Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67101 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Would not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Under the authority delegated to me 

by the Administrator, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

Turbomeca: Docket No. FAA–2005–22364; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NE–26–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by 

January 3, 2006. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 

1B, 1D and 1D1 certain turboshaft engines, 

modified to TU 202. These engines are 

installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter 

France AS350A, AS350B, AS350B1, and 

AS350B2 helicopters. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from one instance of a 

fractured 2nd stage turbine blade followed by 

an uncommanded engine shutdown. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and prevent 

perforation of the NGV2 that could cause 

fracture of a turbine blade that could result 

in an uncommanded engine in-flight 

shutdown. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspect 2nd Stage Nozzle Guide Vanes 

(NGV2) 

(f) At the next shop visit or the next 

accessibility of the NGV2 after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs first, check 

the thickness of the material on each NGV2 

using the Instructions to be Incorporated of 

Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin 

(MSB) No. 292 72 0231, Update No. 5, dated 

July 22, 2004. Replace the NGV2 if the vane 

thickness is below the defined criteria. 

(g) Inspections carried out before the 

effective date of this AD, using an earlier 

update of MSB No. 292 72 0231, are 

acceptable alternatives to the requirements of 

this AD. 

(h) Information regarding NGV2’s that have 

already had the actions required by this AD 

done and are exempt from the inspections 

using paragraph (e) of this AD can be found 

in MSB No. 292 72 0231, Update No. 5, dated 

July 22, 2004. 

Definitions 

(i) For the purposes of this AD the 

following definitions apply: 

(1) A shop visit is defined as introduction 

of the engine into a shop for the purposes of 

deep maintenance and the separation of a 

major mating flange. 

(2) Accessibility of the NGV2 is defined as 

removal of the NGV2 from the engine 

regardless of the location or reason for 

removal. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(k) DGAC airworthiness directive No. F–

20040–088 R1 also addresses the subject of 

this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

October 31, 2005. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22007 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

RIN 0960–AG29 

Age as a Factor in Evaluating Disability 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to revise the 

definitions of the age categories we use 

as one of the criteria in determining 

disability under titles II and XVI of the 

Social Security Act (the Act). The 

proposed changes reflect our 

adjudicative experience, advances in 

medical treatment and healthcare, 

changes in the workforce since we 

originally published our rules for 

considering age in 1978, and current 

and future increases in the full 

retirement age under Social Security 

law. The proposed changes would not 

affect the rules under part 404 of our 

regulations for individuals age 55 or 

older who have statutory blindness. 

They also would not affect our other 

rules that are dependent on age, such as 

the age at which you can qualify for 

early retirement benefits or for Medicare 

as a retired individual. 

DATES: To be sure that your comments 

are considered, we must receive them 

no later than January 3, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may give us your 

comments by: using our Internet site 

facility (i.e., Social Security Online) at 

http://policy.ssa.gov/erm/rules.nsf/ 

Rules+Open+To+Comment or the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; e-mail to 

regulations@ssa.gov; telefax to (410) 

966–2830, or letter to the Commissioner 

of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, 

Baltimore, MD 21235–7703. You may 

also deliver them to the Office of 

Regulations, Social Security 

Administration, 100 Altmeyer Building, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21235–6401, between 8 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. 

Comments are posted on our Internet 

site, or you may inspect them on regular 

business days by making arrangements 

with the contact person shown in this 

preamble. 

Electronic Version: The electronic file 

of this document is available on the date 

of publication in the Federal Register at 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ 

index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Augustine, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Office of Regulations, Social 

Security Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401. 

Call (410) 965–0020 or TTY 1–800–325–

0778 for information about these 

proposed rules. For information on 

eligibility or filing for benefits, call our 

national toll-free number 1–(800) 772–

1213 or TTY 1–(800) 325–0778. You 

may also contact Social Security Online 

at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

67102 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1Elizabeth Arias, United States Life Tables, 2002, 

National Vital Statistics Reports 53, no. 6 

(Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health 

Statistics, 2004), 33. 

2 Id. 

3U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘Vital Statistics,’’

Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004–2005 

(Washington, D.C.: 2005), 71. Available from: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/ 

vitstat.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2005. 

4 Kenneth G. Manton and others, ‘‘Chronic 

Disability Trends in the U.S. Elderly Populations 

1982 to 1994,’’ Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 94, no. 6 (March 18, 1997): 

2593. Available from: http:// 

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/

articlerender.fcgi?tool=

pubmed&pubmedid=9122240. Accessed 29 June 

2005. 

5See generally Vicki A. Freedman and others, 

‘‘Recent Trends in Disability and Functioning 

among Older Adults in the United States: A 

Systematic Review,’’ Journal of the American 

Medical Association 288, no. 24 (December 25, 

2002). 

6 Ibid., 3144. 

7 Kenneth G. Manton and XiLiang Gu, ‘‘Changes 

in the Prevalence of Chronic Disability in the 

United States Black and Nonblack Population above 

Age 65 from 1982–1999,’’ Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences 98, no. 11 (May 22, 

2001): 6354–6359. Available from: http:// 

www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/11/6354. 

Accessed 29 June 2005. 

8U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United 

States, 2003 Special Excerpt: Trend Tables on 65 

and Older Population (Hyattsville, MD: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). 

Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ 

misc/hus2003excerpt.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2005; 

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related 

Statistics, Older Americans 2004: Key Indicators of 

Well-Being (Hyattsville, MD: Government Printing 

Office, 2004). Available from: http:// 

www.agingstats.gov/chartbook2004/OA_2004.pdf. 

Accessed 29 June 2005. 

9 Vicki A. Freedman and Linda G. Martin, 

‘‘Understanding Trends in Functional Limitations 

among Older Americans,’’ American Journal of 

Public Health 88, no. 10 (October, 1998): 1457. 

10 Ibid., 1460. 

11 Ibid., 1461. 

12Christopher Reynolds, ‘‘Boomers’ 65 Will Be 

‘The New 50’: Fear Factor Enters Equation as the 

Prospect of Boomer Retirement Age Pops Up on the 

Horizon,’’ Forecast, November 2003. Available 

from: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ 

mi_m0GDE/is_11_23/ai_n6102019. Accessed June 

2005. 

13Charles Leven, Older Workers: Opportunity at 

Our Doorstep, speech delivered at the AARP Board 

of Directors meeting, Nikkei Senior Work-life 

Forum, Tokyo, Japan, September 2004. Available 

from: http://www.aarp.org/research/work/ 

employment/a2004–09–22-leven-09–04.html. 

Accessed 29 June 2005. 

14 General Accounting Office, ‘‘Federal Disability 

Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to be 

Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges,’’

Report to Congressional Committees (Washington, 

D.C.: General Accounting Office, June 2005), 4. 

Available from: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ 

d05626.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2005. 

15Eugene Steuerle and others, ‘‘Can Americans 

Work Longer?,’’ Straight Talk on Social Security 

and Retirement Policy no. 5 (Washington, D.C.: 

Urban Institute, August 1999). Available from: 

http://www.urban.org/ 

Why Are We Proposing To Revise the 

Definitions of the Age Categories We 

Use To Determine Disability? 

In 1978, we established age categories 

for evaluating disability. Although we 

indicated at that time that creating the 

age categories was a ‘‘pioneering effort’’

on our part, we have not revisited our 

standards for effectiveness or accounted 

for changes in public health in over 25 

years. 

In response to significant changes in 

public health conditions, we have 

conducted an analysis of recent studies 

to determine what changes, if any, 

should be made to the current 

standards. We believe that it is now 

appropriate to redraw the lines 

established in 1978. Based on advances 

in medical treatment and healthcare, 

significant changes in the workforce, 

our adjudicative experience, and current 

and future increases in the full 

retirement age under Social Security 

law, we propose to revise our age 

categories by two years. This minimal 

increase is a reasonable adjustment to 

reflect public health factors which have 

had significant positive effects on the 

health of older workers and their ability 

to do other work. 

Advances in medical treatment and 

healthcare have provided longer life 

expectancies and more healthy years for 

millions of Americans. In 1978, when 

we last published our rules, estimated 

life expectancy at birth was 73.5 years.1

A child born today is expected to live 

to at least 77 years of age.2 It is projected 

that life expectancy will continue to 

increase so that a child born in 2010 

could be expected to live to be over 78 

years of age.3

Not only are Americans living longer, 

but there is clear and overwhelming 

evidence that the average health of the 

elderly population is improving. As in 

1978, there is no conclusive data that 

relate specific chronological ages to 

specific vocational limitations for 

performing and adapting to new jobs. 

However, researchers agree that chronic 

disability is a sensitive measure of agerelated changes in the health and 

biological fitness of individuals.4

Recent studies have concluded that 

adults over age 65 are reporting 

continuing and significant 

improvements in their ability to perform 

activities of daily living, instrumental 

activities of daily living, and functional 

limitations. These three measurements 

are considered effective measures of 

old-age disability by researchers.5 Three 

major surveys conducted within the last 

decade estimate that the average annual 

decline in disability among those over 

age 50 ranged from ¥1.55% to ¥0.92% 

per year during the 1990s.6 In their 

seminal work titled Changes in the 

Prevalence of Chronic Disability in the 

United States Black and non-Black 

Population Above Age 65 from 1982 to 

1999, Kenneth G. Manton and XiLang 

Gu concluded that percentage declines 

in disability increased in each five-year 

period between 1982 and 1999.7

Additional studies, such as Health, 

United States, 2003 Special Excerpt: 

Trend Tables on 65 and Older 

Population published by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services and Older Americans 2004: Key 

Indicators of Well-Being produced by 

the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging 

Related Statistics, report similar 

increases in reported functioning and 

overall health of those age 65 and over.8

Among adults over age 50, significant 

and consistent improvements have been 

reported with respect to functional 

limitations—defined as difficulty seeing 

words and letters in ordinary newspaper 

print, lifting and carrying 10 lbs, 

climbing a flight of stairs, and walking 

a quarter of a mile.9 The results of a 

1998 study conducted by Vicki A. 

Freedman and Linda G. Martin 

concluded that ‘‘the older population 

today is significantly different from that 

of just a decade ago.’’ 10 Functional 

limitations among those aged 50–64 

improved by an average of 2.325% 

between 1984 and 1993, when adjusted 

for a variety of social factors, and 

2.975% unadjusted.11

This increase in healthy, active years 

has already translated into a shift among 

older adults who are working past 65. It 

has been projected that labor force 

participation for workers age 55–64 will 

increase by five percent for men and 

nine percent for women between 2003 

and 2012.12 As Charles Leven, Chair of 

the AARP Board of Directors, stated, 

‘‘People are showing us that it’s possible 

to work well into their 80s and 90s with 

no thought of retirement. And people of 

advanced age are showing us they can 

go to school—to learn new skills, 

develop abilities, [or] to train for a new 

profession.’’ 13

Economic and social changes have 

also increased opportunities for 

individuals with disabilities to 

participate in the workforce. In the 25 

years since these rules were originally 

published, the economy has shifted 

toward service and knowledge-based 

jobs that may allow for greater 

participation for some persons with 

physical limitations.14 Reports indicate 

that the percentage of workers in 

physically demanding jobs has dropped 

from about twenty percent in 1950 to 

less than eight percent in 1996.15 The 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67103 

Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/ 

TaggedContent/ 

ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=6435. 

Accessed 29 June 2005. 

16U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, Working in the 21st Century (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor). Available from: 

http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/home.htm. 

Accessed 7 July 2005. 

17U.S. Department of Labor, Futurework: Trends 

and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century 

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor). 

Available from: http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/ 

history/herman/reports/futurework/report/pdf/ 

ch4.pdf. Accessed 31 August 2005. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, projects that job growth 

will occur in non-physically intensive 

occupations such as computer operators 

or service providers.16

Congress has also acknowledged the 

challenges that these economic and 

social changes may create. Section 201 

of the Social Security Amendments of 

1983 provided for a gradual increase in 

the age of eligibility for full retirement 

benefits from age 65 to age 67. This 

increase is being phased in over a 

period of 22 years. The full retirement 

age will be 66 in 2009 and 67 in 2027. 

These projections include a 10 year 

hiatus, during which there will be no 

increase in the full retirement age. 

Shortly after the 1983 Amendments, 

Congress passed the Age Discrimination 

Act of 1986 banning mandatory 

retirement. Congress also enacted the 

Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act of 

2000. Section 4 of this Act allows 

individuals who have attained full 

retirement age to voluntarily suspend 

those benefits in order to earn delayed 

retirement credits. 

Clearly, Congress has acknowledged 

that it is both reasonable and necessary 

for people to work longer before retiring. 

At the same time, Congress has not 

made policy decisions with respect to 

age and its relationship to the 

determination of disability. Instead, 

Congress left the details of factoring age 

into the determination of disability to 

us, with the exception of statutory 

blindness. 

Our own adjudicative experience 

suggests that the current rules should be 

revised to more accurately reflect the 

ages at which adjustment to other work 

becomes increasingly difficult. Since 

1978, we have made millions of 

determinations and decisions at step 

five of the sequential evaluation 

process. It appears that there are many 

jobs that individuals, despite their age, 

are capable of performing and adjusting 

to, even though they have not done 

those jobs previously. It is appropriate 

for our rules to be adjusted to reflect 

these changing conditions. 

For example, under §§ 404.1567(b) 

and 416.967(b) of our regulations and 

other policy instructions, individuals 

who can do ‘‘light’’ work are able to, 

among other things, stand and walk for 

most of an eight hour workday, lift and 

carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and 

10 pounds frequently, and use their 

arms and hands for reaching, pushing, 

pulling, and manipulation with little or 

no limitation; they can generally do all 

of the tasks associated with sedentary 

work as well. Our rules in Table No. 2, 

Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, of the 

Medical-Vocational Guidelines 

nevertheless require a finding of 

‘‘disabled’’ for individuals who are age 

55 and over who can still do the full 

range of ‘‘light’’ work unless they have 

transferable skills or recent education 

that provides for direct entry into 

skilled work. 

While relevant, age has become less of 

a factor in determining whether 

individuals can make an adjustment to 

other work. Therefore, in addition to 

increasing our age categories by two 

years, we are proposing to revise the 

definition in our regulations for the 

category of ‘‘advanced age’’ to include 

individuals who are age 65 or older. 

Why Was This Solution Chosen? 

A review of the preambles to the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

and the final regulations that first 

defined the current age ranges helps us 

to illuminate why we are now proposing 

to change them. The preambles 

articulate that there was no hard data 

when we drew the lines defining the age 

categories in 1978; rather, we based the 

age categories on information about 

‘‘progressive deteriorative changes’’ that 

affect the ‘‘vocational capacity to 

perform jobs’’ as individuals get older, 

our adjudicative experience, and our 

analysis and interpretation of data about 

age and employment ‘‘to ascertain a 

point where it would be realistic to 

ascribe vocational limitations based on 

chronological age.’’ It should also be 

noted that some of the employment data 

we used in 1978 dated to as far back as 

1957. 

In the NPRM, we stated: 

It is recognized that progressive 

deteriorative changes, which affect the 

vocational capacity to perform jobs, occur as 

individuals get older. Since no conclusive 

data which relate varying specific 

chronological ages to specific vocational 

limitations for performing jobs are available, 

it was necessary to analyze and interpret the 

available age and employment data to 

ascertain points where it would be realistic 

to ascribe vocational limitations based on 

chronological age. Past experience of the 

Social Security Administration in 

determining when age makes a difference in 

disability determinations has also been 

considered. * * * 

43 FR at 9300 (emphasis added). 

We explained when we published the 

final rules: 

Reference sources and materials dealing 

with chronological age in terms of vocational 

relationship deal principally with 

employment and rehabilitation activities, 

basing their conclusions mainly on the rate 

of participation in the labor force, the 

unemployment rate, duration of 

unemployment, and the proportion of hires 

to applicants. * * * 

In viewing the overall implications of the 

data in the sources cited, it must be 

recognized that there is a direct relationship 

between age and the likelihood of 

employment. However, the statutory 

definition of disability provides specifically 

that vocational factors must be viewed in 

terms of their effect on the ability to perform 

jobs rather than the ability to obtain jobs—

in essence, in terms of how the progressive 

deteriorative changes which occur as 

individuals get older affect their vocational 

capacities to perform jobs. Since no data or 

sources are available which relate var[y]ing 

specific chronological ages to specific 

vocational limitations for performing jobs, it 

has been necessary to analyze and interpret 

the available age-employment data to 

ascertain a point where it would be realistic 

to ascribe vocational limitations based on 

chronological age. 

Prior experience of the Social Security 

Administration in determining when age 

makes a difference in disability 

determinations has also been considered. 

* * * 

43 FR 55349, 55353 (November 28, 

1978) (emphasis added). 

Moreover, in response to public 

comments about our definitions of the 

age categories we explained: 

We acknowledge that there are no 

conclusive data which relate varying specific 

chronologi[c]al ages to specific 

physiologically based vocational limitations 

for performing jobs; this was a pioneering 

effort by SSA due to the unique nature of its 

disability program. Although ages 45, 50, 55 

and 60 may be considered by some as too 

sharply defined as points in a progression of 

increasing difficulties, the concept of 

adversity of the aging process for severely 

impaired persons approaching advanced or 

retirement age is not arbitrary. * * * 

Id. at 55359 (emphasis added). 

As illustrated above, our analysis of 

current public health studies concludes 

that significant changes have occurred 

in the past 25 years which have not 

been reflected in our regulations. The 

United States has experienced a 

fundamental shift from a manufacturing 

based economy to a service based 

economy. Today, manufacturing’s share 

of non-farm jobs is half of what it was 

in 1970.17 We would be remiss in our 

stewardship responsibilities if we failed 

67104 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

to acknowledge these important 

developments. Indeed, in the NPRM 

that included the rules that established 

the current age categories, we noted: 

[I]t is apparently the view of the staff of the 

House Ways and Means Committee that 

Congress intended the [Commissioner] to 

have not only the power, but also the duty, 

to issue regulations [regarding the vocational 

factors]. The staff, commenting on the broad 

language of the disability definition enacted 

by Congress, concluded that: 

The original idea was that the broad 

language of the statutory definition would be 

amplified by regulations based on 

operational experience. (Staff of the House 

Committee on Ways and Means, 93d Cong., 

2d Sess., Committee Staff Report on the 

Disability Insurance Program 6 (July 1974).) 

The staff went on to suggest that [SSA] 

* * * should explore the possibilities as to 

whether the definition of disability can be 

stated more specifically in the law or 

regulation, and whether more operational 

presumptions may be incorporated into its 

administration * * * 

43 FR 9284, 9293 (March 7, 1978) 

(emphasis added). 

Therefore, we determine the specific 

policy for how we consider age in 

evaluating claims for disability benefits, 

consistent with our authority to make 

rules and regulations under sections 

205(a) and 1631(d)(1) of the Act. 

What Rules Are We Proposing To 

Revise? 

We are proposing revisions that 

would change our definitions of the 

categories for the vocational factor of 

‘‘age’’ in §§ 404.1563 and 416.963 and 

related rules. The changes would: 

• Remove references to age 65 as the 

end of the ‘‘advanced age’’ category and 

therefore remove references to ‘‘closely 

approaching retirement age’’ as a 

description of a subcategory of the 

‘‘advanced age’’ category, 

• Increase the ending age for the 

category ‘‘younger person’’ by 2 years, 

from age 49 to age 51, 

• Increase the beginning of the age 

subcategory for younger persons who 

are illiterate or unable to communicate 

in English by 2 years, from age 45 to age 

47, 

• Increase the beginning and ending 

ages for the category ‘‘closely 

approaching advanced age’’ by 2 years, 

from age 50–54 to age 52–56, and 

• Increase by 2 years the beginning 

age for the category ‘‘advanced age’’

from age 55 to age 57, and for the 

subcategory for older persons of 

‘‘advanced age’’ from age 60 to age 62. 

The following chart summarizes the 

current rules and these proposed 

changes: 

Age category Current rules Proposed rules 

Younger individual ................................................................................... Age 18–49 ..................................... Under age 52. 

Younger individual, illiterate or unable to communicate in English ........ Age 45–49 ..................................... Age 47–51. 

Closely approaching advanced age ........................................................ Age 50–54 ..................................... Age 52–56. 

Advanced age ......................................................................................... Age 55–64 ..................................... Age 57 or older. 

Closely approaching retirement age ....................................................... Age 60–64 ..................................... Age 62 or older. 

We are not proposing to change the 

rules under part 404 of our regulations 

for statutorily blind individuals who are 

age 55 or older; those rules are 

mandated by the Act and therefore may 

not be changed without action by 

Congress. We are also not proposing to 

change any other rules related to age, 

such as the age for early retirement (age 

62) and the age at which you may 

qualify for Medicare (age 65) based on 

retirement; these rules are also required 

by the Act. 

Explanation of Changes 

The following is an explanation of the 

specific changes we are proposing. 

We are proposing to revise 

§§ 404.1563(c), (d), and (e) and 

416.963(c), (d), and (e) to raise the 

ending ages of each of the age categories 

by 2 years. As a consequence, these 

changes would raise by 2 years the 

starting ages for the categories ‘‘person 

closely approaching advanced age,’’

‘‘person of advanced age,’’ and ‘‘closely 

approaching retirement age.’’ The 

proposed new categories would be as 

follows: 

• Younger person (proposed 

§§ 404.1563(c) and 416.963(c))—an 

individual who has not attained age 52. 

The current rules define the age 

category as age 18 to the 49 (i.e., prior 

to the attainment of age 50). We propose 

to remove the reference to age 18 as the 

starting point of the age category 

because we sometimes have to make 

disability determinations using the 

sequential evaluation process for adults 

for individuals who are under age 18; 

for example, we sometimes have to 

determine whether individuals entitled 

to child’s insurance benefits who are age 

16–18 are disabled for purposes of 

determining whether their mothers or 

fathers can receive mother’s or father’s 

insurance benefits (see § 404.339 of our 

regulations). Consistent with other 

changes in these proposed rules, we 

would also increase the subcategory 

applicable to ‘‘younger individuals’’

who are illiterate and unable to 

communicate in English by 2 years, 

from age 45–49 to age 47–51. 

• Closely approaching advanced age 

(proposed §§ 404.1563(d) and 

416.963(d))—age 52–56. 

• Advanced age (proposed 

§§ 404.1563(e) and 416.963(e))—age 57 

or older. Consistent with other changes 

in these proposed rules, we would also 

increase the age at which we first 

consider individuals to be ‘‘closely 

approaching retirement age’’ by 2 years, 

from age 60 to age 62. Also, as we noted 

earlier in this preamble, we sometimes 

make disability determinations for 

individuals who are older than ‘‘full 

retirement age.’’ Therefore, we propose 

to remove the term ‘‘closely 

approaching retirement age’’ in these 

sections and throughout our other 

regulations. Instead we would refer only 

to ‘‘advanced age, age 62 or older’’ or 

just ‘‘age 62 or older,’’ as appropriate to 

the context of the language of the rule. 

For clarity, we propose to revise the age 

criterion for rule 203.10 to ‘‘advanced 

age, age 57–61.’’

In addition, we propose to make 

conforming changes to the following 

regulations for the same reasons that we 

are changing the rules in §§ 404.1563 

and 416.963 and for consistency in our 

rules: 

• In §§ 404.1562(b) and 416.962(b), 

we would change the provision for 

individuals who are at least 55 years 

old, have no more than a ‘‘limited’’

education (see §§ 404.1564 and 

416.964), and have no past relevant 

work, to increase the age requirement to 

57 years. 

• In the first sentence of 

§§ 404.1568(d)(4) and 416.968(d)(4), we 

would change the provisions that refer 

to ‘‘advanced age’’ from age 55 to age 57. 

In the fifth and sixth sentences, we 

would change the provisions that refer 

to transferability of skills in individuals 

who are at least 60 years old to increase 

the age requirement to 62 years. 

• In appendix 2 to subpart P of part 

404, the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 

we propose to make conforming changes 

in §§ 201.00(d)–(i), 202.00(d), 202.00(f)–

(g), and 203.00(b)–(c). We would also 

change the reference to ‘‘closely 

approaching retirement age’’ in Rule 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67105 

203.01 in Table No. 3 to ‘‘advanced age, 

age 62 or older.’’

Why are We Proposing To Remove 

References to Age 65 as the End of the 

‘‘Advanced Age’’ Category? 

Even though our current regulations 

do not include rules for evaluating 

disability of individuals who are at least 

65 years old, we have other published 

policy statements that we use to make 

these decisions. See Social Security 

Ruling (SSR) 03–3p: ‘‘Policy 

Interpretation Ruling—Titles II and XVI: 

Evaluation of Disability and Blindness 

in Initial Claims for Individuals Aged 65 

or Older,’’ 68 FR 63833 (2003). The 

proposal in these regulations to remove 

the reference to age 64 as the end of the 

category of ‘‘advanced age’’ would only 

incorporate into our regulations 

longstanding policy interpretations 

currently set forth in SSR 03–3p. 

Although our regulations currently 

provide that the highest age category, 

advanced age, ends with the attainment 

of age 65, we sometimes have to make 

disability determinations for people 

who are older, as described in the 

situations set forth below. 

• Section 216(l) of the Act provides 

for a gradual increase in the full 

retirement age from age 65 to age 67. 

These changes first affected individuals 

who were born in 1938; that is, who 

turned age 65 in 2003. By 2027, the 

incremental increases will be complete, 

and a full retirement age of 67 will be 

applicable to all individuals who were 

born in 1960 or later. (These provisions 

do not change the age at which an 

individual can take early retirement at 

a reduced benefit amount, which 

remains at age 62.) Under title II, an 

individual can establish entitlement to 

benefits based on disability or blindness 

until the month in which he or she 

attains full retirement age. Therefore, as 

a result of the increases in the full 

retirement age, we are now processing 

some disability claims under title II of 

the Act for individuals who are aged 65 

or older as described below: 

• Under Public Law 104–193, the 

Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 

as amended, ‘‘qualified’’ aliens who 

were lawfully residing in the United 

States on August 22, 1996, and who are 

disabled or blind as defined in section 

1614(a) of the Act are eligible for 

benefits under title XVI, so long as all 

other eligibility requirements are met. 

Individuals can establish eligibility 

based on disability or blindness at any 

age, even on or after attainment of age 

65. 

We may also need to make 

determinations of disability under title 

XVI for other individuals aged 65 or 

older to determine: 

• State supplements in some States 

under section 1616 of the Act; 

• Whether the work incentive 

provisions of section 1619(b) of the Act 

are applicable; or 

• Appropriate deeming of income and 

resources under section 1621(f)(1) of the 

Act and §§ 416.1160, 416.1161, 

416.1166a, and 416.1204 of our 

regulations. 

What Programs Would These Proposed 

Regulations Affect? 

These proposed regulations would 

affect disability determinations and 

decisions we make under title II and 

title XVI of the Act. In addition, to the 

extent that Medicare entitlement and 

Medicaid eligibility are based on 

whether you qualify for disability 

benefits under title II or title XVI, these 

regulations would also affect the 

Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

Who Can Get Disability Benefits? 

Under title II of the Act, we provide 

for the payment of disability benefits if 

you are disabled and belong to one of 

the following three groups: 

• Workers insured under the Act, 

• Children of insured workers, and 

• Widows, widowers, and surviving 

divorced spouses (see § 404.336) of 

insured workers. 

Under title XVI of the Act, we provide 

for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 

payments on the basis of disability if 

you are disabled and have limited 

income and resources. 

How Do We Define ‘‘Disability’’? 

Under both the title II and title XVI 

programs, disability must be the result 

of any medically determinable physical 

or mental impairment or combination of 

impairments that is expected to result in 

death or which has lasted or can be 

expected to last for a continuous period 

of at least 12 months. Our definitions of 

disability are shown in the following 

table: 

If you file a claim under . . . And you are . . . Disability means you have a medically determinalbe impairment(s) as 

described above that results in . . . 

title II ................................................ an adult or a child .......................... the inability to do any substantial gainful activity (SGA). 

title XVI ............................................ an individual age 18 or older ......... the inability to do any SGA. 

title XVI ............................................ an individual udner age 18 ............ marked and severe functional limitations. 

As required by sections 223(d) and 

1614(a)(3) of the Act, if you are an adult, 

we consider you to be disabled only if 

your physical or mental impairment(s) 

is so severe that you are not only unable 

to do your previous work, but you 

cannot, considering your age, education, 

and work experience, engage in any 

other kind of substantial gainful activity 

that exists in the national economy. 

This is true regardless of whether this 

kind of work exists in the immediate 

area in which you live, whether a 

specific job vacancy exists for you, or 

whether you would be hired if you 

applied for work. (See sections 

223(d)(2)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(B) of the 

Act.) 

How Do We Decide Whether You Are 

Disabled? 

If you are applying for title II benefits 

or if you are an adult applying for title 

XVI benefits, we use a five-step 

sequential evaluation process, which we 

describe in our regulations at 

§§ 404.1520 and 416.920, to decide 

whether you are disabled under the 

statutory definition. We follow the five 

steps in order and stop as soon as we 

can make a determination or decision. 

The steps are: 

1. Are you working and is the work 

you are doing substantial gainful 

activity? If you are working and 

engaging in substantial gainful activity, 

we will find that you are not disabled 

regardless of your medical condition or 

your age, education, and work 

experience. If not, we will go on to step 

two. 

2. Do you have a ‘‘severe’’

impairment? If you do not have an 

impairment or combination of 

impairments that significantly limits 

your physical or mental ability to do 

basic work activities, we will find that 

you are not disabled. If you do, we will 

go on to step three. 

3. Do you have an impairment(s) that 

meets or medically equals the severity 

of an impairment in the listings? If you 

do, and the impairment(s) meets the 

duration requirement, we will find you 

disabled. If you do not, we will go on 

to step four of the sequence. 

67106 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

4. Do you have the residual functional 

capacity (RFC) to do your past relevant 

work? If you do, we will find that you 

are not disabled. If you do not, we will 

go on to step five. 

5. Does your impairment(s) prevent 

you from doing any other work that 

exists in the national economy, 

considering your residual functional 

capacity, age, education, and work 

experience? If it does, and it meets the 

duration requirement, we will find that 

you are disabled. If it does not, we will 

find that you are not disabled. 

If you are already receiving benefits, 

we use a different sequential evaluation 

process when we decide whether your 

disability continues. See §§ 404.1594 

and 416.994 of our regulations. This 

process also includes a step that 

considers your ability to do other work, 

considering your RFC and your 

vocational factors of age, education, and 

past work experience. 

How Do We Use the Medical-Vocational 

Rules? 

As discussed in §§ 404.1569 and 

416.969, at step five of the sequential 

evaluation process we use the medicalvocational rules in appendix 2 of 

subpart P of part 404. (By reference, 

§ 416.969 of the regulations provides 

that appendix 2 also applies to adults 

claiming SSI payments based on 

disability.) In general, the medicalvocational rules take administrative 

notice of the existence of numerous 

unskilled occupations at the exertional 

levels defined in the regulations, such 

as ‘‘sedentary,’’ ‘‘light,’’ and ‘‘medium.’’

The rules consider RFC and the 

vocational factors of age, education, and 

past work experience in terms of an 

individual’s ability to adjust to other 

work. 

The medical-vocational rules direct a 

determination or decision whether you 

are disabled if your RFC and vocational 

factors (i.e., your age, education, and 

past work experience) match the criteria 

in a rule. If your RFC or any one of the 

vocational factors of age, education, and 

past work experience do not match the 

criteria in a medical-vocational rule, the 

rules provide a framework for making a 

determination or decision at this step. 

Under our policy, we recognize that 

advancing age makes it increasingly 

more difficult for older persons to adjust 

to other work and the medicalvocational rules reflect that policy. 

However, if you have skilled or 

semiskilled work experience, you may 

have gained skills that make it easier for 

you to adjust to other work—even at an 

advanced age. If your skills can be used 

in (transferred to) other skilled or 

semiskilled work within your RFC, we 

will ordinarily find that you can adjust 

to other work and are not disabled 

regardless of your age or education. 

Some rules in appendix 2 also direct a 

conclusion, or provide a framework for 

deciding whether a person is disabled, 

when a person has ‘‘skills’’ acquired 

from previous skilled or semiskilled 

work that are ‘‘transferable’’ to other 

skilled or semiskilled work. 

What Are Our Rules on Age as a 

Vocational Factor? 

Our basic rules regarding age as a 

vocational factor, including our rules 

defining the age categories we use in 

appendix 2, are found in §§ 404.1563 

and 416.963, ‘‘Your age as a vocational 

factor.’’ Under these regulations, we 

define three broad age categories: 

• In current §§ 404.1563(c) and 

416.963(c), we define a younger person 

as an individual who is under age 50. 

We explain that, if you are in this 

category, we generally do not consider 

that your age will seriously affect your 

ability to adjust to other work. Within 

this category, however, we include a 

subcategory for individuals who are age 

45–49; we explain that in some 

circumstances we consider that these 

persons are more limited in their ability 

to adjust to other work than persons 

who have not attained age 45. 

• In current §§ 404.1563(d) and 

416.963(d), we define a person closely 

approaching advanced age as an 

individual who is age 50–54. We 

explain that, if you are in this category, 

we will consider that your age along 

with a severe impairment(s) and limited 

work experience may seriously affect 

your ability to adjust to other work. 

• In current §§ 404.1563(e) and 

416.963(e), we define a person of 

advanced age as an individual who is 

age 55 or older. We also include a 

subcategory for individuals who are age 

60–64, which we call closely 

approaching retirement age. We explain 

that we have special rules for 

individuals who are closely 

approaching retirement age in our rules 

regarding transferability of skills for 

individuals of advanced age, in 

§§ 404.1568(d)(4) and 416.968(d)(4). 

In addition, other disability rules refer 

to particular ages and age categories. As 

previously noted, we are proposing to 

make changes to the following sections: 

• Sections 404.1562 and 416.962, 

‘‘Medical-vocational profiles showing 

an inability to make an adjustment to 

other work,’’ include a special provision 

for individuals who are at least 55 years, 

have no more than a limited education, 

and have no past relevant work 

experience. (See §§ 404.1562(b) and 

416.962(b).) 

• Sections 404.1568(d)(4) and 

416.968(d)(4), provide our rules for 

determining transferability of skills for 

individuals who are of ‘‘advanced age,’’

including individuals who are ‘‘closely 

approaching retirement age.’’

• The rules and explanatory text of 

appendix 2 of subpart P of part 404 

provide guidance for considering the 

different age categories defined in 

§§ 404.1563 and 416.963 when we 

determine whether you can make an 

adjustment to other work. 

What Is Our Authority To Make Rules 

and Set Procedures for Determining 

Whether a Person Is Disabled Under the 

Statutory Definition? 

Section 205(a) of the Act and, by 

reference to section 205(a), section 

1631(d)(1) provide that: 

The Commissioner of Social Security shall 

have full power and authority to make rules 

and regulations and to establish procedures, 

not inconsistent with the provisions of this 

title, which are necessary or appropriate to 

carry out such provisions, and shall adopt 

reasonable and proper rules and regulations 

to regulate and provide for the nature and 

extent of the proofs and evidence and the 

method of taking and furnishing the same in 

order to establish the right to benefits 

hereunder. 

Clarity of These Proposed Rules 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as 

amended by E.O. 13258, requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. In addition to your 

substantive comments on these final 

rules, we invite your comments on how 

to make them easier to understand. 

For example: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit your needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rules 

clearly stated? 

• Do the rules contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rules easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rules easier to understand? 

When Will We Start To Use These 

Rules? 

We will not use these rules until we 

evaluate the public comments we 

receive on them, determine whether 

they should be issued as final rules, and 

issue final rules in the Federal Register. 

If we publish final rules, we will 

explain in the preamble how we will 

apply them, and summarize and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67107 

respond to the public comments. Until 

the effective date of any final rules, we 

will continue to use our current rules. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866 

We have consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget and have 

determined that these proposed rules 

meet the criteria for an economically 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 13258. The Office of 

the Chief Actuary estimates that these 

proposed rules, if finalized, will result 

in reduced program outlays resulting in 

the following savings (in millions of 

dollars) over the next 10 years: 

Reduction in Federal benefit outlays 

Fiscal year OASDI SSI Medicare Medicaid Total 

2006 ......................................................................................................... 136 21 .................... 8 165 

2007 ......................................................................................................... 263 43 .................... 26 332 

2008 ......................................................................................................... 229 53 51 37 369 

2009 ......................................................................................................... 243 63 102 50 459 

2010 ......................................................................................................... 303 75 109 59 546 

2011 ......................................................................................................... 326 94 117 76 612 

2012 ......................................................................................................... 369 93 135 94 691 

2013 ......................................................................................................... 414 115 153 107 789 

2014 ......................................................................................................... 454 130 173 128 884 

2015 ......................................................................................................... 495 146 195 151 987 

Totals: 

2006–10 ............................................................................................ 1,174 255 262 180 1,871 

2006–15 ............................................................................................ 3,231 834 1,034 735 5,834 

Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the rounded components. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that these proposed rules 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because they affect only 

individuals. Thus, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as provided in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, 

is not required. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These proposed rules impose no 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

requiring OMB clearance. 

References 

The sources we consulted while 

developing these proposed rules are 

cited in the preamble text. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security—

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 

96.006, Supplemental Security Income) 

List of Subjects 

20 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 

Old-Age, Survivors and Disability 

Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social Security. 

20 CFR Part 416 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability 

benefits, Public assistance programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

Dated: October 28, 2005. 

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we are proposing to amend 

subpart P of part 404 and subpart I of 

part 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, 

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE (1950– ) 

Subpart P—[Amended] 

1. The authority citation for subpart P 

continues to read as follows: 

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

(h), 216(i), 221(a) and (i), 222(c), 223, 225, 

and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 

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

421(a) and (i), 422(c), 423, 425, and 

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

Stat. 2105, 2189. 

2. Amend § 404.1562 by revising the 

heading and the first sentence of 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 404.1562 Medical-vocational profiles 

showing an inability to make an adjustment 

to other work. 

* * * * * 

(b) If you are at least 57 years old, 

have no more than a limited education, 

and have no past relevant work 

experience. If you have a severe, 

medically determinable impairment(s) 

(see §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521, and 

404.1523), are of advanced age (age 57 

or older, see § 404.1563), have a limited 

education or less (see § 404.1564), and 

have no past relevant work experience 

(see § 404.1565), we will find you 

disabled. * * * 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 404.1563 by revising 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 404.1563 Your age as a vocational factor. 

* * * * * 

(c) Younger person. If you are a 

younger person (under age 52), we 

generally do not consider that your age 

will seriously affect your ability to 

adjust to other work. However, in some 

circumstances, we consider that persons 

age 47–51 are more limited in their 

ability to adjust to other work than 

persons who have not attained age 47. 

See Rule 201.17 in appendix 2. 

(d) Person closely approaching 

advanced age. If you are closely 

approaching advanced age (age 52–56), 

we will consider that your age along 

with a severe impairment(s) and limited 

work experience may seriously affect 

your ability to adjust to other work. 

(e) Person of advanced age. We 

consider that at advanced age (age 57 or 

older) age significantly affects a person’s 

ability to adjust to other work. We have 

special rules for persons of advanced 

age, including persons in this category 

who are age 62 or older. See 

§ 404.1568(d)(4). 

* * * * * 

67108 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

4. Amend § 404.1568 by revising the 

first, fifth, and sixth sentences of 

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 404.1568 Skill requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Skills that can be used in other 

work (transferability). 

* * * * * 

(4) Transferability of skills for 

individuals of advanced age. If you are 

of advanced age (age 57 or older), and 

you have a severe impairment(s) that 

limits you to sedentary or light work, we 

will find that you cannot make an 

adjustment to other work unless you 

have skills that you can transfer to other 

skilled or semiskilled work (or you have 

recently completed education which 

provides for direct entry into skilled 

work) that you can do despite your 

impairment(s). * * * If you are of 

advanced age but have not attained age 

62, and you have a severe impairment(s) 

that limits you to no more than light 

work, we will apply the rules in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this 

section to decide if you have skills that 

are transferable to skilled or semiskilled 

light work (see § 404.1567(b)). If you are 

age 62 or older and you have a severe 

impairment(s) that limits you to no 

more than light work, we will find that 

you have skills that are transferable to 

skilled or semiskilled light work only if 

the light work is so similar to your 

previous work that you would need to 

make very little, if any, vocational 

adjustment in terms of tools, work 

processes, work settings, or the 

industry. * * * 

5. Amend section 201.00 of appendix 

2, subpart P, part 404—MedicalVocational Guidelines—by revising the 

first sentence of paragraph (d), 

paragraph (f), the first sentence of 

paragraph (g), paragraph (h)(1) 

introductory text, the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(2), the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(3), and the last sentence 

of paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

APPENDIX 2 TO SUBPART P OF PART 

404—MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL 

GUIDELINES 

* * * * * 

201.00 Maximum sustained work 

capability limited to sedentary work as a 

result of severe medically determinable 

impairment(s). 

* * * * * 

(d) The adversity of functional restrictions 

to sedentary work at advanced age (57 or 

older) for individuals with no relevant past 

work or who can no longer perform 

vocationally relevant past work and have no 

transferable skills, warrants a finding of 

disabled in the absence of the rare situation 

where the individual has recently completed 

education which provides a basis for direct 

entry into skilled sedentary work. * * * 

* * * * * 

(f) In order to find transferability of skills 

to skilled sedentary work for individuals who 

are of advanced age (57 or older), there must 

be very little, if any, vocational adjustment 

required in terms of tools, work processes, 

work settings, or the industry. 

(g) Individuals approaching advanced age 

(age 52–56) may be significantly limited in 

vocational adaptability if they are restricted 

to sedentary work. * * * 

* * * * * 

(h)(1) The term younger individual is used 

to denote an individual who has not attained 

age 52. For individuals who are age 47–51, 

age is a less advantageous factor for making 

an adjustment to other work than for those 

who have not attained age 47. Accordingly, 

a finding of ‘‘disabled’’ is warranted for 

individuals age 47–51 who: * * * 

(2) For individuals who are under age 47, 

age is a more advantageous factor for making 

an adjustment to other work. * * * 

(3) Nevertheless, a decision of ‘‘disabled’’

may be appropriate for some individuals 

under age 47 (or individuals age 47–51 for 

whom rule 201.17 does not direct a decision 

of disabled) who do not have the ability to 

perform a full range of sedentary work. * * * 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * Thus, the functional capability 

for a full range of sedentary work represents 

sufficient numbers of jobs to indicate 

substantial vocational scope for those 

individuals who have not attained age 47 

even if they are illiterate or unable to 

communicate in English. 

* * * * * 

6. Amend section 202.00 of appendix 

2, subpart P, part 404—MedicalVocational Guidelines—by revising 

paragraph (d), paragraph (f), the last 

sentence of paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

APPENDIX 2 TO SUBPART P OF PART 

404—MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL 

GUIDELINES 

* * * * * 

202.00 Maximum sustained work 

capability limited to light work as a result of 

severe medically determinable 

impairment(s). 

* * * * * 

(d) Where the same factors in paragraph (c) 

of this section regarding education and work 

experience are present, but where age, 

though not advanced, is a factor which 

significantly limits vocational adaptability 

(i.e., closely approaching advanced age, 52–

56) and an individual’s vocational scope is 

further significantly limited by illiteracy or 

inability to communicate in English, a 

finding of disabled is warranted. 

* * * * * 

(f) For a finding of transferability of skills 

to light work for individuals of advanced age 

who are age 62 or older, there must be very 

little, if any, vocational adjustment required 

in terms of tools, work processes, work 

settings, or the industry. 

(g) * * * This, in turn, represents 

substantial vocational scope for younger 

individuals (individuals who have not 

attained age 52) even if illiterate or unable to 

communicate in English. 

* * * * * 

7. Amend section 203.00 of appendix 

2, subpart P, part 404—MedicalVocational Guidelines—by revising the 

second sentence of paragraph (b), 

paragraph (c), and the age criteria for 

Rules 203.01 and 203.10 in Table No. 3 

to read as follows: 

APPENDIX 2 TO SUBPART P OF PART 

404—MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL 

GUIDELINES 

* * * * * 

203.00 Maximum sustained work 

capability limited to medium work as a result 

of severe medically determinable 

impairment(s). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Even the adversity of advanced 

age (57 or over) and a work history of 

unskilled work may be offset by the 

substantial work capability represented by 

the functional capacity to perform medium 

work. * * * 

(c) However, the absence of any relevant 

work experience becomes a more significant 

adversity for individuals of advanced age (57 

or older). Accordingly, this factor, in 

combination with a limited education or less, 

militates against making a vocational 

adjustment to even this substantial range of 

work and a finding of disabled is appropriate. 

Further, for individuals age 62 or older with 

a work history of unskilled work and with 

marginal education or less, a finding of 

disabled is appropriate. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67109 

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

A RESULT OF SEVERE MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE IMPAIRMENT(S) 

Rule Age Education Previous work 

experience Decision 

203.01 ............ Advanced age, 

age 62 or 

older.

Marginal or 

none.

Unskilled or 

none.

Disabled. 

* * * * * * * 

203.10 ............ Advanced age, 

age 57–61.

Limited or less None ............... Disabled. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

8. The authority citation for subpart I 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 

1619, 1631(a), (c), and (d)(1), and 1633 of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 

1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), and (d)(1), 

and 1383(b); 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, 

1382h note). 

9. Amend § 416.962 by revising the 

paragraph heading and the first sentence 

of paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 416.962 Medical-vocational profiles 

showing an inability to make an adjustment 

to other work. 

* * * * * 

(b) If you are at least 57 years old, 

have no more than a limited education, 

and have no past relevant work 

experience. If you have a severe, 

medically determinable impairment(s) 

(see §§ 416.920(c), 416.921, and 

416.923), are of advanced age (age 57 or 

older, see § 416.963), have a limited 

education or less (see § 416.964), and 

have no past relevant work experience 

(see § 416.965), we will find you 

disabled. * * * 

10. Amend § 416.963 by revising 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 416.963 Your age as a vocational factor. 

* * * * * 

(c) Younger person. If you are a 

younger person (under age 52), we 

generally do not consider that your age 

will seriously affect your ability to 

adjust to other work. However, in some 

circumstances, we consider that persons 

age 47–51 are more limited in their 

ability to adjust to other work than 

persons who have not attained age 47. 

See Rule 201.17 in appendix 2 of 

subpart P of part 404 of this chapter. 

(d) Person closely approaching 

advanced age. If you are closely 

approaching advanced age (age 52–56), 

we will consider that your age along 

with a severe impairment(s) and limited 

work experience may seriously affect 

your ability to adjust to other work. 

(e) Person of advanced age. We 

consider that at advanced age (age 57 or 

older) age significantly affects a person’s 

ability to adjust to other work. We have 

special rules for persons of advanced 

age, including persons in this category 

who are age 62 or older. See 

§ 416.968(d)(4). 

* * * * * 

11. Amend § 416.968 by revising the 

first, fifth, and sixth sentences of 

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 416.968 Skill requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Skills that can be used in other 

work (transferability). 

* * * * * 

(4) Transferability of skills for 

individuals of advanced age. If you are 

of advanced age (age 57 or older), and 

you have a severe impairment(s) that 

limits you to sedentary or light work, we 

will find that you cannot make an 

adjustment to other work unless you 

have skills that you can transfer to other 

skilled or semiskilled work (or you have 

recently completed education which 

provides for direct entry into skilled 

work) that you can do despite your 

impairment(s). * * * If you are of 

advanced age but have not attained age 

62, and you have a severe impairment(s) 

that limits you to no more than light 

work, we will apply the rules in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this 

section to decide if you have skills that 

are transferable to skilled or semiskilled 

light work (see § 416.967(b)). If you are 

age 62 or older and you have a severe 

impairment(s) that limits you to no 

more than light work, we will find that 

you have skills that are transferable to 

skilled or semiskilled light work only if 

the light work is so similar to your 

previous work that you would need to 

make very little, if any, vocational 

adjustment in terms of tools, work 

processes, work settings, or the 

industry. * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21975 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R03–OAR–2005–VA–0013; FRL–7993–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Redesignation of the Shenandoah 

National Park Ozone Nonattainment 

Area To Attainment and Approval of 

the Area’s Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a redesignation request and a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. The Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is 

requesting that the Shenandoah 

National Park area (the SNP area) be 

redesignated as attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with 

its redesignation request, the VADEQ 

submitted a SIP revision consisting of a 

maintenance plan for the SNP area that 

provides for continued attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 10 

years. EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the SNP area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based 

upon three years of complete, qualityassured ambient air quality ozone 

monitoring data for 2002–2004. EPA’s 

proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone 

redesignation request is based on its