Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 41579 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2017–0660; Product Identifier 2017–NE– 

21–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by October 16, 

2017. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to General Electric 

Company (GE) GEnx–1B64/P2, –1B67/P2, 

–1B70/P2, –1B70/75/P2, –1B70C/P2, and 

–1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines, with a highpressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 blade retainer, 

part number (P/N) 2445M91P01 or 

2383M99P02, with a serial number listed in 

Planning Information, paragraph 1.A., of GE 

GEnx–1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72–0326 R02, 

dated August 16, 2017. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code 7250, Turbine Section. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of the 

failure of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) 

stage 1 blade retainer and subsequent inflight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 

1 blade retainer. The unsafe condition, if not 

corrected, could result in failure of one or 

more engines, loss of thrust control, and 

damage to the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(1) At the next engine shop visit after the 

effective date of this AD, perform a one-time 

inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. 

Use the Accomplishment Instructions, 

paragraph 3.A.(1), in GE GEnx–1B SB 72– 

0326 R02, dated August 16, 2017, to do the 

inspection. 

(2) If any cracks are found in the HPT stage 

1 blade retainer, or the retainer does not meet 

the dimensional criteria found in the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 

3.A.(1), in GEnx–1B SB 72–0326 R02, dated 

August 16, 2017, replace with a part eligible 

for installation. 

(g) Definition 

For the purpose of this AD, an ‘‘engine 

shop visit’’ is the induction of an engine into 

the shop for maintenance involving the 

separation of pairs of major mating engine 

case flanges, except separation of engine 

flanges solely for the purposes of 

transportation or for replacing the fan or 

propulsor, without subsequent maintenance, 

does not constitute an engine shop visit. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, 

Compliance and Airworthiness Division, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to 

the attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. You may email 

your request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and 

Airworthiness Division, 1200 District 

Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781– 

238–7120; fax: 781–238–7199; email: 

Christopher.mcguire@faa.gov. 

(2) GE GEnx–1B SB 72–0326 R02, dated 

August 16, 2017, can be obtained from GE 

using the contact information in paragraph 

(i)(3) of this AD. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact General Electric 

Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 

Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, 

phone: 513–552–3272; fax: 513–552–3329; 

email: geae.aoc@ge.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards 

Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 

District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

August 29, 2017. 

Robert J. Ganley, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards 

Branch, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18571 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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 VeteranOwned 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 fulltime 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
41580 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 

90, 95, and 101 

[WT Docket No. 10–112; FCC 17–105] 

Amendment of the Commission’s 

Rules To Establish Uniform License 

Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, 

and Geographic Partitioning and 

Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and 

Policies for Certain Wireless Radio 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission seeks 

additional comment on a range of 

possible actions that may advance the 

Commission’s goal of increasing the 

number of rural Americans with access 

to wireless communications services. In 

order to encourage investment in 

wireless networks, facilitate access to 

scarce spectrum resources, and promote 

the rapid deployment of mobile services 

to rural Americans, the Commission 

seeks comment on additional, 

reasonable construction obligations 

during renewal terms that are targeted to 

reach rural areas that lack adequate 

service. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before October 2, 2017, 

and reply comments on or before 

October 31, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 10–112, by 

any of the following methods: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS