33518 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Event Description ............... Fireworks Display. 

Date .................................... July 4, 2021 

Time .................................... From 8 a.m. on July 3, 2021 until 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2021, the barge will load, transit, and stage at the display 

location. From 9:30 p.m. until the conclusion of the fireworks display at approximately 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 

2021, the safety zone will increase in size. 

Location .............................. The barge will load at the Dutra Corp Yard in Rio Vista, CA, and transit to the display location in the San Joaquin 

River, near Mandeville Island, CA, at approximate position 38°03′20.5′′ N, 121°32′03′′ W. 

Regulated Area .................. 100-foot radius around the fireworks launch barge during the loading of pyrotechnics aboard the fireworks barge 

and during the transit of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location. Increases to a 

1,000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display. 

16. Fourth of July Fireworks, Glenbrook NV 

Sponsor .............................. Various Sponsors. 

Event Description ............... Fireworks Display. 

Date .................................... July 4, 2021 

Time .................................... From 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on July 4, 2021, the barge will load, transit, and stage at the display location. From 9 p.m. 

until the conclusion of the fireworks display at approximately 10:25 p.m. on July 4, 2021, the safety zone will increase in size. 

Location .............................. The barge will load in Glenbrook, NV and transit to the display location off-shore Glenbrook Beach, NV in approximate position 39°05′18.40′′ N, 119°56′34.67′′ W. 

Regulated Area .................. 100-foot radius around the fireworks launch barge during the loading of pyrotechnics aboard the fireworks barge 

and the transit of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location. Increases to a 1,000-foot 

radius upon commencement of the fireworks display. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.1191, unauthorized persons or 

vessels are prohibited from anchoring, 

blocking, loitering, or impeding the 

through transit of participants or official 

patrol vessels in the safety zone during 

all applicable effective dates and times. 

All vessels in the safety zone during the 

effective dates and times are subject to 

movement control by the PATCOM or 

other Official Patrol defined as a 

Federal, state, or local law enforcement 

agency on scene to assist the Coast 

Guard in enforcing the safety zones. 

During the enforcement period, if you 

are the operator of a vessel in one of the 

safety zones you must comply with 

directions from the Patrol Commander 

or other Official Patrol. 

In addition to this notice of 

enforcement in the Federal Register, the 

Coast Guard plans to provide 

notification of this enforcement period 

via the Local Notice to Mariners. 

If the Captain of the Port determines 

that the regulated area need not be 

enforced for the full duration stated in 

this notice, a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners may be used to grant general 

permission to enter the regulated area. 

Dated: June 21, 2021. 

Jordan M. Baldueza, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain 

of the Port, San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13611 Filed 6–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 668 

Office of Post-Secondary Education 

CFR Correction 

■ In Title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Education, Parts 400 to 

679, revised as of July 1, 2020, on page 

417, in section 668.41, paragraphs 

(h)(2)(i) through (iii) are reinstated to 

read as follows: 

§ 668.41 Reporting and disclosure of 

information. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Class action means a lawsuit or an 

arbitration proceeding in which one or 

more parties seeks class treatment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23 or any State process 

analogous to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23. 

(ii) Class action waiver means any 

agreement or part of an agreement, 

regardless of its form or structure, 

between a school, or a party acting on 

behalf of a school, and a student that 

relates to the making of a Direct Loan or 

the provision of educational services for 

which the student received title IV 

funding and prevents an individual 

from filing or participating in a class 

action that pertains to those services. 

(iii) Pre-dispute arbitration agreement 

means any agreement or part of an 

agreement, regardless of its form or 

structure, between a school, or a party 

acting on behalf of a school, and a 

student requiring arbitration of any 

future dispute between the parties 

relating to the making of a Direct Loan 

or provision of educational services for 

which the student received title IV 

funding. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–13694 Filed 6–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0099–10–D 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 61 

RIN 2900–AP54 

VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per 

Diem Program 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations 

concerning the VA Homeless Providers 

Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program. 

These amendments provide GPD with 

increased flexibility to: Respond to the 

changing needs of homeless veterans; 

repurpose existing and future funds 

more efficiently; and allow recipients 

the ability to add, modify, or eliminate 

components of funded programs. This 

rule updates these regulations to better 

serve our homeless veteran population 

and the recipients who serve them. 

DATES: The final rule is effective July 26, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffery Quarles, Director, Grant/Per 

Diem Program, (673/GPD), VA National 

Grant and Per Diem Program Office, 

10770 N 46th Street, Suite C–200, 

Tampa, FL 33617, (813) 979–3570. (This 

is not a toll-free number.) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33519 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to 38 U.S.C. 501, 2001, 2011, 2012, 

2061, and 2064, VA established the VA 

Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem 

(GPD) Program with implementing 

regulations at 38 CFR part 61. Through 

the GPD Program, VA awards five types 

of grants to entities and organizations 

that meet specific criteria to support 

supportive or transitional housing for 

homeless veterans until the veteran can 

transition into permanent housing. VA 

awards capital grants, special need 

grants, technical assistance grants, case 

management services grants and per 

diem only grants to offset operating 

costs for a program of supportive 

housing or services. 

On July 25, 2017, VA proposed to 

amend its regulations that govern the 

VA GPD Program. (82 FR 34457). VA 

provided a 60-day comment period, 

which ended on September 25, 2017. 

We received 15 comments on the rule. 

Most of the comments were generally 

positive; however, several commenters 

raised concerns about the proposed 

changes, which we address here. 

§ 61.1 Definitions 

VA proposed amending the definition 

of supportive housing to state that this 

type of housing is designed to either: 

Facilitate the movement of homeless 

veterans to permanent housing as soon 

as possible but no later than 24 months, 

subject to § 61.80; or provide bridge 

housing or specific medical treatment 

such as detoxification, respite, or 

hospice treatments that are used as stepup or step-down programs within that 

specific project’s continuum. 

A commenter remarked that use of the 

term ‘‘bridge housing’’ is misleading. At 

82 FR 34458 we stated that bridge 

housing is a short-term, transitional 

housing option in a safe environment 

for veterans who have accepted a 

permanent housing placement, but 

access to the permanent housing is not 

immediately available for occupancy. 

Typically, the bridge housing model 

length of stay is less than 90 days, 

absent additional services, and devoid 

of a specific clinical care component. 

The commenter noted that in the past, 

VA published a Notice of Funding 

Availability (NOFA) for the GPD 

Program which specified admission 

criteria. The commenter stated that the 

admission criteria published in the 

NOFA included the requirement that 

supportive housing must facilitate the 

movement of homeless veterans to 

permanent housing within a period that 

is not less than 90 days in length. 

Previously issued NOFAs stated, as part 

of the admission criteria, that the 

veteran ‘‘must have been offered and 

accepted a permanent housing 

intervention prior to admission or 

within the first 14 days of admission.’’ 

The commenter stated that the intent is 

for housing within 90 days, but not that 

housing has been identified prior to 

admission. 

We do not agree that the use of the 

term ‘‘bridge housing’’ is misleading. 

While it is accurate to state that VA 

published certain admission criteria in 

past NOFAs, VA subsequently proposed 

changes to those criteria. While the 

commenter first focused on the 

proposed addition of ‘‘bridge housing’’ 

to the definition of supportive housing, 

it appears that the main concern is the 

proposed removal of the requirement 

that supportive housing must facilitate 

the movement of homeless veterans to 

permanent housing within a period that 

is not less than 90 days. The 90-day 

supportive housing requirement was 

intended to ensure that veterans have 

sufficient time to take full advantage of 

all supportive services, thereby enabling 

their successful transition to permanent 

housing. However, VA recognizes that 

each veteran has an individualized 

treatment plan and may, for a variety of 

reasons, choose to exit the program 

before 90 days. VA believes that one of 

these reasons may be the desire to move 

into permanent housing rather than 

remain in supportive housing for up to 

90 days. 

In any case, we are eliminating the 

reference to 90 days in the proposed 

definition of supportive housing by 

removing the phrase ‘‘within a period 

that is not less than 90 days and does 

not exceed’’ and amending paragraph 

(2)(i) of the definition at 38 CFR 61.1 to 

state: ‘‘facilitate the movement of 

homeless veterans to permanent 

housing as soon as possible but no later 

than 24 months, subject to § 61.80; or’’. 

This should address the commenter’s 

concerns summarized above. 

In addition, to address any potential 

confusion, we are removing the 

proposed addition of language about 

bridge housing. Specifically, we are 

removing the proposed definition of and 

reference to bridge housing as it is no 

longer necessary and not included in 

the regulation. At the time of the 

commenter’s concern, bridge housing 

was a new concept for GPD programs. 

In subsequent years, however, bridge 

housing has become a standard practice 

in GPD programs, the meaning of which 

is common knowledge among grantees 

and available elsewhere, such as in 

funding opportunities and in technical 

assistance materials widely available to 

the community. 

§ 61.33 Payment of Per Diem 

We proposed several changes to this 

section, including amending general 

provisions on per diem payments, rates 

for such payments, and removal of one 

paragraph that duplicates content in 

new proposed § 61.5. We subsequently 

published, at 82 FR 38646 (August 15, 

2017) a correction to proposed 

paragraph (c). We received public 

comment on proposed changes to 

paragraphs (a)(3), (e), and (f). 

We renumber proposed § 61.33 for 

clarity as follows. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) is renumbered as paragraph 

(a)(2). Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) is 

now paragraph (a)(3). Proposed 

paragraph (a)(2) is now paragraph (b). 

Proposed paragraphs (b) through (h) are 

now paragraphs (c) through (h), with 

proposed paragraph (f) omitted. We 

have also renumbered the cross 

references within § 61.33 to reflect the 

new numbering. 

In proposed paragraph (a)(3), now 

paragraph (b) as stated below, we stated 

that VA may at any time review the 

provision of supportive housing and 

services to individual veterans by the 

provider to ensure the care provided 

continues to be needed and appropriate. 

One commenter stated that the proposed 

reviewing of individual veteran service 

plans gives VA too much power. We do 

not agree. VA has always had the 

authority to inspect grantees to ensure 

they are complying with all program 

requirements, including review of 

individual service plans. See 38 CFR 

61.65. This rulemaking clarifies that 

authority. Further, VA will not pay per 

diem where we conclude that services 

furnished by the recipient are 

unacceptable. All grantees must have 

individual service plans (ISPs) for 

veteran participants. As a condition of 

accepting the grant award, grantees 

must sign assurances allowing VA to 

access and review, on demand, all 

records associated with the grant award. 

Since moving individual veterans to 

permanent housing as quickly as they 

are ready is an important goal of GPD, 

VA will ensure that veterans are 

continuing to move toward this goal by 

reviewing ISPs. Also, we will provide 

assistance to veterans and grantees in 

cases where veterans are not moving to 

permanent housing as quickly as they 

are ready. 

In proposed paragraph (e), now 

paragraph (f), we proposed that VA 

would pay per diem up to a maximum 

of seventy-two (72) consecutive hours 

for the scheduled absence of a veteran. 

This would amend the then-current rule 

that allowed payment for both 

scheduled and unscheduled absences, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
33520 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

which we noted had been misapplied or 

misunderstood by GPD grantees. One 

commenter stated that this proposed 

change would negate the purpose of the 

original rule, which allowed 72 hour 

passes for unexcused absences and did 

not take into account the fact that most 

hospital admissions are unplanned. The 

commenter stated that smaller providers 

would be forced to choose between 

absorbing the cost of an unexcused 

absence or documenting a negative exit 

for the veteran. The former would 

negatively impact the finances of the 

GPD provider while the latter would 

adversely impact the veteran. Other 

commenters expressed similar concerns. 

One commenter noted that a missing 

veteran may sometimes be unable to 

contact the facility right away, such as 

when hospitalized. 

In addition, one commenter stated 

that the proposed change would 

disincentivize GPD providers from 

working with veterans and could result 

in substantial losses to larger programs. 

The commenter also stated that, for GPD 

providers not in compliance with 

performance metrics, the provider 

would have to weigh a negative exit 

(which would result in no loss of funds) 

against the risk of being placed in a 

Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (proposed 

§ 61.80(c)(3)(vi)). 

While other commenters generally 

expressed support for the rationale 

behind the proposed change, VA 

acknowledges the concerns of those 

commenters urging a substantive change 

to paragraph (f) as proposed. VA has 

taken into consideration that the 

populations the commenters choose to 

serve have a higher propensity to exit 

their homeless programs when exigent 

circumstances arise. We encourage our 

community partners to continue serving 

these populations. Accordingly, based 

on the public comments, we are 

amending paragraph (f) to state that VA 

will pay per diem up to a maximum of 

seven (7) days in the case of an inpatient 

hospitalization, or, will pay per diem up 

to a maximum of seventy-two (72) 

consecutive hours for the scheduled or 

unscheduled (non-hospitalization) 

absence of a veteran. Adding per diem 

coverage for up to 7 days of inpatient 

hospitalization is responsive to 

concerns raised by commenters. 

Commenters also expressed concern 

regarding situations where a recipient 

would be forced to discharge veterans if 

it did not receive payment for services 

rendered. It is believed that a discharge 

under these circumstances could count 

against a veteran’s three-time allowable 

admission to GPD programs. Many 

commenters believe VA will only allow 

for three admissions to GPD programs. 

We believe this has been incorrectly 

interpreted. To clarify, VA will remove 

the previously proposed paragraph (f) 

altogether. Because VA allows more 

than three admissions to GPD programs 

under certain circumstances and in 

order to avoid incorrect applications of 

a perceived limitation for supportive 

housing bed days of care, this paragraph 

is removed. 

Except as noted above, VA makes no 

edits to the rule based on these 

comments. 

Technical edits. As discussed above, 

we renumber proposed § 61.33 for 

clarity as follows. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(iii) is renumbered as paragraph 

(a)(2). Proposed paragraph (a)(iv) is now 

paragraph (a)(3). Proposed paragraph 

(a)(2) is now paragraph (b). Proposed 

paragraphs (b) through (e) are now 

paragraphs (c) through (f). We have also 

renumbered the cross references within 

§ 61.33 to reflect the new renumbering. 

Additionally, we are amending 

proposed 38 CFR 61.33(a)(1)(ii) to 

remove the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of the 

paragraph. We are also merging 

proposed paragraph 38 CFR 

61.33(a)(2)(A) with proposed paragraph 

38 CFR 61.33(a)(2) and numbering it as 

38 CFR 61.33(a)(2). After reviewing the 

language, VA determined that it would 

reduce confusion by merging the two 

paragraphs. The paragraph at 38 CFR 

61.33(a)(2) would now read: For 

providers of both supportive housing 

and services. When the referral or 

authorization of the homeless veteran 

will not result in the project exceeding 

the total number of bed days of care or 

total obligated funding as indicated in 

the grant agreement and funding action 

document. 

Proposed paragraph (h) states that at 

the time of receipt, a per diem recipient 

must report to VA all other sources of 

income for the project for which per 

diem was awarded. We are amending 

proposed paragraph (h) to clearly state 

that the paragraph relates to receipt of 

a federal award by VA rather than a 

federal award by a different federal 

agency such as the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. 

§ 61.80 General Operation 

Requirements for Supportive Housing 

and Service Centers 

This section is in subpart F which 

addresses awards, monitoring and 

enforcement of agreements. Paragraph 

(c) of this section focuses on 

establishment of performance goals, 

periodic assessment of grant recipient 

performance, remedies available to VA 

if a grantee fails to meet established 

performance goals, and actions the grant 

recipient must take if VA determines 

that established GPD performance goals 

have not been met over a certain period 

of time. VA proposed several nonsubstantive changes to this paragraph 

for purposes of clarity. In addition, we 

proposed that VA will establish 

performance goals for the initial award 

and update those goals annually. 

Performance goals would be established 

based on data VA collects on veterans 

in all homeless programs, and VA 

priorities in addressing the issue of 

homeless veterans. This would shift the 

burden of developing performance goals 

from the grant recipient without VA 

losing any oversight capabilities. We 

noted at 82 FR 34460 (July 25, 2017) 

VA’s intent to also reduce the number 

of performance items recipients are 

responsible for from the range of 10 to 

20 per recipient project to a number that 

accurately captures acceptable 

performance. We proposed changing the 

trigger point at which VA would 

consider remedies for failure to meet 

performance goals from 15 percent to 

five percent below any performance 

goals. In addition, we proposed 

requiring a grant recipient to submit a 

Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to the VA 

GPD Liaison within sixty (60) calendar 

days if VA determines that established 

GPD performance goals have not been 

met for any two (2) consecutive 

quarters. The rationale for these 

proposed changes is to more closely 

monitor attainment of VA-established 

performance goals and to identify and 

address problem areas in a timely 

manner. As explained in detail below, 

VA is amending references to a 

Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to refer 

instead to a Performance Improvement 

Plan (PIP). Accordingly, all references to 

CAPs in the paragraphs below will use 

PIP instead of CAP. In addition, all of 

the CAP references below are in fact 

referring to what is now PIP under 

section 61.80(c)(3)(v) through (vii). 

We received several comments related 

to VA’s collection of data related to 

services provided to homeless veterans. 

Commenters expressed reservations as 

to the integrity and accuracy of VA data 

and VA’s reliance on that data when 

establishing performance goals. One 

commenter stated that there should be 

a mechanism to allow a grant awardee 

the ability to challenge VA data it 

believes is inaccurate, where the alleged 

inaccuracy could impact a performance 

review. The commenter stated that such 

mechanism would allow for a 

comparison of grantee-provided data 

with that of VA, and ensure continuity 

of payment while that mechanism was 

in use. Another commenter stated that 

it is crucially important that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33521 

proposed rule rely on performance 

measures based on data from the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s Homeless Management 

Information System (HMIS) and not 

solely from the VA Homeless 

Operations Management and Evaluation 

System (HOMES) program. 

We do not believe it is necessary for 

there to be additional mechanisms for 

recipients to challenge the accuracy of 

VA’s data in HOMES. Grantees provide 

outcome data to VA Liaisons detailing 

the effects of moving veterans to 

permanent housing or discharging them 

for rule violations. We continue this 

practice under VA HOMES. VA uses 

HOMES to record information on every 

veteran entering and exiting GPD’s 

nationally funded projects. From this 

system, VA is able to provide monthly 

performance data based on the technical 

specifications of each metric. The GPD 

program educates grantees on reading 

and using the data in practical ways and 

has used this information to understand 

performance and promote improvement. 

VA maintains rigorous methodologies 

which are reviewed and updated as 

needed. When grantees have questions 

about such data or its role in their 

performance, answers continue to be 

provided through the normal 

communication channels available 

among grantees, VA medical centers and 

the GPD national office. 

As VA is standardizing performance 

outcomes for all of its transitional 

housing, we are able to produce these 

reports for each funded project and 

distinguish between GPD transitional 

housing models. Additionally, we have 

the opportunity to take into 

consideration the various operational 

definitions that make up each metric. 

The reports produced from HOMES 

provide results on national, regional 

(i.e., Veteran Integrated Service 

Network), medical center, and GPD 

funded projects. While we commend the 

commenter’s participation in the HMIS 

locally, the aforementioned capability is 

unavailable to VA at this time due to 

concerns about undue financial burden 

for grantees and the protection of 

confidential and clinical information 

about Veterans. HMIS participation 

involves grantees paying for several 

costs (e.g. access, training, staffing, 

usage). The cost is locally determined 

and is not necessarily able to be 

supported by grant funds. That said, the 

GPD program has encouraged, but does 

not require, participation among 

grantees in HMIS, and continues to 

collaborate with HMIS about options for 

the future. 

Moreover, we have eliminated the 

reporting requirements for several types 

of grant project goals and objectives that 

were previously necessary. VA 

eliminated these reporting requirements 

in our efforts to grant flexibility for 

recipients in developing project goals 

based on the recipient’s experience with 

specific populations, services, and the 

recipient’s geographic location. The 

changes in 38 CFR 61.80(c) utilize 

metrics that lead to empirical 

comparisons, such as outcome measures 

for homeless program success, which 

are consistent with VA’s national goal of 

ending homelessness. Historically, the 

selected data points within in the 

metrics have been used to report 

homeless program data within VA and 

to Congress. The use of common metrics 

is an effective method to determine 

success across different GPD program 

methodologies. Both VA and the 

recipients are linked as VA must also 

meet the very same metrics. We believe 

this will lead to better outcomes and 

strengthen community partnerships in 

the battle against homelessness. The 

amendments in this rulemaking are 

consistent with current VA policy and 

practice. 

VA amends references to a Corrective 

Action Plan (CAP) to refer instead to a 

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). 

One commenter remarked on the use of 

CAPs (now PIPs) listed in proposed 38 

CFR 61.80. We proposed in 38 CFR 

61.80(c)(3)(v) through (vii) that if after 

reviewing a recipient’s assessment, VA 

determines that it falls more than five 

percent below any performance goal, 

then VA may revise the award by 

withholding placements or payment, 

suspending payment, and terminating 

the grant agreement. While the five 

percent rather than fifteen percent 

would be a new standard, the four listed 

potential remedies remain unchanged 

from then-current paragraph (c)(6). The 

commenter stated that the proposed 

changes suggest that at any time VA 

could enact any options, regardless of 

the PIP. That is not VA’s intent, and we 

amend the proposed language to clarify 

the issue. We are amending proposed 38 

CFR 61.80(c)(3)(v) to explain that VA 

could avail itself to more than one, or 

a combination of, enforcement actions 

in 38 CFR 61.80(c)(3)(v)(A)–(D). VA 

seeks to reserve its discretion to apply 

any combination or permutation of 

enforcement actions it deems fit. We 

amend 38 CFR 61.80(c)(3)(v) to read as 

follows: If, after reviewing a recipient’s 

assessment, VA determines that it falls 

more than five percent below any 

performance goal, then VA may require 

the recipient to create and follow a 

performance improvement plan (PIP) as 

outlined in 38 CFR 61.80(c)(vi). We are 

moving the second part of proposed 38 

CFR 61.80(c)(3)(v) and numbering it as 

new 38 CFR 61.80(c)(3)(vii). We believe 

that this move will provide a more 

sequential process for the PIP. 

Therefore, new paragraph (c)(3)(vii) will 

state that if the recipient is not 

compliant with the PIP, VA may impose 

any combination of the following 

enforcement actions by award revision: 

(A) Withhold placements; (B) Withhold 

payment; (C) Suspend payment; and (D) 

Terminate the grant agreement, as 

outlined in this part or other applicable 

federal statutes and regulations. 

Other commenters expressed concern 

with the threshold VA selected to trigger 

a PIP in proposed 38 CFR 61.80(c)(3)(v). 

One commenter stated that the proposed 

change in threshold for action to a 

deviation of more than five percent from 

a performance goal will have a greater 

negative impact on smaller programs 

than larger programs, with service 

issues related to only one or two 

veterans resulting in imposition of a 

PIP. As an example, the commenter 

stated that if a recipient serves ten 

veterans, this means that it cannot 

possess serious deficiencies or service 

issues for more than one veteran (i.e., 

five percent of the recipient’s veteran 

population) or it will trigger a PIP. 

Similarly, other commenters stated that 

the changes may have unintended 

effects on recipients that would 

disproportionately affect small and rural 

programs. In particular, the commenters 

express concerns in situations where 

failure to meet their goals with small 

populations would give rise to the 

appearance that the program is 

substandard or failing. 

We agree with the commenters that 

slight deviations in meeting goals 

successfully could give the appearance 

of program mismanagement or failure. 

Also, we agree that smaller programs 

with fewer veterans could appear 

unsuccessful if only one or two veterans 

do not exit successfully from the 

program. However, VA believes that the 

changes to 38 CFR 61.80(c)(3)(v) and (vi) 

provide an adequate solution to tighten 

the performance metrics as well as 

provide relief from the disproportionate 

impact the changes would have on 

small and rural programs. 

With respect to when VA may initiate 

a PIP, we believe the more than five 

percent deviation is the threshold where 

recipients should adjust their efforts to 

improve their outcomes in order to 

comply with the established GPD 

performance goals. This does not mean 

that VA will initiate imminent 

enforcement actions once a deviation 

greater than five percent is reached. VA 

will only take enforcement actions in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
33522 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the event the recipient is not compliant 

with the established GPD performance 

goals after attempting a PIP. This is why 

VA adopted a quarterly assessment 

period as opposed to a monthly review. 

VA wants to afford recipients the 

opportunity to correct issues that could 

disqualify them from future funding. In 

the first quarterly review where a 

grantee is more than five percent away 

from a performance goal, the grantee 

and VA Liaison can review the data 

along with other program aspects to 

ascertain what causal relationships are 

present. Part of that assessment is 

determining whether the total number 

of veterans served by the program 

contributed to the award recipient’s 

failure to attain performance goals. The 

recipient will have the ability to 

determine if the reason for the more 

than five percent deviation is an 

anomaly or requires the need for 

adjustments. If the greater than five 

percent deviation occurs for a second 

consecutive quarter, then this would 

indicate that an issue requires action, 

and the recipient would need to submit 

a PIP sixty days after VA’s 

determination. 

Accordingly, we are also amending 

the language in proposed 38 CFR 

61.80(c)(3)(vi). In the proposed rule, VA 

stated that recipients would need to 

submit a PIP to VA’s GPD Liaison 

within sixty (60) calendar days. VA 

believes that this is unclear, and we are 

amending it to state if VA determines 

that the recipient has a more than five 

percent deviation from established GPD 

performance goals for any two (2) 

consecutive quarters as defined in 38 

CFR 61.80(c)(3)(i) through (iv), the 

recipient will submit a PIP to the VA 

GPD Liaison sixty (60) calendar days 

after VA makes its determination. 

The recipient and VA Liaison can use 

the third quarter as a period to examine 

if the recipient’s actions improved 

performance. While changing the name 

of the corrective action measure, VA 

declines to change the requirement that 

it is triggered after two consecutive 

quarters of reduced performance. Since 

two quarters are one-half of a typical 

one-year performance period for a grant, 

VA is reticent to accept the commenter’s 

proposal to increase the threshold to 

three quarters. We would find this 

unacceptable because it would cover 

approximately three-fourths (75%) of 

the one-year performance period. 

Based on a review of public 

comments VA also believes that there is 

confusion regarding the purpose of the 

changes to 38 CFR 61.80(c)(3)(v) and 

(vi). Several commenters appear to view 

the changes as punitive in nature. We 

note that the remedial action for a 

grantee’s non-compliance with 2 CFR 

200.338 is a corrective action plan, and 

VA believes it is appropriate to 

distinguish action plans related to 

failure to meet performance goals from 

those related to failure to comply with 

federal statutes or regulations under 

Title 2 CFR part 200. While some of the 

remedies reflected in 2 CFR 200.338 are 

the same as those in 38 CFR 

61.80(c)(3)(v), the impetus for imposing 

those remedies is not. VA views the 

remedies reflected in 38 CFR 

61.80(c)(3)(v) and (vi) as a mechanism to 

initiate proactive reviews with 

recipients along with giving them the 

ability to make program adjustments in 

order to meet the goals set out in the 

GPD program application and improve 

the services to the veterans they serve. 

Accordingly, as discussed above, VA 

has amended references to a Corrective 

Action Plan (CAP) to refer instead to a 

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to 

avoid confusing recipients with the 

enforcement actions of 2 CFR 200.338 

for non-compliance. 

Finally, one commenter referenced 

the absence of an appeal process for 

termination of grants. While it is true 

that Part 61 does not contain express 

appeal provisions, VA follows 2 CFR 

200.340 through 200.342. VA provides 

advance notice of any enforcement 

actions and an opportunity to be heard 

and object or provide documentation 

challenging the enforcement decision. 

These procedures afford due process 

protections and, specific to the 

commenter’s concerns, provide grant 

recipients an opportunity to raise issues 

regarding the accuracy of VA data. VA 

follows 2 CFR 200.343 regarding 

payments after a termination. VA makes 

no changes based on this comment. 

Based on the rationale set forth in the 

proposed rule and in this document, VA 

is adopting the provisions of the 

proposed rule as a final rule with 

changes as noted above. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(at 44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. According to the 

implementing regulations for the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. This rule 

includes provisions constituting 

collections of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 that 

require approval by OMB. Accordingly, 

pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA is 

submitting a copy of this rulemaking 

action to OMB for review. 

In the proposed rule we had stated 

that we would require a renewal of the 

collection of information under §§ 61.33 

and 61.80. We had stated that § 61.33 

requires recipients to report to VA all 

sources of income it has received for the 

project for which VA has awarded a 

grant. The proposed rule indicated that 

there would be no changes to this 

collection. We had also stated that 

under § 61.80 recipients are required to 

submit quarterly reports to VA Liaisons, 

who are VA staff members, about how 

the recipients are meeting the 

performance measures that are outlined 

in their grant applications. However, VA 

provides to the grantee (quarterly) the 

grantee’s performance status regarding 

the VA performance metrics. The 

grantee does not provide a compliance 

report because it would be duplicative 

of information already available to the 

VA Liaison in existing VA systems 

through the grantee’s monthly billing 

invoice information and admission and 

discharge notifications as reflected in 

the billing. Accordingly, we are no 

longer collecting information under 

these two sections. Compliance 

information from recipients is captured 

through other processes and therefore is 

not repeated in order to avoid 

duplication in collection. 

The proposed rule also included the 

aggregate collection of information for 

capital grants, per diem grants and 

special need grants located at 38 CFR 

part 61. These collections were 

previously approved by OMB under 

OMB control number 2900–0554, which 

expired on September 30, 2020. As 

noted above, VA is submitting a new 

PRA request to OMB and awaits 

approval for the collections of 

information described herein. If OMB 

does not approve the collections of 

information as requested, VA will 

immediately remove the provisions 

containing a collection of information or 

take such other action as is directed by 

OMB. 

Title: VA Homeless Providers Grant 

and Per Diem Program. 

Summary of collection of information: 

This collection of information is for 

capital grants, per diem grants, special 

need grants and case management grants 

located at §§ 61.11, 61.15, 61.17, 61.31, 

61.41, and, 61.92. Information must be 

collected to determine which applicants 

are eligible for the grant and per diem 

program, and to prioritize applications 

for determining who will be awarded 

funds. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33523 

Description of the need for 

information and proposed use of 

information: This information is needed 

to determine eligibility for capital 

grants, per diem grants, special need 

grants and case management grants. 

Description of likely respondents: 

Non-Profit Agencies and State and Local 

Governments. 

Estimated number of respondents per 

year: 

Capital grants and per diem: 100 per 

year. 

Per diem for non-capital grant 

recipients: 500 per year. 

Special need grants: 50 per year. 

Case management grants: 300 per 

year. 

Estimated frequency of responses per 

year: 

Capital grants and per diem: 1 time 

per year. 

Per diem for non-capital grant 

recipients: 1 time per year. 

Special need grants: 1 time per year. 

Case management grants: 1 time per 

year. 

Estimated average burden per 

response: 

Capital grants and per diem: 35 

hours. 

Per diem for non-capital grant 

recipients: 20 hours. 

Special need grants: 20 hours. 

Case management grants: 20 hours. 

Estimated total annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden: 20,500 hours. 

Capital grants and per diem: 3,500 

hours. 

Per diem for non-capital grant 

recipients: 10,000 hours. 

Special need grants: 1,000 hours. 

Case management grants: 6,000 

hours. 

Estimated cost to respondents per 

year: We estimate the annual cost to 

respondents will be $305,655, based on 

a rate of $14.91 per hour. Out of that 

annual cost, it is estimated that one 

fourth of the grant proposals will be 

written on a pro bono basis and the 

remaining three fourths of the grant 

proposals will be written by 

professional grant writers. 

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. 601–612. The provisions 

associated with this rulemaking do not 

involve costs to small entities because 

the VA Homeless Providers Grant and 

Per Diem (GPD) Program provides 

federal awards (e.g., grants) to small 

entities. VA awards five types of grants 

to small entities meeting specific criteria 

for supportive or transitional housing 

for homeless veterans until the veteran 

can transition into permanent housing. 

Specifically, VA awards capital grants, 

special need grants, technical assistance 

grants, and case management services 

grants, and per diem only grants to 

offset operating costs for a program of 

supportive housing or services. Small 

entities will choose whether to apply for 

federal awards, and there are no out-ofpocket expenses (e.g., no filing fees) to 

apply for funding. Therefore, under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt 

from the initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirements of 

sections 603 and 604. 

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 a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. VA’s impact analysis can be 

found as a supporting document at 

http://www.regulations.gov, usually 

within 48 hours after the rulemaking 

document is published. Additionally, a 

copy of the rulemaking and its impact 

analysis are available on VA’s website at 

http://www.va.gov/orpm by following 

the link for VA Regulations Published 

from FY 2004 through FYTD. 

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. 

Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to 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). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance number and title for the 

program affected by this document is 

64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant 

and Per Diem Program. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 61 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, 

Government contracts, Grant 

programs—health, Grant programs— 

veterans, Health care, Health facilities, 

Health professions, Health records, 

Homeless, Mental health programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Travel and transportation 

expenses, Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

Denis McDonough, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on April 9, 2021, 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. 

Consuela Benjamin, 

Regulations Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of the Secretary, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs amends 38 CFR part 61 as 

follows: 

PART 61—VA HOMELESS PROVIDERS 

GRANT AND PER DIEM PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2001, 2002, 2011, 

2012, 2061, and 2064. 

§ 61.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 61.1 amend paragraph (2)(i) of 

the definition of ‘‘Supportive housing’’ 

by removing the phrase ‘‘within a 

period that is not less than 90 days and 

does not exceed’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘as soon as possible but no later than’’. 

■ 3. Add § 61.5 to subpart A to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.5 Implementation of VA Limits on 

Payments due to Funding Restrictions. 

(a) Continuing payments. Once a grant 

agreement is awarded by VA, payments 

will continue for the time frame 

specified in the federal award, subject to 

the availability of funds, as long as the 

recipient continues to provide the 

supportive services and housing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
33524 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

described in its grant application, meets 

VA’s Homeless Providers Grant and Per 

Diem (GPD) Program performance goals, 

and meets the applicable requirements 

of this part. 

(b) Factors. (1) In cases of limited 

availability of funding during the time 

frame specified in the federal award, VA 

may terminate the payment of per diem 

payments to recipients after weighing 

the following factors: 

(i) Non-duplication of ongoing 

services and equitable distribution of 

grant agreements across geographic 

regions, including rural communities 

and tribal lands; 

(ii) Receipt by recipient of any capital 

investment from VA or any other 

source; and 

(iii) Recipient’s demonstrated 

compliance with GPD performance 

goals. 

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section, when an awarded grant 

agreement is terminated during the time 

frame specified in the federal award due 

to no fault by the recipient, VA shall 

refrain from applying the recapture 

provisions of 38 CFR 61.67. 

■ 4. Revise § 61.33 to read as follows: 

§ 61.33 Payment of per diem. 

(a) General. VA will pay per diem to 

recipients that provide a bed day of 

care: 

(1) For a homeless veteran: 

(i) Who VA referred to the recipient; 

or 

(ii) For whom VA authorized the 

provision of supportive housing or 

supportive service; 

(2) For providers of both supportive 

housing and services. When the referral 

or authorization of the homeless veteran 

will not result in the project exceeding 

the total number of bed days of care or 

total obligated funding as indicated in 

the grant agreement and funding action 

document; or 

(3) For service centers. When the total 

hours of service or total obligated 

funding as indicated in the grant 

agreement and funding action 

document. 

(b) VA Review. VA may at any time 

review the provision of supportive 

housing and services to individual 

veterans by the provider to ensure the 

care provided continues to be needed 

and appropriate. 

(c) Rate of payments for individual 

veterans. The rate of per diem for each 

veteran in supportive housing will be 

the lesser of: 

(1) The daily cost of care estimated by 

the per diem recipient minus other 

sources of payments to the per diem 

recipient for furnishing services to 

homeless veterans that the per diem 

recipient certifies to be correct (other 

sources include payments and grants 

from other departments and agencies of 

the United States, from departments of 

local and State governments, from 

private entities or organizations, and 

from program participants); or 

(2) The current VA state home 

program per diem rate for domiciliary 

care, as set by the Secretary under 38 

U.S.C. 1741(a)(1). 

(d) Rate of payments for service 

centers. The per diem amount for 

service centers shall be 1–8 of the lesser 

of the amount in paragraph (c)(1) or 

(c)(2) of this section, per hour, not to 

exceed eight (8) hours in any day. 

(e) Reimbursements. Per diem may be 

paid retroactively for services provided 

not more than three (3) days before VA 

approval is given or where, through no 

fault of the recipient, per diem 

payments should have been made but 

were not made. 

(f) Payments for absent veterans. VA 

will pay per diem up to a maximum of 

seventy-two (72) consecutive hours for 

the scheduled or unscheduled absence 

of a veteran, or, in the case of an inpatient hospitalization, will pay per 

diem up to a maximum of seven (7) 

days. 

(g) Veterans receiving supportive 

housing and services. For circumstances 

where a veteran is receiving supportive 

housing and supportive services from 

the same per diem recipient, VA will 

not pay a per diem for the supportive 

services. 

(h) Reporting other sources of income. 

At the time of receipt of a federal award 

from VA, a per diem recipient must 

report to VA all other sources of income 

for the project for which per diem was 

awarded. The report provides a basis for 

adjustments to the per diem payment 

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

■ 5. Amend § 61.61 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 61.61 Agreement and funding actions. 

(a) Agreement. When VA selects an 

applicant for grant or per diem award 

under this part, VA will incorporate the 

requirements of this part into an 

agreement to be executed by VA and the 

applicant. VA makes the final decision 

on applicant selection. VA may 

negotiate with an applicant regarding 

the details of the agreement and 

funding, as necessary. VA will enforce 

the agreement through such action as 

may be appropriate, including 

temporarily withholding cash payments 

pending correction of a deficiency. 

Appropriate actions include actions in 

accordance with the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards under 2 CFR part 200. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 61.80 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 61.80 General operation requirements for 

supportive housing and service centers. 

* * * * * 

(c) VA will provide performance goals 

to recipients in its initial federal award 

and update annually thereafter: 

(1) Each recipient must conduct an 

ongoing assessment of the supportive 

housing and services needed by their 

residents and the availability of housing 

and services to meet this need. 

Recipients are expected to make 

adjustments to meet resident needs. 

(2) The recipient will provide to the 

VA GPD Liaison evidence of its ongoing 

assessment of the plan described in the 

grant application. The assessment must 

show how it is using the plan to meet 

the GPD performance goals. 

(3) The VA GPD Liaison will provide 

the GPD performance information to 

recipients. VA will incorporate this 

assessment information into the annual 

inspection report. 

(i) The VA GPD Liaison will review 

the quarterly assessment with the 

recipient no later than (30) days after 

the end of each of the following 

quarters: 

(A) Quarter 1 (October–December) 

assessment completed not later than 

January 30; 

(B) Quarter 2 (January–March) 

assessment completed not later than 

April 30; 

(C) Quarter 3 (April–June) assessment 

completed not later than July 30; and, 

(D) Quarter 4 (July–September) 

assessment completed not later than 

October 30. 

(ii) A valid assessment must include 

the following: 

(A) A comparison of actual 

accomplishments to established GPD 

performance goals for the reporting 

period addressing quantifiable as well 

as non-quantifiable goals. Examples 

include, but are not limited to, a 

description of grant agreement-related 

activities, such as: Hiring and training 

personnel, community orientation/ 

awareness activities, programmatic 

activities, or job development; and 

(B) Identification of administrative 

and programmatic problems, which may 

affect performance and proposed 

solutions. 

(iii) Recipients and VA GPD Liaisons 

must include a summary of the 

quarterly assessment in their 

administrative records. These quarterly 

assessments will be used to provide a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33525 

1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

cumulative assessment for the entire 

calendar year. 

(iv) The recipient must immediately 

inform the VA GPD Liaison of any 

significant developments affecting its 

ability to accomplish the work. VA GPD 

Liaisons will provide necessary 

technical assistance. 

(v) If, after reviewing a recipient’s 

assessment, VA determines that it falls 

more than five percent below any 

performance goal, then VA may require 

the recipient to create and follow a 

performance improvement plan (PIP) as 

outlined in 38 CFR 61.80(c)(vi). 

(vi) Performance Improvement Plan 

(PIP): If VA determines that a recipient 

deviates more than five percent from 

established GPD performance goals for 

any two (2) consecutive quarters as 

defined in 38 CFR 61.80(c)(3)(A)(i) 

through (iv), the recipient will submit a 

PIP to the VA GPD Liaison sixty (60) 

calendar days after VA makes its 

determination. 

(A) The PIP must identify the activity 

which falls below the measure. The PIP 

must describe the reason(s) why the 

recipient did not meet the performance 

measure(s) and provide specific 

proposed corrective action(s) and a 

timetable for accomplishment of the 

corrective action. The plan may include 

the recipient’s intent to propose 

modifying the grant agreement. The 

recipient will submit the PIP to the VA 

GPD Liaison. 

(B) The VA GPD Liaison will forward 

the PIP to the VA National GPD Program 

Office. The VA National GPD Program 

Office will review the PIP and notify the 

recipient in writing whether the PIP is 

approved or disapproved. If 

disapproved, the VA GPD Liaison will 

make suggestions for improving the 

proposed PIP, and the recipient may 

resubmit the PIP to the VA National 

GPD Program Office. 

(vii) If the recipient is not compliant 

after the PIP, then VA may impose any 

combination of the following 

enforcement actions by award revision: 

(A) Withhold placements; 

(B) Withhold payment; 

(C) Suspend payment; and 

(D) Terminate the grant agreement, as 

outlined in this part or other applicable 

federal statutes and regulations. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–13272 Filed 6–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2020–0386; FRL–10024– 

84–Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Monitoring 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving, under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), a revision to 

Indiana’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to address changes to its air 

emissions monitoring rules for Portland 

cement plants. Indiana revised its rules 

for Portland cement plants to update the 

monitoring of particulate matter (PM) 

emissions to allow an additional 

monitoring option. This additional 

monitoring option is consistent with 

EPA’s recent revisions to Federal 

requirements for Portland cement 

plants. EPA proposed to approve this 

action on March 25, 2021 and received 

no comments. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2020–0386. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either through 

www.regulations.gov or at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. Background Information 

On March 25, 2021, EPA proposed to 

approve a revision to the Indiana SIP to 

address changes to the monitoring 

requirements at 326 IAC 3–5–1 for 

Portland cement plants (86 FR 15838). 

An explanation of the CAA 

requirements, a detailed analysis of the 

revision, and EPA’s reasons for 

proposing approval were provided in 

the notice of proposed rulemaking and 

will not be restated here. The public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

ended on April 26, 2021. EPA received 

no comments on the proposal. 

Therefore, we are finalizing our action 

as proposed. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is approving revisions to 326 IAC 

3–5–1, continuous monitoring 

requirements, into the Indiana SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Indiana Regulations 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available through 

www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA 

Region 5 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.1

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1