2762 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

N. National Environmental Policy 

Act: This rulemaking will not have any 

effect on the quality of the environment 

and is thus categorically excluded from 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

O. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act: The requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not 

applicable because this rulemaking does 

not contain provisions that involve the 

use of technical standards. 

P. Paperwork Reduction Act: The 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the 

Office consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. This 

rulemaking does not involve an 

information collection that is subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3549). 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

List of Subjects 

37 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Courts, Freedom of 

Information, Inventions and patents, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Small businesses. 

37 CFR Part 42 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Inventions and patents. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Office proposes to amend 

parts 1 and 42 of title 37 as follows: 

PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

PATENT CASES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2). 

§ 1.79 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 2. Section 1.79 is removed and 

reserved. 

§ 1.127 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 3. Section 1.127 is removed and 

reserved. 

§ 1.351 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 4. Section 1.351 is removed and 

reserved. 

PART 42—TRIAL PRACTICE BEFORE 

THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL 

BOARD 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 42 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 6, 21, 23, 41, 

135, 311, 312, 316, 321–326 and Public Law 

112–29, 125 Stat. 284; and Pub. L. 112–274, 

126 Stat. 2456. 

§ 42.102 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 42.102 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (b). 

§ 42.202 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 42.202 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (b). 

Dated: January 11, 2018. 

Joseph Matal, 

Associate Solicitor, performing the functions 

and duties of the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00769 Filed 1–18–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 1 

RIN 2900–AP90 

Consent for Release of VA Medical 

Records 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

regulations to clarify that a valid 

consent authorizing the Department to 

release the patient’s confidential VA 

medical records to a health information 

exchange (HIE) community partner may 

be established not only by VA’s physical 

possession of the written consent form, 

but also by the HIE community partner’s 

written (electronic) attestation that the 

patient has, in fact, provided such 

consent. This proposed rule would be a 

reinterpretation of an existing, longstanding regulation and is necessary to 

facilitate modern requirements for the 

sharing of patient records with 

community health care providers, 

health plans, governmental agencies, 

and other entities participating in 

electronic HIEs. This revision would 

ensure that more community health care 

providers and other HIE community 

partners can deliver informed medical 

care to patients by having access to the 

patient’s VA medical records at the 

point of care. 

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must 

be received on or before March 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through 

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to Director, Regulation Policy 

and Management (00REG), Department 

of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 

Avenue NW, Room 1063B, Washington, 

DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AP90 Consent for Release of VA 

Medical Records.’’ Copies of comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection in the Office of Regulation 

Policy and Management, Room 1063B, 

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday (except 

holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for 

an appointment. (This is not a toll-free 

number.) In addition, during the 

comment period, comments may be 

viewed online through the Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) at 

www.Regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephania Griffin, Director, Veterans 

Health Administration Information 

Access and Privacy Office, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; 

Stephania.griffin@va.gov, (704) 245– 

2492 (This is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 

U.S.C. 7332, VA must keep confidential 

all records of identity, diagnosis, 

prognosis, or treatment of a patient in 

connection with any program or activity 

carried out by VA related to drug abuse, 

alcoholism or alcohol abuse, infection 

with human immunodeficiency virus, or 

sickle cell anemia, and must obtain 

patients’ written consent before VA may 

disclose the protected information 

unless authorized by the statute. This 

requirement applies to communications 

between VA and community health care 

providers for the purposes of treatment, 

except in certain situations, for instance 

in medical emergencies and when the 

records are sent to a non-Department 

entity that provides hospital care to 

patients as authorized by the Secretary. 

38 U.S.C. 7332(b)(2)(A) and (H); Public 

Law 115–26 (April 19, 2017). Although 

section 7332 does not explicitly require 

that the written consent physically be in 

VA’s possession at the time of the 

disclosure, VA had interpreted the 

statute to require such possession, and 

therefore applied 38 CFR 1.475 

consistent with that interpretation. VA 

has reexamined that statutory 

interpretation in light of contemporary 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2763 

healthcare industry standards and 

proposes to revise § 1.475 to reflect this 

updated reading of section 7332. This 

proposed rule would revise 38 CFR 

1.475 to permit VA to release section 

7332-protected medical records to 

eligible community partners, even if VA 

does not physically have the patient’s 

written consent, provided that specified 

criteria are met. 

The ability to quickly release section 

7332-protected information has become 

increasingly important as VA strives to 

support veterans’ choice to seek care in 

the community and create innovative 

ways to provide effective and timely 

care to veterans. In this regard, VA has 

entered into an agreement to participate 

in an HIE to help facilitate the transfer 

of information between different 

organizations. An HIE is the electronic 

transfer of health information among 

organizations according to nationally 

recognized standards. The organizations 

that participate (HIE community 

partners) range from community health 

care providers and health plans to 

governmental agencies providing 

benefits, such as the Social Security 

Administration (SSA). 

The interpretation that valid consent 

may be established only by VA’s 

physical possession of the written 

consent has left many HIE community 

partners unable to access veterans’ VA 

medical records at the point of care. 

While an estimated three out of four 

veterans enrolled in VA’s health care 

system also seek medical care in the 

community, HIE community partners’ 

requests for their VA health records 

must frequently be denied because VA 

does not have a consent on file, and 

many HIE community partners therefore 

either must delay care to veterans or 

provide treatment to veterans without 

having the benefit of reviewing the 

veteran’s full medical history. 

The reason for the low rate of consent 

is not because veterans object to 

providing consent; veteran participation 

is almost always favorable when asked 

to provide consent. The primary 

obstacle is that veterans will often seek 

care in the community prior to having 

the opportunity to provide the consent 

form to VA and are then left without 

any means of getting the consent into 

VA’s physical possession promptly once 

they are at the community health care 

facility. 

By allowing HIE community partners 

to attest that they have, in fact, obtained 

a valid consent, VA would be able to 

collect consent in a broader array of 

circumstances. Most importantly, this 

would allow VA to release a veteran’s 

medical records to an HIE community 

partner, such as a community health 

care provider or SSA, once the partner 

attests that they have collected valid 

consent, without VA having to wait for 

the document to be furnished. This 

would allow for HIE community 

partners to provide veterans with the 

most informed care, would allow VA to 

more expediently provide veterans’ 

records for the adjudication of their SSA 

disability claims, and would also allow 

for VA to continue innovating and 

creating new ways for veterans to 

receive timely and high quality health 

care. 

VA believes that this new 

interpretation of section 7332—to 

permit disclosure to an HIE community 

partner pursuant to the partner’s 

attestation regarding written consent, 

would uphold veterans’ right to privacy. 

As explained in greater detail below, 

such disclosure would still require a 

legally sufficient written consent. We 

clarify that the only change would be 

that a valid consent authorizing 

disclosure may be established not only 

by VA’s physical possession of the 

written consent form but also by the HIE 

community partner’s attestation that the 

veteran has submitted legally sufficient 

consent. Moreover, in the private sector 

under the Health Insurance Portability 

and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy 

Rule, health care providers are able to 

release a patient’s confidential medical 

records to another one of the patient’s 

treating providers without written 

consent. Therefore, VA’s privacy 

protections would remain more robust 

than those of the private sector generally 

and greater than those required by the 

HIPAA Privacy Rule. 

This proposed rule would revise 38 

CFR 1.460 to include definitions for 

‘‘health information exchange’’ and 

‘‘health information exchange 

community partner’’ as described above. 

Further, the rule would revise 1.475 as 

follows. Current paragraph (d) would be 

redesignated as paragraph (e) and would 

be revised as explained below. New 

paragraph (d) would provide the criteria 

to establish written consent that would 

authorize the disclosure of confidential 

VA medical records. Specifically, it 

would establish that, in addition to 

physical possession of a patient’s 

written consent, VA may release the 

patient’s protected medical information 

to an HIE community partner pursuant 

to that partner’s attestation that valid 

consent has been obtained. To clarify, 

this paragraph would not require VA to 

provide the records to HIE community 

partners just because the partner 

submitted an attestation; instead, VA 

would have the discretion to send the 

records. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) states that 

written consent may be established by 

VA’s physical possession of the 

patient’s written consent that meets the 

criteria in paragraph (a) of this section. 

This is how VA traditionally collected 

consent forms. 

Paragraph (d)(2) would provide an 

alternative for disclosure of section 

7332-protected information. VA would 

also be able to disclose the protected 

information to an HIE community 

partner as long as two criteria are met. 

Initially, we note that this alternative for 

disclosure would be limited to VA’s 

partners in the HIE because the partners 

have all signed an agreement to comply 

with certain standards of practice. 

Additionally, all partners would be 

required to have the technological 

capabilities to provide the requisite 

attestation. 

The first proposed criterion is that the 

HIE community partner must provide 

written attestation that the patient has 

submitted legally sufficient consent to 

them. This requirement is necessary 

because 38 U.S.C. 7332 and 38 CFR 

1.475 still require the veteran provide 

legally sufficient written consent to 

release section 7332-protected 

information. Therefore, in order for VA 

to release the records to the HIE 

community partner, VA must have an 

attestation or some documentation that 

the patient provided legally sufficient 

written consent. 

To clarify, ‘‘written attestation’’ 

would not require a physical document 

and a wet signature; electronic 

attestations satisfy this requirement and 

are the expected form of attestation from 

the HIE community partner. VA would 

not specifically require the attestation to 

be electronic in order to provide for 

flexibility if there are changes in 

technology and best practices. However, 

VA envisions the vast majority, if not 

all, of the attestations would be 

electronic through approved messaging 

with the HIE community partners. This 

proposed rule would allow for VA’s 

community partners to electronically 

attest, through the computer software, 

that the veteran submitted legally 

sufficient written consent. At that time, 

VA would be able to release the 

veteran’s medical records electronically 

to the HIE community partner. 

In addition to the written attestation, 

paragraph (d)(2) would require that VA 

have the ability to retrieve or obtain the 

written consent. There are two ways in 

which VA can obtain the records. First, 

proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) provides 

that a .HIE community partner can make 

the consent form available to VA within 

10 business days of its attestation. This 

can be accomplished either by storing 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2764 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

the written consent form electronically 

for access by VA or by sending the 

written consent form to VA. 

Second, paragraph (d)(2)(ii) would 

provide that the HIE community partner 

can maintain the patient’s written 

consent form in accordance with a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

that is drafted and signed by VA and the 

HIE community partner. The MOU 

would ensure that the patient’s records 

are retained in accordance with VA 

record retention requirements set forth 

in VHA Records Control Schedule (RCS) 

10–1. Even though VA would not 

require the written consent to be 

physically in VA’s possession since it is 

a VA record, the HIE would have to 

retain the consent form according to 

VA’s record retention requirements. 

Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) would also require 

that the MOU outline how VA can 

request the consent form from the HIE 

community partner and how the HIE 

community partner can make the 

consent form available to VA. In this 

regard, VA and the partner would 

determine a mutually agreeable 

timeframe to comply with a request by 

VA for a copy of the consent form. 

As explained above current paragraph 

(d) would be redesignated as new 

paragraph (e). This paragraph would be 

revised to update the name of VA Form 

10–5345. Specifically, current paragraph 

(d) provides that it was not necessary to 

use any particular form to establish a 

consent referred to in paragraph (a) of 

this section, however, VA Form 10– 

5345, titled Request for and Consent to 

Release of Medical Records Protected by 

38 U.S.C. 7332, may be used for such 

purpose. VA Form 10–5345 has been 

updated and renamed Request for and 

Authorization to Release Medical 

Records or Health Information. 

Accordingly, VA would revise the 

paragraph to reflect the new name of VA 

Form 10–5345. 

Effect of Rulemaking 

The Code of Federal Regulations, as 

proposed to be revised by this proposed 

rulemaking, would represent the 

exclusive legal authority on this subject. 

No contrary rules or procedures would 

be authorized. All VA guidance would 

be read to conform with this proposed 

rulemaking if possible or, if not 

possible, such guidance would be 

superseded by this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

provisions constituting a collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). The 

overall impact of the proposed rule on 

small entities would be minimal as the 

proposed rule would only require that 

entities attest that they received the 

veteran’s consent and make the written 

consent available to VA. These 

administrative burdens are similar to 

current burdens related to medical 

privacy and will not have a significant 

economic impact on these entities. On 

this basis, the Secretary certifies that the 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

as they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this 

rulemaking is exempt from the initial 

and final regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of sections 603 and 604. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 

13771 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. E.O. 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ to mean 

any regulatory action that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: ‘‘(1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) Create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

Materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in this Executive 

order.’’ 

VA has examined the economic, 

interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this regulatory action, 

and it has been determined not to be a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866. This proposed rule is not 

expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory 

action because this proposed rule is not 

significant under E.O. 12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This proposed rule would 

have no such effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.008—Veterans Domiciliary Care; 

64.011—Veterans Dental Care; 64.012— 

Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013— 

Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 

64.014—Veterans State Domiciliary 

Care; 64.015—Veterans State Nursing 

Home Care; 64.024—VA Homeless 

Providers Grant and Per Diem Program; 

64.026—Veterans State Adult Day 

Health Care; 64.029—Purchase Care 

Program; 64.033—VA Supportive 

Services for Veteran Families Program; 

64.039—CHAMPVA; 64.040—VHA 

Inpatient Medicine; 64.041—VHA 

Outpatient Specialty Care; 64.042— 

VHA Inpatient Surgery; 64.043—VHA 

Mental Health Residential; 64.044— 

VHA Home Care; 64.045—VHA 

Outpatient Ancillary Services; 64.046— 

VHA Inpatient Psychiatry; 64.047— 

VHA Primary Care; 64.048—VHA 

Mental Health clinics; 64.049—VHA 

Community Living Center; 64.050— 

VHA Diagnostic Care; 64.054—Research 

and Development. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina 

S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

approved this document on December 8, 

2017, for publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Archives and records, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2765 

Cemeteries, Claims, Courts, Crime, 

Flags, Freedom of information, 

Government contracts, Government 

employees, Government property, 

Infants and children, Inventions and 

patents, Parking, Penalties, Privacy, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seals and insignia, 

Security measures, Wages. 

Dated: January 12, 2018. 

Janet Coleman, 

Chief, Office of Regulation Policy & 

Management, Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Department of Veterans 

Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 

1 as follows: 

PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in 

specific sections. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.460 by adding, in 

alphabetical order, definitions for 

‘‘health information exchange’’ and 

‘‘health information exchange 

community partner.’’ 

§ 1.460 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Health information exchange. The 

term ‘‘health information exchange’’ 

means the electronic transfer of health 

information among health care 

professionals, health plans, 

governmental agencies providing 

benefits, and other persons and entities 

according to nationally recognized 

standards that allow the participants to 

appropriately access and securely share 

patients’ vital medical information to 

improve the quality, safety, and 

efficiency of health care delivery. 

Health information exchange 

community partner. The term ‘‘health 

information exchange community 

partner’’ means a health care provider, 

health plan, governmental agency 

providing benefits, or other person or 

entity with whom VA shares patients’ 

vital medical information according to 

nationally recognized standards. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 1.475 by redesignating 

paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), adding a 

new paragraph (d) and revising newly 

redesignated paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.475 Form of written consent. 

* * * * * 

(d) Establishing written consent. A 

written consent authorizing the 

disclosure may be demonstrated by: 

(1) A written consent meeting the 

criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this 

section that is presented to VA in 

physical form; or 

(2) A written attestation by a health 

information exchange community 

partner that the patient submitted 

legally sufficient consent meeting the 

criteria set forth in paragraph (a), 

provided that: 

(i) Within 10 business days of the 

health information exchange 

community partner’s attestation, the 

partner either makes the written consent 

form available for electronic retrieval by 

VA or produces the written consent 

form to VA; or 

(ii) The health information exchange 

community partner complies with a 

memorandum of understanding signed 

by the partner and VA that outlines: 

(A) How the written consent will be 

retained in accordance with VHA 

Records Control Schedule (RCS) 10–1; 

(B) How VA can request the consent 

form from the partner; and 

(C) How the partner can send the 

consent form to VA. 

(e) Required Form. It is not necessary 

to use any particular form to establish 

a consent referred to in paragraph (a) of 

this section, however, VA Form 10– 

5345, titled Request for and 

Authorization to Release Medical 

Records or Health Information, complies 

with all applicable legal requirements 

and may be used for such purpose. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00758 Filed 1–18–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 395 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2017–0360] 

Hours of Service of Drivers of 

Commercial Motor Vehicles; Proposed 

Regulatory Guidance Concerning the 

Transportation of Agricultural 

Commodities; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT 

ACTION: Proposed regulatory guidance; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA extends the public 

comment period for the Agency’s 

December 20, 2017, notice announcing 

the proposed regulatory guidance 

concerning the transportation of 

agricultural commodities. On December 

22, 2017, the American Trucking 

Associations, Inc. (ATA) requested a 30- 

day extension of the comment period. 

Additional requests for extension of the 

comment period have been received. 

The Agency extends the January 19, 

2018, deadline for the submission of 

public comments to February 20, 2018. 

DATES: FMCSA extends the comment 

period for the notice of proposed 

regulatory guidance published on 

December 20, 2017 at 82 FR 60360. You 

must submit comments on or before 

February 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may insert comments 

identified by Federal Docket 

Management System Number FMCSA– 

2017–0360 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

instructions on submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier 

Operations Division, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, phone (614) 942–6477, email 

MCPSD@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number listed above, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which your comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery. FMCSA recommends that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that FMCSA can contact you if there 

are questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, put the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS