SSA Proposes Rule to Make Applying for SSN Easier

by Elisabeth Ulmer

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) seeks comment on its proposed rule to modify its regulations so that, in addition to submitting the required evidence, Social Security number (“SSN”) applicants may complete a “prescribed application,” instead of a paper Form SS-5, “Application for a Social Security Card”).  The suggested changes are intended to make applying for a SSN easier and to make way for the online application process currently being designed.

Of all the services offered at the SSA, the application for a Social Security card is one of the most commonly used.  In 2013, the SSA reported receiving 10 million replacement SSN card applications.  When someone desires to find a job, record wages, collect Social Security benefits, or apply for many other government services, he or she must have a SSN.  Even banks and credit companies will often ask for it.

Persons who wish to apply for a SSN have two options (both of which currently require hard copies of supporting documentary evidence).  They can fill out Form SS-5 and either mail or hand-deliver it to their local field office or a Social Security Card Center.  Alternatively, the applicant can visit a SSA office and ask a representative to file, on his or her behalf, an application through the electronic Social Security Number Application Process.  However, the paper-based application process is too time-consuming for the large number of applications that the SSA receives.  As seen in 2013, millions of applications are filed, and it takes about 14 minutes to process each one.

Thus, with the assistance of recent technological advances, the SSA is developing an online application for certain eligible individuals, such as adult U.S. citizens whose records do not need any changes in name, birth date, etc.  Users of the online application would need to register through the my Social Security portal and possess both a U.S. mailing address and a valid U.S. state-issued driver's license or U.S. state-issued ID.

The SSA says that this new option will allow it “to provide expanded service options that meet the varied needs of the public in a cost-efficient and environmentally responsible way.”  The online application would streamline the process of obtaining a replacement SSN for both applicants and the SSA.  Applicants would not need to mail the application or visit a SSA office, and SSA would be able to process applications more quickly.  Nevertheless, the SSA emphasizes that this new option will not compromise the security and integrity of the application process.

Aside from discussing the forthcoming electronic SSN application in its proposed rule, the SSA also mentions four other changes with respect to applying for a SSN.  First, because of the new online option, the SSA would like to remove from 20 CFR 422.103 and 422.110 the requirement that applicants for a replacement SSN card “must file an application at any Social Security office.”

Second, because the electronic application will not require applicants to complete a Form SS-5, the SSA plans to delete references to this paper form and, where necessary, replace them with the term, “prescribed application.”  It will refer to either a paper-based or electronic application.  Third, in order to establish eligibility and identity when someone applies for an original or replacement SSN card, 20 CFR 422.107 states that he or she must provide “documentary” evidence.  The SSA proposes to eliminate this identifier so that applicants may submit other types of evidence.

Finally, in 2003, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security replaced the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was divided into Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.  Accordingly, in section 422.107(e)(1), the SSA plans to replace references to “Immigration and Naturalization Service” with “Department of Homeland Security.”

Comments on this proposed rule are due on April 27, 2015.  Interested parties are invited to submit comments by any of the following methods:

• Submitting comments electronically on the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov 
• Faxing comments to (410) 966-2830 
• Mail your comments to the Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, 3100 West High Rise Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401

The SSA cautions commenters not to include any personal information, such as Social Security numbers or medical information.

All comments should include Docket No. SSA-2014-0042.

FDA and EPA Seek Comment on Revising Fish Consumption Advice

by Elisabeth Ulmer

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) jointly seek comment on the substance and structure of their updated advice regarding the safety of eating fish.  This draft update will include “both advice and supplemental questions and answers for those who want to understand the advice in greater detail.”

In 2004, the FDA and EPA released a document named, “What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish,” to assist the public in reaping the health benefits of eating fish, while reducing mercury exposure.  Fish (which includes both fish and shellfish) contain protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and many micronutrients, and are low in saturated fat, but they also contain methylmercury, a form of mercury that can harm the central nervous system and the developing brain of fetuses.

The FDA and EPA now propose to update this 2004 advice in order to align it with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010.”  The FDA drafted its assessment in 2009 and recently modified it after receiving comments and advice from peer reviewers, the public, and federal agencies, including the EPA.  Although these recommendations are directed toward a target audience of women who are pregnant, may become pregnant, or are breastfeeding, this information is intended for the public at large as well.

The updated advice from FDA and EPA includes the following four recommendations for the target audience.  First, these women should consume at least 8 and up to 12 ounces (2 or 3 servings) per week “of a variety of fish lower in mercury within their calorie needs.”  Second, they should avoid tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico, shark, swordfish, and king mackerel because these four fish contain the highest mercury concentrations.  Third, they should eat no more than 6 ounces of white (albacore) tuna per week.

Fourth, as the 2004 FDA guidelines advised, those who eat local fish caught by family and friends should follow “locally posted fish advisories regarding safe catch.”  Although the amount of mercury in local waters is unknown, the levels tend to be higher in local fish than in commercially available fish.  In the absence of such advisories, consumers of locally caught fish should eat no more than 6 ounces per week and refrain from consuming any other fish in the same week.  In addition, given the continued development of their nervous systems, the FDA and EPA recommend that children eat less fish than adult women.

Furthermore, the FDA and EPA wish to solicit comments regarding ways to change the substance and structure of their updated advice in order to make the recommendations “both understandable and influential.”  The agencies also invite comment regarding whether to add orange roughy and marlin to the list of fish that both young children and the target audience of women who are pregnant, may become pregnant, or are breastfeeding should avoid.  These two fish contain less mercury than the aforementioned four fish that the target audience should avoid, but orange roughy and marlin contain more mercury than “nearly all other commercial fish” and “can be unusually low in omega-3 fatty acids.”  Thus, their benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Finally, the FDA and EPA seek public comment on the following:

1. Whether the final updated advice should track the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 more or less closely than the draft of that updated advice now does.

2. Any new science that has become available since the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 were issued that would be relevant to the updated advice.

3. Information upon which to base advice on young children's fish consumption. There have been a number of studies that have examined the effects of both postnatal exposure to mercury as well as postnatal fish consumption by young children, but this research has not been as extensive as the research on prenatal exposures and maternal fish consumption.

4. As stated previously, suggestions for improving the clarity and utility of the advice.

5. How to integrate advice from local advisories for those who consume fish from local streams, rivers, and lakes.

In addition to inviting comments, the FDA and EPA will hold a public meeting, in which the FDA Advisory Committee on Risk Communication will offer its thoughts on the updated advice.  The agencies will also publish information in the Federal Register about other public meetings that they plan to host around the country.

The comment period will close 30 days after the transcripts of the aforementioned meetings are published. The closure date will be published in a Federal Register notice.  Interested parties are invited to submit comments by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov 
• Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852

The FDA will share with EPA all of the comments that it receives.

USPTO Seeks Public Input on Proposed Patent Quality Changes

by Shannon Allen

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) seeks input from the public to provide guidance regarding enhancing patent quality.  The USPTO is making efforts to improve patent operations and procedures to provide the best work products, to enhance customer experience, and to improve existing quality metrics.  Thus, the USPTO is introducing a comprehensive and enhanced quality initiative.  This initiative starts with an invitation for public input on USPTO’s proposals and continues with a two-day “Quality Summit” with the public to discuss the proposals.  Through this interactive and long-term partnership with the public, the USPTO strives to ensure the issuance of the best quality patents and provide the best customer service possible.

A robust patent system cultivates the innovation that drives economic growth and the creation of employment opportunities.  The promotion of that kind of innovation requires that issued patents fully comply with . . . statutory requirements and, . . . that the patent examination process advance quickly, transparently, and accurately. High quality patents promote certainty and clarity of rights, and that sparks necessary innovation.  To this end, the USPTO is launching a new, wide-ranging initiative to enhance the quality of patents issued.  The purpose of the USPTO’s proposals is to stimulate the public's thinking on the larger topic of patent quality, and to focus the discussion at the Quality Summit to a limited number of concrete proposals.

The USPTO begins this enhanced patent quality initiative, by focusing on three aspects of patent quality, called the “patent quality pillars.”  In addition, the USPTO has developed six proposals for enhanced patent quality within these pillars:

• Pillar One: Excellence in work products, in the form of issued patents and Office actions. Focuses on the quality of work products provided at every stage of the patent process, including both quality of issued patents and quality of all work products during the filing, examination, and issuance process.  USPTO Proposals - 1) Applicant Requests for Prosecution Review of Selected Applications; 2) Automated Pre-Examination Search; and 3) Clarity of the Record 
• Pillar Two: Excellence in measuring patent quality, including appropriate quality metrics.  Focuses on measurement of quality to evaluate work products and customer interactions. USPTO Proposal - Review of and Improvements to Quality Metrics 
• Pillar Three: Excellence in customer service. Focuses on quality customer experience, including treating customers promptly, fairly, consistently, and professionally at all stages of the examination process.  USPTO Proposal – 1) Review of Current Compact Prosecution Model and the Effect on Quality and 2) In-Person Interview Capability with All Examiners

The USPTO seeks to improve general aspects of quality, to issue higher quality patents, and invites feedback regarding the following questions.

1. Are there aspects of enhanced quality other than the three “pillars” previously described that should guide the USPTO's enhanced quality initiative? 
2. Are there any new or necessary changes to existing procedures that the USPTO should consider to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the examination process? 
3. What should be included at the time of application filing in order to enhance patent quality?

The USPTO welcomes additional public input that may lead to the issuance of higher quality patents.  In addition to written comments, interested parties are invited to attend the two-day Quality Summit on March 25 and 26, 2015 in the Madison Building, USPTO Headquarters, in Alexandria, Virginia.  The following information should be included with written comments: (1) the name and affiliation of the individual responding; and (2) an indication of whether comments offered represent views of the respondent's organization or are the respondent's personal views.  Written comments must be received on or before May 6, 2015 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Electronic mail message to: [preferred] WorldClassPatentQuality@uspto.gov. 
• Postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Michael Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.

Despite Flurry of New Rulemakings, DOL Continues Retrospective Review

by Lynn White

On February 3, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Request for Information (RFI) on “how the Department can increase the effectiveness of its significant regulations while minimizing the burden on regulated entities.”  The RFI is a continuation of the agency’s efforts to comply with President Obama’s Executive Order 13563, which requires agencies to review existing regulations to determine whether they “may be made more effective or less burdensome.”  DOL published an RFI on March 21, 2011 requesting information to help the agency develop the Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules it published on May 20, 2011.  After gathering additional public input, the agency published its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules in August 2011. 

DOL seeks comments from the regulated community, academia and public on how it can “prepare workers for better jobs, improve workplace safety and health, promote fair and high-quality work environments, and secure a wide range of benefits for employees and those who are seeking work, all in ways that are more effective and least burdensome.”  The agency is specifically requesting information on the following:

• What regulations should be considered for review or modification? 
• What reporting requirements and information collections can be streamlined? 
• What regulatory reforms may require short-term cost increases, while providing long term savings? 
• How should the Department capture information about changes in firm and market behavior in response to a regulation? 
• What should the agency review to determine estimated costs and benefits of existing regulations? 
• What information would help better assess the long-term impact of regulatory reforms on important protections?

Stakeholders have until February 25, 2015 to submit comments. 

The RFI comes at a time when several programs in DOL have embarked on unprecedented regulatory agendas.  The agency’s Fall 2014 Regulatory Agenda has dozens of rules listed that are in the proposed or final rule stage.  The DOL Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which enforces equal employment opportunity requirements for federal contractors, alone has five rulemakings listed, including a proposal to revise the program’s sex discrimination guidelines that is currently open for public comment.  OFCCP also recently finalized three rulemakings, two that drastically changed federal contractor affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements for veterans and individuals with disabilities and another prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Needless to say, while DOL’s efforts to conduct a retrospective review of existing rules are admirable, many stakeholders are still trying to determine the impact of the flood of new regulations and proposals.  At a minimum, DOL should extend the comment period to allow the public to meaningfully consider the questions the agency presented and provide adequate feedback.