[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