Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34471

1The preamble previously noted that, ‘‘Whether

or not the holding of a particular circuit court

decision ‘conflicts’ with our policy is not always

clear . . .’’ 55 FR 1012 (1990).

2As a result of Pub. L. 103–296, the Social

Security Independence and Program Improvements

Act of 1994, which made SSA an independent

agency separate from the Department of Health and

Human Services effective March 31, 1995, the

responsibility for establishing policy now resides

with the Commissioner of Social Security, rather

than the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

explains how SSA will apply the court

holding, instead of its nationwide

policy, when deciding claims within the

applicable circuit. ARs apply at all steps

in the administrative process within the

applicable circuit unless the court

decision, by its nature, applies only at

certain steps in this process. In the latter

case, the AR may be so limited.

As of the effective date of this Ruling,

SSA had issued a total of 62 ARs,

averaging about 3–4 ARs per year in

recent years; 42 of those ARs are still in

effect. The majority of the ARs issued by

SSA to date have dealt with

nondisability issues, although a

significant portion have dealt directly

with the disability determination

process. Decisions for which ARs are

issued often involve complex and

difficult issues. The court’s holding may

be unclear in its scope and susceptible

to differing interpretations. Despite

these difficulties, no AR has been found

to be inadequate by the circuit court

which issued the underlying decision.

Policy Interpretation: Unless and until

an AR for a circuit court holding has

been issued, SSA adjudicates other

claims within that circuit by applying

its nationwide policy. The preamble to

the final acquiescence regulations

published on January 11, 1990,

explained the basis for this approach in

responding to a public comment

suggesting that administrative law

judges (ALJs) and the Appeals Council

should be allowed to apply circuit court

holdings without the benefit of an

Acquiescence Ruling:

[W]e have not adopted this comment. First,

under this final acquiescence policy,

Acquiescence Rulings apply to all levels of

adjudication, not only to the ALJ and

Appeals Council levels, unless a holding by

its nature applies only to certain levels of

adjudication. Thus, the approach suggested

in this comment would create different

standards of adjudication at the different

levels of administrative review. Second,

interpreting and applying a circuit court

holding is not always a simple matter, as we

noted previously. 1 Finally, by statute,

establishing policy is the Secretary’s 2

responsibility; adjudicators are responsible

for applying that policy to the facts in any

given case. Therefore, we believe that to

ensure the uniform and consistent

adjudication necessary in the administration

of a national program, the agency must

analyze court decisions and provide

adjudicators as specific a statement as

possible explaining the agency’s

interpretation of a court of appeals holding,

as well as providing direction on how to

apply the holding in the course of

adjudication.

55 FR 1013 (1990).

As explained in SSA’s regulations at

20 CFR 404.985(b), 410.670c(b), and

416.1485(b), if SSA makes an

administrative determination or

decision on a claim between the date of

a circuit court decision and the date of

issuance of an AR for that decision, the

claimant, upon request, is permitted to

have the claim readjudicated by

demonstrating that application of the

AR could change the result. Thus, as

explained in the preamble to the

acquiescence regulations, a

readjudication procedure is provided

which allows a claimant, whose

application was adjudicated during the

interim period between a circuit court

decision and the issuance of an AR for

that decision, to seek immediate

application of the AR once it is issued,

without the necessity of appeal. 55 FR

1013 (1990).

Finally, in accordance with its

regulations, SSA acquiesces only in

decisions of the Federal circuit courts,

and not in decisions of Federal district

courts within a circuit. Thus, despite a

district court decision which may

conflict with SSA’s interpretation of the

Social Security Act or regulations, SSA

adjudicators will continue to apply

SSA’s nationwide policy when

adjudicating other claims within that

district court’s jurisdiction unless the

court directs otherwise such as may

occur in a class action.

Effective Date: This Ruling, which

reflects longstanding procedures which

SSA continues to believe represent the

most effective and fair way to

implement its acquiescence policy, is

effective on July 2, 1996. This Ruling

does not apply to the claims of New

York disability claimants who are

covered by the court-approved

settlement in Stieberger v. Sullivan.

[FR Doc. 96–16684 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96–5p.

Titles II and XVI: Medical Source

Opinions on Issues Reserved to the

Commissioner

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 96–5p. This Ruling

clarifies Social Security Administration

policy on how we consider medical

source opinions on issues reserved to

the Commissioner of Social Security,

including whether an individual’s

impairment(s) meets or is equivalent in

severity to the requirements of any

impairment(s) in the Listing of

Impairments in appendix l, subpart P of

20 CFR part 404 of the Social Security

Administration regulations; what an

individual’s residual functional capacity

is; whether an individual’s residual

functional capacity prevents him or her

from performing past relevant work;

how the vocational factors of age,

education, and work experience apply;

and whether an individual is ‘‘disabled’’

under the Social Security Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanne K. Castello, Division of

Regulations and Rulings, Social Security

Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although

we are not required to do so pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are

publishing this Social Security Ruling

in accordance with 20 CFR

422.406(b)(1).

Social Security Rulings make

available to the public precedential

decisions relating to the Federal old-age,

survivors, disability, supplemental

security income, and black lung benefits

programs. Social Security Rulings may

be based on case decisions made at all

administrative levels of adjudication,

Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s

decisions, opinions of the Office of the

General Counsel, and other policy

interpretations of the law and

regulations.

Although Social Security Rulings do

not have the force and effect of the law

or regulations, they are binding on all

components of the Social Security

Administration, in accordance with 20

CFR 422.406(b)(1), and are to be relied

upon as precedents in adjudicating

cases.

If this Social Security Ruling is later

superseded, modified, or rescinded, we

will publish a notice in the Federal

Register to that effect.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,

Programs 96.001 Social Security—Disability

Insurance; 96.002 Social Security—

Retirement Insurance; 96.004 Social

Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.005

Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners;

96.006 Supplemental Security Income.)
34472 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

1Note: For clarity, the following discussions refer

only to claims of individuals claiming disability

benefits under title II and individuals age 18 or

older claiming disability benefits under title XVI.

However, the same principles regarding medical

source opinions apply in determining disability for

individuals under age 18 claiming disability

benefits under title XVI. Therefore, it should be

understood that references in this Ruling to the

ability to do gainful activity, RFC, and other terms

and rules that are applicable only to title II

disability claims and title XVI disability claims of

individuals age 18 or older, are also intended to

refer to appropriate terms and rules applicable in

determining disability for individuals under age 18

under title XVI.

Dated: June 7, 1996.

Shirley S. Chater,

Commissioner of Social Security.

Policy Interpretation Ruling

Titles II and XVI: Medical Source

Opinions on Issues Reserved to the

Commissioner

Purpose: To clarify Social Security

Administration (SSA) policy on how we

consider medical source opinions on

issues reserved to the Commissioner,

including whether an individual’s

impairment(s) meets or is equivalent in

severity to the requirements of any

impairment(s) in the Listing of

Impairments in appendix 1, subpart P of

20 CFR part 404 (the listings); what an

individual’s residual functional capacity

(RFC) is; whether an individual’s RFC

prevents him or her from doing past

relevant work; how the vocational

factors of age, education, and work

experience apply; and whether an

individual is ‘‘disabled’’ under the

Social Security Act (the Act). In

particular, to emphasize:

1. The difference between issues

reserved to the Commissioner and

medical opinions.

2. That treating source opinions on

issues reserved to the Commissioner are

never entitled to controlling weight or

special significance.

3. That opinions from any medical

source about issues reserved to the

Commissioner must never be ignored,

and that the notice of the determination

or decision must explain the

consideration given to the treating

source’s opinion(s).

4. The difference between the opinion

called a ‘‘medical source statement’’ and

the administrative finding called a

‘‘residual functional capacity

assessment.’’

Citations (Authority): Sections 205(a)

and (b)(1), 216(i), 221(a)(1) and (g),

223(d), 1614(a), 1631(c)(1) and (d)(1),

and 1633 of the Social Security Act, as

amended; Regulations No. 4, sections

404.1503, 404.1504, 404.1512, 404.1513,

404.1520, 404.1526, 404.1527, and

404.1546; Regulations No. 16, sections

416.903, 416.904, 416.912, 416.913,

416.920, 416.924, 416.924d, 416.926,

416.926a, 416.927, and 416.946.

Introduction: 1 On August 1, 1991,

SSA published regulations at 20 CFR

404.1527 and 416.927 that set out rules

for evaluating medical opinions. The

regulations provide general guidance for

evaluating all evidence in a case record

and provide detailed rules for

evaluating medical opinion evidence.

They explain the significance given to

medical opinions from treating sources

on the nature and severity of an

individual’s impairment(s). They also

set out factors used to weigh opinions

from all types of medical sources,

including treating sources, other

examining sources, and nonexamining

physicians, psychologists, and other

medical sources. In addition, the

regulations provide that the final

responsibility for deciding certain

issues, such as whether an individual is

disabled under the Act, is reserved to

the Secretary of Health and Human

Services (the Secretary).

On March 31, 1995, SSA became an

independent agency under Public Law

103–296. As a result of this legislative

change, the Commissioner of Social

Security (the Commissioner) replaced

the Secretary as the official responsible

for making determinations of disability

under titles II and XVI of the Act.

Policy Interpretation: The regulations

at 20 CFR 404.1527(a) and 416.927(a)

define medical opinions as ‘‘statements

from physicians and psychologists or

other acceptable medical sources that

reflect judgments about the nature and

severity of your impairment(s),

including your symptoms, diagnosis

and prognosis, what you can still do

despite impairment(s), and your

physical or mental restrictions.’’ The

regulations recognize that treating

sources are important sources of

medical evidence and expert testimony,

and that their opinions about the nature

and severity of an individual’s

impairment(s) are entitled to special

significance; sometimes the medical

opinions of treating sources are entitled

to controlling weight. Paragraphs (b),

(c), (d), and (f) of 20 CFR 404,1527 and

416.927 explain how we weigh treating

source and other medical source

opinions. (See, also, SSR 96–2p, ‘‘Titles

II and XVI: Giving Controlling Weight to

Treating Source Medical Opinions,’’ and

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.’’)

Under 20 CFR 404.1527(e) and

416.927(e), some issues are not medical

issues regarding the nature and severity

of an individual’s impairment(s) but are

administrative findings that are

dispositive of a case; i.e., that would

direct the determination or decision of

disability. The following are examples

of such issues:

1. Whether an individual’s

impairment(s) meets or is equivalent in

severity to the requirements of any

impairment(s) in the listings;

2. What an individual’s RFC is;

3. Whether an individual’s RFC

prevents him or her from doing past

relevant work;

4. How the vocational factors of age,

education, and work experience apply;

and

5. Whether an individual is

‘‘disabled’’ under the Act.

The regulations provide that the final

responsibility for deciding issues such

as these is reserved to the

Commissioner.

Nevertheless, our rules provide that

adjudicators must always carefully

consider medical source opinions about

any issue, including opinions about

issues that are reserved to the

Commissioner. For treating sources, the

rules also require that we make every

reasonable effort to recontact such

sources for clarification when they

provide opinions on issues reserved to

the Commissioner and the bases for

such opinions are not clear to us.

However, treating source opinions on

issues that are reserved to the

Commissioner are never entitled to

controlling weight or special

significance. Giving controlling weight

to such opinions would, in effect, confer

upon the treating source the authority to

make the determination or decision

about whether an individual is under a

disability, and thus would be an

abdication of the Commissioner’s

statutory responsibility to determine

whether an individual is disabled.

However, opinions from any medical

source on issues reserved to the

Commissioner must never be ignored.

The adjudicator is required to evaluate

all evidence in the case record that may

have a bearing on the determination or

decision of disability, including

opinions from medical sources about

issues reserved to the Commissioner. If

the case record contains an opinion

from a medical source on an issue

reserved to the Commissioner, the

adjudicator must evaluate all the

evidence in the case record to determine

the extent to which the opinion is

supported by the record.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34473

2See the section below entitled ‘‘Findings of State

Agency Medical and Psychological Consultants’’ for

an explanation of how administrative law judges

and the Appeals Council must evaluate State

agency medical and psychological consultant

findings about equivalence. See also 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.’’

3The term ‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ is

defined in 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a).

In evaluating the opinions of medical

sources on issues reserved to the

Commissioner, the adjudicator must

apply the applicable factors in 20 CFR

404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). For

example, it would be appropriate to

consider the supportability of the

opinion and its consistency with the

record as a whole at the administrative

law judge and Appeals Council levels in

evaluating an opinion about the

claimant’s ability to function which is

from a State agency medical or

psychological consultant who has based

the opinion on the entire record (see

Findings of State Agency Medical and

Psychological Consultants, below).

However, pursuant to paragraph (e)(2) of

20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927, the

adjudicator is precluded from giving

any special significance to the source;

e.g., giving a treating source’s opinion

controlling weight, when weighing

these opinions on issues reserved to the

Commissioner.

The following discussions provide

additional policy interpretations and

procedures for evaluating opinions on

issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Opinions About Whether an

Individual’s Impairment Meets the

Requirements of a Listed Impairment

Whether the findings for an

individual’s impairment meet the

requirements of an impairment in the

listings is usually more a question of

medical fact than a question of medical

opinion. Many of the criteria in the

listings relate to the nature and severity

of impairments; e.g., diagnosis,

prognosis and, for those listings that

include such criteria, symptoms and

functional limitations. In most

instances, the requirements of listed

impairments are objective, and whether

an individual’s impairment manifests

these requirements is simply a matter of

documentation. To the extent that a

treating source is usually the best source

of this documentation, the adjudicator

looks to the treating source for medical

evidence with which he or she can

determine whether an individual’s

impairment meets a listing. When a

treating source provides medical

evidence that demonstrates that an

individual has an impairment that

meets a listing, and the treating source

offers an opinion that is consistent with

this evidence, the adjudicator’s

administrative finding about whether

the individual’s impairment(s) meets

the requirements of a listing will

generally agree with the treating

source’s opinion. Nevertheless, the issue

of meeting the requirements of a listing

is still an issue ultimately reserved to

the Commissioner.

Opinions on Whether an Individual’s

Impairment(s) Is Equivalent in Severity

to the Requirements of a Listed

Impairment

In 20 CFR 404.1526 and 416.926,

equivalence is addressed as a ‘‘decision

* * * on medical evidence only’’

because this finding does not consider

the vocational factors of age, education,

and work experience. A finding of

equivalence involves more than findings

about the nature and severity of medical

impairments. It also requires a judgment

that the medical findings equal a level

of severity set forth in 20 CFR

404.1525(a) and 416.925(a); i.e., that the

impairment(s) is ‘‘* * * severe enough

to prevent a person from doing any

gainful activity.’’ This finding requires

familiarity with the regulations and the

legal standard of severity set forth in 20

CFR 404.1525(a), 404.1526, 416.925(a),

and 416.926. Therefore, it is an issue

reserved to the Commissioner.2

Residual Functional Capacity

Assessments and Medical Source

Statements

The regulations describe two distinct

kinds of assessments of what an

individual can do despite the presence

of a severe impairment(s). The first is

described in 20 CFR 404.1513(b) and (c)

and 416.913(b) and (c) as a ‘‘statement

about what you can still do despite your

impairment(s)’’ made by an individual’s

medical source and based on that

source’s own medical findings. This

‘‘medical source statement’’ is an

opinion submitted by a medical source

as part of a medical report. The second

category of assessments is the RFC

assessment described in 20 CFR

404.1545, 404.1546, 416.945, and

416.946 which is the adjudicator’s

ultimate finding of ‘‘what you can still

do despite your limitations.’’ Even

though the adjudicator’s RFC

assessment may adopt the opinions in a

medical source statement, they are not

the same thing: A medical source

statement is evidence that is submitted

to SSA by an individual’s medical

source reflecting the source’s opinion

based on his or her own knowledge,

while an RFC assessment is the

adjudicator’s ultimate finding based on

a consideration of this opinion and all

the other evidence in the case record

about what an individual can do despite

his or her impairment(s).

Medical Source Statement

Medical source statements are

medical opinions submitted by

acceptable medical sources 3, including

treating sources and consultative

examiners, about what an individual

can still do despite a severe

impairment(s), in particular about an

individual’s physical or mental abilities

to perform work-related activities on a

sustained basis. Adjudicators are

generally required to request that

acceptable medical sources provide

these statements with their medical

reports. Medical source statements are

to be based on the medical sources’

records and examination of the

individual; i.e., their personal

knowledge of the individual. Therefore,

because there will frequently be medical

and other evidence in the case record

that will not be known to a particular

medical source, a medical source

statement may provide an incomplete

picture of the individual’s abilities.

Medical source statements submitted

by treating sources provide medical

opinions which are entitled to special

significance and may be entitled to

controlling weight on issues concerning

the nature and severity of an

individual’s impairment(s).

Adjudicators must remember, however,

that medical source statements may

actually comprise separate medical

opinions regarding diverse physical and

mental functions, such as walking,

lifting, seeing, and remembering

instructions, and that it may be

necessary to decide whether to adopt or

not adopt each one.

RFC Assessment

The term ‘‘residual functional

capacity assessment’’ describes an

adjudicator’s finding about the ability of

an individual to perform work-related

activities. The assessment is based upon

consideration of all relevant evidence in

the case record, including medical

evidence and relevant nonmedical

evidence, such as observations of lay

witnesses of an individual’s apparent

symptomatology, an individual’s own

statement of what he or she is able or

unable to do, and many other factors

that could help the adjudicator

determine the most reasonable findings

in light of all the evidence.
34474 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

Medical Source Statement vs. RFC

Assessment

A medical source’s statement about

what an individual can still do is

medical opinion evidence that an

adjudicator must consider together with

all of the other relevant evidence

(including other medical source

statements that may be in the case

record) when assessing an individual’s

RFC. Although an adjudicator may

decide to adopt all of the opinions

expressed in a medical source

statement, a medical source statement

must not be equated with the

administrative finding known as the

RFC assessment. Adjudicators must

weigh medical source statements under

the rules set out in 20 CFR 404.1527 and

416.927, providing appropriate

explanations for accepting or rejecting

such opinions.

From time-to-time, medical sources

may provide opinions that an individual

is limited to ‘‘sedentary work,’’

‘‘sedentary activity,’’ ‘‘light work,’’ or

similar statements that appear to use the

terms set out in our regulations and

Rulings to describe exertional levels of

maximum sustained work capability.

Adjudicators must not assume that a

medical source using terms such as

‘‘sedentary’’ and ‘‘light’’ is aware of our

definitions of these terms. The judgment

regarding the extent to which an

individual is able to perform exertional

ranges of work goes beyond medical

judgment regarding what an individual

can still do and is a finding that may be

dispositive of the issue of disability.

At steps 4 and 5 of the sequential

evaluation process in 20 CFR 404.1520

and 416.920, the adjudicator’s

assessment of an individual’s RFC may

be the most critical finding contributing

to the final determination or decision

about disability. Although the overall

RFC assessment is an administrative

finding on an issue reserved to the

Commissioner, the adjudicator must

nevertheless adopt in that assessment

any treating source medical opinion

(i.e., opinion on the nature and severity

of the individual’s impairment(s)) to

which the adjudicator has given

controlling weight under the rules in 20

CFR 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2).

Opinions on Whether an Individual Is

Disabled

Medical sources often offer opinions

about whether an individual who has

applied for title II or title XVI disability

benefits is ‘‘disabled’’ or ‘‘unable to

work,’’ or make similar statements of

opinions. In addition, they sometimes

offer opinions in other work-related

terms; for example, about an

individual’s ability to do past relevant

work or any other type of work. Because

these are administrative findings that

may determine whether an individual is

disabled, they are reserved to the

Commissioner. Such opinions on these

issues must not be disregarded.

However, even when offered by a

treating source, they can never be

entitled to controlling weight or given

special significance.

Findings of State Agency Medical and

Psychological Consultants

Medical and psychological

consultants in the State agencies are

adjudicators at the initial and

reconsideration determination levels

(except in disability hearings—see 20

CFR 404.914 ff. and 416.1414 ff.). As

such, they do not express opinions; they

make findings of fact that become part

of the determination. However, 20 CFR

404.1527(f) and 416.927(f) provide that,

at the administrative law judge and

Appeals Council levels of the

administrative review process, medical

and psychological consultant findings

about the nature and severity of an

individual’s impairment(s), including

any RFC assessments, become opinion

evidence. Adjudicators at these levels,

including administrative law judges and

the Appeals Council, must consider

these opinions as expert opinion

evidence of nonexamining physicians

and psychologists and must address the

opinions in their decisions. In addition,

under 20 CFR 404.1526 and 416.926,

adjudicators at the administrative law

judge and Appeals Council levels must

consider and address State agency

medical or psychological consultant

findings regarding equivalence to a

listed impairment.

At the administrative law judge and

Appeals Council levels, adjudicators

must evaluate opinion evidence from

medical or psychological consultants

using all of the applicable rules in 20

CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 to determine

the weight to be given to the opinion.

For additional detail regarding these

policies and policy interpretations, see

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.’’

Requirements for Recontacting Treating

Sources

Because treating source evidence

(including opinion evidence) is

important, if the evidence does not

support a treating source’s opinion on

any issue reserved to the Commissioner

and the adjudicator cannot ascertain the

basis of the opinion from the case

record, the adjudicator must make

‘‘every reasonable effort’’ to recontact

the source for clarification of the

reasons for the opinion.

Explanation of the Consideration Given

to a Treating Source’s Opinion

Treating source opinions on issues

reserved to the Commissioner will never

be given controlling weight. However,

the notice of the determination or

decision must explain the consideration

given to the treating source’s opinion(s).

Effective Date: This Ruling is effective

on the date of its publication in the

Federal Register.

Cross-References: 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;’’ and Program

Operations Manual System, section DI

24515.010.

[FR Doc. 96–16688 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96–8p.

Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual

Functional Capacity in Initial Claims

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 96–8p. This Ruling

states the Social Security

Administration’s policies and policy

interpretations regarding the assessment

of residual functional capacity (an

individual’s ability to perform sustained

work activities in an ordinary work

setting on a regular and continuing

basis) in initial claims for disability

benefits under title II of the Social

Security Act (the Act) and supplemental

security income payments based on

disability under title XVI of the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanne K. Castello, Division of

Regulations and Rulings, Social Security

Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1711.