Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

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 recipients 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 VAs determination.
Accordingly, we are also amending the language in proposed 38 CFR
61.80c3vi. In the proposed rule, VA
stated that recipients would need to submit a PIP to VAs 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 61.80c3i 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 recipients 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 commenters 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 61.80c3v and vi. Several commenters appear to view the changes as punitive in nature. We note that the remedial action for a
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Jun 24, 2021

Jkt 253001

grantees 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
61.80c3v, the impetus for imposing those remedies is not. VA views the remedies reflected in 38 CFR
61.80c3v 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 commenters 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
1320.8b2vi, 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
PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

require approval by OMB. Accordingly, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507d, 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 grantees 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 grantees 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 29000554, 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.

E:FRFM25JNR1.SGM

25JNR1