49462 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

28 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

Number SR–OCC–2017–005 and should 

be submitted on or before November 15, 

2017. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

Authority.28

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23121 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #15338 and #15339; 

Georgia Disaster Number GA–00101] 

Presidential Declaration Amendment of 

a Major Disaster for Public Assistance 

Only for the State of Georgia 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Amendment 2. 

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of Georgia (FEMA–4338–DR), 

dated 09/28/2017. 

Incident: Hurricane Irma. 

Incident Period: 09/07/2017 through 

09/20/2017. 

DATES: Issued on 10/18/2017. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 11/27/2017. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 06/28/2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 

Assistance, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 

Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, 

(202) 205–6734. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 

of the President’s major disaster 

declaration for Private Non-Profit 

organizations in the State of Georgia, 

dated 09/28/2017, is hereby amended to 

include the following areas as adversely 

affected by the disaster. 

Primary Counties: Bibb, Chattahoochee, 

Clarke, Clinch, Decatur, Dodge, 

Dooly, Glascock, Grady, Gwinnett, 

Heard, Henry, Jefferson, Lanier, Lee, 

McDuffie, Mitchell, Pulaski, 

Stewart, Sumter, Terrell, Thomas, 

Towns, Twiggs, Union, Upson, 

Webster, White, Wilkinson 

All other information in the original 

declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 59008) 

James E. Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23181 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #15274 and #15275; 

Texas Disaster Number TX–00487] 

Presidential Declaration Amendment of 

a Major Disaster for the State of Texas 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Amendment 7. 

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA– 

4332–DR), dated 08/25/2017. 

Incident: Hurricane Harvey. 

Incident Period: 08/23/2017 through 

09/15/2017. 

DATES: Issued on 10/19/2017. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 11/24/2017. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 05/25/2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 

of the President’s major disaster 

declaration for the State of Texas, dated 

08/25/2017, is hereby amended to 

extend the deadline for filing 

applications for physical damages as a 

result of this disaster to 11/24/2017. 

All other information in the original 

declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 59008) 

James E. Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23183 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No. SSA–2015–0055] 

Social Security Ruling 16–3p Titles II 

And XVI: Evaluation Of Symptoms In 

Disability Claims 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling 

(SSR). 

SUMMARY: We are republishing SSR 16– 

3p, a ruling that rescinded and 

superseded SSR 96–7p, with a revision 

detailing how we apply the SSR as it 

relates to the applicable date. We 

changed our terminology from ‘‘effective 

date’’ to ‘‘applicable date’’ based on 

guidance from the Office of the Federal 

Register. We also updated citations to 

reflect the revised regulations that 

became effective on March 27, 2017. 

This Ruling is otherwise unchanged, 

and provides guidance about how we 

evaluate statements regarding the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of symptoms in disability claims 

under Titles II and XVI of the Social 

Security Act (Act) and blindness claims 

under Title XVI of the Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elaine Tocco, Office of Disability Policy, 

Social Security Administration, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, (410) 966–6356. For 

information on eligibility or filing for 

benefits, call our national toll-free 

number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1– 

800–325–0778, or visit our internet site, 

Social Security Online, at http://

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although 

5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not 

require us to publish this SSR, we are 

doing so in accordance with 20 CFR 

402.35(b)(1). 

Through SSRs, we convey to the 

public SSA precedential decisions 

relating to the Federal old age, 

survivors, disability, supplemental 

security income, and special veterans 

benefits programs. We may base SSRs 

on determinations or decisions made at 

all levels of administrative adjudication, 

Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s 

decisions, opinions of the Office of the 

General Counsel, or other 

interpretations of the law and 

regulations. 

Although SSRs do not have the same 

force and effect as statutes or 

regulations, they are binding on all 

components of the Social Security 

Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). 

This SSR will remain in effect until 

we publish a notice in the Federal 

Register that rescinds it, or we publish 

a new SSR that replaces or modifies it. 

This SSR, republished in its entirety, 

includes a revision to clarify that our 

adjudicators will apply SSR 16–3p 

when we make determinations and 

decisions on or after March 28, 2016. 

When a Federal court reviews our final 

decision in a claim, we also explain that 

we expect the court to review the final 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49463 

1ACUS made several recommendations in its 

March 12, 2015 final report, ‘‘Evaluating Subjective 

Symptoms in Disability Claims.’’ Among other 

things, ACUS recommended we consider amending 

SSR 96–7p to clarify that subjective symptom 

evaluation is not an examination of an individual’s 

character, but rather is an evidence-based analysis 

of the administrative record to determine whether 

the nature, intensity, frequency, or severity of an 

individual’s symptoms impact his or her ability to 

work. In any revised SSR, ACUS also recommended 

we more closely follow our regulatory language 

about symptom evaluation, which does not use the 

term ‘‘credibility’’ and instead directs adjudicators 

to consider medical and other evidence to evaluate 

the intensity and persistence of symptoms to 

determine how the individual’s symptoms limit 

capacity for work if he or she is an adult, or for a 

child with a title XVI disability claim, how 

symptoms limit ability to function. ACUS further 

recommended when revising SSR 96–7p, we offer 

additional guidance to adjudicators on regulatory 

implementation problems that have been identified 

since we published SSR 96–7p. 

2See 20 CFR 404.1502(i) and 416.902(n) for how 

our regulations define symptoms. 

3See 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 for how we 

evaluate statements of symptoms. 

4See 20 CFR 404.1502(g) and 416.902(l) for how 

our regulations define signs. 

5See 20 CFR 404.1502(c) and 416.902(g) for how 

our regulations define laboratory findings. 

decision using the rules that were in 

effect at the time we issued the decision 

under review. If a court remands a claim 

for further proceedings after the 

applicable date of the ruling (March 28, 

2016), we will apply SSR 16–3p to the 

entire period in the decision we make 

after the court’s remand. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 

Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 

96.006—Supplemental Security Income.) 

Nancy A. Berryhill, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security. 

POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING 

TITLES II AND XVI: EVALUATION OF 

SYMPTOMS IN DISABILITY CLAIMS 

This SSR supersedes SSR 96–7p: 

Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and 

XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in 

Disability Claims: Assessing the 

Credibility of an Individual’s 

Statements. 

PURPOSE: 

We are rescinding SSR 96–7p: Policy 

Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI 

Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability 

Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an 

Individual’s Statements and replacing it 

with this Ruling. We solicited a study 

and recommendations from the 

Administrative Conference of the 

United States (ACUS) on the topic of 

symptom evaluation. Based on ACUS’s 

recommendations 1 and our adjudicative 

experience, we are eliminating the use 

of the term ‘‘credibility’’ from our subregulatory policy, as our regulations do 

not use this term. In doing so, we clarify 

that subjective symptom evaluation is 

not an examination of an individual’s 

character. Instead, we will more closely 

follow our regulatory language regarding 

symptom evaluation. 

Consistent with our regulations, we 

instruct our adjudicators to consider all 

of the evidence in an individual’s record 

when they evaluate the intensity and 

persistence of symptoms after they find 

that the individual has a medically 

determinable impairment(s) that could 

reasonably be expected to produce those 

symptoms. We evaluate the intensity 

and persistence of an individual’s 

symptoms so we can determine how 

symptoms limit ability to perform workrelated activities for an adult and how 

symptoms limit ability to function 

independently, appropriately, and 

effectively in an age-appropriate manner 

for a child with a title XVI disability 

claim. 

CITATIONS (AUTHORITY): 

Sections 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a)(3) 

of the Social Security Act as amended; 

Regulations no. 4, sections 404.1502, 

404.1512(d), 404.1513, 404.1520, 

404.1520c, 404.1521, 404.1526, 

404.1527, 404.1529, 404.1545 and 

404.1594; and Regulations No. 16 

sections 416.902, 416.912(d), 416.913, 

416.920, 416.920c, 416.921, 416.924(c), 

416.924a(b)(9)(ii–iii), 416.926a, 416.927, 

416.929, 416.930(c), 416.945, 416.994, 

and 416.994a. 

BACKGROUND: 

In determining whether an individual 

is disabled, we consider all of the 

individual’s symptoms, including pain, 

and the extent to which the symptoms 

can reasonably be accepted as consistent 

with the objective medical and other 

evidence in the individual’s record. We 

define a symptom as the individual’s 

own description or statement of his or 

her physical or mental impairment(s).2

Under our regulations, an individual’s 

statements of symptoms alone are not 

enough to establish the existence of a 

physical or mental impairment or 

disability. However, if an individual 

alleges impairment-related symptoms, 

we must evaluate those symptoms using 

a two-step process set forth in our 

regulations.3

First, we must consider whether there 

is an underlying medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment(s) that 

could reasonably be expected to 

produce an individual’s symptoms, 

such as pain. Second, once an 

underlying physical or mental 

impairment(s) that could reasonably be 

expected to produce an individual’s 

symptoms is established, we evaluate 

the intensity and persistence of those 

symptoms to determine the extent to 

which the symptoms limit an 

individual’s ability to perform workrelated activities for an adult or to 

function independently, appropriately, 

and effectively in an age-appropriate 

manner for a child with a title XVI 

disability claim. 

This ruling clarifies how we consider: 

• The intensity, persistence, and 

functionally limiting effects of 

symptoms, 

• Objective medical evidence when 

evaluating symptoms, 

• Other evidence when evaluating 

symptoms, 

• The factors set forth in 20 CFR 

404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), 

• The extent to which an individual’s 

symptoms affect his or her ability to 

perform work-related activities or 

function independently, appropriately, 

and effectively in an age-appropriate 

manner for a child with a title XVI 

disability claim, and 

• Adjudication standards for 

evaluating symptoms in the sequential 

evaluation process. 

POLICY INTERPRETATION: 

We use a two-step process for 

evaluating an individual’s symptoms. 

The two-step process: 

Step 1: We determine whether the 

individual has a medically determinable 

impairment (MDI) that could reasonably 

be expected to produce the individual’s 

alleged symptoms 

An individual’s symptoms, such as 

pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, 

weakness, nervousness, or periods of 

poor concentration will not be found to 

affect the ability to perform work-related 

activities for an adult or to function 

independently, appropriately, and 

effectively in an age-appropriate manner 

for a child with a title XVI disability 

claim unless medical signs or laboratory 

findings show a medically determinable 

impairment is present. Signs are 

anatomical, physiological, or 

psychological abnormalities established 

by medically acceptable clinical 

diagnostic techniques that can be 

observed apart from an individual’s 

symptoms.4 Laboratory findings are 

anatomical, physiological, or 

psychological phenomena, which can be 

shown by the use of medically 

acceptable laboratory diagnostic 

techniques.5 We call the medical 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49464 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

6See 20 CFR 404.1502(a) and 416.902(a) for a list 

of acceptable medical sources. 

7See 20 CFR 404.1521 and 416.921 for what is 

needed to show a medically determinable 

impairment. 

8By ‘‘complete medical history,’’ we mean the 

individual’s complete medical history for at least 

the 12 months preceding the month in which he or 

she filed an application, unless there is a reason to 

believe that development of an earlier period is 

necessary or the individual says that his or her 

alleged disability began less than 12 months before 

he or she filed an application. 20 CFR 

404.1512(b)(ii) and 416.912(b)(ii). 

9See 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(2) and 416.929(c)(2). 

10See 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(2) and 416.929(c)(2). 

evidence that provides signs or 

laboratory findings objective medical 

evidence. We must have objective 

medical evidence from an acceptable 

medical source 6 to establish the 

existence of a medically determinable 

impairment that could reasonably be 

expected to produce an individual’s 

alleged symptoms.7

In determining whether there is an 

underlying medically determinable 

impairment that could reasonably be 

expected to produce an individual’s 

symptoms, we do not consider whether 

the severity of an individual’s alleged 

symptoms is supported by the objective 

medical evidence. For example, if an 

individual has a medically determinable 

impairment established by a knee x-ray 

showing mild degenerative changes and 

he or she alleges extreme pain that 

limits his or her ability to stand and 

walk, we will find that individual has 

a medically determinable impairment 

that could reasonably be expected to 

produce the symptom of pain. We will 

proceed to step two of the two-step 

process, even though the level of pain 

an individual alleges may seem out of 

proportion with the objective medical 

evidence. 

In some instances, the objective 

medical evidence clearly establishes 

that an individual’s symptoms are due 

to a medically determinable 

impairment. At other times, we may 

have insufficient evidence to determine 

whether an individual has a medically 

determinable impairment that could 

potentially account for his or her alleged 

symptoms. In those instances, we 

develop evidence regarding a potential 

medically determinable impairment 

using a variety of means set forth in our 

regulations. For example, we may obtain 

additional information from the 

individual about the nature of his or her 

symptoms and their effect on 

functioning. We may request additional 

information from the individual about 

other testing or treatment he or she may 

have undergone for the symptoms. We 

may request clarifying information from 

an individual’s medical sources, or we 

may send an individual to a 

consultative examination that may 

include diagnostic testing. We may use 

our agency experts to help us determine 

whether an individual’s medically 

determinable impairment could 

reasonably be expected to produce his 

or her symptoms. At the administrative 

law judge hearing level or the Appeals 

Council level of the administrative 

review process, we may ask for and 

consider evidence from a medical or 

psychological expert to help us 

determine whether an individual’s 

medically determinable impairment 

could reasonably be expected to 

produce his or her symptoms. If an 

individual alleges symptoms, but the 

medical signs and laboratory findings 

do not substantiate any medically 

determinable impairment capable of 

producing the individual’s alleged 

symptoms, we will not evaluate the 

individual’s symptoms at step two of 

our two-step evaluation process. 

We will not find an individual 

disabled based on alleged symptoms 

alone. If there is no medically 

determinable impairment, or if there is 

a medically determinable impairment, 

but the impairment(s) could not 

reasonably be expected to produce the 

individual’s symptoms, we will not find 

those symptoms affect the ability to 

perform work-related activities for an 

adult or ability to function 

independently, appropriately, and 

effectively in an age-appropriate manner 

for a child with a title XVI disability 

claim. 

Step 2: We evaluate the intensity and 

persistence of an individual’s symptoms 

such as pain and determine the extent 

to which an individual’s symptoms limit 

his or her ability to perform workrelated activities for an adult or to 

function independently, appropriately, 

and effectively in an age-appropriate 

manner for a child with a title XVI 

disability claim. 

Once the existence of a medically 

determinable impairment that could 

reasonably be expected to produce pain 

or other symptoms is established, we 

recognize that some individuals may 

experience symptoms differently and 

may be limited by symptoms to a greater 

or lesser extent than other individuals 

with the same medical impairments, the 

same objective medical evidence, and 

the same non-medical evidence. In 

considering the intensity, persistence, 

and limiting effects of an individual’s 

symptoms, we examine the entire case 

record, including the objective medical 

evidence; an individual’s statements 

about the intensity, persistence, and 

limiting effects of symptoms; statements 

and other information provided by 

medical sources and other persons; and 

any other relevant evidence in the 

individual’s case record. 

We will not evaluate an individual’s 

symptoms without making every 

reasonable effort to obtain a complete 

medical history 8 unless the evidence 

supports a finding that the individual is 

disabled. We will not evaluate an 

individual’s symptoms based solely on 

objective medical evidence unless that 

objective medical evidence supports a 

finding that the individual is disabled. 

We will evaluate an individual’s 

symptoms based on the evidence in an 

individual’s record as described below; 

however, not all of the types of evidence 

described below will be available or 

relevant in every case. 

1. Consideration of Objective Medical 

Evidence 

Symptoms cannot always be 

measured objectively through clinical or 

laboratory diagnostic techniques. 

However, objective medical evidence is 

a useful indicator to help make 

reasonable conclusions about the 

intensity and persistence of symptoms, 

including the effects those symptoms 

may have on the ability to perform 

work-related activities for an adult or to 

function independently, appropriately, 

and effectively in an age-appropriate 

manner for a child with a title XVI 

claim.9 We must consider whether an 

individual’s statements about the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of his or her symptoms are 

consistent with the medical signs and 

laboratory findings of record. 

The intensity, persistence, and 

limiting effects of many symptoms can 

be clinically observed and recorded in 

the medical evidence. Examples such as 

reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, 

sensory deficit, and motor disruption 

illustrate findings that may result from, 

or be associated with, the symptom of 

pain.10 These findings may be 

consistent with an individual’s 

statements about symptoms and their 

functional effects. However, when the 

results of tests are not consistent with 

other evidence in the record, they may 

be less supportive of an individual’s 

statements about pain or other 

symptoms than test results and 

statements that are consistent with other 

evidence in the record. 

For example, an individual with 

reduced muscle strength testing who 

indicates that for the last year pain has 

limited his or her standing and walking 

to no more than a few minutes a day 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49465 

11See 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929. 

12See 20 CFR 404.1513 and 416.913. 

13See 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3) 

14See 20 CFR 416.924a(a)(2). 

15For claims filed before March 27, 2017, our 

adjudicators will apply the rules in 20 CFR 

404.1527 and 416.927. 

16See 20 C.F.R. 404.1520c and 416.902c for 

claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. See 20 CFR 

404.1527 and 416.927 for claims filed before March 

27, 2017. 

would be expected to have some signs 

of muscle wasting as a result. If no 

muscle wasting were present, we might 

not, depending on the other evidence in 

the record, find the individual’s reduced 

muscle strength on clinical testing to be 

consistent with the individual’s alleged 

impairment-related symptoms. 

However, we will not disregard an 

individual’s statements about the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of symptoms solely because the 

objective medical evidence does not 

substantiate the degree of impairmentrelated symptoms alleged by the 

individual.11 A report of minimal or 

negative findings or inconsistencies in 

the objective medical evidence is one of 

the many factors we must consider in 

evaluating the intensity, persistence, 

and limiting effects of an individual’s 

symptoms. 

2. Consideration of Other Evidence 

If we cannot make a disability 

determination or decision that is fully 

favorable based solely on objective 

medical evidence, then we carefully 

consider other evidence in the record in 

reaching a conclusion about the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of an individual’s symptoms. 

Other evidence that we will consider 

includes statements from the individual, 

medical sources, and any other sources 

that might have information about the 

individual’s symptoms, including 

agency personnel, as well as the factors 

set forth in our regulations.12 For 

example, for a child with a title XVI 

disability claim, we will consider 

evidence submitted from educational 

agencies and personnel, statements from 

parents and other relatives, and 

evidence submitted by social welfare 

agencies, therapists, and other 

practitioners.13

a. The Individual 

An individual may make statements 

about the intensity, persistence, and 

limiting effects of his or her symptoms. 

If a child with a title XVI disability 

claim is unable to describe his or her 

symptoms adequately, we will accept a 

description of his or her symptoms from 

the person most familiar with the child, 

such as a parent, another relative, or a 

guardian.14 For an adult whose 

impairment prevents him or her from 

describing symptoms adequately, we 

may also consider a description of his 

or her symptoms from a person who is 

familiar with the individual. 

An individual may make statements 

about symptoms directly to medical 

sources, other sources, or he or she may 

make them directly to us. An individual 

may have made statements about 

symptoms in connection with claims for 

other types of disability benefits such as 

workers’ compensation, benefits under 

programs of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, or private insurance benefits. 

An individual’s statements may 

address the frequency and duration of 

the symptoms, the location of the 

symptoms, and the impact of the 

symptoms on the ability to perform 

daily living activities. An individual’s 

statements may also include activities 

that precipitate or aggravate the 

symptoms, medications and treatments 

used, and other methods used to 

alleviate the symptoms. We will 

consider an individual’s statements 

about the intensity, persistence, and 

limiting effects of symptoms, and we 

will evaluate whether the statements are 

consistent with objective medical 

evidence and the other evidence. 

b. Medical Sources 

Medical sources may offer diagnoses, 

prognoses, and opinions as well as 

statements and medical reports about an 

individual’s history, treatment, 

responses to treatment, prior work 

record, efforts to work, daily activities, 

and other information concerning the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of an individual’s symptoms. 

Important information about 

symptoms recorded by medical sources 

and reported in the medical evidence 

may include, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

• Onset, description of the character 

and location of the symptoms, 

precipitating and aggravating factors, 

frequency and duration, change over a 

period of time (e.g., whether worsening, 

improving, or static), and daily 

activities. Very often, the individual has 

provided this information to the 

medical source, and the information 

may be compared with the individual’s 

other statements in the case record. In 

addition, the evidence provided by a 

medical source may contain medical 

opinions about the individual’s 

symptoms and their effects. Our 

adjudicators will consider such 

opinions by applying the factors in 20 

CFR 404.1520c and 416.920c.15

• A longitudinal record of any 

treatment and its success or failure, 

including any side effects of medication. 

• Indications of other impairments, 

such as potential mental impairments, 

that could account for an individual’s 

allegations. 

Medical evidence from medical 

sources that have not treated or 

examined the individual is also 

important in the adjudicator’s 

evaluation of an individual’s statements 

about pain or other symptoms. For 

example, State agency medical and 

psychological consultants and other 

program physicians and psychologists 

may offer findings about the existence 

and severity of an individual’s 

symptoms. We will consider these 

findings in evaluating the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of the 

individual’s symptoms. Adjudicators at 

the hearing level or at the Appeals 

Council level must consider the findings 

from these medical sources even though 

they are not bound by them.16

c. Non-Medical Sources 

Other sources may provide 

information from which we may draw 

inferences and conclusions about an 

individual’s statements that would be 

helpful to us in assessing the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of 

symptoms. Examples of such sources 

include public and private agencies, 

other practitioners, educational 

personnel, non-medical sources such as 

family and friends, and agency 

personnel. We will consider any 

statements in the record noted by 

agency personnel who previously 

interviewed the individual, whether in 

person or by telephone. The adjudicator 

will consider any personal observations 

of the individual in terms of how 

consistent those observations are with 

the individual’s statements about his or 

her symptoms as well as with all of the 

evidence in the file. 

d. Factors To Consider in Evaluating the 

Intensity, Persistence, and Limiting 

Effects of an Individual’s Symptoms 

In addition to using all of the 

evidence to evaluate the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of an 

individual’s symptoms, we will also use 

the factors set forth in 20 CFR 

404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). These 

factors include: 

1. Daily activities; 

2. The location, duration, frequency, 

and intensity of pain or other 

symptoms; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49466 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

17See 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4). 18See 20 CFR 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c). 

3. Factors that precipitate and 

aggravate the symptoms; 

4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and 

side effects of any medication an 

individual takes or has taken to alleviate 

pain or other symptoms; 

5. Treatment, other than medication, 

an individual receives or has received 

for relief of pain or other symptoms; 

6. Any measures other than treatment 

an individual uses or has used to relieve 

pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat 

on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 

minutes every hour, or sleeping on a 

board); and 

7. Any other factors concerning an 

individual’s functional limitations and 

restrictions due to pain or other 

symptoms. 

We will consider other evidence to 

evaluate only the factors that are 

relevant to assessing the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of the 

individual’s symptoms. If there is no 

information in the evidence of record 

regarding one of the factors, we will not 

discuss that specific factor in the 

determination or decision because it is 

not relevant to the case. We will discuss 

the factors pertinent to the evidence of 

record. 

How We Will Determine if an 

Individual’s Symptoms Affect the 

Ability To Perform Work-Related 

Activities for an Adult, or AgeAppropriate Activities for a Child With 

a Title XVI Disability Claim 

If an individual’s statements about the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of symptoms are consistent with 

the objective medical evidence and the 

other evidence of record, we will 

determine that the individual’s 

symptoms are more likely to reduce his 

or her capacities to perform workrelated activities for an adult or reduce 

a child’s ability to function 

independently, appropriately, and 

effectively in an age-appropriate manner 

for a child with a title XVI disability 

claim.17 In contrast, if an individual’s 

statements about the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of 

symptoms are inconsistent with the 

objective medical evidence and the 

other evidence, we will determine that 

the individual’s symptoms are less 

likely to reduce his or her capacities to 

perform work-related activities or 

abilities to function independently, 

appropriately, and effectively in an ageappropriate manner. 

We may or may not find an 

individual’s symptoms and related 

limitations consistent with the evidence 

in his or her record. We will explain 

which of an individual’s symptoms we 

found consistent or inconsistent with 

the evidence in his or her record and 

how our evaluation of the individual’s 

symptoms led to our conclusions. We 

will evaluate an individual’s symptoms 

considering all the evidence in his or 

her record. 

In determining whether an 

individual’s symptoms will reduce his 

or her corresponding capacities to 

perform work-related activities or 

abilities to function independently, 

appropriately, and effectively in an ageappropriate manner, we will consider 

the consistency of the individual’s own 

statements. To do so, we will compare 

statements an individual makes in 

connection with the individual’s claim 

for disability benefits with any existing 

statements the individual made under 

other circumstances. 

We will consider statements an 

individual made to us at each prior step 

of the administrative review process, as 

well as statements the individual made 

in any subsequent or prior disability 

claims under titles II and XVI. If an 

individual’s various statements about 

the intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of symptoms are consistent with 

one another and consistent with the 

objective medical evidence and other 

evidence in the record, we will 

determine that an individual’s 

symptoms are more likely to reduce his 

or her capacities for work-related 

activities or reduce the abilities to 

function independently, appropriately, 

and effectively in an age-appropriate 

manner. However, inconsistencies in an 

individual’s statements made at varying 

times does not necessarily mean they 

are inaccurate. Symptoms may vary in 

their intensity, persistence, and 

functional effects, or may worsen or 

improve with time. This may explain 

why an individual’s statements vary 

when describing the intensity, 

persistence, or functional effects of 

symptoms. 

We will consider an individual’s 

attempts to seek medical treatment for 

symptoms and to follow treatment once 

it is prescribed when evaluating 

whether symptom intensity and 

persistence affect the ability to perform 

work-related activities for an adult or 

the ability to function independently, 

appropriately, and effectively in an ageappropriate manner for a child with a 

title XVI disability claim. Persistent 

attempts to obtain relief of symptoms, 

such as increasing dosages and changing 

medications, trying a variety of 

treatments, referrals to specialists, or 

changing treatment sources may be an 

indication that an individual’s 

symptoms are a source of distress and 

may show that they are intense and 

persistent.18

In contrast, if the frequency or extent 

of the treatment sought by an individual 

is not comparable with the degree of the 

individual’s subjective complaints, or if 

the individual fails to follow prescribed 

treatment that might improve 

symptoms, we may find the alleged 

intensity and persistence of an 

individual’s symptoms are inconsistent 

with the overall evidence of record. We 

will not find an individual’s symptoms 

inconsistent with the evidence in the 

record on this basis without considering 

possible reasons he or she may not 

comply with treatment or seek treatment 

consistent with the degree of his or her 

complaints. We may need to contact the 

individual regarding the lack of 

treatment or, at an administrative 

proceeding, ask why he or she has not 

complied with or sought treatment in a 

manner consistent with his or her 

complaints. When we consider the 

individual’s treatment history, we may 

consider (but are not limited to) one or 

more of the following: 

• An individual may have structured 

his or her activities to minimize 

symptoms to a tolerable level by 

avoiding physical activities or mental 

stressors that aggravate his or her 

symptoms. 

• An individual may receive periodic 

treatment or evaluation for refills of 

medications because his or her 

symptoms have reached a plateau. 

• An individual may not agree to take 

prescription medications because the 

side effects are less tolerable than the 

symptoms. 

• An individual may not be able to 

afford treatment and may not have 

access to free or low-cost medical 

services. 

• A medical source may have advised 

the individual that there is no further 

effective treatment to prescribe or 

recommend that would benefit the 

individual. 

• An individual’s symptoms may not 

be severe enough to prompt him or her 

to seek treatment, or the symptoms may 

be relieved with over the counter 

medications. 

• An individual’s religious beliefs 

may prohibit prescribed treatment. 

• Due to various limitations (such as 

language or mental limitations), an 

individual may not understand the 

appropriate treatment for or the need for 

consistent treatment of his or her 

impairment. 

• Due to a mental impairment (for 

example, individuals with mental 

impairments that affect judgment, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49467 

19See 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920. For 

continuing disability, see 404.1594, 416.994 and 

416.994a. 20See 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and 

416.920(a)(4)(ii). 21See 20 CFR 416.924(c). 

22See 20 CFR 416.920(c) for adults and 

416.924(c) for children. 

23See 20 CFR 404.1529(d)(2) and 416.929(d)(2). 

24See 20 CFR 404.1529(d)(3) and 416.929(d)(3). 

reality testing, or orientation), an 

individual may not be aware that he or 

she has a disorder that requires 

treatment. 

• A child may disregard the level and 

frequency of treatment needed to 

maintain or improve functioning 

because it interferes with his or her 

participation in activities typical of 

other children his or her age without 

impairments. 

The above examples illustrate 

possible reasons an individual may not 

have pursued treatment. However, we 

will consider and address reasons for 

not pursuing treatment that are 

pertinent to an individual’s case. We 

will review the case record to determine 

whether there are explanations for 

inconsistencies in the individual’s 

statements about symptoms and their 

effects, and whether the evidence of 

record supports any of the individual’s 

statements at the time he or she made 

them. We will explain how we 

considered the individual’s reasons in 

our evaluation of the individual’s 

symptoms. 

Adjudication—How we will use our 

evaluation of symptoms in our five-step 

sequential evaluation process to 

determine whether an individual is 

disabled 

In evaluating an individual’s 

symptoms, it is not sufficient for our 

adjudicators to make a single, 

conclusory statement that ‘‘the 

individual’s statements about his or her 

symptoms have been considered’’ or 

that ‘‘the statements about the 

individual’s symptoms are (or are not) 

supported or consistent.’’ It is also not 

enough for our adjudicators simply to 

recite the factors described in the 

regulations for evaluating symptoms. 

The determination or decision must 

contain specific reasons for the weight 

given to the individual’s symptoms, be 

consistent with and supported by the 

evidence, and be clearly articulated so 

the individual and any subsequent 

reviewer can assess how the adjudicator 

evaluated the individual’s symptoms. 

Our adjudicators must base their 

findings solely on the evidence in the 

case record, including any testimony 

from the individual or other witnesses 

at a hearing before an administrative 

law judge or hearing officer. The 

subjective statements of the individual 

and witnesses obtained at a hearing 

should directly relate to symptoms the 

individual alleged. Our adjudicators are 

prohibited from soliciting additional 

non-medical evidence outside of the 

record on their own, except as set forth 

in our regulations and policies. 

Adjudicators must limit their 

evaluation to the individual’s 

statements about his or her symptoms 

and the evidence in the record that is 

relevant to the individual’s 

impairments. In evaluating an 

individual’s symptoms, our adjudicators 

will not assess an individual’s overall 

character or truthfulness in the manner 

typically used during an adversarial 

court litigation. The focus of the 

evaluation of an individual’s symptoms 

should not be to determine whether he 

or she is a truthful person. Rather, our 

adjudicators will focus on whether the 

evidence establishes a medically 

determinable impairment that could 

reasonably be expected to produce the 

individual’s symptoms and given the 

adjudicator’s evaluation of the 

individual’s symptoms, whether the 

intensity and persistence of the 

symptoms limit the individual’s ability 

to perform work-related activities or, for 

a child with a title XVI disability claim, 

limit the child’s ability to function 

independently, appropriately, and 

effectively in an age-appropriate 

manner. 

In determining whether an individual 

is disabled or continues to be disabled, 

our adjudicators follow a sequential 

evaluation process.19 The first step of 

our five-step sequential evaluation 

process considers whether an individual 

is performing substantial gainful 

activity. If the individual is performing 

substantial gainful activity, we find him 

or her not disabled. If the individual is 

not performing substantial gainful 

activity, we proceed to step 2. We do 

not consider symptoms at the first step 

of the sequential evaluation process. 

At step 2 of the sequential evaluation 

process, we determine whether an 

individual has a severe medically 

determinable physical or mental 

impairment or combination of 

impairments that has lasted or can be 

expected to last for a continuous period 

of at least 12 months or end in death.20

A severe impairment is one that affects 

an individual’s ability to perform basic 

work-related activities for an adult or 

that causes more than minimal 

functional limitations for a child with a 

title XVI disability claim.21 At this step, 

we will consider an individual’s 

symptoms and functional limitations to 

determine whether his or her 

impairment(s) is severe unless the 

objective medical evidence alone 

establishes a severe medically 

determinable impairment or 

combination of impairments that meets 

our duration requirement.22 If an 

individual does not have a severe 

medically determinable impairment that 

meets our duration requirement, we will 

find the individual not disabled at step 

2. If the individual has a severe 

medically determinable impairment that 

has met or is expected to meet our 

duration requirement, we proceed to the 

next step. 

At step 3 of the sequential evaluation 

process, we determine whether an 

individual’s impairment(s) meets or 

medically equals the severity 

requirements of a listed impairment. To 

decide whether the impairment meets 

the level of severity described in a listed 

impairment, we will consider an 

individual’s symptoms when a 

symptom(s) is one of the criteria in a 

listing to ensure the symptom is present 

in combination with the other criteria. 

If the symptom is not one of the criteria 

in a listing, we will not evaluate an 

individual’s symptoms at this step as 

long as all other findings required by the 

specific listing are present. Unless the 

listing states otherwise, it is not 

necessary to provide information about 

the intensity, persistence, or limiting 

effects of a symptom as long as all other 

findings required by the specific listing 

are present.23 In considering whether an 

individual’s symptoms, signs, and 

laboratory findings are medically equal 

to the symptoms, signs, and laboratory 

findings of a listed impairment, we will 

look to see whether the symptoms, 

signs, and laboratory findings are at 

least equal in severity to the listed 

criteria. However, we will not substitute 

the individual’s allegations of pain or 

other symptoms for a missing or 

deficient sign or laboratory finding to 

raise the severity of the impairment(s) to 

that of a listed impairment.24 If an 

individual’s impairment meets or 

medically equals the severity 

requirements of a listing, we find him or 

her disabled. If an individual’s 

impairment does not meet or medically 

equal a listing, we proceed to assess the 

individual’s residual functional capacity 

at step 4 of the sequential evaluation 

process unless the individual is a child 

with a title XVI disability claim. 

For a child with a title XVI disability 

claim whose impairment does not meet 

or medically equal the severity 

requirements of a listing, we consider 

whether his or her impairment 

functionally equals the listings. This 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49468 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

25See 20 CFR 416.926a. 

26See 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. 

27Our adjudicators will apply this ruling when 

we make determinations and decisions on or after 

March 28, 2016. When a Federal court reviews our 

final decision in a claim, we expect the court will 

review the final decision using the rules that were 

in effect at the time we issued the decision under 

review. If a court finds reversible error and remands 

a case for further administrative proceedings after 

March 28, 2016, the applicable date of this ruling, 

we will apply this ruling to the entire period at 

issue in the decision we make after the court’s 

remand. Our regulations on evaluating symptoms 

are unchanged. 

means that the impairment results in 

‘‘marked’’ limitations in two out of six 

domains of functioning or an ‘‘extreme’’ 

limitation in one of the six domains.25

We will evaluate an individual’s 

symptoms at this step when we rate 

how a child’s impairment-related 

symptoms affect his or her ability to 

function independently, appropriately, 

and effectively in an age-appropriate 

manner in each functional domain. If a 

child’s impairment functionally equals a 

listing, we find him or her disabled. If 

a child’s impairment does not 

functionally equal the listings, we find 

him or her not disabled. For a child 

with a title XVI disability claim, the 

sequential evaluation process ends at 

this step. 

If the individual’s impairment does 

not meet or equal a listing, we will 

assess and make a finding about an 

individual’s residual functional capacity 

based on all the relevant medical and 

other evidence in the individual’s case 

record. An individual’s residual 

functional capacity is the most the 

individual can still do despite his or her 

impairment-related limitations. We 

consider the individual’s symptoms 

when determining his or her residual 

functional capacity and the extent to 

which the individual’s impairmentrelated symptoms are consistent with 

the evidence in the record.26

After establishing the residual 

functional capacity, we determine 

whether an individual is able to do any 

past relevant work. At step 4, we 

compare the individual’s residual 

functional capacity with the 

requirements of his or her past relevant 

work. If the individual’s residual 

functional capacity is consistent with 

the demands of any of his or her past 

relevant work, either as the individual 

performed it or as the occupation is 

generally performed in the national 

economy, then we will find the 

individual not disabled. If none of the 

individual’s past relevant work is 

within his or her residual functional 

capacity, we proceed to step 5 of the 

sequential evaluation process. 

At step 5 of the sequential evaluation 

process, we determine whether the 

individual is able to adjust to other 

work that exists in significant numbers 

in the national economy. We consider 

the same residual functional capacity, 

together with the individual’s age, 

education, and past work experience. If 

the individual is able to adjust to other 

work that exists in significant numbers 

in the national economy, we will find 

him or her not disabled. If the 

individual cannot adjust to other work 

that exists in significant numbers in the 

national economy, we find him or her 

disabled. At step 5 of the sequential 

evaluation process, we will not consider 

an individual’s symptoms any further 

because we considered the individual’s 

symptoms when we determined the 

individual’s residual functional 

capacity. 

This SSR is applicable on MARCH 28, 

2016.27

CROSS-REFERENCES: SSR 96–8p, 

‘‘Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual 

Functional Capacity in Initial Claims,’’ 

and Program Operations Manual 

System, section DI 24515.064. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23143 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Delegation of Authority: 439] 

Delegation to the Assistant Secretary 

for Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs of 

Authorities for International Fisheries 

Organizations and Related Issues 

By virtue of the authority vested in 

the Secretary of State, including Section 

1 of the State Department Basic 

Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 

2651a), I hereby delegate to the 

Assistant Secretary for Oceans and 

International Environmental and 

Scientific Affairs the following: 

1. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Northwest Atlantic 

Fisheries Convention Act of 1995, 16 

U.S.C. 5603 and 5607(a). 

2. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act, 16 U.S.C. 6902(b), 

(d)(1)(D), 6903, and 6908. 

3. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the North Pacific 

Anadromous Stocks Act of 1992, 16 

U.S.C. 5003(b), 5004(a)(4), 5005, and 

5006(b). 

4. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by section 5 of Public 

Law 100–629, November 7, 1988, 

relating to the North Pacific and Bering 

Sea Fisheries Advisory Body. 

5. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the South Pacific Tuna Act 

of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 973a; 973b, 973f(a) 

and (e); 973g(b) and (g); 973h(a), (b)(1), 

(c)(1), and (c)(2); 973i(a) and (b); 973m; 

973n; 973p; and 973q. 

6. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1821(e)(1) and (2), 1821(g), 1824, 

1825(a), 1825(b)(2), 1825(c), 

1852(c)(1)(D), and 1852(f)(5). 

7. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by section 7 of Public 

Law 95–541, the Antarctic Conservation 

Act (16 U.S.C. 2406). 

8. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by sections 304 and 

305(a), (b), and (c) of Public Law 98– 

623, the Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 

2433 and 2434(a), (b), and (c)). 

9. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 971a(b); 

971b(b)(3) and (b)(4)(B); 971c(a); 

971d(a), (c)(4) and (c)(5); and 971g(a). 

10. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the Great Lakes 

Fishery Act, 16 U.S.C. 939. 

11. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the Atlantic 

Salmon Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 

3602(b), 3603, and 3604(b). 

12. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by of the relevant 

provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. 3632(b), (g), and 

(h)(8); and 3633(a) and (b). 

13. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the Yukon River 

Salmon Act of 2000, 16 U.S.C. 5721. 

14. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Tuna Conventions Act 

of 1950, 16 U.S.C. 952, 953(a)(2), and 

955. 

15. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by of the relevant 

provisions of the Whaling Convention 

Act of 1949, 16 U.S.C. 916a and 916b. 

16. The functions vested in the 

Secretary of State by the relevant 

provisions of the Northern Pacific 

Halibut Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 773a(b), 

773b, and 773c(b)(2). 

17. All functions, with respect to 

oceans and fisheries matters, conferred 

upon the Secretary of State by section 

201 of Public Law 92–471 of October 9, 

1972 (22 U.S.C. 2672a), regarding the 

designation of alternate U.S. 

commissioners. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES