107236 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 89 FR 11773. 

2We define a participating payroll data provider 

as a payroll data provider that has an information 

exchange arrangement with us to provide wage and 

employment information. 

3 42 U.S.C. 1320a–8a. See also 20 CFR 404.459 

and 416.1340. 

4Under section 1129A of the Act, individuals are 

subject to certain penalties for making false or 

misleading statements: the penalty is nonpayment 

of benefits under Title II and ineligibility for 

payments under Title XVI. When an individual’s 

wages are reported by a payroll data provider 

through the exchange and there is an error or 

omission in the wage report, the individual has 

(presumedly) not made a false or misleading 

statement and is expressly not subject to such 

penalties. 

5See 20 CFR 404.315 for a full list of the OASDI 

disability eligibility requirements. 

6This can include, for example, a child of the 

disabled individual, a child of the disabled 

individual entitled to an adult child disability 

benefit, a spouse caring for a minor or disabled 

child of the disabled individual, or retirement 

benefits for a spouse age 62 or older of the disabled 

individual. See 20 CFR 404.330, 404.350, 404.351. 

7See 20 CFR 416.202 for a full list of the SSI 

eligibility requirements. 8 Individuals who are entitled to OASDI disability 

must report to us when their condition improves, 

when they return to work, when they increase the 

amount they work, and when their earnings 

increase. See 20 CFR 404.1588(a). Individuals who 

are eligible for SSI based on disability or blindness 

must make similar reports. See 20 CFR 416.988. All 

SSI recipients and deemors must also report to us 

any change in income as soon as a reportable event 

happens. (A deemor is any person whose income 

or resources are material to determining the 

eligibility of someone filing for or receiving SSI, 

such as a parent or spouse. 20 CFR 416.1160; SI 

01310.127.) See 20 CFR 416.708(c). 

9To be considered in time to process a particular 

month’s payment, SSI recipients or their 

representative payees must report income changes 

within the first ten days of the month following the 

month of change (20 CFR 416.714). Receiving this 

information earlier in the month allows us more 

time to calculate the correct payment, send a Notice 

of Planned Action (NOPA) when an adverse action 

applies, and adjust benefits for the following 

month. If a change is reported after the first ten days 

of the month and the change results in a different 

payment amount, then it is likely that we will not 

be able to adjust the next payment in time, resulting 

in an overpayment or underpayment. 

10Public Law 114–74, 129 Stat. 584, 607. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404, 416, and 422 

[Docket No. SSA–2016–0039] 

RIN 0960–AH88 

Use of Electronic Payroll Data To 

Improve Program Administration 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 824 of the Bipartisan 

Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) authorizes the 

Commissioner of Social Security to 

enter into information exchanges with 

payroll data providers to obtain wage 

and employment information. We use 

wage and employment information to 

administer the Old-Age, Survivors, and 

Disability Insurance (OASDI) disability 

and Supplemental Security Income 

(SSI) programs under titles II and XVI of 

the Social Security Act (Act). We are 

updating our rules pursuant to the BBA, 

which requires us to prescribe, by 

regulation, procedures for implementing 

the access to and use of the information 

held by payroll data providers. We 

expect this final rule will support 

proper use of information exchanges 

with payroll data providers that will 

help us administer our programs more 

efficiently, improve our customers’ 

experience, and prevent improper 

payments under titles II and XVI of the 

Act, which can otherwise occur when 

we do not receive timely and accurate 

wage and employment information. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

3, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Dunham, Policy Analyst, Office 

of Supplemental Security Income and 

Program Integrity Policy, Social Security 

Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235– 

6401, (410) 966–9078. 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.social

security.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 15, 2024, we published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM), Use of Electronic Payroll Data 

To Improve Program Administration.1

In the NPRM, we explained that we 

expect that receiving monthly wage and 

employment information automatically 

through an information exchange with a 

participating payroll data provider 2 will 

improve payment accuracy, reduce 

improper payments, and reduce 

reporting burdens on participating 

individuals when we receive their wage 

and employment information through 

the exchange. We also explained that 

the implementation of an information 

exchange is expected to result in more 

efficient use of our limited 

administrative resources because our 

technicians would reduce the amount of 

time they spend— 

• Manually requesting this 

information from payroll data providers 

and employers; 

• Manually entering data into our 

systems from an individual’s pay 

records; 

• Contacting individuals; and 

• Assisting individuals with the 

results of incomplete or untimely 

reporting. 

Additionally, we will not subject 

individuals who provide authorization 

to certain penalties under section 1129A 

of the Social Security Act 3 for any 

omission or error with respect to wages 

reported by a participating payroll data 

provider.4 When we learn of an 

inaccurate report causing an 

underpayment, we will follow our usual 

procedures for remitting an 

underpayment. 

Background 

We administer the OASDI disability 

and SSI programs under titles II and XVI 

of the Act, respectively. The OASDI 

program pays benefits to individuals 

who meet certain requirements, such as 

those who are disabled and insured for 

disability benefits.5 OASDI also pays 

benefits to certain members of disabled 

individuals’ families.6 The SSI program 

provides financial support to: (1) adults 

and children with a disability or 

blindness; and (2) adults aged 65 and 

older. These individuals must meet all 

program eligibility requirements, 

including having resources and income 

below specified amounts.7

We take seriously our responsibilities 

to ensure eligible individuals receive 

the benefits to which they are entitled 

and to safeguard the integrity of benefit 

programs to better serve our customers. 

We use wage and employment 

information to help decide who can 

receive OASDI disability benefits and 

SSI payments, and to determine SSI 

payment amounts. Receiving complete, 

accurate, and timely wage and 

employment information allows us to 

administer our programs efficiently and 

to avoid improper payments that can 

occur when we do not have such 

information.8 Therefore, we seek to have 

accurate wage and employment 

information as quickly as feasible to 

make correct payments, and thereby 

avoid overpayments before they occur, 

or to correct them as soon as possible 

after they occur. 

To obtain this necessary wage and 

employment information, we largely 

depend on individuals to report it 

directly to us. Though we strive to make 

reporting as easy as possible, it can be 

burdensome for some individuals to 

track their wage and employment 

information and report it to us 

accurately and timely.9 In addition, we 

do not always receive complete or 

timely reports, and even when we do, 

we may still need to verify the reports 

with independent or collateral sources 

when we do not have proper wage 

evidence. 

Section 824 of the BBA 10 authorizes 

the Commissioner of Social Security to 

enter into information exchanges with 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107237 

11 ‘‘Payroll data providers’’ include payroll 

providers, wage verification companies, and other 

commercial or non-commercial entities that collect 

and maintain information regarding employment 

and wages. 42 U.S.C. 1320e–3(c)(1). 

12 42 U.S.C. 1320e–3(a). ‘‘Information exchanges’’ 

are the automated comparison of our system(s) of 

records with information of payroll data providers. 

42 U.S.C. 1320e–3(c)(2). 

13See the NPRM for additional explanation of 

these procedures. 89 FR 11776–11779 (Feb. 15, 

2024). 

14 89 FR 11778, 11781–82. 

15We excluded comments that were unrelated to 

the proposal, were duplicates submitted by the 

same commenter, or used submitter-identifying 

information (such as an email address) that did not 

belong to the commenter. 

payroll data providers 11 to obtain wage 

and employment information. It 

authorizes these information 

exchanges 12 for the purposes of 

efficient program administration and to 

prevent improper OASDI disability and 

SSI payments without the need for 

verification by independent or collateral 

sources. Further, the BBA requires us to 

prescribe procedures for implementing 

the access and use of the information 

held by payroll data providers. We refer 

to an exchange as the Payroll 

Information Exchange (PIE). 

The NPRM proposed policies and 

procedures for implementing the access 

to and use of the information held by 

payroll data providers, including: (1) 

guidelines for establishing and 

maintaining information exchanges with 

payroll data providers (see § 422.150 in 

this final rule); (2) beneficiary 

authorizations (see §§ 404.703(b) and 

416.709(a)–(b) in this final rule); (3) 

reduced wage reporting responsibilities 

for individuals (see §§ 404.708(c), 

404.1588(b), 416.709, and 416.988(b) of 

this final rule); and (4) procedures for 

notifying individuals in writing when 

they become subject to changes in wage 

reporting requirements (see 

§§ 404.1588(b)(2) and 416.709(c) in this 

final rule).13 This final rule adopts these 

policies and procedures, with minor 

changes. As discussed in the NPRM, 

when we receive wage and employment 

information from an employer through a 

participating payroll data provider, an 

individual no longer has to report an 

increase in the amount of their work for 

that employer; an increase in earnings 

from that employer; or changes to wages 

paid in cash from that employer.14

We made changes to the proposed 

language in 20 CFR 404.1588(b)(3) and 

20 CFR 416.709(c)(3) to better track 

these reduced reporting requirements as 

they were described in the NPRM. We 

revised 20 CFR 404.1588(b)(3) to state 

clearly that when reduced reporting 

applies, an individual does not need to 

report an increase in the amount of 

work or an increase in earnings (the 

proposed rule inadvertently referenced 

only an increase in earnings). We 

revised 20 CFR 416.709(c)(3) to clarify 

that if someone has multiple employers, 

they do not have to report an increase 

in the amount of work or earnings from 

any employer we receive their wages 

from; but, if we do not get their wages 

from an employer, they must continue 

reporting. While we expect this is clear 

from the explanation provided in 

paragraph (c)(1), we also anticipate this 

minor change will more clearly explain 

reporting requirements to individuals 

with more than one employer and also 

capture the relevant information in one 

place. We also revised § 404.1588(b) and 

§ 416.709(c) to make it explicitly clear 

that we are not imposing penalties 

because of information we receive from 

PIE. 

Comments Summary 

We received 132 public comments on 

the NPRM from February 15, 2024 

through April 15, 2024, 52 of which 

were relevant, comprehensible 

comments submitted by actual 

commenters. Of the total comments, 52 

are available for public viewing at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

SSA-2016-0039-0007/comment.15

These comments were from: 

• Individuals; 

• Members of Congress; and 

• Advocacy groups for claimant 

representatives and other advocacy 

groups. 

We carefully considered the public 

comments we received. Most 

commenters supported the general 

principles of the payroll information 

exchange, but many recommended 

amendments or questioned some 

aspects of the proposed rule. 

We received some comments that 

were outside the scope of this rule 

because they did not relate to the 

questions we included in the NPRM or 

to the rules we proposed for 

implementing the access to and use of 

the information held by payroll data 

providers. We addressed some of these 

out-of-scope comments generally when 

they relate to wage and employment 

information or relate to the questions we 

proposed in the NPRM and we 

anticipate these responses may help the 

public understand our programs better. 

We summarize and respond to the 

public comments below. 

Reduced Burden 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed support for the regulation, 

stating it would make reporting easier 

and reduce burden. Some commenters 

shared current challenges of reporting 

wages (e.g., difficulty obtaining needed 

information and submitting it on time to 

the right place), opining that these 

would be alleviated when our regulation 

was implemented. One commenter said 

they see how burdensome the wage 

reporting process can be and ‘‘despite 

SSA offering a number of ways by 

which recipients and deemors can 

report wages, all are time consuming.’’ 

Another commenter expressed that 

many individuals experience 

‘‘frustration’’ when they get 

overpayments as a result of wages they 

reported (or tried to report) but 

somehow did not get registered by our 

systems. A separate commenter stated 

that many individuals ‘‘struggle’’ with 

communication and technology and rely 

for assistance on others who do not 

always understand the importance of 

reporting wages. 

Additional commenters said PIE will 

help avoid barriers to reporting, like 

limited office hours, phone delays, and 

non-functioning technology. One 

commenter said relieving the burden on 

individuals to update wage and 

employment information decreases the 

potential for unintentional errors and 

lessens the need for additional contact 

with us to resolve technical or other 

difficulty with our systems. Several 

commenters expressed that PIE will 

reduce the burdens on our staff, to 

include reducing manual workloads and 

processing time. 

Response: We appreciate these 

comments, and we agree that PIE will 

reduce the burden on participating 

individuals and make program 

administration easier for our staff. 

More Accurate Info 

Comment: Commenters also were 

favorable toward PIE because they said 

it would provide us with more accurate 

information to administer our programs. 

One commenter said that using The 

Work Number (TWN) ensures that we 

issue monthly benefits based on the 

most accurate data available, and that 

this also meets multiple program goals 

by ensuring recipients have vital income 

from our programs. The commenter 

stated that access to TWN will ‘‘greatly 

improve’’ our ability to serve the public. 

One commenter said, by leveraging 

wage and employment information from 

TWN, PIE will help support our 

program integrity goal of getting the 

‘‘right payment amount to the right 

person at the right time.’’ The 

commenter stated that PIE data supplied 

by TWN will provide us with an 

‘‘expansive and current view of the 

beneficiary’s wage and employment 

status.’’ According to the commenter, 

TWN can also help identify when wages 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107238 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

16E.O. 14058, 86 FR 71357 (Dec. 16, 2021). 

17Our pre-established attestation policies allow 

us to accept oral attestation as a form of alternative 

signature See Social Security Ruling 04–1p, 

Attestation as an Alternative Signature. 

or employment statuses change or hours 

worked are reduced. 

Response: We appreciate these 

comments, and we agree that PIE will 

provide us with more accurate 

information. 

Reduction in Improper Payments 

Comment: Many commenters stated 

that a benefit of the regulation would be 

its help in reducing improper payments, 

because we would receive more timely 

and accurate information regarding 

income and employment. Some 

commenters said even if overpayments 

occur, we could more quickly identify 

changes and notify individuals of such 

overpayments. According to 

commenters, faster identification and 

notice would reduce the dollar amount 

of improper payments, making 

repayment ‘‘more achievable and with 

less financial harm.’’ One commenter 

stated that this will be ‘‘particularly 

beneficial for [t]itle II recipients who are 

at risk for huge overpayments and 

retroactive cessation when they work 

too much.’’ Another commenter stated 

that PIE would ‘‘greatly reduce 

frustrations and confusion’’ about 

overpayments. 

According to one commenter, PIE 

would allow us to be more responsive 

to real-time data and avoid 

overpayments that occur when we ‘‘take 

too long to act’’ on wage information. 

Another commenter said that PIE may 

identify potential overpayments from 

new employment or additional wages 

sooner, which may result in changes to 

eligibility. Finally, one commenter 

noted that the BBA specified that the 

purpose of the automated exchange 

includes ‘‘preventing improper 

payments of such benefits without the 

need for verification by independent or 

collateral sources.’’ 

Response: We appreciate these 

comments, and we agree that the use of 

PIE data can help reduce improper 

payments. 

Better Customer Experience 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

that PIE would improve our customers’ 

experience because it would reduce the 

time and energy they spend providing 

us with documentation each month, and 

also would decrease the need for 

individuals to call us to follow up on 

any issues. According to the commenter, 

PIE’s automated and streamlined 

process aligns with President Biden’s 

2021 Executive Order, (E.O.), 

Transforming Federal Customer 

Experience and Service Delivery to 

Rebuild Trust in Government.16

Response: We appreciate this 

comment and agree that the use of PIE 

data may improve the customer 

experience for participating individuals. 

Phased Implementation 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended phased implementation 

of PIE. One commenter stated that 

‘‘limiting implementation will allow 

SSA to evaluate implementation by 

identifying problems, taking corrective 

actions, assessing its impact on SSA 

operations and staff, and considering 

best practices’’ before fully 

implementing PIE. Another commenter 

said that the ‘‘system can be rigorously 

tested prior to deployment and 

deployed in stages to identify problems 

before all recipients who opt in become 

subject to it.’’ Commenters stated that 

we could perform ongoing evaluation 

during the phased implementation. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters’ suggestions about 

implementing PIE in phases. Although 

we will work toward fully 

implementing PIE expeditiously 

because full implementation would 

most benefit the public, commenters 

raised multiple concerns (described in 

more detail further in this document) 

that may be mitigated, at least in part, 

by implementing PIE in phases. We 

currently plan to implement PIE first in 

a controlled number of cases, scaling up 

towards full implementation once we 

see the initial effects of PIE on a smaller 

scale, analyze and evaluate these effects, 

and make adjustments, if needed. 

Authorizations 

Comment: For individuals to 

participate in PIE, they must authorize 

us to obtain wage and employment 

information from a participating payroll 

data provider. Several commenters 

expressed support for an opt-in 

authorization process, which requires 

individuals to communicate their 

authorization to us in order to 

participate in PIE. One commenter said 

that an opt-in model would allow 

individuals ‘‘to maintain control and a 

sense of autonomy over their finances.’’ 

Several other commenters expressed 

that we should change our proposal to 

require individuals to ‘‘opt-out’’ of 

authorization, which would assume 

individuals want to participate in PIE 

unless they communicate to us 

otherwise. For example, one commenter 

said an opt-out authorization seems 

consistent with the requirements of the 

law and it would quickly lead to high 

rates of enrollment. Another commenter 

asked why we decided not to require 

automatic participation by individuals. 

Response: Allowing individuals the 

choice to provide authorization offers 

individuals maximum control over their 

personal information and participation 

in PIE. While we anticipate the benefits 

of PIE (reducing burdens, increasing the 

accuracy of wage and employment 

information we receive, and reducing 

improper payments) will far outweigh 

any potentially negative considerations, 

we understand that some individuals 

may weigh this differently. Thus, 

allowing individuals to ‘‘opt in’’ enables 

them to positively affirm their decision. 

We further note that the agency has 

experienced a high rate of opt-ins (over 

97% when presented the opportunity). 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that we should consider additional 

electronic and verbal opportunities for 

individuals to authorize us to obtain 

their wage and employment information 

from a payroll data provider. 

Commenters suggested, for example, 

using mySocialSecurity accounts, blog 

posts, other notices, field office visits, or 

call center interactions as vehicles to 

prompt PIE authorizations. Commenters 

expressed that expanding outreach and 

education about PIE will speed up the 

collection of authorizations and increase 

the benefits of participation. 

Response: We instruct our technicians 

to request authorizations from 

individuals during OASDI disability 

and SSI initial claims; during expedited 

reinstatements; work continuing 

disability reviews; and SSI 

redeterminations. Our technicians may 

also request authorization during other 

post-entitlement interactions. We 

already accept verbal authorizations 

using attestation.17 And we are 

exploring ways to receive authorizations 

electronically, with plans to add the 

authorization form to our Upload 

Documents application, allowing both 

electronic submission and electronic 

signature of the authorization. In 

addition, we will work with our Office 

of Communications to determine the 

best approaches to reach others who 

may benefit from participating in PIE. 

These approaches may include some 

commenter suggestions. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed that we should provide 

standardized, plain-language 

explanations that identify the benefits 

and risks of opting into PIE, notify 

people that they can opt out, and inform 

people how to opt out. One commenter 

asserted that ‘‘the success and integrity 

of this effort will depend on where and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107239 

18We have used attestation as an alternative 

signature method since 2004. See Social Security 

Ruling 04–1p, Attestation as an Alternative 

Signature. 

19See 42 U.S.C. 425(c)(4), 1383(e)(1)(B)(iii)(IV). 

20The commenter referenced the Federal Trade 

Commission Act and state analogs, and cited the 

‘‘Federal Trade Commission, 40 Years of Experience 

with the Fair Credit Reporting Act; An FTC Staff 

Report with Summary of Interpretations,’’ at p 43, 

§ 604(a)(2) item 1 (July 2011). The commenter stated 

that we have a ‘‘separate permissible purpose to 

obtain TWN reports (15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3)(D), i.e., 

in connection with a determination of the 

individual’s eligibility for a government benefit).’’ 

However, according to the commenter, to the extent 

we rely on the permissible purpose of written 

authorization, we need to ensure the authorization 

is not misleading. 21 89 FR 11777 (Feb. 15, 2024). 

when these options are explained to 

individuals, and how the individual’s 

decision is documented.’’ Similarly, 

another commenter said we should 

employ a clearly worded, wellexplained, signed document, and 

maintain it electronically throughout 

the period of entitlement, even if 

superseded by a later election. The 

commenter said we should train our 

staff to clearly explain choices, default 

positions, benefits, and potential 

downsides of each choice. 

Response: We agree that we should 

provide individuals with clear, 

thorough explanations as they consider 

providing authorization to participate in 

PIE. Our written authorization form 

provides clear information and our 

technicians are trained to explain the 

authorization. We require a signature on 

the written form, or attestation when the 

authorization is obtained verbally.18 In 

addition, we are required by law to 

inform individuals of the duration and 

scope of their authorization.19 We 

provide this information on the receipt 

that we issue to individuals when they 

provide their authorization. The receipt 

also instructs the individual to continue 

to report until they receive a subsequent 

notification from us about any reduced 

reporting responsibilities that may come 

with this authorization, if their 

employer participates. Furthermore, we 

will communicate with individuals 

through notices, telephone contacts, and 

in-person contacts to ensure that 

individuals understand the benefits and 

risks of PIE, how PIE affects their 

reporting responsibilities, and other 

relevant information. 

Regarding training, we have already 

issued instructions to our staff and 

published training videos that address 

collecting the authorization because the 

agency began collecting authorizations 

in 2017. This training includes 

information about reduced reporting 

responsibilities and when they apply so 

staff are able to clearly explain this 

information to affected individuals. 

Additionally, as we explained above, 

a beneficiary is not automatically optedin to PIE, so there is no need to explain 

how to opt-out. Rather, we explain to 

the beneficiary that if they give us their 

authorization, we may be able to obtain 

their wage and employment information 

so they will no longer have to report 

that information to us. We also explain 

that they can revoke their authorization 

at any time. 

Comment: One commenter alleged 

that we fail to notify individuals that 

their benefits will not be adversely 

impacted if they decline to provide 

authorization. The commenter said that 

we should revise our authorization form 

and 20 CFR 404.703(b) to state that the 

individual is not required to provide 

authorization and that benefits will not 

be ‘‘jeopardized’’ if they withhold 

authorization. According to the 

commenter, we should stop using 

reports based on our current 

‘‘inadequate’’ authorizations until we 

resend requests for authorization that 

provide additional information. The 

commenter stated that, in order for 

ongoing consent to be valid under 

‘‘basic consumer protection principles,’’ 

we must inform individuals that they 

have the right to revoke the 

authorization at any time and the initial 

authorization letter should explain how 

to revoke that authorization. 

Additionally, the commenter asserted 

that we should revise the regulation and 

form to explain how to revoke 

permission at a future date. Further, the 

commenter stated that omission of 

critical information can be considered a 

‘‘deceptive practice.’’ 20 The commenter 

asserted that, without clear and accurate 

information about the implications of 

authorizing the use of the TWN reports, 

the authorization we are obtaining is not 

a sufficient grant of permission. 

Response: We agree that the 

authorization should provide clear and 

accurate information. We disagree that 

our authorization does not provide such 

information. The authorization explains 

what a payroll data provider is; how we 

will use any information obtained from 

a payroll data provider; how long the 

authorization will remain in effect; that 

by providing the authorization, the 

individual is protected from certain 

penalties; that the authorization may be 

revoked (ending that protection); and 

that the individual might still need to 

report wage and employment 

information to us. Further, the 

authorization Privacy Act statement 

says that the authorization is voluntary 

and explains the effects of not providing 

the authorization. As we explained in 

the NPRM, and in the regulations, 

individuals may revoke their 

authorization in writing at any time, and 

if they revoke their authorization, we 

will apply the revocation to all pending 

or approved claims under the OASDI 

disability and SSI programs from the 

time we process the revocation, 

including claims involving deemors.21

We will continue to look for 

opportunities to engage customers and 

obtain feedback on various aspects of 

the PIE process, including the 

authorization process and form. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whom individuals can speak to for 

assistance related to PIE, such as with 

the enrollment process, the opt-out 

(revoke authorization) process, and 

other related processes. 

Response: Our employees, such as 

technicians at our national 800 number 

or field offices, can assist individuals. 

Because our technicians are instructed 

to request authorization during initial 

claims and various other interactions, 

they are usually actively involved in the 

enrollment process. In addition, we 

designed a straightforward process for 

providing and revoking authorizations. 

Payroll Data Provider Vendor 

Comment: One commenter alleged 

that, because we would be making a 

fundamental change to program 

administration that depends entirely on 

one company, we are setting up a 

‘‘vendor lock’’ situation. The commenter 

said that ‘‘vendor lock’’ would enhance 

our current payroll data provider’s 

leverage for any future contract 

consideration, and that it would subject 

individuals to the ‘‘performance of a 

private entity with opportunities for 

predatory behavior and little chance of 

meaningful accountability.’’ The 

commenter stated that we could 

consider ways to encourage other 

vendors to participate. According to the 

commenter, we could, for example, 

invite all potential vendors to 

understand our current technology, 

technology-staff interfaces, the specific 

technology we use to interface with our 

current payroll data provider’s reporting 

system, and other information necessary 

to build baseline knowledge to reduce 

future barriers to submitting bids. 

In addition, the commenter stated that 

we should consider ways to perform the 

same functions in house, either by 

building the needed infrastructure or 

using existing or available data sources. 

The commenter said, for example, that 

we currently have access to some wage 

reporting data. They asked if it is 

sufficient, or could be made sufficient, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107240 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

22The study, ‘‘Evaluation of Payroll Information 

Exchange (PIE) Wage Data Accuracy,’’ is available 

in the rulemaking record at www.regulations.gov as 

a supporting document for Docket SSA–2016–0039. 

23 89 FR 11783 (Feb. 15, 2024). 

24 In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.101–1(a), a 

trade-off process is appropriate when it may be in 

the best interest of the Government to consider 

award to other than the lowest priced offeror or 

other than the highest rated offeror. The non-price 

factors (listed in descending order of importance) 

used were: 1. Technical approach, 2. Corporate 

experience, and 3. Past performance. The 

solicitation stated factors 1, 2, and 3 when 

combined were approximately equal in importance 

to price. 

25The Technical Evaluation Committee supports 

the source selection for the acquisition. It is 

typically comprised of at least three individuals 

with the appropriate technical expertise to evaluate 

proposals in accordance with the solicited 

evaluation factors. 

26We published notice of our information 

exchange with Equifax, pursuant to section 824 of 

the BBA, on January 19, 2021. 86 FR 5303. 

without turning to outside data sources. 

Further, the commenter stated we could 

consider working with other agencies to 

lessen dependence on external vendors. 

Response: While we are currently in 

a contract with one payroll data 

provider, nothing about the legislation, 

regulations, processes, or procedures 

mandates that we use the same vendor 

in perpetuity. For instance, the 

contracting process allows entities to 

bid on the contract near the conclusion 

of the current contract’s performance 

period. Recompetition efforts begin, 

generally, by issuing a Request for 

Information (RFI) to www.sam.gov. The 

RFI may include a draft copy of the 

Statement of Work for PIE and request 

any interested vendors to submit 

capability statements to us for 

consideration. We would review 

capability statements received from all 

interested vendors. Any proposals for 

payroll data providers would use full 

and open competition in accordance 

with Federal Acquisition Regulations 

(FAR) Part 15. 

Regarding the commenter’s other 

suggestions, we are unaware of a 

Federal agency that could provide the 

information we need to implement PIE, 

and, while we use the resources 

available to us, we do not have access 

to the necessary information internally. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that, because the accuracy study 22 used 

Equifax’s TWN platform only, we 

ignored other payroll data solutions on 

the market, which reflected an 

‘‘inherent bias’’ towards TWN. Further, 

the commenter alleged that the 

reference to Equifax in our actuarial 

estimates indicated that we ‘‘will not 

consider other income and employment 

information providers or methodologies, 

and erroneously assumes that only 

Equifax can perform such work.’’ 23

Response: The accuracy study relied 

on the selected data because we are 

currently under contract with Equifax 

Workforce Solutions (Equifax). We are 

unable to analyze match rates from 

companies who have not made their 

data available to us. We disagree that we 

‘‘unfairly excluded’’ alternative payroll 

data solutions. As noted in our NPRM, 

we solicited proposals for payroll data 

providers using full and open 

competition in accordance with FAR 

Part 15, and based our award decision 

on a trade-off process (best value), 

considering both price and non-price 

factors.24 Equifax was the only payroll 

data provider to respond to our 

solicitation. We evaluated the proposal 

against the evaluation criteria listed 

above, which consisted of technical 

approach, corporate experience, past 

performance, and price. The Technical 

Evaluation Committee 25 determined the 

Non-Price Proposal to be acceptable and 

assigned favorable ratings for the three 

non-price factors. The Contracting 

Officer evaluated the Business Proposal 

(i.e., price proposal) and determined the 

proposed prices were fair and 

reasonable according to FAR 15.404– 

1(b) and the terms of the solicitation. In 

September 2019, the agency awarded 

the PIE contract to Equifax, as we 

determined they offered the best value 

to the government, all factors 

considered.26 As explained above as an 

example, future contracting processes 

would follow our standard 

recompetition efforts for a new PIE 

contract. 

Finally, our reference to our current 

payroll data provider in our actuarial 

estimates was not an indication that we 

are committed to a single payroll data 

provider. Actuarial estimates must make 

assumptions based on current facts to 

develop reasonable projections. 

Assumptions and estimates are subject 

to change based on new facts, as they 

become available. Because Equifax was 

the only partner we could engage with 

and ultimately the entity we contracted 

with, we based our actuarial estimates 

on aspects of data from Equifax. This 

has no effect on the scope of the past, 

present, or future solicitations, nor does 

it limit consideration of other payroll 

data providers or methodologies. 

Further, it does not assume that only 

Equifax can perform such work. 

Payroll Data Provider Data Coverage 

Comment: One commenter said that 

we did not analyze the costs to serve 

individuals who are not covered by 

TWN and similar platforms. The 

commenter stated that we should 

perform a cost analysis to estimate the 

true cost to the public, including the 

costs of missed benefits, the costs for us 

to manually obtain and verify data, and 

the overall economic impact of no or 

delayed benefit payments to these 

individuals. According to one 

commenter, TWN and similar platforms 

are ‘‘overly reliant upon large-scale 

payroll databases for traditional W–2 

employees and fail to adequately 

capture gig economy and 1099 

employees.’’ The commenter asserted 

that this coverage gap could lead to 

processing delays. One commenter said 

that, by choosing a payroll exchange 

model that excludes workers who are 

not on traditional payrolls, the study 

presents ‘‘equity and access concerns,’’ 

and will hinder our mission and the 

inclusivity of our programs. In addition, 

the commenter said other payroll data 

solutions options exist that ‘‘flexibly 

and effectively’’ capture data on 

traditional W–2, gig economy, and 1099 

employees, and we should explore them 

to avoid ‘‘unfairly excluding’’ 

alternative payroll data solutions. 

In contrast, another commenter stated 

that TWN is the ‘‘industry-leading 

centralized commercial repository of 

wage and employment information 

which can be used for verification 

services in the U.S.’’ According to the 

commenter, the volume and availability 

of records, especially current 

employment, matters when it comes to 

automating the efficient and effective 

verification of wage and employment 

information of OASDI disability 

beneficiaries and SSI recipients. The 

commenter said that Equifax offers 

credentialed verifiers access to nearly 

168 million records with active 

employment status and 657 million total 

records through the TWN database. 

Other commenters asked questions 

about the data we will use. For example, 

commenters asked: (1) Were studies 

conducted to estimate how many 

employers of disabled individuals are 

included in the database? (2) Does the 

database capture only employers who 

use electronic wage reporting? (3) 

Would wages for self-employed 

individuals be captured? (4) Could we 

expand a data exchange with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to 

include relevant 1099 data? 

Response: We acknowledge that our 

current payroll data provider will not 

provide wage and employment 

information for all individuals, which 

means that standard reporting 

requirements will continue to apply for 

some. We have not analyzed the costs 

associated with continuing standard 

reporting requirements for such 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107241 

27 20 CFR 416.1111(b); POMS SI 00820.210, 

available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/ 

poms.nsf/lnx/0500820210. 

28POMS SI 00820.147, available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0500820147. 

29The study, ‘‘Evaluation of Payroll Information 

Exchange (PIE) Wage Data Accuracy,’’ is available 

in the rulemaking record at www.regulations.gov as 

a supporting document for Docket SSA–2016–0039. 

individuals because we do not have 

enough information about who will not 

be covered or their earnings amount to 

formulate that estimate. To the extent 

that ‘‘gig economy’’ workers in 

particular might need to use standard 

reporting, we note that most ‘‘gig 

economy’’ workers are independent 

contractors and therefore considered 

self-employed. This means that, for SSI, 

we count net earnings from selfemployment on a taxable year basis, 

divided equally across the year.27 We 

are not aware of any payroll data 

provider that can provide net earnings 

from self-employment. However, we 

remain committed to exploring 

possibilities to improve program 

administration, which could include 

finding ways to expand the pool of 

individuals covered by PIE in the future. 

Regarding other questions from 

commenters, we note that our current 

payroll data provider reports that TWN 

covers over two-thirds of non-farm 

payroll data. However, as stated in the 

NPRM, neither we nor our current 

payroll data provider fully analyzed 

whether working disability benefit 

recipients or deemors are 

proportionately represented in the 

database. Also, we do not have 

information on the means employers 

use to provide information to TWN (e.g., 

electronic wage reporting or other 

means). In addition, we confirm that PIE 

data we receive does not include 

earnings data for self-employed 

individuals, but we receive net earnings 

from self-employment information 

through a data exchange with the IRS. 

Expanding a data exchange with the IRS 

to include 1099 data would not be 

useful because 1099 data alone is not 

adequate to determine net earnings from 

self-employment. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we could get a ‘‘more specific sense 

of the match rate’’ from the TWN 

database to disability beneficiaries by 

comparing the industry, firm size, and 

geographic location with like 

characteristics of disability beneficiaries 

from our records based on past and 

current employers or population 

surveys of the disabled. The commenter 

also asked if the extent of labor force 

coverage in TWN is expected to increase 

in the future. 

Response: We appreciate the 

suggestion for better understanding how 

the payroll data received through PIE 

relates to the disability beneficiary 

population. We will continue to 

evaluate information as we implement 

PIE. Labor force coverage in TWN may 

increase in the future, but we are unable 

to project when and by how much. 

Data Security 

Comment: Many commenters stated 

that we should take steps to assure the 

privacy and security of personally 

identifiable information and provide 

assurances about how information will 

be kept safe. Some commenters said, 

because data exchange providers are 

private companies, there is potential for 

data breaches with regard to collection, 

storage, and use of payroll data. One 

commenter referred to a data breach 

experienced by our current payroll data 

provider and asked us to consider how 

to mitigate the security risks of using 

this vendor and of technical 

infrastructure built to import or export 

data between us and a payroll data 

provider. Another commenter stated 

that payroll privacy laws are in place to 

protect the release of payroll records. A 

separate commenter asserted that this is 

‘‘invasive,’’ and we should not have 

access to this data. 

One commenter expressed that, 

because recipients’ data may already be 

contained within both entities (our 

records and the payroll data provider’s 

records), this would present ‘‘minimal 

additional risk.’’ According to the 

commenter, a plain-language 

explanation of these risks may help 

alleviate concerns from recipients who 

are wary of the new approach but want 

to opt in. 

Response: We take seriously the 

security of personal information, 

including the information we receive 

from outside sources. We will continue 

to protect personal information by 

implementing and evolving the robust 

protections we use to safeguard that 

information. To the extent these 

comments expressed concerns with our 

access to wage and employment data in 

general, we note that we already obtain 

wage and employment information, 

when we have individual consent to do 

so, to make decisions in our programs.28

That use is limited to manual, one-off 

transactions, however, and PIE will 

allow for increased efficiency over 

current practices. In addition, 

individuals are already required to 

report this information to us. The BBA 

allows us to increase efficiency and 

reduce public reporting burdens by 

obtaining this same information using a 

broad-based matching process to 

address multiple requests and claims 

simultaneously. To the extent these 

comments raise concerns about 

disclosing information to payroll data 

providers, we clarify that we will 

disclose the minimum information 

necessary to match our records to the 

payroll data provider’s records. We 

follow federally compliant protections 

to ensure the administrative, technical, 

and physical security of the records 

match. 

Accuracy Study 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

asserted that the accuracy study 29

included in the NPRM was ‘‘flawed’’ 

and may underestimate errors. For 

example, one commenter observed that 

the study examined only a subset of 

individuals who may participate in 

PIE—SSI recipients who use our mobile 

wage reporting application to scan their 

pay stubs—and pointed out that we did 

not evaluate accuracy for SSI recipients 

who report wages in other ways, Social 

Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 

beneficiaries, or for working family 

members of SSI recipients. In addition, 

the commenter said that the study did 

not seek to examine mismatches, where 

a wage report is associated with the 

wrong worker (e.g., if Equifax reports 

payroll information on an individual 

who was not working during a pay 

period). According to the commenter, 

such an error would lower the true 

accuracy of using the Equifax database 

but would not be identified in this 

study. Furthermore, according to the 

commenter, the study did not review 

the specific payroll information that we 

need to correctly adjust benefits, such as 

whether a paycheck includes sick pay or 

vacation pay. The commenter urged us 

to ‘‘conduct further review of the PIE 

data to better understand all potential 

errors—for all categories of our 

beneficiaries—and to take steps to 

mitigate such errors, prior to 

implementation.’’ 

A separate commenter said that it is 

important to note that the percentage 

provided in the study is the match rate 

for gross earnings when comparing PIE 

to SSA Mobile Wage Reporting 

(SSAMWR) data, and that this approach 

does not represent an assessment of the 

data accuracy in either database. The 

commenter asserted that ‘‘Equifax 

maintains numerous procedures to 

assure maximum possible accuracy and 

is committed to industry-leading data 

privacy and security principles.’’ 

Another commenter said we could gain 

a rough estimate on the extent of 

disability reporting by comparing TWN 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107242 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

30The Office of Child Support Enforcement 

(OCSE) and SSA have a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) that allows authorized SSA 

employees query-only access to the National 

Directory of New Hires (NDNH). This database 

contains quarterly new hire, wage and 

unemployment information reported by the States 

and the District of Columbia to OCSE. SSA 

employees utilize the database when investigating 

potential earnings. 

31 89 FR 11775 Footnote 28 (Feb. 15, 2024). 

32See, e.g., POMS RM 03870.001, available at 

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/ 

0103870001, POMS RM 03870.060, available at 

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/ 

0103870060, POMS RM 03870.045, available at 

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/ 

0103870045. 

33Whenever an individual is overpaid, we assess 

an overpayment. However, if inaccurate data from 

the payroll data provider results in an overpayment 

and the overpaid individual asks us to waive 

recovery, then our normal waiver procedures apply. 

Under our existing regulations, we will usually find 

the individual is ‘‘without fault’’ in causing the 

overpayment. Determining that an individual is 

‘‘without fault’’ is one of the requirements for 

waiver of recovery. See 42 U.S.C. 404(b), 

1631(b)(1)(B); 20 CFR 404.506(a), 404.507, 416.550, 

416.552. 

34The commenter referred to Vanessa Muniz 

Gerena v. Equifax, Case No. 3:24–cv–00098 (E.D. 

Va. Feb. 9, 2024). 

35 If inaccurate data from the payroll data 

provider results in an overpayment, all of our 

existing overpayment policies apply. The overpaid 

individual may request waiver of recovery, and we 

will usually find the individual was without fault 

in causing the overpayment (one of the 

requirements for waiver of recovery). 

36POMS DI 10505.005, available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0410505005, 

SI 00820.130, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/ 

apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0500820130. 

data with our internal databases in the 

few months before National Directory of 

New Hires (NDNH) 30 and Master 

Earnings File data is entered. 

Response: We disagree that reviewing 

only SSI recipients who report via the 

SSAMWR application represents a flaw 

in the study. We consider reports 

received via the SSAMWR application 

like we consider reports received by any 

other means. The study used a 

statistically significant sample of over 

40,000 reports to determine the 

accuracy rate. The study examined 

mandatory paystub elements (e.g., pay 

period end date, pay date, and gross 

earnings) when determining accuracy. 

The study did not account for specific 

payroll information such as sick pay or 

vacation pay, as the commentor 

suggests, because these are optional data 

elements that our current payroll data 

provider submits to us only if they have 

the information. Because those 

additional data elements are not always 

present in a PIE wage response, the 

accuracy study did not include them in 

its determination of PIE’s overall data 

accuracy. We remain committed to 

continued data analysis upon 

implementation of PIE. 

Further, pay elements like sick and 

vacation pay are only relevant in the 

context of making determinations of 

substantial gainful activity (SGA) for 

OASDI disability (for SSI, gross wages 

are counted). If we do not receive sick 

and vacation pay data through PIE, 

individuals can provide it to us before 

we make a final SGA determination. 

We agree with the commenter that the 

study did not evaluate ‘‘mismatches’’ 

(where a wage report is associated with 

the wrong worker) because we designed 

the study to focus on cases where wage 

earners self-reported and uploaded 

wages. Thus, when the Social Security 

number (SSN) and name matched on the 

SSAMWR and PIE data, we presumed 

the PIE data was for the correct 

individual. However, we recognize that 

mismatches may exist outside of the 

study and acknowledged this in the 

NPRM.31 We have established 

procedures that we follow when we 

suspect, or when an individual informs 

us, that a wage report is associated with 

the wrong individual.32 We are 

updating those procedures to include 

PIE-specific examples. In addition, as 

explained in the NPRM, we will notify 

individuals in writing whenever we 

start receiving wage and employment 

information from a payroll data 

provider. Because that notice will 

identify the employer(s) from which we 

are receiving wages, an individual can 

tell us if they suspect a mismatch. We 

plan to add language to this notice 

telling individuals to contact us right 

away if the employer shown is 

incorrect.33

Data Accuracy 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concerns about the ability to 

correct errors. One commenter provided 

an example of an individual whose 

employer reimbursed her for out-ofpocket travel costs that were incorrectly 

categorized as earnings in the payroll 

provider’s database. According to the 

commenter, the individual’s attempt to 

correct the erroneous wage information 

resulted in weeks of being ‘‘bounced 

between Equifax, their employer, and 

SSA.’’ As another example, a 

commenter referred to a class action 

lawsuit that asserted that when an 

individual tried to correct the errors 

with Equifax, they faced significant 

hurdles, including a ‘‘burdensome 

‘proof of address’ submission’’ required 

to receive her record.34 One commenter 

said we should consider ways to reduce 

the burdens associated with correcting 

records by, for example, accepting 

simple attestations from recipients. The 

commenter stated that, if an inaccuracy 

comes from the payroll data provider, a 

single report by the individual to us 

could be considered sufficient, and we 

could report the inaccuracy to the 

payroll data provider, to be fixed within 

their database. 

Response: If an individual disputes 

any wage information we received, they 

can directly report the dispute to us and 

provide available evidence about their 

wages.35 We will review and develop 

that evidence and correct our own 

records, when appropriate, in 

accordance with a priority list of the 

evidence we might consider,36

potentially including direct contact with 

employers. If an individual disputes the 

data, and there is no other evidence that 

corroborates the information the payroll 

data provider supplied, we would not 

use the report from the payroll data 

provider. 

However, we do not manage the 

records of the payroll data provider or 

the employers that report to the payroll 

data provider. It is up to the individual 

to correct their personal records with 

entities outside of SSA. Our Notice of 

Planned Action (NOPA) and Notice of 

Proposed Decision will provide contact 

information for individuals to directly 

dispute the information with the payroll 

data provider and request that the 

payroll data provider flag the data as 

disputed. If the payroll data provider 

has flagged data because it is being 

disputed, we will not post the data to 

our claims records. 

When an individual tells us that PIE 

data is incorrect, we will remind them 

that the payroll data provider has its 

own dispute process separate from our 

process, and we encourage the 

individual to follow that process. 

Although the individual is not obligated 

to contact the payroll data provider to 

make the correction, that is the only 

way the record can be fixed; we do not 

have the ability to change a payroll data 

provider’s records on behalf of anyone. 

We will also work with the individual 

to revoke their authorization, if they 

choose. Once authorization is revoked, 

we will no longer request the 

individual’s information from the 

payroll data provider, which will ensure 

that we receive no additional PIE data. 

We will also work with the individual 

to develop other evidence to corroborate 

the individual’s report or the PIE data. 

If an individual chooses to do so, they 

may again provide authorization once 

their dispute is resolved and receive 

protection from certain penalties and 

reduced reporting responsibilities. 

Comment: Commenters expressed 

concerns about the accuracy and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107243 

37The commenter cited a policy (POMS SI 

00820.143 (Monthly Wage Reporting), available at 

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/ 

0500820143) where we flag when an SSI recipient’s 

self-reported wages are more than the wages 

reflected on their W–2 and we investigate to resolve 

the discrepancy. 38The accuracy study we cited in the NPRM 

allowed us to compare data received in the 

SSAMWR to that received through PIE. Once PIE 

is implemented, if we obtain information for a 

beneficiary, we will no longer have self-reported 

wage and employment information from that 

beneficiary to compare to the PIE data we receive. 

Therefore, we anticipate developing new methods 

to analyze PIE accuracy. 

39The commenter provided, as an example, a 

citation to Vanessa Muniz Gerena v. Equifax, No. 

3:24–cv–00098 (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2024). 

40POMS RM 03870.001, available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0103870001. 

41POMS RM 03870.060, available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0103870060. 

42POMS RM 03870.045, available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0103870045. 

reliability of payroll provider data, 

particularly because the information 

that will be automated is provided by a 

third party. One commenter said that 

the discrepancies in the reports leave 

‘‘substantial room’’ for erroneous 

improper payments based on PIE data, 

and we should work to reduce these 

discrepancies as much as possible. A 

commenter said we should ensure that 

the PIE system alerts us to employer 

corrections that occur after we receive 

the monthly batch data so we can notify 

individuals and take the corrections into 

account when determining benefit 

adjustments. Another commenter 

suggested that we institute our own 

internal quality review procedures to 

proactively look for and resolve 

potential errors in the PIE data.37

Another commenter said we should 

direct staff to consider potential 

accuracy issues. One commenter asked, 

for example: (1) What accuracy 

standards will we require of our payroll 

data provider? (2) How often will we 

measure the accuracy? (3) Does the 

contract require changes from Equifax to 

promptly improve accuracy and correct 

other deficiencies? (4) Will we maintain 

a way to return—in a way that 

minimizes burdens on recipients—to 

other reporting mechanisms if the 

payroll data provider does not meet 

sufficient accuracy standards? 

Response: Based on our review, we 

expect that PIE data will be more 

accurate, timely, and complete than the 

information we receive through other 

means. We remain committed to 

continued analysis of PIE data to ensure 

information we receive is accurate, 

complete, and up to date as we 

discussed in the NPRM, though we 

cannot yet speak to the specific 

methodology and frequency that we will 

use to assess the information we receive 

from a payroll data provider.38 Our 

payroll data provider must maintain 

reasonable procedures that ensure the 

maximum possible accuracy, 

completeness, relevance and timeliness 

of wage and employment information. 

Also, if an employer makes a correction 

to wage information we received 

through PIE, that correction should be 

reflected in W–2 information we receive 

directly from the employer; we already 

have a process that uses automation to 

identify such discrepancies and alert us 

of the need to investigate and make 

corrections if appropriate—including 

releasing underpayments or establishing 

overpayments. Finally, if the individual 

has concerns about whether the payroll 

data provider is giving us accurate 

information, they may revoke their 

authorization and self-report their wage 

and employment information to us. All 

current self-reporting methods will 

remain available, and individuals will 

continue to be able to report using the 

method that serves them best. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concerns that identity theft 

has the potential to cause problems for 

individuals whose data is matched 

erroneously. Some commenters 

provided detailed examples of identity 

theft and expressed that it is ‘‘very 

common.’’ Commenters said that we 

must have procedures in place to ensure 

that individuals who are subject to 

identity theft do not receive repeated 

erroneous matches, which has the 

potential to cause a ‘‘never-ending 

headache of repeated adverse actions.’’ 

The commenter stated that we should 

create an identity theft flag on an 

individual’s account when we receive 

an allegation of identity theft, and we 

should check for this flag before taking 

an adverse action on any payroll data 

match. One commenter said mismatches 

are a ‘‘vital concern for victims of 

identity theft.’’ 39

Response: We understand that 

identity theft is a significant concern. 

We have established procedures to 

assist customers when identity theft is 

suspected. Generally, we learn of 

suspected identity theft when an 

individual identifies an inaccuracy on 

their earnings record while filing a 

claim or when reviewing their Social 

Security Statement. With PIE, we expect 

to learn of suspected identity theft even 

earlier. Further, where an individual 

suspects identity theft and has already 

filed a dispute with the payroll data 

provider that is unresolved, that data 

will be flagged and will not be posted 

to our claims records. 

We will update our established 

earnings correction procedures 40 to 

account for potential identity theft 

discovered through PIE. We expect 

those procedures to be similar to those 

we currently follow when an individual 

disclaims earnings 41 or when we must 

resolve ‘‘scrambled earnings’’ (when 

wages belong to one individual are 

posted to another individual’s record).42

In general, these procedures outline 

how we will investigate and when we 

will accept an individual’s statement 

that earnings are not correct. If our 

investigation shows that no evidence 

exists to corroborate a payroll data 

provider report that the individual told 

us was erroneous, we will not use the 

report from the payroll data provider. 

In addition to correcting earnings 

information, we also offer general 

guidance and assistance when someone 

tells us about suspected identity theft. 

This may involve general advice, or 

referral to other agencies or law 

enforcement, or issuing a new Social 

Security number where appropriate. 

Comment: One commenter said that 

we have a ‘‘known history of 

problematic data matching,’’ for 

example, attributing real property of a 

different person in a different State to an 

individual with the same name, which 

could affect SSI eligibility. The 

commenter asserted that basic datamatching errors continue to persist, 

which does not ‘‘engender confidence 

that an automated data-matching 

scheme for wage reporting will work.’’ 

Response: We understand that some 

commenters may be cautious about data 

matching agreements. We have a 

number of safeguards in place, as 

explained in our NPRM and elsewhere 

in this final rule. We expect that these 

safeguards will address commenters’ 

concerns. Moreover, current 

administrative procedures provide an 

opportunity for individuals to appeal 

decisions we make based on 

information from the payroll data 

provider. Before we take action on a 

decision that affects someone’s SSI 

payment, that individual will receive a 

NOPA. The NOPA explains that they 

can appeal and continue to receive SSI 

during their appeal. Still, if individuals 

are hesitant to participate in PIE, they 

may choose not to provide authorization 

or they may revoke authorization in 

writing at any time. 

Comment: According to one 

commenter, certain duties are imposed 

on TWN (and us) because TWN’s data 

is considered a ‘‘consumer report.’’ The 

commenter stated that, under the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the 

consumer has a right to dispute errors 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107244 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

43The commenter cited 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a). 44For example, according to one commenter, the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 

stated that a Consumer Reporting Agency must have 

procedures to identify logical inconsistencies in 

consumer information, such that, if included in a 

consumer report, some of the information would 

necessarily be inaccurate. Commenters cited 15 

U.S.C. 1681e(b). 45The commenter acknowledged that the 

Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 

1988, Public Law 100–503, applies only to a 

government database, but asserted that the Office of 

Management and Budget advised agencies to 

consider applying its principles when a commercial 

database is involved. 

in their consumer report,43 and that 

when the consumer lodges a dispute, 

the Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) 

must conduct a ‘‘reasonable 

investigation.’’ According to 

commenters, we should not reduce or 

suspend benefits during the FCRA 

investigation period. Commenters said, 

if the consumer continues to dispute 

information after the investigation, we 

should conduct our own independent 

review. One commenter said that we 

should include these protections in 

proposed 20 CFR 422.150 or our 

guidelines. Another commenter said 

TWN must meet obligations under 

FCRA to notify individuals of their 

rights, including specific, detailed 

information about where and how to file 

a FCRA dispute of TWN data. One 

commenter said this information should 

be sent in advance of the NOPA so that 

the recipient has the ability to review a 

copy of the TWN report and dispute any 

errors. 

Further, some commenters said that 

TWN has failed to adopt required 

procedures for when ‘‘logical 

inconsistencies’’ arise.44 For example, 

one commenter said TWN employs ‘‘no 

substantive procedures to filter or parse 

data to prevent reporting of 

simultaneous employment that would 

be impossible’’ because of geographic 

distance between employment or 

residence location or time constraints. 

Another commenter said that we must 

require human review when we flag 

these types of potential errors or an 

individual disputes information. 

According to the commenter, a review 

by a human is ‘‘the least that is required 

by the due process principles of the 

Matching Act.’’ 45

Another commenter expressed that 

our current payroll data provider 

already complies with FCRA 

requirements and its data furnishers 

have contractual obligations for the 

provision of accurate data. Further, they 

said, if there are concerns that a report 

may be incomplete or inaccurate, the 

individual can dispute it and Equifax 

will conduct an investigation under the 

parameters established by FCRA. 

Response: We will send FCRAcompliant adverse action notices to 

individuals when we receive data from 

a payroll data provider. The current 

payroll data provider is required by 

contract to maintain reasonable 

procedures that ensure the maximum 

possible accuracy, completeness, 

relevance and timeliness of wage and 

employment information. Further, if the 

payroll data provider has a dispute 

annotated and unresolved, the wage 

information will be flagged by the 

payroll data provider and not sent to our 

claims records. We disagree that 

protections that may be afforded by 

other Federal laws need to be restated 

in our regulations. To the extent another 

Federal law, like FCRA, is deemed 

applicable to a payroll data provider 

exchange, those laws would continue to 

apply independent of our regulations; 

we chose not to specifically reference 

such other laws because those laws and 

their applicability to PIE could change 

over time. 

We note again that we plan to add 

language to the notice we send to inform 

an individual that we are receiving wage 

information for a particular employer, 

which will instruct individuals to tell us 

right away if they do not work for the 

employer shown. When an individual 

tells us the information we received 

from PIE is incorrect, either in response 

to that notice or when appealing the 

NOPA, we will follow procedures to 

investigate and, if appropriate, correct 

the individual’s record. If there is no 

evidence to corroborate the disputed 

report from the payroll data provider, 

we will not use that report. Further, our 

procedures for investigating and 

correcting our own records are separate 

and apart from the payroll data 

provider’s dispute process under FCRA; 

we may correct our own records without 

waiting for the payroll data provider to 

resolve the dispute using FCRA 

procedures. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concerns about the use of PIE 

data as anything other than a ‘‘thirdparty report.’’ Some commenters said 

we should establish a procedure similar 

to that found in our Program Operations 

Manual System (POMS) at section SI 

01140.100, Non-Home Real Property, for 

when individuals disagree with the 

information found in a commercial 

database used to identify non-home real 

property owned by SSI recipients. 

Commenters expressed that the PIE data 

could be used as a ‘‘lead’’ for further 

investigation, and not as a basis for 

adverse action. Another commenter said 

we could undertake our own validation 

of the payroll data through a 

combination of staff review and the use 

of technology. The commenter asserted 

that accepting payroll data from third 

parties without any collateral validation 

has the potential to significantly harm 

individuals. 

Response: The BBA specifically grants 

us the authority to use an information 

exchange with a payroll data provider 

‘‘without the need for verification by 

independent or collateral sources.’’ 

Being able to proceed based on the 

information provided by the payroll 

data provider, as authorized by 

Congress, is crucial to our ability to 

better serve the public through more 

timely and accurate benefit adjustments. 

Using data as a lead, or requiring 

investigation or further validation of 

information from PIE, would result in 

the delayed adjustments and improper 

payments that the BBA was intended to 

prevent. As discussed in more detail in 

response to other comments, we have a 

number of safeguards in place to 

prevent harm to individuals, including: 

when we start receiving wage 

information for a new employer, our 

notice will tell individuals to contact us 

right away if the listed employer is 

incorrect; we will send a NOPA and 

apply payment continuation if an 

appeal is filed; and we will investigate 

disputed wages and correct records 

where appropriate. Further, an 

individual can revoke their 

authorization if they are dissatisfied 

with the information the payroll data 

provider sends us. 

Comment: One commenter said we 

must require TWN to ensure the 

accuracy of its reports by mandating 

certain measures, such as use of all nine 

digits of an SSN. The commenter said 

that we should mandate such matching 

criteria in 20 CFR 422.150 or our 

guidelines. According to the 

commenter, matching based on a partial 

SSN or no SSN is ‘‘unacceptable,’’ as it 

causes mismatches in which the wrong 

consumer gets tagged with information. 

They expressed that we should not use 

an ‘‘alternative ID search option’’ that 

permits agencies to obtain a TWN report 

without an SSN, which could yield 

results for someone with similar 

information to that of the participant. 

Response: As explained in the NPRM, 

we will specify the records that will be 

matched and the procedures for the 

match when developing an information 

exchange with a payroll data provider. 

In the case of the current exchange, we 

already require matching the full ninedigit SSN. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed that the proposal gives ‘‘too 

much discretion’’ to our employees to 

decide when to assist with obtaining 

additional evidence. Further, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107245 

46POMS DI 10505.005, available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0410505005, 

SI 00820.130 available at https://secure.ssa.gov/ 

apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0500820130. 

47For example, our current wage evidence policy 

indicates that pay stubs are the primary (highest 

priority) source of wage evidence. But if we receive 

a payroll data provider report indicating that an 

individual is working, and the individual alleges 

they are not working, they presumably have no 

paystubs. We might look to see if PIE data is 

corroborated by other sources of wage information 

we have received or contact employers where 

appropriate. 

48Some commenters suggested through the 

hearing level of appeal. 

49 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). 

50The commenter referred to Cardinale v. 

Mathews, 399 F. Supp. 1163 (D.D.C. 1975). 

51Based on the Supreme Court decision in 

Goldberg v. Kelly and principles of due process 

under the Constitution, we provide SSI recipients 

advance notice of an adverse action before we take 

the action. See 20 CFR 416.1336(a). We provide SSI 

recipients a Notice of Planned Action (NOPA), also 

known as the GK notice. The GK notice explains the 

planned adverse action, the right to appeal the 

adverse action, and the right to continued or 

reinstated payment at the protected payment level 

(PPL)—what we refer to as ‘‘GK payment 

continuation’’—if the recipient appeals the adverse 

action within 10 days of receipt of the GK notice. 

20 CFR 416.1336(b). Under our rules, we presume 

that the recipient receives the GK notice within five 

days after the date on the GK notice. Id. SSI 

recipients who file a Request for Reconsideration 

within 15 days after the date on the NOPA should 

have no interruption in their payment until the 

appeal is decided. SSI recipients who file a Request 

for Reconsideration more than 15 days after the date 

on the NOPA, but within 65 days after the date on 

the NOPA, also receive GK payment continuation, 

but this may involve reinstating their payment until 

the appeal is decided. See POMS SI 02301.313, 

available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/ 

poms.nsf/lnx/0502301313. 

commenters said that the burden to 

‘‘prove a negative’’ (e.g., to prove that 

reported wages do not belong to them) 

should not fall on an individual. 

Commenters asserted that, if an 

individual disagrees with the allegation 

that the wages reflected in TWN data are 

theirs, our technicians must establish 

additional, acceptable evidence 

documenting that TWN data is correct 

before it can be relied upon to deny a 

claim for benefits or adjust an 

individual’s benefits. Another 

commenter said that we must accept 

signed attestations from individuals that 

the payroll data does not belong to them 

and we should not require proof beyond 

an individual’s attestation that the data 

match is incorrect. 

Response: The policies we develop for 

implementing PIE will not require 

individuals to prove a negative. We 

already have robust policies for 

developing wages in the context of the 

SSI and OASDI disability programs and 

we can learn of potential wages and new 

employment from a number of sources, 

such as computer matching agreements 

and employer reports. When we learn of 

discrepancies in wage evidence, our 

current procedures require that we 

develop other sources of wage evidence 

according to a priority order.46 As noted 

above, we also have established 

procedures for correcting earnings and 

resolving scrambled earnings. We will 

update these procedures to ensure they 

are appropriate for resolving alleged 

inaccuracies in PIE reports.47 If no other 

wage evidence exists to corroborate a 

payroll data provider report that the 

individual told us was erroneous, we 

would not use the report from the 

payroll data provider. 

Due Process 

Comment: Multiple commenters said 

we should strengthen our due process 

protections from PIE reporting errors. 

For example, one commenter 

recommended we collaborate with our 

payroll data provider to develop 

stronger data validation measures. 

Another commenter expressed that the 

final rule should feature stronger 

protections for individuals, prevent 

unintended consequences, and 

emphasize transparency. Other 

commenters stated the most important 

procedural safeguards are: (1) a timely 

and adequate notice detailing the 

reasons for a proposed reduction or 

suspension of benefits; (2) an 

evidentiary hearing to dispute the 

reduction or suspension of SSI benefits; 

and (3) ensuring SSI benefits continue 

to be paid at the protected payment 

level pending a decision on the 

appeal.48

Several commenters referred to the 

Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, 

which states that no person shall be 

deprived of ‘‘life, liberty, or property, 

without due process of law.’’ 

Commenters also referred to Goldberg v. 

Kelly,49 a case in which the Supreme 

Court held that recipients of meanstested public assistance benefits must be 

afforded advance notice and the 

‘‘opportunity to be heard’’ before their 

benefits can be terminated. Some 

commenters correctly asserted that SSI 

benefits, as a means-tested program for 

extremely low-income recipients, are 

subject to the Constitutional due process 

protections set forth in Goldberg v. Kelly 

and subsequent court decisions.50

According to commenters, the 

government should not ‘‘deprive a 

recipient of the means to survive’’ while 

they are pursuing their appeal. They 

expressed that an erroneous, automated 

determination to reduce, suspend, or 

potentially terminate a benefit could 

impact an individual’s ability to pay 

their rent or mortgage, feed themselves, 

or pay for other necessities. Another 

commenter said the process for 

disputing discrepancies should be 

‘‘clearly delineated and available to 

access verbally and electronically.’’ 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

we extend the amount of time between 

the NOPA (or other notice) and the 

reduction or suspension. Some 

commenters asserted that the proposal 

does not provide enough time for: (1) 

SSI recipients to respond to the NOPA; 

and (2) for us to process responses 

before we reduce or suspend benefits. 

For example, one commenter stated that 

it is ‘‘unrealistic’’ to expect that 

everything that needs to happen—e.g., 

notifying the individual; gathering and 

submitting proof; staff processing; filing 

a reconsideration request; and 

processing benefits continuation—can 

be accomplished under the proposed 

timeline. Several commenters expressed 

that we must account for field office 

delays in processing information and 

inputting appeals. Multiple comments 

suggested due process procedures 

specific to PIE. 

Some commenters asserted that 

existing SSI regulations conform to the 

requirements of constitutional due 

process on paper, but not in practice. 

Commenters referred to the example 

used in the NPRM where we assumed 

we would receive PIE data on, for 

example, November 7 (of any given 

year). A commenter opined this could 

result in a situation where an individual 

receives a NOPA on November 12, the 

individual files a request for appeal on 

November 22 (within the 10-day appeal 

period), and it would still be too late for 

the individual to have their December 

benefits paid at the protected payment 

level because the December benefit data 

will have already been transmitted to 

the U.S. Treasury Department. 

Response: We agree that adequate due 

process protections are vitally important 

for any adverse action, and especially 

important for those stemming from 

unverified reports. The law allows us to 

use PIE data without verification; we 

will follow current due process 

procedures when making decisions 

using this data, including protections 

we currently afford pursuant to 

Goldberg v. Kelly (GK).51 We understand 

that many people, including individuals 

belonging to vulnerable groups, rely on 

the benefits from our programs to meet 

their daily needs. Accordingly, 

individuals will be afforded full due 

process protections. A PIE-specific 

appeal process is not needed to afford 

full due process; moreover, such a 

process would be difficult and 

burdensome to implement; would likely 

cause confusion for beneficiaries and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107246 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

52See 20 CFR 416.1336(b). 

53See 20 CFR 416.1413(b) and (c). 

54See POMS SI 02301.313, available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0502301313. 

55See POMS SI 02301.320 available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0502301320. 

56For more information about the Ticket to Work 

Help Line, visit https://choosework.ssa.gov/contact, 

recipients; and could negate the 

increased efficiency we expect to 

receive from PIE. 

As we explained in the NPRM, we 

will send advance notice providing 

sufficient time for individuals to decide 

whether to appeal the action. SSI 

recipients will have their payments 

continued during their appeal unless 

they waive this right in writing.52 The 

appeal alone will allow payments to 

continue; we do not require documents 

or proofs for payment continuation, and 

provide a reasonable amount of time to 

supply documentation in support of the 

appeal. The appeal process includes the 

opportunity to meet face-to-face with 

SSA personnel,53 who will follow the 

policy and procedures we develop for 

assisting with development or 

investigation of disputed wage 

information. 

Since 2021, we have strengthened due 

process protections related to GK 

payment continuation, and we continue 

to work to protect the rights of SSI 

recipients by improving our processes. 

In order to reduce administrative 

burdens for both SSI recipients and the 

agency, we have extended GK payment 

continuation to SSI recipients who file 

a reconsideration more than 15 days 

after, but within 65 days of receiving the 

NOPA.54 We updated the NOPA to 

clearly explain the time frames to 

appeal and receive payment 

continuation or reinstatement and to 

make clear that benefits will change or 

stop if no appeal is filed. We added 

SSA’s Office Locator website address 

(URL) to make it easier for recipients to 

look for and find one of our offices, 

including the office fax number. We also 

updated the SSI Overpayment Notice to 

include SSA’s Office Locator URL. Most 

importantly, we have taken steps to 

improve our internal business processes 

and oversight related to receiving, 

tracking, and entering SSI 

reconsideration requests so that we 

provide payment continuation to all 

those who timely appeal in response to 

a NOPA. The agency mandated the use 

of an application which assists with the 

inputs required for payment 

continuation. Additionally, we now 

monitor the accuracy of the workload 

through a dashboard and completed 

agency-wide training on these cases to 

improve accuracy. All of these 

protections will continue to be available 

to individuals wishing to appeal 

decisions based on information from 

PIE. And we have plans to further 

enhance our business process through 

increased automation in the payment 

continuation process. 

We do not agree with commenters 

who opined that receiving PIE data on 

the 7th day of the month does not 

permit adequate time to generate a 

NOPA, receive an appeal, and have the 

next month’s benefits paid at the 

protected payment level. Although the 

process for ensuring payments remain at 

protected levels may differ depending 

on the time of the month the appeal is 

received, we will follow current policy 

to ensure payments are made 

correctly.55 In the hypothetical scenario 

discussed in public comments, which 

involves an appeal filed on November 

22, protected payments would continue 

based on agency systems and policies. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

to ensure the PIE data is used in a timely 

manner, we should create explicit 

safeguards ‘‘prohibiting adverse action 

more than two years after SSA’s receipt 

of the report.’’ 

Response: We will receive the PIE 

wage and employment information from 

payroll data providers monthly. At this 

time, the exchange is built to request the 

prior month’s wage data only, and the 

system is designed to use the data in a 

timely manner. Our administrative 

finality rules will apply to 

determinations made using PIE wage 

data, as they also apply to 

determinations using any other past 

wage and employment information we 

receive. If we assess an overpayment, 

our usual overpayment policies would 

apply, including our waiver policies. 

Notices and Communication 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

suggested ways to improve our notices 

and communication with individuals, 

and stressed the importance of using 

clear, easy to understand language. For 

example, one commenter suggested we 

use different formatting and language to 

explain the information we used to 

make a decision. In fact, a commenter 

provided potential sample language for 

our consideration. Others expressed that 

we need to provide ‘‘adequate notice’’ 

that includes enough information for the 

individual to understand the payroll 

information being reported to us (such 

as a copy of the payroll data provided 

by third parties) and steps the 

individual can take to dispute or appeal 

payroll data. A different commenter 

suggested that we consult with the 

CFPB about the adequacy of the adverse 

action notice we develop. Commenters 

also remarked on a sample adverse 

action notice, stating, for example, that 

(1) the notice should unequivocally 

state when we base a decision on the 

TWN report (not state that we ‘‘may’’ 

have used the information in making a 

decision); (2) the notice includes an 

incorrect web address to request a file 

disclosure; (3) The formatting of the 

notice is ‘‘dense and difficult to read’’ 

and we should use a ‘‘tabular’’ format; 

(4) we should include the name of the 

person at Social Security to contact for 

additional information; (5) we should 

note the ability to submit information 

about any applicable work incentives to 

the Social Security contact; and (6) we 

should provide the name and phone 

number of a local Work Incentives 

Planning and Assistance (WIPA) project 

or a local credentialed benefits 

counselor. 

Another commenter expressed that 

when payroll data would cause an 

unfavorable determination, we should 

send a notice recommending that 

individuals call the Ticket to Work Help 

Line to be referred to a WIPA counselor 

or that they consult with a benefits 

planner through a different agency. 

According to the commenter, a benefits 

planner can assist the individual to use 

any work incentives for which they may 

be eligible to reduce the impact of 

earnings on their benefits. 

Response: We appreciate the 

suggestions from the commenters 

regarding ways to potentially improve 

our notices, and we agree that wellformatted, complete, clear and accurate 

notices are important. We will continue 

to evaluate our notices and potential 

improvements to them, including 

through customer experience feedback. 

Regarding one of the commenters’ 

specific suggestions, we clarify that our 

notices cannot unequivocally state that 

we based a decision on the payroll data 

provider report received through PIE 

because other factors contribute to a 

payment determination besides an 

individual’s wages. 

Considering this, we will inform the 

individual that we may have used PIE 

information as part of a decision, but we 

cannot specify that it is the sole reason 

behind the decision. In addition, we 

have a standard paragraph in our 

notices informing recipients how we 

received our information and how to 

contact us if something appears 

incorrect. Further, we do not provide 

the name and phone number of the local 

WIPA or benefit counselor in our 

notices because of the burden involved. 

However, our Ticket to Work 

Helpline,56 can be used to refer the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107247 

email support@choosework.ssa.gov, or call 1–866– 

968–7842/1–866–833–2967 (TTY). 

57For example: (1) When SSI and OASDI 

disability beneficiaries report a return to work, we 

give them a receipt of the report that contains 

information about the Ticket to Work Program and 

the Help Line contact information; (2) The SSI 

Database Analysis (DABA) Work Incentive Notice 

includes information about work incentives and the 

Ticket to Work Program and the Help Line contact 

information; and (3) title II and title XVI Cost of 

Living Adjustments (COLA) Notices are sent 

annually to beneficiaries and recipients about 

COLA changes to their benefits. These notices 

include general Ticket to Work and work incentive 

language that includes Help Line contact 

information. 

58The examples the commenter cited are 

available at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=202008-0960-020&icID=8980. 

59 20 CFR 404.1574. 

individual to these services. We make 

the Ticket to Work Helpline information 

available to individuals in multiple 

ways.57 Our notices also advise 

members of the public that they can also 

contact us through our 800 number with 

additional questions or requests for 

guidance. 

Lastly, we clarify that the sample 

notices that the commenter cited were 

uploaded to an OMB website in August 

2020.58 These do not reflect the current 

versions of these notices. We confirm 

that the updated notices contain current 

information. 

Comment: According to one 

commenter, the language used in the 

sample NOPA does not explain that we 

used a ‘‘specialized’’ type of payroll 

data provider report. The commenter 

stated that recipients may see the name 

‘‘Equifax’’ and assume that we used a 

traditional credit report in our decision. 

Response: The NOPA language 

explains that ‘‘We may receive wage and 

employment information from Equifax 

that is part of a consumer report.’’ This 

language adequately explains the nature 

of the information we are using. 

Comment: Commenters asserted that, 

under the NPRM, we will treat OASDI 

disability beneficiaries and SSI 

recipients differently and we did not 

explain why. Specifically, under our 

proposal, SSDI beneficiaries will receive 

an advanced notice without any 

accompanying change in benefit amount 

(allowing individuals 35 days to 

respond with information showing that 

the benefit amount calculation should 

not be changed). If the OASDI disability 

beneficiary does not respond, then it 

would trigger another notice that the 

beneficiary can appeal. In contrast, 

under our proposal, commenters stated 

that SSI recipients will be subject to an 

adverse action and benefit reduction 

‘‘immediately’’ without the ‘‘advanced 

opportunity to cure.’’ Commenters 

stated that SSI recipients would benefit 

from an advanced notice like the one 

OASDI disability recipients will receive. 

Some commenters recommended that 

SSI recipients should receive an adverse 

action notice at least 30 days before a 

NOPA is generated. According to 

commenters, ‘‘given the complexity of 

the rules and equity considerations for 

people with disabilities, recipients 

would benefit from every opportunity’’ 

to correct incorrect information before 

facing benefit reduction. 

Response: PIE data prompts us to take 

different actions in SSA’s programs, and 

the notice process depends on the 

action we take. For SSI, we use wage 

information to determine the recipient’s 

monthly eligibility and payment amount 

and generally consider only gross wages 

for this purpose. Because SSI guarantees 

a minimum level of income for aged, 

blind, or disabled individuals who have 

limited income and resources, a change 

in a recipient’s countable monthly 

income, such as wages, can have a 

direct effect on non-medical SSI 

eligibility and payment amount. This 

necessarily requires a month-by-month 

determination that is immediately 

appealable whenever the benefit amount 

may change to ensure due process 

protections. This allows SSI recipients 

to quickly make corrections to 

inaccurate wage information and 

prevents significant overpayments or 

underpayments of benefits. As 

discussed, though, we provide advanced 

notice and an opportunity for payment 

continuation while an appeal is 

pending. 

In contrast, information about a 

disabled individual’s wages may require 

us to investigate whether the person has 

engaged in SGA, the primary question 

for OASDI disability post-entitlement 

determinations. A determination that 

someone has engaged in SGA after their 

trial work period is a determination that 

they no longer meet the requirements 

for disability due to work, and we say 

that benefits ‘‘ceased.’’ When this 

happens, we pay benefits for the month 

benefits ceased and the following two 

months. After this period, we suspend 

cash benefits for any month in which 

the individual engages in SGA during 

their 36-month extended period of 

eligibility. This determination is more 

complex because we must decide 

whether work involves significant 

physical or mental activities, which 

requires considerations beyond just 

gross earnings. For example, we 

consider whether an individual’s 

earnings include sick or vacation pay, or 

if their work is subsidized or performed 

under special conditions or in a 

sheltered environment.59

In the table below, we summarize 

some key points about the notices we 

send for SSI and OASDI disability: 

SSI OASDI disability Concurrent SSI and OASDI disability 

Point at Which We Send 

Notice to Individuals 60.

• We send a NOPA when an individual’s earnings increase and their 

SSI payments will be reduced in 

an upcoming month.

• We send a Notice of Change in 

Payment when an individual’s 

earnings decrease and their SSI 

payments will be increased.

• We send a due process notice 

when an individual is performing 

SGA in the Extended Period of Eligibility.

• We send a final SGA notice explaining our decision and documenting which months the individual is over SGA.

• Individuals would receive both the 

SSI and OASDI disability notifications. 

Reason We Send Notice • The NOPA explains the change to 

the payment and what information 

we used to determine the new 

amount. It provides appeal rights 

and other important information.

• The Notice of Change in Payment 

explains the new payment amount 

and how we computed it. It provides appeal rights and other important information.

• The due process notice explains 

our proposed decision and presents an opportunity to provide additional evidence. It provides contact information and other important information.

• The final SGA notice will explain 

our decision. It provides appeal 

rights and other important information.

• The reason is issue specific and 

applies to whichever notice they 

receive, since they may receive 

more than one notice depending 

on their circumstances as they relate to the specific program. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107248 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

60As noted earlier, we will also send individuals 

a notice: (1) any time we start receiving wages from 

a new employer (the notice will explain they no 

longer have to report wages from that employer); 

and (2) any time we stop receiving wages from that 

employer (the notice will explain that they must 

again report wages from that employer). These 

notices give individuals the opportunity to dispute 

the information and they explain how to reach out 

to us. 61 65 FR 50121 (Aug. 16, 2000). 

62https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spotinterpreter.htm. 

Comment: One commenter stated the 

use of payroll provider data to 

automatically generate NOPAs reflecting 

even small changes in payment amounts 

could result in many SSI recipients 

receiving a new NOPA every month due 

to a fluctuating number of hours worked 

from month to month. The commenter 

expressed concern that, rather than 

increasing the efficiency of program 

administration, this ‘‘flood of notices’’ 

would result in more calls to our 

national 800 number and field offices 

with questions and concerns. Some 

commenters said that our proposed rule 

may result in very frequent (even 

monthly) NOPAs for some. They stated 

that these frequent notices may cause 

‘‘confusion and distress.’’ Another 

commenter said we should examine the 

potential for an increase in calls to our 

national 800 number and an increase in 

visits to our field offices due to the new 

rule, and we should plan accordingly. 

The commenter stated that individuals 

will ‘‘undoubtedly reach out’’ to us if 

they have questions about the ‘‘many 

new notices’’ that will be mailed out 

under the final rule, such as those to 

dispute an error in payroll data or to 

appeal a benefit reduction. According to 

the commenter, individuals may also 

contact us if they are confused about 

their wage reporting obligations. The 

commenter asserted, that if calls and 

office visits increase significantly due to 

PIE, it could become more difficult for 

all of our customers to get help from us. 

Some commenters expressed concerns 

about our staffing levels and the effect 

staffing levels may have on the ability 

to get help with PIE-related concerns or 

questions. 

Response: We anticipate that the PIE 

implementation may result in more 

notices. However, this is mostly 

because, with PIE in place, we will be 

able to capture and process more 

accurate and timely wage and 

employment information than before. 

Timely receipt of this information 

through PIE allows us to send correct 

and appropriate notices more quickly to 

ensure payment accuracy. Under PIE, 

the only additional notices are those 

that would generate when we receive 

wages from a new employer or stop 

receiving wages from an employer. 

While this may result in an increase in 

notice frequency, as well as related calls 

to our 800 number, we expect that PIE 

will also bring about decreased burdens 

in the form of reduced of routine 

reporting for hundreds of thousands of 

beneficiaries and recipients—if someone 

allows us to access their wage and 

employment information from a payroll 

data provider, and we receive that 

information, the individual will not 

have to report information about that 

employer for as long as we continue to 

receive it. And while some additional 

notices will go out, we anticipate that, 

because of the efficiencies gained from 

PIE, our staff will spend less time on 

wage reporting workloads because they 

will spend less time investigating wage 

information. Thus, staff would have 

more time to assist beneficiaries and 

recipients should questions arise from 

receipt of these notices. We expect to 

gather preliminary data on these issues 

as we implement PIE in phases and 

study its effects. As always, we remain 

committed to assisting individuals with 

any potential issues as soon as possible. 

Comment: One commenter said we 

should reevaluate the information we 

provide to individuals who do not opt 

into PIE. Specifically, they asked us to 

examine the information we provide 

about reporting requirements, including 

the literacy level, accessibility, timing, 

and frequency. The commenter asserted 

that some individuals are unaware of 

the importance of reporting earnings 

and we should ensure they understand 

the projected amount of their monthly 

payments. According to the commenter, 

we should emphasize the importance of 

regularly checking their payment 

amounts to prevent overpayments. 

Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion to improve our 

current notices. While we commit to 

continually improving our 

communication, including the notices 

relating to PIE, this rulemaking seeks to 

address factors specific to PIE. 

Comment: A commenter asserted that 

we are subject to Executive Order (E.O.) 

13166, Improving Access to Services for 

Persons With Limited English 

Proficiency,61 and that we have 

obligations to individuals with limited 

English proficiency (LEP) to provide 

meaningful language access. 

Specifically, the commenter said we 

should provide a translated NOPA 

whenever an individual requested 

language translation services in the past. 

According to the commenter, we should 

translate our NOPAs into additional 

languages commonly spoken by 

individuals with LEP in the United 

States and add more languages over 

time. Some commenters said that these 

notices should be fully accessible, in 

multiple formats including braille, large 

print and audio. 

Another commenter alleged that field 

offices often fail to provide timely, 

accurate language services to people 

who primarily speak a language other 

than English, and the introduction of 

automated wage reporting will add a 

new element. The commenter stated 

that it is imperative that all related 

information—written or oral—be 

provided in the recipient’s preferred 

language. The commenter said we 

should consider improving language 

service capabilities, especially the 

availability of interpreters and adoption 

of standardized scripts for explaining 

the automated wage reporting system. 

Response: PIE notices are supported 

in English and Spanish and are made 

available based on the selected Special 

Notice Option, which are: standard 

print notice by certified mail, standard 

print notice by first class mail and a 

follow-up phone call to read the notice 

within five business days, braille notice 

and standard print notice by first-class 

mail, data compact disc (CD) in 

Microsoft Word format and a standard 

print notice by first-class mail, large 

print notice (18 point font) and a 

standard print notice by first-class mail, 

or audio CD and a standard print notice 

by first-class mail. Individuals with LEP 

may also bring a speaker of a given 

language into the office to translate for 

them. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that we should clarify that, because 

TWN is receiving Federal funds as a 

Federal contractor, it is subject to E.O. 

13166 and should provide language 

access for LEP individuals. According to 

the commenter, we should assess, under 

our contract, whether TWN is providing 

quality LEP services and has sufficient 

resources for translation and interpreter 

services. The commenter asserted, to 

meet its obligations, TWN should 

provide meaningful access for LEP 

individuals to their wage and 

employment information reports by 

translating them into the top languages 

spoken by LEP SSI recipients. 

Response: E.O. 13166 places an 

obligation on the agency, not third 

parties. As we state on ssa.gov, ‘‘we 

provide free interpretive services to help 

you conduct your Social Security 

business. These interpreter services are 

available whether you talk to us by 

phone or in the Social Security 

office.’’ 62 TWN is a database belonging 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107249 

63The commenter cited 15 U.S.C. 1681g(a), 15 

U.S.C. 1681j(a)(1)(C) and 15 U.S.C. 1681j(b). 

64See 20 CFR 401.40. 

to Equifax, who is a third-party 

contractor. 

Consistent with the above, our 

contract with Equifax does not put any 

LEP obligations on Equifax, a thirdparty contractor. 

Accessing Report Used To Make 

Adverse Action 

Comment: Commenters stated that we 

must ensure that individuals can easily 

obtain file disclosures from TWN or we 

must provide recipients with the copy 

that we obtained to make an adverse 

action. According to one commenter, 

FCRA provides that consumers can 

obtain a copy of their own consumer 

report, and they are entitled to free file 

disclosure annually and when an 

adverse action has been taken against 

them.63 Commenters asserted that these 

free disclosures are ‘‘critical’’ because 

they enable consumers to identify and 

dispute errors in their reports. Other 

commenters stated that access to their 

own information is a ‘‘basic principle of 

fair information practices.’’ Some 

commenters alleged payroll data 

providers do not always meet their file 

disclosure requirements under FCRA. 

For example, one commenter said, 

‘‘TWN’s systems appear to impose 

barriers or an outright inability for 

consumers to obtain a copy of their own 

TWN report.’’ The commenter expressed 

that we should mandate performance 

standards for accessing reports in 20 

CFR 422.150, our guidelines, or our 

contract with TWN. The commenter 

cited an example of a consumer who 

had significant difficulty accessing these 

reports. Another commenter stated that 

‘‘consumers have a right to review their 

wage and employment information 

contained within TWN by requesting 

their Employment Data Report at any 

time.’’ 

Response: Under the Privacy Act of 

1974, individuals have a right to access 

records about themselves that are 

retrievable by a personal identifier from 

our (SSA) non-exempt systems of 

records. Accordingly, individuals would 

have a right to access the wage reporting 

records stored in our files and used to 

make a determination, including any 

adverse action.64 For wages we receive 

from our current payroll data provider, 

when sending an adverse action notice, 

we will provide individuals notice of 

their right to a free copy of their 

consumer report and how to contact our 

current payroll data provider. 

Reporting 

Comment: One commenter said we 

should clarify why we will require 

individuals to report a new employer 

and explain the consequences of 

reporting or not reporting a new 

employer. In addition, the commenter 

asked several questions: (1) If an 

individual does not report a new 

employer, will we still be able to match 

payroll data? (2) Is the affirmative report 

of a new employer necessary to allow us 

to manually input the new employer 

information in the system so that any 

later payroll data has a ‘‘place’’ to go? 

(3) When an individual reports their 

new employer, what happens to payroll 

data provided by PIE for the new 

employer? (4) Will we tell an individual 

whether the new employer’s data is 

accessible via matching or manual 

reporting is needed? If so, how and 

when will this information be provided? 

Response: We will continue to require 

individuals to report new employers to 

us because, as noted, our payroll data 

provider will not be able to provide us 

with wage information from every 

employer. We will inform the 

individual of their reporting obligations 

each time we receive a report that they 

began work with a new employer. Thus, 

if we receive wage information from the 

payroll data provider for the new 

employer, we will notify the individual 

they no longer are required to report 

wage information for that employer to 

us. If an individual begins to work for 

a new employer and we have not 

notified them that we are receiving wage 

and employment information through 

our payroll data provider, the individual 

will still need to report wages to us for 

that employer. 

Regarding the commenter’s questions, 

we clarify that even if an individual 

does not tell us about the new employer, 

we will generally be able to match 

payroll data if an individual has 

provided us with authorization to obtain 

their wage and employment information 

through PIE and the new employer 

reports their wages to our payroll data 

provider. We nonetheless require 

individuals to report new employers 

because there is no way for us to know 

whether a new employer’s wage 

information will be available through 

PIE or not. Thus, reporting the new 

employer will help us make more 

accurate and timely payments. 

Finally, as mentioned earlier, we 

instruct individuals to continue 

reporting their wages until they receive 

notice from us to stop. We will send a 

notice to individuals whenever their 

wage reporting responsibilities change, 

as discussed in the NPRM. 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

how we will clearly communicate when 

individuals need to continue reporting 

wages to us. One commenter said that 

individuals may misunderstand the new 

rules to mean that they no longer need 

to track their wage information. 

According to the commenter, this could 

lead to significantly delayed or 

inaccurate wage reporting and the 

‘‘mixed messages’’ we will send to 

individuals will confuse them, 

particularly those with cognitive 

difficulties, and potentially lead to 

noncompliance with our rules, 

frustration, and overpayment or a loss of 

benefits. 

One commenter stated that, when we 

learn that an individual’s employer does 

not use TWN, we should inform them 

to continue wage reporting using the 

existing methods. According to the 

commenter, this communication would 

prevent individuals from incorrectly 

assuming that they no longer need to 

report because they authorized us to use 

PIE. Another commenter said that 

individuals often work multiple jobs for 

short periods and their disabilities may 

hinder their ability to maintain 

consistent employment. According to 

the commenter, if wage reporting 

responsibilities change from one 

employer to the next, some recipients 

will be unable to keep up with their 

reporting obligations. The commenter 

said recipients should be clearly and 

promptly advised that payroll data 

providers may not receive information 

from every employer, so the individual 

may need to report earnings from some 

employers, even if we automatically 

receive payroll data from other 

employers. 

An additional commenter asked how 

the individual will know, once they’ve 

opted in, that the data has or has not 

been received from the payroll data 

provider, and, if the payroll data 

provider fails to transmit data to us, 

transmits incorrect data, or delays 

transmitting data—if the individual will 

continue to be exempt from certain 

penalties. 

Response: We will tell individuals to 

continue reporting their wages using 

existing methods until they receive 

notice from us telling them otherwise, 

and our notices will communicate any 

other changes to reporting requirements. 

This information is provided through a 

receipt they receive after providing 

authorization. We understand that 

individuals may work for multiple 

employers, change employers 

frequently, or not be aware initially 

whether their employer reports wages to 

us. Accordingly, as explained in the 

NPRM, we will notify individuals in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107250 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

65 42 U.S.C. 1320a–8a. See 20 CFR 404.459, 

416.1340. The relevant penalty under section 

1129A of the Act and 20 CFR 404.459, 416.1340 is 

the non-payment of OASDI disability benefits and 

ineligibility for SSI cash benefits. Other penalties 

under section 1129A of the Act may apply in 

situations involving false or misleading statements, 

including statements regarding wages and 

employment. 

66The commenter referred to our requirement to 

report starting or stopping work or a change in 

earnings no later than the 10th day of the month 

after the month of change. 

67 20 CFR 416.714. 

68We may impose a penalty deduction from your 

benefits for a late report (see §§ 416.722 through 

416.732). 

69 20 CFR 404.1588, 416.988. 

70https://www.ssa.gov/finance/. Examples of 

other reports that may contain relevant information 

include the Report on Supplemental Security 

Income Non-medical Redeterminations (https://

www.ssa.gov/legislation/FY2014SSINon-Medical

RedeterminationReport.pdf) and the Annual Report 

on Work-Related Continuing Disability Reviews 

(https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/WorkCDRFY2021

Final.pdf). 

writing of changes to their reporting 

responsibilities, including whenever we 

start or stop receiving their wage and 

employment information from an 

employer through a payroll data 

provider. The notices for changes in 

reporting responsibilities will list the 

employer(s) we receive wages from and 

the employer(s) we stop receiving wages 

from. Since the notices list specific 

employer(s), and also explain the need 

to continue reporting for any other 

employer(s), we expect to minimize 

confusion. Finally, as noted in the 

NPRM, individuals who authorize us to 

obtain wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

will not be subject to penalties under 

section 1129A of the Act for omissions 

or errors in the data we receive from a 

participating payroll data provider. We 

will provide notice of this penalty relief, 

including the identity of the relevant 

employer(s).65

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that starting or stopping a job is a major 

event that can disrupt people’s lives and 

offering an extended grace period, 

especially for those who experience 

unexpected job losses, would benefit 

people who are likely in the process of 

applying for other programs to take care 

of their immediate needs.66 The 

commenter asked if there are exceptions 

to the reporting timeline for major life 

event experiences and, if an individual 

knows a change in their earnings is 

coming (e.g., a raise), how far in 

advance are they able to notify us of 

these changes. 

Response: While we appreciate that 

starting or stopping a job may be a big 

change, the suggestion to offer an 

‘‘extended grace period’’ is not within 

the scope of this current rulemaking. 

Further, we cannot consider changing 

the time periods allowed for making 

required reports. We anticipate that the 

changes we are making with these new 

rules will significantly reduce reporting 

responsibilities for most individuals. 

Timely reporting, however, is still 

necessary to ensure we have enough 

time to adjust benefits, so we pay 

individuals the correct amount at the 

correct time. In the SSI program, 

individuals should continue to report to 

us as soon as an event listed in 

§ 416.708 happens.67 If they do not 

report within 10 days after the close of 

the month in which the event happens, 

the report will be late.68 For disability, 

individuals should report changes 

‘‘promptly.’’ 69

When an individual knows that a 

change in their earnings will happen in 

the future (such as a raise), they can 

report the future event to us in advance 

and we will use that report to estimate 

their future wages. 

Internal Quality Review 

Comment: One commenter said we 

should conduct rigorous evaluations of 

our implementation to ensure that the 

PIE authority is operating as intended 

by Congress. In addition, the commenter 

stated that we should publish annual 

reports so that the public and Congress 

can understand the impact. For 

example, according to the commenter, 

we should publish information on the 

number of individuals: (1) who have 

authorized us to access their 

commercial payroll data; (2) whose 

benefits have been reduced or stopped 

due to PIE wage reports; (3) who have 

reported errors in their PIE wage data 

and the outcomes of those reports; and 

(4) who have appealed and the outcome 

of those appeals. Further the commenter 

said we should report: (1) our actions to 

prevent, identify, and correct wage 

report errors; (2) the impact of the PIE 

on overpayments; and (3) the impact of 

the PIE on our customer service. 

Another commenter asked what the 

quality control process for PIE entails. 

Response: We understand and share 

the commenter’s desire for public 

transparency. We intend to conduct PIE 

rollout in phases, so that we can study 

its effects before full implementation 

and ensure our program complies with 

all applicable authorities. We will 

continue to evaluate these questions and 

information as we implement PIE. We 

currently publish a number of reports. 

However, we do not anticipate that a 

new, dedicated PIE report will be 

necessary. The most salient information 

is contained in reports that we already 

issue. For example, we include 

information related to wage and 

earnings overpayments in the Agency 

Financial Report.70 We anticipate that 

the reports we issue will be sufficient to 

publicly track the most important 

issues. 

Overpayments 

Comment: Many commenters said 

that the agency should revise 

overpayment waiver policies and 

recommended options like finding 

individuals ‘‘without fault’’ for 

overpayments created by inaccurate or 

incomplete reporting from employers or 

the payroll data provider, and that these 

‘‘without fault’’ overpayments should 

always be waived. One commenter 

stated policy changes such as these 

ensure that the efficiency gained from 

PIE does not result in ‘‘harm’’ to 

individuals who rely on our programs 

for their basic needs. 

Several commenters said we should 

take waivers a step further. One 

commenter said if, at the time the 

overpayment is posted, the individual 

meets the ‘‘deemed to defeat the 

purpose’’ provision, then we should 

consider waiving the overpayment 

without requiring any action by the 

beneficiary. According to the 

commenter, this would ‘‘lower the 

burden on individuals, promote equity 

and fairness, and improve 

administrative efficiency.’’ Another 

commenter said we should incorporate 

into the final rule a provision allowing 

for automatic waiver of any 

overpayments caused by third-party 

reporting errors to eliminate the burden 

on the individual to request a waiver of 

the overpayment and staff time to 

process the waiver. Similarly, other 

commenters also said we should adopt 

a ‘‘liberal interpretation’’ of both ‘‘defeat 

the purpose of the act’’ and the ‘‘against 

equity and good conscious’’ provisions, 

and asserted that if an individual is 

overpaid because of reliance on the data 

exchange program, even after we 

advised them that reporting is no longer 

required, then ‘‘equity is not served and 

some aspects of the purpose of the act 

are defeated.’’ Another commenter said 

that any time an individual questions an 

overpayment caused by inaccurate 

reporting from a third party, we should 

initiate an administrative waiver review, 

without requiring the individual to 

complete SSA Form 632 (Request for 

Waiver of Overpayment Recovery) or to 

undergo any similar administrative 

burden. 

In contrast, a separate commenter 

stated that, because a ‘‘without fault’’ 

determination results in ‘‘writing off of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107251 

71See 20 CFR 404.507, 416.442. 

72https://www.ssa.gov/agency/plain-language/ 

Examples/Forms/Form%20SSA-821%20- 

%20BEFORE.pdf. 

73https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10095.pdf. 

74https://www.ssa.gov/redbook/. 

75https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-3033.pdf. 

76See 20 CFR 404.1592. 

77See 20 CFR 404.1592a. 

78Public Law 114–74, 129 Stat. 584, 610. 

the beneficiary’s obligation to repay 

mistakenly received funds,’’ it is 

contrary to our stewardship 

responsibilities. The commenter also 

stated that it is an unnecessary incentive 

considering the high authorization rates 

that we are experiencing without that 

rule. The commenter asserted that it 

might be ‘‘fair’’ to presume ‘‘without 

fault’’ if the overpayment is discovered 

after a long period, for example, five or 

seven years. 

Response: We appreciate the feedback 

from commenters on the ‘‘without fault’’ 

provisions in our overpayment recovery 

waiver policy. As stated previously, we 

take our program stewardship 

responsibilities seriously, and we strive 

to pay the right person the right amount 

at the right time. As explained in the 

NPRM, we sought these comments to 

help inform our consideration of 

possible clarifications to this aspect of 

our overpayment policy for individuals 

who participate in PIE. We agree with 

the commenter who stated that, if 

inaccurate data from the payroll data 

provider results in an overpayment and 

the overpaid individual asks us to waive 

recovery of their overpayment, we 

should usually find the individual to be 

‘‘without fault’’ in causing the 

overpayment under our existing 

regulations, and would therefore assess 

whether we can waive the overpayment 

based on our existing overpayment 

procedures.71 However, there is no legal 

basis for simply dismissing repayment 

of the overpayment in all circumstances 

as the commenter further suggests. We 

are also considering the commenters’ 

other suggested changes as part of a 

comprehensive review of overpayment 

policies. 

Earnings Considerations, Including 

Work Incentives and Sick, Vacation, 

and Bonus Compensation 

Comment: Some commenters 

questioned how payroll data will 

distinguish between paid hours that 

count toward SGA and those that do 

not. Specifically, commenters asked if 

the payroll data system will distinguish 

pay that represents bonus, sick, 

vacation, and holiday pay. They said 

that, without this differentiation, it is 

not clear how we will accurately 

determine SGA. 

Multiple commenters stated concerns 

about addressing work incentives in the 

context of PIE and asked how we will 

integrate work incentives into the 

process. Commenters said individuals 

will continue to be burdened with 

reporting work incentives and our staff 

will continue to be burdened with 

processing them. Some commenters 

suggested potential improvements, such 

as using mySocialSecurity as a platform 

for reporting both wages and work 

incentives. Another commenter stated 

that we should provide easy-tounderstand information about 

impairment-related work expenses and 

subsidized work and this rulemaking 

could allow us to increase outreach to 

large employers about what subsidized 

work is and how it impacts individuals 

with disabilities who receive benefits 

from us. One commenter said, for SSI, 

we should analyze how to best integrate 

third-party payroll data reporting and 

individual reporting of work incentives, 

prior to making determinations resulting 

in an adverse action. For OASDI 

disability, the commenter stated that we 

should consider notifying individuals 

about trial work period (TWP) progress 

and when they enter the extended 

period of eligibility. 

Response: We do not expect PIE to 

meaningfully improve our access to the 

type of detailed information sometimes 

needed to make accurate SGA 

determinations (such as distinguishing 

pay for actual work versus holiday or 

sick pay or providing details about 

subsidized work, accommodations, or 

impairment related work expenses). 

Prior to making an SGA decision, we 

will continue to request information 

about special pay (sick, vacation, etc.) 

and any work incentives (including 

subsidy) from the beneficiary on form 

SSA–821 (Work Activity Report).72 If 

the information impacts the SGA 

decision, we will request proof of the 

information before effectuating a 

decision. In addition, we send the 

beneficiary a Notice of Proposed 

Decision, which includes a chart of the 

monthly earnings amounts that we used 

in our review and offers the individual 

a chance to supply any additional 

evidence before we finalize the 

decision. 

Likewise, PIE will not affect how 

individuals report impairment-related 

work expenses that we exclude from 

earned income under SSI. Individuals 

should still report to us if their earnings 

are used for impairment-related work 

expenses, or if the amount of 

impairment-related work expenses 

changes. If an individual has reported 

impairment-related work expenses that 

occur on a regular and continuing basis, 

the appropriate deduction from earnings 

will be included in payment 

calculations when we receive wage 

information through PIE. 

We will continue to explore ways for 

individuals to report work incentive 

information to us, potentially through 

mySocialSecurity or other channels. 

Various notices and publications 

contain information about our work 

incentives such as Working While 

Disabled: How We Can Help 73 and The 

Redbook.74 In addition, we are currently 

revising forms SSA–821 (Work Activity 

Report) and SSA–3033 (Work Activity 

Questionnaire) 75 for clarity about our 

work incentives. The planned revisions 

to form SSA–821 include descriptions 

of the various work incentives (like 

Impairment-Related Work Expenses), 

explain that we can deduct these items 

when making the SGA decisions, and 

provide examples of the work 

incentives. Form SSA–3033, The 

Employee Work Activity Questionnaire 

(OMB No. 0960–0483) collects 

information from the employer about 

subsidized work and special conditions 

given to the employee. We are updating 

this form so it explains how providing 

the information is beneficial to the 

employee, gives clear examples, and 

provides easier ways to calculate the 

information. 

For OASDI, the Notice of Proposed 

Decision explains where an individual 

is in their TWP 76 and Extended Period 

of Eligibility (EPE).77 It includes a chart 

and labels the earnings as month one 

through nine of the TWP and indicates 

which earnings are SGA in the EPE. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concerns about the ‘‘complexity and 

variance of data application.’’ A few 

commenters noted that, there are two 

different earnings considerations in 

using payroll data: (1) title II entitlement 

(OASDI disability), based on when 

wages are earned, and (2) title XVI 

payment amount (SSI), based on when 

wages are paid. The commenter said we 

should clearly explain how the two 

separate computations will be 

approached and asked if the data we 

receive will show both the date earned 

and the date paid. 

Response: How we consider earnings 

depends on which program a person 

receives benefits from. For SSI 

determinations, we consider when 

wages are paid. The exchange will 

always provide the pay date and gross 

earnings for this determination. For 

OASDI disability, we consider when 

wages are earned. Section 825 of the 

BBA 78 simplifies post-entitlement SGA 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107252 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

79 DI 10505.005, available at https://

secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0410505005. 

80FY2023 Agency Financial Report, page 180, 

available at https://www.ssa.gov/finance/2023/ 

Full%20FY%202023%20AFR.pdf. Beneficiaries’ 

failure to report earnings in a timely manner 

accounted for 82 percent of SGA-related improper 

payments and our failure to take the proper actions 

to process work reports accounted for the 

remainder. 81 20 CFR 404.909(a) and 416.1409(a). 

determinations by allowing us to 

presume earnings were earned in the 

month they were paid if more precise 

information is not available. Prior to 

applying this paid-versus-earned 

assumption, we evaluate any readily 

available evidence to determine when 

earnings were earned. Thus, we 

primarily use the pay period end date, 

and sometimes the pay period start date, 

to determine when wages were earned. 

The exchange will always provide a pay 

period end date; when the exchange 

does not include a pay period start date, 

our systems have incorporated logic to 

calculate one. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the proposal states that the ‘‘pay period 

start date would have no discernible 

impact on benefit determinations’’ and 

will not be collected. The commenter 

stated that it is unclear if this statement 

includes post-entitlement 

determinations, and if it does, it is in 

direct conflict with POMS DI 10505.005, 

which states, ‘‘The Bipartisan Budget 

Act of 2015 simplifies post entitlement 

SGA determinations by allowing us to 

presume earnings were earned in the 

month they were paid. However, prior 

to applying this paid versus earned 

assumption, evaluate any readily 

available earnings verification sources 

and determine when earnings were 

earned.’’ 79 The commenter expressed 

concerns about the impact on title II 

beneficiaries if pay period start dates are 

ignored. Further, the commenter stated 

that documenting exactly when work is 

performed, along with any utilization of 

work incentives, is crucial for title II 

beneficiaries to accurately demonstrate 

whether they are engaging in SGA. 

Response: For OASDI disability, we 

have the ability to use the pay period 

end date or start date to determine when 

wages were earned. However, we 

primarily use the pay period end date 

because we generally expect to receive 

more information about the end date. As 

a clarification, we collect the pay period 

start date when the payroll data 

provider supplies that information. 

When the exchange does not include the 

pay period start date, our systems have 

incorporated logic to calculate one. In 

addition, we will send form SSA–821 to 

the individual to develop more detailed 

information about the individual’s 

work, including information relevant to 

work incentives. Also, we will send the 

individual a Notice of Proposed 

Decision which includes a monthly 

table of earnings that were used in 

making the decision and allows the 

individual to provide any additional 

information. 

Internally Inconsistent Information 

Comment: One commenter said that 

we made an error because our transfer 

estimates for implementation begin on 

October 7, 2023, but we published the 

NPRM on February 15, 2024. 

Response: The actuarial estimates 

provided in the NPRM projected 

reductions in program costs as if PIE 

would have been implemented in 

October 2023. Actuarial estimates must 

make assumptions based on current 

facts to develop reasonable projections. 

While the effective date, as the 

commenter noted, could not actually 

occur in 2023, the estimates still 

provided a reasonable reference for 

individuals interested in the effects of 

PIE on our future costs and savings. We 

updated the projected effective date of 

the estimates in this final rule. 

Comment: One commenter pointed to 

sections of the NPRM where we 

reported: (1) that SGA-related 

overpayments in the OASDI disability 

program, occurring predominately 

because individuals fail to report 

earnings in a timely manner, averaged 

$500 million a year; and (2) that 

individuals in this category were 

overpaid $1,163 million a year. The 

commenter asked which is correct and, 

in particular, which we used to estimate 

the savings to taxpayers. The 

commenter requested a more complete 

explanation and documentation of the 

savings estimate. 

Response: The average of $500 

million per year came from the FY2023 

Agency Financial Report and relates to 

OASDI SGA errors.80 The average of 

$1,163 million per year comes from an 

internal study of SSI wage errors. We 

inadvertently mischaracterized this 

figure in the NPRM, and the NPRM 

should have referred to this as SSI wagerelated overpayments. We regret any 

confusion. 

Reconsideration Requests 

Comment: Many commenters said we 

should allow individuals to request 

reconsideration orally. Commenters 

stated that obstacles such as insufficient 

internet access, field office delays, 

telephone delays, travel challenges, and 

communication barriers are reasons to 

accept reconsideration orally. 

Commenters asserted that language 

challenges further complicate the 

burden of making written requests, and 

accepting oral requests would allow us 

to comply with Federal laws requiring 

language access and disability 

accommodations. 

Some commenters said we should 

ensure ‘‘adequate staffing’’ if we accept 

reconsiderations by phone and that our 

staff would need training to ensure that 

they would easily recognize stated 

requests for reconsideration. Other 

commenters suggested that we could 

find ways to automate the process. 

Commenters also expressed concerns 

about the documentation and processing 

of oral appeals. Some proposed that we 

provide a confirmation number (or 

similar proof) any time an individual 

requests an oral reconsideration request. 

Several commenters said that, if we 

allow such requests orally, we should 

accept a later attestation by the 

individual that they made an oral 

reconsideration request, without 

requiring further proof. 

In contrast, one commenter asserted 

that, to ensure individuals’ rights are 

protected, we should continue to 

require reconsideration requests in 

writing. 

Response: We appreciate the feedback 

from commenters on accepting oral 

reconsideration requests. Commenters 

noted they find our current requirement 

for a written reconsideration request to 

be burdensome for some claimants and 

their representatives. As an agency that 

values customer experience and 

considers administrative burden 

reduction on the public to be an 

important priority, we appreciate the 

feedback and plan to seriously consider 

this proposal. Our ultimate goal is to 

achieve a balance between reducing 

burden to the extent possible, while 

ensuring the consistency and integrity 

of our processes. Further exploration of 

this proposal requires a review of 

multiple agency processes in which an 

appeal is involved, and would also 

entail seeking more fulsome feedback 

from the public on this issue 

specifically. At the present time as 

noted in the NPRM, we are not making 

any changes to the appeals filing 

process. Our regulations for both title II 

and title XVI require that the party 

seeking reconsideration file a written 

request.81 Whether we should amend 

these regulations to accept oral 

reconsideration requests requires 

consideration of all the contexts in 

which they arise, not just the sub-set of 

reconsideration requests that appeal an 

initial determination of income based 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107253 

82 89 FR 11781 (Feb. 15, 2024). 

83 Deeming also applies to any individual who 

lives with an essential person (a concept carried 

over from the former State assistances plans.) As of 

February 2024, there were only 4 cases with an 

essential person remaining. 

84The commenter used the acronym ‘‘CCE.’’ We 

assumed they referred to the ‘‘Consolidated Claim 

Experience.’’ 

85The commenter used the acronym ‘‘RMA.’’ We 

assumed they referred to ‘‘Retrospective Monthly 

Accounting.’’ 

on PIE data. Accordingly, we did not 

intend this rulemaking to decide the 

complex issue of accepting oral 

reconsideration requests.82

Comment: Several commenters said 

we should eliminate the reconsideration 

step for initial disability cases. One 

commenter said we never published an 

analysis of the efficacy of the 

reconsideration step, ‘‘despite a promise 

years ago to do so when evaluating the 

ten-state disability adjudication 

prototype experiment.’’ 

Another commenter stated that 

requiring reconsideration after an initial 

denial ‘‘depletes SSA resources and 

significantly burdens claimants without 

improving the accuracy of disability 

determinations.’’ The commenter said 

the agency could expand existing subregulatory guidance on informal 

remands, which already permits 

additional review from Disability 

Determination Services staff in cases 

where new evidence or certain other 

circumstances warrant an additional 

level of review before a hearing. 

Response: We appreciate the 

comments received but they are outside 

the scope of this final rule. 

Systems Questions 

Comment: One commenter asked 

what system would support the data 

exchange to upload the monthly 

verification. 

Response: We first verify that the data 

are complete and in the right format. 

The data are then stored in a centralized 

repository before they are moved to the 

appropriate title II and title XVI systems 

where the data are automated to 

beneficiary and recipient records or 

flagged for technician review. 

Comment: A commenter asked how 

employees will handle the new 

workload for exceptions and failed 

submissions. 

Response: Our OASDI work review 

system will send wage alerts when 

incoming PIE data is incomplete, due to 

such issues as missing pay period start 

date information. When this happens, 

the alert will guide our technicians to 

manually query sources of earnings 

(including PIE) to determine if the 

individual has substantial earnings. All 

work reviews require manual review of 

earnings prior to effectuating a 

determination. Similarly, our SSI 

systems will create a diary to be worked 

by a technician when we do not have an 

Employer Identification Number (EIN) 

match for an individual who has already 

reported an employer/EIN to us. Once 

the technician confirms the incoming 

employment, future PIE wages will 

automate to the recipient’s record for 

that employer. Any name mismatch 

cases (where the name and SSN do not 

match) will not go downstream to any 

application. 

Comment: A commenter asked what 

percentage of liability the representative 

payee, deemor, essential person, and 

claimant have regarding wages. 

Response: When the representative 

payee, beneficiary, recipient, or 

claimant receives a PIE reporting 

responsibilities notice, they would not 

have to report wages monthly, and they 

would not be considered ‘‘at fault’’ for 

any inaccuracies. All SSI recipients (or 

their representative payees) are 

responsible for reporting their wages as 

well as the wages of any deemors or 

essential persons.83 In any event, we are 

not changing who is responsible for 

making required reports. 

Comment: A commenter asked if 

individuals have to report initial work 

to update the Consolidated Claims 

Experience (CCE).84

Response: Yes, we continue to require 

individuals to report a change in 

employment, including new 

employment. 

Comment: A commenter asked if the 

Retrospective Monthly Accounting 

(RMA) cycle will remain in effect.85

Response: Yes, normal RMA 

accounting rules will still apply. 

Comment: A commenter asked if 

employers report wages monthly or 

quarterly. 

Response: We will receive wages that 

are readily available to the payroll data 

provider at the time of our monthly 

information exchange regardless of how 

often the employer provides that data to 

them. 

Comment: A commenter asked if the 

report will be delayed. 

Response: We are not certain what the 

commenter means by ‘‘the report.’’ We 

expect to receive the information 

through PIE prior to the GK payment 

continuation cutoff date in a given 

month to ensure we receive the data in 

time to determine an individual’s 

eligibility or payment amount. 

Comment: A commenter asked if there 

will be an overpayment if this program 

works. 

Response: While we anticipate PIE 

will lead to more accurate and timely 

payments, it cannot eliminate 

overpayments and underpayments 

altogether for a variety of reasons, some 

of which may be that not everyone will 

opt in, not all employers are covered, 

and there will still be cases where 

manual actions are necessary. 

Comment: A commenter asked if the 

system will understand pre-tax 

deductions. 

Response: PIE data only includes 

employer wage data. Calculations are 

based on gross wages, not on net pay. 

Comment: A commenter asked if 

counting the net and removing the wage 

exclusion provision would ‘‘change the 

game’’ as more individuals become 

eligible for benefits. 

Response: Laws and regulations 

govern how we count earned income 

and what we can exclude from income 

counting. Changes to income counting 

are outside of the scope of this rule. 

Comment: One commenter asked how 

we will rectify duplicate reporting, 

particularly with the EIN or corporate 

name reported in the data exchange and 

the ‘‘doing business as’’ (DBA) name on 

paystubs with an individual continuing 

to manually report. 

Response: We will receive the DBA 

name on the incoming wage and 

employment information from the 

payroll data provider through PIE and 

will prioritize PIE information over 

other reporting methods, unless 

manually adjusted by one of our 

technicians. 

Comment: A commenter asked if there 

is a plan to address benefits received 

under a cross referenced number (e.g., a 

parent). 

Response: Yes, PIE data is based on 

the individual’s own SSN, so their 

wages for SSI or OASDI disability will 

be posted to their record with any crossreferenced SSNs. 

Other Public Comments 

Comment: One commenter requested 

information about how PIE 

implementation will increase efficiency. 

The commenter asked: (1) Is there data 

showing how much time is saved or 

how much greater accuracy is achieved 

by this process? (2) If time is saved, how 

much and in which components? (3) 

What benefits might be realized by 

redirecting this saved time toward other 

workloads? (4) Are there any critical 

workloads that would be addressed 

because of such savings? and (5) How 

might this benefit individuals in 

general? 

Response: PIE will increase efficiency 

by allowing our systems to receive and 

automate wage and employment 

information timely. Timely receipt of 

this information allows us to administer 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107254 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

86As noted elsewhere, information received 

through PIE is already considered ‘‘verified.’’ 

87These savings are for our staff. They do not 

represent public reporting burden savings. 

88 Individuals who authorize us to obtain wage 

and employment information from a payroll data 

provider will not be subject to penalties under 

section 1129A of the Act for omissions or errors in 

the data we receive from a participating payroll data 

provider. 42 U.S.C. 1320a–8a. See 20 CFR 404.459, 

416.1340. The relevant penalty under section 

1129A of the Act and 20 CFR 404.459, 416.1340 is 

the non-payment of OASDI disability benefits and 

ineligibility for SSI cash benefits. Other penalties 

under section 1129A of the Act may apply in 

situations involving false or misleading statements, 

including statements regarding wages and 

employment. 

89Amin v. Kijakazi, Case 1:15–cv–07429 

(E.D.N.Y.). 

the OASDI disability and SSI programs 

more efficiently, as well as reduce 

improper payments, because we will 

receive the information sooner and will 

process it quicker when the information 

automates for SSI and when the 

information alerts us to wages sooner for 

OASDI disability. This also creates 

administrative efficiencies because it 

reduces the time our technicians would 

otherwise use to verify wages.86 In our 

NPRM, we anticipated some 

administrative savings from a shorter 

wage development process in affected 

cases during SSI pre-effectuation 

reviews, redeterminations, posteligibility actions, and overpayments, as 

well as during OASDI disability work 

continuing disability reviews. However, 

we do not attempt to quantify these time 

savings. As we explained in the NPRM, 

under our current process, we 

sometimes conduct a manual query to 

request records from payroll data 

providers or employers. We estimate we 

would save approximately 20 minutes 

of our staff’s time each time we no 

longer need to complete this query.87

We expect that our Operations 

components would realize these time 

savings and could redirect this time 

toward other critical workloads. In 

addition to the benefits identified 

elsewhere in this rule (e.g., reduced 

burden on individuals), we anticipate 

others may benefit if we are able to 

initiate work on their cases sooner 

because of the time savings PIE will 

afford staff. 

Comment: One commenter said the 

public must have the ‘‘maximal ability’’ 

to understand the technology we will 

use to implement PIE before we 

implement it, including how it works, 

potential problem points, plans to work 

through such problem points, plans to 

identify and fix unanticipated and 

anticipated problems, and ways to 

revert to ‘‘non-automated’’ means in the 

event that the system produces 

widespread inaccuracies or other 

problems. The commenter said this 

information should be posted publicly, 

and we should consider engaging 

individuals and their advocates in 

system design, and we should support 

individuals to enable them to 

meaningfully participate. 

Response: While we are unable to 

share sensitive information for security 

reasons, we will publish procedures 

describing the process for requesting 

and receiving wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

through an information exchange. In the 

unlikely event the system produces 

‘‘unanticipated problems,’’ we can, as 

always, accept alternative wage 

evidence (e.g., pay stubs) from the wage 

reporter. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that adding the penalty of ineligibility 

will create a potentially 

‘‘insurmountable barrier to 

employment’’ for individuals. The 

commenter said that individuals 

consistently report that ‘‘fear of 

prematurely losing their benefits is a 

primary reason they are reluctant to try 

working,’’ and work incentives planners 

spend ‘‘countless hours’’ reassuring 

them that they will not lose their 

benefits just because they return to 

work. The commenter stated we must 

remove the language about the penalty 

of ineligibility related to wage reporting 

mistakes because these rules create 

‘‘new and extreme penalties.’’ 

Response: Neither the BBA nor the 

NPRM propose new penalties of any 

kind. Nor does this final rule. Rather, 

the BBA and this final rule create 

protections from some existing penalties 

for individuals. As we explained in the 

NPRM, we may not subject individuals 

to certain penalties related to reporting 

if they authorize us to obtain 

information from a payroll data 

provider.88 For example, when an 

individual is reporting wages to us 

currently, and they omit material facts 

related to the wage data they report, we 

can, under 1129A of the Act, stop their 

benefits. However, if we are receiving 

wage data from a payroll data provider 

under the PIE program, we will not stop 

the individual’s benefits because of any 

errors made in reporting by the payroll 

data provider. This will alleviate some 

of the ‘‘fear’’ the commentator described 

currently associated with having to 

report wage data to us directly. 

However, in reviewing the CFR text 

we understand that as written in the 

NPRM it might not clearly reflect the 

explanation provided in the preamble. 

Accordingly, we have rewritten the CFR 

text. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that our proposal would impose a 

financial burden on payroll companies, 

particularly small businesses. The 

commenter said that payroll reporting to 

us and IRS is already ‘‘more difficult 

and time-consuming than it needs to 

be.’’ According to the commenter, small 

businesses are ‘‘drowning in federal, 

state and local government regulations,’’ 

and if we require reporting, we should 

reimburse payroll companies for the 

cost. 

Response: This rule and the 

implementation of PIE will not impose 

burdens on payroll companies, 

including small businesses, because we 

are not requiring, nor requesting, they 

change reporting or any other aspects of 

their business processes. Rather, we are 

working with a payroll data provider 

that already receives information from 

employers, and that payroll data 

provider (that is under a contract with 

us) will provide that information to us 

directly. 

Comment: One commenter said we 

should not obtain information without 

working with the employer to request 

information. They stated this proposal is 

an overreach that should not be 

pursued. According to the commenter, 

irregularities can present an 

‘‘opportunity to interact with an 

employer to request additional 

information.’’ Further, the commenter 

said every employer has the right to 

oversee their own payroll service, 

without having them ‘‘work for the 

government.’’ 

Response: We are not mandating any 

employers to ‘‘work for the 

government,’’ nor do we have the 

authority to do so. Rather, we have 

exercised the authority in the BBA to 

enter into an information exchange 

arrangement with a payroll data 

provider. We will work directly with 

our contracted payroll data provider 

who has willingly entered into an 

information exchange with us. 

To the extent this comment applies to 

individual employees, anyone who does 

not want us to obtain their information 

from our payroll data provider may 

decide not to provide authorization or 

may revoke their authorization at any 

time. We will not obtain payroll data 

provider information without 

authorization and the individual can 

continue to submit their information to 

us directly. 

Comment: One commenter referred to 

our policy that extends the time period 

for individuals to request benefit 

continuation from 10 to 60 days 

pursuant to the settlement agreement in 

Amin v. Kijakazi.89 The commenter 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107255 

90The projected period in the NPRM extended 

through 2033. The revised projected period in this 

final rule extends through 2034. 

91We have not conducted any analysis to 

investigate why a higher share of all SSI deemors 

have provided authorization compared to all SSI 

recipients. It is possible this is a result of the nonmedical redetermination process. If a 

redetermination is initiated, and a recipient or 

deemor has not previously provided authorization, 

we request authorization. SSI recipients with 

deemors are relatively more likely to have a 

redetermination initiated. 

92As stated in the preamble, neither SSA nor 

Equifax has analyzed whether working disability 

benefit recipients are represented in a similar 

Continued 

stated that we should formalize this 

policy through rulemaking, updating 

POMS, and communicating the 

modified policy to our staff prior to 

finalizing the payroll data rule. 

Response: We would like to 

emphasize that, in accordance with the 

settlement agreement in the referenced 

litigation, we already use this policy in 

practice. Codifying the policy into 

regulations is out of the scope of this 

final rule. 

Comment: One commenter said SSI or 

SSDI ‘‘navigators’’ or case managers 

could help streamline the current wage 

reporting process and reduce the 

administrative burden on individuals. 

According to the commenter, the use of 

navigators can also improve the 

accessibility of current reporting 

options. Further, the commenter said, if 

multiple individuals request assistance 

for a recurring accessibility issue, 

navigators or case managers can review 

these reporting methods and bring 

accessibility concerns to the appropriate 

person or team at the SSA. 

Response: While we are unsure 

precisely who the commenter intended 

when referencing ‘‘navigators’’ and 

‘‘case managers’’ in the SSA context, we 

clarify that our technicians will be 

available to help individuals with their 

PIE-related questions and we will 

publish policy describing the process 

for requesting and receiving wage and 

employment information from a payroll 

data provider through an information 

exchange. For any concerns or questions 

about accessibility, please visit https:// 

www.ssa.gov/accessibility/504_

overview.html. Our notices also advise 

members of the public that they can 

contact us through our 800 number with 

additional questions or requests for 

guidance. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

that individuals would benefit from 

‘‘well-considered policy and 

implementation choices that guarantee 

full access and do not discriminate.’’ 

The commenter said, among other ideas, 

we can consider implementing a ‘‘clear 

process that informs people that 

reasonable accommodations are 

available, recognizes requests, and acts 

on them quickly and appropriately.’’ 

Response: We comply with relevant 

and applicable anti-discrimination 

policies and laws, including section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act and its 

reasonable accommodation 

requirements. As part of this final rule, 

we are not revising our obligations 

under section 504, including our 

reasonable accommodation process, or 

our language support for the public. For 

more information about those policies, 

please visit https://www.ssa.gov/ 

accessibility/504_overview.html and 

https://www.ssa.gov/site/languages/en/. 

Comment: One commenter said, to 

ensure that the ‘‘automated wage 

reporting does not simply replace 

monthly income reports required of 

recipients with monthly notices that 

prompt them to call,’’ we could consider 

building in ‘‘tolerances’’ for income 

fluctuations so small changes in benefit 

amounts do not trigger notices for a 

certain period of time. The commenter 

suggested that we could consider 

couching these as small overpayments 

and use existing waiver authority to 

waive them. 

Relatedly, the commenter also 

suggested that we could average wage 

income over a set span of time (e.g., 

three or six months), make one 

determination about benefit amounts for 

the next span, send one notice for that 

span, and allow recipients to present 

evidence if they believe we should 

adjust their benefit amount. The 

commenter asserted that recipients 

would benefit most from simplified 

benefit calculations and fewer notices. 

Response: This suggestion is not 

within the scope of this final rule. 

Nevertheless, we will continue to 

evaluate our processes on an ongoing 

basis, looking for opportunities to 

provide enhancements and 

improvements that reduce burdens for 

our customers or increase agency 

efficiency and that provide effective 

program stewardship. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

that we eliminate the complex rules and 

make the program simpler for recipients 

to navigate. 

Response: We appreciate this 

comment and always look for ways to 

simplify our programs. We anticipate 

that implementation of PIE will make 

one part of the SSI and OASDI disability 

process (wage reporting) simpler for 

most individuals who provide 

authorization for us to receive their 

wages through PIE. 

Comment: Commenters brought up a 

variety of other issues not directly 

related to the proposal. For example, 

one commenter asserted that people 

cannot live on SSI alone and they 

deserve at least $2,500 a month to 

survive. Another commenter questioned 

whether the States should have a bigger 

role in managing Social Security. Other 

commenters raised issues about 

personal loans or changes in qualifying 

for disability. An additional commenter 

expressed that we may be able to use 

PIE data to establish insured status for 

applicants. 

Response: While we appreciate these 

suggestions, they are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Regulatory Procedures 

E.O. 12866 as Supplemented by E.O. 

13563 and Amended by E.O. 14094 

We consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

OMB has determined that this final rule 

meets the criteria for a section 3(f)(1) 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 

and amended by E.O. 14094 and is 

subject to OMB review. 

Assumptions 

We estimate that, by 2034, 98 percent 

of SSI recipients will have provided an 

active authorization as of that time 

allowing us to obtain this information 

from payroll data providers through 

information exchanges, and about 87 

percent of disabled OASDI beneficiaries 

will have also provided this 

authorization.90 We base this estimate 

on current rates of adoption as we have 

sought authorization from beneficiaries 

during both new enrollment and 

disability review processes since late 

2017. Since 2017, about 98 percent of 

OASDI disability beneficiaries and SSI 

recipients who have been asked have 

provided authorization—this 

corresponds to about 35 percent of all 

current OASDI disability beneficiaries 

as of the end of fiscal year 2024. As of 

July 2024, 64 percent of all current SSI 

recipients and 72 percent of SSI 

deemors have provided an active 

authorization as of that time.91

We estimate that there are about 

1,100,000 OASDI disability 

beneficiaries, between 200,000 and 

300,000 SSI recipients, and another 

500,000 to 600,000 deemors of SSI 

recipients who work in a given year. 

Because employers representing 

approximately two-thirds of the nonfarm workforce provide payroll data to 

Equifax, and we will be able to receive 

payroll data from Equifax for anyone 

who has authorized us to do so, we 

expect individuals will submit fewer 

wage reports to us.92


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107256 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

proportion in the database, but we assume it for the 

purposes of this analysis. 

93We do not have data to specifically support the 

assumption that we will identify 10% more 

overpayments. However, we do know certain small 

overpayments may be currently overlooked through 

our current systems. Through review processes 

such as the Master Earnings File, SSA is generally 

able to identify overpayments from unreported 

wage changes at least on an annual basis. In certain 

circumstances, however, annual earnings as 

identified on the Master Earnings File or on a 

quarterly match may be below the threshold for 

identifying an overpayment even though the 

beneficiary’s monthly earnings in certain months 

would have resulted in changes to the amount they 

were owed. For example, if an OASDI disability 

beneficiary worked at $50 above SGA for 11 months 

of the year, and worked $0 in the 12th month, they 

would generally be passed over in the annual match 

because their total annual wages would be below 

12 times the monthly SGA amount. Having the 

monthly data would give SSA more exact 

information and the agency would be able to 

compare on a monthly basis whether earnings 

exceeds SGA. As another example, certain de 

minimis changes in benefit payment rates due to 

changes in income may not be assessed under 

current policy because of required efforts under 

current processes; because these processes will be 

automated through PIE, these changes will be made 

in a timely manner. 

94 89 FR 11783. 

95 Id. 

96 Id. 

97 Id. 

98We note that in the NPRM, we estimated this 

figure would be $1.8 billion. The new estimated 

amount of $1.1 billion reflects updated information 

that is used to develop our actuarial estimates. 

Additionally, we estimate that there 

are about 100,000 OASDI disability 

beneficiaries who are overpaid due to 

working at or above the SGA level. 

Based on the most recent data available, 

over FYs 2019 through 2023, these 

individuals were overpaid an annual 

average of $729 million. We estimate 

that, through the information exchange, 

we will be able to identify both wages 

we otherwise would not have known 

about, as well as wages that will be 

identified timelier than under current 

processes. Additionally, we estimate 

that we will identify and assess 

approximately an additional 10 percent 

of overpayments due to working at or 

above SGA (OASDI) or having wages 

from employment (SSI) which we 

would likely not have assessed through 

our current processes.93

Anticipated Costs to the Public 

As discussed in the NPRM, there are 

minor costs to the public associated 

with this rulemaking.94 For example, 

individuals who apply for or are 

receiving OASDI disability, individuals 

who apply for or are receiving SSI, and 

SSI deemors, will need to spend a 

minimal amount of time to complete the 

authorization to allow us to obtain wage 

and employment information from 

payroll data providers through an 

information exchange. As another 

example, there is a potential burden on 

the public to correct any inaccurate data 

reported to us from a payroll data 

provider if an individual identifies an 

error in the information we receive 

through an information exchange. See 

the NPRM for more explanation.95

Anticipated Benefit to the Public 

As discussed in the NPRM,96 an 

information exchange has many 

benefits. For example, it will reduce 

wage reporting responsibilities for some 

individuals. PIE would also help us 

obtain timelier wage and employment 

information, which we anticipate will 

also help us reduce improper payments, 

which is a potential source of confusion 

for the public and may cause 

individuals to spend time addressing 

errors associated with improper 

payments or filing appeals or waiver 

requests. See the NPRM for more 

explanation.97

Anticipated Transfers to Our Program 

Our Office of the Chief Actuary 

estimates that implementation of this 

proposed rule would result in a total net 

reduction in OASDI benefit payments of 

$1.1 billion 98 and a total net reduction 

in Federal SSI payments of $1.8 billion 

over fiscal years 2025 through 2034. The 

estimates assume implementation of 

this rule on March 11, 2025, and that 

SSA will not, during the estimate 

period, contract with any other payroll 

data provider beyond Equifax. We note 

that the increase in the amount of 

overpayments identified or prevented in 

this period would be larger than the 

reduction in actual benefits paid in this 

period. First, regarding overpayments 

newly identified, as discussed in our 

Assumptions section, these estimates 

assume that 50 percent of work-related 

overpayments identified for OASDI 

beneficiaries and 80 percent of earnedincome related overpayments for SSI 

recipients will be recovered within 10 

years after they are identified. Thus, 

much of the overpayments newly 

identified, especially those identified 

late in this 10-year period, will be only 

partially recovered with subsequent 

reductions in payments through fiscal 

year 2034. Second, while potential 

overpayments that would be prevented 

due to implementation of this rule will 

immediately reduce benefit payments, 

such early identification of earnings will 

also avoid subsequent potential 

overpayments through fiscal year 2034 

and beyond. 

Anticipated Administrative Costs to the 

Social Security Administration 

The Office of Budget, Finance, and 

Management estimates that this 

proposal will result in a net 

administrative cost of $846 million for 

the 10-year period from FY 2025 to FY 

2034. The net administrative cost is 

mainly a result of the contract and IT 

costs to administer the information 

exchange. The total costs are offset by 

some administrative savings from a 

shorter wage development process in 

affected cases during Title XVI preeffectuation reviews, redeterminations, 

post-eligibility actions, and 

overpayments, as well as during Title II 

work continuing disability reviews. 

Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated this rule as meeting the 

criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

We analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria established by Executive Order 

13132 and determined that the final rule 

will not have sufficient Federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism assessment. We also 

determined that this final rule will not 

preempt any State law or State 

regulation or affect the States’ abilities 

to discharge traditional State 

governmental functions. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because it primarily affects individuals. 

In some instances, this final rule may 

reduce the burden on employers 

because we may need to contact 

employers for information less 

frequently when we receive wage and 

employment information from payroll 

data providers through an information 

exchange. Because our contact with 

employers for this reason is limited 

now, we do not expect a significant 

difference. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

amended. We discuss the time burden 

savings for employers stemming from 

this final rule in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section of the preamble. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

SSA already has existing OMB 

approved information collection tools 

relating to this proposed rule: the Letter 

to Employer Requesting Information 

About Wages Earned by Beneficiary 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107257 

(SSA–L725, OMB Control No. 0960– 

0034); Letter to Employer Requesting 

Wage Information (SSA–L4201, OMB 

Control No. 0960–0138); Monthly SSI 

Wage Reporting (SSA’s Mobile Wage 

Reporting, Telephone Wage Reporting, 

and internet myWage Report 

application, OMB Control No. 0960– 

0715); the Authorization for the Social 

Security Administration to Obtain Wage 

and Employment Information from 

Payroll Data Providers (Form SSA–8240, 

OMB Control No. 0960–0807); and the 

Notice to Electronic Information 

Exchange Partners to Provide Contractor 

List (SSA–731, OMB Control No. 0960– 

0820). While we previously obtained 

OMB approval for the new form (under 

OMB Control No. 0960–0807) to collect 

the authorization for the wage and 

employment information from payroll 

providers, SSA has not utilized this 

information through an automated 

exchange, because those exchanges have 

not, yet gone live. The final rule 

provides additional information on 

OASDI and SSI reduced reporting 

requirements, as well as the effects of 

beneficiaries, recipients, and deemors 

authorizing us to obtain records from 

payroll data providers. In addition, the 

final rule describes the establishment of 

the requirements to enter into an 

information exchange with payroll data 

providers. SSA established the 

information collection for the 

Authorization for the Social Security 

Administration to Obtain Wage and 

Employment Information from Payroll 

Data Providers (0960–0807) prior to the 

creation of this new rule. We will 

include the appropriate CFR citations 

under that OMB approved information 

collection upon publication of the final 

rule. In addition, we will obtain OMB 

approval for revisions to the collection 

instruments as needed 30 days after 

publication of the final rule. Finally, the 

implementation of this final rule will 

decrease the time burden for the public, 

as it removes the need for individuals or 

employers to submit wages to SSA 

when we receive them through payroll 

data providers through an information 

exchange instead. While we 

acknowledge that there is a burden on 

the public for 20 CFR 422.150(a)(3), we 

did not include it in the chart below 

because fewer than 10 providers submit 

this information to SSA. The following 

chart shows the anticipated burden 

reduction due to the other regulatory 

requirements from this rule: 

OMB #; Form #; CFR citations Number of 

respondents 

Frequency 

of 

response 

Current 

average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Current 

estimated 

total 

burden 

(hours) 

Anticipated 

new number 

of 

respondents 

under 

regulation 

Anticipated 

new burden 

per response 

under 

regulation 

(minutes) 

Anticipated 

estimated 

total burden 

under 

regulation 

(hours) 

Estimated 

burden 

savings 

(hours) 

0960–0034—SSA–L725 ............................ 170,000 1 40 113,333 170,000 40 113,333 * 0 

0960–0138—SSA–L4201 .......................... 133,000 1 30 66,500 133,000 30 66,500 * 0 

0960–0715—Mobile Wage reporting 

404.703(a), 416.708(c), 416.709 (new) 88,382 12 6 106,058 36,237 6 43,484 62,574 

0960–0715—Telephone Wage reporting 

404.703(a), 416.708(c), 416.709 (new) 16,341 12 5 16,341 6,700 5 6,700 9,641 

0960–0715—myWage Report 404.703(a), 

416.708(c), 416.709 (new) .................... 3,557 12 7 4,980 1,458 7 2,041 ** 2,939 

0960–0807—SSA–8240, 404.703(b), 

404.1588(a), 404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 

404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a) ................... 150,000 1 8 20,000 150,000 8 20,000 * 0 

0960–0807—MCS/SSI Claim System 

404.703(b), 404.1588(a), 

404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 404.1588(b)(4), 

416.988(a) ............................................. 697,580 1 3 34,879 697,580 3 34,879 * 0 

0960–0807—Internet 404.703(b), 

404.1588(a), 404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 

404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a) ................... 147,820 1 3 7,391 147,820 3 7,391 * 0 

Totals ................................................. 1,406,680 .................... .................... 369,482 1,342,795 ...................... 294,328 75,154 

* This final rule will not significantly affect the burden for this information collection; therefore, we do not anticipate any burden reduction for this information collection due to the implementation of this rule. 

** SSA is providing this figure as a current best estimate for burden reduction under this final rule. We will not have accurate data until we implement the rule. 

The following chart shows the 

reduction in theoretical cost burdens 

associated with the rule: 

OMB #; Form #; CFR citations 

Anticipated 

new number 

of respondents 

Estimated 

burden 

per response 

from chart 

above 

(minutes) 

Anticipated 

estimated 

total burden 

under 

regulation 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly cost 

amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

combined 

wait time in 

field office 

and/or 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Anticipated 

annual 

opportunity 

cost 

(dollars) *** 

0960–0034—SSA–L725 ............................................................ 170,000 40 113,333 * $26.29 0 *** $2,979,525 

0960–0138—SSA–L4201 .......................................................... 133,000 30 66,500 * 26.29 0 *** 1,784,285 

0960–0715—Mobile Wage reporting, 404.703(a), 416.708(c), 

416.709 (new) ........................................................................ 36,237 6 43,484 * 22.39 0 *** 973,607 

0960–0715—Telephone Wage reporting, 404.703(a), 

416.708(c), 416.709 (new) .................................................... 6,700 5 6,700 * 22.39 0 *** 150,013 

0960–0715—myWage Report, 404.703(a), 416.708(c), 

416.709 (new) ........................................................................ 1,458 7 2,041 * 22.39 0 *** 45,698 

0960–0807—SSA–8240, 404.703(b), 404.1588(a), 

404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a) ..................... 150,000 8 20,000 * 22.39 ** 24 *** 1,791,200 

0960–0807—MCS/SSI Claim System, 404.703(b), 

404.1588(a), 404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a) 697,580 3 34,879 * 22.39 ** 21 *** 6,247,526 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107258 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

99Please note that the link to the specific ICR 

connected to this regulation will only become 

active the day after the final rule publishes in the 

Federal Register. 

OMB #; Form #; CFR citations 

Anticipated 

new number 

of respondents 

Estimated 

burden 

per response 

from chart 

above 

(minutes) 

Anticipated 

estimated 

total burden 

under 

regulation 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly cost 

amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

combined 

wait time in 

field office 

and/or 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Anticipated 

annual 

opportunity 

cost 

(dollars) *** 

0960–0807—Internet, 404.703(b), 404.1588(a), 

404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a) ..................... 147,820 3 7,391 * 22.39 ** 21 *** 1,323,876 

Totals ................................................................................. 1,342,795 ........................ 294,328 ........................ ........................ *** 15,295,730 

* We based this figure on the average Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks hourly salary, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/ 

current/oes433051.htm); as well as the averaging of DI payments based on SSA’s current FY 2024 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2023factsheet.pdf) and 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 2024 wait times for field offices and hearings office, as well as by averaging both the average FY 2024 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 revisions to information 

collections currently under OMB 

Numbers 0960–0034, 0960–0138, 0960– 

0715, 0960–0807) to OMB for the 

approval of the changes due to the final 

rule. After approval, 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. In addition, we are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether you have any questions or 

suggestions for edits to the forms 

referenced above in the context of this 

regulatory change. If you would like to 

submit comments, please send them to 

the following locations: 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

Desk Officer for SSA, 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. 

Or you may submit your comments 

online through https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAmain 99 by clicking on 

Currently under Review—Open for 

Public Comments and choosing to click 

on one of SSA’s published items. Please 

reference Docket ID Number SSA–2016– 

0039 in your submitted response. 

You can submit comments until 

January 30, 2025, which is 30 days after 

the publication of this rule. 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, Aged, Blind, Disability 

benefits, Public Assistance programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

20 CFR Part 422 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Operational 

effectiveness, Social Security. 

The Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, Carolyn W. Colvin, having 

reviewed and approved this document, 

is delegating the authority to 

electronically sign this document to Erik 

Hansen, a Federal Register Liaison for 

the Social Security Administration, for 

purposes of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Erik Hansen, 

Associate Commissioner for Legislative 

Development and Operations, Social Security 

Administration. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we amend 20 CFR chapter III 

parts 404, 416, and 422 as set forth 

below: 

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, 

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE 

Subpart H—Evidence 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart H 

of part 404 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 405(a), 902(a)(5), and 

1320e–3. 

■ 2. In § 404.702, add in alphabetical 

order definitions for ‘‘Participating 

payroll data provider’’ and ‘‘Payroll data 

provider’’ to read as follows: 

§ 404.702 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Participating payroll data provider 

means a payroll data provider that has 

established an information exchange 

with us to provide wage and 

employment information. 

Payroll data provider means payroll 

providers, wage verification companies, 

and other commercial or noncommercial entities that collect and 

maintain information regarding 

employment and wages. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 404.703 to read as follows: 

§ 404.703 When evidence is needed 

(a) Evidence. When you apply for 

benefits, we will ask for evidence that 

you are eligible for them. After you 

become entitled to benefits, we may ask 

for evidence showing whether you 

continue to be entitled to benefits; or 

evidence showing whether your benefit 

payments should be reduced or stopped. 

See § 404.401 for a list showing when 

benefit payments must be reduced or 

stopped. 

(b) Authorization to obtain data from 

a payroll data provider. (1) We will ask 

you for a written authorization to obtain 

information about you from a payroll 

data provider whenever we determine 

the information is needed in connection 

with a determination of initial or 

ongoing entitlement to benefits. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107259 

(2) When we ask for your 

authorization, we will explain the 

authorization’s scope and duration. 

(i) We will explain to you that we will 

use the information obtained from a 

payroll data provider when it is needed 

in connection with a determination of 

initial or ongoing entitlement to title II 

benefits based on disability, or for 

eligibility or the amount of benefits 

under the Supplemental Security 

Income program of title XVI of the 

Social Security Act, and to prevent 

improper payments. We will explain to 

you that we may also use the 

authorization to obtain wage and 

employment information from a payroll 

data provider for claims associated with 

the claim filed, such as a claim for 

benefits by a spouse or child. We will 

also explain that we may use and 

disclose your information consistent 

with applicable Federal law (see, e.g., 

part 401 of this chapter) and any privacy 

notices we provide to you. 

(ii) We will also inform you that your 

authorization will remain effective until 

the earliest of one of the following 

occurrences: 

(A) You revoke your authorization in 

writing (see § 404.1588(b)(4)); 

(B) We have terminated all 

entitlement for benefits, you have no 

other claims or appeals pending under 

this title, and the period for appealing 

the determination or decision 

terminating entitlement has lapsed; or 

(C) There has been an adverse 

determination or decision on your 

claim, you have no other claims or 

appeals pending under this title, and the 

period for appealing the adverse 

determination or decision has lapsed. 

Subpart P—Determining Disability and 

Blindness 

■ 4. The authority citation for subpart P 

of part 404 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)–(b) and 

(d)–(h), 416(i), 421(a) and (h)–(j), 422(c), 423, 

425, 902(a)(5), and 1320e–3; 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). 

■ 5. Revise § 404.1588 to read as 

follows: 

§ 404.1588 Your responsibility to tell us of 

events that may change your disability 

status. 

(a) Your responsibility to report 

changes to us. If you are entitled to cash 

benefits or to a period of disability 

because you are disabled, you should 

promptly tell us if— 

(1) Your condition improves; 

(2) You return to work; 

(3) You have a new employer; 

(4) You increase the amount of your 

work; or 

(5) Your earnings increase. 

(b) Effect of authorizing us to obtain 

your information from payroll data 

providers. (1) We will reduce your 

reporting responsibilities as described 

in paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this 

section if we have your authorization to 

obtain wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

(see § 404.703), and we receive your 

wage and employment information from 

your employer(s) through a participating 

payroll data provider (see § 404.702). 

You will not be subject to a penalty 

described in § 404.459 related to any 

wage and employment information we 

receive from a payroll data provider. 

(2) We will notify you in writing 

whenever there is a change in your 

reporting responsibilities relating to the 

authorization described in § 404.703. 

You are always required to submit any 

changes described in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section. 

(3) When your reporting requirements 

will change— 

(i) If we have your authorization to 

obtain wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

(see § 404.703), and we receive your 

wage and employment information from 

your employer through a participating 

payroll data provider, you will not have 

to report an increase in the amount of 

work for that employer or an increase in 

earnings from that employer. 

(ii) If we have your authorization to 

obtain wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

(see § 404.703), but we do not receive 

your wage and employment information 

from your employer through a 

participating payroll data provider, we 

will not reduce your reporting 

responsibilities. 

(iii) If we have your authorization to 

obtain wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

(see § 404.703) and you have more than 

one employer: 

(A) You do not need to report an 

increase in the amount of work or an 

increase in earnings for an employer if 

we receive your wage and employment 

information for that employer through a 

participating payroll data provider; and 

(B) You must still report an increase 

in the amount of work or an increase in 

earnings for an employer if we do not 

receive your wage and employment 

information for that employer through a 

participating payroll data provider. 

(4) You may revoke your 

authorization at any time, but you must 

do so in writing. We will apply the 

revocation to all pending or approved 

disability claims under this title, as well 

as all pending or approved claims under 

title XVI, from the time we process your 

revocation. If you revoke your 

authorization, all your reporting 

responsibilities will resume, and you 

will again be subject to all related 

penalties. We will notify you in writing 

of these changes. 

(c) Our responsibility when you report 

your work to us. When you or your 

representative report changes in your 

work activity to us under paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (5) of this section, we will 

issue a receipt to you or your 

representative. 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart G—Reports Required 

■ 6. The authority citation for subpart G 

of part 416 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1320a–8a, 

1320e–3, 1382, 1382a, 1382b, 1382c, and 

1383; sec. 211, Pub. L. 93–66, 87 Stat. 154 (42 

U.S.C. 1382 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 

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

■ 7. In § 416.701, revise the third 

sentence of paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 416.701 Scope of subpart. 

(a) * * * This subpart tells you what 

events you must report; what your 

reports must include; when reports are 

due; and when certain reporting 

requirements, and penalties relating to 

reporting requirements, do not apply. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 416.702, add in alphabetical 

order definitions for ‘‘Participating 

payroll data provider’’ and ‘‘Payroll data 

provider’’ to read as follows: 

§ 416.702 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Participating payroll data provider 

means a payroll data provider that has 

established an information exchange 

with us to provide wage and 

employment information. 

Payroll data provider means payroll 

providers, wage verification companies, 

and other commercial or noncommercial entities that collect and 

maintain information regarding 

employment and wages. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 416.708, revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 416.708 What you must report. 

* * * * * 

(c) A change in income. (1) Unless the 

circumstances in § 416.709(a) and (c) 

apply, you must report to us any 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
107260 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

increase or decrease in your income and 

any increase or decrease in the income 

of— 

(i) Your ineligible spouse who lives 

with you; 

(ii) Your essential person; 

(iii) Your parent, if you are an eligible 

child and your parent lives with you; or 

(iv) An ineligible child who lives with 

you. 

(2) However, you need not report an 

increase in your Social Security benefits 

if the increase is only a cost-of-living 

adjustment. (For a complete discussion 

of what we consider income, see subpart 

K of this part. See § 416.1323 regarding 

suspension because of excess income.) If 

you receive benefits based on disability, 

when you or your representative report 

changes in your earned income, we will 

issue a receipt to you or your 

representative. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Add § 416.709 to read as follows: 

§ 416.709 Reduced reporting requirements 

when you authorize us to obtain your 

information from payroll data providers. 

(a) Authorization to obtain data from 

a payroll data provider. We will ask you 

for written authorization to obtain 

information about you from a payroll 

data provider whenever we determine 

the information is needed in connection 

with a determination of initial or 

ongoing eligibility for benefits. 

(b) Scope and duration. When we ask 

for your authorization, we will explain 

the authorization’s scope and duration. 

(1) We will explain to you that we 

will use information obtained from a 

payroll data provider, when it is 

needed, in connection with a 

determination of eligibility or the 

amount of benefits under this title, or 

for the initial or ongoing entitlement to 

disability benefits under title II of the 

Social Security Act, and to prevent 

improper payments. We will explain to 

you that we may also use the 

authorization to obtain wage and 

employment information from a payroll 

data provider for claims associated with 

the claim filed, such as an SSI claim by 

a spouse or child. We will also explain 

that we may use and disclose your 

information consistent with applicable 

Federal law (see part 401 of this 

chapter) and any privacy notices we 

provide to you. 

(2) We will also inform you that your 

authorization will remain effective until 

the earliest of one of the following 

occurrences: 

(i) You revoke your authorization in 

writing (see paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section); 

(ii) We have terminated all eligibility 

for benefits and you have no other 

claims or appeals pending under this 

title, and the period for appealing the 

determination or decision terminating 

entitlement has lapsed; 

(iii) There has been an adverse 

determination or decision on your 

claim, you have no other claims or 

appeals pending under this title, and the 

period for appealing the determination 

or decision terminating eligibility has 

lapsed; or 

(iv) Your deeming relationship ends. 

(c) When reporting requirements will 

change. We will notify you in writing 

whenever there is a change in your 

reporting responsibilities relating to the 

authorization described in paragraph (a) 

of this section. Whenever we are getting 

your wage and employment information 

from a payroll data provider, we will 

tell you that you are not subject to a 

penalty of ineligibility for cash benefits 

described in § 416.1340 related to any 

wage and employment information we 

get from a payroll data provider. We 

will also tell you when we will find 

good cause, under § 416.732, for a 

failure or delay in reporting a change in 

employer. 

(1) If we have your authorization to 

obtain wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

as described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, and we receive your wage and 

employment information from your 

employer(s) through a participating 

payroll data provider, you will not have 

to report changes in your wages paid in 

cash, as defined in § 416.1110(a), from 

that employer(s). Also, you will not 

have to report an increase in the amount 

of work from that employer or an 

increase in earnings from that employer, 

as described in § 416.988(a)(4) and (5). 

All other reporting requirements still 

apply. 

(2) If we have your authorization to 

obtain wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

as described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, but we do not receive your 

wage and employment information from 

your employer(s) through a participating 

payroll data provider, we will not 

reduce your reporting responsibilities. 

(3) If we have your authorization to 

obtain wage and employment 

information from a payroll data provider 

as described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, and you have more than one 

employer, 

(i) You do not need to report wages 

paid in cash, or an increase in the 

amount of work or earnings, for an 

employer if we receive your wage and 

employment information for that 

employer through a participating 

payroll data provider, and 

(ii) You must still report wages paid 

in cash, or an increase in the amount of 

work or earnings, for an employer if we 

do not receive your wage and 

employment information for that 

employer through a participating 

payroll data provider. 

(4) You may revoke your 

authorization at any time, but you must 

do so in writing. We will apply the 

revocation to all pending or approved 

claims under this title as well as all 

pending or approved disability claims 

under title II from the time we process 

your revocation. If you revoke your 

authorization, all your reporting 

responsibilities will resume; you will 

again be subject to all related penalties; 

and we may not find good cause, under 

§ 416.732, for a failure to report timely 

a change in employer. We will notify 

you in writing of these changes. 

Subpart I—Determining Disability and 

Blindness 

■ 11. The authority citation for subpart 

I of part 416 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 421(m), 902(a)(5), 

1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383, 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). 

■ 12. Revise § 416.988 to read as 

follows: 

§ 416.988 Your responsibility to tell us of 

events that may change your disability or 

blindness status. 

(a) If you are entitled to payments 

because you are disabled or blind, you 

should promptly tell us if— 

(1) Your condition improves; 

(2) You return to work; 

(3) You have a new employer; 

(4) You increase the amount of your 

work; or 

(5) Your earnings increase. 

(b) If we have your authorization to 

obtain wage and employment 

information (see § 416.709(a)) from a 

payroll data provider (see § 416.702), 

and we receive your wage and 

employment information from your 

employer(s) through a participating 

payroll data provider, your reporting 

requirements under paragraphs (a)(4) 

and (5) will be reduced as described in 

§ 416.709(c). 

PART 422—ORGANIZATION AND 

FUNCTIONS OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Subpart B—General Procedures 

■ 13. The authority citation for subpart 

B of part 422 is revised to read as 

follows: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107261 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 405, 432, 902(a)(5), 

1320b–1, 1320b–13, and 1320e–3, and sec. 

7213(a)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 108–458. 

■ 14. Add § 422.150 to read as follows: 

§ 422.150 Guidelines for establishing and 

maintaining an information exchange with 

payroll data providers. 

(a) Guidelines for establishing an 

information exchange with payroll data 

providers. In establishing an 

information exchange under section 

1184 of the Social Security Act, we will 

do the following: 

(1) Identify the payroll data providers 

(as defined in §§ 404.702 and 416.702 of 

this chapter) that may be interested in 

participating in an information 

exchange with us. 

(2) Review the payroll data providers 

and consider factors such as: whether a 

payroll data provider is able and willing 

to engage in an information exchange; 

what data the payroll data provider 

could provide; whether the data from 

the payroll data provider is sufficiently 

accurate, complete, and up to date; and 

any conditions and limitations 

associated with our receipt of the data. 

(3) Consistent with applicable law 

and regulations, establish an 

information exchange with the selected 

payroll data provider. The arrangement 

between us and the selected payroll data 

provider will describe: 

(i) The records that will be matched; 

(ii) The procedures for the match; 

(iii) Any requirements established 

related to accuracy, completeness, and 

up-to-date records; 

(iv) The procedures for ensuring the 

administrative, technical, and physical 

security of the records matched; and 

(v) Such other provisions as are 

necessary. 

(4) Prior to receiving payroll data 

provider information, publish a notice 

in the Federal Register that describes 

the information exchange and the extent 

to which the information received 

through such exchange is: 

(i) Relevant and necessary to: 

(A) Accurately determine initial and 

ongoing entitlement to, and the amount 

of, disability benefits under title II of the 

Social Security Act; 

(B) Accurately determine eligibility 

for, and the amount of, benefits under 

the Supplemental Security Income 

program under title XVI of the Social 

Security Act; and 

(C) Prevent improper payments of 

such benefits; and 

(ii) Sufficiently accurate, up to date, 

and complete. 

(b) Guidelines for maintaining an 

information exchange with payroll data 

providers. We will perform the 

following activities while we maintain 

an established information exchange 

with a payroll data provider described 

in paragraph (a) of this section: 

(1) Periodically assess whether the 

data we receive under the information 

exchange continues to be accurate, 

complete, and up to date; and 

(2) Monitor compliance with the 

requirements of the information 

exchange described in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30593 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3