`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 107236-107261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30593]



[[Page 107235]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 250

December 31, 2024

Part III





Social Security Administration





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





20 CFR Parts 404, 416, and 422





Use of Electronic Payroll Data To Improve Program Administration; Final 
Rule

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

[[Page 107236]]


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

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.socialsecurity.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--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 89 FR 11773.
    \2\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a. See also 20 CFR 404.459 and 416.1340.
    \4\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 20 CFR 404.315 for a full list of the OASDI disability 
eligibility requirements.
    \6\ This 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.
    \7\ See 20 CFR 416.202 for a full list of the SSI eligibility 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 824 of the BBA \10\ authorizes the Commissioner of Social 
Security to enter into information exchanges with

[[Page 107237]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, 607.
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  422.150 in this final 
rule); (2) beneficiary authorizations (see Sec. Sec.  404.703(b) and 
416.709(a)-(b) in this final rule); (3) reduced wage reporting 
responsibilities for individuals (see Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See the NPRM for additional explanation of these 
procedures. 89 FR 11776-11779 (Feb. 15, 2024).
    \14\ 89 FR 11778, 11781-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  404.1588(b) and Sec.  
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107238]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Our 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107239]]

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, well-explained, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ We have used attestation as an alternative signature method 
since 2004. See Social Security Ruling 04-1p, Attestation as an 
Alternative Signature.
    \19\ See 42 U.S.C. 425(c)(4), 1383(e)(1)(B)(iii)(IV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 opted-in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The 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, Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 89 FR 11777 (Feb. 15, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 107240]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \25\ The 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.
    \26\ We published notice of our information exchange with 
Equifax, pursuant to section 824 of the BBA, on January 19, 2021. 86 
FR 5303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107241]]

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 self-employment 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 20 CFR 416.1111(b); POMS SI 00820.210, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0500820210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ POMS SI 00820.147, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0500820147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107242]]

data with our internal databases in the few months before National 
Directory of New Hires (NDNH) \30\ and Master Earnings File data is 
entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 89 FR 11775 Footnote 28 (Feb. 15, 2024).
    \32\ See, 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.
    \33\ Whenever 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-of-pocket 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The commenter referred to Vanessa Muniz Gerena v. Equifax, 
Case No. 3:24-cv-00098 (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \36\ POMS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107243]]

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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The commenter provided, as an example, a citation to 
Vanessa Muniz Gerena v. Equifax, No. 3:24-cv-00098 (E.D. Va. Feb. 9, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ POMS RM 03870.001, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0103870001.
    \41\ POMS RM 03870.060, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0103870060.
    \42\ POMS RM 03870.045, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0103870045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 data-matching 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

[[Page 107244]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The commenter cited 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ For 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).
    \45\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 FCRA-compliant 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 ``third-party 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 nine-digit 
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,

[[Page 107245]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ POMS 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.
    \47\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Some commenters suggested through the hearing level of 
appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 means-tested 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
    \50\ The commenter referred to Cardinale v. Mathews, 399 F. 
Supp. 1163 (D.D.C. 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107246]]

recipients; and could negate the increased efficiency we expect to 
receive from PIE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 20 CFR 416.1336(b).
    \53\ See 20 CFR 416.1413(b) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See POMS SI 02301.313, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0502301313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See POMS SI 02301.320 available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0502301320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
well-formatted, 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

[[Page 107247]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ For more information about the Ticket to Work Help Line, 
visit https://choosework.ssa.gov/contact, email 
[email protected], or call 1-866-968-7842/1-866-833-2967 
(TTY).
    \57\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The examples the commenter cited are available at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=202008-0960-020&icID=8980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 20 CFR 404.1574.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the table below, we summarize some key points about the notices 
we send for SSI and OASDI disability:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Concurrent SSI and
                                                 SSI                OASDI disability         OASDI disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point at Which We Send Notice to        We send a NOPA   We send a due    Individuals
 Individuals \60\.                      when an individual's     process notice when an   would receive both the
                                        earnings increase and    individual is            SSI and OASDI
                                        their SSI payments       performing SGA in the    disability
                                        will be reduced in an    Extended Period of       notifications.
                                        upcoming month.          Eligibility.
                                        We send a        We send a
                                        Notice of Change in      final SGA notice
                                        Payment when an          explaining our
                                        individual's earnings    decision and
                                        decrease and their SSI   documenting which
                                        payments will be         months the individual
                                        increased.               is over SGA.
Reason We Send Notice................   The NOPA         The due          The reason is
                                        explains the change to   process notice           issue specific and
                                        the payment and what     explains our proposed    applies to whichever
                                        information we used to   decision and presents    notice they receive,
                                        determine the new        an opportunity to        since they may receive
                                        amount. It provides      provide additional       more than one notice
                                        appeal rights and        evidence. It provides    depending on their
                                        other important          contact information      circumstances as they
                                        information.             and other important      relate to the specific
                                        The Notice of    information.             program.
                                        Change in Payment        The final SGA
                                        explains the new         notice will explain
                                        payment amount and how   our decision. It
                                        we computed it. It       provides appeal rights
                                        provides appeal rights   and other important
                                        and other important      information.
                                        information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 107248]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 65 FR 50121 (Aug. 16, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107249]]

to Equifax, who is a third-party contractor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-interpreter.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the above, our contract with Equifax does not put 
any LEP obligations on Equifax, a third-party 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The commenter cited 15 U.S.C. 1681g(a), 15 U.S.C. 
1681j(a)(1)(C) and 15 U.S.C. 1681j(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See 20 CFR 401.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 107250]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 20 CFR 416.714.
    \68\ We may impose a penalty deduction from your benefits for a 
late report (see Sec. Sec.  416.722 through 416.732).
    \69\ 20 CFR 404.1588, 416.988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ https://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-MedicalRedeterminationReport.pdf) and the Annual Report on Work-
Related Continuing Disability Reviews (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/WorkCDRFY2021Final.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 107251]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See 20 CFR 404.507, 416.442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-to-understand 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ https://www.ssa.gov/agency/plain-language/Examples/Forms/Form%20SSA-821%20-%20BEFORE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10095.pdf.
    \74\ https://www.ssa.gov/redbook/.
    \75\ https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-3033.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 20 CFR 404.1592.
    \77\ See 20 CFR 404.1592a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107252]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, 610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ DI 10505.005, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0410505005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 wage-related 
overpayments. We regret any confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ FY2023 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 107253]]

on PIE data. Accordingly, we did not intend this rulemaking to decide 
the complex issue of accepting oral reconsideration requests.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 20 CFR 404.909(a) and 416.1409(a).
    \82\ 89 FR 11781 (Feb. 15, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
sub-regulatory 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter asked if individuals have to report initial 
work to update the Consolidated Claims Experience (CCE).\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The commenter used the acronym ``CCE.'' We assumed they 
referred to the ``Consolidated Claim Experience.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The commenter used the acronym ``RMA.'' We assumed they 
referred to ``Retrospective Monthly Accounting.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 cross-referenced 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

[[Page 107254]]

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, post-eligibility 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ As noted elsewhere, information received through PIE is 
already considered ``verified.''
    \87\ These savings are for our staff. They do not represent 
public reporting burden savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 107255]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Amin v. Kijakazi, Case 1:15-cv-07429 (E.D.N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The projected period in the NPRM extended through 2033. The 
revised projected period in this final rule extends through 2034.
    \91\ We 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 non-
medical 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-farm 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ As stated in the preamble, neither SSA nor Equifax has 
analyzed whether working disability benefit recipients are 
represented in a similar proportion in the database, but we assume 
it for the purposes of this analysis.

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

[[Page 107256]]

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ 89 FR 11783.
    \95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Id.
    \97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 earned-income 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 pre-effectuation 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

[[Page 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:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Anticipated   Anticipated   Anticipated
                                                                            Current      Current     new number    new burden     estimated    Estimated
                                                Number of     Frequency     average     estimated        of       per response  total burden    burden
        OMB #; Form #; CFR citations           respondents   of response   burden per     total      respondents      under         under       savings
                                                                            response      burden        under      regulation    regulation     (hours)
                                                                           (minutes)     (hours)     regulation     (minutes)      (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                     88,382           12            6      106,058        36,237             6        43,484      62,574
 404.703(a), 416.708(c), 416.709 (new).....
0960-0715--Telephone Wage reporting                  16,341           12            5       16,341         6,700             5         6,700       9,641
 404.703(a), 416.708(c), 416.709 (new).....
0960-0715--myWage Report 404.703(a),                  3,557           12            7        4,980         1,458             7         2,041    ** 2,939
 416.708(c), 416.709 (new).................
0960-0807--SSA-8240, 404.703(b),                    150,000            1            8       20,000       150,000             8        20,000         * 0
 404.1588(a), 404.1588(b)(3)(iii),
 404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a)................
0960-0807--MCS/SSI Claim System 404.703(b),         697,580            1            3       34,879       697,580             3        34,879         * 0
 404.1588(a), 404.1588(b)(3)(iii),
 404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a)................
0960-0807--Internet 404.703(b),                     147,820            1            3        7,391       147,820             3         7,391         * 0
 404.1588(a), 404.1588(b)(3)(iii),
 404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a)................
                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Average
                                                                             Estimated      Anticipated       Average      combined wait    Anticipated
                                                            Anticipated     burden per       estimated      theoretical    time in field      annual
              OMB #; Form #; CFR citations                 new number of   response from   total burden     hourly cost    office and/or    opportunity
                                                            respondents     chart above        under          amount        teleservice   cost (dollars)
                                                                             (minutes)      regulation      (dollars) *       centers           ***
                                                                                              (hours)                      (minutes) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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),                     36,237               6          43,484         * 22.39               0     *** 973,607
 416.708(c), 416.709 (new)..............................
0960-0715--Telephone Wage reporting, 404.703(a),                   6,700               5           6,700         * 22.39               0     *** 150,013
 416.708(c), 416.709 (new)..............................
0960-0715--myWage Report, 404.703(a), 416.708(c),                  1,458               7           2,041         * 22.39               0      *** 45,698
 416.709 (new)..........................................
0960-0807--SSA-8240, 404.703(b), 404.1588(a),                    150,000               8          20,000         * 22.39           ** 24   *** 1,791,200
 404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a)........
0960-0807--MCS/SSI Claim System, 404.703(b),                     697,580               3          34,879         * 22.39           ** 21   *** 6,247,526
 404.1588(a), 404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 404.1588(b)(4),
 416.988(a).............................................

[[Page 107258]]

 
0960-0807--Internet, 404.703(b), 404.1588(a),                    147,820               3           7,391         * 22.39           ** 21   *** 1,323,876
 404.1588(b)(3)(iii), 404.1588(b)(4), 416.988(a)........
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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: ssa.gov">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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Please 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

0
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.


0
2. In Sec.  404.702, add in alphabetical order definitions for 
``Participating payroll data provider'' and ``Payroll data provider'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  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 non-commercial entities that collect 
and maintain information regarding employment and wages.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  404.703 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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

0
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).


0
5. Revise Sec.  404.1588 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  404.703), and we 
receive your wage and employment information from your employer(s) 
through a participating payroll data provider (see Sec.  404.702). You 
will not be subject to a penalty described in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

0
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).


0
7. In Sec.  416.701, revise the third sentence of paragraph (a) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  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. * * *
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  416.702, add in alphabetical order definitions for 
``Participating payroll data provider'' and ``Payroll data provider'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  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 non-commercial entities that collect 
and maintain information regarding employment and wages.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  416.708, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.708  What you must report.

* * * * *
    (c) A change in income. (1) Unless the circumstances in Sec.  
416.709(a) and (c) apply, you must report to us any

[[Page 107260]]

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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
10. Add Sec.  416.709 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

0
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).


0
12. Revise Sec.  416.988 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  416.709(a)) from a payroll data provider (see 
Sec.  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 Sec.  416.709(c).

PART 422--ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY 
ADMINISTRATION

Subpart B--General Procedures

0
13. The authority citation for subpart B of part 422 is revised to read 
as follows:


[[Page 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.


0
14. Add Sec.  422.150 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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`