34478 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

7See Footnote 2.

8A medical source opinion that an individual is

‘‘disabled’’ or ‘‘unable to work,’’ has an

impairment(s) that meets or is equivalent in severity

to the requirements of a listing, has a particular

RFC, or that concerns the application of vocational

factors, is an opinion on an issue reserved to the

Commissioner. Every such opinion must still be

considered in adjudicating a disability claim;

however, the adjudicator will not give any special

significance to the opinion because of its source.

See SSR 96–5p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI: Medical Source

Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner.’’

For further information about the evaluation of

medical source opinions, SSR 96–6p, ‘‘Titles II and

XVI: Consideration of Administrative Findings of

Fact by State Agency Medical and Psychological

Consultants and Other Program Physicians and

Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and

Appeals Council Levels of Administrative Review;

Medical Equivalence.’’

the capacity to perform one of the seven

strength demands and may or may not

have effects on the demands of

occupations other than the strength

demands. If the only limitations or

restrictions caused by symptoms, such

as pain, are in one or more of the seven

strength demands (e.g., lifting) the

limitations or restrictions will be

exertional. On the other hand, if an

individual’s symptoms cause a

limitation or restriction that affects the

individual’s ability to meet the demands

of occupations other than their strength

demands (e.g., manipulation or

concentration), the limitation or

restriction will be classified as

nonexertional. Symptoms may also

cause both exertional and nonexertional

limitations.

Likewise, even though mental

impairments usually affect

nonexertional functions, they may also

limit exertional capacity by affecting

one or more of the seven strength

demands. For example, a mental

impairment may cause fatigue or

hysterical paralysis.

Narrative Discussion Requirements

The RFC assessment must include a

narrative discussion describing how the

evidence supports each conclusion,

citing specific medical facts (e.g.,

laboratory findings) and nonmedical

evidence (e.g., daily activities,

observations). In assessing RFC, the

adjudicator must discuss the

individual’s ability to perform sustained

work activities in an ordinary work

setting on a regular and continuing basis

(i.e., 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week,

or an equivalent work schedule 7), and

describe the maximum amount of each

work-related activity the individual can

perform based on the evidence available

in the case record. The adjudicator must

also explain how any material

inconsistencies or ambiguities in the

evidence in the case record were

considered and resolved.

Symptoms. In all cases in which

symptoms, such as pain, are alleged, the

RFC assessment must:

• Contain a thorough discussion and

analysis of the objective medical and

other evidence, including the

individual’s complaints of pain and

other symptoms and the adjudicator’s

personal observations, if appropriate;

• Include a resolution of any

inconsistencies in the evidence as a

whole; and

• Set forth a logical explanation of the

effects of the symptoms, including pain,

on the individual’s ability to work.

The RFC assessment must include a

discussion of why reported symptomrelated functional limitations and

restrictions can or cannot reasonably be

accepted as consistent with the medical

and other evidence. In instances in

which the adjudicator has observed the

individual, he or she is not free to

accept or reject that individual’s

complaints solely on the basis of such

personal observations. (For further

information about RFC assessment and

the evaluation of symptoms, see SSR

96–7p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of

Symptoms in Disability Claims:

Assessing the Credibility of an

Individual’s Statements.’’)

Medical opinions. The RFC

assessment must always consider and

address medical source opinions. If the

RFC assessment conflicts with an

opinion from a medical source, the

adjudicator must explain why the

opinion was not adopted.

Medical opinions from treating

sources about the nature and severity of

an individual’s impairment(s) are

entitled to special significance and may

be entitled to controlling weight. If a

treating source’s medical opinion on an

issue of the nature and severity of an

individual’s impairment(s) is wellsupported by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques and is not inconsistent with

the other substantial evidence in the

case record, the adjudicator must give it

controlling weight. (See SSR 96–2p,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling

Weight to Treating Source Medical

Opinions,’’ and SSR 96–5p, ‘‘Titles II

and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on

Issues Reserved to the

Commissioner.’’) 8

Effective Date: This ruling is effective

on the date of its publication in the

Federal Register.

Cross-References: SSR 82–52, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Duration of the Impairment’’

(C.E. 1981–1985, p. 328), SSR 82–61,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Past Relevant Work—

The Particular Job Or the Occupation As

Generally Performed’’ (C.E. 1981–1985,

p. 427), SSR 82–62, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:

A Disability Claimant’s Capacity To Do

Past Relevant Work, In General’’ (C.E.

1981–1985, p. 400), SSR 83–20, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Onset of Disability’’ (C.E.

1981–1985, p. 375), SSR 85–16, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Residual Functional

Capacity for Mental Impairments’’ (C.E.

1981–1985, p. 390), SSR 86–8, ‘‘Titles II

and XVI: The Sequential Evaluation

Process’’ (C.E. 1986, p. 78), SSR 96–6p,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Consideration of

Administrative Findings of Fact by State

Agency Medical and Psychological

Consultants and Other Program

Physicians and Psychologists at the

Administrative Law Judge and Appeals

Council Levels of Administrative

Review; Medical Equivalence,’’ SSR 96–

2p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI: Giving

Controlling Weight to Treating Source

Medical Opinions,’’ SSR 96–4p, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Symptoms, Medically

Determinable Physical and Mental

Impairments, and Exertional and

Nonexertional Limitations,’’ SSR 96–5p,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Medical Source

Opinions on Issues Reserved to the

Commissioner,’’ SSR 96–9p, ‘‘Titles II

and XVI: Determining Capability to Do

Other Work—Implications of a Residual

Functional Capacity for Less Than a

Full Range of Sedentary Work,’’ SSR

96–7p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of

Symptoms in Disability Claims:

Assessing the Credibility of an

Individual’s Statements;’’ and Program

Operations Manual System, sections DI

22515.010, DI 24510.000 ff., DI

24515.002–DI 24515.007, DI 24515.061–

DI 24515.062, DI 24515.064, DI

25501.000 ff., DI 25505.000 ff., and DI

28015.000 ff.

[FR Doc. 96–16691 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

Social Security Ruling SSR 96–9p.,

Titles II and XVI: Determining

Capability To Do Other Work—

Implications of a Residual Functional

Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of

Sedentary Work

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 SSR 96–9p. This Ruling

explains the Social Security

Administration’s policies regarding the

impact of a residual functional capacity

assessment for less than a full range of

sedentary work on an individual’s

ability to do other work.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1996.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34479

1For a detailed discussion of the difference

between the RFC assessment, which is an

administrative finding of fact, and the opinion

evidence called the ‘‘medical source statement’’ or

‘‘MSS,’’ see SSR 96–5p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI: Medical

Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the

Commissioner.’’

2RFC may be expressed in terms of an exertional

category, such as ‘‘light,’’ if it becomes necessary to

assess whether an individual is able to perform past

relevant work as it is generally performed in the

national economy. However, without the initial

function-by-function accounting of the individual’s

capacities, it may not be possible to determine

whether the individual is able to perform past

relevant work as it is generally performed in the

national economy because particular occupations

may not require all of the exertional and

nonexertional demands necessary to perform the

full range of work at a given exertional level. See

SSR 96–8p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual

Functional Capacity in Initial Claims.’’

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, 1996.

Shirley S. Chater,

Commissioner of Social Security.

Policy Interpretation Ruling—Titles II

and XVI: Determining Capability To Do

Other Work—Implications of a

Residual Functional Capacity for Less

Than a Full Range of Sedentary Work

Purpose: To explain the Social

Security Administration’s policies

regarding the impact of a residual

functional capacity (RFC) assessment for

less than a full range of sedentary work

on an individual’s ability to do other

work. In particular, to emphasize that:

1. An RFC for less than a full range

of sedentary work reflects very serious

limitations resulting from an

individual’s medical impairment(s) and

is expected to be relatively rare.

2. However, a finding that an

individual has the ability to do less than

a full range of sedentary work does not

necessarily equate with a decision of

‘‘disabled.’’ If the performance of past

relevant work is precluded by an RFC

for less than the full range of sedentary

work, consideration must still be given

to whether there is other work in the

national economy that the individual is

able to do, considering age, education,

and work experience.

Citations (Authority): Sections 223(d)

and 1614(a) of the Social Security Act

(the Act), as amended; Regulations No.

4, sections 404.1513(c), 404.1520,

404.1520a, 404.1545, 404.1546,

404.1560, 404.1561, 404.1562, 404.1563

through 404.1567, 404.1569, 404.1569a;

appendix 1 of subpart P, section 12.00;

appendix 2 of subpart P, sections 200.00

and 201.00; Regulations No. 16, sections

416.913(c), 416.920, 416.920a, 416.945,

416.946, 416.960, 416.961, 416.962,

416.963 through 416.967, 416.969 and

416.969a.

Introduction: Under the sequential

evaluation process, once it has been

determined that an individual is not

engaging in substantial gainful activity

and has a ‘‘severe’’ medically

determinable impairment(s) which,

though not meeting or equaling the

criteria of any listing, prevents the

individual from performing past

relevant work (PRW), it must be

determined whether the individual can

do any other work, considering the

individual’s RFC, age, education, and

work experience.

RFC is what an individual can still do

despite his or her functional limitations

and restrictions caused by his or her

medically determinable physical or

mental impairments. It is an

administrative assessment of the extent

to which an individual’s medically

determinable impairment(s), including

any related symptoms, such as pain,

may cause physical or mental

limitations or restrictions that may

affect his or her capacity to perform

work-related physical and mental

activities. RFC is assessed by

adjudicators at each level of the

administrative review process based on

all of the relevant evidence in the case

record, including information about the

individual’s symptoms and any

‘‘medical source statements’’—i.e.,

opinions about what the individual can

still do despite a severe impairment(s)—

submitted by an individual’s treating

source(s) or other acceptable medical

source.1

RFC is the individual’s maximum

remaining ability to perform sustained

work on a regular and continuing basis;

i.e., 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week,

or an equivalent work schedule. It is not

the least an individual can do, but the

most, based on all of the information in

the case record. The RFC assessment

considers only those limitations and

restrictions that are caused by an

individual’s physical or mental

impairments. It does not consider

limitations or restrictions due to age or

body habitus, since the Act requires that

an individual’s inability to work must

result from the individual’s physical or

mental impairment(s). (See SSR 96–8p,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual

Functional Capacity in Initial Claims.’’)

Initially, the RFC assessment is a

function-by-function assessment based

upon all of the relevant evidence of an

individual’s ability to perform workrelated activities. This RFC assessment

is first used for a function-by-function

comparison with the functional

demands of an individual’s PRW as he

or she actually performed it and then, if

necessary, as the work is generally

performed in the national economy.2

However, at the last step of the

sequential evaluation process, the RFC

assessment is used to determine an

individual’s ‘‘maximum sustained work

capability’’ and, where solely nonexertional impairments are not

involved, must be expressed in terms of

the exertional classifications of work:

sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and

very heavy work. The rules of appendix

2 of subpart P of Regulations No. 4 take

administrative notice of the existence of

numerous unskilled occupations within

each of these exertional levels. The rules

are then used to direct decisions about

whether an individual is disabled or,

when the individual is unable to

perform the full range of work

contemplated by an exertional level(s),

as a framework for decisionmaking

considering the individual’s RFC, age,

education, and work experience.

The impact of an RFC for less than a

full range of sedentary work is

especially critical for individuals who

have not yet attained age 50. Since age,
34480 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

3However, ‘‘younger individuals’’ age 45–49 who

are unable to communicate in English or who are

illiterate in English and who are limited to even a

full range of sedentary work must be found disabled

under rule 201.17 in Table No. 1.

4An ‘‘occupation’’ refers to a grouping of

numerous individual ‘‘jobs’’ with similar duties.

Within occupations (e.g., ‘‘carpenter’’) there may be

variations among jobs performed for different

employers (e.g., ‘‘rough carpenter’’).

5The regulations specify that this is an

approximation. The revised fourth edition of the

Dictionary of Occupational Titles and its

companion volumes (the DOT, 1991) lists 137

separate occupations. However, the introduction to

Volume I explains that the fourth edition of the

DOT (1977) ‘‘substantially modified or combined

with related definitions’’ several thousand

definitions from the third edition. In 1992, we

published a notice in the Federal Register

explaining that an analysis of the revised fourth

edition of the DOT and available data for the then

upcoming volume of the Selected Characteristics of

Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of

Occupational Titles (SCO) showed ‘‘that the range

of work of which the medical-vocational rules take

administrative notice continues to represent more

occupations than would be required to represent

significant numbers,’’ and that ‘‘we have received

no significant data or other evidence to indicate that

* * * the unskilled occupational base * * * has

changed substantially.’’ (See 57 FR 43005,

September 17, 1992.) In February 1996, contact

with the North Carolina Occupational Analysis

Field Center, the organization that compiles the

data the Department of Labor uses in the SCO,

confirmed that there are no precise updated data

but that the regulatory estimate of approximately

200 sedentary unskilled occupations is still valid,

because some of the 137 occupations in the current

edition of the DOT comprise more than one of the

separate occupations of which we take

administrative notice.

education, and work experience are not

usually significant factors in limiting

the ability of individuals under age 50

to make an adjustment to other work,3

the conclusion whether such

individuals who are limited to less than

the full range of sedentary work are

disabled will depend primarily on the

nature and extent of their functional

limitations or restrictions. On the other

hand, since the rules in Table No. 1 of

appendix 2, ‘‘Residual Functional

Capacity: Maximum Sustained Work

Capability Limited to Sedentary Work as

a Result of Severe Medically

Determinable Impairment(s),’’ direct a

decision of ‘‘disabled’’ for individuals

age 50 and over who are limited to a full

range of sedentary work, unless the

individual has transferable skills or

education that provides for direct entry

into skilled sedentary work, the impact

of an RFC for less than the full range of

sedentary work in such individuals is

less critical.

Policy Interpretation: Under the

regulations, ‘‘sedentary work’’

represents a significantly restricted

range of work. Individuals who are

limited to no more than sedentary work

by their medical impairments have very

serious functional limitations. For the

majority of individuals who are age 50

or older and who are limited to the full

range of sedentary work by their

medical impairments, the rules and

guidelines in appendix 2 require a

conclusion of ‘‘disabled.’’

Nevertheless, the rules in Table No. 1

in appendix 2 take administrative notice

that there are approximately 200

separate unskilled sedentary

occupations, each representing

numerous jobs, in the national

economy.4 Therefore, even though

‘‘sedentary work’’ represents a

significantly restricted range of work,

this range in itself is not so prohibitively

restricted as to negate work capability

for substantial gainful activity in all

individuals.

Moreover, since each occupation

administratively noticed by Table No. 1

represents numerous jobs, the ability to

do even a limited range of sedentary

work does not in itself establish

disability in all individuals, although a

finding of ‘‘disabled’’ usually applies

when the full range of sedentary work

is significantly eroded (see Using the

Rules in Table No. 1 as a Framework:

‘‘Erosion’’ of the Occupational Base

below). In deciding whether an

individual who is limited to a partial

range of sedentary work is able to make

an adjustment to work other than any

PRW, the adjudicator is required to

make an individualized determination,

considering age, education, and work

experience, including any skills the

individual may have that are

transferable to other work, or education

that provides for direct entry into

skilled work, under the rules and

guidelines in the regulations.

Sedentary Work

The ability to perform the full range

of sedentary work requires the ability to

lift no more than 10 pounds at a time

and occasionally to lift or carry articles

like docket files, ledgers, and small

tools. Although a sedentary job is

defined as one that involves sitting, a

certain amount of walking and standing

is often necessary in carrying out job

duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and

standing are required occasionally and

other sedentary criteria are met.

‘‘Occasionally’’ means occurring from

very little up to one-third of the time,

and would generally total no more than

about 2 hours of an 8-hour workday.

Sitting would generally total about 6

hours of an 8-hour workday. Unskilled

sedentary work also involves other

activities, classified as ‘‘nonexertional,’’

such as capacities for seeing,

manipulation, and understanding,

remembering, and carrying out simple

instructions.

The Occupational Base for Sedentary

Work

The term ‘‘occupational base’’ means

the approximate number of occupations

that an individual has the RFC to

perform considering all exertional and

nonexertional limitations and

restrictions. (See SSR 83–10, ‘‘Titles II

and XVI: Determining Capability to Do

Other Work—The Medical-Vocational

Rules of Appendix 2’’ (C.E. 1981–1985,

p. 516).) A full range of sedentary work

includes all or substantially all of the

approximately 200 5 unskilled sedentary

occupations administratively noticed in

Table No. 1.

Thus, the RFC addressed by a

particular rule in Table No. 1 establishes

an occupational base that at a minimum

includes the full range of unskilled

sedentary occupations administratively

noticed. The base may be broadened by

the addition of specific skilled or

semiskilled occupations that an

individual with an RFC limited to

sedentary work can perform by reason

of his or her education or work

experience. However, if the individual

has no transferable skills or no

education or training that provides for

direct entry into skilled work, the

occupational base represented by the

rules in Table No. 1 comprises only the

sedentary unskilled occupations in the

national economy that such an

individual can perform.

The rules in Table No. 1 direct

conclusions as to disability where the

findings of fact coincide with all of the

criteria of a particular rule; i.e., RFC (a

maximum sustained work capability for

sedentary work) and the vocational

factors of age, education, and work

experience. In order for a rule in Table

No. 1 to direct a conclusion of ‘‘not

disabled,’’ the individual must be able

to perform the full range of work

administratively noticed by a rule. This

means that the individual must be able

to perform substantially all of the

strength demands defining the

sedentary level of exertion, as well as

the physical and mental nonexertional

demands that are also required for the

performance of substantially all of the

unskilled work considered at the

sedentary level. Therefore, in order for

a rule to direct a conclusion of ‘‘not

disabled,’’ an individual must also have

no impairment that restricts the

nonexertional capabilities to a level

below those needed to perform

unskilled work, in this case, at the

sedentary level.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34481

6See 20 CFR 404.1563(a) and 416.963(a) and SSR

83–10.

Using the Rules in Table No. 1 as a

Framework: ‘‘Erosion’’ of the

Occupational Base

Where any one of the findings of fact

does not coincide with the

corresponding criterion of a rule in

Table No. 1 (except in those cases where

the concept of borderline age applies 6),

the rule does not direct a decision. In

cases such as the following, the

medical-vocational rules must be used

as a framework for considering the

extent of any erosion of the sedentary

occupational base:

• Any one of an individual’s

exertional capacities is determined to be

less than that required to perform a full

range of sedentary work; or

• Based on an individual’s exertional

capacities, a rule in Table No. 1 would

direct a decision of ‘‘not disabled,’’ but

the individual also has a nonexertional

limitation(s) that narrows the potential

range of sedentary work to which he or

she might be able to adjust (i.e., the

individual has the exertional capacity to

do the full range of sedentary work, but

the sedentary occupational base is

reduced because of at least one

nonexertional limitation).

When there is a reduction in an

individual’s exertional or nonexertional

capacity so that he or she is unable to

perform substantially all of the

occupations administratively noticed in

Table No. 1, the individual will be

unable to perform the full range of

sedentary work: the occupational base

will be ‘‘eroded’’ by the additional

limitations or restrictions. However, the

mere inability to perform substantially

all sedentary unskilled occupations

does not equate with a finding of

disability. There may be a number of

occupations from the approximately 200

occupations administratively noticed,

and jobs that exist in significant

numbers, that an individual may still be

able to perform even with a sedentary

occupational base that has been eroded.

Whether the individual will be able to

make an adjustment to other work

requires adjudicative judgment

regarding factors such as the type and

extent of the individual’s limitations or

restrictions and the extent of the erosion

of the occupational base; i.e., 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. Where there is more than

a slight impact on the individual’s

ability to perform the full range of

sedentary work, if the adjudicator finds

that the individual is able to do other

work, the adjudicator must cite

examples of occupations or jobs the

individual can do and provide a

statement of the incidence of such work

in the region where the individual

resides or in several regions of the

country.

Exertional and Nonexertional

Limitations and Restrictions

Exertional capacity addresses an

individual’s limitations and restrictions

of physical strength and defines the

individual’s remaining ability to

perform each of seven strength

demands: Sitting, standing, walking,

lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.

An exertional limitation is an

impairment-caused limitation of any

one of these activities.

Nonexertional capacity considers any

work-related limitations and restrictions

that are not exertional. Therefore, a

nonexertional limitation is an

impairment-caused limitation affecting

such capacities as mental abilities,

vision, hearing, speech, climbing,

balancing, stooping, kneeling,

crouching, crawling, reaching, handling,

fingering, and feeling. Environmental

restrictions are also considered to be

nonexertional.

Thus, it is the nature of an

individual’s limitations and restrictions,

not certain impairments or symptoms,

that determines whether the individual

will be found to have only exertional

limitations or restrictions, only

nonexertional limitations or restrictions,

or a combination of exertional and

nonexertional limitations or restrictions.

For example, even though mental

impairments often affect nonexertional

functions, they may also limit exertional

capacity affecting one of the seven

strength demands; e.g., from fatigue or

hysterical paralysis. Likewise,

symptoms, including pain, are not

intrinsically exertional or nonexertional;

when a symptom causes a limitation in

one of the seven strength demands, the

limitation must be considered

exertional. (See SSR 96–8p, ‘‘Titles II

and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional

Capacity in Initial Claims.’’)

Guidelines for Evaluating the Ability To

Do Less Than a Full Range of Sedentary

Work

The following sections provide

adjudicative guidance as to the impact

of various RFC limitations and

restrictions on the unskilled sedentary

occupational base. The RFC assessment

must include a narrative that shows the

presence and degree of any specific

limitations and restrictions, as well as

an explanation of how the evidence in

file was considered in the assessment.

The individual’s maximum remaining

capacities to perform sustained work on

a regular and continuing basis (what he

or she can still do 8 hours a day, for 5

days a week, or an equivalent work

schedule) must be stated.

An accurate accounting of an

individual’s abilities, limitations, and

restrictions is necessary to determine

the extent of erosion of the occupational

base, the types of sedentary occupations

an individual might still be able to do,

and whether it will be necessary to

make use of a vocational resource. The

RFC assessment must be sufficiently

complete to allow an adjudicator to

make an informed judgment regarding

these issues.

Exertional Limitations and Restrictions

Lifting/carrying and pushing/pulling:

If an individual is unable to lift 10

pounds or occasionally lift and carry

items like docket files, ledgers, and

small tools throughout the workday, the

unskilled sedentary occupational base

will be eroded. The extent of erosion

will depend on the extent of the

limitations. For example, if it can be

determined that the individual has an

ability to lift or carry slightly less than

10 pounds, with no other limitations or

restrictions in the ability to perform the

requirements of sedentary work, the

unskilled sedentary occupational base

would not be significantly eroded;

however, an inability to lift or carry

more than 1 or 2 pounds would erode

the unskilled sedentary occupational

base significantly. For individuals with

limitations in lifting or carrying weights

between these amounts, consultation

with a vocational resource may be

appropriate.

Limitations or restrictions on the

ability to push or pull will generally

have little effect on the unskilled

sedentary occupational base.

Standing and walking: The full range

of sedentary work requires that an

individual be able to stand and walk for

a total of approximately 2 hours during

an 8-hour workday. If an individual can

stand and walk for a total of slightly less

than 2 hours per 8-hour workday, this,

by itself, would not cause the

occupational base to be significantly

eroded. Conversely, a limitation to

standing and walking for a total of only

a few minutes during the workday

would erode the unskilled sedentary

occupational base significantly. For

individuals able to stand and walk in

between the slightly less than 2 hours

and only a few minutes, it may be
34482 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

7Bilateral manual dexterity is needed when

sitting but is not generally necessary when

performing the standing and walking requirements

of sedentary work.

appropriate to consult a vocational

resource.

Sitting: In order to perform a full

range of sedentary work, an individual

must be able to remain in a seated

position for approximately 6 hours of an

8-hour workday, with a morning break,

a lunch period, and an afternoon break

at approximately 2-hour intervals. If an

individual is unable to sit for a total of

6 hours in an 8-hour work day, the

unskilled sedentary occupational base

will be eroded. The extent of the

limitation should be considered in

determining whether the individual has

the ability to make an adjustment to

other work. See Alternate sitting and

standing below.

The fact that an individual cannot do

the sitting required to perform the full

range of sedentary work does not

necessarily mean that he or she cannot

perform other work at a higher

exertional level. In unusual cases, some

individuals will be able to stand and

walk longer than they are able to sit. If

an individual is able to stand and walk

for approximately 6 hours in an 8-hour

workday (and meets the other

requirements for light work), there may

be a significant number of light jobs in

the national economy that he or she can

do even if there are not a significant

number of sedentary jobs.

Alternate sitting and standing: An

individual may need to alternate the

required sitting of sedentary work by

standing (and, possibly, walking)

periodically. Where this need cannot be

accommodated by scheduled breaks and

a lunch period, the occupational base

for a full range of unskilled sedentary

work will be eroded. The extent of the

erosion will depend on the facts in the

case record, such as the frequency of the

need to alternate sitting and standing

and the length of time needed to stand.

The RFC assessment must be specific as

to the frequency of the individual’s need

to alternate sitting and standing. It may

be especially useful in these situations

to consult a vocational resource in order

to determine whether the individual is

able to make an adjustment to other

work.

Medically required hand-held

assistive device: To find that a handheld assistive device is medically

required, there must be medical

documentation establishing the need for

a hand-held assistive device to aid in

walking or standing, and describing the

circumstances for which it is needed

(i.e., whether all the time, periodically,

or only in certain situations; distance

and terrain; and any other relevant

information). The adjudicator must

always consider the particular facts of a

case. For example, if a medically

required hand-held assistive device is

needed only for prolonged ambulation,

walking on uneven terrain, or ascending

or descending slopes, the unskilled

sedentary occupational base will not

ordinarily be significantly eroded.

Since most unskilled sedentary work

requires only occasional lifting and

carrying of light objects such as ledgers

and files and a maximum lifting

capacity for only 10 pounds, an

individual who uses a medically

required hand-held assistive device in

one hand may still have the ability to

perform the minimal lifting and carrying

requirements of many sedentary

unskilled occupations with the other

hand.7 For example, an individual who

must use a hand-held assistive device to

aid in walking or standing because of an

impairment that affects one lower

extremity (e.g., an unstable knee), or to

reduce pain when walking, who is

limited to sedentary work because of the

impairment affecting the lower

extremity, and who has no other

functional limitations or restrictions

may still have the ability to make an

adjustment to sedentary work that exists

in significant numbers. On the other

hand, the occupational base for an

individual who must use such a device

for balance because of significant

involvement of both lower extremities

(e.g., because of a neurological

impairment) may be significantly

eroded.

In these situations, too, it may be

especially useful to consult a vocational

resource in order to make a judgment

regarding the individual’s ability to

make an adjustment to other work.

Nonexertional Limitations and

Restrictions

Postural limitations: Postural

limitations or restrictions related to

such activities as climbing ladders,

ropes, or scaffolds, balancing, kneeling,

crouching, or crawling would not

usually erode the occupational base for

a full range of unskilled sedentary work

significantly because those activities are

not usually required in sedentary work.

In the SCO, ‘‘balancing’’ means

maintaining body equilibrium to

prevent falling when walking, standing,

crouching, or running on narrow,

slippery, or erratically moving surfaces.

If an individual is limited in balancing

only on narrow, slippery, or erratically

moving surfaces, this would not, by

itself, result in a significant erosion of

the unskilled sedentary occupational

base. However, if an individual is

limited in balancing even when

standing or walking on level terrain,

there may be a significant erosion of the

unskilled sedentary occupational base.

It is important to state in the RFC

assessment what is meant by limited

balancing in order to determine the

remaining occupational base.

Consultation with a vocational resource

may be appropriate in some cases.

An ability to stoop occasionally; i.e.,

from very little up to one-third of the

time, is required in most unskilled

sedentary occupations. A complete

inability to stoop would significantly

erode the unskilled sedentary

occupational base and a finding that the

individual is disabled would usually

apply, but restriction to occasional

stooping should, by itself, only

minimally erode the unskilled

occupational base of sedentary work.

Consultation with a vocational resource

may be particularly useful for cases

where the individual is limited to less

than occasional stooping.

Manipulative limitations: Most

unskilled sedentary jobs require good

use of both hands and the fingers; i.e.,

bilateral manual dexterity. Fine

movements of small objects require use

of the fingers; e.g., to pick or pinch.

Most unskilled sedentary jobs require

good use of the hands and fingers for

repetitive hand-finger actions.

Any significant manipulative

limitation of an individual’s ability to

handle and work with small objects

with both hands will result in a

significant erosion of the unskilled

sedentary occupational base. For

example, example 1 in section 201.00(h)

of appendix 2, describes an individual

who has an impairment that prevents

the performance of any sedentary

occupations that require bilateral

manual dexterity (i.e., ‘‘limits the

individual to sedentary jobs which do

not require bilateral manual dexterity’’).

When the limitation is less significant,

especially if the limitation is in the nondominant hand, it may be useful to

consult a vocational resource.

The ability to feel the size, shape,

temperature, or texture of an object by

the fingertips is a function required in

very few jobs and impairment of this

ability would not, by itself, significantly

erode the unskilled sedentary

occupational base.

Visual limitations or restrictions: Most

sedentary unskilled occupations require

working with small objects. If a visual

limitation prevents an individual from

seeing the small objects involved in

most sedentary unskilled work, or if an

individual is not able to avoid ordinary

hazards in the workplace, such as boxes
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34483

8At the hearings and appeals levels, vocational

experts (VEs) are vocational professionals who

provide impartial expert opinion during the

hearings and appeals process either by testifying or

by providing written responses to interrogatories. A

VE may be used before, during, or after a hearing.

Whenever a VE is used, the individual has the right

to review and respond to the VE evidence prior to

the issuance of a decision. The VE’s opinion is not

binding on an adjudicator, but must be weighed

along with all other evidence.

on the floor, doors ajar, or approaching

people or vehicles, there will be a

significant erosion of the sedentary

occupational base. These cases may

require the use of vocational resources.

Communicative limitations: Basic

communication is all that is needed to

do unskilled work. The ability to hear

and understand simple oral instructions

or to communicate simple information

is sufficient. If the individual retains

these basic communication abilities, the

unskilled sedentary occupational base

would not be significantly eroded in

these areas.

Environmental restrictions: An

‘‘environmental restriction’’ is an

impairment-caused need to avoid an

environmental condition in a

workplace. Definitions for various

workplace environmental conditions are

found in the SCO; e.g., ‘‘extreme cold’’

is exposure to nonweather-related cold

temperatures.

In general, few occupations in the

unskilled sedentary occupational base

require work in environments with

extreme cold, extreme heat, wetness,

humidity, vibration, or unusual hazards.

The ‘‘hazards’’ defined in the SCO are

considered unusual in unskilled

sedentary work. They include: moving

mechanical parts of equipment, tools, or

machinery; electrical shock; working in

high, exposed places; exposure to

radiation; working with explosives; and

exposure to toxic, caustic chemicals.

Even a need to avoid all exposure to

these conditions would not, by itself,

result in a significant erosion of the

occupational base.

Since all work environments entail

some level of noise, restrictions on the

ability to work in a noisy workplace

must be evaluated on an individual

basis. The unskilled sedentary

occupational base may or may not be

significantly eroded depending on the

facts in the case record. In such cases,

it may be especially useful to consult a

vocational resource.

Restrictions to avoid exposure to

odors or dust must also be evaluated on

an individual basis. The RFC

assessment must specify which

environments are restricted and state

the extent of the restriction; e.g.,

whether only excessive or even small

amounts of dust must be avoided.

Mental limitations or restrictions: A

substantial loss of ability to meet any

one of several basic work-related

activities on a sustained basis (i.e., 8

hours a day, 5 days a week, or an

equivalent work schedule), will

substantially erode the unskilled

sedentary occupational base and would

justify a finding of disability. These

mental activities are generally required

by competitive, remunerative, unskilled

work:

• Understanding, remembering, and

carrying out simple instructions.

• Making judgments that are

commensurate with the functions of

unskilled work—i.e., simple workrelated decisions.

• Responding appropriately to

supervision, co-workers and usual work

situations.

• Dealing with changes in a routine

work setting.

A less than substantial loss of ability

to perform any of the above basic work

activities may or may not significantly

erode the unskilled sedentary

occupational base. The individual’s

remaining capacities must be assessed

and a judgment made as to their effects

on the unskilled occupational base

considering the other vocational factors

of age, education, and work experience.

When an individual has been found to

have a limited ability in one or more of

these basic work activities, it may be

useful to consult a vocational resource.

Use of Vocational Resources

When the extent of erosion of the

unskilled sedentary occupational base is

not clear, the adjudicator may consult

various authoritative written resources,

such as the DOT, the SCO, the

Occupational Outlook Handbook, or

County Business Patterns.

In more complex cases, the

adjudicator may use the resources of a

vocational specialist or vocational

expert.8 The vocational resource may be

asked to provide any or all of the

following: An analysis of the impact of

the RFC upon the full range of sedentary

work, which the adjudicator may

consider in determining the extent of

the erosion of the occupational base,

examples of occupations the individual

may be able to perform, and citations of

the existence and number of jobs in

such occupations in the national

economy.

Effective Date: This Ruling is effective

on the date of its publication in the

Federal Register.

Cross-References: SSR 86–8, ‘‘Titles II

and XVI: The Sequential Evaluation

Process’’ (C.E. 1986, p. 78), SSR 83–10,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Determining

Capability to Do Other Work—The

Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix

2’’ (C.E. 1981–1985, p. 516), SSR 83–12,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Capability to Do

Other Work—The Medical-Vocational

Rules as a Framework for Evaluating

Exertional Limitations Within a Range

of Work or Between Ranges of Work’’

(C.E. 1981–1985, p. 529), SSR 83–14,

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Capability to Do

Other Work—The Medical-Vocational

Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a

Combination of Exertional and

Nonexertional Impairments’’ (C.E.

1981–1985, p. 535), SSR 85–15, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Capability to Do Other

Work—The Medical-Vocational Rules as

a Framework for Evaluating Solely

Nonexertional Impairments’’ (C.E.

1981–1985, p. 543), SSR–96 8p, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Assessing Residual

Functional Capacity in Initial Claims;’’

Program Operations Manual System,

sections DI 24510.001, DI 24510.005, DI

24510.010, DI 24510.050, DI 24515.061,

DI 25001.001, DI 25010.001, DI

25020.005, DI 25020.010, DI 25020.015,

DI 25025.001 and DI 28005.015; and

Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law

Manual, sections I–2–548 and I–2–550.

[FR Doc. 96–16692 Filed 7–01–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

[Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96–7p]

Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of

Symptoms in Disability Claims:

Assessing the Credibility of an

Individual’s Statements

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 96–7p. This Ruling

clarifies when the evaluation of

symptoms, including pain, under 20

CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 requires a

finding about the credibility of an

individual’s statements about pain or

other symptom(s) and its functional

effects; explains the factors to be

considered in assessing the credibility

of the individual’s statements about

symptoms; and states the importance of

explaining the reasons for the finding

about the credibility of the individual’s

statements in the disability

determination or decision. This Ruling

also incorporates and elaborates upon

the policy interpretation and procedures

in SSR 95–5p, ‘‘Titles II and XVI:

Considering Allegations of Pain and

Other Symptoms in Residual Functional

Capacity and Individualized Functional

Assessments and Explaining

Conclusions Reached’’ (published in the