Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 45181 

Group, Western Service Center, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; 

telephone (425) 203–4537. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History 

On May 19, 2011, the FAA published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to amend 

controlled airspace at Alturas, CA (76 

FR 28915). Interested parties were 

invited to participate in this rulemaking 

effort by submitting written comments 

on the proposal to the FAA. No 

comments were received. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005, of FAA 

Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, 

and effective September 15, 2010, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

Part 71.1. The Class E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

will be published subsequently in that 

Order. 

The Rule 

This action amends Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by 

creating additional Class E surface 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface, at Alturas, CA, to 

accommodate IFR aircraft executing 

RNAV (GPS) standard instrument 

approach procedures at the airport. This 

action is necessary for the safety and 

management of IFR operations. 

The FAA has determined this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified this rule, when promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the criteria of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA’s 

authority to issue rules regarding 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 

discusses the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, Part 

A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it establishes 

additional controlled airspace at Alturas 

Municipal Airport, Alturas, CA. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, and 

effective September 15, 2010 is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E5 Alturas, CA [Modified] 

Alturas Municipal Airport, CA 

(Lat. 41°28′59′′ N., long. 120°33′55′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface beginning at lat. 

41°34′00′′ N., long. 120°46′24′′ W.; to lat. 

41°36′50′′ N., long. 120°30′19′′ W.; to lat. 

41°14′20′′ N., long. 120°23′49′′ W.; to lat. 

41°11′35′′ N., long. 120°39′34′′ W., thence to 

the point of beginning. That airspace 

extending upward from 1,200 feet above the 

surface beginning at lat. 41°31′00′′ N., long. 

121°02′00′′ W.; to lat. 41°41′00′′ N., long. 

120°41′04′′ W.; to lat. 41°41′00′′ N., long. 

120°20′00′′ W.; to lat. 41°14′00′′ N., long. 

120°15′00′′ W., to lat. 41°02′00′′ N., long. 

120°39′30′′ W.; to lat. 41°05′00′′ N., long. 

121°03′00′′ W.; to lat. 41°22′00′′ N., long. 

121°15′00′′ W., thence to the point of 

beginning. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 19, 

2011. 

John Warner, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18949 Filed 7–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 244, 250, 253, 259 and 

399 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0140] 

RIN No. 2105–AD92 

Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections: Limited Delay of Effective 

Date for Certain Provisions 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final Rule, limited extension of 

effective date for certain provisions. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is delaying the effective 

date for certain requirements adopted in 

an April 25, 2011 final rule on 

enhancing airline passenger protections. 

Specifically, the Department is delaying 

the effective date from August 23, 2011 

to January 24, 2012, for requirements 

pertaining to baggage fees, post 

purchase price increases, flight status 

changes and holding a reservation 

without payment for twenty-four hours. 

The Department is also delaying the 

effective date from October 24, 2011 to 

January 24, 2012 for requirements 

pertaining to full fare advertising. The 

effective date remains August 23, 2011 

for all the other requirements in the 

April 25, 2011 final rule, including the 

requirement not to permit an 

international flight to remain on the 

tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than 

four hours without allowing passengers 

to deplane, the requirement increasing 

the denied boarding compensation 

airlines must pay to passengers bumped 

from flights, and the requirement to 

disclose prominently all fees for 

optional aviation services on carriers’ 

Web sites. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 28, 

2011. The effective date of the final rule 

published at 76 FR 23110, April 25, 

2011, continues to be August 23, 2011, 

except for the amendments relating to 

14 CFR 399.84, 399.85(b) and (c), 

399.87, 399.88, 399.89, 259.8, and 

259.5(b)(4) which become effective on 

January 24, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Blane A. Workie, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel, Office of the Assistant 

General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 

20590, 202–366–9342 (phone), 202– 

366–7152 (fax), blane.workie@dot.gov 

(e-mail). 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
45182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

25, 2011, the Department of 

Transportation published a final rule in 

the Federal Register (76 FR 23110), 

titled ‘‘Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections,’’ containing many new 

requirements to improve the air travel 

environment for consumers, expanding 

upon the improved passenger rights 

included in a rule published on 

December 30, 2009. More specifically, 

the April 25, 2011, rule (1) Increases the 

number of carriers that are required to 

adopt tarmac delay contingency plans 

and includes additional airports at 

which they must adhere to the plan’s 

terms; (2) increases the number of 

carriers that are required to report 

tarmac delay information to the 

Department; (3) expands the group of 

carriers that are required to adopt, 

follow, and audit customer service plans 

and establishes minimum standards for 

the subjects all carriers must cover in 

such plans; (4) adds carriers to those 

required to include their contingency 

plans and customer service plans on 

their Web sites; (5) increases the number 

of carriers that must respond to 

consumer complaints; (6) enhances 

protections afforded passengers in 

oversales situations, including 

increasing the denied boarding 

compensation airlines must pay to 

passengers bumped from flights; (7) 

strengthens, clarifies and codifies the 

Department’s enforcement policies 

concerning air transportation price 

advertising practices; (8) requires 

carriers to notify consumers of optional 

fees related to air transportation and of 

increases in baggage fees; (9) prohibits 

post-purchase price increases; (10) 

requires carriers to provide passengers 

timely notice of flight status changes 

such as delays and cancellations; and 

(11) prohibits carriers from imposing 

unfair contract of carriage choice-offorum provisions. As published, the 

effective date of the rule is August 23, 

2011, except for the full fare advertising 

amendments which become effective on 

October 24, 2011. 

We received requests from U.S. carrier 

associations, foreign carrier associations 

and a travel agent association to delay 

the effective date of certain provisions 

in this rule. The Air Transport 

Association of America (ATA), the 

Regional Airline Association (RAA) and 

the Air Carrier Association of America 

(ACAA) requested that the Department 

of Transportation delay by 180 days the 

compliance time for the full fare 

advertising amendments in 14 CFR 

399.84, the denied boarding 

compensation amendments in 14 CFR 

part 250, the requirement to disclose 

baggage fees in e-ticket confirmations in 

14 CFR 399.85(c), and the requirement 

in 14 CFR 399.87 for the same baggage 

allowances and fees to apply to a 

passenger throughout an itinerary. 

These U.S. carrier associations state that 

they have limited their request to the 

four provisions that require deployment 

of additional IT resources, development 

of new protocols and the training of 

many employees. The National Air 

Carrier Association (NACA) joined the 

request to delay the effective date and 

stated that it also believes compliance 

cannot be achieved within the time 

contemplated by the regulation without 

undue cost to the airlines and confusion 

to the traveling public. 

According to the U.S. carrier 

associations, it will take more than the 

time allotted by the final rule to comply 

with the amendments to the denied 

boarding compensation rule because of 

the need to make additional systems 

and programming changes and the need 

to ensure the appropriate offices and 

employees are aware of and trained on 

the changes to this rule. The carrier 

associations also ask for additional time 

to comply with the requirement to 

disclose baggage fees in e-ticket 

confirmations if detailed baggage fee 

information individualized to a 

particular passenger is required and if 

the notice of applicable baggage 

information must be in text form and a 

hyperlink is not allowed. In addition, 

the U.S. carrier associations assert that 

it is not possible to comply with the 

requirement to apply the same baggage 

allowances and fees to a passenger 

throughout an itinerary without an 

additional 180 days as no central 

repository for carrier baggage policies 

and fees currently exists. They note that 

carriers are working to develop an 

industry solution to comply with this 

requirement but more time is needed. 

The U.S. carrier associations are 

particularly concerned about the full 

fare advertising requirements, which 

they contend they cannot meet by the 

published effective date of October 24, 

2011. They state that this aspect of the 

final rule requires the greatest IT 

investment and that carriers are 

preparing to reprogram and reconfigure 

their online search engines to 

incorporate the new advertising 

requirements but that carriers would 

need at least an additional 180 days to 

create, modify and test these changes. 

The associations ask that the 

Department delay the effective date for 

not only online advertising but also 

print advertising so that consumers 

receive consistent advertising of fares 

through all advertising channels. 

The foreign air carrier associations 

have indicated their strong support of 

the request by the U.S. carrier 

associations and have asked that the 

180-day extension be expanded to cover 

all the requirements being imposed for 

the first time on non-U.S. airlines. These 

associations are the International Air 

Transport Association (IAT), 

Association of Asia Pacific Airlines 

(AAPA), Association of European 

Airlines (AEA), and Latin and Caribbean 

Air Transport Association (ALTA). They 

have stated that they believe 

investments and changes are needed to 

meet the new DOT requirements. They 

also state that the ability of the non-U.S. 

airlines to meet these requirements in a 

timely fashion is impacted by 

constraints on existing operations, 

staffing, IT support, local laws and 

regulations, labor practices and 

resources. 

In addition to the airlines, the 

American Society of Travel Agents 

(ASTA) has requested an extension of 

the effective date of the final rule. ASTA 

requests that the Department delay the 

effective date of the requirement in 

section 399.85(b) to disclose baggage fee 

information on Web sites when a fare 

quotation for a specific itinerary is 

selected by a consumer and the 

requirement in section 399.85(c) to 

disclose baggage fee information on all 

e-ticket confirmations. ASTA’s request 

differs from the requests of the U.S. and 

foreign air carrier associations in that 

ASTA is not requesting a specific 

amount of additional time to implement 

the requirements. Rather, ASTA is 

asking that the Department defer the 

effective date of these two requirements 

until the Department concludes its 

upcoming rulemaking on disclosure of 

fees for ancillary services. ASTA, like 

the U.S. carriers, notes its uncertainty as 

to whether the requirement to provide 

specific information to passengers about 

baggage allowances and baggage fees 

means providing individualized 

information about those matters. ASTA 

also asserts that the two methods the 

rule describes for agents to provide 

baggage information to consumers are 

not feasible. It calls the first method 

(providing a link to an airline Web site) 

‘‘an act of commercial suicide’’ and 

believes the second method (referring 

consumers to its own site if it displays 

airlines’ baggage fees) impractical 

because of the labor cost to achieve it 

initially and to monitor airline Web 

sites constantly for updates. 

In addition to the requests to delay 

the effective date of the rule, we 

received a request from Allegiant Air 

and Spirit Airlines as well as Southwest 

Airlines to postpone or stay the effective 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 45183 

date pending judicial review of various 

provisions in this regulation by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. In June, 

Allegiant and Spirit filed petitions for 

review before that court asserting that 

the rule unlawfully: (1) Ends the 

practice of permitting sellers of air 

transportation to exclude government 

taxes and fees from the advertised price; 

(2) prohibits the sale of nonrefundable 

tickets by requiring airlines to hold 

reservations at the quoted fare without 

payment or cancel without penalty for 

at least twenty-four hours after the 

reservation is made if the reservation is 

made one week or more prior to a 

flight’s departure; (3) prohibits postpurchase price increases, including 

increases in the price of ancillary 

products and services, after the initial 

ticket sale; (4) requires baggage fees to 

be disclosed on e-ticket confirmations; 

and (5) mandates notification of flight 

schedule changes. Spirit’s and 

Allegiant’s request to the Department to 

stay the rule pending judicial review 

covers all the specific provisions that 

are part of the litigation. Southwest is 

requesting that the Department stay the 

effective date of the new full fare 

advertising rule. 

A few other organizations have also 

provided the Department their views on 

the requests to stay the rule and the 

requests to delay the effective date of 

the rule. The Consumer Travel Alliance 

(CTA) has expressed its opposition to 

any delay in implementation of the 

rulemaking. CTA appears particularly 

concerned about requests to delay the 

requirement to disclose baggage fee 

information to consumers. It notes that 

airlines have the means through the 

Airline Tariff Publishing Company 

(ATPCO) to disclose all baggage fee 

information so that both airlines and 

ticket agents can easily disclose baggage 

fee information to consumers. The 

Airports Council International–North 

America (ACI–NA) has also noted its 

concern with the recent filings 

requesting extensions to the effective 

date of the rule but states that it 

recognizes that the Department may 

determine that the implementation date 

for some portions of the regulations may 

need to be delayed. ACI–NA does urge 

the Department to not delay the 

implementation date for U.S. carriers to 

extend their tarmac delay plans to small 

and non-hub airports. 

Similarly, an individual commenter 

who works in the travel industry stated 

that it may be appropriate to delay the 

effective date of certain provisions in 

the final rule such as the full fare 

advertising requirements but expressed 

his strong opposition to the blanket 

request for an extension of the effective 

date of all the consumer protection 

requirements in the rule. This 

individual identified the provisions 

pertaining to denied boarding 

compensation and baggage fees as ones 

that should not be delayed based on his 

belief that airlines can easily comply 

with these provisions and their 

importance to consumers. 

After carefully considering all the 

requests and comments provided, the 

Department has decided to delay the 

effective date of the requirements 

pertaining to full fare advertising 

(section 399.84) by an additional three 

months to January 24, 2012, and delay 

the effective date of certain specific 

requirements pertaining to baggage fees 

(sections 399.85(b) and (c) and 399.87), 

post-purchase price increases (sections 

399.88 and 399.89), flight status 

notifications (section 259.8) and holding 

a reservation without payment (section 

259.5(b)(4)) to the same date. We are 

denying the request of U.S. carrier 

associations to delay the effective date 

of denied boarding compensation 

amendments and the request of the 

foreign carrier associations to delay the 

effective date of the entire rule. 

The Department took a number of 

factors into consideration in deciding to 

delay certain provisions of the rule until 

January 24, 2011, including the fact that 

there are limited objections to the 

requests for an extension of time. We are 

persuaded that additional time is 

needed to comply with the full fare 

advertising amendments as they relate 

to online advertising as they may 

require the deployment of IT resources, 

and to allow maximum flexibility to 

make alterations to Web sites with 

minimal disruption. We also believe 

that we should apply the same effective 

date to print advertising so that 

consumers do not see different 

advertising displays in different media 

which could result in consumer 

confusion. 

With regard to baggage fees, there 

appears to be some confusion regarding 

what the Department meant by the 

requirement in section 399.85 (b) that 

‘‘specific baggage fee information’’ must 

be disclosed on Web sites when a fare 

quotation for a specific itinerary is 

selected by a consumer and by the 

requirement in section 399.85(c) that 

carriers must provide information on all 

e-ticket confirmations regarding the free 

baggage allowance and fee for a carryon bag and the first and second checked 

bag ‘‘as specific charges taking into 

account any factors (e.g., frequent flyer 

status, early purchase, and so forth) that 

affect those charges.’’ We want to clarify 

that the rule does not require passengerspecific information concerning baggage 

allowances and baggage fees on e-ticket 

confirmations or on Web sites providing 

fare quotations. We used the term 

‘‘specific charges’’ to ensure that the 

regulated entities understood that a 

range of fees would not be acceptable 

under the rule. In other words, carriers 

must provide specific information to 

consumers about all the factors that 

cause the fee for a carry-on bag or the 

first and second checked bag to vary so 

passengers can determine for 

themselves the fees that would apply to 

them. For example, it would not be 

sufficient for a carrier to state that the 

fee for the first checked bag ranges from 

$0 to $50. However, it would be 

acceptable if the carrier states that the 

fee for the first checked bag would be 

$0 for its elite frequent flyer passengers 

or those who purchased their ticket with 

a specified credit card, $25 for 

passengers who pay for baggage online, 

and $50 for those passengers who pay 

at the airport. Of course, carriers are free 

to provide individualized baggage 

charge information to passengers but 

this is not required by the rule. 

Although individualized baggage fee 

information is not required by the final 

rule, the Department still sees merit in 

delaying the effective date of the 

requirements in § 399.85(b) and (c) as 

the travel agencies need time to 

determine the method they will use to 

ensure that specific baggage fee 

information is available to their 

consumers. We are also persuaded that 

additional time is needed by the carriers 

as they are not permitted under the rule 

to provide the required notice of 

applicable baggage charges through a 

hyperlink. However, we don’t believe 

that it will be in the best interest of 

consumers to delay the effective date of 

these provisions until the Department 

concludes its rulemaking on disclosure 

of ancillary fees as requested by ASTA. 

With respect to the U.S. carrier 

associations request to delay the 

effective date of the provision requiring 

consistent baggage rules across an entire 

itinerary, the associations have 

adequately demonstrated the difficulties 

in applying the same baggage 

allowances and fees across an itinerary 

when they cannot readily access each 

other’s fee schedules. We are 

encouraged that they are working 

towards an industry solution and have 

provided them additional time so that 

an industry standard can be developed. 

We have also decided to delay the 

effective date of the provisions 

pertaining to post purchase price 

increases, flight status changes and 

holding a reservation without payment 

for twenty-four hours to provide 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
45184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

additional time to overcome any 

technical difficulties in implementing 

the rules. 

In delaying the effective date for these 

requirements, the Department is 

balancing the benefit of having these 

protections in place for consumers as 

soon as practical with the capability of 

airlines to comply with the additional 

requirements being imposed upon them 

in a reasonable timeframe. We believe 

the January 24, 2012, date will provide 

the airlines adequate time to comply 

with the requirements. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Administrative Procedure Act 

Section 553(b) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’) generally 

requires an agency to publish notice of 

a proposed rule making in the Federal 

Register. This requirement does not 

apply, however, if the agency ‘‘for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ Because August 23, 2011 (the 

effective date for the April 2011 final 

rule) is fast approaching, the 

Department finds good cause that this 

action delaying the effective date should 

take effect immediately. Today’s final 

rule makes no substantive changes to 

the rule, but simply delays the effective 

date of certain provisions until January 

24, 2012. 

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Accordingly, this action has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to section 605 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement and 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DOT 

certifies that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This action 

imposes no duties or obligations on 

small entities. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action will not have a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore will 

not have federalism implications. 

E. Executive Order 13084 

This notice has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because the provisions for which we are 

delaying the effective date would not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires 

that DOT consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public and, under the provisions of PRA 

section 3507(d), obtain approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires through regulations. DOT has 

determined that there are no new 

information collection requirements 

associated with this action. The action 

merely postpones the effective date of a 

regulatory provision whose paperwork 

impact has already been analyzed by the 

Department, and consequently no 

additional OMB approval is necessary. 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to this rulemaking. 

Issued this 20th day of July 2011, in 

Washington, DC. 

Susan Kurland, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18903 Filed 7–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2010–0025] 

RIN 0960–AH21 

Revisions to Direct Fee Payment Rules 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Interim final rules with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We are revising our rules to 

implement amendments to the Social 

Security Act (Act) made by the Social 

Security Disability Applicants’ Access 

to Professional Representation Act of 

2010 (PRA). We are making permanent 

the direct fee payment rules for eligible 

non-attorney representatives under titles 

II and XVI of the Act and for attorney 

representatives under title XVI of the 

Act. We also are revising some of our 

eligibility policies for non-attorney 

representatives under titles II and XVI of 

the Act. 

DATES: These rules are effective August 

29, 2011. 

Comment Date: To ensure we 

consider your comments, we must 

receive them by September 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of three methods—Internet, 

fax, or mail. Do not submit the same 

comments multiple times or by more 

than one method. Regardless of which 

method you choose, please state that 

your comments refer to Docket No. 

SSA–2010–0025 so that we may 

associate your comments with the 

correct regulation. 

Caution: You should be careful to 

include in your comments only 

information that you wish to make 

publicly available. We strongly urge you 

not to include in your comments any 

personal information, such as Social 

Security numbers or medical 

information. 

1. Internet: We strongly recommend 

that you submit your comments via the 

Internet. Please visit the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Use the Search 

function to find docket number SSA– 

2010–0025. The system will issue a 

tracking number to confirm your 

submission. You will not be able to 

view your comment immediately 

because we must post each comment 

manually. It may take up to a week for 

your comment to be viewable. 

2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966– 

2830. 

3. Mail: Mail your comments to the 

Office of Regulations, Social Security 

Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21235–6401. 

Comments are available for public 

viewing on the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov or 

in person, during regular business 

hours, by arranging with the contact 

person identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joann S. Anderson, Office of Income 

Security Programs, Social Security 

Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

(410) 965–6716. For information on 

eligibility or filing for benefits, call our 

national toll-free number, 1–800–772– 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES