[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10895-10896]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03997]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0139]

Accident Reporting: Change to Regulatory Guidance Concerning the
Use of the Term ``Medical Treatment''

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of revised regulatory guidance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces a revision to its regulatory guidance
concerning the use of the term ``medical treatment'' for the purpose of
accident reporting. The revised guidance explains that an x-ray
examination is a diagnostic procedure and should no longer be
considered ``medical treatment'' in determining whether a crash should
be included on a motor carrier's accident register.

DATES: This revised guidance is applicable on February 25, 2022 and
expires February 25, 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, FMCSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. If you have questions about viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations at (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Viewing Documents

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket
number (FMCSA-2021-0139) in the ``Keyword'' box and click ``Search.''
Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document
listed to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may
view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140
on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

I. Background

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations define Accident as an
occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operating on a
highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in: (1) A
fatality, (2) bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury,
receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident, or (3)
one or more motor vehicles being towed from the scene (49 CFR 390.5T).
Regulatory guidance in Question 27 for 49 CFR 390.5 and 390.5T
currently considers an x-ray examination and other imaging, such as
computed tomography, as medical treatment and reads as follows:

    Question 27:
    A person is transported to a hospital from the scene of a
commercial motor vehicle traffic accident.
    In one situation, the person undergoes observation or a
``checkup.[''] Is this considered ``medical treatment,'' making the
CMV occurrence an ``accident'' for purposes of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations?
    In another situation, the person undergoes x-ray examination or
is given a prescription, but is released from the facility without
being admitted as an inpatient. Is the x-ray or prescription
considered ``medical treatment,'' making the CMV occurrence [an]
``accident'' for purposes of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations?
    Guidance: In the first situation, no. A person who does not
receive treatment for diagnosed injuries or other medical
intervention directly related to the accident, has not received
``medical treatment'' as that term is used in Sec.  390.5T.
    In the second situation, yes. A person who undergoes x-ray
examination (or other imaging, such as computed tomography or CT),
or is given prescription medication (or the prescription itself),
has received ``medical treatment.''

    In accordance with 49 CFR 390.15(b), motor carriers are required to
maintain an accident register for 3 years after the date of each
``accident.'' A motor carrier's Crash Indicator Behavior Analysis and
Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) score illustrates a historical
pattern of crash involvement, including frequency and severity. The
Crash Indicator BASIC score is based on information from State-reported
crashes that meet reportable crash standards.
    A petition was submitted to FMCSA requesting a revision to Question
27, stating that an x-ray is a diagnostic test that may find no injury
and should not be considered a form of medical treatment. The
petitioner suggested that the Agency mirror the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration's definition of medical treatment that excludes
diagnostic procedures, such as x-rays and blood tests. FMCSA agrees
with the revision.

II. Revised Guidance

    FMCSA clarifies when a person is considered to have received
medical treatment after an accident. FMCSA revises Question 27 under 49
CFR 390.5 and 390.5T, which is available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/person-transported-hospital-scene-commercial-motor-vehicle-traffic-accident-one, as indicated below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The revised guidance applies to both 49 CFR 390.5 and the
temporary regulations in 49 CFR 390.5T that are currently in effect.
See Unified Registration System; Suspension of Effectiveness, 82 FR
5292, 5310 (Jan. 17, 2017), as amended, 83 FR 22865, 22877 (May 17,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This guidance lacks the force and effect of law, except as
incorporated into a contract, and is not meant to bind the public in
any way. This guidance document is intended only to provide clarity to
the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Agency
policies.

    Question 27:
    A person is transported to a hospital from the scene of a
commercial motor vehicle traffic accident.
    In one situation, the person undergoes observation or a checkup.
Is this considered ``medical treatment,'' making the CMV occurrence
an ``accident'' for purposes of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations?
    In another situation, the person undergoes x-ray examination or
is given a prescription but is released from the facility without
being admitted as an inpatient. Is the x-ray or prescription
considered ``medical treatment,'' making the CMV occurrence an
``accident'' for purposes of the FMCSRs?
    Guidance: In the first situation, no. A person who does not
receive treatment for diagnosed injuries or other medical
intervention directly related to the accident, has not received
``medical treatment'' as that term is used in 49 CFR 390.5 or
390.5T.
    In the second situation, a person who undergoes an x-ray
examination (or other imaging, such as computed tomography or CT)
has not received ``medical treatment.'' The x-ray examination is a
diagnostic procedure but is not considered ``medical treatment.''
However, a person who is given prescription medication (or the
prescription itself) has received ``medical treatment.''

IV. Review of the Regulatory Guidance

    In accordance with section 5203(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3) of the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat.
1312, 1535 (Dec. 4, 2015), the revised regulatory guidance will be
posted in the guidance portal on FMCSA's website, https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/guidance. The Agency will review it no later than 5
years after it is published and consider at that time whether the
guidance should be withdrawn, reissued for

another period up to 5 years, or incorporated into the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations.

Robin Hutcheson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-03997 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7424]
[DOCID:fr17fe09-54]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-35-000]

Cottonwood Energy Company, LP, Complainant v. Entergy Gulf
States, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

February 9, 2009.
    Take notice that on February 2, 2009, Cottonwood Energy Company, LP
(Complainant), pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power
Act and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.206, filed a formal complaint against Entergy Gulf States, Inc.,
requesting that the Commission grant recovery of an overpayment in
connection with the construction of certain interconnection facilities.
    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 26, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3219 Filed 2-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 44062-44064]
[DOCID:fr03au06-84]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54236; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Its Marketing Fee Program

July 28, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 18, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE proposes to amend its marketing fee program. Below is the text
of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics;
deleted language is in [brackets].

CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC. FEES SCHEDULE [JUNE 30]JULY 18,
2006

    1. No Change.
    2. MARKETING FEE (6)(16)--$.65
    3.-4. No Change.

FOOTNOTES:

    (1)-(5) No Change.
    (6) The Marketing Fee will be assessed only on transactions of
Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs resulting from orders for
less than 1,000 contracts (i) from payment accepting firms, or (ii)
that have designated a ``Preferred Market-Maker'' under CBOE Rule 8.13
at the rate of $.65 per contract on all classes of equity options,
options on HOLDRs, options on SPDRs, options on DIA, options on NDX,
and options on RUT. The fee will not apply to: Market-Maker-to-Market-
Maker transactions including transactions resulting from orders from
non-member market-makers; transactions resulting from inbound P/A
orders or a transaction resulting from the execution of an order
against the DPM's account if an order directly related to that order is
represented and executed through the Linkage Plan using the DPM's
account; transactions resulting from accommodation liquidations
(cabinet trades); and transactions resulting from dividend strategies,
merger strategies, and short stock interest strategies as defined in
footnote 13 of this Fees Schedule. This fee shall not apply to index
options and options on ETFs (other than options on SPDRs, options on
DIA, options on NDX, and options on RUT). A Preferred Market-Maker will
only be given access to the marketing fee funds generated from a
Preferred order if the Preferred Market-Maker has an appointment in the
class in which the Preferred order is received and executed.
    [DPM/LMM] Rebate/Carryover Process. If less than 80% of the
marketing fee funds collected in a given month [are]is paid out by the
DPM/

LMM or Preferred Market-Maker in a given month, then the Exchange would
refund such surplus at the end of the month on a pro rata basis based
upon contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs and
LMMs in that month. However, if 80% or more of the funds collected in a
given month [are]is paid out by the DPM/LMM or Preferred Market-Maker,
there will not be a rebate for that month and the excess funds will be
included in an Excess Pool of funds to be used by the DPM/LMM or
Preferred Market-Maker in subsequent months. The total balance of the
Excess Pool of funds for a DPM/LMM cannot exceed $25,000, and the total
balance of the Excess Pool of funds for a Preferred Market-Maker cannot
exceed $80,000. [i]If in any month the DPM/LMM Excess Pool balance were
to exceed $25,000, or the Preferred Market-Maker Excess Pool balance
were to exceed $80,000, the funds in excess of $25,000 or $80,000,
respectively, would be refunded on a pro rata basis based upon
contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs in
that month.
    [Preferred Market-Maker Rebate/Carryover Process. If less than 80%
of the marketing fee funds are paid out by the Preferred Market-Maker
in a given month, then the Exchange would refund such surplus at the
end of the month on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by
the Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs and LMMs in that month. However,
if 80% or more of the accumulated funds in a given month are paid out
by the Preferred Market-Maker, there will not be a rebate for that
month and the funds will carry over and will be included in the pool of
funds to be used by the Preferred Market-Maker the following month. At
the end of each quarter, the Exchange would then refund any surplus, if
any, on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-
Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs in the final month of the quarter.]
CBOE's marketing fee program as described above will be in effect until
June 2, 2007.

Remainder of Fees Schedule--No change.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    CBOE recently amended its marketing fee to modify the manner in
which marketing fee funds collected during a calendar quarter are
refunded.\5\ Specifically, with respect to DPMs and LMMs, CBOE amended
the marketing fee to provide that, if less than 80% of the marketing
fee funds collected in a given month is paid out by the DPM/LMM, then
CBOE will refund such surplus at the end of the month on a pro rata
basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs,
DPMs, and LMMs in that month. However, if 80% or more of the funds
collected in a given month is paid out by the DPM/LMM, there will not
be a rebate for that month and the excess funds will be included in an
Excess Pool of funds to be used by the DPM/LMM in subsequent months.
The total balance of the Excess Pool of funds cannot exceed $25,000
and, if in any month the balance exceeded $25,000, the funds in excess
of $25,000 would be refunded on a pro rata basis based upon
contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs
in that month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54153 (July 14,
2006), 71 FR 41485 (July 21, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE now proposes to amend the marketing fee as it relates to the
rebate process for Preferred Market-Makers by making the rebate process
identical to the rebate process for DPMs and LMMs, with one exception.
Specifically, CBOE proposes to cap the Excess Pool of funds for
Preferred Market-Makers at $80,000, rather than the $25,000 cap for
DPMs/LMMs. CBOE believes that having a higher limit on the Excess Pool
of funds for Preferred Market-Makers is reasonable given that the total
amount of marketing fee funds made available to and used by Preferred
Market-Makers to pay for order flow on a monthly basis generally is
significantly higher than the amount of marketing fee funds made
available to and used by DPMs/LMMs to pay for order flow. Thus, CBOE
believes that it is appropriate to allow a Preferred Market-Maker to
potentially carry over more funds than a DPM/LMM on a monthly basis, up
to the limit on the Preferred Market-Maker Excess Pool. CBOE notes
that, like DPMs/LMMs, Preferred Market-Makers would have to expend 80%
or more of the marketing fee funds collected in a given month in order
for any excess funds not used to pay for order flow to be included in
an Excess Pool.
    CBOE states that it is not amending its marketing fee program in
any other respects.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among CBOE members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) \9\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee,
or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will
take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days
of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-68. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-CBOE-2006-68 and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-12519 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P