Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67135 

(6) Contain the written text of the 

proposed oral presentation. 

■ 14. In newly redesignated § 1052.4, 

revise paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1052.4 Conduct of oral presentation. 

* * * * * 

(b) The oral presentation, which shall 

be taped or transcribed, shall be an 

informal, non-adversarial proceeding at 

which there will be no formal pleadings 

or adverse parties. 

* * * * * 

PART 1502—PROCEDURES FOR 

FORMAL EVIDENTIARY PUBLIC 

HEARING 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 

1502 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B), 

1262(a), 1262(e), 1269(a); 15 U.S.C. 1474(a); 

21 U.S.C. 371(e)–(g). 

■ 16. Amend § 1502.5 by adding a new 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1502.5 Initiation of a hearing involving 

the issuance, amendment, or revocation of 

a regulation. 

* * * * * 

(c) Any person requesting the 

opportunity for a public hearing under 

this part shall satisfy the disclosure 

requirements of § 1025.17(b)(3) and (4), 

in addition to all requirements in this 

part. 

■ 17. Amend § 1502.16 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1502.16 Notice of participation. 

(a) Within 30 days after publication of 

the notice of hearing under § 1502.13, a 

person desiring to participate in a 

hearing is to file with the Office of the 

Secretary a notice of participation 

containing the following information: 

(i) Date of submission; 

(ii) Title of submission: Notice of 

Participation; 

(iii) To whom the notice is being 

directed: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD. 

Mailing address: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Washington, DC 20207; CPSC-OS@

cpsc.gov. 

(iv) Title of Regulation and CPSC 

Docket Number; 

(v) Name and contact information of 

person or entity seeking to participate, 

including Street Address, City, State, 

and Zip Code, Telephone number, and 

email address; 

(vi) Service on the above will be 

accepted by: Name, Street Address, City, 

State, and Zip Code, Telephone number, 

and email address; 

(vii) The following statements are 

made as part of this notice of 

participation: 

(A) Specific interests. Provide a 

statement of the specific interest of the 

person in the proceeding, including the 

specific issues of fact concerning which 

the person desires to be heard. This part 

need not be completed by a party to the 

proceeding; 

(B) Commitment to participate. 

Provide a statement that the person will 

present documentary evidence or 

testimony at the hearing and will 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 1502.25 of these procedures; 

(C) Disclosure of interest. Unless the 

notice of participation is made by the 

United States or a State, local or foreign 

government, or by an agency thereof, or 

Indian Tribe, city, county, town or 

similar entity when submitted by its law 

officer, provide a statement that 

indicates whether: 

(1) A party or a party’s counsel 

authored the notice of participation in 

whole or in part, and, if so, identifies 

such party; 

(2) A party or a party’s counsel has 

made or has agreed to make a monetary 

contribution intended to fund the 

proposed participation and, if so, 

identifies such party; and 

(3) A person other than the one filing 

the notice of participation, its members, 

or its counsel has made or has agreed to 

make a monetary contribution intended 

to fund the proposed participation and, 

if so, identifies each such person; 

(4) If no such authorship or 

contributions were or will be provided, 

the statement should affirmatively 

indicate that no assistance that is 

reportable under this Rule has been 

provided or promised; 

(D) Corporate disclosure. If the 

proposed participant is a corporation 

the notice shall include a statement that 

identifies any parent corporation and 

any publicly held corporation that owns 

10% or more of its stock or state that 

there is no such corporation; and 

(viii) Signature. 

* * * * * 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20184 Filed 9–28–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67136 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A)–(B). 

2The 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. 

5 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920. 

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. 

7See 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). 

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). 12See 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. 13See SSR 96–8p: Policy Interpretation Ruling 

Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional 

Capacity in Initial Claims. 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). 

15We 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. 

16 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1568, 

416.920(a)(4)(v), and 416.968. 

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 regulations@ssa.gov. 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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67137 

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. 

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. 

20See 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. 

can adjust to other work, we will find 

that the individual is not disabled. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP29SE23.059</GPH>

Table 1: Overview of the Sequential Evaluation Process for Initial Adult Disability Claims 

.----YesStep 1: Is the individual w~ and ~ ~~""'"""5 

~g ~ Yes-----. in SGA? _ 

I 

No 

l 

Step 1: Does the individnal have a. 

"severe" impairment? 

I 

Yes 

l 

- No ---"" 

Step 3: Does the mdividnal's 

impairment(s) meet or medically eqnal 

in severity an impairment in the Listing 

of Impairments? 

I 

No 

l 

Step 4: Can fue mdividmd pa:furm ~ 

L...-------.~-----~ Yes-~ fucirPRW? _ 

I 

No 

l 

Step 5: Can an individual adjust to other 

---No - ,vork tbat exists in significant· numbers - 'res ___ ... 

' 

Individual found 

disabled. 

in the natioMJ economy? 

Individual found 

not disabled. 
67138 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

21See 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. 

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). 

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 semiskilled, 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. 

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. 

29See 20 CFR 404.1568(d)(2) and 416.968(d)(2). 

30See 20 CFR 404.1568(d)(3) and 416.968(d)(3). 

31See 20 CFR 404.1568(d)(4) and 416.968(d)(4). 

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

33 20 CFR 404.1560(c)(2) and 416.960(c)(2). 

34See 20 CFR 404.1560(c), 404.1562, 404.1569, 

416.960(c), 416.962, and 416.969. 

35See 20 CFR 404.1520(g)(2) and 416.920(g)(2). 

36See 20 CFR 404.1562 and 416.962. 

37 20 CFR 404.1569 and 416.969. 

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. 

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). 

41See POMS DI 25010.001B.3 medical-vocational 

profiles, available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/ 

poms.NSF/lnx/0425010001. 

before the date last insured.21 As noted 

below in our discussion of medicalvocational 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

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. 

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

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

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

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): 

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 medicalvocational profile, we find the 

individual disabled.36 If not, we 

consider the medical-vocational 

guidelines in our disability finding.37

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. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67139 

42See 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). 

44For 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. 

45 Id. 

46 20 CFR 404.1569a(c)(2) and 416.969a(c)(2). 

47 20 CFR 404.1569a(d) and 416.969a(d). 

48For 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. 

49 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b). 

50Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa3368.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 selfemployment income. The information collected on 

the initial application would not be changed as a 

result of this proposal. 

51See 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b). 

52Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa3369.pdf. 

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). 

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. 

TABLE 2—MEDICAL VOCATIONAL PROFILES

Medical-vocational profiles Age Education 

(no more than) Past work experience Is this profile affected under the proposed rule? 

Arduous unskilled work 

profile.

No minimum age ............... Marginal (typically 6th 

grade or less).

35 years or more in which 

the individual performs 

only arduous unskilled 

physical labor.

No. 

No work profile .................. 55 years or older ............... Limited (typically 11th 

grade or less).

No PRW ............................ Yes, under the proposed 

rules the relevant work 

period would be reduced 

from 15 to 5 years. 

Lifetime Commitment profile.60 years or older ............... Limited (typically 11th 

grade or less).

30 years or more to a field 

of work that is unskilled 

(or if skilled or semiskilled with no 

transferrable skills).

No. 

Medical-Vocational Guidelines To 

Direct a Decision 

If an individual’s RFC and vocational 

factors do not match a medicalvocational 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

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

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

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). 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67140 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

55 Id. 56 Id. 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. 

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. 

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. 

62Attendees 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. 

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

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 medicalvocational 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. 

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’ selfreporting for information about past 

work,58 and self-reported information is 

often incomplete. Our adjudicative 

experience shows that individuals’ selfreported 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. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67141 

63The 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. 

64Handel, 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-change2016.pdf. 

65 Id. 

66 Id. 

67The 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. 

68Revising the Standard Occupational 

Classification, available at: https://www.bls.gov/soc/ 

revising_the_standard_occupational_classification_

2018.pdf. 

69See Monthly Labor Review: Revising the 

Standard Occupational Classification system for 

2010, available at: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/

2010/08/art3full.pdf. 

70The 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. 

71Lise, 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. 

72Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461, n.2 

(1983). 

them. They’re overwhelmed by them. 

They end up filling out something sortof 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 workerlevel 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 wellretained 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. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67142 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

73 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b). 

74 Id. 

75Sources: 2019 Longitudinal EmployeeEmployer 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 lowerskill job and later received a promotion to a higherskill 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. 

76We 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. 

77See 20 CFR 404.1565(b) and 416.965(b). 

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. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67143 

78See the Paperwork Reduction Act section, 

below. 

79We 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. 

80See the Paperwork Reduction Act section, 

below. 

81Our 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. 

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. 

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. 

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, medicalvocational 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, medicalvocational 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 medicalvocational 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67144 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

82For more information, see section Definition of 

PRW and the Relevant Work Period, above. 

83See 20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968. 

84Our 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. 

85For 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. 

86For more information, see section Definition of 

PRW and the Relevant Work Period, above. 

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. 

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 medicalvocational 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

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. 

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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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: 

• Is there data or other evidence 

supporting a relevant work period other 

than 5 years that could be used to 

inform this rulemaking? 

• 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? 

• 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? 

• 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? 

• 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? 

• 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: 

• Would more, but shorter, sections 

be better? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit your needs? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

• Would a different format make the 

rule easier to understand, e.g., grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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: 

• 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; 

• 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 

• Less than 50 new allowances who 

would now be eligible under the ‘‘no 

work’’ profile. 

For SSI, OCACT estimates roughly: 

• 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; 

• 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 

• 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 posteligibility 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 timesavings 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67146 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

87Maestas, 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 

88Hyde, 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-labormarket-experiences-of-older-workers-who-weredenied-ssdi. See page 24. Small sample sizes in the 

Health and Retirement Study preclude giving 

estimates for individual years. 

89 Ibid, see Table C1. 

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. 

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 PRAapproved 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: 

OMB No.; Form No.; CFR citations Number of 

respondents 

Frequency 

of response 

Current 

average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Current 

estimated 

total burden 

(hours) 

Anticipated 

new burden 

per response 

under 

regulation 

(minutes) 

Anticipated 

estimated 

total burden 

under 

regulation 

(hours) 

Estimated 

burden 

savings 

0960–0300, HA–4633, (Paper Form) 

410.1560; 416.960 ..................................... 32,300 1 30 16,150 20 10,767 5,383 

0960–0300, HA–4633, (ERE) 410.1560; 

416.960 ...................................................... 157,700 1 30 78,850 20 52,567 26,283 

0960–0578, SSA–3369, (Paper Form) 

410.1560; 416.960 ..................................... 1,553,900 1 60 1,553,900 40 1,035,933 517,967 

0960–0578, SSA–3369, (EDCS Screens) 

410.1560; 416.960 ..................................... 38,049 1 60 38,049 40 25,366 12,683 

0960–0579, SSA–3368, (Paper Form) 

410.1560; 416.960 ..................................... 6,045 1 90 9,068 80 8,060 1,008 

0960–0579, SSA–3368, (EDCS Screens) 

410.1560; 416.960 ..................................... 1,263,104 1 90 1,894,656 80 1,684,139 210,517 

0960–0579, i3368, (Internet Screens) 

410.1560; 416.960 ..................................... 989,361 1 90 1,484,042 80 1,319,148 164,894 

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: 

OMB No.; Form No.; CFR citations Number of 

respondents 

Anticipated 

estimated 

total burden 

under 

regulation 

from chart 

Above 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly 

cost amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

wait time 

in field 

office or 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Total annual 

opportunity 

cost 

(dollars) *** 

0960–0300, HA–4633, (Paper Form) 410.1560; 416.960 .......................... 32,300 10,767 * $12.81 .......................... *** 137,925 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67147 

OMB No.; Form No.; CFR citations Number of 

respondents 

Anticipated 

estimated 

total burden 

under 

regulation 

from chart 

Above 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly 

cost amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

wait time 

in field 

office or 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Total annual 

opportunity 

cost 

(dollars) *** 

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: OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov 

Social Security Administration, OLCA, 

Attn: Reports Clearance Director, Mail 

Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security 

Blvd., Baltimore MD 21235, Fax: 410– 

966–2830, Email address: 

OR.Reports.Clearance@ssa.gov 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart P 

of part 404 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

■ 2. Amend § 404.1560 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 404.1565(a)). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 404.1565 to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67148 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 

■ 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). 

■ 5. Amend § 416.960 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 416.965(a)). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Revise § 416.965 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Part 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2023–0015] 

RIN 0960–AI81 

Expand the Definition of a Public 

Assistance Household 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We propose to expand the 

definition of a public assistance (PA) 

household for purposes of our programs, 

particularly the Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) program, to include the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) as an additional 

means-tested public income 

maintenance (PIM) program. In 

addition, we seek public comment on 

expanding the definition to include 

households in which any other (as 

opposed to every other) member 

receives public assistance. We expect 

that the proposed rule would decrease 

the number of SSI applicants and 

recipients charged with in-kind support 

and maintenance (ISM). In addition, we 

expect that this proposal would 

decrease the amount of income we 

would deem to SSI applicants or 

recipients because we would no longer 

deem income from ineligible spouses 

and parents who receive SNAP benefits 

and live in the same household. These 

policy changes would reduce 

administrative burden for low-income 

households and SSA. 

DATES: To ensure that your comments 

are considered, we must receive them 

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–2023–0015 so that we may 

associate your comments with the 

correct regulation. 

Caution: You should be careful to 

include in your comments only 

information that you wish to make 

publicly available. We strongly urge you 

not to include in your comments any 

personal information, such as Social 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1