[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67135-67148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21557]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

[Docket No. SSA-2023-0024]
RIN 0960-AI83


Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process: 
Including How We Consider Past Work

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to revise the time period that we consider when 
determining whether an individual's past work is relevant for purposes 
of making disability determinations and decisions. Specifically, we 
would revise the definition of past relevant work (PRW) by reducing the 
relevant work period from 15 to 5 years. This change would allow 
individuals to focus on the most current and relevant information about 
their past work, better reflect the current evidence base on changes 
over time in worker skill decay and job responsibilities, reduce 
processing time and improve customer service, and reduce burden on 
individuals.

DATES: To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive 
them by no later than November 28, 2023.

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-2023-0024 so 
that we may associate your comment(s) with the correct regulation.
    Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments(s) only 
information that you wish to make publicly available. We strongly urge 
you not to include in your comment(s) any personal information, such as 
Social Security numbers or medical information.
    1. Internet: We strongly recommend that you submit your comments(s) 
via the internet. Please visit the Federal eRulemaking portal at 
https://www.regulations.gov. Use the Search function to find docket 
number SSA-2023-0024. 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 one week for your comment to be viewable.
    2. Fax: Fax comments to 1-833-410-1631.

[[Page 67136]]

    3. Mail: Mail your comments to the Office of Legislation and 
Congressional Affairs, Regulations and Reports Clearance Staff, Social 
Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop 3253, 
Altmeyer Building, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401.
    Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal 
eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov or in person, during 
regular business hours, by arranging with the contact person identified 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Quatroche, Office of Disability 
Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 966-4794, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e3c2b293b222f3a2721203d0e3d3d2f60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e5c4b495b424f5a4741405d6e5d5d4f00494158">[email protected]</span></a>. 
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 https://www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

Statutory Definition of Disability

    The Social Security Act (Act) defines disability as the inability 
to engage in any substantial gainful activity (SGA) by reason of any 
medically determinable physical or mental impairment (MDI) 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.\1\ The Act 
also states that, for adults,\2\ an individual shall be determined to 
have a disability only if their physical or mental impairment or 
impairments are of such severity that they are not only unable to do 
their previous work but cannot, considering their 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 they live, or whether a specific 
job vacancy exists for them, or whether they will be hired if they 
apply for work.\3\ The Act defines work which exists in the national 
economy as work which exists in significant numbers either in the 
region where such individual lives or in several regions of the 
country.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A)-(B).
    \2\ The Act defines disability differently for individuals under 
the age of 18. 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(C).
    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(B).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These proposed rules would not apply to disability benefits for 
children applying under title XVI (Supplemental Security Income (SSI)). 
These proposed rules focus on how we assess individuals' work histories 
when adjudicating disability claims and have no effect on the required 
quarters of coverage and payroll tax contributions to be insured for 
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).

Sequential Evaluation Process

    As outlined in our current regulations, we use a five-step 
sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual is 
disabled.\5\ The following is a general overview of the five-step 
sequential evaluation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At step one of the sequential evaluation process, we consider 
whether an individual is working, and whether the work qualifies as 
SGA.\6\ If the individual is performing SGA, we will find that the 
individual is not disabled, regardless of their medical condition, age, 
education, and work experience. If the individual is not performing 
SGA, we go to the second step of the sequential evaluation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(i) and 416.920(a)(4)(i). We explain 
substantial gainful activity at 20 CFR 404.1510, 404.1572, 416.910, 
and 416.972. SGA is work activity that is substantial and gainful. 
Substantial work involves doing significant physical or mental 
activities. An individual's work may be substantial even if it is 
done on a part-time basis or if you do less, get paid less, or have 
less responsibility than when you worked before. Gainful means work 
for pay or profit, or in work of a type generally performed for pay 
or profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At step two of the sequential evaluation process, we consider 
whether an individual has any ``severe'' impairment(s), which 
significantly limits their physical or mental ability to do basic work 
activities,\7\ and whether the impairment(s) meets the statutory 
duration requirement.\8\ If the individual's impairment(s) is not 
severe or if it does not meet the duration requirement, we will find 
that the individual is not disabled.\9\ If the individual has a severe 
impairment(s) that meets the duration requirement, we go to the third 
step of the sequential evaluation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c), 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and 
(c). We explain what we mean by an impairment that is not severe in 
20 CFR 404.1521 and 416.921. We use the term impairment(s) to mean 
an impairment or combination of impairments in this NPRM.
    \8\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and 416.920(a)(4)(ii). We explain 
the duration requirement at 20 CFR 404.1509 and 416.909.
    \9\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c), 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and 
(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At step three of the sequential evaluation process, we consider 
whether an individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals in 
severity an impairment(s) in the Listing of Impairments.\10\ If the 
individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals in severity an 
impairment in the Listing of Impairments, we will find that the 
individual is disabled. If the individual does not have an 
impairment(s) that meets or medically equals in severity a listed 
impairment, we determine the individual's residual functional capacity 
(RFC) before we go to the fourth step of the sequential evaluation 
process.\11\ RFC is the most an individual can do despite limitations 
caused by the individual's physical and mental impairments.\12\ 
Generally we assess RFC on a regular and continuing basis meaning 8 
hours a day for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.\13\ 
These proposed rules would not affect how we evaluate steps one, two, 
and three of the sequential evaluation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1525, 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 
and 416.925. The Listing of Impairments are found at 20 CFR part 404 
subpart P, appendix 1, and they apply to title XVI under 20 CFR 
416.925.
    \11\ 20 CFR 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e).
    \12\ See 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945.
    \13\ See SSR 96-8p: Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and 
XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At step four of the sequential evaluation process, we consider the 
individual's work history and whether, given their RFC, the individual 
can perform any of their past relevant work (PRW) either as the 
individual actually performed it or as the work is generally performed 
in the national economy.\14\ If we find that the individual can perform 
any of their PRW, we will find that the individual is not disabled. If 
the individual cannot perform any of their PRW, we go to the fifth step 
of the sequential evaluation process.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) and (f), 404.1560(b)(2), 
416.920(a)(4)(iv) and (f), and 416.960(b)(2).
    \15\ We may use the expedited process described in 20 CFR 
404.1520(h) and 416.920(h) to consider step five before step four 
when applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At step five of the sequential evaluation process, we refer to an 
individual's work history again to consider whether an individual's 
impairment(s) prevents them from adjusting to other work that exists in 
significant numbers in the national economy, considering their RFC and 
the vocational factors of age, education, and work experience (which 
may include conducting a transferable skills analysis).\16\ If we find 
that the individual cannot adjust to other work, we will find that the 
individual is disabled. If we find that the individual

[[Page 67137]]

can adjust to other work, we will find that the individual is not 
disabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1568, 416.920(a)(4)(v), and 
416.968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once an individual is found disabled and receives benefits, we may 
periodically conduct a continuing disability review (CDR) to determine 
whether the individual continues to be disabled.\17\ Although the CDR 
rules use a different sequential evaluation process, the final two 
steps of the process used for CDRs (steps seven and eight in title II 
cases and steps six and seven in adult title XVI cases) mirror the 
final two steps used in the sequential evaluation process for initial 
claims (steps four and five).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(5), 404.1594, 416.920(a)(5), and 
416.994.
    \18\ 20 CFR 404.1594(f)(7)-(8) and 416.994(b)(5)(vi)-(vii). 
Title II benefits include disability insurance benefits, disabled 
widow(er) benefits, and child disability benefits. Title XVI 
benefits include supplemental security income.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29SE23.059

Definition of PRW and the Relevant Work Period

    Our current rules define PRW as work an individual has done within 
the past 15 years, that was SGA, and that lasted long enough for the 
individual to learn how to do it.\19\ In initial claims, the relevant 
work period usually begins 15 years prior to the date of our 
determination or decision. However, in certain situations in claims 
under title II of the Act, the relevant work period begins on an 
earlier date.\20\ For example, when an individual's insured status for 
title II disability benefits expired before the adjudication date, we 
consider the relevant work period to begin 15 years

[[Page 67138]]

before the date last insured.\21\ As noted below in our discussion of 
medical-vocational profiles, if we consider all of an individual's work 
to be arduous and unskilled, and the individual has little education, 
we may ask the individual to tell us about all of their work from the 
time the individual first began working.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 20 CFR 404.1560(b)(1) and 416.960(b)(1). See also SSR 82-
62: Titles II and XVI: A Disability Claimant's Capacity to Do Past 
Relevant Work, in General, in which we state that the work lasted 
long enough for the individual to learn the job if they learned the 
techniques, acquired information, and developed the facility needed 
for average performance of the job. The length of time this would 
take depends on the nature and complexity of the work.
    \20\ See SSR 82-62: Titles II and XVI: A Disability Claimant's 
Capacity to Do Past Relevant Work, in General. See also POMS DI 
25001.001A.64 Medical and Vocational Quick Reference Guide, 
available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425001001.
    \21\ See POMS DI 25001.001A.64 Medical and Vocational Quick 
Reference Guide, available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425001001.
    \22\ 20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CDRs, the relevant work period includes work an individual has 
done within 15 years prior to the date of the CDR determination or 
decision.\23\ Individuals must report employment changes since the 
initial decision or most recent CDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 20 CFR 404.1594(f)(7) and 416.994(b)(5)(vi). At the last 
two steps in the CDR sequential evaluation process, we do not 
consider work an individual does while receiving disability benefits 
to be past relevant work or past work experience; see 20 CFR 
404.1594(i)(1) and 416.994(b)(8)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step Five of the Sequential Evaluation Process Considers Work 
Experience From PRW

    At step five of the sequential evaluation process, we determine 
whether other work exists in significant numbers in the national 
economy that an individual can adjust to considering the individual's 
RFC and vocational factors of age, education, and work experience.\24\ 
Work experience means skills and abilities an individual has acquired 
through their PRW which may show the type of work they may be expected 
to do.\25\ Our rules categorize work experience as follows: none, 
unskilled, semi-skilled, or skilled.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and (g), 404.1512(b)(3), 
404.1560(c), 416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g), 416.912(b)(3), and 
416.960(c).
    \25\ 20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965.
    \26\ 20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968. We consider occupations with 
specifical vocational preparation (SVP) levels one and two to be 
unskilled. Occupations with SVPs of three and four are semi-skilled, 
and occupations with an SVP of five or greater are skilled. See also 
DOT Appendix C available at: https://www.occupationalinfo.org/appendxc_1.html#II and POMS DI 25015.015.B.1 Work Experience as a 
Vocational Factor, available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0425015015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our rules recognize that individuals with skilled or semi-skilled 
work experience may have a vocational advantage if their skills are 
transferable, meaning they can be used in other work.\27\ 
Transferability of skills depends largely on the similarity of 
occupationally significant work activities among different work.\28\ 
The transferability of skills is most probable and meaningful among 
jobs in which the same or a lesser degree of skill is required; the 
same or similar tools and machines are used; and the same or similar 
raw materials, products, processes, or services are involved.\29\ If 
skills are so specialized or are acquired in such an isolated 
vocational setting that they are not readily usable in other 
industries, jobs, and work settings, they are not transferable.\30\ If 
an individual is age 55 or older and limited to sedentary work, or age 
60 or older and limited to light work, we consider skills transferable 
only if they can be used in other work with very little, if any, 
vocational adjustment in terms of tools, work processes, work settings, 
or the industry.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 20 CFR 404.1568(d) and 416.968(d).
    \28\ Id. See also SSR 82-41 Title II and XVI: Work Skills and 
Their Transferability as Intended by the Expanded Occupational 
Regulations Effective February 26, 1979.
    \29\ See 20 CFR 404.1568(d)(2) and 416.968(d)(2).
    \30\ See 20 CFR 404.1568(d)(3) and 416.968(d)(3).
    \31\ See 20 CFR 404.1568(d)(4) and 416.968(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the individual can adjust to other work that exists in 
significant numbers in the national economy, considering their residual 
functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, we find they 
are not disabled. If an individual cannot adjust to other work that 
exists in significant numbers in the national economy, we find that 
they are disabled.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and 416.920(a)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support a determination or decision at step five of the 
sequential evaluation process, we must evaluate whether there is other 
work existing in significant numbers in the national economy that the 
individual can do given their RFC and vocational factors.\33\ As part 
of this evaluation, we use the medical-vocational profiles and the 
medical-vocational guidelines, also commonly known as the ``grid 
rules.'' \34\ We use three assessments to determine whether an 
individual can perform work that exists in significant numbers at step 
five of the sequential evaluation process (or at the final step in the 
sequential evaluation process used in CDRs):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 20 CFR 404.1560(c)(2) and 416.960(c)(2).
    \34\ See 20 CFR 404.1560(c), 404.1562, 404.1569, 416.960(c), 
416.962, and 416.969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Medical-vocational profiles;
    2. Medical-vocational guidelines to direct a decision; and
    3. Medical-vocational guidelines as a framework.

Medical-Vocational Profiles

    We consider whether the individual's RFC and vocational factors of 
age, education, and work experience match the criteria of a medical-
vocational profile. Each medical-vocational profile shows an inability 
to make an adjustment to other work.\35\ If an individual's medical and 
vocational factors match the criteria of a medical-vocational profile, 
we find the individual disabled.\36\ If not, we consider the medical-
vocational guidelines in our disability finding.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 20 CFR 404.1520(g)(2) and 416.920(g)(2).
    \36\ See 20 CFR 404.1562 and 416.962.
    \37\ 20 CFR 404.1569 and 416.969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three medical-vocational profiles are:
    1. If an individual has done only arduous unskilled physical 
labor.\38\ This profile applies to an individual who has no more than a 
marginal education (6th grade or less), has work experience of 35 years 
or more during which the individual did only arduous unskilled physical 
labor, is not working, and is no longer able to do this kind of work 
because of a severe impairment(s). We call this the arduous unskilled 
work profile and this profile considers 35 years of past work. Our 
proposed changes to the definition of PRW will neither change this 
profile nor affect the proportion of individuals found disabled through 
this profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 20 CFR 404.1562(a) and 416.962(a). See also SSR 82-63: 
Titles II and XVI: Medical-Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability 
to Make an Adjustment to Other Work. When we say ``not working,'' we 
mean not engaging in substantial gainful activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. If an individual is at least 55 years old, has no more than a 
limited education, and has no past relevant work experience.\39\ This 
profile applies to an individual who has a severe MDI(s), is at least 
55 years old, has no more than a limited education (11th grade or 
less), and has no PRW experience. We call this the no work profile and 
this profile considers 15 years of past work. As discussed below, our 
proposed changes to the definition of PRW will increase the proportion 
of individuals found disabled through this profile.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 20 CFR 404.1562(b) and 416.962(b). See also SSR 82-63: 
Titles II and XVI: Medical-Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability 
to Make an Adjustment to Other Work.
    \40\ 20 CFR 404.1560(b)(1) and 416.960(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. If an individual has made a lifetime commitment.\41\ This 
profile applies to an individual who is not working at SGA level, is at 
least 60 years old, has no more than a limited education (11th grade or 
less), and has a lifetime commitment (30 years or more) to a field of 
work that is unskilled, or is skilled or semi-skilled but with no 
transferable skills, that the individual can no longer perform because 
of a severe impairment(s). We call this the

[[Page 67139]]

lifetime commitment profile and this profile considers 30 years of past 
work. Our proposed changes to the definition of PRW will neither change 
this profile nor affect the proportion of individuals found disabled 
through this profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See POMS DI 25010.001B.3 medical-vocational profiles, 
available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425010001.

                                      Table 2--Medical Vocational Profiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Is this profile
   Medical-vocational profiles            Age         Education (no more       Past work      affected under the
                                                             than)            experience        proposed rule?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arduous unskilled work profile..  No minimum age....  Marginal            35 years or more    No.
                                                       (typically 6th      in which the
                                                       grade or less).     individual
                                                                           performs only
                                                                           arduous unskilled
                                                                           physical labor.
No work profile.................  55 years or older.  Limited (typically  No PRW............  Yes, under the
                                                       11th grade or                           proposed rules
                                                       less).                                  the relevant work
                                                                                               period would be
                                                                                               reduced from 15
                                                                                               to 5 years.
Lifetime Commitment profile.....  60 years or older.  Limited (typically  30 years or more    No.
                                                       11th grade or       to a field of
                                                       less).              work that is
                                                                           unskilled (or if
                                                                           skilled or semi-
                                                                           skilled with no
                                                                           transferrable
                                                                           skills).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medical-Vocational Guidelines To Direct a Decision

    If an individual's RFC and vocational factors do not match a 
medical-vocational profile, we consider the medical-vocational 
guidelines.\42\ The medical-vocational guidelines reflect the analysis 
of vocational factors in combination with RFC. Where the findings of 
fact made with respect to vocational factors and RFC coincide with all 
of the criteria of a particular medical-vocational rule that rule 
directs a decision as to whether the individual is disabled or not 
disabled.\43\ When the medical-vocational guidelines are used to direct 
a decision, there are some circumstances where the existence or non-
existence of transferable skills acquired from PRW is material to the 
decision.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See 20 CFR part 404 Subpart P Appendix 2, 20 CFR 404.1569 
and 416.969.
    \43\ 20 CFR part 404 Subpart P Appendix 2 rule 200.00(a).
    \44\ For example, rule 201.03 directs a decision of not disabled 
for an individual with a certain specified RFC and vocational 
factors who has transferable skills, while rule 201.02 directs a 
decision of disabled for an otherwise similar individual who does 
not have transferable skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a Framework

    We use the medical-vocational guidelines as a framework to guide 
our decision-making when one or more of the findings of fact do not 
coincide with all of the corresponding criteria of a rule.\45\ Because 
the medical-vocational guidelines only consider exertional limitations, 
we also use them as a framework when an individual's RFC includes only 
nonexertional limitations.\46\ In addition, we use them as a framework 
when an individual's RFC includes both exertional and nonexertional 
limitations and the applicable medical-vocational rule, considering 
only the exertional limitations, will direct a decision of ``not 
disabled.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
    \46\ 20 CFR 404.1569a(c)(2) and 416.969a(c)(2).
    \47\ 20 CFR 404.1569a(d) and 416.969a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the medical-vocational guidelines are used as a framework, 
there are some circumstances where the existence or non-existence of 
transferable skills acquired from PRW is material to the decision.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ For example, rule 201.03 directs a decision of not disabled 
for an individual with a certain specified RFC and vocational 
factors who has transferable skills, while rule 201.02 directs a 
decision of disabled for an otherwise similar individual who does 
not have transferable skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information We Request and Consider at Steps Four and Five of the 
Sequential Evaluation Process

    We ask individuals about their past work when we need the 
information to make a determination or decision on their claim.\49\ In 
most circumstances during the initial application, individuals will be 
asked to complete the Adult Disability Report (form SSA-3368), which 
includes a section on job history.\50\ On this form, individuals are 
asked to complete work history information for up to 5 jobs they held 
in the last 15 years before they became unable to work. The information 
requested includes the job title and type of business; the dates when 
work began and ended; and hours per day, days per week, and rate of 
pay.\51\ If an individual only had one job in the last 15 years, they 
provide additional detail about that job (these additional details are 
the same as those collected on the SSA-3369 discussed below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b).
    \50\ Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-3368.pdf. The 
initial application also collects basic information about a 
claimant's work. For example, the form SSA-16 (Application for 
Disability Insurance Benefits) prompts respondents to identify: the 
name and address of any employers the applicant has worked for in 
the current or past year; the length of employment with each 
employer; whether the respondent was self-employed; the total earned 
income from the current and past year. The form SSA-8000 
(Application for Supplemental Security Income) prompts respondents 
to identify: the name and address of employers who have provided 
wages on or after the filing date of the application; the date last 
worked, last paid, and next paid; the total monthly wages; the name 
and address of any additional employers the respondent anticipates 
working for in the next 14 months; whether the respondent was self-
employed; and this year's, last year's, and next year's expected 
self-employment income. The information collected on the initial 
application would not be changed as a result of this proposal.
    \51\ See 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the individual identifies more than one job in the past 15 years 
on their Adult Disability Report, and we need additional information 
about their work history, we will then re-contact the individual to ask 
that they complete a separate Work History Report (form SSA-3369).\52\ 
SSA processes roughly 1.6 million Work History Reports annually, which 
represents approximately 85 percent of all adult initial claimants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-3369.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The individual has the burden of proof to show that they cannot 
perform PRW, and they are required to provide information about their 
PRW if we request it.\53\ In some cases, we may request work history 
information from an employer or a third party.\54\ For each job held 
(regardless of how long the job was held for), we request information 
regarding: the dates worked, rate of pay, hours per day and week; a 
description

[[Page 67140]]

of the job including all of the duties performed; and any tools, 
machinery, and equipment used.\55\ We also request information about 
the amount of walking, standing, sitting, lifting, and carrying during 
work each day and to recall, for each job, both the most weight ever 
lifted as well as the heaviest amount of weight that was frequently 
lifted. Individuals must also answer other questions about other 
physical or mental demands of the work.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 20 CFR 404.1512(a)(1)(iv), 404.1560(b)(2), 404.1565(b), 
416.912(a)(1)(iv), 416.960(b)(2), and 416.965(b).
    \54\ 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b).
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change

    We propose to reduce the PRW period from the current 15 years to 5 
years. In many cases, this revision will reduce the number of jobs in 
an individual's work history that we will consider at step four of the 
sequential evaluation process when we determine whether an individual 
can perform their PRW. At step five, this revision will also change the 
previous work experience that we will consider under the medical-
vocational guidelines. Because a step four finding can result in a 
denial but not an allowance (in FY 2022, 5.8 percent of decisions for 
adult claimants were denials at step four), we anticipate that we will 
make proportionally fewer denial decisions at step four and 
proportionally more decisions at step five. Because step five decisions 
require us to also consider work in the national economy an individual 
can perform based on their RFC and vocational factors, we expect that 
shifting decisions from step four to step five with less past work 
considered will result in more allowance decisions. We propose to make 
this revision in 20 CFR 404.1560, 404.1565, 416.960, and 416.965.
    We also propose to remove a current sentence in 20 CFR 404.1565(a) 
and 416.965(a) that explains the intent of our work experience rules is 
to ``ensure that remote work experience is not currently applied.'' We 
propose to remove this sentence to reflect that the arduous unskilled 
work profile and the lifetime commitment profile consider work history 
for a period longer than the proposed five year relevant work period.

Justification for Change

    We have long recognized that a gradual change occurs in most jobs 
in the national economy, so that after a certain period of time it is 
not realistic to expect that skills and abilities acquired in these 
jobs continue to apply.\57\ In this rule, we propose a period of 5 
years because it reflects the shorter collection cycles of occupational 
surveys and data programs, which establish a frame of reference for 
understanding changing occupational requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 20 CFR 404.1565(a) and 416.965(a); SSR 82-62 Titles II and 
XVI: A Disability Claimant's Capacity to Do Past Relevant Work, in 
General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changing the PRW period from the current 15 years to 5 years will 
better account for the diminishing relevance of work skills over time 
and reduce the burden on individuals applying for disability. This 
change will allow us to improve the quality of the information we 
receive by eliminating the individual's need to recall and consistently 
report detailed information about less recent work, reduce the time 
spent filling out work history forms, and overall reduce waiting times. 
Accordingly, this proposed change will improve customer service and 
adjudicative efficiency.

1. The Proposal Will Allow Individuals To Focus on the Most Current and 
Relevant Information About Their Past Work

    We largely rely on individuals' self-reporting for information 
about past work,\58\ and self-reported information is often incomplete. 
Our adjudicative experience shows that individuals' self-reported work 
information tends to be less accurate and complete for jobs that were 
held in the more distant past. In many cases, individuals do not have 
accurate or complete recall of each job they have performed during the 
past 15 years, including detailed physical and mental requirements, 
hours worked, and rates of pay. For example, under our current process, 
if an individual served as a fast-food cook for 3 months 13 years ago, 
we ask them to tell us details such as the number of hours spent 
walking, standing, sitting, and carrying during the workday as well as 
both the most amount of weight they ever lifted while on the job and 
the heaviest weight frequently lifted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b). See also POMS DI 
22515.001 Overview of Vocational Evidence Development, available at: 
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0422515001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, individuals who struggle to maintain sustained 
employment, such as those who change jobs frequently or who have gaps 
in their work histories, may have difficulty remembering their past 
jobs and specific details. As a result, individuals completing work 
history questions on our forms, even with assistance, often leave many 
sections blank or incomplete. We estimate that about 30 percent of 
disability applications with 15 years of work history include 
sufficient detail at the time of application. Often DDS examiners 
request additional information before they can make a 
determination.\59\ Ultimately, if an individual does not give us the 
evidence we need or request, our regulations provide that we will have 
to make a determination or decision based on the available 
evidence.\60\ Because the individual must identify the functional 
requirements of jobs they held, a lack of information regarding 
functional requirements may impede our ability to determine if an 
individual can do PRW. This proposal will reduce the likelihood of our 
not having a complete work history.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ In POMS DI 22505.014, we direct the DDS to allow a minimum 
of 10 calendar days for response to initial outreach, and we direct 
DDS to make a follow up once by telephone or letter and allow a 
minimum of 10 additional calendar days to respond. We also provide 
time to account for the mailing process. For claimants requiring 
special handling, DDS must make a reasonable effort to identify and 
involve a third party. See https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0422505014.
    \60\ 20 CFR 404.1516, 404.1520b(b)(3), 416.916, and 
416.920b(b)(3).
    \61\ In FY 2022, 18% of Adult Initial claims were closed as 
insufficient evidence, which includes missing information on the 
SSA-3369 or other missing work history information, but also 
includes claims that were closed for missing information unrelated 
to work history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, on May 16, 2023, in support of the White House Legal Aid 
Interagency Roundtable led by the Department of Justice, we met with a 
diverse panel of legal aid groups, community advocacy organizations, 
and other claimant representative organizations to discuss multiple 
Social Security issues of concern to them.\62\ During our listening 
session, participants specifically referenced their experience that 
their clients had difficulty remembering older work information and 
reporting it accurately. Multiple participants particularly noted that 
the claimants tire of the work history questions and do not provide the 
detailed, accurate information that is critical for making decisions. 
One participant in the listening session noted that ``for our client 
base, there is just not enough memory to go back and remember all the 
things they did, what different jobs they had and when they had them . 
. . . [F]or a lot of my client base, the forms, they just get tired of

[[Page 67141]]

them. They're overwhelmed by them. They end up filling out something 
sort-of not very thoroughly and not very thoughtfully.'' A separate 
participant noted that claimants often forget the physical and mental 
requirements of jobs, and are more likely to underestimate them than 
overestimate them. Another participant provided an example of a job 
that required a claimant to lift a box of copy paper that weighed 25 
pounds. They said that claimants might not know the weight of an item 
like that and might inadvertently report that they had to lift 10 
pounds. As a result, participants noted that work history information 
is often incomplete or inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Attendees included representatives from Legal Aid 
Foundation of Los Angeles, Urban Justice Center, Tennessee Alliance 
for Legal Services, Vermont Legal Aid, Legal Aid of Arkansas, New 
Hampshire Legal Assistance, Disability Law Center (Massachusetts), 
Coast to Coast Legal Aid (South Florida), Community Legal Services 
of Philadelphia, Legal Counsel for Health Justice, The Arc, National 
Association for Disability Representatives, Advocacy and Training 
Center, Inner City Law Center, New York Legal Assistance Group, 
Dallas Aging and Disability Resource Center, and Bay Area Legal Aid. 
An excerpt of the relevant portion of the listening session will be 
available upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we conducted an Adult Disability Applicant Survey that 
concluded in June 2023, and we received feedback from more than 15,000 
recent disability applicants about their experience with the disability 
application process.\63\ Within the survey, we asked questions about 
completing form SSA-3369-BK (Work History Report) and work history 
reporting generally. Many respondents expressed difficulties 
remembering and accurately reporting details about 15 years' worth of 
work history. Some respondents said they did not maintain records for 
that long and were unable to accurately report this information, while 
other respondents said the request for 15 years' worth of information 
took a long time to complete, particularly for individuals who may be 
dealing with major life transitions or have more severe impairments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The Adult Disability Applicant Survey is qualitative in 
nature, as it is rooted in applicants' perceptions and memory of the 
application process. However, the use of a qualitative survey is 
consistent with Executive Order 14058, which defines ``customer 
experience'' as the public's perceptions of and overall satisfaction 
with interactions with an agency, product, or service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taken together, by considering only more recent job information, 
which individuals are likely to recall in greater depth, we will 
improve the quality of evidence on which our adjudicators base their 
decisions.

2. The Proposal Will Reflect the Current Evidence Base on Changes Over 
Time in Worker Skill Decay and Job Responsibilities

    We propose to revise the definition of the relevant work period to 
more accurately reflect how an individual's acquired skills and 
knowledge may become less relevant over time after they have stopped 
performing previous work. When we defined past work in our regulations 
in 1978, we concluded that 15 years was an appropriate guide.\64\ 
Research indicates that skills not used over extended periods become 
less recoverable when later called upon, meaning they provide less 
vocational advantage. Most of the major surveys and data programs 
concerning occupational requirements conducted in recent decades have 
refreshed their data in collection cycles ranging from 5 to 10 
years.\65\ We understand that the rate of skills decay and changes in 
work requirements have a considerable impact on the workforce. A 2016 
BLS report explains that changes in job skill requirements ``are a 
function of shifts in skill requirements within occupations as well as 
changes in employment shares between occupations.'' \66\ The report 
acknowledges that any conclusions based on measurements of these two 
aspects of job change will be inexact as the data continue to accrue, 
and it goes on to point out that questions remain regarding ``the 
magnitudes of within occupation changes along various dimensions, such 
as physical demands . . . or specific cognitive skills.'' Nevertheless, 
the report's author validated the use of data collection cycles between 
five and ten years as a reasonable timeframe for measuring and 
documenting changing occupational requirements. Accordingly, we also 
propose that a past relevant work period of five years is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Handel, Michael J., Dynamics of Occupational Change: 
Implications for the Occupational Requirements Survey, July 15, 2016 
(Table 23), available at: https://www.bls.gov/ors/research/sample-design/pdf/dynamics-occupational-change-2016.pdf.
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two additional markers that illustrate significant occupational 
change within a 5-10-year period are the frequency that the Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) system is updated (i.e., 2000, 2010, 
and 2018) and various state re-licensing, re-certification, and 
continuing education requirements (typically once every 1 to 5 years, 
depending on the profession).\67\ The SOC system is updated to reflect 
changes in the economy and the nature of work,\68\ and the frequency at 
SOC system is updated balances the need for an up-to-date taxonomy 
against the ability to track occupational changes over time and the 
desire to minimize disruption to survey collection processes and data 
series.\69\ Collectively, the research and evidence suggest that 
considering occupational change or skills decay warrants measuring or 
ensuring currency over a 5-10 year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The SOC is a Federal statistical standard used by Federal 
agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the 
purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data.
    \68\ Revising the Standard Occupational Classification, 
available at: https://www.bls.gov/soc/revising_the_standard_occupational_classification_2018.pdf.
    \69\ See Monthly Labor Review: Revising the Standard 
Occupational Classification system for 2010, available at: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/08/art3full.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other research supports that unused manual work skills generally 
diminish in less than 10 years. Using data from the Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET),\70\ combined with a worker-level panel, 
researchers in 2020 found that manual skills tend to erode quickly when 
not used, with an estimated loss of 50 percent over 7.5 years.\71\ This 
2020 study by Lise and Postel-Vinay also supports the premise that 
manual skills developed in jobs held longer than 10 years ago likely 
have diminished relevance and are unlikely to be well-retained by 
individuals. By contrast, jobs held no more than five years in the past 
provide a vocational advantage because the skills an individual learned 
are more current, and the occupation is less likely to have changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is sponsored 
by the U.S. Department of Labor. O*NET provides descriptive 
information about occupations and helps people find the training and 
jobs they need, and employers the skilled workers necessary to be 
competitive in the marketplace. For more information, see: https://www.onetonline.org.
    \71\ Lise, J., & Postel-Vinay, F. (2020). Multidimensional 
Skills, Sorting, and Human Capital Accumulation. The American 
Economic Review, 110(8), 2328-2376, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26966333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Proposal Will Reduce Processing Time and Improve Customer 
Service

    This revision will also help improve our customer service by 
reducing our time burden to develop detailed work history for jobs 
performed in the distant past that are less relevant for the reasons 
stated above. Overall, we will be able to make determinations and 
decisions more quickly, which also ultimately benefits the public we 
serve. The U.S. Supreme Court previously recognized the ``need for 
efficiency [in our adjudicative process] is self-evident'' and 
important given that our hearing system is ``probably the largest 
adjudicative agency in the western world'' because we adjudicate 
millions of claims for disability benefits each year.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461, n.2 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal will reduce our burden associated with recontacting 
individuals or other sources to fully develop evidence in some claims. 
As stated above, we have found that individuals

[[Page 67142]]

have difficulty providing accurate and complete information about work 
they have not done in many years. When an individual does not provide 
complete information about all of the jobs they held in the past 15 
years, we try to recontact them to obtain the additional 
information.\73\ Our efforts to develop more complete information about 
past work may also involve contacting third parties, such as former 
employers.\74\ Our task of developing complete information about how a 
particular job was performed can be difficult and time consuming 
because individuals, past employers, and other third parties might not 
recall the details of nor have records for work performed many years in 
the past. This difficulty is further compounded when prior employers 
are no longer in existence or otherwise not available to provide 
evidence. Our efforts to help individuals obtain and provide complete 
evidence slow our adjudication of their claims. Accordingly, we 
anticipate this proposal will reduce individual wait times and our 
total pending claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b).
    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Proposal Will Reduce Burden on Individuals

    This proposal will reduce the information collection burden on 
individuals by reducing, on average, the number of jobs about which 
they must provide us with information. This anticipated burden 
reduction is supported by additional information collected during the 
Adult Disability Applicant Survey. Respondents reported a wide range of 
completion times for the SSA-3369-BK. SSA currently reports an average 
time burden of 60 minutes. However, respondents indicated that based on 
their own experiences and memories, the time it takes to complete the 
entire process, including gathering the information and completing the 
form, can take anywhere from fewer than 60 minutes up to several hours, 
depending on an individual's work history. The median time burden 
reported was 2 hours for individuals who reported a work history that 
included work performed 6 years before the application and earlier, but 
90 minutes for individuals who reported a work history that included 
only work performed 1 to 5 years prior to application.
    These results suggest that even if individuals report different 
time burden associated with PRW, the data consistently show that a work 
history ending at the 5-year mark is notably less burdensome than a 
longer work history.
    The table below indicates that a longer retrospective period 
generally includes more jobs than a shorter one. As the Adult 
Disability Applicant Survey suggests, fewer jobs to report may mean 
less burden on individuals. The following table, which is based on a 
sample of administrative data for research purposes, shows the median 
number of employers individuals of various ages have had in the 
previous 5, 10, and 15 years.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Sources: 2019 Longitudinal Employee-Employer Data (LEED) 
1percent File, Disability Research File (Title II and Title XVI), 
and Numident; N = 9,087. The LEED is a sample of administrative data 
we use for research purposes. A unique employer is not necessarily 
the same as a unique job. Individuals may have worked in multiple 
jobs with the same employer over a number of years. For instance, an 
individual could have started working for an employer in a lower-
skill job and later received a promotion to a higher-skill job. On 
the other hand, individuals may have worked in the same type of job 
for different employers. For example, an individual may have been a 
cashier in more than one grocery store chain.

                     Median Number of Employers in Retrospective Time Periods, by Age Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Age group                            Past 5 years      Past 10 years      Past 15 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All (25-65)............................................                  2                  3                  5
25-29..................................................                  4                  7                  7
30-34..................................................                  3                  5                 10
35-39..................................................                  2                  4                  8
40-44..................................................                  2                  4                  7
45-49..................................................                  2                  3                  6
50-54..................................................                  2                  3                  5
55-59..................................................                  1                  2                  4
60-65..................................................                  1                  2                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: 2019 Longitudinal Employee-Employer Data (LEED) 1 Percent File, Disability Research File (Title II and
  Title XVI), and Numident.
Note: N = 9,087 (includes individuals with missing or unknown sex in the data set).

    The table shows that, for adults ages 25-65, use of a 5-year 
relevant work period will reduce the median number of past employers. 
Among adults in that age group, the median number of employers for the 
past 15 years is 5 and the median number for the past 5 years is 2. 
Therefore, reducing the relevant work period to 5 years will reduce the 
burden on individuals because many will need to report information 
about fewer employers.
    We use different forms to collect work history information 
necessary for the type and level of adjudication of a claim. As the 
information below demonstrates, using a 5-year relevant work period 
will reduce the burden on individuals completing these forms.
    At the time of application, individuals submit the SSA-3368 form 
(Disability Report--Adult) online, through the mail, or in-person at a 
field office, which we use to collect a wide range of information, 
including medical and vocational information needed to adjudicate adult 
disability claims.\76\ The form SSA-3368 requires detailed work history 
information from the individual. It asks individuals to complete work 
history information for up to 5 jobs they held in the last 15 years 
before they became unable to work. The information requested includes 
the job title and type of business; the dates when work began and 
ended; and hours per day, days per week, and rate of pay.\77\ If the 
individual only had one job in the last 15 years, they provide 
additional detail about that job, including information regarding what 
they did all day in that job, the machines or tools they used, the 
knowledge or technical skills they acquired, and the job's specific 
physical demands. The current time burden estimate for an individual to 
complete form SSA-3368 is 90 minutes, which includes reading the 
instructions, gathering facts, and answering the questions. We estimate 
that, with the changes we propose, filling out form

[[Page 67143]]

SSA-3368 will reduce the time burden on an individual to complete the 
form to 80 minutes on average, as explained below.\78\ The change to 
form SSA-3368 will result in an estimated burden savings of 376,419 
hours for individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ We collect information on the form SSA-3368 in several 
modalities. In addition to the standard paper form, which is 
available in English and Spanish languages, we also offer an 
internet-based modality. We collect this information for adult 
initial claims and age-18 redeterminations.
    \77\ See 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b).
    \78\ See the Paperwork Reduction Act section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the State Disability Determination Services (DDS) use 
form SSA-3369-BK to request detailed information from individuals 
regarding any jobs they have held during the 15-year period and for 
which they have not already provided detailed information on the form 
SSA-3368.\79\ The DDSs typically sends this form to approximately 85 
percent of adult initial claimants. The current time burden estimate 
for an individual to complete form SSA-3369 is 1 hour, which includes 
reading the instructions, gathering facts, and answering the questions 
about each job the individual has performed in the last 15 years. We 
estimate that, with the changes we propose, filling out form SSA-3369 
will reduce the time burden on an individual to complete the form to 40 
minutes on average, as explained below.\80\ The change to form SSA-3369 
will result in an estimated burden savings of 530,650 hours for 
individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ We currently collect information on the form SSA-3369 using 
a paper form, which is available in English and Spanish languages. 
In certain instances, field offices collect information instead of 
the DDS. For more information, see POMS DI 11005.025 Completing the 
SSA-3369, available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0411005025.
    \80\ See the Paperwork Reduction Act section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the hearings level, adjudicators may collect any additional or 
changed work history using the form HA-4633 (Claimant's Work 
Background). The current time burden estimate for an individual to 
complete form HA-4633 is 30 minutes. We estimate that, with the changes 
we propose, filling out the form HA-4633 will reduce the time burden on 
an individual to complete the form to 20 minutes on average as 
explained below. The change to HA-4633 form will result in an estimated 
burden savings of 31,666 hours.
    Overall, the total estimated burden savings on all three forms 
(SSA-3368, SSA-3369, and HA-4633) is estimated to be 938,735 hours.

Conclusion: Improving the Balance Between Information Utility and 
Burden Reduction

    In developing this proposed rule, we sought to balance the need for 
accurate work history information for our disability determinations 
with the goals of obtaining only the most relevant information, 
reducing burden on individuals, and decreasing the overall disability 
determination time. Ultimately, we determined that work experience from 
jobs performed more than 5 years ago may not be as relevant as work 
experience from jobs performed 5 years ago or less. Also, based on our 
research, it is significantly less burdensome for individuals to report 
a job history of 5 years or less. Further, developing that job history 
would save time and increase efficiency for our personnel. Based on 
these factors (as outlined in greater detail above), we propose the 5-
year period as the best balance between obtaining an accurate work 
history and ensuring optimal burden reduction and time savings.

How the Proposed Revisions Will Affect Our Decision Making at Step Four 
of the Sequential Evaluation Process

    Revising the relevant work period from the current 15 years to 5 
years will reduce the number of jobs in an individual's work history 
that we will consider at step four and at the corresponding step in the 
evaluation process used in CDRs when we determine whether an individual 
can perform their PRW. Because a step four finding can result in a 
denial but not an allowance, we anticipate that a smaller proportion of 
denial decisions will be made at step four and that a greater 
proportion of all our decisions will be made at step five.
    Under the proposed rule, some claims that would have been a step 
four denial under the current rules would instead result in a step five 
allowance. For example: A 53-year-old individual applying for SSI has a 
high school education and an RFC consistent with unskilled sedentary 
work. The individual last performed sedentary, unskilled work as an 
order clerk 10 years ago. The work as an order clerk was SGA, and the 
individual did it long enough to learn to do the job at an average 
level. The individual has acquired no transferrable skills from other 
work. Under current rules, the individual would be found ``not 
disabled'' because they retain the RFC to perform their PRW as an order 
clerk. With a five-year PRW period, however, the individual would be 
found ``disabled'' because (1) the work as an order clerk would not 
have been performed recently enough to qualify as PRW, and (2) at step 
five, medical-vocational rule 201.12 directs a ``disabled'' finding for 
a person with the individual's RFC, age, education, and work history.
    However, other claims that would have a step four denial under the 
current rules would still result in a step five denial under the 
proposed rules. For example: Assume the same facts as the previous 
example, except that the individual is 43 years old. Although the 
individual's work as an order clerk would not qualify as PRW under the 
rules we are proposing, the individual would still be found ``not 
disabled.'' While the individual would be found unable to perform their 
PRW, medical-vocational rule 201.27 would direct a denial at step five 
given the individual's RFC, age, education, and work history.

How the Proposed Revision Will Affect Decision Making at Step Five of 
the Sequential Evaluation Process

    The proposed revision to reduce the relevant work period from 15 to 
5 years will affect our decision making at the fifth step in the 
sequential evaluation process we use in initial claims and at the 
corresponding step in the evaluation process used in CDRs.

1. How the Change Will Affect Eligibility for the No Work Profile

    Revising the relevant work period to five years will make it more 
likely that an individual will meet the no work profile.\81\ The no 
work medical-vocational profile directs a finding of disabled for any 
individual 55 or older with no more than limited education, no PRW, and 
a severe impairment. Revising the relevant work period from 15 to 5 
years will increase the applicability of the no work profile because 
any individual who had not worked during the relevant 5-year period 
will be deemed to have no PRW. This effect will increase at each level 
of the administrative review process because the relevant work period 
is measured from the date of adjudication, in most cases, and will 
shift as a case moves

[[Page 67144]]

through administrative review.\82\ As a result, work found to be PRW at 
earlier administrative levels may cease to qualify as PRW at later 
stages in the review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Our Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that for old age, 
survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) and SSI combined, about 
two percent of the total marginal increase in disability allowances 
attributable to the assumed implementation of this proposed rule 
would be additional claims allowed under the no work profile, with 
the majority of this effect on SSI adult disability awards. This 
translates to annual average increases of fewer than 50 OASDI 
disability awards per year and 400 SSI adult disability awards per 
year over fiscal years 2025 through 2033. Some of these additional 
awards under the no work profile could otherwise be allowed under 
other vocational rules. The proposed change will also likely result 
in more instances in which an individual's RFC and vocational 
factors align with a grid rule that directs a finding that the 
individual is disabled because of a lack of any PRW. This situation 
will occur if the individual's most recent work experience was 6-15 
years prior to the determination or decision. For example, rule 
203.03 directs a ``not disabled'' finding for an individual with 
PRW, while rule 203.02 directs an allowance for an otherwise similar 
individual with no PRW.
    \82\ For more information, see section Definition of PRW and the 
Relevant Work Period, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. How the Change Will Affect Outcomes Based on Medical-Vocational 
Guidelines Using Transferable Skills

    Revising the relevant work period to five years will make it more 
likely that individuals will lack transferable skills. Some of the 
rules under the medical-vocational guidelines direct different 
decisions depending on whether individuals have acquired transferable 
skills from their past work. Because work performed 6 to 15 years prior 
to our determination or decision will no longer qualify as past work, 
we will no longer consider skills acquired from such work to be 
transferable to other skilled or semi-skilled work.\83\ Therefore, more 
claims will be decided based on rules that direct a finding that the 
individuals are disabled.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See 20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968.
    \84\ Our Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that for OASDI 
and SSI combined, about 30 percent of the total marginal increase in 
disability allowances attributable to the assumed implementation of 
this proposed rule would be allowed due to additional awards for 
individuals no longer being assessed to have transferable skills, 
whereas they would have such skills under our current rule. This 
translates to an average of about 7,500 additional OASDI disability 
awards and 2,500 additional SSI adult disability awards per year 
over fiscal years 2025 through 2033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the medical-vocational guidelines, the presence of 
transferable skills has a material effect on the outcomes of 
determinations and decisions for individuals age 50 or older in several 
instances.\85\ Furthermore, because the relevant work period will shift 
as a case moves through the administrative review process,\86\ work 
found to provide transferable skills at earlier administrative levels 
will often cease to qualify as PRW at later stages in the review 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ For example, rule 201.03 directs a decision of not disabled 
for an individual with a certain specified RFC and vocational 
factors who has transferable skills, while rule 201.02 directs a 
decision of disabled for an otherwise similar individual who does 
not have transferable skills.
    \86\ For more information, see section Definition of PRW and the 
Relevant Work Period, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect on Current Subregulatory Guidance

    If we adopt the proposed rule as a final rule, we will rescind 
several current Social Security Rulings (SSRs) because they will be 
inconsistent with the final rule. The list includes:
    <bullet> SSR 82-61: Titles II and XVI: Past Relevant Work--The 
Particular Job or the Occupation as Generally Performed. We will 
rescind this SSR because we propose to revise how we consider past 
relevant work.
    <bullet> SSR 82-62: Titles II and XVI: A Disability Claimant's 
Capacity to Do Past Relevant Work, In General. We will rescind this SSR 
because we propose to revise how we consider past relevant work.
    <bullet> SSR 82-63: Titles II and XVI: Medical-Vocational Profiles 
Showing an Inability to Make an Adjustment to Other Work. We will 
rescind this SSR because we propose to revise how we consider past 
relevant work.
    <bullet> SSR 86-8: Titles II and XVI: The Sequential Evaluation 
Process. We will rescind this SSR because we propose to revise how we 
consider past relevant work.
    We plan to issue updated subregulatory guidance and will also 
provide training to our adjudicators.

Solicitation for Public Comment

    We are seeking public comment on this proposed rule. Questions the 
public may wish to consider when evaluating this proposed rule:
    <bullet> Is there data or other evidence supporting a relevant work 
period other than 5 years that could be used to inform this rulemaking?
    <bullet> Do you have any additional information about whether we 
should revise the no work profile to maintain a 15-year period as it 
exists under our current rules?
    <bullet> Do you have any additional information about whether we 
should end use of the medical-vocational profiles because they require 
collection and development of more than 5 years of work history?
    <bullet> The current time burden estimate to complete form SSA-
3369-BK (OMB No. 0960-0578) is 60 minutes for individuals. We are 
estimating (see Paperwork Reduction Act of this preamble) the revised 
form requiring only 5 years of work history will take 40 minutes for 
individuals to complete. Do you agree with this new estimate? Why or 
why not?
    <bullet> Are there areas where we could further simplify this form 
or other aspects of the information collection process while still 
collecting all the information that is required to make an accurate 
disability determination?
    <bullet> We currently ask individuals to list all jobs they have 
held during the relevant work period, regardless of the length of time 
the job was held. Should we consider revising this requirement so that 
respondents do not need to report jobs held for short periods of time 
(e.g., one month)? If so, what threshold should we set and what 
evidence supports this threshold?

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 may 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 Orders 13563 
and 14094, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. 
In addition to your substantive comments on this proposed rule, we 
invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For 
example:
    <bullet> Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
    <bullet> Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    <bullet> Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
    <bullet> Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
    <bullet> What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    <bullet> Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is 
not clear?
    <bullet> Would a different format make the rule easier to 
understand, e.g., grouping and order of sections, use of headings, or 
paragraphing?

When will we start to use this rule?

    We will not use this rule unless we publish a final rule in the 
Federal Register after evaluating the public comments. All final rules 
we issue include an effective date. We will continue to use our current 
rules until that date. If we publish a final rule, we will include a 
summary of those relevant comments we received along with responses and 
an explanation of how we will apply the new rule. If we adopt the 
proposed rule as a final rule, we will begin to use it in all claims 
awaiting a final determination or decision as of the effective date of 
the final rules.

Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Orders 13563 and 
14094

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and

[[Page 67145]]

determined that this rule is significant under Section 3(f)(1) of 
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Orders 13563 and 
14094. Therefore, OMB reviewed it.

Anticipated Transfers to Our Program

    The Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) estimates that 
implementation of this proposed rule would result in an increase in 
scheduled SSDI benefits of $22.9 billion, a net reduction in scheduled 
old-age and survivors insurance (OASI) benefits of $6.5 billion, and an 
increase in Federal SSI payments of $3.9 billion in total over fiscal 
years 2024 through 2033, assuming implementation for all decisions made 
on or after May 6, 2024. OCACT estimates that this rule would primarily 
affect individuals ages 50 and older. These estimates assume that 
because more people will be receiving SSDI until they reach full 
retirement age, fewer people will be receiving OASI; this does not 
reflect any change to OASI eligibility.
    To develop this estimate, we conducted a case study of 1,024 
disability determinations to determine the effect on determinations at 
the DDS and hearings before administrative law judges (ALJ). Using a 
stratified random sample of final denial decisions in FY 2016 and 
appropriate available medical evidence, case reviewers evaluated the 
effects on the medical determination of reducing the relevant work 
period from 15 to 5 years. The sample included determinations of both 
initial applications and CDRs for OASDI and SSI adults at the DDS and 
ALJ hearings level. The sample also included both current rule step 
four and step five denials.
    OCACT's analysis of the study results indicates that for denials at 
step four that are occurring under current rules, roughly 50 percent 
would no longer be denied under the proposed rule and thus would 
require a determination at step five. The study further indicates that 
about one-third of these cases would be allowed at step five, so that 
overall, about 17 percent of current step four denials would be allowed 
at step five. For denials at step five under current rules, the study 
indicates that the effects would be much smaller. The study found that 
about four percent of the step five denial decisions studied would 
change to an allowance. This is not equivalent to a four percent 
decrease in step five denials overall, because the sub-sample of step 
five denials in this study was stratified to include only the select 
group of step five denials that would potentially be affected by the 
proposed change in the relevant work period.
    Using the case study results, OCACT estimates that on average over 
the next 10 years, the proposed rule will increase the number of 
disability awards per year by about 21,000 for OASDI and 10,000 for 
SSI. Of these changes, for OASDI, OCACT estimates roughly:
    <bullet> 13,500 new allowances for individuals who would be denied 
at step four under current rules but under the proposed rules would be 
determined eligible under the vocational rules at step five;
    <bullet> 7,500 new allowances for individuals who would be denied 
at step five under current rules because of transferrable skills from 
PRW who are determined eligible due to no longer being assessed to have 
transferable skills; and
    <bullet> Less than 50 new allowances who would now be eligible 
under the ``no work'' profile.
    For SSI, OCACT estimates roughly:
    <bullet> 7,100 new allowances would be denied at step four under 
current rules but would be determined eligible under the vocational 
rules at step five;
    <bullet> 2,500 new allowances for individuals who would be denied 
at step five under current rules because of transferrable skills from 
PRW who would be determined eligible due to no longer being assessed to 
have transferrable skills; and
    <bullet> 400 new allowances under the ``no work'' profile.
    Combining the impacts to OASDI and SSI, approximately two-thirds of 
the increase in awards is due to new allowances under the vocational 
rules at step five, 30 percent is due to individuals who would be 
allowed due to no longer being assessed to have transferable skills, 
and two percent is due to individuals who would now be eligible under 
the ``no work'' profile.

Anticipated Net Administrative Savings to the Social Security 
Administration

    The Office of Budget, Finance, and Management estimates that this 
proposal will result in net administrative savings of $1.05 billion for 
the 10-year period from FY 2024 to FY 2033. The administrative savings 
are primarily driven by time savings from evaluating work over a 
shorter period for initial claims, reconsideration requests, and 
hearings processed in our field offices, State disability determination 
services, and hearings offices. In addition, due to a shorter PRW 
period, we expect fewer disability re-applications, reconsiderations, 
and hearings requests over the 10-year period, leading to sizeable 
administrative savings. Savings are offset by administrative costs 
stemming from systems updates and training costs upon implementation, 
and post-eligibility actions for additional beneficiaries and non-
disabled dependents thereafter.

Anticipated Time-Savings and Other Qualitative Benefits to the Public

    The proposed change will reduce the obstacles that individuals with 
significant physical or mental impairments face in their efforts to 
obtain the crucial benefits our disability programs provide. Our 
experience indicates that individuals often find it difficult to gather 
and provide accurate information about their work histories, and that 
those difficulties tend to increase when they are asked to provide 
detailed information about work performed in the more distant past. 
Reducing individuals' need to gather and report information about work 
performed beyond the proposed 5-year relevant period will increase the 
likelihood we will have a complete and accurate work history report. We 
estimate at a minimum this will result in at least 938,735 hours of 
time savings in direct paperwork burden experienced by claimants as 
well as additional time-savings associated with the overall process of 
completing the relevant forms. As discussed in the Paperwork Reduction 
Act section below, we estimate the opportunity costs of this time-
savings to be at least $59,733,733 annually.
    The proposed change may also prevent the denial of benefits in 
certain situations in which, under our current rules, an individual 
might be found ``not disabled'' because of relatively distant work 
experience.

Anticipated Costs to the Public

    As discussed in the preamble, our process for determining if an 
individual is disabled includes evaluating whether or not the 
individual, given their RFC, can perform any of their past relevant 
work. If an individual can perform their past work, then we will 
determine they are not disabled. By limiting the review of past 
relevant work to the previous 5 years, there are likely, on the 
margins, individuals who held jobs longer than 5 years in the past who 
may still be able to perform those jobs today. Those individuals would 
be found not disabled under our current rules. Under the proposed 
rules, these individuals may be allowed. A subset of these individuals 
who would have been denied under the current rules would have worked in 
the absence of benefits. This reduction in labor force

[[Page 67146]]

participation imposes some social costs on the public.
    Previous research has found that, among claimants on the margin, an 
additional 16 to 17 percent would have worked above SGA in the absence 
of benefits three years later.\87\ Although this margin is different 
than the one that would be invoked by the proposed change in rules, it 
provides a useful reference point.. One study found that 35 percent of 
those denied at step four (and above age 50) worked above SGA in at 
least one of the five years after the decision.\88\ Further, the study 
found that 17 percent of this group had any earnings in the second year 
after the decision.\89\ Therefore, the evidence indicates that there 
will be some instances of newly-allowed beneficiaries who would have 
worked--some of them above SGA--if they had been denied on the basis of 
the ability to do past work. This is also consistent with OCACT's 
preliminary estimate that the increase in the number of individuals who 
would be receiving disability benefits would reduce OASDI payroll tax 
revenue over the next 10 years by a total between $200 million and $300 
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Maestas, Nicole, Kathleen J. Mullen, and Alexander Strand. 
2013. ``Does Disability Insurance Receipt Discourage Work? Using 
Examiner Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects of SSDI Receipt.'' 
American Economic Review, 103 (5): 1797-1829.
    French, Eric, and Jae Song. 2014. ``The Effect of Disability 
Insurance Receipt on Labor Supply.'' American Economic Journal: 
Economic Policy 6(2): 291-337
    \88\ Hyde, Jody Schimmel, April Yanyuan Wu and Lakhpreet Gill, 
2018, The Benefit Receipt Patterns and Labor Market Experiences of 
Older Workers Who Were Denied SSDI on the Basis of Work Capacity, 
DRC Working Paper Number 2018-01. Available at https://www.mathematica.org/publications/the-benefit-receipt-patterns-and-labor-market-experiences-of-older-workers-who-were-denied-ssdi. See 
page 24. Small sample sizes in the Health and Retirement Study 
preclude giving estimates for individual years.
    \89\ Ibid, see Table C1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 government functions.

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, a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    SSA already has existing OMB PRA-approved information collection 
tools relating to this proposed rule: Claimant's Work Background (HA-
4633, OMB No. 0960-0300); Work History Report SSA-3368, OMB No. 0960-
0578); and Disability Report--Adult (SSA-3368, OMB No. 0960-0579). The 
proposed rule, once implemented in final, provides for a shorter work 
history requirement than we previously required; therefore, we expect 
the rule will significantly reduce public reporting burdens associated 
with these forms. The sections below report our current public 
reporting burdens for these existing OMB-approved forms, and project 
the anticipated burden reduction and new burden figures after 
implementation at the final rule stage. We will obtain OMB approval for 
the revisions to the collection instruments simultaneously with the 
publication of the final rule.
    The following chart shows the time burden information associated 
with the proposed rule:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Anticipated     Anticipated
                                                                              Current         Current       new burden       estimated
                                             Number of     Frequency  of      average        estimated     per response    total burden      Estimated
    OMB No.; Form No.; CFR citations        respondents      response       burden per     total burden        under           under          burden
                                                                             response         (hours)       regulation      regulation        savings
                                                                             (minutes)                       (minutes)        (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0960-0300, HA-4633, (Paper Form)                  32,300               1              30          16,150              20          10,767           5,383
 410.1560; 416.960......................
0960-0300, HA-4633, (ERE) 410.1560;              157,700               1              30          78,850              20          52,567          26,283
 416.960................................
0960-0578, SSA-3369, (Paper Form)              1,553,900               1              60       1,553,900              40       1,035,933         517,967
 410.1560; 416.960......................
0960-0578, SSA-3369, (EDCS Screens)               38,049               1              60          38,049              40          25,366          12,683
 410.1560; 416.960......................
0960-0579, SSA-3368, (Paper Form)                  6,045               1              90           9,068              80           8,060           1,008
 410.1560; 416.960......................
0960-0579, SSA-3368, (EDCS Screens)            1,263,104               1              90       1,894,656              80       1,684,139         210,517
 410.1560; 416.960......................
0960-0579, i3368, (Internet Screens)             989,361               1              90       1,484,042              80       1,319,148         164,894
 410.1560; 416.960......................
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................       4,040,459  ..............  ..............       5,074,715  ..............       4,135,980         938,735
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following chart shows the theoretical cost burdens associated 
with the proposed rule:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Anticipated
                                                                                        estimated         Average      Average  wait
                                                                                       total burden     theoretical    time  in field     Total annual
                  OMB No.; Form No.; CFR citations                      Number of         under        hourly  cost      office or     opportunity  cost
                                                                       respondents      regulation        amount        teleservice       (dollars) ***
                                                                                        from chart      (dollars) *       centers
                                                                                      Above  (hours)                    (minutes) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0960-0300, HA-4633, (Paper Form) 410.1560; 416.960.................          32,300           10,767        * $12.81  ...............        *** 137,925

[[Page 67147]]

 
0960-0300, HA-4633, (ERE) 410.1560; 416.960........................         157,700           52,567         * 29.76  ...............      *** 1,564,394
0960-0578, SSA-3369, (Paper Form) 410.1560; 416.960................       1,553,900        1,035,933         * 12.81  ...............     *** 13,270,302
0960-0578, SSA-3369, (EDCS Screens) 410.1560; 416.960..............          38,049           25,366         * 12.81            ** 21        *** 495,529
0960-0579, SSA-3368, (Paper Form) 410.1560; 416.960................           6,045            8,060         * 12.81            ** 21        *** 130,355
0960-0579, SSA-3368, (EDCS Screens) 410.1560; 416.960..............       1,263,104        1,684,139         * 12.81            ** 21     *** 27,236,942
0960-0579, i3368, (Internet Screens) 410.1560; 416.960.............         989,361        1,319,148         * 12.81  ...............     *** 16,898,286
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................................................       4,040,459        4,135,980  ..............  ...............     *** 59,733,733
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We based this figure on the average SSDI payments based on SSA's current FY 2023 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2023factsheet.pdf); on the
  average U.S. citizen's hourly salary, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
** We based this figure on the average FY 2023 wait times for field offices and hearings office, as well as by averaging both the average FY 2023 wait
  times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA's current management information data.
*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather,
  these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to
  respondents to complete the application.

    SSA submitted a single new Information Collection Request which 
encompasses the revisions to all three information collections 
(currently under OMB Numbers 0960-0300, 0960-0578, and 0960-0579) to 
OMB for the approval of the changes due to the proposed rule. After 
approval at the final rule stage, we will adjust the figures associated 
with the current OMB numbers for these forms to reflect the new burden. 
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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1beb8a3b0aea284939c988282989e9fb19e9c93df949e81df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b1412091a04082e39363228283234351b343639753e342b753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>
Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 
Mail Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore MD 21235, Fax: 
410-966-2830, Email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92ddc0bcc0f7e2fde0e6e1bcd1fef7f3e0f3fcf1f7d2e1e1f3bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbf4e995e9decbd4c9cfc895f8d7dedac9dad5d8defbc8c8da95dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>

    You can submit comments until November 28, 2023, which is 60 days 
after the publication of this notice. However, your comments will be 
most useful if you send them to SSA by November 28, 2023, which is 60 
days after publication. 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.

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).

    The Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Kilolo Kijakazi, Ph.D., 
M.S.W., having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the 
authority to electronically sign this document to Faye I. Lipsky, who 
is the primary Federal Register Liaison for SSA, for purposes of 
publication in the Federal Register.

Faye I. Lipsky,
Federal Register Liaison, Office of Legislation and Congressional 
Affairs, Social Security Administration.

    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 out below:

PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE 
(1950- )

Subpart P--Determining Disability and Blindness

0
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).

0
2. Amend Sec.  404.1560 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  404.1560  When we will consider your vocational background.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Definition of past relevant work. Past relevant work is work 
that you have done within the past five years that was substantial 
gainful activity and that lasted long enough for you to learn to do it. 
(See Sec.  404.1565(a)).
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec.  404.1565 to read as follows:


Sec.  404.1565  Your work experience as a vocational factor.

    (a) General. Work experience means skills and abilities you have 
acquired through work you have done which show the type of work you may 
be expected to do. Work you have already been able to do shows the kind 
of work that you may be expected to do. We consider that your work 
experience applies when it was done within the last five years, lasted 
long enough for you to learn to do it, and was substantial gainful 
activity. We do not usually consider that work you did more than five 
years before the time we are deciding whether you are disabled (or when 
the disability insured status requirement was last met, if earlier) 
applies. A gradual change occurs in most jobs so that after five years 
it is no longer realistic to expect that skills and abilities acquired 
in a job done then continue to apply. If you have no work experience or 
worked only ``off-and-on'' or for brief periods of time during the 
five-year period, we generally consider that these do not apply. If you 
have acquired skills through your past work, we consider you to have 
these work skills unless you cannot use them in other skilled or semi-
skilled work that

[[Page 67148]]

you can now do. If you cannot use your skills in other skilled or semi-
skilled work, we will consider your work background the same as 
unskilled. However, even if you have no work experience, we may 
consider that you are able to do unskilled work because it requires 
little or no judgment and can be learned in a short period of time.
    (b) Information about your work. Under certain circumstances, we 
will ask you about the work you have done in the past. If you cannot 
give us all of the information we need, we may try, with your 
permission, to get it from your employer or other person who knows 
about your work, such as a member of your family or a co-worker. When 
we need to consider your work experience to decide whether you are able 
to do work that is different from what you have done in the past, we 
will ask you to tell us about all of the jobs you have had in the last 
five years. You must tell us the dates you worked, all of the duties 
you did, and any tools, machinery, and equipment you used. We will need 
to know about the amount of walking, standing, sitting, lifting and 
carrying you did during the workday, as well as any other physical or 
mental duties of your job. If all of your work in the past five years 
has been arduous and unskilled, and you have very little education, we 
will ask you to tell us about all of your work from the time you first 
began working. This information could help you to get disability 
benefits.

PART 416--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND 
DISABLED

Subpart I--Determining Disability and Blindness

0
4. 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).

0
5. Amend Sec.  416.960 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.960  When we will consider your vocational background.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Definition of past relevant work. Past relevant work is work 
that you have done within the past five years that was substantial 
gainful activity and that lasted long enough for you to learn to do it. 
(See Sec.  416.965(a)).
* * * * *
0
6. Revise Sec.  416.965 to read as follows:


Sec.  416.965  Your work experience as a vocational factor.

    (a) General. Work experience means skills and abilities you have 
acquired through work you have done which show the type of work you may 
be expected to do. Work you have already been able to do shows the kind 
of work that you may be expected to do. We consider that your work 
experience applies when it was done within the last five years, lasted 
long enough for you to learn to do it, and was substantial gainful 
activity. We do not usually consider that work you did more than five 
years before the time we are deciding whether you are disabled applies. 
A gradual change occurs in most jobs so that after five years it is no 
longer realistic to expect that skills and abilities acquired in a job 
done then continue to apply. The five-year guide is intended to ensure 
that remote work experience is not currently applied. If you have no 
work experience or worked only ``off-and-on'' or for brief periods of 
time during the five-year period, we generally consider that these do 
not apply. If you have acquired skills through your past work, we 
consider you to have these work skills unless you cannot use them in 
other skilled or semi-skilled work that you can now do. If you cannot 
use your skills in other skilled or semi-skilled work, we will consider 
your work background the same as unskilled. However, even if you have 
no work experience, we may consider that you are able to do unskilled 
work because it requires little or no judgment and can be learned in a 
short period of time.
    (b) Information about your work. Under certain circumstances, we 
will ask you about the work you have done in the past. If you cannot 
give us all of the information we need, we may try, with your 
permission, to get it from your employer or other person who knows 
about your work, such as a member of your family or a co-worker. When 
we need to consider your work experience to decide whether you are able 
to do work that is different from what you have done in the past, we 
will ask you to tell us about all of the jobs you have had in the last 
five years. You must tell us the dates you worked, all of the duties 
you did, and any tools, machinery, and equipment you used. We will need 
to know about the amount of walking, standing, sitting, lifting and 
carrying you did during the workday, as well as any other physical or 
mental duties of your job. If all of your work in the past five years 
has been arduous and unskilled, and you have very little education, we 
will ask you to tell us about all of your work from the time you first 
began working. This information could help you to get disability 
benefits.

[FR Doc. 2023-21557 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>