[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 197 (Friday, October 12, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58009-58013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20211]



[[Page 58009]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 14

RIN 2900-AM29


Accreditation of Service Organization Representatives and Agents

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its 
regulations governing the accreditation of representatives of claimants 
for veterans' benefits. As amended, the regulations require service 
organizations to recertify the qualifications of their accredited 
representatives every 5 years, and to notify VA when requesting 
cancellation of a representative's accreditation based upon misconduct 
or lack of competence, or if a representative resigns to avoid 
cancellation of accreditation for misconduct or lack of competence. 
They also clarify that VA's authority to cancel accreditation includes 
the authority to suspend accreditation. The purpose of these amendments 
is to ensure that claimants for veterans' benefits have responsible, 
qualified representation in the preparation, presentation, and 
prosecution of claims.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective January 10, 2008. 
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for initial compliance dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Daugherty, Staff Attorney, 
Office of the General Counsel (022G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 
810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-6315. This is 
not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a document published in the Federal 
Register on December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76221), VA proposed to amend the 
regulations governing the accreditation of recognized veterans service 
organization representatives and claims agents. The public comment 
period ended on February 21, 2006. VA received comments from an 
individual veteran, two State veterans service organizations, and three 
national veterans service organizations. These comments are discussed 
below.
    After the notice of proposed rulemaking was published, Public Law 
109-461 was enacted. Section 101 of Public Law 109-461, the Veterans 
Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, amends 
chapter 59 of title 38, United States Code, governing the recognition 
of individuals for the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of 
claims for benefits before VA. The amendments to chapter 59, among 
other things, require VA to: (1) Regulate the qualifications and 
standards of conduct applicable to accredited agents and attorneys; (2) 
annually collect information about accredited agents' and attorneys' 
standing to practice or appear before any court, bar, or Federal or 
State agency; (3) add to the list of grounds for suspension or 
exclusion of agents or attorneys from further practice before VA; and 
(4) subject veterans service organization representatives and 
individuals recognized for a particular claim to suspension and 
exclusion from further practice before VA on the same grounds as apply 
to agents and attorneys.
    Section 101 of Public Law 109-461 also amends the fee provisions in 
chapter 59. Prior to the amendments, section 5904(c)(1) proscribed the 
charging of fees by agents and attorneys for services provided before a 
first final Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision in a case. 
Under the amendments, accredited agents and attorneys may charge fees 
for representational services provided after the claimant files a 
notice of disagreement in a case, and may receive fees for 
representation directly from VA out of past-due benefits paid to 
claimants.
    These various amendments, viewed together, indicate to us that 
Congress intends VA to treat agents and attorneys in the same manner 
for purposes of accreditation, suspension or cancellation of 
accreditation, and payment of fees. To properly implement the 
provisions of Public Law 109-461, VA will withdraw the provisions of 
the notice of proposed rulemaking relating to the accreditation of 
claims agents and will revisit the issue in a later rulemaking.
    Based on the rationale described in this document and in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking, VA adopts the proposed rule as revised in this 
document.

Section 14.629(a)--Periodic Recertification of Service Organization 
Representatives

    Five commenters expressed overall support for the concept of 
periodic recertification of service organization representatives. One 
of these commenters, a national veterans service organization, while 
supporting the proposed rule, expressed concern with its ability to 
recertify hundreds of accredited representatives in a timely manner 
after VA publishes a final rule. The commenter asked for a 6-month 
grace period following the effective date of the regulation to achieve 
initial compliance and asked for a 4-month grace period for each 
subsequent recertification of an accredited representative. VA 
acknowledges that many service organizations, by virtue of the size of 
their operations, will face administrative challenges in recertifying 
representatives accredited by VA more than 5 years before the effective 
date of this rule. To address this issue, the rule is being made 
effective 90 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register 
and VA is establishing a phased series of initial compliance dates 
based on the first letter of representatives' last names. The initial 
compliance date for service organization representatives accredited 
more than 5 years before the effective date of this rule is April 9, 
2008 for representatives with last names beginning with letters A 
through F; July 8, 2008 for representatives with last names beginning 
with letters G through M; October 6, 2008 for representatives with last 
names beginning with letters N through S; and January 5, 2009 for 
representatives with last names beginning with letters T through Z.
    The delayed effective date and phased initial compliance dates will 
permit organizations to make conforming changes to their procedures and 
phase-in the recertification requirements over a 15-month period. We 
believe that these accommodations are sufficient to avoid undue burdens 
on recognized organizations. Thereafter, VA intends that organizations 
will recertify their accredited representatives before the expiration 
of each 5-year certification period. Accordingly, we will not make 
further changes based on these comments.
    One commenter, a national veterans service organization, requested 
clarification about proposed Sec.  14.629(a). Specifically, the 
organization asked whether VA's amendment would require accredited 
service organization representatives ``to take a written examination 
administered by VA every 5 years as a prerequisite for 
recertification'' as proposed for agents in Sec.  14.629(b)(2). The 
organization does not support such a requirement for its accredited 
representatives. Another commenter, a State veterans service 
organization, expressed similar concern that the rule would impose a 
new testing requirement for representatives.
    It is not VA's intention to impose a new testing requirement for 
recertification of accredited representatives of service organizations 
under this rule. Section 14.629(a)

[[Page 58010]]

outlines the initial accreditation and periodic recertification 
requirements for accredited representatives of service organizations, 
and Sec.  14.629(b) provides the requirements for claims agents. To 
recertify an accredited representative, an organization files a VA Form 
21 (Application for Accreditation as Service Organization 
Representative) with the signature of the certifying official 
indicating the representative continues to meet the requirements of 
Sec.  14.629(a)(1) through (3) in that he or she is of good character 
and reputation, is qualified to represent veterans, meets 
organizational membership requirements or is a full-time employee of 
the organization, and is not an employee of the United States 
Government. The organization may determine for itself the best means to 
determine the continuing qualifications of its representatives. The 
service organization's filing of the VA Form 21 is the only requirement 
for recertification of accredited representatives under Sec.  
14.629(a).

Section 14.629(b)--Agents

    One commenter, a State veterans service organization, objected to 
the testing requirements in VA's accreditation regulations. However, 
the successful completion of an examination exists as a requirement for 
the initial accreditation of claims agents and the initial 
accreditation of county veterans' service officers recommended by a 
recognized State organization, not for service organization 
representatives in general. For the reasons discussed above relating to 
the enactment of Public Law 109-461, VA will withdraw the proposed 
amendments requiring periodic recertification of claims agents and will 
revisit the issue in a later rulemaking.

Section 14.633--Suspension of Accreditation

    One commenter, a national veterans service organization, suggested 
that VA ``better define the circumstances under which accreditation can 
be suspended'' and ``describe the maximum length of a suspension and 
the mechanism for obtaining reinstatement.'' We agree.
    Section 5904(b) permits VA to suspend or exclude agents and 
attorneys from practice before VA. VA has interpreted section 5902 and 
its predecessor, 38 U.S.C. 3402, as similarly authorizing the 
suspension or exclusion of accredited representatives of recognized 
service organizations. See 38 CFR 14.627(c) (1965) (suspension or 
exclusion for cause); see also 38 CFR 14.633(c) (1979) (suspension or 
exclusion based upon a finding of clear and convincing evidence of 
proscribed conduct). Moreover, in Public Law 109-461, Congress amended 
section 5902 to subject accredited representatives to suspension and 
exclusion from further practice before VA on the same grounds as apply 
to agents and attorneys as provided for in section 5904(b). VA agrees 
that there is a need for greater clarity in the procedures for 
reinstatement. Accordingly, we have revised the proposed amendments to 
the rule concerning suspension to provide that the General Counsel may 
suspend accreditation for a definite period or until the individual 
satisfies the conditions established by the General Counsel for 
reinstatement. The General Counsel will reinstate suspended 
accreditations at the end of the period of suspension or upon 
verification that the individual has satisfied the conditions for 
reinstatement.
    Concerning the circumstances under which a representative may be 
suspended, VA believes that further clarification is unnecessary. The 
plain language of section 5904(b) authorizes VA to suspend or exclude 
from further practice before VA agents or attorneys found incompetent 
or to have engaged in misconduct. Congress' recent amendment of section 
5902 in Public Law 109-461 codifies VA's longstanding interpretation of 
section 5902 by providing VA with authority to suspend the 
accreditation of representatives or exclude them from further practice 
before VA on the same grounds as apply to agents and attorneys. VA's 
decision to suspend or cancel an individual's accreditation will be 
based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, with 
suspension being appropriate in cases involving extenuating 
circumstances or less egregious conduct not warranting permanent 
cancellation of accreditation.

Section 14.633--Duty To Inform VA of Misconduct or Incompetence

    Two commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement for an 
organization to inform VA of the reasons for requesting cancellation of 
a representative's accreditation under 38 CFR 14.633(a) when the 
request is due to the representative's misconduct or lack of competence 
or because the representative resigned to avoid cancellation of 
accreditation based upon misconduct or lack of competence.
    One commenter, a national service organization, expressed concern 
that the proposed requirement would create an adversarial relationship 
between the employer service organization and employee representative 
and that it would create ``a potential ethical conflict in situations 
where the representative is also represented by the organization to 
which he or she is accredited.'' According to this organization, 
``[p]roviding the VA with information that may potentially adversely 
impact the representative's entitlement to VA benefits is in direct 
conflict with the organization's obligation as the individual's 
representative.'' We disagree.
    Under the law governing recognition, service organizations have a 
legal duty to assist VA in ensuring the competent representation of 
claimants before The Department. Section 5902(a) of title 38, United 
States Code, authorizes VA to recognize organizations for the limited 
purpose of ensuring competent representation of veterans in the 
preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits. 
See 38 CFR 14.626 (``The purpose of the regulation of representatives 
is to ensure that claimants for [VA] benefits have responsible, 
qualified representation in the preparation, presentation, and 
prosecution of claims for veterans' benefits.''). VA implemented this 
authority in 38 CFR 14.628, which, among other things, requires that an 
organization applying for recognition demonstrate a substantial service 
commitment to veterans. An organization applying for VA recognition 
must demonstrate that it satisfies the legal requirements for 
recognition and then certify to VA that each of the organization's 
representatives who will assist veterans in the preparation, 
presentation, and prosecution of claims before VA meets the legal 
requirements for accreditation in 38 CFR 14.629(a). Furthermore, 
recognized organizations are required to train and monitor their 
accredited representatives to ensure the proper handling of claims. 38 
CFR 14.628(d)(1)(v). Thus, an organization's legal duty to establish 
systems to ensure the competent representation of claimants does not 
end with its recognition, but continues as long as the organization is 
recognized by VA.
    Under current Sec.  14.633(c) and (d), cancellation of 
accreditation is mandatory if the General Counsel finds that a 
representative engaged in misconduct or that a representative's 
performance before the Department demonstrates a lack of the degree of 
competence necessary to adequately prepare, present, and prosecute 
claims. However, under current Sec.  14.633(a), service organizations 
may request cancellation of a representative's accreditation without 
informing VA of the reason for the request. The amendments to Sec.  
14.633(a), which

[[Page 58011]]

require organizations to report the reason for the request if it 
involves misconduct or incompetence, will assist VA in monitoring the 
qualifications of individuals who apply for accreditation or are cross-
accredited through more than one recognized organization.
    The practice of cross-accreditation is defined in 38 CFR 14.627(i) 
as ``accreditation based on the status of a representative as an 
accredited and functioning representative of another organization.'' 
Although cross-accreditation enhances claimants' opportunities for 
representation, it may conceal a representative's misconduct or 
incompetence absent the amendments to Sec.  14.633(a) in this rule. 
Consider the situation where a representative, accredited by several 
organizations, is discharged for an offense at one organization that, 
if proven, would clearly lead to cancellation of accreditation by VA. 
If the organization does not report the reason for the discharge to VA 
when requesting cancellation of the representative's accreditation, the 
individual's accreditations through other organizations remain valid 
and the representative may continue to provide representation through 
those organizations. As a result, an individual who engages in 
unlawful, unethical or unprofessional acts or is incompetent may 
continue to represent veterans.
    An additional rationale for the amendment requiring notification is 
the situation where a representative ends his or her affiliation with 
the organization in order to avoid cancellation of accreditation based 
on misconduct and then applies for accreditation through another 
organization that has no knowledge of the misconduct. In this case, 
without knowledge of the previous misconduct, VA would likely accredit 
the representative through the new organization based upon the new 
organization's unknowing certification. Certainly, if a representative 
engages in misconduct or provides incompetent representation at one 
organization, VA should not accredit the individual through another 
organization. This rule, which requires organizations to notify VA of 
the reason for requesting cancellation of a representative's 
accreditation if that reason involves misconduct or incompetence, 
closes these gaps and better ensures the competent representation of 
claimants. VA believes that these benefits greatly outweigh any 
potential effect on the employer/employee relationship between 
organizations and their representatives.
    Regarding the commenter's concern about a potential adverse impact 
on a veteran's benefit entitlements by virtue of the obligation to 
inform VA of misconduct or incompetence, the service organizations' 
duty to inform provides VA with the information necessary to 
investigate misconduct and incompetence and ensure competent 
representation of claimants. It is not clear how information about a 
representative's misconduct or incompetence could adversely affect his 
or her own entitlement to VA benefits, unless the information relates 
to a scheme of fraud in obtaining benefits. Although an organization's 
primary purpose is to serve veterans, clearly this obligation does not 
include concealing fraud against the United States.
    Recent changes in the law governing representation reinforce the 
obligation of service organizations to report a representative's 
misconduct or incompetence to VA. As discussed earlier, Public Law 109-
461 amended 38 U.S.C. 5904(a) to require VA to regulate the 
qualifications and standards of conduct applicable to accredited agents 
and attorneys. Amended section 5902(b)(2) subjects veterans service 
organization representatives to suspension and exclusion from further 
practice before VA on the same grounds as apply to agents and 
attorneys. VA's statutory obligation to regulate the standards of 
conduct of accredited representatives as reflected in amendments to 
chapter 59 requires that organizations fulfill the reporting 
obligations described in Sec.  14.633(a). In May 2007, we published in 
the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking implementing 
Public Law 109-461, which, among other things, established standards of 
conduct for practice before VA applicable to all service organization 
representatives. 72 FR 25930.
    The commenter also expressed concern about the disclosure of 
disaccreditation information providing a basis for claimants to seek 
readjudication of numerous claims. However, VA decisions are final 
absent reopening based on new and material evidence or a finding of 
clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a prior regional office or Board 
of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision. See 38 U.S.C. 5108, 5109A, 7111. 
To establish CUE in a final VA decision, it must be shown that VA 
committed a specific error in adjudicating the claim and that the 
outcome would have been manifestly different but for the error. Cook v. 
Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, an 
allegation that a claimant was represented by a person later 
disaccredited for misconduct or incompetence, by itself, would 
generally not be sufficient to require readjudication of a claim based 
on conduct by the representative.
    The commenter suggested that ``very few individuals would be 
brought to the attention of the VA'' for misconduct or incompetence 
because it is likely those individuals would resign before any 
allegations of misconduct or incompetence were ever substantiated. The 
situation described by the organization is foreseeable under current 
Sec.  14.633(a) and under the amendments made by this rule. While VA 
recognizes that individuals may resign before any incompetence or 
misconduct is substantiated as a means to avoid a formal inquiry, this 
does not mean that VA should forego any effort to improve the quality 
of representation in cases where an organization has determined that 
misconduct or incompetence is sufficient to request cancellation of VA 
accreditation. With the rule in effect, the organization will be 
required to inform VA that a request to cancel accreditation under 
Sec.  14.633(a) is based upon misconduct, incompetence, or resignation 
to avoid cancellation of accreditation for misconduct or incompetence. 
Upon receipt of such information, when appropriate, VA will initiate 
the procedures under 38 CFR 14.633(e) to determine whether the 
representative should be barred from further representation of VA 
claimants. As a result, VA, in cooperation with service organizations, 
will seek to ensure the competent representation of claimants.
    Another commenter, a State organization, expressed disagreement 
with the proposed requirement to notify VA in cases of cancellation of 
accreditation for misconduct ``unless [VA] assumes all potential civil 
liability for the accrediting organizations.'' The organization 
expressed concern that it might incur civil liability as a result of a 
lawsuit brought by a representative after it provides accreditation 
cancellation information to VA.
    VA cannot guarantee immunity from civil suit, nor can it underwrite 
an organization's potential liability resulting from civil suit. While 
VA acknowledges the potential for civil liability in a defamation 
action under state law for disclosure of employment-related 
information, this is a risk incurred by all employers in providing 
information about former employees to current or potential employers. 
The sole purpose of the requirement that service organizations disclose 
the reason for requesting cancellation of a representative's 
accreditation is to

[[Page 58012]]

ensure competent representation of claimants by cancelling 
accreditation and preventing further accreditation in appropriate 
cases. In the commenter's jurisdiction, section 47(b) of the California 
Civil Code provides an absolute privilege for a communication ``in any 
other official proceeding authorized by law.'' See CAL. CIV. CODE Sec.  
47(b). A ``communication to an official administrative agency, which 
communication is designed to prompt action by that agency'' is 
considered part of an official proceeding. See King v. Borges, 104 Cal. 
Rptr. 414, 417 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972). Thus, an organization's 
communication to VA concerning the reasons for requesting cancellation 
of a representative's accreditation, a communication required by law 
and designed to prompt action by VA concerning the representative's 
accreditation through other organizations, is absolutely privileged 
under California law.
    Most States have statutory or common law provisions that establish 
truth as a defense in defamation actions and protect certain 
communications as privileged. Communication of accreditation 
cancellation information to VA by a service organization, without 
malice, and within accepted limits, would generally be privileged and 
thus not likely to result in liability for defamation damages. Even in 
the absence of a privilege, the publication of a true statement by a 
service organization to VA would not lead to liability for defamation. 
See Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec.  581A (1977) (``One who 
publishes a defamatory statement of fact is not subject to liability 
for defamation if the statement is true.''). Because the nature of 
defamation liability and privileged communication varies from State to 
State, VA encourages organizations to seek counsel regarding applicable 
laws. As an additional protection from liability, organizations should 
consider making disclosure of accreditation cancellation information to 
VA a condition of employment by or affiliation with the organization 
and obtaining prior written authorization from the representative to 
disclose such information.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains provisions constituting collections of 
information at 38 CFR 14.629(a), 14.629(b), and 14.633(a) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has approved these collections and has assigned OMB 
control number 2900-0018.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that 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-
602). This rule will affect the 87 veterans service organizations 
recognized by VA to represent benefit claimants. However, the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on these organizations 
because it would only impose certification requirements the costs of 
which would not be significant. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 
this rule is exempt from the final regulatory flexibility analysis 
requirements of section 604.

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all 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, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order 
classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review 
by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number 
of specified conditions, including: having an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or 
interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the 
budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement 
recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. VA has examined 
the economic, legal, and policy implications of this final rule and has 
concluded that it is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866 because it raises novel policy issues.

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 year. This final rule would have no such effect on 
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles

    There are no Federal Domestic Assistance programs associated with 
this final rule.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 14

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Courts, Foreign 
relations, Government employees, Lawyers, Legal services, Organizations 
and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Surety bonds, Trusts and trustees, Veterans.

    Approved: July 2, 2007.
Gordon H. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs amends 38 CFR part 14 as follows:

PART 14--LEGAL SERVICES, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS

0
1. 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, 5902-5905; 28 CFR part 14, appendix to part 14, 
unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Revise Sec.  14.629(a) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  14.629  Requirements for accreditation of service organization 
representatives; agents; and attorneys.

* * * * *
    (a) Service Organization Representatives. A recognized organization 
shall file with the Office of the General Counsel VA Form 21 
(Application for Accreditation as Service Organization Representative) 
for each person it desires accredited as a representative of that 
organization. The form must be signed by the prospective representative 
and the organization's certifying official. For each of its accredited 
representatives, a recognized organization's certifying official shall 
complete, sign and file with the Office of the General Counsel, not 
later than five years after initial accreditation through that 
organization or the most recent recertification by that organization, 
VA Form 21 to certify that the representative continues to meet the 
criteria for accreditation specified in paragraph (a)(1), (2) and (3) 
of this section. In recommending a person, the organization shall 
certify that the designee:
* * * * *

0
3. Section 14.633(a) is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(2)(i).
0
b. In paragraphs (b), (c) introductory text, and (d) adding `` 
suspended or `` before ``canceled'' each time it appears.
0
c. In paragraph (e) introductory text adding ``suspension or'' before 
``cancellation''.

[[Page 58013]]

0
d. In paragraph (e)(1), removing ``and maintain the record for 3 
years''.
0
e. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii), adding ``further suspend or'' before 
``cancel'' and ``suspension or'' before ``cancellation''.
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h).
0
g. Adding new paragraph (g).
0
h. In redesignated paragraph (h), adding ``suspension or'' before 
``termination'', and by removing the last sentence of the paragraph.
0
i. Adding a parenthetical at the end of the section.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  14.633  Termination of accreditation of agents, attorneys, and 
representatives.

    (a) Accreditation may be suspended or canceled at the request of an 
agent, attorney, representative, or organization. When an organization 
requests suspension or cancellation of the accreditation of a 
representative due to misconduct or lack of competence on the part of 
the representative or because the representative resigned to avoid 
suspension or cancellation of accreditation for misconduct or lack of 
competence, the organization shall inform VA of the reason for the 
request for suspension or cancellation and the facts and circumstances 
surrounding any incident that led to the request.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) As to representatives, suspend accreditation immediately and 
notify the representative and the representative's organization of the 
interim suspension and of an intent to cancel or continue suspension of 
accreditation. The notice to the representative will also state the 
reasons for the interim suspension and impending cancellation or 
continuation of suspension, and inform the representative of a right to 
request a hearing on the matter or to submit additional evidence within 
10 working days following receipt of such notice. Such time may be 
extended for a reasonable period upon a showing of sufficient cause.
* * * * *
    (g) The General Counsel may suspend the accreditation of a 
representative, agent, or attorney, under paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) 
of this section, for a definite period or until the conditions for 
reinstatement specified by the General Counsel are satisfied. The 
General Counsel shall reinstate an individual's accreditation at the 
end of the suspension period or upon verification that the individual 
has satisfied the conditions for reinstatement.
* * * * *
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information 
collections requirements in this section control number 2900-0018.)

[FR Doc. E7-20211 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P