[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43492-43496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17934]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

[Docket No. SSA-2010-0060]
RIN 0960-AH26


Expedited Vocational Assessment Under the Sequential Evaluation 
Process

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Final rules.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising our rules to give adjudicators the discretion 
to proceed to the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process for 
assessing disability when we have insufficient information about a 
claimant's past relevant work history to make the findings required for 
step 4. If an adjudicator finds at step 5 that a claimant may be unable 
to adjust to other work existing in the national economy, the 
adjudicator will return to the fourth step to develop the claimant's 
work history and make a finding about whether the claimant can perform 
his or her past relevant work. We expect that this new expedited 
process will not disadvantage any claimant or change the ultimate 
conclusion about whether a claimant is disabled, but it will promote 
administrative efficiency and help us make more timely disability 
determinations and decisions.

DATES: These rules are effective August 24, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Truhe, Office of Disability 
Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 966-7203. 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 http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    We published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 
Register on September 13, 2011.\1\ In the NPRM, we proposed to give 
adjudicators the discretion to proceed to the fifth step of the 
sequential evaluation process for assessing disability when we have 
insufficient information about a claimant's past relevant work history 
to make the findings required for step 4. If an adjudicator finds at 
step 5 that a claimant may be unable to adjust to other work existing 
in the national economy, the adjudicator will return to the fourth step 
to develop the claimant's work history and make a finding about whether 
the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work. The expedited 
process does not affect our responsibility under the Social Security 
Act (Act) and our current regulations to make every reasonable effort 
to develop claimants' medical evidence.\2\ The preamble to the NPRM 
provides a full explanation of the background of this expedited 
process. You can view the preamble to the NPRM by visiting 
www.regulations.gov and searching for document ``SSA-2010-0060-0001.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 76 FR 56357.
    \2\ See sections 223(d)(5)(B) and 1614(a)(3)(H) of the Act and 
20 CFR 404.1512(d) and 416.912(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments

    We provided 60 days for the public to comment on the NPRM. We 
received three comment letters. They came from a member of the 
disability advocacy community, a regional disability advocacy group, 
and a national group of Social Security claimants' representatives. You 
can view the comments by visiting www.regulations.gov and searching for 
``SSA-2010-0060.'' After carefully considering the comments, we are 
adopting our proposed revisions, with a few minor changes described 
below, in these final rules.
    Because of their length, we have condensed, summarized, and 
paraphrased the comments and responded to the significant issues raised 
by the commenters that were within the scope of these rules.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that adjudicators may 
incorrectly deny claims if they do not fully develop claimants' past 
work histories and consider the special medical-vocational profiles.\3\ 
To ensure that adjudicators properly consider the special profiles, the 
commenter recommended that we require adjudicators who do not make 
findings at step 4 to state that they considered the potential 
application of the special profiles before they deny claims at step 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 20 CFR 404.1562 and 416.962, Social Security Ruling 82-
63, and POMS DI 25010.001, available at http://policynet.ba.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425010001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We agree with the commenter that adjudicators who do not 
make findings at step 4 using the expedited process must consider the 
potential application of the special medical-vocational profiles before 
they deny claims at step 5. To remind our adjudicators to consider the 
special profiles in this situation, we are including a reference to 
section 404.1562 \4\ in final sections 404.1520(h) and 404.1594(f)(9) 
and a reference to section 416.962 \5\ in final sections 416.920(h) and 
416.994(b)(5)(viii). We are also including a reference to section 
404.1562 in final section 404.1545(a)(5)(ii) to be consistent with the 
reference to section 416.962 we proposed and are adopting in final 
section 416.945(a)(5)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Medical-vocational profiles showing an inability to make an 
adjustment to other work.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we are not adopting the suggestion to require adjudicators 
to state that they considered medical-vocational profiles in this 
situation because we can address the commenter's concern in ways that 
we believe will be more effective.
    First, we currently have an electronic claims analysis tool in 
widespread use at the initial level of our administrative review 
process that reminds adjudicators to consider these profiles before 
they evaluate claims at step 5. We will insert a similar reminder in 
this tool so that adjudicators will consider special profiles before 
determining whether to proceed to step 5 using the expedited process. 
As we indicated in the NPRM, if adjudicators use the

[[Page 43493]]

expedited process, they will still consider whether claimants may be 
disabled based on the special medical-vocational profiles, the Medical-
Vocational Guidelines (Guidelines),\6\ or an inability to meet the 
mental demands of unskilled work.\7\ We also explained that ``[i]f any 
of these rules would indicate that the claimant may be disabled or if 
the adjudicator has any doubt whether the claimant can perform other 
work existing in significant numbers in the economy, the adjudicator 
must return to step 4 to further develop the claimant's vocational 
information and determine whether the claimant can perform his or her 
past relevant work.'' \8\ If there is insufficient evidence about a 
claimant's past relevant work in the record to determine whether a 
special medical-vocational profile applies, the adjudicator must return 
to step 4 to further develop the vocational evidence because a special 
medical-vocational profile may apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 20 CFR 404.1569 and 416.969.
    \7\ See 76 FR at 56359.
    \8\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we plan to conduct training on these final rules for 
adjudicators at all levels of the disability determination process 
regarding use of the new expedited process. We will also monitor the 
use of the expedited process during quality reviews to ensure that we 
apply the process correctly.
    Comment: One commenter doubted whether we could deny claims at step 
5 using the expedited process because a step 5 analysis must include 
consideration of claimants' past work histories. Another commenter 
stated we should always develop a complete past work history because 
evidence of past work can influence our finding at step 5 and can 
inform our assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity 
(RFC).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 20 CFR 404.1545 and 416.945. An RFC assessment is a 
finding about the most a claimant can still do despite his or her 
physical and mental limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with these comments. There are a number of 
situations in which it would be appropriate to deny a claim without 
considering a claimant's past work history. For example, if a claimant 
is 44 years old with a high school education and has the RFC to perform 
a full range of sedentary work, Rules 201.27, 201.28, and 201.29 of the 
Medical-Vocational Guidelines (Guidelines) direct that this claimant be 
found not disabled, regardless of the skill level of his or her past 
relevant work or the transferability of those skills.\10\ As we 
explained in the NPRM, adjudicators will only find that a claimant is 
not disabled without returning to step 4 when they can find at step 5 
that a claimant is not disabled ``based solely on age, education, and 
RFC, regardless of the claimant's skill level and transferability of 
those skills.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404--Medical-Vocational 
Guidelines. In this example, none of the special profiles would 
potentially apply, and we assume that the claimant can meet the 
mental demands of unskilled work.
    \11\ 76 FR at 56359 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with the comment that we need evidence of past 
work history to determine a claimant's RFC. As our current rules make 
clear, we determine a claimant's RFC before we go to step 4,\12\ and we 
do not assess RFC in the context of a claimant's past work history. 
Rather, we determine a claimant's RFC based on his or her ability to 
meet the ``physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work'' 
\13\ on a ``regular and continuous basis.'' \14\ For example, the 
physical demands of work include activities such as sitting, standing, 
and walking.\15\ We do not assess RFC in the context of a claimant's 
past work history; therefore, we can use the proposed expedited process 
regardless of past work history development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4).
    \13\ 20 CFR 404.1545(a)(4) and 416.945(a)(4).
    \14\ 20 CFR 404.1545(b) and (c) and 416.945(b) and (c).
    \15\ See 20 CFR 404.1545(b) and 416.945(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter questioned our view that the expedited 
process would not disadvantage any claimant \16\ and expressed several 
concerns. The commenter believed that adjudicators would have too much 
discretion to decide when to use the expedited process because we did 
not explain what we mean by ``insufficient'' evidence to make a finding 
at step 4. The commenter said that by not requiring our adjudicators to 
make even a ``reasonable effort'' to obtain additional evidence of past 
work history, we diminish their duty to develop the record, even if 
evidence is readily available. The commenter also said that if we 
adopted the expedited process we would adjudicate claims using 
different procedures and would incorrectly deny some claims without 
fully assessing some claimants' abilities to perform their past 
relevant work. The commenter recognized that making the correct 
decision ``as early in the process as possible is the key to a fair 
process,'' but said that the expedited process might lead us to deny 
claims incorrectly due to insufficient development of past work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 76 FR at 56357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with these comments. First, in response to 
the commenter's concern about the definition of ``insufficient,'' we 
explained in the NPRM that we would consider evidence to be 
insufficient when a claimant does not provide us with enough 
information about each of his or her jobs within the relevant 15-year 
period on Form SSA-3368, Disability Report-Adult, (or the Internet 
version of this form) \17\ and, when necessary, Form SSA-3369, Work 
History Report,\18\ for us to make a finding at step 4.\19\ Our 
adjudicators are familiar with the concept of ``insufficient evidence'' 
in this context, and we are confident that they understand reference to 
``insufficient evidence'' of a claimant's ability to do his or her past 
work. We also have not revised these rules to require adjudicators to 
make a reasonable effort to collect additional work history before 
going to step 5 in all cases. Imposing such a requirement would delay 
adjudication in those cases in which the claimant's past relevant work 
history has no effect on the ultimate finding of disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Currently available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps6z/radr/radr-fi.
    \18\ Currently available at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ssa-3369.pdf.
    \19\ 76 FR at 56358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although use of the expedited process may change whether we deny a 
claim at step 5 versus step 4, we expect that it will not change the 
ultimate determination of whether the claimant is disabled. We will 
only deny a claim at step 5 using the expedited process if the 
claimant's age, education, and RFC indicate that he or she is not 
disabled regardless of what an inquiry into past relevant work would 
reveal. As we noted in the NPRM, our experience using a similar 
expedient in the ten ``prototype'' States supports the conclusion that 
the expedited process does not change our ultimate decision as to 
whether or not a claimant is disabled.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 76 FR at 56359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Changes

    We are correcting a cross-reference in Sec. Sec.  404.1527 and 
416.927 to reflect renumbering changes in a final rule published on 
February 23, 2012 at 77 FR 10651.

[[Page 43494]]

Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 
determined that these final rules meet the criteria for a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by 
Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB reviewed them.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that these final rules will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they 
only affect individuals. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 
amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility 
analysis.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    These final rules do not create any new or affect any existing 
collections; therefore, they do not require OMB approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social 
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security--Retirement 
Insurance; 96.004, Social Security--Survivors Insurance; and 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).

Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending title 20 
of the Code of Federal Regulations part 404 subpart P and part 416 
subpart I as set forth below:

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

Subpart P--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), 
(i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and 
(j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 
110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 
U.S.C. 902 note).


0
2. Amend Sec.  404.1505 by revising the sixth sentence of paragraph (a) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  404.1505  Basic definition of disability.

    (a) * * * If we find that you cannot do your past relevant work, we 
will use the same residual functional capacity assessment and your 
vocational factors of age, education, and work experience to determine 
if you can do other work. (See Sec.  404.1520(h) for an exception to 
this rule.) * * *
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  404.1520 by adding a new second sentence to paragraph 
(a)(4), by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(iv), the last 
sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(v), the second sentence of paragraph (f), 
and by adding a new paragraph (h), to read as follows:


Sec.  404.1520  Evaluation of disability in general.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * * See paragraph (h) of this section for an exception to 
this rule. * * *
    (iv) * * * See paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section and Sec.  
404.1560(b).
    (v) * * * See paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section and Sec.  
404.1560(c).
* * * * *
    (f) * * * See paragraph (h) of this section and Sec.  404.1560(b). 
* * *
* * * * *
    (h) Expedited process. If we do not find you disabled at the third 
step, and we do not have sufficient evidence about your past relevant 
work to make a finding at the fourth step, we may proceed to the fifth 
step of the sequential evaluation process. If we find that you can 
adjust to other work based solely on your age, education, and the same 
residual functional capacity assessment we made under paragraph (e) of 
this section, we will find that you are not disabled and will not make 
a finding about whether you can do your past relevant work at the 
fourth step. If we find that you may be unable to adjust to other work 
or if Sec.  404.1562 may apply, we will assess your claim at the fourth 
step and make a finding about whether you can perform your past 
relevant work. See paragraph (g) of this section and Sec.  404.1560(c).

0
4. In Sec.  404.1527(e)(1)(ii), remove ``paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 
section'' and add in its place ``paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section''.
0
5. Amend Sec.  404.1545 by revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(a)(5)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  404.1545  Your residual functional capacity.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) If we find that you cannot do your past relevant work, you do 
not have any past relevant work, or if we use the procedures in Sec.  
404.1520(h) and Sec.  404.1562 does not apply, we will use the same 
assessment of your residual functional capacity at step five of the 
sequential evaluation process to decide if you can adjust to any other 
work that exists in the national economy. * * *
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  404.1560 by adding a second sentence to paragraph (b) 
and revising the first two sentences of paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  404.1560  When we will consider your vocational background.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * See Sec.  404.1520(h) for an exception to this rule.
* * * * *
    (c) Other work. (1) If we find that your residual functional 
capacity does not enable you to do any of your past relevant work or if 
we use the procedures in Sec.  404.1520(h), we will use the same 
residual functional capacity assessment when we decide if you can 
adjust to any other work. We will look at your ability to adjust to 
other work by considering your residual functional capacity and the 
vocational factors of age, education, and work experience, as 
appropriate in your case. (See Sec.  404.1520(h) for an exception to 
this rule.) * * *
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  404.1565 by revising the second sentence of paragraph 
(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  404.1565  Your work experience as a vocational factor.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * If you cannot give us all of the information we need, we 
may try, with your permission, to get it from your employer or other 
person who knows about your work, such as a member of your family or a 
co-worker. * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  404.1569 by revising the third sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  404.1569  Listing of Medical-Vocational Guidelines in appendix 2.

    * * * We apply these rules in cases where a person is not doing 
substantial gainful activity and is prevented by a severe medically 
determinable

[[Page 43495]]

impairment from doing vocationally relevant past work. (See Sec.  
404.1520(h) for an exception to this rule.) * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  404.1594 by revising paragraph (f)(8) and adding a new 
paragraph (f)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  404.1594  How we will determine whether your disability continues 
or ends.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (8) If you are not able to do work you have done in the past, we 
will consider whether you can do other work given the residual 
functional capacity assessment made under paragraph (f)(7) of this 
section and your age, education, and past work experience (see 
paragraph (f)(9) of this section for an exception to this rule). If you 
can, we will find that your disability has ended. If you cannot, we 
will find that your disability continues.
    (9) We may proceed to the final step, described in paragraph (f)(8) 
of this section, if the evidence in your file about your past relevant 
work is not sufficient for us to make a finding under paragraph (f)(7) 
of this section about whether you can perform your past relevant work. 
If we find that you can adjust to other work based solely on your age, 
education, and residual functional capacity, we will find that you are 
no longer disabled, and we will not make a finding about whether you 
can do your past relevant work under paragraph (f)(7) of this section. 
If we find that you may be unable to adjust to other work or if Sec.  
404.1562 may apply, we will assess your claim under paragraph (f)(7) of 
this section and make a finding about whether you can perform your past 
relevant work.
* * * * *

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

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
10. The authority citation for subpart I of part 416 continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority:  Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), 
(c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and 
(p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 
98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 
note, and 1382h note).

0
11. Amend Sec.  416.905 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  416.905  Basic definition of disability for adults.

    (a) * * * If we find that you cannot do your past relevant work, we 
will use the same residual functional capacity assessment and your 
vocational factors of age, education, and work experience to determine 
if you can do other work. (See Sec.  416.920(h) for an exception to 
this rule.)
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  416.920 by adding a new second sentence to paragraph 
(a)(4), by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(iv), the last 
sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(v), the second sentence of paragraph (f), 
and by adding a new paragraph (h), to read as follows:


Sec.  416.920  Evaluation of disability of adults, in general.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * * See paragraph (h) of this section for an exception to 
this rule. * * *
    (iv) * * * See paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section and Sec.  
416.960(b).
    (v) * * * See paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section and Sec.  
416.960(c).
* * * * *
    (f) * * * See paragraph (h) of this section and Sec.  416.960(b). * 
* *
* * * * *
    (h) Expedited process. If we do not find you disabled at the third 
step, and we do not have sufficient evidence about your past relevant 
work to make a finding at the fourth step, we may proceed to the fifth 
step of the sequential evaluation process. If we find that you can 
adjust to other work based solely on your age, education, and the same 
residual functional capacity assessment we made under paragraph (e) of 
this section, we will find that you are not disabled and will not make 
a finding about whether you can do your past relevant work at the 
fourth step. If we find that you may be unable to adjust to other work 
or if Sec.  416.962 may apply, we will assess your claim at the fourth 
step and make a finding about whether you can perform your past 
relevant work. See paragraph (g) of this section and Sec.  416.960(c).

0
13. In Sec.  416.927(e)(1)(ii), remove ``paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 
section'' and add in its place ``paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section''.

0
14. Amend Sec.  416.945 by revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(a)(5)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.945  Your residual functional capacity.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) If we find that you cannot do your past relevant work, you do 
not have any past relevant work, or if we use the procedures in Sec.  
416.920(h) and Sec.  416.962 does not apply, we will use the same 
assessment of your residual functional capacity at step five of the 
sequential evaluation process to decide if you can adjust to any other 
work that exists in the national economy.
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  416.960 by adding a second sentence to paragraph (b) 
and revising the first two sentences of paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  416.960  When we will consider your vocational background.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * See Sec.  416.920(h) for an exception to this rule.
* * * * *
    (c) Other work. (1) If we find that your residual functional 
capacity does not enable you to do any of your past relevant work or if 
we use the procedures in Sec.  416.920(h), we will use the same 
residual functional capacity assessment when we decide if you can 
adjust to any other work. We will look at your ability to adjust to 
other work by considering your residual functional capacity and the 
vocational factors of age, education, and work experience, as 
appropriate in your case. (See Sec.  416.920(h) for an exception to 
this rule.) * * *
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  416.965 by revising the second sentence of paragraph 
(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.965  Your work experience as a vocational factor.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * If you cannot give us all of the information we need, we 
may try, with your permission, to get it from your employer or other 
person who knows about your work, such as a member of your family or a 
co-worker. * * *

0
17. Amend Sec.  416.969 by revising the third sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  416.969  Listing of Medical-Vocational Guidelines in appendix 2 
of subpart P of part 404 of this chapter.

    * * * We apply these rules in cases where a person is not doing 
substantial gainful activity and is prevented by a severe medically 
determinable impairment from doing vocationally relevant past work. 
(See Sec.  416.920(h) for an exception to this rule.) * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  416.987 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) 
to read as follows:

[[Page 43496]]

Sec.  416.987  Disability redeterminations for individuals who attain 
age 18.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * When we redetermine your eligibility, we will use the 
rules for adults (individuals age 18 or older) who file new 
applications explained in Sec.  416.920(c) through (h). * * *
* * * * *

0
19. Amend Sec.  416.994 by revising paragraph (b)(5)(vii) and adding a 
new paragraph (b)(5)(viii) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.994  How we will determine whether your disability continues 
or ends, disabled adults.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (vii) Step 7. If you are not able to do work you have done in the 
past, we will consider whether you can do other work given the residual 
functional capacity assessment made under paragraph (b)(5)(vi) of this 
section and your age, education, and past work experience (see 
paragraph (b)(5)(viii) of this section for an exception to this rule). 
If you can, we will find that your disability has ended. If you cannot, 
we will find that your disability continues.
    (viii) Step 8. We may proceed to the final step, described in 
paragraph (b)(5)(vii) of this section, if the evidence in your file 
about your past relevant work is not sufficient for us to make a 
finding under paragraph (b)(5)(vi) of this section about whether you 
can perform your past relevant work. If we find that you can adjust to 
other work based solely on your age, education, and residual functional 
capacity, we will find that you are no longer disabled, and we will not 
make a finding about whether you can do your past relevant work under 
paragraph (b)(5)(vi) of this section. If we find that you may be unable 
to adjust to other work or if Sec.  416.962 may apply, we will assess 
your claim under paragraph (b)(5)(vi) of this section and make a 
finding about whether you can perform your past relevant work.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-17934 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P