dissenting,
with whom Judges SLOVITER and ROTH join.As the majority notes, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Pauline Thomas had the “residual functional capacity to perform at least light work and, therefore, she could perform her past relevant work as an elevator operator.” Maj. Op. at 570. Under the statutory framework, that finding dictated a determination that Thomas was not disabled. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s view to the contrary and believe its reasoning to be flawed in six ways.
First, the statutory language permits no other conclusion than that Thomas was disabled. It requires that disability be based on an initial finding that an individual is “unable to do his previous work.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). If that condition is met, then the ALJ is to look into the ability to engage in “any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Id. The majority concludes that the second condition’s reference to gainful employment existing in the national economy must be engrafted upon the perfectly clear first requirement, thus rewriting the statute. The majority’s holding so states: “We hold that, for the purposes of Step Four of the evaluation process, a claimant’s previous work must be substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” Maj. Op. at 572. However, the statutory scheme clearly mandates that since Pauline Thomas is *577able to perform an elevator operator’s work, found to be light work, she is not disabled as a matter of law.
Second, by the majority’s own admission, Step Four requires the Commissioner to decide whether the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e) (Maj. Op. at 571). Step Four is not an inquiry into employability or employment opportunity, but, rather, it is an inquiry into physical capacity. See Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1204 (4th Cir.1995) (“Past relevant work in the regulatory scheme is a gauge by which to measure the physical and mental capabilities of an individual and the activities that he or she is able to perform.”); see also Social Security Ruling 82-61 (explaining that past relevant work is considered for the purpose of determining whether the claimant has the “capacity [] to perform the physical and mental demands of the kind of work he or she has done in the past”). Pauline Thomas has been found to have the physical capacity to perform the job of elevator operator, con-cededly her past relevant work. That determination ends the inquiry.
Third, it is not until Step Five that vocational factors (i.e., ability to access other gainful work) are considered. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). Again, the majority notes this. But the majority fails to note that its interpretation of the statute would make vocational concerns, and the need for experts, part of Step Four as well. It would, and will, wreak havoc with the evidentiary aspects of the administrative process.1 This represents a radical change in the regulatory scheme.
Fourth, the majority states that “there is no plausible reason why Congress might have wanted to deny benefits” to someone in Pauline Thomas’s position — “an otherwise qualified person, although unable to perform any job that actually exits in the national economy, could perform a previous job that no longer exist.” Maj. Op. at 573.1 take issue with that assertion, thinking it quite plausible that Congress decided that if a claimant still retained the physical and mental capacity to do whatever work she previously did, the inquiry should end there with a finding that claimant is not disabled. Previous work essentially serves as a proxy for the ability to perform work, not as proof that the claimant can be employed in that particular job. Congress may not, in fact, have considered the problem of job obsolescence, but, contrary to what Judge Posner suggests in Kolman v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 212 (7th Cir.1991), it is not up to the courts to fill that alleged legislative void. Further, the absence of any particular vocation is not really a void at Step Four, given that the statutory scheme limits the inquiry into ability and does not permit consideration of matters other than the demands of the previous job.
Fifth, the statute, read according to its plain meaning, is quite consistent with the regulations as promulgated. Yet the majority, having contorted the statutory language and rejected its literal meaning, *578then finds it must similarly reject a “mechanical” reading of the regulations. But in so doing it fails to state how the regulations can possibly be read any other way; Steps Four and Five are quite clear. In fact, the majority’s decision to reject the regulatory scheme of Steps Four and Five as outlined in the regulations is unprecedented. Nor does the majority seek to justify its reasoning based on its unwillingness to defer to the Agency’s authority to regulate. Indeed, that would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Barnhart v. Walton, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1265, 152 L.Ed.2d 330 (2002), which instructs, addressing specifically a Social Security Administration interpretation:
[I]f the statute speaks clearly “to the precise question at issue,” we “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” If, however, the statute “is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, we must sustain the Agency’s interpretation if it is ‘based on a permissible construction’ ” of the Act.
Id. at 1269 (quoting Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)).
In Walton, the Supreme Court found that 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) was ambiguous and concluded that the Social Security Administration’s interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the Statute were reasonable, and therefore permissible. Id. at 1270-73.. The Court explained: “The [Social Security Act’s] complexity, the vast number of claims that it engenders, and the consequent need for agency expertise and administrative experience lead us to read the statute as delegating to the Agency considerable authority to fill in, through interpretation, matters of detail related to its administration.” Id. at 1273. Here, one can only conclude that if the majority’s position is credited, the statute is at best ambiguous. Accordingly, the Agency’s interpretation should be accorded great weight. And, here, not only has the Agency spoken in formal regulatory terms, it has also issued “Program Policy Statements” regarding this very issue. In addressing the issue of whether previous work in a foreign country should be considered past relevant work, the Agency warned that requiring the existence of similar jobs in the United States would improperly “elevate[ ] an element of the fifth step of the sequential evaluation process, availability of work in the national economy, to the fourth step which only deals with the claimant’s ability to do his or her past work.” Social Security Ruling 82^0. See also Social Security Ruling 82-61 (noting “the intent of Congress that there be a clear distinction between disability benefits and unemployment benefits”); Social Security Ruling 82-62 (explaining that past relevant work is considered in order to determine whether the claimant is able to perform “the functional activities required in [that] work”). Therefore, the majority has erred by failing to consider the Agency's view of the statutory language and scheme.
Sixth, I believe that other courts have distinguished the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Kol-man, on which the majority relies, and I submit that it should not be the linchpin here. Unlike the majority, I find the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200 (4th Cir.1995), to be well-reasoned and persuasive.2 In Pass, the court concluded *579that although the applicant’s previous job as a gate guard may not exist in the national economy it is still considered as past relevant work because the focus of Step Four is the claimant’s physical and mental capabilities. Id. at 1207. Also, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit seems to have retreated from Kolman somewhat in Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309 (7th Cir.1995), where it distinguished the facts of the case before it on the grounds that the claimant’s job as a keypunch operator-clerk was not “makeshift” or “temporary.” Id. at 315.3
Admittedly, Pauline Thomas’s situation has visceral appeal because of the perceived low level of exertion required to perform her former work and the obsolescence of her former job. However, the point at Step Four is not that she can actually be employed in her past job, but that she is able to do a certain level of work. If Congress and the regulatory body charged with implementing the statutory scheme have determined that Pauline Thomas should not be considered “disabled” if she still has the ability, physically and mentally, to do what she had previously done, are we entitled to graft additional requirements on the statutory and regulatory scheme? While we might like to do so, or think it somehow makes sense to do so, we cannot provide a remedy where Congress and the Agency have not. It is for Congress to alter the statute, if indeed it believes that the statutory scheme, and specifically Step Four, should be altered in such a way as to deal with the issue of job obsolescence.
. The claimant carries the burden until Step Five. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987). At Step Five "[t]he ALJ must show there are other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy which the claimant can perform, consistent with her medical impairments, age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity.... The ALJ will often seek the assistance of a vocational expert at this fifth step.” Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 428 (3d Cir.1999) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court explained: "This allocation of burdens of proof is well within the Secretary's ‘exceptionally broad authority’ under the statute.” Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2287 (quoting Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U.S. 34, 43, 101 S.Ct. 2633, 69 L.Ed.2d 460 (1981)).
. The majority summarily disposes of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Pass, as well as the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's reasoning in Rater v. Chater, 73 F.3d 796 (8th Cir.1996), on the grounds that they "rely primarily on the Social Security regulations and on Social Secu*579rity rulings.” Maj. Op. at 575. While I disagree with this characterization, even if it is true, this is hardly an indictment. As the Supreme Court has explained: ”[T]he fact that the Agency previously reached its interpretation through means less formal than 'notice and comment' rulemaking, see 5 U.S.C. § 553, does not automatically deprive that interpretation of the judicial deference otherwise its due.” Walton, 122 S.Ct. at 1271. Therefore, the courts’ consideration of regulations and rulings does not undermine the persuasiveness of their decisions.
. In support of its claim that the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit "has neither implemented nor disavowed” its dicta in Kol-man, the majority says that in Knight the court "did not reach the claimant’s argument about her now-extinct previous job.” Maj. Op. at 575 n. 6. While it may not have conducted an in depth analysis of her argument, it did specifically rule out the applicability of its Kolman reasoning when it could have expanded its reach: "Ms. Knight’s former job as a keypunch operator-clerk was neither a temporary nor training job. Therefore, Kolman does not apply here.” Knight, 55 F.3d at 315.