1006 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

1See sections 202(d)(1)(B)(ii), (e)(1)(B)(ii), 

(f)(1)(B)(ii), 223(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 

402(d)(1)(B)(ii), (e)(1)(B)(ii), (f)(1)(B)(ii), 423(a). 

2Section 1611(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1382(a). 

3See sections 223(d)(1)(A), 1614(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). 

4See sections 223(d)(2)(A), 1614(a)(3)(B) of the 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). 

5 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4). 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r, 2601– 

2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352. 

§ 35.37 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 35.37 by redesignating 

paragraph (c)(5) as (c)(7) and adding 

new paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) to read 

as follows: 

§ 35.37 Market power analysis required. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) In lieu of submitting the indicative 

market power screens, Sellers studying 

regional transmission organization 

(RTO) or independent system operator 

(ISO) markets that operate RTO/ISOadministered energy, ancillary services, 

and capacity markets may state that they 

are relying on Commission-approved 

market monitoring and mitigation to 

address potential horizontal market 

power Sellers may have in those 

markets. 

(6) In lieu of submitting the indicative 

market power screens, Sellers studying 

RTO or ISO markets that operate RTO/ 

ISO-administered energy and ancillary 

services markets, but not capacity 

markets, may state that they are relying 

on Commission-approved market 

monitoring and mitigation to address 

potential horizontal market power that 

Sellers may have in energy and ancillary 

services. However, Sellers studying 

such RTOs/ISOs would need to submit 

indicative market power screens if they 

wish to obtain market-based rate 

authority for wholesale sales of capacity 

in these markets. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2019–00459 Filed 1–31–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2017–0046] 

RIN 0960–AH86 

Removing Inability To Communicate in 

English as an Education Category 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to eliminate the 

education category ‘‘inability to 

communicate in English’’ when we 

evaluate disability claims for adults 

under titles II and XVI of the Social 

Security Act (Act). Changes in the 

national workforce since we added this 

category to our rules in 1978 

demonstrate that this education category 

is no longer a reliable indicator of an 

individual’s educational attainment or 

the vocational impact of an individual’s 

education. The proposed revisions 

reflect research and data related to 

English language proficiency, work, and 

education; expansion of the 

international reach of our disability 

programs; and audit findings by our 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG). 

The proposed revisions would help us 

better assess the vocational impact of 

education in the disability 

determination process. 

DATES: To ensure that your comments 

are considered, we must receive them 

by no later than April 2, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of three methods—internet, 

fax, or mail. Do not submit the same 

comments multiple times or by more 

than one method. Regardless of which 

method you choose, please state that 

your comments refer to Docket No. 

SSA–2017–0046 so that we may 

associate your comments with the 

correct regulation. CAUTION: You 

should be careful to include in your 

comments only information you wish to 

make publicly available. We strongly 

urge you not to include in your 

comments any personal information, 

such as Social Security numbers or 

medical information. 

1. Internet: We strongly recommend 

that you submit your comments via the 

internet. Please visit the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Use the web 

page’s ‘‘Search’’ function to find docket 

number SSA–2017–0046 and then 

submit your comment. The system will 

issue a tracking number to confirm your 

submission. You will not be able to 

view your comment immediately 

because we must post each comment 

manually. It may take up to a week for 

your comment to be viewable. 

2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966– 

2830. 

3. Mail: Address your comments to 

Office of Regulations and Reports 

Clearance, Social Security 

Administration, 3100 West High Rise 

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401. 

Comments and background 

documents are available for public 

viewing on the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov or 

in person, during regular business 

hours, by arranging with the contact 

person identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

O’Brien, Office of Disability Policy, 

Social Security Administration, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21235–6401, (410) 597–1632. 

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: 

Background 

Current Disability Rules for Adults 

Title II of the Act provides for the 

payment of disability insurance benefits 

to fully insured individuals under the 

Act. Title II also provides for the 

payment of child’s insurance benefits 

for individuals who become disabled 

before attaining age 22, and for the 

payment of widow’s and widower’s 

insurance benefits for disabled widows, 

widowers, and surviving divorced 

spouses of insured individuals.1 In 

addition, title XVI of the Act provides 

for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 

payments to eligible individuals who 

are aged, blind, or disabled and have 

limited income and resources.2

For adults (including individuals 

claiming child’s insurance benefits 

based on disability under title II), the 

Act defines ‘‘disability’’ under both 

titles II and XVI as the inability to 

engage in any substantial gainful 

activity by reason of any medically 

determinable physical or mental 

impairment which can be expected to 

result in death or which has lasted or 

can be expected to last for a continuous 

period of not less than 12 months.3

In many cases, the Act requires us to 

consider an adult claimant’s education 

when we determine whether or not he 

or she is disabled. The Act states that an 

adult shall be determined to be under a 

disability only if his physical or mental 

impairment(s) are of such severity that 

he is not only unable to do his previous 

work but cannot, considering his age, 

education, and work experience, engage 

in any other kind of substantial gainful 

work which exists in the national 

economy, regardless of whether such 

work exists in the immediate area in 

which he lives, whether a specific job 

vacancy exists for him, or whether he 

would be hired if he applied for work.4

We use a five-step sequential 

evaluation process to determine 

whether an adult is disabled based on 

this statutory definition.5 If we are 

unable to find an individual disabled or 

not disabled at a given step, we proceed 

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 1007 

6 Id. At the first step, we consider the individual’s 

work activity, if any. If the individual is doing 

substantial gainful activity, we will find the 

individual not disabled. At the second step, we 

consider the medical severity of the individual’s 

impairment(s). If the individual does not have a 

severe medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment that meets the duration requirement, or 

a combination of impairments that is severe and 

meets the duration requirement, we will find the 

individual not disabled. At the third step, we also 

consider the medical severity of the impairment(s). 

If the individual has an impairment(s) that meets 

or equals one of our listings in 20 CFR part 404, 

subpart P Appendix 1 and meets the duration 

requirement, we will find the individual is 

disabled. If the individual is found not disabled at 

the third step, we consider our assessment of the 

individual’s residual functional capacity and his or 

her past relevant work at the fourth step. If the 

individual can still do his or her past relevant work, 

we will find that the individual is not disabled. At 

the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment 

of the individual’s residual functional capacity and 

his or her age, education, and work experience to 

see if the individual can make an adjustment to 

other work. If so, we will find that the individual 

is not disabled. If the individual cannot make an 

adjustment to other work, we will find the 

individual disabled. See 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4) and 

416.920(a)(4). 

7See 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. 

8See 20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g). 

9 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and 416.920(a)(4)(v). 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 20 CFR 404.1560(c) and 416.960(c). 

13 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. 

14See 20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964. 

15See 20 CFR 404.1564(a) and 416.964(a). 

16 Id. 

17See 20 CFR 404.1564(b) and 416.964(b). 

18 Id. 

19See 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(1)–(5) and 

416.964(b)(1)–(5). 

20See 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(4) and 416.964(b)(4). 

21See 20 CFR 404, Subpart P Appendix 2, rules 

201.00(d) and (g), and Tables No. 1, 2, and 3. 

22See 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(3) and 416.964(b)(3). 

23See 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(2) and 416.964(b)(2). 

24See 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(1) and 416.964(b)(1). 

25See 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(5) and 416.964(b)(5). 

26This policy dates to 1978. See 43 FR 55349 

(1978) (codified at 20 CFR 404.1507, 416.907 

(1979)). Prior to that time, our rules did not 

specifically address the inability to communicate in 

English as a vocational factor. See 20 CFR 

404.1502(e) and 416.902(e) (1978). Rather, since 

1960, 25 FR 8100, 8101 (1960) (codified at 20 CFR 

404.1502(e) (1961)), the rules provided that 

education and training are factors in determining an 

individual’s employment capacity, that a lack of 

formal schooling was not necessarily proof that an 

individual is uneducated, and that the kinds of 

responsibilities an individual had while working 

may indicate an ability to do more than unskilled 

work, even though an individual’s formal education 

has been limited. 

27See 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(5) and 416.964(b)(5). 

to the next step.6 If we proceed to the 

fifth and final step, we consider the 

individual’s residual functional capacity 

(RFC), which is the most the individual 

can still do despite his or her 

limitations,7 together with the 

individual’s vocational factors of age, 

education, and work experience,8 to 

determine if the individual can make an 

adjustment to perform other work 

previously not performed.9 We find 

individuals to be disabled if they cannot 

make an adjustment to perform other 

work.10 We find individuals not 

disabled if they can make an adjustment 

to perform other work.11 Other work 

that individuals can adjust to must exist 

in significant numbers in the national 

economy.12 At the final step of our 

sequential evaluation process, we use 

the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (grid 

rules) to administer the Act’s definition 

of disability and direct or guide 

determinations and decisions about 

whether individuals are disabled.13 The 

education category ‘‘inability to 

communicate in English’’ is 

administered through the grid rules. 

Current Policy for Education as a 

Vocational Factor 

In this NPRM, we propose to 

eliminate the education category of 

‘‘inability to communicate in English’’ 

from step five of the disability 

sequential evaluation process. Instead, 

we would consider an individual’s 

education using the other current 

education categories of high school 

education and above, marginal 

education, limited education, and 

illiteracy. 

Our current rules explain how we 

evaluate the vocational factor of 

education.14 Education is primarily 

used to mean formal schooling or other 

training that contributes to an 

individual’s ability to meet the 

vocational requirements of work, such 

as reasoning ability, communication 

skills, and arithmetic ability.15

However, a lack of formal schooling 

does not necessarily mean that an 

individual is uneducated or does not 

have reasoning, communication, and 

arithmetic abilities. Past work 

experience and the kind of 

responsibilities an individual had when 

they were working, daily activities, 

hobbies, or results of testing may show 

that the individual has significant 

intellectual ability that can be used to 

work.16

Generally, we will use individuals’ 

highest completed numerical grade level 

to determine the education category.17

However, we may adjust an individual’s 

education category if there is evidence 

that his or her educational abilities are 

higher or lower than the numerical 

grade level completed in school.18 We 

discuss the categories that examine such 

evidence below. 

We currently use five categories of 

education: High school education and 

above, marginal education, limited 

education, illiteracy, and inability to 

communicate in English.19 These 

categories of education are organized 

into four levels in the grid rules: High 

school graduate or more; limited or less; 

marginal or none; and illiterate or 

unable to communicate in English. 

High school education and above 

means abilities in reasoning, arithmetic, 

and language skills acquired through 

formal schooling at a 12th grade level or 

above.20 We generally consider that 

someone with these educational 

abilities can do semi-skilled through 

skilled work. For individuals in this 

category, we also consider whether 

there is recently completed education 

that provides for direct entry into 

skilled work. If they recently completed 

education allowing for direct entry into 

skilled work and are able to perform the 

work for which they received the 

education, we do not consider them to 

be disabled.21

Limited education means ability in 

reasoning, arithmetic, and language 

skills, but not enough to allow a person 

with these educational qualifications to 

do most of the more complex job duties 

needed in semi-skilled or skilled jobs.22

We generally consider an individual 

with a 7th grade through the 11th grade 

level of formal education to have a 

limited education. 

Marginal education means ability in 

reasoning, arithmetic, and language 

skills needed to do simple, unskilled 

jobs.23 We generally consider an 

individual with formal schooling at a 

6th grade level or less to have a 

marginal education. 

Illiteracy means the inability to read 

or write.24 We consider an individual 

illiterate if he or she cannot read or 

write a simple message, such as 

instructions or inventory lists, even 

though the individual can sign his or 

her name. Generally, we expect an 

illiterate individual to have little or no 

formal schooling. 

Our rules explain that we consider 

inability to communicate in English an 

education category because the ability to 

speak, read, and understand English is 

generally learned or increased in 

school.25 Our current rules further 

explain that because English is the 

dominant language of this country, it 

may be difficult for someone who does 

not speak and understand English to do 

a job, regardless of the amount of 

education he or she may have in another 

language.26 Therefore, under our current 

rules, we consider an individual’s 

ability to communicate in English when 

we evaluate what work, if any, he or she 

can do. We do not consider fluency in 

other languages.27

Based on the organization of 

education categories in the current grid 

rules, an individual who is unable to 

1008 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

28See 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(5) and 416.964(b)(5). 

29See 20 CFR 404, Subpart P Appendix 2, Table 

No. 1. 

30See 20 CFR 404, Subpart P Appendix, rule 

201.00(h)(2). 

31See 20 CFR 404, Subpart P Appendix 2, rules 

201(h)(4)(i) and 202(g). 

32Under our current rule, these claimants may 

fall under the ‘‘illiterate’’ or ‘‘inability to 

communicate in English’’ category. See 20 CFR 

404.1564(b)(1) and (5), and 416.964(b)(1) and (5). 

33This conclusion is based on our analysis of the 

initial determination data for all fiscal year 2016 

claims in the U.S. Table 1: Self-reported education 

level of claimants reporting an inability to read, 

write or speak English, Adult Initial 

Determinations, FY 2016 (Table 1), available at 

regulations.gov as a supporting and related material 

for docket SSA–2017–0046. We note that in the 

fiscal year 2016, we adjudicated over 1.5 million 

and 1.2 million claims, respectively, under titles II 

and XVI at the initial level, and approximately 

7.7% (118,815) title II claimants and 10.1% 

(128,084) of the title XVI claimants reported an 

inability to read, write, or speak English. 

34This conclusion is based on our analysis of the 

title II claims allowed under the grid rules 201.17 

and 202.09 at the initial level within the U.S. in 

fiscal year 2017. See Graph 1: Self-reported 

education and Specific Vocational Preparation 

(SVP) level of past relevant work by Title II 

claimants reporting an inability to read, write, or 

speak English allowed under 201.17 or 202.09, 

Initial Determinations within U.S. and U.S. 

territories, FY 2017, available at regulations.gov as 

a supporting and related material for docket SSA– 

2017–0046. 

35 Id. 

36Our analysis is based on the data published by 

the Census, which is the primary source of data on 

languages spoken in the U.S. To obtain data on an 

individual’s ability to speak English, Census has 

been asking three questions since 1980. The first of 

the three part-question asks if the respondent 

speaks a language other than English at home and 

gives the option to choose ‘‘No, only speaks 

English’’ or ‘‘Yes.’’ If the respondent selects ‘‘Yes,’’ 

the second part of the question asks the respondent 

to identify the language spoken at home. Finally, 

the third part of the question asks the respondent 

to rate his or her ability to speak English as ‘‘very 

well,’’ ‘‘well,’’ ‘‘not well,’’ and ‘‘not at all.’’ See 

Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 

1790 to 2000, pp. 85, 92, and 101 available at 

https://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/pol02- 

ma.pdf. In this NPRM, we refer to individuals 

speaking only English at home as individuals 

speaking ‘‘only English.’’ We refer to individuals 

speaking another language at home and speaking no 

English as individuals speaking English ‘‘not at all’’ 

or as individuals speaking no English. 

37The U.S. Census Bureau defines LEP as 

individuals who speak English less than ‘‘very 

well.’’ U.S. Census Bureau American Community 

Survey (ACS), What State and Local Governments 

Need to Know, p. 12, n. 8, February 2009, https:// 

www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/ 

publications/2009/acs/ACSstateLocal.pdf. 

38See SSA Office of Research, Evaluation, and 

Statistics (ORES) analysis of 1980 Census and 2016 

American Community Survey: English Proficiency, 

Table 1: Estimated working-age (25–64) population, 

by English proficiency and educational attainment, 

1980 and 2016 (ORES Table 1). Available at 

regulations.gov as a supporting and related material 

for docket SSA–2017–0046. 

39 Id. We note that ORES Tables refer to an 

individual speaking no English as an individual 

who ‘‘does not speak English.’’ 

40See ORES analysis of 1980 Census and 2016 

American Community Survey: English Proficiency, 

Table 2: Estimated labor force participation of 

working-age population (25–64), by English 

proficiency and educational attainment, 1980 and 

2016 (ORES Table 2). Available at regulations.gov 

as a supporting and related material for docket 

SSA–2017–0046. 

communicate in English may be 

considered under the grid rules 

specifying education level of ‘‘illiterate 

or unable to communicate in English’’ 

or under the broader category of 

‘‘limited or less’’ or ‘‘marginal or none,’’ 

depending on the individual’s age and 

RFC.28

Under the grid rules, age 45 is the 

earliest point at which English language 

proficiency can make a difference in 

disability determination.29 In other 

words, the ‘‘inability to communicate in 

English’’ education category makes no 

difference as to the outcome of 

disability determination for individuals 

under 45 years of age. The grid rules are 

premised on the idea that for 

individuals under age 45, the inability 

to communicate in English does not 

pose a significant vocational limitation 

because being younger gives them an 

advantage in adjusting to other work.30

Our current rules are also based on the 

premise that English language 

proficiency has the least significance for 

unskilled work because most unskilled 

jobs involve working with things rather 

than with data or people.31

Why We Are Proposing To Revise Our 

Rules 

In 1978, we promulgated the five-step 

sequential evaluation process and 

adopted the grid rules, under which we 

consider the interaction of the 

individual’s residual functional 

capacity, age, education, and work 

experience to determine whether or not 

an individual is disabled under our 

rules. We propose to revise the rules for 

how we consider an individual’s 

education in relation to the inability to 

communicate in English for several 

reasons. Central to our proposed 

revisions is that our current rules do not 

take into account that claimants who 

cannot read, write, or speak English 

often have a formal education that may 

provide them with a vocational 

advantage. If a claimant meets the 

current criterion of ‘‘inability to 

communicate in English,’’ we generally 

disregard the amount of formal 

schooling the individual may have and 

evaluate the claim in the same manner 

as we do for a claim filed by an illiterate 

individual. Moreover, since we adopted 

these rules, the U.S. workforce has 

become more linguistically diverse and 

work opportunities have expanded for 

individuals who lack English 

proficiency. Further, our current rules 

treat English language proficiency as a 

relevant vocational factor even when 

claimants live in countries outside the 

U.S. or in U.S. territories where English 

is not a dominant language, leading to 

disparate results based on the location 

of the claimants. 

Claimants Who Are Unable To Read, 

Write, or Speak English Often Have 

Formal Education That Could Provide a 

Vocational Advantage 

Claimants who report an inability to 

read, write, or speak English often 

report having a high school education or 

more. In fiscal year 2016, approximately 

49% of title II claimants and 39% of 

title XVI claimants who reported an 

inability to read, write, or speak 

English,32 also reported having 

completed a high school education or 

more.33 Further, the claimants who 

reported an inability to read, write, or 

speak English and who had at least a 

high school education had past work 

experience at higher skill levels, when 

compared to the claimants with less 

education.34 Our claims data indicate 

that higher levels of education may 

provide a vocational advantage, even for 

individuals who are unable to 

communicate in English.35

The U.S. Workforce Has Become More 

Linguistically Diverse 

Since we adopted our current rules in 

1978, linguistic diversity in the national 

economy has increased, which has 

changed the way the inability to 

communicate in English affects an 

individual’s ability to work. For 

purposes of the data analysis in this 

NPRM, we refer to individuals who selfidentified in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

(Census) American Community Survey 

as speaking a language other than 

English at home and speaking English 

‘‘well,’’ ‘‘not well,’’ or ‘‘not at all’’ 

collectively as LEP.36 We selected this 

definition consistent with how the 

Census defines LEP.37

In absolute numbers, the working age 

population (ages 25–64) with LEP 

increased from approximately 5.4 to 

17.8 million between 1980 and 2016, 

while more than doubling, from 5.1% to 

10.5%, as a percentage of the 

population.38 Within this group, the 

number of individuals who spoke no 

English more than quadrupled from 

approximately 682,000 to 2.8 million 

(representing growth from 0.6% to 

1.7%, as a percentage of the working age 

population).39

Between 1980 and 2016, the number 

of non-English speaking workers in the 

25–64 age range grew from 

approximately 373,000 to 1.7 million.40

During the same period, the labor force 

participation rate for working age 

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 1009 

41 Id. 

42 Id. 

43 Id. 

44See the Extraction of SSA’s Office of Research, 

Evaluation, and Statistics, ‘‘Evidence Synthesis: 

The Use of Vocational Factors in the Disability 

Determination Process’’ (Sept. 2014) (Extraction of 

Evidence Synthesis), available at regulations.gov as 

a supporting and related material for docket SSA– 

2017–0046. The Evidence Synthesis in its entirety 

is available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=SSA-2014-0081. 

45See the Extraction of Evidence Synthesis. See 

also Acemoglu, Daren, and Autor, David. 2011. 

‘‘Chapter 12—Skills, Tasks and Technologies: 

Implications for Employment and Earnings,’’ in 

Ashenfelter, O, and Card, D, eds. Handbook of 

Labor Economics, 4(B): 1043–1171 (available at 

regulations.gov as a supporting and related material 

for docket SSA–2017–0046). 

46This is based on our analysis of over 2200 title 

II and XVI claims allowed under grid rules 201.17 

and 202.09 in the fiscal year 2017 only within the 

U.S. States and the District of Columbia. See Table 

2: Top 10 past relevant work held by Title II and 

Title XVI claimants found disabled under the grid 

rules 201.17 or 202.09, Adult Initial Determinations 

within U.S., FY 2016 (Table 2). Available at 

regulations.gov as a supporting and related material 

for docket SSA–2017–0046. 

47 Jill H. Wilson, Investing in English Skills: The 

Limited English Proficient Workforce in U.S. 

Metropolitan Areas, Metropolitan Policy Program, 

at Brookings Institution (September 2014), p. 10, 

available at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/ 

uploads/2014/09/Srvy_EnglishSkills_Sep22.pdf. 

48See Table 2. Occupations with at Least 1 

Million LEP Workers, 2012. Id. at 13. 

49 Id. 

50We acknowledge that the definition of LEP we 

used for purposes of the data analysis in this NPRM 

is not an exact match for the claimants who may 

fall within the ‘‘inability to communicate in 

English’’ education category. We also note that the 

‘‘inability to communicate in English’’ education 

category is broader than what the ordinary meaning 

of the phrase ‘‘inability to communicate’’ may 

otherwise suggest and can apply to individuals who 

have no ability or some ability to communicate in 

English. Under our current rules, individuals who 

have some or even high capacity to read and write 

English may be found unable to communicate in 

English if they are unable to speak English. 

Alternatively, individuals who can speak some 

English but are unable to read English may be found 

unable to communicate in English. In POMS DI 

25015.010 C.1.b we expressly state that an 

individual is unable to communicate in English 

when the individual cannot speak, understand, read 

‘‘or’’ write a simple message in English. This means 

that even when an individual has some ability to 

do three out of four, the individual will still be 

categorized as unable to communicate in English if 

he or she cannot do all four. (https://secure.ssa.gov/ 

apps10/poms.NSF/lnx/0425015010). The 

population described as LEP for the purposes of the 

data analysis in this NPRM is comparable to the 

claimant population who may fall under the 

‘‘inability to communicate in English’’ education 

category. 

51Additional information is available at https:// 

www.ssa.gov/international/agreements_

overview.html. 

52 Id. 

53 Id. These countries are Italy, Germany, 

Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Canada, the United 

Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, France, Portugal, 

Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Ireland, 

Luxembourg, Greece, South Korea, Chile, Australia, 

Japan, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland, the 

Slovak Republic, Hungary, Uruguay, and Brazil. 

individuals who speak no English 

increased from approximately 54.7% to 

61.5%.41 Notably, considering the 

working age population with ‘‘less than 

high school diploma,’’ the 2016 labor 

force participation rate for those 

speaking no English (60.5%) surpassed 

the labor force participation rate of 

those speaking ‘‘only English’’ 

(48.9%).42 In 1980, the reverse was true; 

working age individuals with less than 

a high school diploma speaking only 

English had a 60.7% labor force 

participation rate that exceeded the 

54.5% rate for those speaking no 

English.43

The increase in labor force 

participation by individuals who lack 

English proficiency may be in part due 

to the increase in low-skilled work in 

the national economy. In 2014, our 

Office of Research, Evaluation, and 

Statistics (ORES) prepared an Evidence 

Synthesis consolidating information 

from research we commissioned and 

other available research for the purposes 

of modernizing our vocational 

regulations.44 ORES’ literature review 

on the vocational factor of education 

indicates that with the introduction of 

new technology replacing moderately 

skilled workers, there are fewer 

moderately skilled jobs and higher 

numbers of low and high skilled jobs.45

Indeed, our claims data show that many 

claimants who may fall within the 

‘‘inability to communicate in English’’ 

category have a history of working in 

occupations requiring lower level skills 

such as laborer, machine operator, 

janitor, cook, maintenance, and 

housekeeping.46 Consistent with our 

claims data and ORES’ literature review, 

a Brookings Institution’s (Brookings) 

study of LEP workers in the U.S. found 

that a lack of English proficiency does 

not generally prevent low-skilled 

workers from obtaining employment.47

Brookings’ analysis shows that over 1 

million individuals with LEP, including 

those who speak English ‘‘not at all,’’ 

are represented in each of the following 

occupations: Building and grounds 

cleaning and maintenance; production; 

construction and extraction; food 

preparation and serving; transportation 

and material moving; sales and related 

occupations; and office and 

administrative support.48 In the first 

four of the listed occupations, the 

workers with LEP make up more than 

10% of total workers.49 In sum, both our 

claims data and external data indicate 

that work opportunities have expanded 

and labor force participation has 

increased for individuals who may fall 

within the ‘‘inability to communicate in 

English’’ education category.50

The International Reach of Our Title II 

Disability Program Has Steadily 

Expanded Since 1978 

Since we adopted our current 

education categories in 1978, we have 

established a network of bilateral Social 

Security agreements that coordinate the 

U.S. Social Security program with the 

comparable programs of other 

countries.51 These international Social 

Security agreements, often called 

‘‘totalization agreements,’’ have two 

main purposes. First, they eliminate 

dual Social Security taxation, the 

situation that occurs when a worker 

from one country works in another 

country and is required to pay Social 

Security taxes to both countries on the 

same earnings. Second, the agreements 

help fill gaps in benefit protection for 

workers who have divided their careers 

between the U.S. and another country. 

The international reach of our title II 

disability program has steadily 

expanded over the years. In 1978, we 

had a totalization agreement with only 

one country.52 We now have totalization 

agreements with 28 countries.53 English 

is the predominant language in only 

four of those countries (Canada, United 

Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia). When 

an individual files a disability claim 

based in part on eligibility under a 

totalization agreement, we use the same 

five-step sequential evaluation process 

to determine whether he or she qualifies 

for disability benefits. Under our current 

rules, even if individuals applying for 

disability live in a country with a 

totalization agreement where English is 

not a dominant language, we must still 

classify them in the ‘‘inability to 

communicate in English’’ education 

category if they cannot speak, read, or 

write English. In light of the significant 

expansion of the totalization program 

since 1978, we believe our proposal to 

consider individuals’ education level 

would strengthen our international 

disability program abroad. 

OIG Audit Recommendation 

Eligibility for the title II disability 

program benefits extends to U.S. 

nationals in the U.S. territories, which 

include Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Guam, the Northern Marianas 

Islands, and American Samoa. As we do 

for individuals in countries with 

totalization agreements, we currently 

consider the inability to communicate 

in English to be a vocationally relevant 

factor when adjudicating disability 

claims in all U.S. territories, regardless 

of whether English is the dominant 

1010 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

54Among the U.S. territories, English is dominant 

language only in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, 71.6% speak English only, 17.2% 

speak Spanish or Spanish Creole, 8.6% speak 

French or French Creole, and 2.5% speak other 

languages. Available at https://

factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DPVI_

VIDP2&prodType=table. As for the other territories, 

in American Samoa, 88.6% speak Samoan, 3.9% 

speak English only, 2.7% speak Tongan, 3% speak 

other Pacific Island languages, and 1.4% speak 

Asian languages. Available at https://

factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DPAS_

ASDP2&prodType=table. In Guam, 43.6% speak 

English only, 21.2% speak Philippine languages, 

17.8% speak Chamorro, 10% speak other Pacific 

island languages, and 6.3% Asian languages. 

Available at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/ 

tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DPGU_

GUDP2&prodType=table. In Puerto Rico, 94.3% 

speak Spanish and 5.5% speak English only. 

Available at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/ 

tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_

DP02PR&prodType=table. In U.S. Northern Mariana 

Islands, 32.8% speak Philippine languages, 24.1% 

speak Chamorro, 17% speak English only, 14.1% 

speak Asian languages, and 5.1% speak other 

Pacific Island languages. Available at https://

factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DPMP_

MPDP2&prodType=table. 

55Qualifying for Disability Benefits in Puerto Rico 

Based on an Inability to Speak English, available at 

https://oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/pdf/ 

A-12-13-13062_0.pdf. 

56See Table 3: Title II Allowances under grid 

rules 201.17 or 202.09, Adult Initial Determinations 

within U.S. and U.S. territories, FY 2016 (Table 3). 

Available at regulations.gov as a supporting and 

related material for docket SSA–2017–0046. 

57 Id. 

58Available at https://factfinder.census.gov/ 

faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_

DP02PR&prodType=table. 

59See Chart 1: Claimants reporting an inability to 

read, write, or speak English Adult Initial 

Determinations, Puerto Rico, FY 2016 (Chart 1). 

Available at regulations.gov as a supporting and 

related material for docket SSA–2017–0046. 

60See Chart 1. 

61See Chart 2: Self-reported education level of 

claimants reporting an inability to read, write or 

speak English allowed under 201.17 or 202.09, 

Adult Initial Determinations, Puerto Rico, FY 2017. 

Available at regulations.gov as a supporting and 

related material for docket SSA–2017–0046. 

62For example, our fiscal year 2017 data on 

Puerto Rico showed that work history of the 

claimants allowed under grid rules 201.17 or 202.09 

included jobs in nursing, education, management, 

community work, financial, and legal fields. See 

Table 4: Past relevant work of Title II claimants 

with 1 or more years of college education. 

Allowances under 201.17 or 202.09, Adult Initial 

Allowances, Puerto Rico, FY 2017, available 

regulations.gov as a supporting and related material 

for docket SSA–2017–0046. 

63 80 FR 55050, available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=SSA-2014-0081. 

64Available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=SSA-2014-0081. 

65 80 FR at 55051. 

66 80 FR 66843, available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=SSA-2014-0081. 

67 Individuals who do not speak English as their 

primary language and who have a limited ability to 

read, speak, write, or understand English can be 

limited English proficient, or LEP, available at 

https://www.lep.gov/faqs/faqs.html#OneQ1. We 

note that the definition of LEP provided by LEP.gov 

differs from the definition of LEP we used to 

present data as explained earlier. 

language.54 In 2015, OIG examined the 

trends associated with the application of 

existing grid rules involving the 

inability to communicate in English in 

Puerto Rico.55 OIG’s audit of claims in 

Puerto Rico indicated that the grid rules 

involving the inability to communicate 

in English merit a closer examination. 

Following the audit, OIG 

recommended that we evaluate the 

appropriateness of the grid rules related 

to the inability to communicate in 

English when determining eligibility for 

disability for individuals similar to 

those evaluated in the audit. In response 

to the audit, we analyzed the fiscal year 

2016 national data for claims 

adjudicated under the two main grid 

rules dealing with the inability to 

communicate in English (i.e., grid rules 

201.17 and 202.09). In FY 2016, our 

analysis revealed that claims from 

Puerto Rico (31.2%), California (19.2%), 

New York (11.22%), and Florida (5.8%) 

accounted for 67.42% (1,677) of all 

initial title II allowances (2,487) made 

under these two grid rules.56 While 

claims allowed under the two grid rules 

in Puerto Rico accounted for nearly a 

third of all initial title II allowances 

under the two grid rules nationally, 

claims from Puerto Rico represented 1% 

of all of the 472,468 of initial title II 

disability allowances.57

Our current policy on the inability to 

communicate in English explains the 

seemingly disproportionate number of 

allowances made under grid rules 

201.17 and 202.09 in Puerto Rico. 

According to U.S. census data, 94.3% of 

the residents in Puerto Rico speak 

Spanish.58 Consistent with this data, in 

fiscal year 2016, 11,564 (86.8%) 

claimants in Puerto Rico reported an 

inability to read, write, or speak 

English.59 Among the claimants who 

reported an inability to read, write, or 

speak English, 9,167 (79.3%) had an 

education at high school or more.60

A subsequent analysis of our data 

from the fiscal year 2017 similarly 

showed that 80.4% of the claimants 

who reported an inability to read, write, 

or speak English and were approved for 

disability under the grid rules 201.17 

and 202.09 had high school education 

or more.61 Their work histories varied 

and included many professions 

requiring high levels of education and 

skills.62 These data indicate that an 

ability to communicate in English is not 

the most appropriate proxy for 

determining educational categorization. 

ANPRM 

On September 14, 2015, we published 

an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making (ANPRM) in the Federal 

Register entitled ‘‘Vocational Factors of 

Age, Education, and Work Experience in 

the Adult Disability Determination 

Process.’’ 63 In this ANPRM, we 

documented our longitudinal vocational 

factors research efforts from 1998 to 

2014, and we solicited public comments 

and supporting data about how each of 

these vocational factors affects an 

individual’s ability to adjust to other 

work.64 We said that we would consider 

all relevant public comments we 

received, but that we would not respond 

directly to them.65

Although we did not specifically ask 

for comments on the ‘‘inability to 

communicate in English’’ education 

category, 10 of the 137 public comments 

submitted in response to the ANPRM, 

including those submitted after we 

extended the comment period, 

addressed that issue.66 Commenters 

expressed diverging opinions; these 

commenters did not present supportive 

data. For example, one commenter said 

that in today’s economy, literacy in 

English has much less effect on an 

individual’s ability to work because, in 

the opinion of the commenter, many 

non-English speakers are currently 

working throughout the U.S. economy. 

Another commenter noted that the 

inability to communicate in English 

would further erode an individual’s 

ability to work and that it should be 

given more weight. 

Proposed Revisions 

For the reasons stated above, we 

propose to revise the rules we use to 

evaluate education as a vocational factor 

for individuals who communicate in a 

language other than English when we 

evaluate disability claims for adults 

under titles II and XVI of the Act. 

Specifically, we propose to change how 

we evaluate education for individuals 

who communicate in a language other 

than English by removing the education 

category ‘‘inability to communicate in 

English.’’ 

Under the proposed regulations, we 

would not consider an individual’s 

educational attainment to be at a lower 

education category than his or her 

highest numeric grade level solely 

because the education occurred in a 

language other than English, the 

individual participated in an English 

language learner program, such as an 

English as a second language class, or 

the individual is deemed to have LEP 

under current Federal standards.67

These proposed rules retain our 

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 1011 

68We would use the final rules beginning on their 

effective date. We would apply the final rules to 

new applications filed on or after the effective date, 

and to claims that are pending on and after the 

effective date. This means that we would use the 

final rules on and after their effective date in any 

case in which we make a determination or decision, 

including CDRs, as appropriate. See 20 CFR 404.902 

and 416.1402. 

69AR 86–3(5): Martinez v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 795 

(5th Cir. 1984) Disability Program—Individuals 

Who Are Illiterate and Unable To Communicate in 

English—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security 

Act addresses whether the Social Security disability 

grid rules applicable to individuals who are 

illiterate or unable to communicate in English are 

applicable to individuals who are illiterate and 

unable to communicate in English. 

longstanding and well-supported 

recognition that more formal education, 

work experience, and training improve 

an individual’s ability to adjust to other 

work. 

Instead, we would apply our current 

rules for determining an individual’s 

education category for all claimants 

regardless of which language they use to 

communicate. We will use an 

individual’s numerical grade level to 

determine the education category of the 

individual, and we may adjust an 

individual’s education category if there 

is evidence that his or her attained 

educational abilities are higher or lower 

than the highest numerical grade level 

completed in school. 

We propose to make these and other 

minor conforming revisions in 20 CFR 

404.1564 and 416.964. We also propose 

to make other revisions to these sections 

to remove references to the English 

language. 

We also propose to revise the grid 

rules. First, we propose to revise all grid 

rules referencing an inability to 

communicate in English. Specifically, 

we would revise ‘‘Illiterate or unable to 

communicate in English’’ to ‘‘Illiterate’’ 

(201.17, 201.23, 202.09, 202.16) and 

‘‘Limited or less—at least literate and 

able to communicate in English’’ to 

‘‘Limited or Marginal, but not Illiterate’’ 

(201.18, 201.24, 202.10, 202.17). For 

clarity and ease of use, we propose to 

revise ‘‘Marginal or none’’ to ‘‘Marginal 

or Illiterate’’ (203.01). Second, we 

propose to make other conforming 

changes throughout the grid rules 

consistent with the revisions discussed 

above. 

How We Would Implement These 

Proposed Revisions 

If we adopt these proposed rules as 

final rules, we would begin to apply 

them to new applications, pending 

claims, and continuing disability 

reviews (CDR), as appropriate, as of the 

effective date of the final rules.68

Effect on Current Regulatory and 

Subregulatory Guidance 

If we adopt these proposed rules as 

final rules, we would rescind 

Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 86–3(5), 

which applies to claims in the Fifth 

Circuit, because AR 86–3(5) would be 

inconsistent with the final rules.69 We 

may also rescind or replace other 

current Social Security Rulings to 

conform to the final rules. Where 

necessary, we would also issue updated 

subregulatory guidance. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the close of 

business on the comment closing date 

indicated above. The comments will be 

available for examination in the 

rulemaking docket for these rules at the 

above address. We will file comments 

received after the comment closing date 

in the docket and will consider those 

comments to the extent practicable. 

However, we will not respond 

specifically to untimely comments. We 

may publish a final rule at any time 

after close of the comment period. 

Clarity of This Rule 

Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563, requires each agency to write all 

rules in plain language. In addition to 

your substantive comments on this 

notice of proposed rulemaking, we 

invite your comments on how to make 

the rule easier to understand. 

For example: 

• Would more, but shorter, sections 

be better? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit your needs? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

• Would a different format make the 

rule easier to understand, e.g., grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing? 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, as 

Supplemented by Executive Order 

13563 

We consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

determined that this notice of proposed 

rulemaking meets the criteria for a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed it. 

We also determined that this final 

rule meets the plain language 

requirement of Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

We analyzed this proposed rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria established by Executive Order 

13132, and determined that the 

proposed rule will not have sufficient 

Federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism assessment. 

We also determined that this proposed 

rule will not preempt any State law or 

State regulation or affect the States’ 

abilities to discharge traditional State 

governmental functions. 

Executive Order 13771 

Based upon the criteria established in 

Executive Order 13771, we have 

identified the anticipated program cost 

and administrative costs as the 

following. 

Anticipated Costs to Our Programs: 

Our Office of the Chief Actuary estimates, 

based on the best available data, that this 

proposed rule, assuming it is finalized and 

implemented for all disability decisions 

completed after June 2, 2019, would result in 

a reduction of about 6,500 OASDI beneficiary 

awards per year and 4,000 SSI recipient 

awards per year on average over the period 

FY 2019–28, with a corresponding reduction 

of $4.6 billion in OASDI benefit payments 

and $0.8 billion in Federal SSI payments 

over the same period. 

Anticipated Administrative Costs to 

the Social Security Administration: 

The Office of Budget, Finance, and 

Management estimated administrative costs 

of $97 million for SSA and $24 million for 

DDS, totaling $121 million, for the 10-year 

period from FY 2019 through FY 2028. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this proposed rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because it affects individuals only. 

Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, as amended, does not require us to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These proposed rules contain public 

reporting requirements in the regulation 

sections listed below, or will require 

changes in the forms listed below, 

which we did not previously clear 

through an existing Information 

Collection Request. 

1012 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

OMB No., Form No., Regulation 

section 

Description of public reporting 

requirement 

Number of 

respondents 

(annually) 

Frequency of 

response 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Estimated 

annual burden 

0960–0072; SSA–454 ....................... Continuing Disability Review Report 541,000 1 60 541,000 

0960–0579; SSA–3368 ..................... Disability Report—Adult ................... 2,258,510 1 95 3,575,974 

0960–0681; SSA–3373 ..................... Function Report—Adult .................... 1,734,635 1 61 1,763,546 

0960–0635; SSA–3380 ..................... Function Report—Adult Third Party 709,700 1 61 721,528 

20 CFR 416.964; 20 CFR 404.1564 

0960–0144; SSA–3441 ..................... Disability Report-Appeal ................... 637,431 1 50 531,193 

Total ........................................... ........................................................... 5,881,276 ........................ ........................ 7,133,241 

SSA submitted an Information 

Collection Request for clearance to 

OMB. We are soliciting comments on 

the burden estimate; the need for the 

information; its practical utility; ways to 

enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; 

and ways to minimize the burden on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated techniques or other forms of 

information technology. If you would 

like to submit comments, please send 

them to the following locations: 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

Desk Officer for SSA, Fax Number: 

202–395–6974, Email address: OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov 

Social Security Administration, OLCA, 

Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 3100 

West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., 

Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410–966– 

2830, Email address: 

OR.Reports.Clearance@ssa.gov 

You can submit comments until April 2, 

2019, which is 60 days after the 

publication of this notice. To receive a 

copy of the OMB clearance package, 

contact the SSA Reports Clearance 

Officer using any of the above contact 

methods. We prefer to receive 

comments by email or fax. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 

96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) 

List of Subjects 

20 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability 

Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social Security. 

20 CFR Part 416 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

Dated: January 2, 2019. 

Nancy Berryhill, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR 

part 404 subpart P and part 416 subpart 

I as set forth below: 

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, 

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE (1950–) 

Subpart P—Determining Disability and 

Blindness 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart P 

of part 404 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a)–(b) and (d)– 

(h), 216(i), 221(a) and (h)–(j), 222(c), 223, 

225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)–(b) and (d)–(h), 416(i), 

421(a) and (h)–(j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 

902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, 110 

Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 

118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 

■ 2. Amend § 404.1564 by: 

■ a. Removing the sixth sentence of 

paragraph (b) introductory text and 

paragraph (b)(5); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(6) as 

paragraph (c), and 

■ c. Revising the first sentence of newly 

redesignated paragraph (c). 

The revision to read as follows: 

§ 404.1564 Your education as a vocational 

factor. 

* * * * * 

(c) Information about your education. 

We will ask you how long you attended 

school, and whether you are able to 

understand, read, and write, and do at 

least simple arithmetic calculations. 

* * * 

■ 3. Amend Appendix 2 to Subpart P of 

Part 404 by: 

■ a. Revising 201.00(h)(1)(iv); 

■ b. Revising the second sentence of 

201.00(h)(2); 

■ c. Revising In 201.00(h)(4)(i); 

■ d. In 201.00 Table No. 1, revise rules 

201.17, 201.18, 201.23, and 201.24; 

■ e. Revising 202.00(d) and (g) 

■ f. In 202.00 Table No 2, revising rules 

202.09, 202.10, 202.16, and 202.17; and 

■ g. In 203.00 Table No. 3, revising rule 

203.01. 

The revisions to read as follows: 

Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404— 

* * * * * 

201.00 * * * 

(h)(1) * * * 

(iv) Are illiterate. 

(2) * * * It is usually not a significant 

factor in limiting such individual’s ability to 

make an adjustment to other work, including 

an adjustment to unskilled sedentary work, 

even when the individuals are illiterate. 

* * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) While illiteracy may significantly limit 

an individual’s vocational scope, the primary 

work functions in most unskilled 

occupations involve working with things 

(rather than with data or people). In these 

work functions, education has the least 

significance. Similarly the lack of relevant 

work experience would have little 

significance since the bulk of unskilled jobs 

require no qualifying work experience. Thus, 

the functional capacity for a full range of 

sedentary work represents sufficient numbers 

of jobs to indicate substantial vocational 

scope for those individuals age 18–44, even 

if they are illiterate. 

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 1013 

TABLE NO. 1—RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY—MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WORK CAPABILITY LIMITED TO SEDENTARY

WORK AS A RESULT OF SEVERE MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE IMPAIRMENT(S) 

Rule Age Education Previous work experience Decision 

*******

201.17 ................................ Younger individual age 

45–49.

Illiterate ............................. Unskilled or none .............. Disabled. 

201.18 ................................ ......do ................................ Limited or Marginal, but 

not Illiterate.

......do ................................ Not disabled.* 

* * * * * * * 

201.23 ................................ Younger individual age 

18–44.

Illiterate ............................. Unskilled or none .............. Do.4

201.24 ................................ ......do ................................ Limited or Marginal, but 

not Illiterate.

......do ................................ Do.4

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

202.00 

* * * * * 

(d) A finding of disabled is warranted 

where the same factors in paragraph (c) of 

this section regarding education and previous 

work experience are present, but where age, 

though not advanced, is a factor which 

significantly limits vocational adaptability 

(i.e., closely approaching advanced age, 50– 

54) and an individual’s vocational scope is 

further significantly limited by illiteracy. 

* * * * * 

(g) While illiteracy may significantly limit 

an individual’s vocational scope, the primary 

work functions in most unskilled 

occupations relate to working with things 

(rather than data or people). In these work 

functions, education has the least 

significance. Similarly, the lack of relevant 

work experience would have little 

significance since the bulk of unskilled jobs 

require no qualifying work experience. The 

capability for light work, which includes the 

ability to do sedentary work, represents the 

capability for substantial numbers of such 

jobs. This, in turn, represents substantial 

vocational scope for younger individuals (age 

18–49), even if they are illiterate. 

TABLE NO. 2—RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY—MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WORK CAPABILITY LIMITED TO LIGHT WORK AS A

RESULT OF SEVERE MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE IMPAIRMENT(S) 

Rule Age Education Previous work experience Decision 

*******

202.09 ................................ Closely approaching advanced age.Illiterate ............................. Unskilled or none .............. Disabled. 

202.10 ................................ ......do ................................ Limited or Marginal, but 

not Illiterate.

......do ................................ Not disabled. 

* * * * * * * 

202.16 ................................ Younger individual ............ Illiterate ............................. Unskilled or none .............. Do. 

202.17 ................................ ......do ................................ Limited or Marginal, but 

not Illiterate.

......do ................................ Do. 

* * * * * * * 

203.00 

* * * * * 

TABLE NO. 3—RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY—MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WORK CAPABILITY LIMITED TO MEDIUM WORK AS

A RESULT OF SEVERE MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE IMPAIRMENT(S) 

Rule Age Education Previous work experience Decision 

203.01 ................................ * ......................................... Marginal or Illiterate .......... * ......................................... * 

* * * * * * * 

1014 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart I—Determinnig Disability and 

Blindness 

■ 8. The authority citation for subpart I 

of part 416 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 

1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 

1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 

1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 

4(c) and 5, 6(c)–(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98– 

460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 

U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note). 

■ 9. Amend § 416.964 by 

■ a. Removing the sixth sentence of 

paragraph (b) introductory text and 

paragraph (b)(5); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(6) as 

paragraph (c); and 

■ c. Revising the first sentence of newly 

redesignated paragraph (c) 

The revision to read as follows: 

§ 416.964 Your education as a vocational 

factor. 

* * * 

(c) Information about your education. 

We will ask you how long you attended 

school, and whether you are able to 

understand, read, and write, and do at 

least simple arithmetic calculations. 

* * * 

[FR Doc. 2019–00250 Filed 1–31–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–104390–18] 

RIN 1545–BO54 

Guidance Related to Section 951A 

(Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income); 

Hearing 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of hearing. 

SUMMARY: This document provides a 

notice of public hearing on proposed 

regulations relating to section 951A of 

the Internal Revenue Code, and added 

to the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax 

Cuts and Jobs Act, which was enacted 

on December 22, 2017. 

DATES: The public hearing is being held 

on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 

a.m. The IRS must receive speakers’ 

outlines of the topics to be discussed at 

the public hearing by Monday, February 

11, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being 

held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal 

Revenue Service Building, 1111 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20224. Due to building security 

procedures, visitors must enter at the 

Constitution Avenue entrance. In 

addition, all visitors must present a 

valid photo identification to enter the 

building. 

Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR 

(REG–104390–18), Room 5205, Internal 

Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben 

Franklin Station, Washington, DC 

20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday to 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–104390–18), 

Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20224 or sent 

electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–104390– 

18). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Jorge Oben (202) 317–6934; concerning 

submissions of comments, the hearing 

and/or to be placed on the building 

access list to attend the hearing, Regina 

Johnson at (202) 317–6901 (not toll-free 

numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The subject of the public hearing is 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–104390–18) that was published in 

the Federal Register on Wednesday, 

October 10, 2018 (83 FR 51072). 

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) 

apply to the hearing. Persons who wish 

to present oral comments at the hearing 

that submitted written comments by 

November 26, 2018 must submit an 

outline of the topics to be addressed and 

the amount of time to be devoted to 

each topic by Monday, February 11, 

2019. 

A period of 10 minutes is allotted to 

each person for presenting oral 

comments. After the deadline for 

receiving outlines has passed, the IRS 

will prepare an agenda containing the 

schedule of speakers. Copies of the 

agenda will be made available, free of 

charge, at the hearing or by contacting 

the Publications and Regulations Branch 

at (202) 317–6901(not a toll-free 

number). 

Because of access restrictions, the IRS 

will not admit visitors beyond the 

immediate entrance area more than 30 

minutes before the hearing starts. For 

information about having your name 

placed on the building access list to 

attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

Martin V. Franks, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2019–00619 Filed 1–29–19; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–115420–18] 

RIN 1545–BP03 

Investing in Qualified Opportunity 

Funds; Hearing 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing on 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

public hearing on proposed regulations 

concerning investing in qualified 

opportunity funds (QOF). 

DATES: The public hearing is scheduled 

for February 14, 2019 at 10 a.m. The 

public comment period for these 

regulations expired on December 28, 

2018. The notice of proposed 

rulemaking and notice of hearing 

instructed those interested in testifying 

at the public hearing to submit a request 

to speak and an outline of the topics to 

be discussed. The outlines of topics to 

be discussed were due by December 28, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being 

held in the Auditorium, Internal 

Revenue Service Building, 1111 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20224. Due to building security 

procedures, visitors must enter at the 

Constitution Avenue entrance. In 

addition, all visitors must present a 

valid photo identification to enter the 

building 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Erika Reigle, Office of Associate Chief 

Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting) 

at (202) 317–7006 (not a toll-free 

number); concerning information, the 

hearing and/or to be placed on the 

building access list to attend the 

hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317– 

6901 (not toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of proposed rulemaking and notice of 

public hearing that appeared in the 

Federal Register on Monday, October 

29, 2018 (83 FR 54279) announced that