37744 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. The COTP or an on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given 

permission to enter or operate in the 

safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the COTP or 

an on-scene representative. 

Dated: June 16, 2022. 

D.P. Montoro, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13310 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2022–0523] 

Safety Zone; Seafair Air Show 

Performance, 2022, Seattle, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the annual Seafair Air Show 

Performance safety zone on Lake 

Washington, Seattle, WA, from 10 a.m. 

until 4 p.m. on August 4th and from 8 

a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 5th, 6th, 

and 7th 2022. This action is necessary 

to ensure the safety of the public from 

inherent dangers associated with these 

annual aerial displays. During the 

enforcement period, no person or vessel 

may enter or transit this safety zone 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port or his designated representative. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.1319 will be enforced from 10 a.m. 

until 4 p.m. on August 4th and from 8 

a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 5th, 6th, 

and 7th 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice of 

enforcement, call or email Lieutenant 

Peter J. McAndrew, Sector Puget Sound 

Waterways Management Division, Coast 

Guard; telephone (206) 217–6051, email 

SectorPugetSoundWWM@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the Seafair Air Show 

Performance safety zone in 33 CFR 

165.1319 from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on 

August 4th and from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. 

on August 5th, 6th, and 7th 2022 unless 

canceled sooner by the Captain of the 

Port. The specific boundaries of the 

safety zone are listed in 33 CFR 

165.1319(b). 

In accordance with the general 

regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart 

C, no person or vessel may enter or 

remain in the zone except for support 

vessels and support personnel, vessels 

registered with the event organizer, or 

other vessels authorized by the Captain 

of the Port or designated 

representatives. Vessels and persons 

granted authorization to enter the safety 

zone must obey all lawful orders or 

directions made by the Captain of the 

Port or his designated representative. 

The Captain of the Port may be 

assisted by other federal, state and local 

law enforcement agencies in enforcing 

this regulation. 

In addition to this notice of 

enforcement in the Federal Register, the 

Coast Guard will provide the maritime 

community with advanced notification 

of the safety zone via the Local Notice 

to Mariners and marine information 

broadcasts on the day of the event. 

If the COTP determines that the safety 

zone need not be enforced for the full 

duration stated in this notice of 

enforcement, he may use a Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners to grant general 

permission to enter the regulated area. 

Dated: June 17, 2022. 

P.M. Hilbert, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13506 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Parts 1 and 14 

RIN 2900–AQ81 

Individuals Using the Department of 

Veterans Affairs’ Information 

Technology Systems To Access 

Records Relevant to a Benefit Claim 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) issues this final rule 

amending its regulations addressing 

when VA will allow individuals and VA 

recognized service organizations who 

are assisting claimants in the 

preparation, presentation, and 

prosecution of their benefit claims 

before VA to access specific VA’s 

information technology (IT) systems to 

review VA records relevant to their 

clients’ claims. This final rule addresses 

who is permitted, and under what 

circumstances, to directly access VA 

records and other claims-related 

information through specific VA IT 

systems during representation of a 

claimant in a claim for VA benefits. This 

rule also outlines the appropriate 

behavior while using VA’s IT systems to 

access records and the consequences for 

individuals who mishandle such access. 

This rulemaking, however, does not 

address general issues involving 

management of access to VA physical 

facilities or VA’s disclosure of 

claimants’ private information through 

any means other than direct access to 

the specific VA IT systems. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 

25, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carling K. Bennett, Management and 

Program Analyst, Office of 

Administrative Review, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202–632– 

5347(this is not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 19, 2020, VA published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register at 

85 FR 9435–41, to clarify when an 

individual providing representation on 

a claim may access a claimant’s 

automated records now that VA has 

transitioned to primarily processing VA 

benefit claims electronically. VA 

provided a 60-day public comment 

period and invited interested persons to 

submit written comments on or before 

April 20, 2020. In response to the 

proposed rule, VA received 15 written 

comments. The commenters included 

VA-accredited attorneys, law firms, VArecognized veterans service 

organizations (VSOs), non-profit 

corporations, a legal clinic, a law 

student, and a trade association. In 

preparing this final rule, VA carefully 

considered all comments received in 

response to the proposed rule and 

addresses them below according to 

topic. In this final rule, VA focuses its 

discussion on changes from the 

proposed revisions based on comments 

received during the comment period 

and VA’s further consideration of the 

issues raised by the comments. By 

clarifying through this rulemaking: (1) 

who is eligible to apply for remote 

access to VA IT systems for the purpose 

of representing, or assisting in the 

representation of, claimants on their VA 

benefits claims, and (2) the basic 

parameters on the privileges that will be 

granted to the approved VA IT system 

users, VA will provide transparency to 

Veterans and beneficiaries as to who 

may receive information from VA by 

accessing specific VA IT systems 

remotely. However, this rule does not 

change the ability of VA to disclose a 

claimant’s private claim information 

through other methods to the claimant’s 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 37745 

appointed attorney or agent of record or 

to the representatives of the claimant’s 

appointed VSO of record as those who 

do not seek optional system access 

under the amended regulations may 

continue to receive records from VA as 

provided under the other provisions in 

38 CFR part 1. Likewise, the rule does 

not change the ability of VA to disclose 

a claimant’s private claim information 

through other methods to certain other 

individuals under an authorization that 

is not reliant on representation. See 38 

CFR 1.500–1.527 (generally addressing 

the release of information from VA 

claimant records). 

A. Comments Concerning Competent 

Representation and Meaningful Access 

to Records, Including Comments 

Concerning the Proposed Removal of 

the Note to 38 CFR 14.629 

This rulemaking was necessary 

because, as several of the commenters 

pointed out, the regulations, policies, 

and procedures governing attorneys, 

agents, and VSO representatives and 

their staffs’ access to the VA IT systems 

have been applied inconsistently in the 

past, and it is important that Veterans 

are aware of who may be able to access 

their claims information maintained in 

VA IT systems. VA believes that some 

of the variation of the application of 

these regulations, policies, and 

procedures may be due to the note that 

follows current 38 CFR 14.629(c), which 

indicates that systems access to claims 

records may be provided to legal 

interns, law students, paralegals, and 

VSO support staff, who are working 

under the supervision of an accredited 

individual designated under § 14.631(a) 

to represent the claimant. VA is aware 

that some paralegals, interns, and 

support staff have been approved for 

access to Veterans Benefits Management 

System (VBMS) in the past even though 

VBMS is not one of the VA IT systems 

listed in 38 CFR 1.600. VA is also aware 

that some VA-accredited IT system 

users and their staffs have been granted 

broad privileges within VBMS allowing 

certain users to view records of 

claimants for whom they do not hold 

the power of attorney (POA) so long as 

they are affiliated with the individual 

attorney or VSO that has been 

designated as the POA pursuant to 38 

CFR 14.631. 

VA proposed amending 38 CFR 1.600 

through 1.603 to establish that only an 

individual who is accredited by VA 

pursuant to 38 CFR 14.629 as an 

attorney, agent, or representative of a 

VA-recognized service organization may 

be granted direct access privileges to VA 

IT systems, and within those systems, 

would only be permitted to access the 

records of claimants for whom that 

individual holds POA pursuant to 38 

CFR 14.631. VA received twelve 

comments expressing general 

opposition to such restrictions on 

access. Most of these commenters urged 

VA to promulgate a broader rule 

allowing systems access to individuals 

who assist in the representation of a 

claimant before VA, including 

accredited associate attorneys and 

agents, paralegals, law students, interns, 

and other non-lawyer support staff. The 

commenters also urged VA to allow for 

more expansive permissions within the 

systems, to include the ability to view 

records of claimants for whom the users 

do not hold the POA as long as the users 

are affiliated with the individual or 

organization who does hold the POA. 

Commenters stated that VA’s decision to 

preclude direct system access to 

electronic records to individuals who 

assist in the representation of a claimant 

before VA would undermine the ability 

of the appointed attorney and agent to 

provide competent representation and 

deprive their clients of critical 

information. One commenter supported 

the overall changes and agreed with the 

spirit of VA’s proposed amendments, 

applauding VA’s efforts to ensure that 

Veterans’ data is protected. 

VA’s objective with this rulemaking 

continues to be to provide the 

individual or VSO that is appointed to 

provide representation on the claim 

suitable remote access so that individual 

or VSO may provide responsible, 

qualified representation consistent with 

VA’s policies. However, the comments 

have made clear that the office structure 

of the VA-accredited attorneys and 

agents has evolved to more of a team 

environment, and now, attorneys and 

agents have a strong preference that 

affiliated attorneys and agents as well as 

support staff should be able to assist in 

accessing VA documents on behalf of 

the claimants that the accredited 

attorney or agent is representing. VA 

recognizes that limiting systems access 

to the sole practitioner designated as the 

representative of record on the VA Form 

21–22a, Appointment of Individual as 

Claimant’s Representative, may hamper 

VA’s goals to streamline the appeals 

process and to transition from a 

cumbersome, paper-intensive process to 

an efficient electronic environment in 

order to provide a faster, more accurate 

and transparent claims process. In 

response to these comments and upon 

further consideration, VA revises the 

framework of the proposed rule by 

broadening access to claimants’ 

electronic records to certain individuals 

assisting in the representation of a 

claimant before VA. VA believes that 

the security risk posed to the VA IT 

systems and the information within 

them can be largely managed through 

internal policies and added safeguards. 

Such safeguards include regular, 

recurring reviews of who has access and 

under what circumstances, plus 

recurring certifications of training and 

acknowledgments of system rules by all 

users. 

Additionally, in the future, VA will 

consider whether it will be helpful or 

necessary to add provisions to VA’s 

standards of conduct maintained at 38 

CFR 14.632 as further safeguards. In 

advocating for systems access for 

individuals who assist in the 

representation of claimants, ten 

commenters pointed out that 38 U.S.C. 

5904(a)(2) instructs VA to prescribe in 

regulations ‘‘qualifications and 

standards of conduct’’ consistent with 

the American Bar Association’s Model 

Rules of Professional Conduct (Model 

Rules) and asserted that the Model 

Rules contemplate the use of paralegals 

and other support staff and charge 

attorneys with supervising 

responsibility. Although VA does not 

believe that the Model Rules must 

control VA’s policy decisions on 

systems access management and 

accountability, VA does recognize their 

value as a way to ensure that 

individuals who practice before VA do 

so in a responsible and ethical manner 

or risk losing their VA accreditation. 

VA amends 38 CFR 1.600 through 

1.603 to, as proposed, confirm its policy 

that individuals who are accredited by 

VA pursuant to 38 CFR 14.629 as an 

attorney, agent, or representative of a 

VA-recognized VSO may be granted 

direct access privileges to specific VA IT 

systems. However, based on the 

comments received, VA further amends 

those regulations beyond the proposed 

rule to allow similar access to some staff 

members who are affiliated with 

recognized VSOs and VA-accredited 

attorneys or claims agents. In addition, 

within those VA IT systems: (1) VAaccredited VSO representatives will be 

permitted to access the records of 

claimants for whom their VSO holds 

POA pursuant to 38 CFR 14.631; (2) VAaccredited attorneys and agents will be 

permitted to access the records for 

claimants for whom they hold the POA; 

and (3) in some instances, the users— 

including VA accredited attorneys and 

agents, their support staff, and the 

support staff of VSOs—who receive 

systems access will be able to view 

records for claimants for whom the 

users may not directly hold the POA as 

long as the users are affiliated with the 

individual or recognized VSO that does 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
37746 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

hold the POA and, in the case of an 

attorney or agent, the claimants 

represented by that individual have 

provided their consent to such access on 

the VA Form 21–22a, Appointment of 

Individual as Claimant’s Representative. 

Additionally, VA is expanding the 

provision of direct access privileges to 

specific VA IT systems to qualifying 

individuals providing representation 

under 38 CFR 14.630 of this chapter 

pursuant to special authority granted by 

VA’s General Counsel to represent more 

than one claimant. Section 14.630 

permits any person complying with the 

regulation to prepare, present, and 

prosecute one claim. But, unless an 

exception is granted by VA’s General 

Counsel under § 14.630(b), such 

representation may be provided only 

one time. An exception to this one-time 

limitation may be granted by the 

General Counsel in unusual 

circumstances. To help facilitate 

responsible, qualified representation by 

individuals authorized to practice 

before VA under this special authority, 

we are revising the proposed 

amendments to 38 CFR 1.600 through 

1.603 to permit systems access to 

individuals to whom the General 

Counsel has granted such an exception. 

VA believes that permitting the 

possibility of systems access to 

qualifying individuals with such an 

authorization would be consistent with 

the purpose of this rulemaking. 

In revising the proposed language to 

accommodate systems access for 

qualifying support staff and individuals 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630, VA has modified 

proposed § 1.600(b)(1) by removing the 

reference to an attorney, agent, or 

representative of a recognized VSO 

‘‘who is accredited pursuant to part 14 

of this chapter.’’ This does not mean 

that access will be provided to 

individuals in those categories who are 

not accredited. The requirement for 

accreditation as a prerequisite for 

individuals in those categories is still 

contained under qualifications for 

access in amended § 1.601(a). This is 

because the statement in § 1.600(b)(1) 

that VA will provide access only to the 

categories of attorney, agent, 

representative of a recognized VSO, 

support-staff person, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630 of this chapter is 

qualified by the rest of the paragraph 

‘‘who is approved to access VA IT 

systems under §§ 1.600 through 1.603.’’ 

VA choosing to allow additional 

individuals to access specific VA IT 

systems and to broaden the access 

permitted within the VA IT systems to 

individuals who are affiliated with the 

accredited individual or recognized 

VSO that holds the POA means that the 

individual or VSO holding the POA will 

have heightened responsibilities that 

extend further than just their own 

individual access, in terms of ensuring 

the confidentiality, integrity, and 

availability of the information that is 

stored, processed, and transmitted by 

VA within its systems. Specifically, VA 

has amended 38 CFR 1.603(c)(7)(ii) to 

provide that if the access of an affiliated 

support-staff person of an attorney or 

agent is revoked, VA will consider 

whether to refer the matter to VA’s 

Office of General Counsel for potential 

inquiry into the principal individual’s 

conduct or competence, pursuant to 38 

CFR 14.633. 

VA proposed the removal of the note 

to current 38 CFR 14.629 to clarify 

policy. The note that follows current 38 

CFR 14.629 states that a legal intern, law 

student, and paralegal, as well as VSO 

support staff, ‘‘may qualify for read-only 

access to pertinent Veterans Benefits 

Administration automated claims 

records’’ under 38 CFR 1.600 through 

1.603. Although VA prevailed in recent 

litigation concerning the meaning of the 

note and is continuing with the removal 

of the note, VA believes the changes 

from the proposed rule throughout 

§§ 1.600–1.603 to expand access and 

privileges satisfy the commenters 

concerns about systems access for the 

categories of individuals contemplated 

by the note. 

Finally, while revising the 

amendatory language of the proposed 

rule, VA recognized a typographical 

error in the introductory paragraph of 

current § 1.600(d). VA is correcting that 

error by changing ‘‘14.603’’ to ‘‘1.603’’. 

B. Comments Concerning Applicability 

to Various VA IT Systems 

VA received five comments 

discussing access to various VA 

business applications for electronic 

claims processing, such as the Veterans 

Benefits Management System (VBMS), 

Caseflow, Share, and Compensation and 

Pension Record Interchange (CAPRI). 

Because all these applications may 

provide information regarding the 

current status of a claim or appeal but 

are systems with significant differences 

in functionality and underlying 

purpose—for example, VBMS is a 

document repository, other systems, 

such as Share, are not—questions arise 

regarding to which applications this 

rule governs access. 

VA has revised language proposed in 

§ 1.600(a)(1) that referred to access to 

‘‘[VBA IT] systems’’ to refer instead to 

‘‘specific VA [IT] systems’’ (emphasis 

added) to permit VA to provide access 

to the electronic claims folder as it 

specifically decides. VA had proposed 

removing references to specific systems 

and instead described affected IT 

systems more generally to ‘‘ensure VA’s 

regulations stay current regardless of 

future IT developments and to allow VA 

flexibility to provide access to only 

those IT systems which are necessary to 

providing representation while 

minimizing risk to IT system integrity 

and privacy.’’ 85 FR at 9437. However, 

although VA has in recent years 

successfully defended in court its ability 

to determine systems access under the 

current regulations, the wide range of 

systems discussed by the commenters 

made VA concerned that in future 

litigation a court could have found the 

proposed language ‘‘[VBA’s] electronic 

information technology (IT) systems that 

contain information regarding the 

claimants whom they represent before 

VA’’ unambiguous and included a 

specific system to which VA did not 

intend, or want, to provide access. 

In the introductory text of paragraph 

(b), VA has identified the specific 

systems VBMS and Caseflow (the 

eFolder Express and Queue products) to 

which VA will provide access. VA will 

provide access to VBMS because that 

was the current IT system VA 

contemplated in the proposed rule. See 

85 FR at 9436 (noting that the 

rulemaking was being done in part ‘‘to 

provide increased access to claimant’s 

records’’ in VBMS and that ‘‘a VAaccredited attorney [had] petitioned VA 

to initiate a rulemaking for purposes of 

clarifying whether attorney support staff 

could gain access to VBMS in the same 

manner as the attorney of record in the 

claim’’); see also Carpenter v. 

McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 261 (2021) 

(discussing, among other things, the 

petition for rulemaking, the proposed 

rule, and numerous arguments 

advocating for VBMS access for 

unaccredited paralegals under the 

existing regulations). 

VA will provide access to the eFolder 

Express product of Caseflow because 

VA recognizes that the functionality of 

eFolder Express is directly related to a 

claimant’s VBMS eFolder. The Caseflow 

eFolder Express product permits 

downloading of all the files in a 

claimant’s VBMS eFolder in 

chronological order by date of document 

receipt with the most recent date at the 

top of the list. Caseflow is a Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals (Board) IT system, 

not a VBA IT system (as contemplated 

in the proposed rule), but multiple 

commenters indicated that attorneys 

have been provided access to Caseflow 

products, and one commenter 

specifically advocated for VA to provide 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 37747 

access to eFolder Express. Also, 

although the proposed rule only 

proposed permitting access to VBA IT 

systems, the proposed rule did refer to 

Caseflow. 85 FR at 9436 (‘‘Other 

systems, such as Caseflow, are not 

document repositories, but may provide 

information regarding the current status 

of the claim or appeal, such as whether 

it is pending the development of 

evidence, pending a decision, etc.’’). VA 

believes that providing access to eFolder 

Express matches VA’s goals in 

providing access to VBMS. Moreover, 

providing access to eFolder Express 

ensures that practitioners will not be 

overly reliant on VA’s systems (e.g., 

such as by treating the records accessed 

through VA systems but not 

downloaded as their own records). VA 

will also provide access to Queue, 

another Caseflow product mentioned by 

one of the commenters, which provides 

information regarding the status of some 

appeals, because providing such access 

also matches VA’s goals in providing 

access to VBMS. 

VA has specified the only systems to 

which access will be granted under 

these regulations. Systems to which 

VBA does not have administrative 

rights, such as CAPRI, which was 

mentioned by one of the commenters, 

are not included. (Notably, although 

Caseflow is a Board IT system, VBA 

personnel have administrative rights for 

providing access.) Further, although 

there are additional systems that VBA 

does administer, VA is only providing 

access to VBMS and the Caseflow 

products eFolder Express and Queue 

because other systems provide 

substantially duplicative information 

and any gaps are being evaluated for 

migration to VBMS. For example, VBA 

will not give access to the Share 

application. One commenter indicated 

that they use Share to review payments 

and ensure clients receive proper 

payment amounts. This information is 

now available in VBMS rendering the 

Share application redundant. 

Finally, although proposed 

§ 1.600(a)(1) had only referred to 

providing access to claimant records, 

VA is further revising § 1.600(a)(1) to 

clarify that qualifying individuals may 

obtain access to basic information 

regarding the status of claims or appeals 

in addition to (read-only) access to 

claimants’ records. VA is making this 

change because, as several of the 

commenters noted, VBMS does provide 

some basic information regarding the 

status of claims or appeals. Likewise, 

VA has modified the language proposed 

in § 1.602(a) to add a reference to 

‘‘obtain[ing] basic claims status 

information.’’ 

C. Comments Concerning § 1.601— 

Qualifications for Access and § 1.602— 

Utilization of Access 

VA received one comment stating that 

the provision in proposed 38 CFR 

1.601(a)(2) regarding a background 

suitability investigation for issuance of 

a personal identity verification (PIV) 

card was not necessary for attorneys 

who are members in good standing of a 

State bar because these individuals have 

already met a State’s character and 

fitness requirements. VA declines to 

exclude attorneys in good standing from 

the requirement for a background 

investigation as part of the 

qualifications for systems access under 

the final rule. VA is required to 

implement the use of PIV cards for 

logistical access to VA networks and 

information systems. See Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive-12. In 

accordance with Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) guidance, VA must 

ensure the initiation of a background 

investigation and more specifically, 

either a National Agency Check with 

Written Inquiries or one that is at least 

equivalent. See 44 U.S.C. 3554; OMB 

Circular A–130, Managing Information 

as a Strategic Resource. To comply with 

OMB’s guidance and meet the specific 

background criteria, VA is unable to 

accept certificates of good standing as a 

substitute for conducting its own 

suitability investigation. 

The same commenter also disagreed 

with the provision in proposed 38 CFR 

1.602(c)(1) allowing VA to inspect 

computers including hardware and 

software utilized to obtain systems 

access. This commenter suggested 

adding safeguards to the provision to 

limit the scope and the basis of VA’s 

ability to inspect privately-owned 

equipment containing confidential 

information. This inspection provision 

is not a new requirement but part of the 

current regulation and its predecessor 

since being promulgated in 1994. See 59 

FR 47082, 47084–85 (Sept. 14, 1994). 

Moreover, the requirement to permit 

such inspection is embedded in the 

information security requirements to 

which VA must adhere (identified in the 

proposed rule, see 85 FR at 9436) and 

applies to anyone, whether an employee 

or non-employee, with access to VA IT 

systems. Its purpose is to protect the 

integrity of the network and the 

sensitive information of Veterans, so VA 

plans no changes to this long-standing 

policy and subsection based on the 

comment. 

There is no law that requires VA to 

provide claimants’ representatives or 

their support staff access to VA IT 

systems, and there is no expectation of 

privacy when accessing VA IT systems. 

To gain access to VA-specific IT 

systems, the applicant must agree to 

general rules of behavior. These rules 

acknowledge the right of authorized IT 

personnel to periodically inspect 

devices, systems, or software used to 

obtain access to VA’s network. They 

also include the ability of VA to 

periodically inspect a remote location 

for compliance with required security 

requirements. Approval of the hardware 

and software ensures the necessary 

security for systems access. Approval of 

the location ensures that access is only 

from the non-VA-employee’s customary 

and usual or primary place of business, 

and not from other locations, which 

might place confidential information at 

risk of exposure. To properly oversee 

access activities that provide for the 

security of the data and systems, VA 

may, without notice, inspect systems 

and monitor access activities. VA 

employs a team of network security 

experts to monitor and safeguard its 

systems and databases. Therefore, VA 

will not change proposed § 1.602(c)(1) 

based on the comment. 

D. Comments Concerning § 1.603— 

Revocation and Reconsideration 

Two commenters commented on the 

revocation and reconsideration process 

set forth in 38 CFR 1.603. Both 

commenters stated that the process 

should include notice and an 

opportunity to be heard before the 

revocation of systems access and should 

specify a time frame for VA’s decision 

on reconsideration. One of these 

commenters also stated that the level of 

detail specified for the reconsideration 

decision should be included in the 

initial final decision. The other 

commenter recommended that VA 

provide a more robust procedure for 

appealing an adverse decision by 

providing specific standards for what 

factors are analyzed in the 

reconsideration process and how this 

process would work in practicality. 

VA has carefully considered these 

comments, particularly in the context of 

the existing regulation and proposed 

amendments. Notably, the proposed 

rule would have eliminated current 

§ 1.603’s provision of notice of a 

proposed revocation but retained, in 

proposed § 1.603(d), VA’s ability to 

suspend an individual’s systems access 

if there were exigent circumstances. 

That combination is somewhat 

incongruous. VA believes the exigent 

circumstances provision provides 

sufficient protection for VA systems and 

the data therein if VA determines that 

there is a credible risk of harm. 

Therefore, VA can provide notice of a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
37748 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed revocation and permit an 

optional response as requested by the 

commenters, albeit, subject to the 

possibility on an immediate suspension 

of systems access under the exigent 

circumstances provision in paragraph 

(d), which specifies that the immediate 

suspension may take place prior to any 

determination on the merits of a 

proposed revocation. Accordingly, VA 

has added language to provide in 

paragraph (c)(1) that VA will generally 

notify the attorney, agent, representative 

of a recognized VSO, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under 38 CFR 14.630 of the proposed 

denial or revocation and allow 30 days 

for an optional response. As suggested 

by one of the commenters, VA has also 

added language, in paragraph (c)(2), 

providing that the initial decision will 

describe in detail the facts found and 

state the reasons for VA’s final decision, 

matching in pertinent aspects the 

content proposed for any decision on 

reconsideration. VA declines the 

commenters’ request to add a time frame 

for decisions on access. VA cannot 

predict the time it will take to issue a 

decision because that will vary based on 

the variety of facts and circumstances of 

each particular case. But VA believes 

that adding the provision for a proposed 

notice of revocation fairly addresses 

some of the concern inherent in the 

commenters’ request that VA specify a 

time frame for the decision on 

reconsideration. Under the proposed 

regulation, the first opportunity to 

respond to a revocation of access was in 

the reconsideration phase, likely 

triggering the commenters’ concern 

about a time frame for a VA decision 

based on that response. Now, there will 

be an opportunity to respond to a 

proposed revocation prior to further VA 

action unless the exigent circumstances 

provision applies. (In the exigent 

circumstances provision, VA has also 

added an opportunity to respond, 

similar to language in current § 1.603’s 

exigent circumstances provision but 

excluded from proposed § 1.603(d).) 

Likewise, VA believes this change 

makes the revocation process generally 

‘‘more robust’’ as urged by one of the 

commenters. Under the current 

regulation, there is a proposed 

revocation but no reconsideration of a 

final decision. Under the proposed 

regulation, there was no proposed 

revocation. Under the amended 

regulation, there will be a revocation 

proposal before further action by VA 

unless the exigent circumstances 

provision applies, a decision, and the 

opportunity for reconsideration of a 

revocation. As to the commenter’s 

specific description of a more robust 

procedure—providing specific 

standards for what factors are analyzed 

in the reconsideration process and how 

this process would work in 

practicality—VA has also added, in 

paragraph (c)(2), a standard of proof, the 

preponderance of the evidence, for the 

decisions. VA is not making any other 

changes in response to the commenter’s 

suggestion for further specification 

because that specification already exists 

in other parts of the regulations. A 

revocation or denial of systems access is 

necessarily premised on a failure to 

meet a requirement or abide by a rule. 

E. Comments Outside the Scope of the 

Rule 

One commenter requested 

clarification on whether the proposed 

amendments could be interpreted as 

prohibiting VSO support staff from 

receiving VA network access altogether 

for those organizations co-located with 

a VA regional office. The commenter 

asked VA to include a statement in this 

rulemaking confirming that co-located 

administrative support staff for VSOs 

will continue to be able to utilize basic 

VA IT functionality. This rulemaking is 

limited in scope and does not apply to 

or restrict the basic IT functionality 

currently provided to administrative 

support staff for VSOs, co-located 

within VA regional offices. Therefore, 

VA made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

One commenter suggested a minimum 

of thirteen months of incarceration as a 

penalty for mishandling a claimant’s 

personal information. While VA 

understands the commenter’s desire to 

deter such misconduct, this comment 

refers to criminal provisions that are not 

included in this rulemaking and, 

therefore, cannot be addressed by this 

action. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this rule is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory 

Impact Analysis associated with this 

rulemaking can be found as a 

supporting document at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that the 

adoption of this final rule will 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). This 

final rule might have an insignificant 

economic impact on an insubstantial 

number of small entities, generally, law 

firms that have individual attorneys 

who are accredited by VA for purposes 

of representing VA benefit claimants. 

VA believes the impact to be minimal 

because access to VA systems is 

optional and not a prerequisite to 

representing any claimant before VA. 

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

initial and final regulatory flexibility 

analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 

and 604 do not apply. 

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 final rule will have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Assistance Listing 

There are no assistance listing 

program numbers and titles for this rule. 

Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the 

Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq., the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 

as not a major rule, as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects 

38 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Archives and records, 

Cemeteries, Claims, Courts, Crime, 

Flags, Freedom of information, 

Government contracts, Government 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 37749 

employees, Government property, 

Infants and children, Inventions and 

patents, Parking, Penalties, Postal 

service, Privacy, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seals and 

insignia, Security measures, Wages. 

38 CFR Part 14 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Courts, Foreign 

relations, Government employees, 

Lawyers, Legal services, Organization 

and functions (Government agencies), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Surety bonds, Trusts and 

trustees, Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

Denis McDonough, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on June 6, 2022, 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. 

Luvenia Potts, 

Regulations Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of General Counsel, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, VA amends 38 CFR parts 1 

and 14 as follows: 

PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1, is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3711(e); 38 U.S.C. 

501, 5701(g) and (i); 38 U.S.C. 5320. 38 

U.S.C. 1751–1754 and 7331–7334. Sections 

1.500–1.527 issued under 72 Stat. 1114, 

1236, as amended; 38 U.S.C. 501, 5701. 

Sections 1.600–1.603 also issued under 38 

U.S.C. 5721–5728. 

■ 2. Amend the undesignated center 

heading preceding § 1.600 by removing 

the word ‘‘Remote’’. 

■ 3. Amend § 1.600 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1). 

■ b. Amending paragraph (a)(2) by 

removing ‘‘claimants’ representatives’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘attorneys, 

agents, representatives of a VArecognized service organization, 

affiliated support-staff personnel, and 

individuals authorized by the General 

Counsel under § 14.630 of this chapter’’. 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(3). 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 1.600 Purpose. 

(a) * * * 

(1) When, and under what 

circumstances, VA will grant attorneys, 

agents, representatives of a VArecognized service organization, 

affiliated support-staff personnel, and 

individuals authorized by the General 

Counsel under § 14.630 of this chapter 

the ability to access records and basic 

claims status information through 

specific VA electronic information 

technology (IT) systems that contain 

information regarding the claimants 

whom they represent or assist in 

representing before VA; 

* * * * * 

(3) The bases and procedures for 

denial or revocation of access privileges 

to VA IT systems of an attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, affiliated supportstaff person, or individual authorized by 

the General Counsel under § 14.630 of 

this chapter for violating any of the 

requirements for access. 

(b) VA will provide access to specific 

VA IT systems, the Veterans Benefit 

Management System (VBMS) and the 

Caseflow products Queue and eFolder 

Express, under the following conditions: 

(1) Only to an attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, affiliated supportstaff person, or individual authorized by 

the General Counsel under § 14.630 of 

this chapter who is approved to access 

VA IT systems under §§ 1.600 through 

1.603; 

(2)(i) For a representative or affiliated 

support-staff person of a VA-recognized 

service organization, only to the records 

of VA claimants who appointed the 

service organization as the organization 

of record to provide representation on 

their claims, 

(ii) For an attorney or agent, only to 

the records of VA claimants who either 

appointed the attorney or agent as the 

attorney or agent of record on their 

claims or appointed an attorney or agent 

employed by the same legal services 

office as the attorney or agent of record 

and consented to affiliated access on VA 

Form 21–22a, ‘‘Appointment of 

Individual as Claimant’s 

Representative,’’ 

(iii) For an individual authorized by 

the General Counsel under § 14.630 of 

this chapter, only to the records of VA 

claimants who appointed the individual 

to provide representation on their 

claims, or 

(iv) For a support-staff person 

working under the direct supervision of 

an accredited attorney or agent only to 

the records of VA claimants who 

appointed the attorney or agent as the 

attorney or agent of record on their 

claims and consented to affiliated access 

on VA Form 21–22a, ‘‘Appointment of 

Individual as Claimant’s 

Representative’’; 

(3) Solely for the purpose of 

representing or assisting in the 

representation of the individual 

claimant whose records are accessed in 

a claim for benefits administered by VA; 

and 

(4) On a read-only basis, an attorney, 

agent, representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, affiliated supportstaff person, or individual authorized by 

the General Counsel under § 14.630 of 

this chapter authorized to access VA IT 

systems under §§ 1.600 through 1.603 

will not be permitted to modify the data, 

to include modifying any existing 

records. However, such an attorney, 

agent, representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630 of this chapter may 

upload documents as permitted by VA 

IT policy regarding submittal of new 

documents. 

(c) Privileges to access VA IT systems 

may be granted by VA only for the 

purpose of accessing a represented 

claimant’s electronically stored records 

pursuant to applicable privacy laws and 

regulations, and as authorized by a 

claimant’s power of attorney under 

§ 14.631 of this chapter. 

(d) Sections 1.600 through 1.603 are 

not intended to, and do not: 

(1) Waive the sovereign immunity of 

the United States; 

(2) Create, and may not be relied upon 

to create, any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at 

law against the United States or VA; or 

(3) Create or establish a right to 

electronic access. 

■ 4. Revise § 1.601 to read as follows: 

§ 1.601 Qualifications for access. 

(a)(1) An applicant for access to VA IT 

systems for the purpose of providing 

representation or assisting in 

representation must be: 

(i) A representative of a VArecognized service organization who is 

accredited by VA under § 14.629(a) of 

this chapter through a service 

organization and whose service 

organization holds power of attorney for 

one or more claimants under § 14.631 of 

this chapter; 

(ii) An attorney or agent who is 

accredited by VA under § 14.629(b) of 

this chapter and who: 

(A) holds power of attorney for one or 

more claimants under § 14.631 of this 

chapter or 

(B) is authorized to assist in the 

representation of one or more claimants 

as an associate attorney or agent 

employed by the same legal services 

office as the attorney or agent of record; 

(iii) An unaccredited support-staff 

person, including a legal intern, law 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
37750 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

student, or paralegal, working under the 

direct supervision of an accredited 

attorney or agent who has been 

designated to provide representation to 

one or more claimants under § 14.631(a) 

of this chapter or an accredited 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization designated to 

provide representation to one or more 

claimants under § 14.631(a); or 

(iv) An individual authorized by the 

General Counsel under § 14.630 of this 

chapter to represent, without VA 

accreditation, more than one claimant 

and holding power of attorney for one 

or more claimants under § 14.631 of this 

chapter. 

(2) To qualify for access to VA IT 

systems, the applicant must comply 

with all security requirements deemed 

necessary by VA to ensure the integrity 

and confidentiality of the data and VA 

IT systems, which may include passing 

a background suitability investigation 

for issuance of a personal identity 

verification badge. 

(3) VA may deny access to VA IT 

systems if the requirements of 

paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section 

are not met. 

(b) The method of access, including 

security software and work-site location 

of the attorney, agent, representative of 

a VA-recognized service organization, 

affiliated support-staff person, or 

individual authorized by the General 

Counsel under § 14.630 of this chapter, 

must be approved in advance by VA. 

(c) Each attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, affiliated supportstaff person, or individual authorized by 

the General Counsel under § 14.630 of 

this chapter approved for access must 

complete, sign, and return a notice 

provided by VA. The notice will specify 

any applicable operational and security 

requirements for access, in addition to 

the applicable VA Rules of Behavior, 

and an acknowledgment that the breach 

of any of these requirements is grounds 

for revocation of access. 

■ 5. Revise § 1.602 to read as follows: 

§ 1.602 Utilization of access. 

(a) Once VA issues to an attorney, 

agent, representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, affiliated supportstaff person, or individual authorized by 

the General Counsel under § 14.630 of 

this chapter the necessary logon 

credentials to obtain basic claims status 

information and read-only access to the 

VA records regarding the claimants 

represented, access will be exercised in 

accordance with the following 

requirements. The attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, support-staff 

person, or individual authorized by the 

General Counsel under § 14.630 of this 

chapter: 

(1) Will electronically access VA 

records through VA IT systems only by 

the method of access approved in 

advance by VA; 

(2) Will use only his or her assigned 

logon credentials to obtain access; 

(3) Will not reveal his or her logon 

credentials to anyone else, or allow 

anyone else to use his or her logon 

credentials; 

(4) Will access via VA IT systems only 

the records of claimants whom he or she 

represents or is authorized to assist in 

representing; 

(5) Will access via VA IT systems a 

claimant’s records solely for the purpose 

of representing or assisting in the 

representation of that claimant in a 

claim for benefits administered by VA; 

(6) Is responsible for the security of 

the logon credentials and, upon receipt 

of the logon credentials, will destroy the 

hard copy so that no written or printed 

record is retained; 

(7) Will comply with all security 

requirements VA deems necessary to 

ensure the integrity and confidentiality 

of the data and VA IT systems; and 

(8) Will, if accredited or authorized by 

the General Counsel under § 14.630 of 

this chapter, comply with each of the 

standards of conduct for accredited 

individuals prescribed in § 14.632 of 

this chapter. 

(b)(1) A VA-recognized service 

organization shall ensure that all its 

representatives and support-staff 

personnel provided access in 

accordance with these regulations 

receive annual training approved by VA 

on proper security or annually complete 

VA’s Privacy and Security Training. 

(2) An attorney, agent, affiliated 

support-staff person of an attorney or 

agent, or individual authorized by the 

General Counsel under § 14.630 of this 

chapter who is provided access in 

accordance with these regulations will 

annually acknowledge review of the 

security requirements for the system as 

set forth in these regulations, VA’s Rules 

of Behavior, and any additional 

materials provided by VA. 

(c) VA may, at any time without 

notice: 

(1) Inspect the computer hardware 

and software utilized to obtain access 

and their location; 

(2) Review the security practices and 

training of any attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, support-staff 

person, or individual authorized by the 

General Counsel under § 14.630 of this 

chapter provided access in accordance 

with these regulations; and 

(3) Monitor the access activities of an 

attorney, agent, representative of a VArecognized service organization, 

support-staff person, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630 of this chapter. By 

applying for and exercising the access 

privileges under §§ 1.600 through 1.603, 

the individual expressly consents to VA 

monitoring access activities at any time 

for the purpose of auditing system 

security. 

■ 6. Amend § 1.603 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading. 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a). 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text and (b)(2). 

■ d. Removing paragraph (b)(3). 

■ e. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as 

(b)(3) and revising the newly 

redesignated (b)(3). 

■ f. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as 

(b)(4) and revising the newly 

redesignated (b)(4). 

■ g. Redesignating paragraph (b)(6) as 

(b)(5) and revising the newly 

redesignated (b)(5). 

■ h. Revising paragraph (c). 

■ i. Removing paragraph (d). 

■ j. Redesignating paragraph (e) as (d) 

and revising the newly redesignated (d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 1.603 Revocation and reconsideration. 

(a)(1) VA may revoke access of an 

attorney, agent, representative of a VArecognized service organization, 

affiliated support-staff person, or 

individual authorized by the General 

Counsel under § 14.630 of this chapter 

to a particular claimant’s records 

because the principal individual or 

organization no longer represents the 

claimant, and, therefore, the claimant’s 

consent is no longer in effect. 

(2) VA may revoke access of a 

previously affiliated attorney or agent to 

a particular claimant’s records because 

the attorney or agent is no longer 

affiliated with the principal individual, 

and, therefore, the claimant’s consent is 

no longer in effect. 

(3) VA may revoke access privileges of 

a previously affiliated support-staff 

person to all claimants’ records because 

the support-staff person is no longer 

affiliated with the principal individual 

or VA-recognized service organization, 

and, therefore, the claimants’ consent is 

no longer in effect. 

(b) VA may revoke the access 

privileges of an attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, affiliated supportstaff person, or individual authorized by 

the General Counsel under § 14.630 of 

this chapter, either to an individual 

claimant’s records or to all claimants’ 

records via the VA IT systems, if the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 37751 

individual, or, additionally in the case 

of the affiliated support-staff personnel 

of an attorney or agent, the principal 

individual: 

* * * * * 

(2) Accesses or attempts to access data 

for a purpose other than representation 

or assistance in the representation of an 

individual claimant; 

(3) Accesses or attempts to access data 

of a claimant whom he, she, or the VArecognized service organization neither 

represents nor is authorized to assist in 

representing; 

(4) Accesses or attempts to access a 

VA IT system by a method that has not 

been approved by VA; or 

(5) Modifies or attempts to modify 

data in a VA IT system without 

authorization. 

(c)(1) To initiate the process for denial 

of access under § 1.601(a)(3) or 

revocation of access under paragraph (b) 

of this section, VA will notify the 

attorney, agent, representative of a VArecognized service organization, 

support-staff person, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630 of this chapter of the 

proposed denial or revocation. If VA is 

initiating the process to deny or revoke 

access privileges for a representative of 

a VA-recognized service organization or 

any support-staff person, VA will notify 

the service organization(s) through 

which the representative is accredited, 

or the employer of the support-staff 

person, of the proposal. If VA is 

initiating the process to revoke access 

privileges for an attorney or agent based 

on conduct related to the attorney’s or 

agent’s authorized assistance in the 

representation of one or more claimants, 

VA will notify the claimants’ attorney or 

agent of record of the revocation 

proposal. VA’s notice will include the 

procedures applicable to the proposed 

denial or revocation, including 

instructions for submitting an optional 

response and identification of the 

official making the final decision. VA 

will allow 30 days for an optional 

response to the proposal. 

(2) After considering any timelyreceived response, VA will issue a final 

decision based on a preponderance of 

the evidence. The decision will describe 

in detail the facts found and state the 

reasons for VA’s final decision. If VA 

denies or revokes access privileges for a 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization or any support-staff 

person, VA will notify the service 

organization(s) through which the 

representative is accredited, or the 

employer of the support-staff person, of 

the denial or revocation of access. If VA 

revokes access privileges for an attorney 

or agent based on conduct related to the 

attorney’s or agent’s authorized 

assistance in the representation of one 

or more claimants, VA will notify the 

claimants’ attorney or agent of record of 

the revocation of access. 

(3) The attorney, agent, representative 

of a VA-recognized service organization, 

support-staff person, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630 of this chapter may 

request reconsideration of a denial or 

revocation of access by submitting a 

written request to VA. VA will consider 

the request if it is received by VA not 

later than 30 days after the date that VA 

notified the attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, support-staff 

person, or individual authorized by the 

General Counsel under § 14.630 of this 

chapter of its decision. 

(4) The attorney, agent, representative 

of a VA-recognized service organization, 

support-staff person, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630 of this chapter may 

submit additional information not 

previously considered by VA, provided 

that the additional information is 

submitted with the written request and 

is pertinent to the prohibition of access. 

(5) VA will close the record regarding 

reconsideration at the end of the 30-day 

period described in paragraph (c)(3) of 

this section and furnish the request, 

including any new information 

submitted by the attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, support-staff 

person, or individual authorized by the 

General Counsel under § 14.630 of this 

chapter to the Director of the VA 

regional office or center with 

jurisdiction over the final decision. 

(6) VA will reconsider access based 

upon a review of the information of 

record as of the date of its prior denial 

or revocation, with any new information 

submitted with the request. The 

decision will: 

(i) Identify the attorney, agent, 

representative of a VA-recognized 

service organization, support-staff 

person, or individual authorized by the 

General Counsel under § 14.630 of this 

chapter, 

(ii) Identify the date of VA’s prior 

decision, 

(iii) Describe in detail the facts found 

as a result of VA’s review of its decision 

with any new information submitted 

with the reconsideration request, and 

(iv) State the reasons for VA’s final 

decision, which may affirm, modify, or 

overturn its prior decision. 

(7) VA will provide notice of its final 

decision on access to: 

(i) The attorney, agent, representative 

of a VA-recognized service organization, 

support-staff person, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630 of this chapter 

requesting reconsideration, and 

(ii) if the conduct that resulted in 

denial or revocation of the authority of 

an attorney, agent, representative of a 

VA-recognized service organization, 

support-staff person, or individual 

authorized by the General Counsel 

under § 14.630 of this chapter to access 

VA IT systems merits potential inquiry 

into the individual’s conduct or 

competence, or in the case of an 

affiliated support-staff person of an 

attorney or agent, the principal 

individual’s conduct or competence, 

pursuant to § 14.633 of this chapter, the 

VA regional office or center of 

jurisdiction will immediately inform 

VA’s Office of General Counsel in 

writing of the fact that it has denied or 

revoked the individual’s access 

privileges and provide the reasons why. 

(d) VA may immediately suspend 

access privileges prior to any 

determination on the merits of a 

proposed revocation where VA 

determines that such immediate 

suspension is necessary to protect, from 

a reasonably foreseeable compromise, 

the integrity of the system or 

confidentiality of the data in VA IT 

systems. However, in such case, VA 

shall offer the individual an opportunity 

to respond to the charges that led to the 

immediate suspension and the proposed 

revocation after the temporary 

suspension. 

PART 14—LEGAL SERVICES, 

GENERAL COUNSEL, AND 

MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 14 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 2671– 

2680; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 515, 5502, 5901– 

5905; 28 CFR part 14, appendix to part 14, 

unless otherwise noted. 

§ 14.629 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 14.629 by removing the 

Note. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13312 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1