claims of 
``younger individuals'' (i.e., individuals who have not attained age 
50) who have a residual functional capacity limited to the full range 
of sedentary work administratively noticed by the rules in table No. 1 
of appendix 2 or who can perform some sedentary work but not the full 
range of such work.
    There is no exertional category below ``sedentary.'' Thus, there is 
no category for ``less than sedentary work.'' Individuals who cannot do 
any sedentary work are disabled under our rules. These final rules 
address individuals who are able to do some of the sedentary 
occupations of which we take administrative notice, but who cannot do 
substantially all of the occupations within the range.

Summary of Changes

    For clarity, we refer below to the changes in this Federal Register 
document as current rules and to the rules that will be changed by 
these current rules as the ``prior'' rules. However, it must be 
remembered that these final rules do not go into effect until 30 days 
after the date of this publication. Therefore, the ``prior'' rules will 
still be in effect for another 30 days.
    We are making some structural changes from the proposed rules for 
clarity and to make the final rules easier to use. In the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that was published on September 23, 1997, 
(62 FR 49636) we proposed to maintain section 201.00(h) as a single 
paragraph, as in the prior rules. Under that structure, the paragraph 
in the proposed rule contained 10 sentences. Several of these sentences 
included multiple clauses. We believe that this structure would have 
made the rules difficult to use, and would have made citation to the 
rules difficult. Therefore, in these final rules, we have divided 
proposed section 201.00(h) into four subparagraphs, designated as 
section 201.00(h)(1) through 201.00(h)(4). By this change in structure, 
we are not making any substantive changes from the proposed rules.
    Final section 201.00(h)(1) contains the first three sentences of 
prior section 201.00(h). We are changing the second sentence of section 
201.00(h) in appendix 2, which provided that for individuals who are 
age 45-49, ``age is a less positive factor'' than for individuals who 
are younger than age 45. The final rule more clearly explains that, for 
individuals who are age 45-49, ``age is a less advantageous factor for 
making an adjustment to other work than for those who are age 18-44.'' 
This clarifies what we have meant by the phrase ``a less positive 
factor'' and is consistent with our longstanding rule that, at step 5 
of the sequential evaluation process, the issue is whether the 
individual is able to make an adjustment to work other than any past 
relevant work considering his or her residual functional capacity, age, 
education, and work experience.
    We restructured the words in the third sentence of section 
201.00(h)(1) to make the sentence easier to read and to make it easier 
to cite to the four numbered clauses in the sentence. In clause (iii) 
of this sentence (clause (3) of the third sentence of prior section 
201.00(h)), we are changing the phrases ``relevant past work'' and 
``vocationally relevant past work,'' to ``past relevant work'' to 
clarify our intended meaning and for consistency in our terminology. We 
are also clarifying in section 201.00(h)(1)(iv) (clause (4) of the 
third sentence of prior section 201.00(h)) that the term ``illiterate'' 
means that the individual is unable to read or write in English. This 
makes clearer our original intent that the fourth clause describes 
individuals who are either 1) unable to communicate in English or 2) 
able to speak and understand English but are unable to read or write in 
English. SSA intends to examine the use of the term ``illiterate'' 
throughout its regulations, and when appropriate, will clarify that it 
means the inability to read and write in English.
    Final section 201.00(h)(2) contains the fourth sentence of prior 
section 201.00(h). Because the sentence was very long, we decided to 
break it up into two sentences in these final rules. We are also 
revising the language of final section 201.00(h)(2) to be consistent 
with the foregoing revisions in final

[[Page 45164]]

section 201.00(h)(1). We are revising the statement ``age is a more 
positive factor for those who are under age 45'' to ``[f]or individuals 
who are under age 45, age is a more advantageous factor for making an 
adjustment to other work'' to correspond to the changes in the second 
sentence of final section 201.00(h)(1). Likewise, we are clarifying 
that ``illiterate'' means illiterate in English, as in the changes to 
the third sentence of prior section 201.00(h) (the third sentence of 
final section 201.00(h)(1)).
    Final section 201.00(h)(3) contains the fifth sentence of prior 
section 201.00(h) and the proposed rules, and the sixth and seventh 
sentences from the proposed rules. In response to public comments which 
we discuss in detail below, we revised section 201.00(h)(3) to clarify 
our intent.
    Final section 201.00(h)(3) explains that a decision of ``disabled'' 
may be appropriate for some individuals under age 45, and individuals 
age 45-49 for whom rule 201.17 does not direct a decision of 
``disabled,'' who do not have the ability to perform a full range of 
sedentary work. As in the proposed rules, the final rules have expanded 
this discussion to include individuals age 45-49; the prior provision 
(the fifth sentence of prior section 201.00(h)) addressed only 
individuals who were under age 45. In a minor editorial change, we 
changed the word ``and'' in the parenthetical statement that adds 
reference to individuals age 45-49 to the word ``or.''
    Final section 201.00(h)(3) further provides that whether an 
individual will be able to make an adjustment to other work requires an 
adjudicative assessment of the factors such as the type and extent of 
the individual's limitations or restrictions and the extent of the 
erosion of the occupational base. Under such an assessment, a finding 
that an individual is limited to less than the full range of sedentary 
work does not necessarily equate with a finding of either ``disabled'' 
or ``not disabled.'' Some younger individuals who are unable to perform 
the full range of sedentary work will be able to make an adjustment to 
other work and some will not. We require an individualized 
determination considering each individual's remaining occupational 
base, age, education, and work experience.
    Final section 201.00(h)(4) includes the eighth, ninth, and tenth 
sentences from the proposed rules. As in the proposed rules, we added 
new language in final section 201.00(h)(4) to further explain the 
impact of a maximum sustained capability for no more than the full 
range of sedentary work on an individual's ability to do other work. 
The intent is to make clear that such capacity reflects very serious 
functional limitations and must be appropriately documented by the 
evidence in the record. As we will further explain below, in response 
to public comments that indicated that we seemed to be setting a higher 
evidentiary standard for individuals who are limited to less than the 
full range of sedentary work than for individuals with greater residual 
functional capacities, we revised the second sentence of final section 
201.00(h)(4) (the ninth sentence of the proposed rules) by adding the 
phrase, ``as with any case.'' It was not our intent to set a higher 
standard in this provision.
    We are also deleting, without replacement, the two case examples 
that were in prior section 201.00(h). The intent of those examples was 
to reinforce a concept already reflected in this paragraph; i.e., that, 
using the rules as a framework for decisionmaking, a conclusion of 
``disabled'' may be, but is not necessarily, warranted for younger 
individuals who do not have the residual functional capacity to do a 
full range of sedentary work.
    We are deleting the examples because they are no longer needed and 
our adjudicative experience has shown that they can be unclear and have 
been misinterpreted. For example, we have received questions about 
whether example 2 applied only to cases involving mental impairments or 
whether it could apply to other types of impairments. Although our 
intent had always been that the case examples were applicable to all 
types of impairments, their removal will avoid possible confusion and 
help ensure consistency in decisionmaking. We explain our reasons 
further in the Public Comments section, below.
    Finally, we made a number of minor editorial changes to improve the 
consistency of terminology in appendix 2. We do not intend these 
changes to have a substantive effect on the meaning of the rules.

Public Comments

    We published these regulatory provisions in the Federal Register as 
an NPRM on September 23, 1997 (62 FR 49636). We provided the public 
with a 60-day comment period. The comment period closed on November 24, 
1997. We received 18 comment letters in response to this notice from 
people with disabilities, attorneys, and legal services organizations 
that represent the interests of disabled persons.
    Because many comments were detailed, we have condensed, summarized, 
or paraphrased them below. We have, however, tried to summarize each 
commenter's views accurately and to respond to all of the significant 
issues raised by the commenters that are within the scope of these 
rules.
    There was one comment that was outside the scope of the proposed 
rules that we do not address below. The commenter questioned the 
validity of the sedentary occupational base. We addressed the issue 
raised by the commenter in a Federal Register notice, ``Disability 
Benefit Programs; Status of the Rules for Considering Vocational 
Factors in Evaluating Social Security and Supplemental Security Income 
Claims Based on Disability (the Medical-Vocational Rules)'' (57 FR 
43005, September 17, 1992). We again addressed the issue in 1996, when 
we provided updated information in footnote 5 of Social Security Ruling 
(SSR) 96-9p (61 FR 34480).
    Comment: One commenter suggested editorial changes in the third 
sentence of proposed section 201.00(h) (the third sentence of final 
section 201.00(h)(1)). The commenter suggested that we replace the 
phrase ``for such individuals'' with ``for individuals age 45 to 49,'' 
and remove the word ``who'' from clause (3) to make the structure of 
the clause clearer.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have incorporated the 
suggested changes into the final rules. As we noted in the summary of 
the changes, we also made other revisions in the third sentence of 
final section 201.00(h)(1) for clarity and to make citation to the 
provision easier.
    Comment: Four commenters thought that the intent of the proposed 
rules was to change our rules, not to clarify them. The commenters 
believed that the language would discourage a finding of ``disabled'' 
in younger individuals with a maximum sustained capability for less 
than a full range of sedentary work. They indicated that the language 
of the proposed rules for finding an individual disabled was not as 
clear as the language of the rules for finding an individual not 
disabled.
    Two commenters said that we were attempting to ``rush'' these 
regulations through without having the new Commissioner carefully 
review them. Another indicated that we were trying to ``get away with'' 
this regulation because of a political climate that was sympathetic to 
our alleged desire to find individuals ``not disabled.'' Another 
commenter said that the new rules were an attempt to lower the number 
of claims approved at the hearing level.

[[Page 45165]]

    Two commenters opposed adoption of the proposed rules. One did so 
without stating a reason. The other said we were being ``unfair and 
inhumane,'' and that the proposal provided a means to deny people 
Social Security Disability Insurance benefits.
    Response: We have made revisions in the final rules to address the 
concerns raised by some of these commenters.
    We are not changing the substance of our rules, only clarifying 
them. This clarification of our rules is part of our Process 
Unification effort, an important Social Security Administration 
Disability Redesign initiative in which we have been engaged since 
1996. The improvements in these final rules will help to ensure that 
the disability program is administered uniformly and equitably.
    This clarification of the rules is not related to any ``political 
climate,'' as one commenter asserted. These final rules have been under 
development for almost 3 years, and have not been rushed. The commenter 
who thought we were being ``unfair and inhumane'' did not tell us why, 
but that is certainly not our intent. The revisions are intended only 
to clarify our rules and to ensure that all adjudicators at all levels 
of the administrative review process understand and apply our rules 
consistently.
    However, in response to these and other comments, we have revised 
the final rules to more clearly reflect our intent, to show that a 
residual functional capacity for less than the full range of sedentary 
work does not, in itself, mean that an individual is disabled or not 
disabled. The final rules do not direct the outcome of the assessment, 
but remind adjudicators that some younger individuals who have a 
residual functional capacity for less than the full range of sedentary 
work are disabled and some are not, and that it is necessary to make an 
individualized assessment of the remaining occupational base. We 
revised the first sentence in final section 201.00(h)(3) (the fifth 
sentence in the prior rules) to shorten it and to state more clearly 
and straightforwardly that it may be appropriate to find a younger 
individual disabled if the individual is unable to perform the full 
range of sedentary work. We deleted the phrase, ``who do not meet all 
of the criteria of a specific rule,'' from the sentence in the prior 
rules because it was unclear and unnecessary. We then added language to 
explain in general terms the kinds of factors we want adjudicators to 
consider when they decide whether a younger individual who is limited 
to less than the full range of sedentary work is disabled. The language 
also provides some explanation about what we mean by ``erosion of the 
occupational base.''
    The final rules also retain the sentence from the proposed rules 
that reminds adjudicators that we require them to make individualized 
assessments considering all the relevant facts.
    Comment: One commenter thought that the concept of ``erosion of the 
occupational base'' was unclear. Another commenter indicated that the 
reference to the ``occupational base'' in the context of the proposed 
rules should be replaced with ``residual functional capacity.''
    Response: We partially adopted the first comment. We define and 
discuss the term ``occupational base'' in a number of SSRs. We first 
addressed the term in SSR 83-10, ``Titles II and XVI: Determining 
Capability To Do Other Work--The Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix 
2'' (Social Security Rulings, Cumulative Edition, 1983, p. 174) and 
most recently in SSR 96-9p. In our SSRs, we explain that ``occupational 
base'' generally means the approximate number of occupations that an 
individual has the residual functional capacity to perform, considering 
all exertional and nonexertional limitations and restrictions. We also 
provide considerably more detail in these SSRs on what the term means, 
how to determine whether there has been ``erosion'' of the occupational 
base, and how to determine the extent of any erosion. We do not believe 
that it would be appropriate to incorporate that much detail into these 
final rules.
    However, we agree with the commenter that it would be helpful to 
include some more information in our regulations about what we intend 
when we refer to erosion of the occupational base for individuals who 
are unable to do the full range of sedentary work. Therefore, we have 
added language that provides some additional explanation about the 
issue. A new sentence explains briefly what we mean by the extent of 
the erosion of the occupational base; i.e., ``the impact of the 
[individual's] limitations or restrictions on the number of sedentary 
unskilled occupations or the total number of jobs to which the 
individual may be able to adjust, considering his or her age, 
education, and work experience, including any transferable skills or 
education providing for direct entry into skilled work.'' Of course, 
our adjudicators will continue to refer to SSRs 83-10 and 96-9p, and 
other appropriate SSRs, for more detailed guidance.
    We did not adopt the second comment because ``residual functional 
capacity'' and ``occupational base'' are not synonymous and serve 
different purposes in the application of the medical-vocational rules. 
We have already explained what we mean by ``occupational base.'' In 
Secs. 404.1545 and 416.945 of our regulations, and in our SSRs, such as 
SSR 96-9p, we explain that residual functional capacity is what an 
individual can still do despite his or her limitations. Residual 
functional capacity is an administrative assessment of the extent to 
which an individual's medically determinable impairment(s) including 
any symptoms, such as pain, may cause physical or mental limitations or 
restrictions that may affect his or her capacity to do work-related 
physical or mental activities. These terms reflect two different 
concepts and are not interchangeable.
    Comment: One commenter referred to a statement we had made in 
responding to a comment on the original notice of proposed rulemaking 
for the medical-vocational guidelines on March 7, 1978 (43 FR 9284). 
This language indicated that a residual functional capacity for less 
than the full range of sedentary work would represent a fairly 
restrictive range of work, and that a finding of disabled would be 
generally expected in such cases. The commenter recommended that we use 
that language.
    Response: We did not adopt the comment. Neither the comment nor our 
response in the 1978 preamble focused on younger individuals, as these 
final rules do. Rather, they addressed all individuals without regard 
to age. For our general claimant population with a residual functional 
capacity for less than the full range of sedentary work, the great 
majority will be found disabled based either on medical factors alone 
(i.e., under the listings) or on the impact of a seriously restricted 
residual functional capacity in combination with vocational factors. 
The current rules, on the other hand, address only a small portion of 
that group of individuals for whom young age may be an advantageous 
vocational factor.
    Comment: Several commenters referred to the last two sentences of 
the proposed rules, which stated that,

    * * * a finding that an individual is limited to less than the 
full range of sedentary work will be based on a careful 
consideration of the evidence of an individual's medical 
impairment(s) and the limitations and restrictions attributable 
thereto. Such evidence must support the finding that an individual's 
residual functional capacity is limited to less than the full range 
of sedentary work.


[[Page 45166]]


    They believed that our intent was to impose a more exacting 
standard of review of the medical evidence to support a finding that 
the residual functional capacity is for less than a full range of 
sedentary work than for other exertional levels. These commenters 
indicated that the same standard of review should apply to support 
findings at all levels of exertion.
    Response: We adopted the comments. Although it was not our intent, 
we agree that the language of the proposed rules could have been 
misinterpreted in the manner the commenters contended and have 
clarified it in response to the comments. We changed the second 
sentence of final section 201.00(h)(4) (the ninth sentence in the 
proposed rules) by adding the phrase ``as with any case'' after the 
word ``Therefore'' to make clear that the same standard of review of 
the evidence is required for all claims decided at step 5 of the 
sequential evaluation process, irrespective of the residual functional 
capacity level. We believe these changes will make clear that the same 
standard of review of the evidence is required for all claims evaluated 
at step 5.
    Comment: Many of the commenters opposed the deletion of case 
examples 1 and 2 from the rules. A number of the commenters who thought 
that our intent was to change our rules, not just to clarify them, 
cited deletion of the examples as an example of what they meant. They 
believed that eliminating the examples would encourage decisionmakers 
to find individuals with a residual functional capacity for less than 
the full range of sedentary work ``not disabled.'' The commenters 
believed that the examples provided guidance on how to apply the 
complicated concept of less than a full range of sedentary work.
    Several of these commenters expressed skepticism about our position 
that the examples were unclear and had the potential for causing 
confusion and inconsistency in decisionmaking. The commenters also 
indicated that removal of the examples would eliminate the only 
authority to find disabled an individual who is unable to perform the 
full range of sedentary work. One commenter believed that, until there 
is consistency of adjudication at all levels, examples are necessary. 
Another commenter believed that elimination of the examples would 
increase administrative costs because a vocational expert would be 
necessary in all situations in which the residual functional capacity 
is for less than the full range of sedentary work.
    Response: We did not adopt the comments. The examples were 
originally intended to illustrate the proper application of a new 
procedure for determining disability when the original rules were 
published over 20 years ago. However, experience has shown that the 
examples, especially example 2, have been misinterpreted and applied as 
if they were rigid principles that are controlling of case outcomes.
    For individuals who are able to do some of the sedentary 
occupations of which we take administrative notice, but who cannot do 
substantially all of these occupations, adjudicators must consider the 
unique characteristics of the physical and mental limitations described 
in the residual functional capacity assessment of each case. Rather 
than serving as illustrations of proper application of the rules, the 
examples have led to overly broad generalizations in this most 
difficult area of adjudication, and we believe have undermined our 
longstanding requirement for individualized determinations.
    In considering these comments, we did consider whether we could 
modify the examples and retain them in some form. However, we concluded 
that the concepts that the examples were intended to explain are better 
described in SSRs, particularly SSR 96-9p, which are binding on all of 
our adjudicators. We issued SSR 96-9p as part of our Process 
Unification initiative to explain in detail disability evaluation when 
an individual has a residual functional capacity for less than a full 
range of sedentary work. We believe that, as with that SSR, the 
revisions we are making in these final rules will further help our 
adjudicators and the public to understand our intent and provide more 
uniform and equitable decisions.
    We do not agree that deleting the examples will increase 
administrative costs. These final rules do not change our rules and 
instructions governing the use of vocational experts or for using the 
rules in appendix 2 as a framework for decisionmaking. A vocational 
expert will not be needed in every case involving a residual functional 
capacity for less than a full range of sedentary work. For example, 
many such individuals may still be found disabled using the rules in 
appendix 2 as a framework, as set out in these final rules and in SSR 
96-9p.

Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866

    We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
and determined that these rules meet the criteria for a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, they were subject 
to OMB review. There are no program or administrative costs or savings 
associated with these final rules. Therefore, no assessment of costs 
and benefits is required. We have determined that these final rules 
meet the plain language requirement of Executive Order 12866 and the 
President's memorandum of June 1, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that these regulations will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they 
affect only individuals. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis, 
as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not 
required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    These regulations impose no new reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements subject to OMB clearance.

(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; 96.006, 
Supplemental Security Income.)

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 404

    Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.

    Dated: May 7, 2001.
Larry G. Massanari,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, subpart P of part 404 of 
20 CFR Chapter III is amended as set forth below:

PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE 
(1950-    )

Subpart P--[Amended]

    1. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a) 
and (i), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a) and (i), 
422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 
Stat. 2105, 2189.


    2. Section 201.00(h), appendix 2, subpart P, is revised to read as 
follows:

[[Page 45167]]

Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404--Medical-Vocational Guidelines


Sec. 201.00  Maximum sustained work capability limited to sedentary 
work as a result of severe medically determinable impairment(s).

* * * * *
    (h)(1) The term younger individual is used to denote an 
individual age 18 through 49. For individuals who are age 45-49, age 
is a less advantageous factor for making an adjustment to other work 
than for those who are age 18-44. Accordingly, a finding of 
``disabled'' is warranted for individuals age 45-49 who:
    (i) Are restricted to sedentary work,
    (ii) Are unskilled or have no transferable skills,
    (iii) Have no past relevant work or can no longer perform past 
relevant work, and
    (iv) Are unable to communicate in English, or are able to speak 
and understand English but are unable to read or write in English.
    (2) For individuals who are under age 45, age is a more 
advantageous factor for making an adjustment to other work. It is 
usually not a significant factor in limiting such individuals' 
ability to make an adjustment to other work, including an adjustment 
to unskilled sedentary work, even when the individuals are unable to 
communicate in English or are illiterate in English.
    (3) Nevertheless, a decision of ``disabled'' may be appropriate 
for some individuals under age 45 (or individuals age 45-49 for whom 
rule 201.17 does not direct a decision of disabled) who do not have 
the ability to perform a full range of sedentary work. However, the 
inability to perform a full range of sedentary work does not 
necessarily equate with a finding of ``disabled.'' Whether an 
individual will be able to make an adjustment to other work requires 
an adjudicative assessment of factors such as the type and extent of 
the individual's limitations or restrictions and the extent of the 
erosion of the occupational base. It requires an individualized 
determination that considers the impact of the limitations or 
restrictions on the number of sedentary, unskilled occupations or 
the total number of jobs to which the individual may be able to 
adjust, considering his or her age, education and work experience, 
including any transferable skills or education providing for direct 
entry into skilled work.
    (4) ``Sedentary work'' represents a significantly restricted 
range of work, and individuals with a maximum sustained work 
capability limited to sedentary work have very serious functional 
limitations. Therefore, as with any case, a finding that an 
individual is limited to less than the full range of sedentary work 
will be based on careful consideration of the evidence of the 
individual's medical impairment(s) and the limitations and 
restrictions attributable to it. Such evidence must support the 
finding that the individual's residual functional capacity is 
limited to less than the full range of sedentary work.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-21623 Filed 8-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P