Mandatory Online Appeals Coming?

Social Security requested approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the following item last Friday:

AGENCY: SSA	RIN: 0960-AH31
TITLE: Mandatory Use of Electronic Services (3707F)
STAGE: Final Rule	ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 07/01/2011	LEGAL DEADLINE: None

Note that this is a "final rule" rather than a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM). This means that if OMB approves it, there will be no further opportunity to comment before it becomes final. Normally, agencies have to go through the NPRM process to adopt rules. The NPRM process allows comments which the agency must consider. When was there an NPRM on "mandatory use of electronic services"? There wasn't one by that name but there was the "Revisions to Rules on Representation" NPRM in 2008 which would have recognized law firms, corporations and other entities as representing Social Security claimants. That included "mandatory use of electronic process." That NPRM drew many negative comments since the part concerning recognition of entities as representing Social Security claimants was widely considered to be confused and unworkable. That never seemed like a problem that would be impossible to sort out so everyone thought at the time that Social Security would just redo the NPRM to make it workable. However, nothing has happened since. No one at Social Security has given any explanation that I know of. It now appears that Social Security has decided to just go ahead with requiring attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants to file appeals -- and possibly claims -- online.

I wish that Social Security's electronic systems worked better. At the moment, it is not unusual to find it impossible to file an appeal online. The system simply will not allow it. I also have a general feeling of a lack of reciprocity. Social Security wants to solve a problem it has by forcing attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants to file appeals electronically but it walks away after it gets criticized for presenting an unworkable solution to a problem that those representing Social Security claimants have.