82 FR 41579 - VA Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Guidelines
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 169 (September 1, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 169 (September 1, 2017)
| Page Range | 41579-41580 | |
| FR Document | 2017-18543 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 41579-41580] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-18543] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 74 RIN 2900-AO63 VA Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Guidelines AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a rule in the Federal Register on November 6, 2015, 80 FR 68795 that proposed amending its regulations governing the VA's Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) Verification Program. The Verification Program has been the subject of reports from both the Government Accountability Office and VA's Office of Inspector General stating that despite VA's Verification Program, fraud still exists in the Veterans First Contracting Program. Some stakeholder feedback has been that the current regulation is too open to interpretation and is unnecessarily more rigorous than similar certification programs run by the United State Small Business Administration (SBA). The proposed rule sought to clarify the eligibility requirements for businesses to obtain ``verified'' status, added and revised definitions, reordered requirements, redefined the definition of ``control,'' and provided explanatory information on VA's examination and review processes and procedures. The proposed rule additionally sought to implement new changes to community property restrictions, unconditional ownership, and day-to-day requirements and full-time requirements. An exception for majority, supermajority, unanimous, and other voting provisions for extraordinary business decisions were also proposed. Comments to the proposed rule were to be provided to the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization on or before January 5, 2016. Due to the nature of the adverse comments received, VA has determined not to pursue implementation of the rule as originally proposed. Accordingly, this document withdraws the proposed rule. DATES: The proposed rule published on November 6, 2015, 80 FR 68795 is withdrawn as of September 1, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Leney, Executive Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 462-4300. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2015, 80 FR 68795, VA sought to amend 38 CFR part 74 to find an appropriate balance between preventing fraud in the Veterans First Contracting Program and providing a process that would make it easier for more VOSBs to become verified. VA received 203 comments from 96 commenters. 134 of these comments were adverse to the proposed rule and VA's verification program in general. Of the 134 adverse comments, several were [[Page 41580]] material comments which VA has accepted. SBA, Office of Advocacy, objected to the proposed rule on various grounds including that it fails to provide an adequate basis in its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification concerning the proposed rule's impact on small business entities. VA's RFA language provided that ``VA estimates the cost to an individual business to be less than $100.00 for 70-75 percent of the businesses seeking verification, and the average cost to the entire population of veterans seeking to become verified is less than $325.00 on average.'' In its comment, SBA stated that ``[o]ne of the most important provisions with the RFA requires that the promulgating agency give the public some idea of the number of small entities that any proposed rule will impact. VA's proposed certification does not provide any indication of the number of small businesses that may be impacted by the proposed change.'' After considering this comment, VA procured a survey to better demonstrate that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. SBA also objected to the proposed rule to the extent that it failed to provide statutory or other legal authority following each cited substantive provision. SBA, in its comment, stated that the proposed rule does not comply with 38 U.S.C. 501 in that the proposed rule does not ``contain citations to the particular section or sections of statutory law or other legal authority upon which such issuance is based.'' After considering the SBA's comment, VA seeks to withdraw the proposed rule and to republish at a later date to ensure that each substantive revision is followed immediately by supporting statutory or other legal authority. Fourteen comments spoke to potential violations of due process through the immediate removal of a company without allowing the company an opportunity to refute the allegations, such as owners accused of criminal offenses. The proposed amendment to 38 CFR 74.2(b) provides that ``[i]ndividuals having an ownership or control interest in VetBiz verified businesses must have good character. Concerns owned or controlled by a person(s) who is formally accused of a crime involving business integrity are ineligible for VetBiz VIP Verification. If, after verifying a participant's eligibility the person(s) controlling the participant is found to lack good character, CVE will remove the participant from the VIP database immediately . . .'' One commenter, SBA, commented that ``Section 74.2(b) of the proposed regulation would seem to deny an applicant due process of law . . . [and] . . . would seem to indicate that if an applicant is formally accused of an offense, that person is not eligible for Vet Biz Verification.'' Another commenter stated ``I would . . . question if being `formally accused' and not actually proven guilty of any crime, is proper.'' After considering these and other similar comments, VA seeks to remove the portion of the proposed rule prescribing the immediate removal of companies, under certain circumstances, prior to allowing such affected company a chance to refute the allegations. Six comments were lodged complaining that the increase of the waiting period following a denial of verification from 6 months to 12 months does not (i) benefit the Veteran, (ii) is unnecessarily long, and (iii) punitive in nature. One commenter stated that ``extending the waiting period from six to 12 months does not allow sufficient time for ineligible concerns to address significant issues'' any more than the current rule does. The current rule requires a minimum wait of six months--if issues require more time to address, the eligible veteran can make that determination and simply wait 12 months--or 16 months--to reapply. Second, the extended wait time will not incentivize applicants to avail themselves of CVE resources. In fact, lengthening the wait period will result in lost momentum and is described in the preamble as a form of punishment for veterans that do not use CVE resources. VA should not take this approach. Finally, the program will be no more efficient in the long run with a 12 month waiting period. Applications from concerns that are denied or cancelled will not decrease, they will only be filed in 12 months rather than in six.'' After considering these and other similar comments, VA seeks to withdraw the portion of the proposed rule that increases the waiting period from 6 to 12 months, following a denial of verification. VA understands that in order to proceed forward without withdrawing the proposed rule and republishing, the proposed modifications to the proposed rule must be considered a logical outgrowth. Considering the extent of the revisions as outlined in this publication and that VA proposes to include additional modifications to the rule, it is unlikely that the proposed rule as modified would be considered a logical outgrowth. Because of the adverse comments received during the comment period, VA is withdrawing the proposed rule. 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 June 23, 2017, for publication. Approved: June 23, 2017. Jeffrey Martin, Office Program Manager, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. [FR Doc. 2017-18543 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 41579
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS transportation or for replacing the fan or regulations governing the VA’s Veteran-
DIRECTIVES propulsor, without subsequent maintenance, Owned Small Business (VOSB)
does not constitute an engine shop visit. Verification Program. The Verification
■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance Program has been the subject of reports
continues to read as follows: (AMOCs) from both the Government
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. (1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Accountability Office and VA’s Office of
Compliance and Airworthiness Division, has Inspector General stating that despite
§ 39.13 [Amended] the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, VA’s Verification Program, fraud still
■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding if requested using the procedures found in 14 exists in the Veterans First Contracting
the following new airworthiness CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, Program. Some stakeholder feedback
directive (AD): send your request to your principal inspector has been that the current regulation is
or local Flight Standards District Office, as too open to interpretation and is
General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA– appropriate. If sending information directly
2017–0660; Product Identifier 2017–NE– to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to
unnecessarily more rigorous than
21–AD. the attention of the person identified in similar certification programs run by the
(a) Comments Due Date paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. You may email United State Small Business
your request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov. Administration (SBA).
We must receive comments by October 16, The proposed rule sought to clarify
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
2017.
notify your appropriate principal inspector, the eligibility requirements for
(b) Affected ADs or lacking a principal inspector, the manager businesses to obtain ‘‘verified’’ status,
None. of the local flight standards district office/ added and revised definitions,
certificate holding district office. reordered requirements, redefined the
(c) Applicability
(i) Related Information definition of ‘‘control,’’ and provided
This AD applies to General Electric explanatory information on VA’s
Company (GE) GEnx–1B64/P2, –1B67/P2, (1) For more information about this AD,
contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace examination and review processes and
–1B70/P2, –1B70/75/P2, –1B70C/P2, and
Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and procedures. The proposed rule
–1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines, with a high-
pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 blade retainer, Airworthiness Division, 1200 District additionally sought to implement new
part number (P/N) 2445M91P01 or Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781– changes to community property
2383M99P02, with a serial number listed in 238–7120; fax: 781–238–7199; email: restrictions, unconditional ownership,
Planning Information, paragraph 1.A., of GE Christopher.mcguire@faa.gov. and day-to-day requirements and full-
(2) GE GEnx–1B SB 72–0326 R02, dated
GEnx–1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72–0326 R02, time requirements. An exception for
dated August 16, 2017. August 16, 2017, can be obtained from GE
using the contact information in paragraph majority, supermajority, unanimous,
(d) Subject (i)(3) of this AD. and other voting provisions for
(3) For service information identified in extraordinary business decisions were
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)
Code 7250, Turbine Section. this proposed AD, contact General Electric also proposed.
Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Comments to the proposed rule were
(e) Unsafe Condition Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, to be provided to the Office of Small
This AD was prompted by a report of the phone: 513–552–3272; fax: 513–552–3329; and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
failure of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) email: geae.aoc@ge.com. on or before January 5, 2016. Due to the
stage 1 blade retainer and subsequent in- (4) You may view this service information nature of the adverse comments
flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200
received, VA has determined not to
this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage pursue implementation of the rule as
1 blade retainer. The unsafe condition, if not District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
corrected, could result in failure of one or information on the availability of this originally proposed. Accordingly, this
more engines, loss of thrust control, and material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. document withdraws the proposed rule.
damage to the airplane. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on DATES: The proposed rule published on
August 29, 2017. November 6, 2015, 80 FR 68795 is
(f) Compliance
Robert J. Ganley, withdrawn as of September 1, 2017.
Comply with this AD within the
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
compliance times specified, unless already
done. Branch, Aircraft Certification Service. Leney, Executive Director, Office of
(1) At the next engine shop visit after the [FR Doc. 2017–18571 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] Small and Disadvantaged Business
effective date of this AD, perform a one-time BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Utilization, Department of Veterans
inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW.,
Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Washington, DC 20420; (202) 462–4300.
paragraph 3.A.(1), in GE GEnx–1B SB 72– (This is not a toll-free number.)
0326 R02, dated August 16, 2017, to do the DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
inspection.
(2) If any cracks are found in the HPT stage
proposed rule published in the Federal
1 blade retainer, or the retainer does not meet 38 CFR Part 74 Register on November 6, 2015, 80 FR
the dimensional criteria found in the 68795, VA sought to amend 38 CFR part
RIN 2900–AO63 74 to find an appropriate balance
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph
3.A.(1), in GEnx–1B SB 72–0326 R02, dated VA Veteran-Owned Small Business between preventing fraud in the
August 16, 2017, replace with a part eligible Veterans First Contracting Program and
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
for installation.
Verification Guidelines
providing a process that would make it
(g) Definition AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. easier for more VOSBs to become
For the purpose of this AD, an ‘‘engine ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. verified.
shop visit’’ is the induction of an engine into
VA received 203 comments from 96
the shop for maintenance involving the SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans commenters. 134 of these comments
separation of pairs of major mating engine Affairs (VA) published a rule in the were adverse to the proposed rule and
case flanges, except separation of engine Federal Register on November 6, 2015, VA’s verification program in general. Of
flanges solely for the purposes of 80 FR 68795 that proposed amending its the 134 adverse comments, several were
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Aug 31, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP1.SGM 01SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_41748/page/1.svg)
![41580 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules
material comments which VA has commenter, SBA, commented that period, VA is withdrawing the proposed
accepted. ‘‘Section 74.2(b) of the proposed rule.
SBA, Office of Advocacy, objected to regulation would seem to deny an
the proposed rule on various grounds Signing Authority
applicant due process of law . . . [and]
including that it fails to provide an . . . would seem to indicate that if an The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
adequate basis in its Regulatory applicant is formally accused of an designee, approved this document and
Flexibility Act (RFA) certification offense, that person is not eligible for authorized the undersigned to sign and
concerning the proposed rule’s impact Vet Biz Verification.’’ Another submit the document to the Office of the
on small business entities. VA’s RFA commenter stated ‘‘I would . . . Federal Register for publication
language provided that ‘‘VA estimates question if being ‘formally accused’ and electronically as an official document of
the cost to an individual business to be not actually proven guilty of any crime, the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina
less than $100.00 for 70–75 percent of is proper.’’ After considering these and S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff,
the businesses seeking verification, and other similar comments, VA seeks to Department of Veterans Affairs,
the average cost to the entire population remove the portion of the proposed rule approved this document on June 23,
of veterans seeking to become verified is prescribing the immediate removal of 2017, for publication.
less than $325.00 on average.’’ In its companies, under certain Approved: June 23, 2017.
comment, SBA stated that ‘‘[o]ne of the circumstances, prior to allowing such
Jeffrey Martin,
most important provisions with the RFA affected company a chance to refute the
requires that the promulgating agency Office Program Manager, Office of Regulation
allegations.
Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary,
give the public some idea of the number Six comments were lodged
Department of Veterans Affairs.
of small entities that any proposed rule complaining that the increase of the
[FR Doc. 2017–18543 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am]
will impact. VA’s proposed certification waiting period following a denial of
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
does not provide any indication of the verification from 6 months to 12 months
number of small businesses that may be does not (i) benefit the Veteran, (ii) is
impacted by the proposed change.’’ unnecessarily long, and (iii) punitive in
After considering this comment, VA nature. One commenter stated that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
procured a survey to better demonstrate ‘‘extending the waiting period from six COMMISSION
that the proposed rule would not have to 12 months does not allow sufficient
a significant economic impact on a time for ineligible concerns to address 47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80,
substantial number of small business significant issues’’ any more than the 90, 95, and 101
entities. current rule does. The current rule
SBA also objected to the proposed requires a minimum wait of six [WT Docket No. 10–112; FCC 17–105]
rule to the extent that it failed to months—if issues require more time to
Amendment of the Commission’s
provide statutory or other legal address, the eligible veteran can make
authority following each cited Rules To Establish Uniform License
that determination and simply wait 12
substantive provision. SBA, in its Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation,
months—or 16 months—to reapply.
comment, stated that the proposed rule and Geographic Partitioning and
Second, the extended wait time will not
does not comply with 38 U.S.C. 501 in Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and
incentivize applicants to avail
that the proposed rule does not ‘‘contain Policies for Certain Wireless Radio
themselves of CVE resources. In fact,
citations to the particular section or Services
lengthening the wait period will result
sections of statutory law or other legal in lost momentum and is described in AGENCY: Federal Communications
authority upon which such issuance is the preamble as a form of punishment Commission.
based.’’ After considering the SBA’s for veterans that do not use CVE ACTION: Proposed rule.
comment, VA seeks to withdraw the resources. VA should not take this
proposed rule and to republish at a later approach. Finally, the program will be SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
date to ensure that each substantive no more efficient in the long run with Communications Commission seeks
revision is followed immediately by a 12 month waiting period. Applications additional comment on a range of
supporting statutory or other legal from concerns that are denied or possible actions that may advance the
authority. cancelled will not decrease, they will Commission’s goal of increasing the
Fourteen comments spoke to potential only be filed in 12 months rather than number of rural Americans with access
violations of due process through the in six.’’ After considering these and to wireless communications services. In
immediate removal of a company other similar comments, VA seeks to order to encourage investment in
without allowing the company an withdraw the portion of the proposed wireless networks, facilitate access to
opportunity to refute the allegations, rule that increases the waiting period scarce spectrum resources, and promote
such as owners accused of criminal from 6 to 12 months, following a denial the rapid deployment of mobile services
offenses. The proposed amendment to of verification. to rural Americans, the Commission
38 CFR 74.2(b) provides that VA understands that in order to seeks comment on additional,
‘‘[i]ndividuals having an ownership or proceed forward without withdrawing reasonable construction obligations
control interest in VetBiz verified the proposed rule and republishing, the during renewal terms that are targeted to
businesses must have good character. proposed modifications to the proposed reach rural areas that lack adequate
Concerns owned or controlled by a rule must be considered a logical
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
service.
person(s) who is formally accused of a outgrowth. Considering the extent of the
crime involving business integrity are revisions as outlined in this publication DATES: Interested parties may file
ineligible for VetBiz VIP Verification. If, and that VA proposes to include comments on or before October 2, 2017,
after verifying a participant’s eligibility additional modifications to the rule, it is and reply comments on or before
the person(s) controlling the participant unlikely that the proposed rule as October 31, 2017.
is found to lack good character, CVE modified would be considered a logical ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
will remove the participant from the VIP outgrowth. Because of the adverse identified by WT Docket No. 10–112, by
database immediately . . .’’ One comments received during the comment any of the following methods:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Aug 31, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP1.SGM 01SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_41748/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2017-09-01 01:50:34
Document Modified: 2017-09-01 01:50:34
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Withdrawal of proposed rule. | |
| Dates | The proposed rule published on November 6, 2015, 80 FR 68795 is withdrawn as of September 1, 2017. | |
| Contact | Tom Leney, Executive Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 462-4300. (This is not a toll-free number.) | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 41579 | |
| RIN Number | 2900-AO63 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR