Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 78235 

revisions to this policy shall be 

consistent with section 15.9 of the 

Compact and undertaken in accordance 

with appropriate public notice and 

comment consistent with the 

requirements of § 808.1. 

(b) Right to protest. A bidder or 

offeror, a prospective bidder or offeror 

or a prospective contractor that is 

aggrieved in connection with the 

solicitation or award of a contract, may 

protest to the Commission in writing. 

(c) Filing of protest. A protestant shall 

file the protest on a form and in a 

manner prescribed by the Commission. 

A protest shall be filed within ten 

calendar days after the aggrieved 

protestant knew or should have known 

of the facts giving rise to the protest, 

except that in no event may a protest be 

filed later than ten calendar days after 

the date the contract was awarded. The 

failure to file a timely protest shall be 

deemed as a waiver of the right to 

protest by any bidder or offeror, 

prospective bidder or offeror or a 

prospective contractor. Untimely filed 

protests shall be disregarded by the 

Commission. The Executive Director or 

his/her designee shall be the presiding 

officer to hear the bid protest. The 

awardee of the contract, if any, will be 

informed by the Commission of any bid 

protest that may affect the contract and 

the awardee may intervene as a party in 

any protest filed. 

(d) Contents of protest. A protest shall 

state all the grounds upon which the 

protestant asserts the solicitation or 

award of the contract was improper. The 

protestant may submit with the protest 

any documents or information it deems 

relevant to the protest. 

(e) Response and reply. Within 15 

calendar days of receipt of a protest, the 

purchasing officer may submit to the 

presiding officer and the protestant a 

response to the protest, including any 

documents or information deemed 

relevant to the protest. The protestant 

may file a reply to the response within 

ten calendar days of the response. 

(f) Evaluation of protest. The 

presiding officer shall review the protest 

and any response or reply and may 

request and review such additional 

documents or information as they deem 

relevant to render a decision and may, 

at their sole discretion, conduct a 

hearing consistent with § 808.3 of this 

chapter. All parties will be provided 

with a reasonable opportunity to review 

and address any additional documents 

or information deemed relevant by the 

presiding officer to render a decision. 

Additional documents and information 

deemed relevant by the presiding officer 

will be included in the record. 

(g) Findings and report. Upon 

completing an evaluation of the protest, 

the presiding officer shall prepare a 

report of their findings and 

recommendations based on the record. 

The report shall be served by electronic 

mail or certified mail upon each party 

to the proceeding. Any party may file 

objections to the report. Such objections 

to the report shall be filed with the 

Commission and served on all parties 

within 20 calendar days after service of 

the report. A brief shall be filed together 

with the objections. Any replies to the 

objections and briefs will be filed and 

served on all parties within ten calendar 

days of service of the objections. Prior 

to its decision on such objections, the 

Commission may, in its sole discretion, 

grant a request for oral argument. 

(h) Action by the Commission. The 

Commission will review the findings 

and recommendations of the presiding 

officer and the objections and render a 

determination. The Commission’s 

determination will be in writing and 

will be served by electronic or certified 

mail upon each party to the proceeding. 

(i) Appeal. Any final action by the 

Commission may be appealed to the 

appropriate United States District Court 

within 90 days as set forth in section 

3.10(6) and Federal reservation (o) of the 

Compact. 

(j) Record of determination. The 

Commission’s record of determination 

for review by the court shall consist of 

the solicitation; the contract, if any; the 

administrative record of the protest 

before the presiding officer; the report of 

the presiding officer, along with any 

objections and replies filed; transcripts 

and exhibits, if any; and the final 

determination of the Board of 

Commissioners. 

(k) Stay of procurement during 

pendency of protest. In the event a 

protest is filed timely under this section, 

the purchasing officer shall not proceed 

further with the solicitation or with the 

award of the contract unless and until 

the Executive Director makes a written 

determination that the protest is clearly 

without merit, or that award of the 

contract without delay is necessary to 

protect substantial interests of the 

Commission, or until the Commission 

enters a final determination under 

paragraph (h) of this section. 

(l) Exclusive procedure. This section 

shall be the exclusive procedure for 

protesting a solicitation or award of a 

contract by a bidder or offeror, a 

prospective bidder or offeror or a 

prospective contractor that is aggrieved 

in connection with the solicitation or 

award of a contract by the Commission. 

Dated: September 18, 2024. 

Jason E. Oyler, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21694 Filed 9–24–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7040–01–P 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 

20 CFR Part 220 

RIN 3220–AB68 

Evidence of Disability 

AGENCY: Railroad Retirement Board. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Railroad Retirement 

Board (RRB) amends its regulations 

regarding the submission of evidence in 

disability claims to require you to 

inform us or submit all evidence known 

to you that ‘‘relates to’’ your disability 

claim, with exceptions for privileged 

communications and duplicates. This 

requirement includes the duty to submit 

all evidence obtained from any source 

in its entirety, subject to one of these 

exceptions. These clarifications to our 

regulations describe in more detail the 

requirement for you to submit all 

evidence that relates to your disability 

claim, enables us to have a more 

complete case record which will allow 

us to make more accurate 

determinations of your disability status, 

and aligns our disability evidence 

requirements with regulations of the 

Social Security Administration (SSA). 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

25, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter J. Orlowicz, Senior Counsel, (312) 

751–4922, TTD (312) 751–4701, 

Peter.Orlowicz@rrb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background Information 

The RRB published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the 

Federal Register on November 9, 2016 

(81 FR 78757). The preamble to the 

NPRM discussed the changes from our 

current rules and our reasons for 

proposing those changes. In the NPRM, 

we proposed to clarify our regulations to 

require you to inform us about or submit 

all evidence known to you that relates 

to your disability claim, subject to two 

exceptions for certain privileged 

communications. We explained that this 

requirement would include the duty to 

submit all evidence from any source in 

its entirety, unless subject to one of 

these exceptions. We also proposed to 

require your representative to help you 

obtain the information or evidence that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
78236 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1Podder V, Lew V, Ghassemzadeh S. SOAP 

Notes. [Updated 2023 Aug 28]. In: StatPearls 

[internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls 

Publishing; 2024 Jan–. Available from: https://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482263/. 

we would require you to submit under 

our regulations. 

We provided 60 days for the public to 

comment on the NPRM. We received 

four comments: two comments were 

submitted anonymously, and two 

comments were from individual 

members of the public. All four 

comments focused on the requirement 

to submit all evidence that relates to an 

individual’s disability claim. None of 

the four comments discussed the 

exceptions for material protected by 

attorney-client privilege or attorney 

work product doctrine. We provide 

summaries of the significant comments 

that were relevant to this rulemaking 

and our responses to those comments in 

Part II below. One comment was 

entirely supportive of the proposed 

changes. We appreciate that comment 

but have not summarized or responded 

to it below because it does not require 

a response. 

In the process of reviewing the public 

comments to the NPRM, we 

independently determined that one 

change in the proposed rule would 

unintentionally increase the burden on 

us and on individuals claiming benefits 

to require development of a complete 

medical history covering at least the full 

12 months prior to the application filing 

date, even when a fully favorable 

adjudication of the application is 

supported by medical evidence without 

development of the full 12 months of 

medical history. As explained in Part III 

below, we are modifying the final rule 

to keep existing language and eliminate 

this unintended effect. After carefully 

considering the public comments, we 

are otherwise adopting the proposed 

rule revisions without change. 

II. Public Comments 

Comment: One commenter advocated 

for a standardized form or template for 

medical sources to use when submitting 

medical evidence, to allow medical 

sources to simply fill out the form rather 

than write an opinion letter. The 

commenter also suggested that evidence 

should only consist of formal, official 

medical documents, not oral or 

unofficial written material. Finally, the 

commenter suggested the rule contain 

more explanation of the type of benefits 

a disabled employee can receive in the 

workplace. 

Response: We did not adopt these 

suggestions. We disagree that a 

standardized form is needed for 

submitting medical evidence. The 

obligation to submit evidence described 

by this rule extends beyond opinion 

letters or medical source’s assessments 

of an individual’s capacity to work. 

Instead, medical evidence as described 

in our regulations at 20 CFR 220.46 

encompasses office and progress notes, 

prior medical history, clinical findings 

such as the results of physical and 

mental examinations, laboratory 

findings, diagnosis, prescribed 

treatment, and other types of evidence 

that would be maintained in a medical 

source’s file, in addition to statements 

about the claimant’s ability to work 

despite the claimant’s impairment. 

These records may be generated and 

maintained by many different medical 

providers, each with their own 

electronic or manual medical record 

system. Requiring all providers to 

submit these widely varying types of 

evidence in a standardized common 

form would be much more burdensome 

on providers than simply accepting 

copies of the medical records as they are 

already maintained by the providers in 

a native format and increases the risk 

that important evidence might be 

omitted in the process of transcribing 

records from their native format into the 

standardized common form. 

Additionally, medical providers have 

already widely adopted the SOAP 

(Subjective, Objective, Assessment and 

Plan) structure for documenting health 

care, which promotes effective 

communication between medical 

providers by organizing the most 

important information in an easily 

recognizable way and an easy to find 

location.1 This commonly used 

technique for organizing information in 

medical notes also assists our 

adjudicators to review medical evidence 

effectively even in the absence of a 

specific RRB-required form. In 

comparison to the burdens and risks 

imposed by requiring a specific RRBrequired form, the gains in efficiency 

and ease of reviewing medical evidence 

in such a standardized common form 

are marginal and do not justify imposing 

such a requirement. 

We also disagree that evidence must 

be contained in a formal or official 

document to be considered. The rule as 

proposed does not expand or restrict the 

existing definition of ‘‘evidence’’ for 

purposes of evaluating disability claims 

under the Railroad Retirement Act. Our 

regulations at § 220.46 explain we may 

use information from other sources to 

understand how an impairment affects a 

claimant’s ability to work, including 

observations by nonmedical sources. 

For many of the same reasons explained 

above for why we decline to require a 

standardized form for submitting 

medical evidence, we decline to impose 

a threshold requirement of formality on 

receiving and considering medical or 

nonmedical evidence. Although 

receiving such evidence in the form of 

formal written documents may be 

preferable in many circumstances, we 

will not reject or decline to consider 

evidence that is submitted merely 

because it is submitted in an oral or 

informal written manner. 

Finally, we disagree with the need to 

explain more expansively what sort of 

benefits a disabled employee can 

receive in the workplace. The 

requirement to submit all evidence 

related to an individual’s disability 

claim applies only to claims for 

disability under the Railroad Retirement 

Act for work in an employee’s regular 

railroad occupation and disability under 

the Railroad Retirement Act for any 

regular employment. Other benefits that 

an employee may or may not be entitled 

to in connection with a disability are 

outside the scope of this rule and may 

not even be administered by the RRB. 

Therefore, such other benefits need not 

be addressed here. 

Comment: One commenter criticized 

the existing regulations as not requiring 

claimants to provide evidence of age, 

education, work experience, or daily 

activities, and suggested requiring this 

evidence would reduce fraud. 

Response: We believe this comment is 

based on an inaccurate factual premise, 

and the proposed rule need not be 

modified to address it. The existing 

regulation already provides that we may 

ask claimants to provide evidence about 

age, education, work experience, and 

daily activities when the facts of a 

specific case require it. While every 

claim for disability under the Railroad 

Retirement Act will require medical 

evidence to adjudicate the claim, not 

every claim will require all categories of 

vocational and other evidence 

articulated in the regulation. For 

example, when finding that an 

individual is medically disabled as 

explained in 20 CFR 220.110, we will 

not consider the individual’s residual 

functional capacity, age, education, or 

work experience because those factors 

are not relevant to the determination. 

The proposed changes to 20 CFR 220.45 

preserve our right to request necessary 

information about these non-medical 

factors when it is necessary to 

adjudicate a claim. This information is 

usually gathered initially as part of the 

application for disability, as approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 3220– 

0002. This collection has been approved 

without changes since 1990. The 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 78237 

2 20 CFR 220.104. 

3 20 CFR 220.45(b). 

4 20 CFR 220.46(c); U.S. R.R. Ret. Brd. Gen. 

Couns. Op. L–2017–59 (Dec. 8, 2017). 

5 20 CFR 404.1512(b); Program Operations 

Manual System DI 24515.020. 

changes proposed by the NPRM do not 

affect or modify that information 

collection. Therefore, we do not believe 

any changes to the proposed rule are 

required to address this concern. 

Comment: One commenter criticized 

the proposed rule as creating an undue 

burden on disabled claimants by 

requiring submission of evidence that is 

not relevant to the determination of 

disability status. The commenter also 

stated requiring all known evidence to 

be submitted is more likely to 

necessitate additional investigation 

based on extraneous information. The 

commenter advocated for leaving the 

existing rule in place without changes. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter. Unless the context indicates 

otherwise, we generally intend for the 

words we use in our regulations to be 

construed according to their ordinary 

meaning. In this rule, we intend for the 

word ‘‘relates’’ to have its ordinary 

meaning, which is to show or establish 

a logical or causal connection between 

two things. Although this meaning is 

broad and includes anything that has a 

logical or causal connection to the 

disability claim (including unfavorable 

evidence), evidence that is entirely 

irrelevant to the determination of 

disability would not ‘‘relate[s] to’’ the 

claimed disability. It is also important to 

note that we consider all of a claimant’s 

impairments for which we have 

evidence or may develop evidence, not 

just the ones alleged, and we consider 

the combined effect of all impairments.2

We are also required, subject to certain 

exceptions, to develop a complete 

medical history for at least the 12 

months preceding the date of the 

disability application.3 Therefore, 

evidence of treatment for conditions 

other than the one alleged by the 

claimant could relate to the disability 

claim. For example, if a claimant alleged 

a back impairment, the treatment 

records from health care providers other 

than the treating orthopedic surgeon (for 

example, from a family doctor who has 

rendered treatment for a condition other 

than the one alleged) may contain 

related information. Therefore, we may 

ask the claimant if they saw other 

providers during the period at issue. In 

addition, if the back impairment arose 

out of an injury at work, we would 

expect the claimant, upon our request, 

to inform us whether they filed a 

worker’s compensation claim or 

personal injury lawsuit under the 

Federal Employers Liability Act (45 

U.S.C. 51–60). If so, we may obtain the 

records from that claim, because they 

may contain evidence that ‘‘relates’’ to 

the claim for disability. 

Because the commenter discussed the 

burden of submitting all evidence, we 

also considered whether this 

requirement is consistent with 

Executive Order 14058, Transforming 

Federal Customer Experience and 

Service Delivery to Rebuild Trust in 

Government, 86 FR 71357 (Dec. 16, 

2021). The order establishes an 

executive branch policy for agencies to 

effectively reduce administrative 

burdens and minimize ‘‘time taxes’’ to 

more directly meet the needs of the 

people of the United States. We do not 

believe that clarifying the requirement 

to submit all evidence known to the 

claimant that relates to the claimed 

disability will result in a substantially 

increased burden on claimants. The rule 

does not require the claimant to create 

or obtain new evidence, only to inform 

the RRB of evidence that the claimant is 

aware of. The rule requires the RRB to 

assist the claimant in obtaining the 

required evidence if necessary. If the 

claimant informs the RRB about the 

existence of evidence, and the RRB is 

unable to obtain the evidence, the 

claimant has fulfilled the claimant’s 

obligation and the RRB will not penalize 

the claimant or make any negative 

inference about the claimant’s disability 

because of the inability to obtain 

evidence. When the claimant receives 

evidence from another source (for 

example, if the claimant obtains a copy 

of medical records from a primary care 

provider), the final rule requires the 

claimant to submit a complete copy 

rather than selectively choose which 

portions to submit. This should require 

less work on the part of the claimant or 

the claimant’s representative by 

removing the need to exercise judgment 

over which portions of medical records 

should be submitted. Finally, the 

requirement to submit all evidence will 

enable us to obtain more complete case 

records and adjudicate claims more 

accurately, serving both a program 

integrity function (to ensure we do not 

improperly pay benefits) and the 

claimant’s interest in receiving an 

accurate determination. In some cases, 

receiving complete copies of medical 

evidence and being informed of all 

evidence related to a particular claim 

will avoid the need for us to obtain 

consultative examinations of the 

claimant as explained in 20 CFR 

Subpart G, and this will facilitate 

prompt adjudications and save the 

claimant the burden of time and travel 

to attend such a consultative 

examination. These benefits outweigh 

the minimal additional burden that may 

result from this requirement. 

III. Correction to Proposed Rule Based 

on Internal Review 

In reviewing the submitted public 

comments, we independently 

determined one of the proposed changes 

to 20 CFR 220.45(b) would increase the 

burden on us and on individuals 

claiming benefits in a way we did not 

intend and do not believe is necessary 

or beneficial. Currently, our regulations 

require us to develop a complete 

medical history covering at least the full 

12 months preceding your application 

for benefits before we can decide that 

you are not disabled, unless you tell us 

your disability began less than 12 

months before you filed your 

application. This language allows our 

adjudicators to make fully favorable 

allowance determinations without 

awaiting receipt of, or continuing to 

follow up on, requests for evidence that 

in the judgment of the adjudicator 

should not affect the allowance 

determination, if the evidence we 

possess is complete and detailed enough 

to support such a decision.4 This 

standard is consistent with Social 

Security Administration regulations and 

policy regarding evaluation of disability 

claims.5

In the NPRM, we proposed to change 

the language in 20 CFR 220.45(b) to 

state we will develop that complete 

medical history covering the preceding 

12 months before making any 

determination on your disability status. 

If implemented, this change would 

eliminate our discretion to make a fully 

favorable allowance decision based on 

less than 12 months of medical history, 

even when the evidence is complete and 

detailed enough to support a fully 

favorable decision. Favorable decisions 

could be delayed as a result while we 

wait for additional evidence or 

responses that we do not expect will 

change the result of the case. We did not 

intend to foreclose the use of discretion 

in this category of cases when we 

published the NPRM. As a result, we are 

modifying the language in the final rule 

to maintain the existing standard that 

permits fully favorable decisions with 

less than 12 months of medical history, 

if the evidence in our possession is 

complete and detailed enough to fully 

support the favorable decision. We also 

identified and fixed a small number of 

typographical and grammatical errors 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
78238 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

that do not affect the substance of the 

rule. 

Regulatory Analysis 

Executive Order 12866, as 

Supplemented by Executive Order 

13563 

The RRB, with the Office of 

Management and Budget, has 

determined that this is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, as supplemented by Executive 

Order 13563. Therefore, no regulatory 

impact analysis is required. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, the RRB believes that this 

proposed rule will not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RRB certifies that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because the rulemaking affects 

individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

amended. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not create any new or 

affect any existing collections and, 

therefore, does not require Office of 

Management and Budget approval 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 220 

Disability benefits, Railroad 

employees, Railroad retirement. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Railroad Retirement 

Board proposes to amend 20 CFR part 

220 as follows: 

PART 220—DETERMINING DISABILITY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 220 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 45 U.S.C. 231a; 45 U.S.C. 231f. 

■ 2. Revise § 220.45 to read as follows: 

§ 220.45 Providing evidence of disability. 

(a) General. You are responsible for 

providing all evidence of the claimed 

disability and the effect of the disability 

on your ability to work. You must 

inform the Board about or submit all 

evidence known to you that relates to 

the claimed disability. This duty is 

ongoing and requires you to disclose 

any additional related evidence about 

which you become aware. This duty 

applies at each level of the 

administrative review process, 

including the appeals level, if the 

evidence relates to the period on or 

before the date of the hearings officer’s 

decision. The Board will assist you, 

when necessary, in obtaining the 

required evidence. At its discretion, the 

Board will arrange for an examination 

by a consultant at the expense of the 

Board as explained in §§ 220.50 and 

220.51. 

(b) Kind of evidence. (1) You must 

provide medical evidence proving that 

you have an impairment(s) and how 

severe it is during the time you claim to 

be disabled. The Board will consider 

only impairment(s) you claim to have or 

about which the Board receives 

evidence. Before deciding that you are 

not disabled, the Board will develop a 

complete medical history (i.e., evidence 

from the records of your medical 

sources) covering at least the preceding 

12 months, unless you say that your 

disability began less than 12 months 

before you filed an application. The 

Board will make every reasonable effort 

to help you in getting medical reports 

from your own medical sources when 

you give the Board permission to 

request them. Every reasonable effort 

means that the Board will make an 

initial request and, after 20 days, one 

follow-up request to your medical 

source to obtain the medical evidence 

necessary to make a determination 

before the Board evaluates medical 

evidence obtained from another source 

on a consultative basis. The medical 

source will have 10 days from the 

follow-up request to reply (unless 

experience indicates that a longer 

period is advisable in a particular case). 

In order to expedite processing, the 

Board may order a consultative exam 

from a non-treating source while 

awaiting receipt of medical source 

evidence. If the Board asks you to do so, 

you must contact the medical sources to 

help us get the medical reports. 

(2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding 

paragraph (a) of this section, evidence 

does not include: 

(i) Oral or written communications 

between you and your representative 

that are subject to the attorney-client 

privilege, unless you voluntarily 

disclose the communications to us; or 

(ii) Your representative’s analysis of 

your claim, unless you or your 

representative voluntarily disclose it to 

us. Your representative’s ‘‘analysis of 

your claim’’ means information that is 

subject to the attorney work product 

doctrine, but it does not include 

medical evidence, medical source 

opinions, or any other factual matter 

that we may consider in determining 

whether or not you are entitled to 

benefits (see paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this 

section). 

(iii) The provisions of paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) of this section apply to 

communications between you and your 

non-attorney representative only if the 

communications would be subject to the 

attorney-client privilege if your nonattorney representative were an 

attorney. The provisions of paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section apply to the 

analysis of your claim by your nonattorney representative only if the 

analysis of your claim would be subject 

to the attorney work product doctrine if 

your non-attorney representative were 

an attorney. 

(iv) The attorney-client privilege 

generally protects confidential 

communications between an attorney 

and the attorney’s client that are related 

to providing or obtaining legal advice. 

The attorney work product doctrine 

generally protects an attorney’s analysis, 

theories, mental impressions, and notes. 

In the context of your disability claim, 

neither the attorney-client privilege nor 

the attorney work product doctrine 

allows you to withhold factual 

information, medical source opinions, 

or other medical evidence that we may 

consider in determining whether or not 

you are entitled to benefits. For 

example, if you tell your representative 

about the medical sources you have 

seen, your representative cannot refuse 

to disclose the identity of those medical 

sources to us based on the attorneyclient privilege. As another example, if 

your representative asks a medical 

source to complete an opinion form 

related to your impairment(s), 

symptoms, or limitations, your 

representative cannot withhold the 

completed opinion form from us based 

on the attorney work product doctrine. 

The attorney work product doctrine 

would not protect the source’s opinions 

on the completed form, regardless of 

whether or not your representative used 

the form in an analysis of your claim or 

made handwritten notes on the face of 

the report. 

(c) Your responsibility. You must 

inform us about or submit all evidence 

known to you that relates to whether or 

not you are blind or disabled. When you 

submit evidence received from another 

source, you must submit that evidence 

in its entirety, unless you previously 

submitted the same evidence to us or we 

instruct you otherwise. The Board may 

also ask you to provide evidence about: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 78239 

1Title II of H.R. 9028, 118th Cong., under the 

heading ‘‘Community Development Loan 

Guarantees Program Account.’’ 

(1) Your age; 

(2) Your education and training; 

(3) Your work experience; 

(4) Your daily activities both before 

and after the date you say that you 

became disabled; 

(5) Your efforts to work; and 

(6) Any other evidence showing how 

your impairment(s) affects your ability 

to work. (In §§ 220.125 through 220.134, 

we discuss in more detail the evidence 

the Board needs when it considers 

vocational factors.) 

Dated: September 19, 2024. 

By Authority of the Board. 

Stephanie Hillyard, 

Secretary to the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21777 Filed 9–24–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7905–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 570 

[FR–6483–N–01] 

Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: 

Announcement of Fee To Cover Credit 

Subsidy Costs for FY 2025 and 

Solicitation of Comment 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development, HUD. 

ACTION: Announcement of fee; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

and solicits comment on the fee that 

HUD will collect from borrowers of 

loans guaranteed under HUD’s Section 

108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 

108 Program) to offset the credit subsidy 

costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant 

to commitments awarded in Fiscal Year 

2025 in the event HUD is required or 

authorized by statute to do so, 

notwithstanding subsection (m) of 

section 108 of the Housing and 

Community Development Act of 1974. 

The fee to offset credit subsidy costs is 

changing from 1.64 percent in Fiscal 

Year 2024 to 0.82 percent in Fiscal Year 

2025. 

DATES: September 25, 2024. 

Comment Due Date: October 25, 2024. 

Applicability Date: October 28, 2024, 

unless after consideration of comments 

received, HUD determines a second 

Federal Register notification is 

necessary. If HUD determines a second 

Federal Register notification is 

necessary, it will indicate that on 

October 25, 2024 at https://

www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_

planning/section108. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments responsive 

to this document. Copies of all 

comments submitted are available for 

inspection and downloading at 

www.regulations.gov. To receive 

consideration as public comments, 

comments must be submitted through 

one of the two methods specified below. 

All submissions must refer to the above 

docket number and title. 

1. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make them immediately available to the 

public. Comments submitted 

electronically through the 

www.regulations.gov website can be 

viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

2. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW, Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments will not be accepted. 

Public Inspection of Comments. All 

comments and communications 

properly submitted to HUD will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

weekdays at the above address. Due to 

security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled by calling 

the Regulations Division at (202) 708– 

3055 (this is not a toll-free number). 

HUD welcomes and is prepared to 

receive calls from individuals who are 

deaf or hard of hearing, as well as 

individuals with speech or 

communication disabilities. To learn 

more about how to make an accessible 

telephone call, please visit: https://

www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/ 

telecommunications-relay-service-trs. 

Copies of all comments submitted are 

available for inspection and 

downloading at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Webster, Director, Financial 

Management Division, Office of Block 

Grant Assistance, Office of Community 

Planning and Development, U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Room 

7282, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 

number 202–402–4563 (this is not a tollfree number). HUD welcomes and is 

prepared to receive calls from 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing, as well as individuals with 

speech or communication disabilities. 

To learn more about how to make an 

accessible telephone call, please visit 

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/ 

telecommunications-relay-service-trs. 

FAX inquiries (but not comments) may 

be sent to Mr. Webster at 202–708–1798 

(this is not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 

(division K of Public Law 113–235, 

approved December 16, 2014) (2015 

Appropriations Act) provided that ‘‘the 

Secretary shall collect fees from 

borrowers, notwithstanding subsection 

(m) of such section 108, to result in a 

credit subsidy cost of zero for 

guaranteeing . . .’’ Section 108 loans. 

Section 108(m) of the Housing and 

Community Development Act of 1974 

states that ‘‘No fee or charge may be 

imposed by the Secretary or any other 

Federal agency on or with respect to a 

guarantee made by the Secretary under 

this section after February 5, 1988.’’ 

Identical language was continued or 

included in the Department’s 

continuing resolutions and 

appropriations acts authorizing HUD to 

issue Section 108 loan guarantees 

during Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016 to 2024. 

HUD anticipates that the Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2025 HUD appropriations bill 

under consideration 1 also has identical 

language suspending the prohibition 

against charging fees for loans issued 

with Section 108 guarantees after 

February 5, 1988, and requiring that the 

Secretary collect fees from borrowers to 

result in a credit subsidy cost of zero for 

the Section 108 Program. 

On November 3, 2015, HUD 

published a final rule (80 FR 67626) that 

amended the Section 108 Program 

regulations at 24 CFR part 570 to 

establish additional procedures, 

including procedures for announcing 

the amount of the fee each fiscal year 

when HUD is required to offset the 

credit subsidy costs to the Federal 

Government to guarantee Section 108 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1