Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41523 

(3) To request permission to enter the 

safety zone, contact the COTP or the 

COTP’s representative on VHF–FM 

channel 16. All persons and vessels in 

the safety zone must comply with all 

lawful orders or directions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period: This section 

will be enforced on September 3, 2017, 

September 10, 2017, and September 13, 

2017 from 7:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. each 

day. 

Dated: August 29, 2017. 

Scott E. Anderson, 

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

Port, Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18617 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 62 

RIN 2900–AP61 

Supportive Services for Veteran 

Families Program 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations 

that govern the Supportive Services for 

Veteran Families (SSVF) Program. This 

rulemaking clarifies VA’s procedures for 

continuing to fund SSVF Program 

services in communities that have lost 

grants due to the non-renewal or 

termination of services of an existing 

award to a grantee. VA can now award 

the non-renewed or deobligated funds to 

other existing SSVF grantees in or near 

the affected community. This award of 

non-renewed or deobligated funds 

prevents potential access issues 

associated with grant termination. This 

rulemaking also reduces the number of 

satisfaction surveys grantees are 

required to provide to participants in 

order to reduce the burden on grantees 

and participants. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 2, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kuhn, National Center for Homelessness 

Among Veterans, Supportive Services 

for Veteran Families Program Office, 

4100 Chester Avenue, Suite 200, 

Philadelphia, PA 19104, (877) 737– 

0111. (This is a toll-free number) 

John.Kuhn2@va.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on July 27, 2016, VA proposed 

to revise its regulations that addressed 

the Supportive Services for Veteran 

Families (SSVF) Program. 81 FR 49198. 

VA provided a 60-day comment period, 

which ended on September 26, 2016. 

We received 14 comments on the 

proposed rule. Section 2044 of title 38 

U.S.C. requires the Secretary to provide 

financial assistance to eligible entities to 

provide and coordinate the provision of 

supportive services for very low-income 

veteran families occupying permanent 

housing. The Secretary’s implementing 

regulations are in 38 CFR part 62, which 

established the SSVF Program. Through 

the SSVF Program, VA awards 

supportive services grants to private 

non-profit organizations or consumer 

cooperatives to provide or coordinate 

the provision of supportive services to 

very low-income veteran families who 

are residing in permanent housing and 

at risk of becoming homeless. The grants 

provide services to low-income families 

who are lacking a fixed, regular, and 

adequate nighttime residence, are at risk 

of remaining so but for grantee 

assistance, and scheduled to become 

residents of permanent housing within 

90 days pending the location or 

development of housing suitable for 

permanent housing. The grants also 

provide services to low-income families 

who, after exiting permanent housing, 

are seeking other housing that is 

responsive to their needs and 

preferences. This rulemaking clarifies 

existing VA policy regarding award of 

non-renewed or deobligated funds to 

other existing SSVF grantees in or near 

the affected community where the funds 

were originally used in order to 

maintain continuity in the services 

offered to these communities. This 

rulemaking also reduces the number of 

satisfaction surveys grantees are 

required to provide to participants in 

order to reduce the burden on grantees 

and participants. 

We received several comments in 

support of the proposed rule. One 

commenter stated that the proposed rule 

was ‘‘needed from multiple 

perspectives, most importantly, in 

maintaining all momentum toward 

ending Veteran homelessness.’’ A 

commenter stated that ‘‘non-renewed 

and deobligated funds are critical to our 

community as we are seeing a strong 

inflow of newly homeless in our area.’’ 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed rule would eliminate the 

‘‘hoops to jump through and the grant 

will still be awarded to those who 

qualify.’’ A commenter agreed that 

reducing the number of surveys would 

yield a higher response rate. Lastly, a 

commenter stated that the proposed 

changes ‘‘are reasonable and would 

make an effective program more so.’’ We 

thank the commenters for supporting 

the rule. 

One commenter recommended that 

VA revise the proposed rule to ‘‘take 

into account the impact of unexpected 

need, such as occurs in natural disasters 

where Federal Disaster Area designation 

is affirmed.’’ The commenter further 

recommended that VA distribute SSVF 

grant assistance to grantees serving in 

Federal disaster areas to assist veterans 

in need or who are displaced from their 

homes or become homeless ‘‘due to a 

natural disaster, regardless of whether 

the Veteran family meets the income 

eligibility requirements of SSVF.’’ 

Additionally, VA should focus the 

availability of SSVF funds to those 

veterans who were impacted by a 

natural disaster and do not have 

sufficient resources to relocate to ‘‘new 

housing because of trauma, an inability 

to access records, and/or an inability to 

access personal resources.’’ As 

previously stated in this rulemaking 38 

U.S.C. 2044 is the authority that 

establishes the SSVF program. Under 

this program, VA may only provide 

assistance to very low-income veteran 

families. Section 2044(f)(6) defines 

‘‘very low-income veteran family’’ to 

mean ‘‘a veteran family whose income 

does not exceed 50 percent of the 

median income for an area’’ as 

determined by VA. Because the SSVF 

funds are limited, VA cannot use these 

funds to assist veteran families that do 

not otherwise meet the eligibility 

criteria under section 2044. Also, the 

loss of SSVF funds would adversely 

affect the veterans being served in the 

community whose deobligated funds 

were lost due to the funds being 

transferred to a different community 

that was affected by a natural disaster. 

We are not making any edits based on 

this comment. 

Several commenters suggested that 

VA reconsider the requirement that 60% 

of funding support rapid re-housing of 

homeless veterans and 40% may be 

used for prevention of homelessness in 

rural communities and instead allow an 

even 50/50 split of funding because the 

needs for homeless veteran families in 

rural communities differ from those in 

urban settings. The commenters further 

stated that there is a housing shortage 

and it is difficult to use all of the SSVF 

funds, ‘‘particularly when Veterans who 

are in danger of literal homelessness 

present to our program and we are 

unable to assist them due to the 60/40 

mandate. If that mandate was to be 

lifted, and we could focus a larger pool 

of resources on prevention, fewer of our 

clients would cycle back through as 

RRH.’’ Under section 2044(a)(4), SSVF 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41524 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

has an obligation to give preference to 

‘‘entities providing or coordinating the 

provision of supportive services for very 

low-income veteran families who are 

transitioning from homelessness to 

permanent housing.’’ The 60/40 

requirement in the current Notice of 

Fund Availability (NOFA) means that a 

minimum of 60% of SSVF funds can be 

used for supporting rapid re-housing of 

homeless veterans and a maximum of 

40% of SSVF funds can be used for 

prevention. Where the local needs of 

homeless veterans have been met, the 

NOFA has a process in place so 

communities can ask for a waiver of the 

60/40 split of temporary financial 

assistance. (See December 7, 2016 

NOFA, section V.B.3(a): ‘‘Waivers to 

this 60 percent requirement may be 

requested when grantees can 

demonstrate significant local progress 

towards eliminating homelessness in 

the target service area. Waiver requests 

must include data from authoritative 

sources such as USICH certification that 

a community has ended homelessness 

as defined by Federal Benchmarks and 

Criteria or have reached Community 

Solution’s Functional Zero. Waivers for 

the 60 percent requirement may also be 

requested for services provided to rural 

Indian tribal areas and other rural areas 

where shelter capacity is insufficient to 

meet local need. Waiver requests must 

include an endorsement by the 

impacted CoC explicitly stating that a 

shift in resources from rapid rehousing 

to prevention will not result in an 

increase in homelessness.’’). The waiver 

would allow for an increased spending 

on prevention. However, any 

amendment to this requirement is 

beyond the scope of the proposed rule. 

We are not making any edits based on 

this comment. 

A commenter suggested that VA allow 

SSVF grantees to use funds to assist 

veterans who have been rated by VA as 

100% service-connected disabled, are 

homeless, and over the income limit for 

the SSVF, because these veterans would 

benefit from the ‘‘intensive case 

management services to navigate 

through their housing issues.’’ SSVF 

funds may only be used to assist veteran 

families that meet the eligibility criteria 

in 38 U.S.C. 2044. By law, VA cannot 

use SSVF funds to assist veterans that 

are over the income limits of 38 U.S.C. 

2044(f). However, homeless veterans 

who do not qualify for the SSVF 

program may receive assistance under 

the VA homeless providers grant and 

per diem program, part 61 of 38 CFR. 

This comment is beyond the scope of 

the proposed rule and we are not 

making any edits based on this 

comment. 

Several commenters suggested that 

VA use SSVF funds to include aftercare 

case management, which would ‘‘be 

classified as continuing case 

management after the veteran is housed 

and/or case management after the 

veteran is exited from SSVF services.’’ 

SSVF is designed to resolve a veteran’s 

household’s housing crisis. Grantees 

make the decision when to exit a 

veteran’s household from the SSVF 

program based on the household’s 

ability to achieve housing stability. 

Longer term supports and case 

management are outside of the scope of 

SSVF program and grantees need to link 

participants to other VA resources that 

address veteran homelessness or to 

community health care and social 

services. Amendments to SSVF services 

are beyond the scope of the proposed 

rule. We are not making any edits based 

on this comment. 

A commenter stated that the SSVF 

program guidelines can create barriers 

to providing services ‘‘due to the strict 

documentation requirements and 

extensive intake process.’’ The 

commenter recommended that VA allow 

concessions and latitude to case 

managers so that the lack of 

documentation provided by a veteran 

does not become an exclusionary factor 

to receive SSVF assistance. SSVF allows 

for a variety of substitutes for 

documentation requirements, including, 

at times, self-certification. However, VA 

has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure 

that those enrolled in services are 

eligible and grantees adequately 

document the services provided. This 

comment is beyond the scope of the 

proposed rule and we are not making 

any edits based on this comment. 

Another commenter indicated that it 

would be helpful if the rule included a 

‘‘basic overview of the scoring criteria 

used in making decisions’’ for granting 

SSVF funds. The scoring criteria for 

supportive services grant applicants is 

found in 38 CFR 62.22, which we did 

not propose to amend in the proposed 

rule. Additionally, the scoring criteria 

for grantees applying for renewal of 

supportive services grants is found in 38 

CFR 62.24, which we also did not 

propose to amend in the proposed rule. 

We are not making any edits based on 

this comment. 

One commenter stated that reducing 

the number of satisfaction surveys 

would not yield a higher response rate. 

We respectfully disagree with the 

commenter and believe that reducing 

the number of satisfaction surveys might 

prompt participants of the SSVF to 

provide feedback of their experience 

with the program upon completion of 

the program. We are not making any 

edits based on this comment. 

One commenter stated that proposed 

38 CFR 62.36 should be further 

amended to state that ‘‘there should be 

a mail in option for Veterans who do not 

have access to email or internet.’’ 

Another commenter stated that older 

veterans did not want to create an email 

account for submitting the satisfaction 

surveys. VA is aware that not all 

veterans are able to submit the survey 

electronically and is also aware of the 

limitation of electronic submissions for 

the survey. For this reason, we have 

added a phone-based survey option for 

fiscal year 2017. We are not making any 

edits based on this comment. 

A commenter stated that limiting the 

SSVF grant to ‘‘a 10% base admin rate 

is creating large deficits to the nonprofits and sub-grantees who implement 

the program.’’ The commenter suggested 

that VA allow the use of ‘‘a non-profit’s 

allowable federal rate (typically around 

15%) as a standard for both the grantee 

and sub-grantees.’’ The commenter also 

stated that some sub-grantees have 

abandoned the SSVF grant due to losses 

the non-profits bear in administering the 

SSVF program. The limitations on costs 

for the administration of the SSVF 

program are stated in 38 CFR 62.10 and 

62.70, which we did not propose to 

amend in the proposed rule. Any 

change to the limitations on 

administrative costs is beyond the scope 

of the proposed rule. We are not making 

any edits based on this comment. 

A commenter said that limiting a 

veteran household to a single option of 

moving or storage expenses is 

counterintuitive because stored items 

will need to be moved from the storage 

facility to the new domicile once the 

domicile becomes available. The 

commenter asks ‘‘that these two costs be 

allowed as separate eligible expenses for 

each veteran household (as needed).’’ 

Veterans may receive both types of 

assistance under the current regulation. 

Section 62.34 addresses other 

supportive services, which includes 

moving costs under paragraph (d). 

Paragraph (d)(2) states that moving costs 

assistance includes ‘‘reasonable moving 

costs, such as truck rental, hiring a 

moving company, or short-term storage 

fees for a maximum of 3 months or until 

the participant is in permanent housing, 

whichever is shorter.’’ The storage of 

household items and the transportation 

of these items to the new domicile are 

two separate services that are included 

as part of the moving costs. Also, we did 

not propose to amend section 62.34 in 

the proposed rule and so any changes to 

this section are beyond the scope of the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41525 

proposed rule. We make no edits based 

on this comment. 

A commenter said that the SSVF no 

longer covers the payment of property 

debt, which includes arrears and 

damages. However, that is incorrect: 38 

CFR 62.34(a)(1) states, ‘‘rental assistance 

may be for rental payments that are 

currently due or are in arrears, and for 

the payment of penalties or fees 

incurred by a participant and required 

to be paid by the participant under an 

existing lease or court order.’’ Also, we 

did not propose to amend section 62.34 

in the proposed rule and so any edits to 

this section are beyond the scope of the 

proposed rule. We are not making any 

edits based on this comment. 

A commenter supported the rule, but 

stated that ‘‘if this assessment and 

reallocation of funding occurs in real 

time (i.e., quarterly benchmarks during 

the grant year) this creates a new burden 

on the grantees by not giving the 

necessary flexibility to spend 

appropriately based on each veteran 

household’s needs or the seasonal 

enrollment spikes that occur throughout 

the grant year.’’ VA has the capacity to 

sweep funds on a quarterly basis as 

stated in the grant agreement between 

VA and the grantee. Prior to any sweep, 

VA would review the funds with the 

grantee to assess the needs of the 

community. We are not making any 

edits based on this comment. 

We are making a technical edit to 38 

CFR 62.25. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) 

stated in part that ‘‘Such applicant or 

grantee must have the capacity and 

agree to provide immediate services to 

the affected community.’’ We are 

amending this sentence by deleting the 

term ‘‘immediate’’ and replacing it with 

‘‘prompt’’ to make this term consistent 

with language used in existing program 

materials. We are making a similar edit 

to 38 CFR 62.80(d)(2)(i). We are also 

clarifying in § 62.25(d)(1) and 

§ 62.80(d)(2)(i) that the grantee in the 

last sentence of each paragraph is the 

grantee who is offered the additional 

funds. The sentence as it was written in 

the proposed rule left some ambiguity as 

to who we were referencing. We are not 

making any edits to the meaning of the 

language in the proposed rule. 

Based on the rationale set forth in the 

Supplementary Information to the 

proposed rule and in this final rule, VA 

is adopting the proposed rule with the 

edits discussed in the previous 

paragraph. 

Effect of Rulemaking 

Title 38 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as revised by this final 

rulemaking, represents VA’s 

implementation of its legal authority on 

this subject. Other than future 

amendments to this regulation or 

governing statutes, no contrary guidance 

or procedures are authorized. All 

existing or subsequent VA guidance 

must be read to conform with this 

rulemaking if possible or, if not 

possible, such guidance is superseded 

by this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action contains provisions 

constituting collections of information, 

at 38 CFR 62.36, under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). The information collection 

requirements for § 62.36 are currently 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) and have been 

assigned OMB control number 2900– 

0757. However, this regulatory action 

includes a provision reducing the 

number of surveys used for this 

collection from 2 to 1. VA estimates the 

number of responses for the information 

collection will decrease from 5,625 to 

2,813. VA is in the process of 

recertifying this collection number 

under a separate action. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this final rule does not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). This 

final rule only impacts those entities 

that choose to participate in the SSVF 

Program. Small entity applicants will 

not be affected to a greater extent than 

large entity applicants. Small entities 

must elect to participate, and it is 

considered a benefit to those who 

choose to apply. To the extent this final 

rule has any impact on small entities, it 

will not have an impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking 

is exempt from the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of section 603 and 604. 

Executive Order 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. Executive Order 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

OMB, unless OMB waives such review, 

as ‘‘any regulatory action that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) Create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

Materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in this Executive 

Order.’’ 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this regulatory action 

have been examined, and it has been 

determined not to be 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 Web site 

at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by 

following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations 

Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal 

Year to Date.’’ 

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. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits, 

and 64.033, VA Supportive Services for 

Veteran Families Program. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41526 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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 August 28, 

2017, for publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 62 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Day care, Disability benefits, 

Government contracts, Grant 

programs—health, Grant programs— 

housing and community development, 

Grant programs—veterans, Heath care, 

Homeless, Housing, Indian—lands, 

Individuals with disabilities, Low and 

moderate income housing, Manpower 

training program, Medicare, Medicaid, 

Public assistance programs, Public 

housing, Relocation assistance, Rent 

subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rural areas, Social 

security, Supplemental Security Income 

(SSI), Travel and transportation 

expenses, Unemployment 

compensation. 

Dated: August 29, 2017. 

Janet Coleman, 

Chief, Office of Regulation Policy & 

Management, Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs is amending 38 CFR part 62 as 

follows: 

PART 62—SUPPORTIVE SERVICES 

FOR VETERAN FAMILIES PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2044, and as 

noted in specific sections. 

■ 2. Amend § 62.25 by adding paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 62.25 Selecting grantees for renewal of 

supportive services grants. 

* * * * * 

(d) At its discretion, VA may award 

any non-renewed funds to an applicant 

or existing grantee. If VA chooses to 

award non-renewed funds to an 

applicant or existing grantee, funds will 

be awarded as follows: 

(1) VA will first offer to award the 

non-renewed funds to the applicant or 

grantee with the highest grant score 

under the relevant Notice of Fund 

Availability that applies for, or is 

awarded a renewal grant in, the same 

community as, or a proximate 

community to, the affected community. 

Such applicant or grantee must have the 

capacity and agree to provide prompt 

services to the affected community. 

Under this § 62.25, the relevant Notice 

of Fund Availability is the most recently 

published Notice of Fund Availability 

which covers the geographic area that 

includes the affected community, or for 

multi-year grant awards, the Notice of 

Fund Availability for which the grantee, 

who is offered the additional funds, 

received the multi-year award. 

(2) If the first such applicant or 

grantee offered the non-renewed funds 

refuses the funds, VA will offer to award 

the funds to the next highest-ranked 

such applicant or grantee, per the 

criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, and continue on in rank order 

until the non-renewed funds are 

awarded. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 62.36 by revising 

paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 62.36 General operation requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) The grantee must provide each 

participant with a satisfaction survey, 

which the participant can submit 

directly to VA, within 30 days of such 

participant’s pending exit from the 

grantee’s program. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 62.80 by revising 

paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 62.80 Withholding, suspension, 

deobligation, termination, and recovery of 

funds by VA. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) At its discretion, VA may readvertise in a Notice of Fund 

Availability the availability of funds 

that have been deobligated under this 

section or award deobligated funds to an 

applicant or existing grantee. If VA 

chooses to award deobligated funds to 

an applicant or existing grantee, funds 

will be awarded as follows: 

(i) VA will first offer to award the 

deobligated funds to the applicant or 

grantee with the highest grant score 

under the relevant Notice of Fund 

Availability that applied for or was 

awarded funds in the same community 

as, or proximate community to, the 

affected community. Such applicant or 

grantee must have the capacity and 

agree to provide prompt services to the 

affected community. Under this section 

the relevant Notice of Fund Availability 

is the most recently published Notice of 

Fund Availability which covers the 

geographic area that includes the 

affected community, or for multi-year 

grant awards, the most recently 

published Notice of Fund Availability 

which covers the geographic area that 

includes the affected community for 

which the grantee, who is offered the 

additional funds, received the multiyear award. 

(ii) If the first such applicant or 

grantee offered the deobligated funds 

refuses the funds, VA will offer to award 

funds to the next highest-ranked such 

applicant or grantee, per to the criteria 

in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, and 

continue on in rank order until all 

deobligated funds are awarded. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–18574 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0025; FRL–9967–29– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for US Watercraft, LLC; 

Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an 

adverse comment, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing 

the July 3, 2017, direct final rule 

approving a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Rhode Island. The revision consists of a 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) approval for a volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emission source in 

Rhode Island, specifically, US 

Watercraft, LLC. This action is being 

taken in accordance with the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: The direct final rule published 

on July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30747), is 

withdrawn effective September 1, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05–2), 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel. 617–918– 

1584, email mackintosh.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

direct final rule, EPA stated that if 

adverse comments were submitted by 

August 2, 2017, the rule would be 

withdrawn and not take effect. EPA 

received an adverse comment prior to 

the close of the comment period and, 

therefore, is withdrawing the direct final 

rule. EPA will address the comment in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES