[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29215-29230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10564]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 90

[OVW Docket No. 120]
RIN 1105-AB46


Conforming STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program 
Regulations to Statutory Change; Definitions and Confidentiality 
Requirements Applicable to All OVW Grant Programs

AGENCY: Office on Violence Against Women, Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend the regulations for the STOP 
(Services--Training--Officers--Prosecutors) Violence Against Women 
Formula Grant Program (STOP Program) and the general provisions 
governing Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) Programs to comply 
with statutory changes and reduce repetition of statutory language. 
Also, this document would implement statutory requirements for 
nondisclosure of confidential or private information relating to all 
OVW grant programs.

DATES: Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must 
be submitted on or before July 11, 2016. Comments received by mail will 
be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. The 
electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments 
until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.

ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference 
``Docket No. OVW 120'' on all electronic and written correspondence. 
The Department encourages the electronic submission of all comments 
through http://www.regulations.gov using the electronic comment form 
provided on that site. For easy reference, an electronic copy of this 
document is also available at the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 
It is not necessary to submit paper comments that duplicate the 
electronic submission, as all comments submitted to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted for public review and are part of 
the official docket record. However, should you wish to submit written 
comments through regular or express mail, they should be sent to Marnie 
Shiels, Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of 
Justice, 145 N Street NE., 10W.100, Washington, DC 20530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marnie Shiels, Office on Violence 
Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Suite 10W.100, Washington, DC 20530, 
by telephone (202) 307-6026 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments. Please note that 
all comments received are considered part of the public record and made 
available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Such information includes personal identifying information (such as 
your name and address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.
    You are not required to submit personal identifying information in 
order to comment on this rule. If you want to submit personal 
identifying information (such as your name and address) as part of your 
comment, but do not want it posted online, you must include the phrase 
``PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your 
comment. You also must locate all personal identifying information that 
you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment 
and identify what information you want redacted.
    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of 
your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include 
the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph 
of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential 
business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment 
has so much confidential business information that it cannot be 
effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on 
http://www.regulations.gov.
    Personal identifying and confidential business information 
identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the 
agency's public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to 
inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, 
please see the paragraph above entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

I. Executive Summary

    The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted on September 13, 
1994, by title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994, Public Law 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796. The STOP Program is 
codified at

[[Page 29216]]

42 U.S.C. 3796gg through 3796gg-5 and 3796gg-8. The final rule for this 
program, found at 28 CFR part 90, subpart B, was promulgated on April 
18, 1995. General provisions affecting all OVW grant programs are found 
at 28 CFR part 90, subpart A.
    This rule proposes to amend the general provisions applicable to 
all OVW grant programs and the regulations governing the STOP Program 
to comply with the amendments to these programs enacted by the Violence 
Against Women Act of 2000 (VAWA 2000), Division B of the Victims of 
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-386, 
114 Stat. 1464 (Oct. 28, 2000), the Violence Against Women and 
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), Public 
Law 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960 (Jan. 5, 2006), and the Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013), Public Law 113-4, 127 
Stat. 54 (Mar. 7, 2013). These proposed changes to the regulations 
incorporate the statutory changes, make minor technical corrections, 
implement enhanced administrative and planning practices for formula 
grantees, and streamline existing regulations to reduce repetition of 
statutory language.
    In addition, this rule proposes to amend an existing regulatory 
provision, Sec.  90.2, that sets forth certain definitions that apply 
to all OVW grant programs. Furthermore, the rule proposes to add a new 
regulatory provision, Sec.  90.4, that would be applicable to all OVW 
grant programs to implement statutory amendments requiring 
nondisclosure of confidential or private information pertaining to 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and 
stalking.

II. Background

    In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a 
comprehensive legislative package aimed at ending violence against 
women. VAWA was enacted on September 13, 1994, as title IV of the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
322, 108 Stat. 1796. VAWA was designed to improve criminal justice 
system responses to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, 
and to increase the availability of services for victims of these 
crimes. VAWA was reauthorized and amended in 2000, 2005, and 2013, with 
each new reauthorization making improvements to the law and adding new 
programs and provisions.

A. The Violence Against Women Act

    VAWA recognized the need for specialized responses to violence 
against women given the unique barriers that impede victims from 
accessing assistance from the justice system. To help communities 
develop these specialized responses, VAWA authorized the STOP Program, 
among others. See 42 U.S.C. 3796gg through 3796gg-5 and 3796gg-8; 28 
CFR part 90, subpart B.
    VAWA requires a coordinated community response to domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking crimes and 
encourages jurisdictions to bring together stakeholders from multiple 
disciplines to share information and to improve community responses. 
These often include victim advocates, police officers, prosecutors, 
judges, probation and corrections officials, health care professionals, 
and survivors. In some communities, these multidisciplinary teams also 
include teachers, leaders within faith communities, public officials, 
civil legal attorneys, health care providers, advocates from 
population-specific community-based organizations representing 
underserved populations, and others.
    VAWA's legislative history indicates that Congress passed VAWA to 
improve justice system responses to violence against women. For 
example, Congress wanted to encourage jurisdictions to treat domestic 
violence as a serious crime, by instituting comprehensive reforms in 
their arrest, prosecution, and judicial policies. Congress was further 
interested in giving law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to 
pursue domestic violence and sexual assault cases without blaming 
victims for behavior that is irrelevant in determining whether a crime 
occurred and discouraging judges from issuing lower sentences for 
sexual assault crimes than for other violent crimes. VAWA was intended 
to bring an end to archaic prejudices throughout the justice system, 
provide support for victims and assurance that their attackers will be 
prosecuted, and focus criminal proceedings on the conduct of attackers 
rather than the conduct of victims.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See S. Rep. No. 103-138, at 37-48 (Sept. 10, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Violence Against Women Act of 2000

    On October 28, 2000, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women 
Act of 2000 (VAWA 2000), Division B of the Victims of Trafficking and 
Violence Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464. 
VAWA 2000 continued and strengthened the federal government's 
commitment to helping communities change the way they respond to 
violence against women. VAWA 2000 reauthorized critical grant programs, 
established new programs, and strengthened federal law. It had an 
emphasis on increasing responses to victims of dating violence and 
expanding options and services for immigrant and other vulnerable 
victims.
    VAWA 2000 made several changes relevant to the STOP Program. First, 
it amended the statutory purposes for which grant funds may be used. 
Second, it clarified the eligibility of courts as subgrantees. Third, 
it modified the requirement under the STOP Program, to be eligible for 
funding, states must certify that victims not bear the costs for 
certain filing fees related to domestic violence cases. Finally, it 
added a new provision applicable to all OVW grant programs requiring 
grantees to report on the effectiveness of activities carried out with 
program funds.

C. Violence Against Women Act of 2005

    On January 5, 2006, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women and 
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (VAWA 2005), Public Law 109-
162, 119 Stat. 2960. VAWA 2005 strengthened provisions of the previous 
Acts, including revising the STOP Program, and created a number of new 
grant programs. It also created a set of universal definitions and 
grant conditions that apply to all programs authorized by VAWA and 
subsequent legislation. VAWA 2005 had an emphasis on enhancing 
responses to sexual assault, youth victims, and victims in Indian 
country. Its provisions included new sexual assault focused programs, 
the addition of sexual assault to a number of OVW grant programs, new 
youth-focused programs, and the creation of a comprehensive violence 
against women program for tribal governments.
    The revisions to the STOP Program made by VAWA 2005 included adding 
new purpose areas to the program and modifying the requirements for the 
development of state implementation plans, the allocation of funds to 
subgrantees, and documentation of consultation with victim service 
programs. VAWA 2005 also required that the regulations governing the 
program ensure that states would recognize and meaningfully respond to 
the needs of underserved populations and distribute funds intended for 
culturally specific services--for which the act created a new set-
aside--equitably among culturally specific populations. It further 
amended the

[[Page 29217]]

certification requirement under the program related to payment for 
forensic medical exams for victims of sexual assault and added new 
certifications related to prohibiting the use of polygraph examinations 
in sexual assault cases and to judicial notification to domestic 
violence offenders of laws prohibiting their possession of a firearm.

D. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

    On March 7, 2013, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013), Public Law 113-4, 127 Stat. 
54. VAWA 2013 made further improvements to the OVW grant programs, 
including several new requirements for the STOP Program. It also 
included two new historic provisions, one extending civil rights 
protections based on gender identity and sexual orientation and another 
recognizing the inherent jurisdiction of Indian tribes to prosecute 
non-Indians who commit certain domestic violence offenses in Indian 
country.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These two provisions are not addressed in this proposed rule 
but were addressed in a set of frequently asked questions on the new 
civil rights provision and in two Federal Register notices related 
to the implementation of the new provision on tribal jurisdiction. 
See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office 
for Civil Rights, ``Frequently Asked Questions: Nondiscrimination 
Grant Condition in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 
2013'' (April 9, 2014), available at: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ovw/legacy/2014/06/20/faqs-ngc-vawa.pdf; Pilot Project 
for Tribal Jurisdiction Over Crimes of Domestic Violence, 78 FR 
35961 (June 14, 2013); Pilot Project for Tribal Jurisdiction Over 
Crimes of Domestic Violence, 78 FR 71645 (Nov. 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VAWA 2013 amended the universal definitions and grant conditions 
established by VAWA 2005 for all OVW grant programs and amended and 
added to the STOP Program purpose areas. It also amended the 
requirements under the STOP Program that states develop and submit with 
their applications and implementation plan--including documentation of 
planning committee members' participation in the development of the 
plan--and consult and coordinate with a variety of entities and 
stakeholders. VAWA 2013 modified the allocation requirements governing 
STOP subgrants, creating a set-aside for projects addressing sexual 
assault, and made changes to the statute's requirement that states 
provide matching funds for their grant award. It also made several 
changes to provisions governing payment for forensic medical exams for 
sexual assault victims and certain filing costs related to cases of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

E. Grants To Combat Violent Crimes Against Women

    VAWA, as amended, added a part T to the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90-351, codified at 42 U.S.C. 3711 
et seq., titled Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women. Part T 
authorizes four OVW-administered grant programs: the STOP Program, 
Grants to Indian Tribal Governments, the Grants to State Sexual Assault 
and Domestic Violence Coalitions Program (State Coalitions), and the 
Grants to Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions 
Program (Tribal Coalitions).
    The STOP Program grants are awarded to states to develop and 
strengthen the justice system's response to violence against women and 
to support and enhance services for victims. As described above, each 
subsequent VAWA reauthorization made numerous changes to this program, 
including adding purpose areas, imposing new or revised certification 
requirements, creating set-asides for sexual assault and culturally 
specific services, and making changes to the funding formula, funding 
allocations, and matching funds requirement.

III. Definitions and Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to All OVW 
Grant Programs

    As discussed above, VAWA 2005 established universal definitions and 
grant conditions for OVW grant programs, and VAWA 2013 amended these 
provisions. This section describes how the proposed rule would 
implement these definitions, as well as a grant condition protecting 
the confidentiality and privacy of persons receiving victim services 
for the purpose of ensuring victim safety.

A. Definitions

    The universal definitions added by VAWA 2005, codified at 42 U.S.C. 
13925(a), superseded previous program-specific definitions originally 
enacted in 1994. This proposed rule would revise the definitions 
section of part 90, 28 CFR 90.2, by removing definitions from the 
existing regulations that are codified in statute, adding definitions 
for terms that are used in statute but not defined, and clarifying 
statutory definitions that, based on OVW's experience managing its 
grant programs, require further explanation.
    Section 90.2 currently contains definitions for the following 
terms: domestic violence, forensic medical examination, Indian tribe, 
law enforcement, prosecution, sexual assault, state, unit of local 
government, and victim services. This proposed rule would remove the 
definitions for domestic violence, Indian tribe, law enforcement, 
sexual assault, state, and victim services, as they all appear in the 
statute and do not need further clarification. The proposed rule would 
revise the definition of ``forensic medical examination,'' a term that 
is used but not defined in a statutory provision directing that states, 
Indian tribal governments, and units of local government may not 
receive STOP Program funds unless they incur the full out-of-pocket 
cost of forensic medical exams for victims of sexual assault. See 42 
U.S.C. 3796gg-4(a)(1). The proposed rule would change the list of 
minimum elements that the exam should include to bring the definition 
in line with best practices for these exams as they have developed 
since part 90 was implemented in 1995, and, in particular, with the 
Department of Justice's national protocol for sexual assault medical 
forensic examinations, which was updated in April 2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against 
Women, ``A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic 
Examinations: Adults/Adolescents'' (2d ed. 2013), available at 
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ovw/241903.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule's definition of ``prosecution'' contains minor 
technical changes from the definition in the existing regulation. These 
changes implement the VAWA 2005 provision making the definitions 
applicable to all OVW grant programs and conform the definition to the 
statute. The definition retains the existing regulation's clarification 
of the statutory definition, which explains that prosecution support 
services fall within the meaning of the term for funding purposes. This 
clarification continues to be important because allocating prosecution 
grant funds to activities such as training and community coordination 
helps to achieve the statutory goal of improving prosecution response 
to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. In 
addition, the statutory definition for ``prosecution'' uses, but does 
not define, the term ``public agency,'' which the proposed rule would 
define using the definition for this term in the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act. See 42 U.S.C. 3791.
    The proposed rule would revise the definition of ``unit of local 
government,'' which did not have a statutory definition specific to all 
OVW grant programs until the enactment of VAWA 2013, to make it 
consistent with the statutory language. In addition, it would include 
in the definition a list of entities

[[Page 29218]]

and organizations that do not qualify as units of local government for 
funding purposes and would need a unit of local government to apply on 
their behalf for those programs where ``unit of local government'' is 
an eligible entity but other types of public or private entities are 
not eligible. The list reflects OVW's long-standing interpretation of 
the term ``unit of local government'' and is consistent with OVW's 
practice of excluding these entities and organizations from eligibility 
to apply for OVW funding as units of local government.
    The proposed rule also would add definitions to the regulation for 
terms that are used in OVW grant program statutes but are undefined and 
that OVW believes would be helpful to applicants and grantees. The term 
``community-based organization'' is defined in 42 U.S.C. 13925(a), but 
the term ``community-based program,'' which also appears in OVW grant 
program statutes, is not. To preserve consistency across OVW programs 
and minimize confusion, OVW is proposing to use the statutory 
definition for both terms. The proposed rule would provide a definition 
of ``prevention'' that distinguishes the term from ``outreach'' both 
because OVW has observed that some grant applicants propose outreach 
activities to implement prevention programming under OVW programs and 
because funding for ``prevention'' is more limited than funding for 
``outreach.'' Finally, the proposed rule would add a definition for 
``victim services division or component of an organization, agency, or 
government'' because the proposed rule uses this term in implementing 
the confidentiality provision enacted by VAWA 2005 and amended by VAWA 
2013, which is discussed in more detail in the next section.

B. Confidentiality

    VAWA 2005 added a provision on confidentiality and privacy of 
victim information as part of the new, universal grant conditions, and 
this provision was amended by VAWA 2013. See 42 U.S.C. 13925(b)(2). 
This provision recognizes the critical importance to victim safety of 
protecting victims' personally identifying information. It generally 
requires grantees and subgrantees to protect victim confidentiality and 
privacy to ensure the safety of victims and their families and 
prohibits the disclosure of victims' information without their 
informed, written, and reasonably time-limited consent. These 
requirements, implemented in proposed Sec.  90.4(b), would be 
applicable to all OVW grant programs, not just STOP grants.
    In administering this confidentiality provision, OVW has received 
numerous inquiries regarding what kinds of disclosures require written 
consent, and OVW is proposing to answer these questions in this rule. 
OVW welcomes comments on the impact of these issues on victims as well 
as comments on the specific proposals enumerated in this draft rule. 
OVW specifically requests comments in the following three areas:
    (1) OVW has received numerous questions regarding how the 
confidentiality provision applies when the grantee is an organization 
or governmental entity with multiple divisions or components, some of 
which do not provide victim services. For example, if the grantee is a 
college campus, the campus administration might seek identifying 
information about victims served by the campus victim services 
division, and the victim services division would need to know whether 
such a disclosure is permissible under the VAWA confidentiality 
provision absent victim consent. OVW has included language in proposed 
Sec.  90.4(b)(2)(C) providing that, for a victim services division of 
such an organization or governmental entity to disclose information to 
non-victim services divisions, it would need a signed, informed, 
reasonably time-limited release from the victim. Proposed Sec.  90.2(h) 
would define such a victim services division as a division within a 
larger organization, agency, or government, where the division has as 
its primary purpose to assist or advocate for victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Proposed 
section 90.4(b)(2) also would require a release for the leadership of 
the larger organization, agency, or government (e.g., the executive 
director, mayor, tribal chair, etc.) to access identifying information. 
OVW welcomes comments on the impact of this proposal on grantees' and 
subgrantees' ability to protect victim confidentiality and ensure 
victim safety.
    (2) OVW often receives questions about fatality reviews of 
domestic-violence-related homicides and release of information about 
deceased victims to individuals conducting such reviews. Fatality 
reviews examine the events leading up to domestic violence homicides to 
discover missed opportunities for intervention and points at which 
intervention was not effective so that communities can make systemic 
changes designed to improve identification, intervention, and 
prevention efforts in future cases. Fatality review teams usually are 
comprised of representatives from a wide variety of disciplines 
involved in responding to domestic violence incidents, including law 
enforcement, prosecution, judges, medical professionals, child 
protection workers, and community-based advocates. The proposed rule, 
at Sec.  90.4(b)(4), would allow the sharing of information about 
deceased victims for the purpose of a fatality review, provided that 
(1) the objectives of the review are to prevent future deaths, enhance 
victim safety, and increase offender accountability, and (2) the review 
includes measures to protect information from release outside the 
fatality review team. This provision strikes a balance between 
recognizing the importance of such reviews and making sure that the 
reviews protect information about any surviving children, keeping in 
mind that the confidentiality provision and fatality reviews are both 
intended to enhance victim safety. OVW requests comments on the impact 
of this proposal on grantees' and subgrantees' ability to ensure the 
safety and privacy of victims and their families.
    (3) OVW has received a number of questions about the propriety of 
placing victim-identifying data on third-party servers, such as those 
maintained by ``cloud storage'' companies. OVW is interested in 
receiving comments about whether and how such third-party servers can 
be used without compromising victim safety or violating the 
confidentiality provision at 42 U.S.C. 13925(b)(2) and whether this is 
an area where rulemaking would be desirable. In particular, the 
statutory prohibition on the disclosure of victim information applies 
to personally identifying or individual information collected in 
connection with grantees' and subgrantees' programs, regardless of 
whether the information has been encoded, encrypted, hashed, or 
otherwise protected. OVW welcomes comments on how this language would 
apply to information stored on third-party servers.

IV. Provisions of This Proposed Rule Relating to the Stop Program

A. Introduction

    The STOP Program regulations and general provisions were originally 
promulgated in April, 1995. On December 30, 2003, OVW published a 
proposed rule to clarify the match requirement for the STOP Program. On 
January 21, 2004, section 90.3, regarding participation by faith based 
organizations, was added to the general provisions. After the enactment 
of VAWA 2013, OVW consulted with

[[Page 29219]]

tribal governments about the implementation of statutory changes to the 
STOP Program as part of the Department of Justice's annual government-
to-government violence against women tribal consultations held in 
October 2013 and October 2014. In addition, during November and 
December of 2013, OVW held a series of listening sessions with relevant 
constituencies to solicit input on the update to the STOP Program 
regulations. The specific sessions were focused on state STOP Program 
administrators, state coalitions, culturally specific and underserved 
populations, tribes and tribal coalitions, nonprofit organizations, and 
the justice system. Sessions were an hour each and were held by phone 
and web interface. Participants offered a diverse array of comments 
during the sessions. The following section summarizes the common themes 
of the comments and OVW's responses.

B. Listening Sessions and Tribal Consultations

    State administrators for OVW's two state formula grant programs, 
the STOP and Sexual Assault Services Programs, requested that OVW be 
flexible in administering the program and reduce the amount of 
documentation required from state administrators. Because the STOP 
Program statute, as amended by the Violence Against Women Acts of 2000, 
2005, and 2013, includes many requirements for the program (such as 
certifications, implementation planning, allocations, equitable 
distribution of funds, etc.), OVW must require a significant amount of 
documentation to ensure compliance with all the program's statutory 
mandates. Therefore, the proposed regulation does include some detailed 
documentation requirements, particularly in the area of statutorily-
mandated consultation. OVW has attempted to minimize the burden of 
these documentation requirements by proposing to use checklists and 
permit states to submit summaries of significant concerns. OVW also has 
provided flexibility where possible. For example, proposed Sec.  
90.12(d) leaves it to the states to determine how they will achieve and 
document the equitable distribution of funds.
    In contrast to the state administrators, state coalitions and 
victim service providers advocated strict documentation requirements 
for implementation planning consultation to ensure that coalitions and 
victim service providers are fully consulted, as required by statute. 
Some participants described instances where they were asked to support 
a state plan, but were not given an opportunity to provide true input 
into the planning process. To address these concerns, proposed Sec.  
90.12(b) outlines a robust planning process, with involvement from all 
of the statutorily required parties, including state coalitions and 
victim service providers. Proposed Sec.  90.12(c) requires that states 
document their outreach to planning committee members and the extent to 
which such members cooperated in the development of the plan.
    State coalitions also recommended adding survivors in the state 
planning process. In response, proposed Sec.  90.12(b)(4) provides 
that, if possible, states should include survivors of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the planning 
process.
    Victim service providers and groups representing underserved 
populations asked that organizations working with underserved 
populations be included in the state planning process and in the 
subgrantee pool. Proposed Sec.  90.12(b)(2) requires each state to 
examine its demographics and include any significant culturally 
specific or underserved population in the planning process. If the 
state does not have any culturally specific or population specific 
organizations at the state or local level, the state can use national 
organizations to collaborate on the plan. Per the statute (42 U.S.C. 
4796gg-1(e)(2)(D)), proposed Sec.  90.12(e) requires states to include 
in their implementation plans information about how the state plans to 
meet the needs of identified underserved populations, including, but 
not limited to, culturally specific populations, victims who are 
underserved because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and 
victims with limited English proficiency. Participants in the listening 
sessions identified these specific populations as ones that 
particularly needed to be addressed by state implementation plans.
    Tribal representatives and advocates from the tribal listening 
session and consultations strongly recommended that states meaningfully 
consult with all tribes in the state, including Alaska Native villages, 
during their planning process. Participants emphasized that tribal 
coalitions can assist state administrators in forging relationships 
with tribes, but do not speak for the tribes. Participants also 
emphasized that each tribe is a unique sovereign, and one tribe's input 
does not obviate the need for input from other tribes. Proposed Sec.  
90.12(b)(3) therefore provides that states must invite all state or 
federally recognized tribes to participate in the planning process. The 
statutory definition of ``tribe'' includes Alaska Native villages. 
Tribal coalitions and state or regional tribal consortia can help the 
state reach out to tribes but cannot be used as substitutes for 
consultation with all tribes.
    The justice system participants recommended including probation and 
parole entities within the mandatory implementation planning 
participants. In response, proposed Sec.  90.12(b)(5) provides that 
states should include probation and parole entities in their planning 
process.
    VAWA 2013 included a new provision that permits states to 
reallocate grant funds from one statutory ``allocation'' category 
(i.e., prosecution, law enforcement, courts, and victims services) to 
another. Participants in all the sessions were asked what should be 
required before a state could reallocate funds to a different category. 
Many participants recommended that there should be documentation of the 
state's inability to award funds to entities within the assigned 
allocation category and that state-wide agencies, such as the 
administrative office of the courts, or state coalitions might be able 
to help both with publicizing the availability of funds and documenting 
the inability to award funds. For example, some participants noted that 
their state's administrative office of the courts will not accept the 
STOP funds allocated to courts. In proposed Sec.  90.25, OVW tried to 
maintain a balance between ensuring that states make legitimate efforts 
to identify eligible subrecipients and permitting states to reallocate 
the funds when their efforts to adhere to the allocation categories are 
unsuccessful.
    Participants were asked if there are any terms that should be 
defined in the regulations. Several commenters recommended including a 
definition of ``prevention'' to clarify the distinction between 
``prevention'' and ``outreach''. Proposed Sec.  90.2(d) specifies that 
a ``prevention program'' is ``a program that has a goal of stopping 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking from 
happening in the first place.''
    Participants were also asked about the best way to ensure that 
states coordinate with health care providers to notify victims of the 
availability of sexual assault forensic medical examinations as 
required by 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-4. The consensus of commenters was that, 
because both the structure of health care and available resources for 
this coordination vary greatly by state, the regulations should be 
flexible. Tribal participants also recommended including Indian Health 
Services in this

[[Page 29220]]

consultation. Proposed Sec.  90.13(e) addresses these comments by 
allowing states to meet this coordination obligation by partnering with 
associations that are likely to have the broadest reach to the relevant 
health care providers, such as forensic nursing or hospital 
associations. States with significant tribal populations are 
recommended to include local Indian Health Services facilities.

C. Proposed Changes to the STOP Program Regulations

    In light of the statutory changes summarized above, the listening 
sessions with various constituencies and the tribal consultations, and 
OVW's experience in administering the STOP Program over the years, OVW 
is proposing to amend the existing STOP Program regulations in the 
following ways:
1. Reorganizing the Provisions of the Rule
    This proposed rule would reorganize subpart B to promote a more 
logical flow of information, which better reflects the cycle of making 
and administering grants. To cite one example, the revised rule would 
describe the need for a state administering office, which is the 
starting point of a state's work under the STOP Program, at the 
beginning of subpart B rather than in the middle. In addition, proposed 
Sec.  90.14 would implement the judicial notification requirement and 
proposed Sec.  90.16 would implement the polygraph testing prohibition, 
which both were added by VAWA 2005. Proposed Sec.  90.25 would 
implement a new provision from VAWA 2013, permitting states to 
reallocate STOP funds. Proposed Sec.  90.24 would codify a long-
standing OVW policy against funding activities that may compromise 
victim safety and recovery, based on the program's purpose to enhance 
victim safety and offender accountability. The following chart shows 
the changes from the current rule to this proposed rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Proposed
    Section No.       Current rule     disposition of     Proposed rule
                                       current section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90.10.............  Description of    Same............  STOP (Services--
                     STOP (Services--                    Training--Offic
                     Training--Offic                     ers--Prosecutor
                     ers--Prosecutor                     s) Violence
                     s) Violence                         Against Women
                     Against Women                       Formula Grant
                     Formula Grant                       Program-
                     Program.                            General.
90.11.............  Program Criteria  Merged with       State office.
                                       90.10 and 90.12.
90.12.............  Eligible          Merged with       Implementation
                     Purposes.         90.10.            plans.
90.13.............  Eligibility.....  Now in 90.10....  Forensic medical
                                                         examination
                                                         payment
                                                         requirement.
90.14.............  Forensic Medical  Now 90.13.......  Judicial
                     Examination                         notification
                     Payment                             requirement.
                     Requirement.
90.15.............  Filing Costs for  Same............  Costs for
                     Criminal                            criminal
                     Charges.                            charges and
                                                         protection
                                                         orders.
90.16.............  Availability and  (a) Is now in     Polygraph
                     Allocation of     90.17, (b) and    testing
                     Funds.            (c) are merged    prohibition.
                                       with 90.12.
90.17.............  Matching          Now 90.18.......  Subgranting of
                     Requirements.                       funds.
90.18.............  Non-              Removed.........  Matching funds.
                     supplantation.
90.19.............  State Office....  Now 90.11.......  Application
                                                         content.
90.20.............  Application       Now 90.19.......  ................
                     Content.
90.21.............  Evaluation......  Same............  Evaluation.
90.22.............  Review of State   Same............  Review of State
                     Applications.                       applications.
90.23.............  State             Now 90.12.......  Annual grantee
                     Implementation                      and subgrantee
                     Plan.                               reporting.
90.24.............  Grantee           Now 90.23.......  Activities that
                     Reporting.                          may compromise
                                                         victim safety
                                                         and recovery.
90.25.............  ................  ................  Reallocation of
                                                         funds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Removing Duplicative Regulatory Language
    OVW is proposing to remove much of the existing regulation to avoid 
duplication with the statute. Specifically, OVW is proposing to remove 
the following sections and paragraphs of the current regulation for 
this reason: Sec.  90.10; Sec.  90.11(a); Sec.  90.12; Sec.  90.16(a); 
and Sec.  90.18. Other sections have been streamlined by referencing 
the statutory provision rather than repeating the statutory language.
3. Statutory Changes
    As discussed above, the Violence Against Women Acts of 2000, 2005, 
and 2013 have amended and enhanced this program. Specific changes are 
as follows:
 Expanded purpose areas (incorporated by reference in proposed 
Sec.  90.10)
 Changes in allocations: (1) The victim services allocation 
increased from 25 percent to 30 percent; (2) a set aside was added of 
ten percent of the victim services funds (or three percent of the total 
award) for culturally specific community based organizations; (3) a set 
aside was added of five percent to courts; and (4) a 20-percent set 
aside was added for programs that meaningfully address sexual assault 
in two or more of the specified allocations (proposed Sec.  90.11(c))
 Changes in the implementation planning process, including an 
expanded list of entities that the state is required to consult with 
and additional information that needs to be included in a state's 
implementation plan (proposed Sec.  90.12)
 Changes to the existing certification requirements and 
additions of new certification requirements (proposed Sec.  90.13, 
forensic medical examination payment; proposed Sec.  90.14, judicial 
notification; proposed Sec.  90.15, costs for criminal charges and 
protection orders; and proposed Sec.  90.16, polygraph testing 
prohibition)
The proposed rule also would remove references to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs to reflect 
statutory changes made by the Violence Against Women Office Act, Title 
IV of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273 (Nov. 2, 2002).

[[Page 29221]]

4. Section-by-Section Summary of the Proposed Regulatory Text
Sec.  90.10 STOP (Services--Training--Officers--Prosecutors) Violence 
Against Women Formula Grant Program--General
    Proposed Sec.  90.10 lists the eligible applicants for the program 
and specifies that the purposes, criteria, and requirements for the 
program are established by 42 U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.
Sec.  90.11 State Office
    Proposed Sec.  90.11 describes the role of the State office, which 
is to be designated by the chief executive of the state. As detailed in 
proposed Sec.  90.11(a) and (b), the State office is responsible for 
submitting the application, including certifications, developing the 
implementation plan, and administering the funds. Paragraph (c) is 
intended to ensure that statutorily allocated funds are meaningfully 
targeted to the appropriate entities and activities.
Sec.  90.12 Implementation Plans
    As discussed above, VAWA 2013 added new requirements to the state 
implementation planning process. Proposed Sec.  90.12 implements these 
requirements. Subsection (a) is consistent with the current Sec.  
90.23(a) and follows 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(i), but adds language 
incorporating a long-standing OVW practice of allowing states to submit 
a full implementation plan every three years and then updates to the 
plan in the other two years.
    Subsections (b) and (c) are new to the regulations, but incorporate 
provisions from 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(c)(2) and (i) regarding consultation 
and coordination. The statute provides a list of entities that states 
must consult with during the implementation planning process and 
requires documentation from members of the planning committee as to 
their participation in the planning process. OVW must ensure that 
states consult with all the required entities and fully document such 
consultation. The subsections attempt to strike a balance between 
sufficient documentation and the burdens on state administrators 
inherent in providing such documentation. The proposed rule therefore 
would require states to submit to OVW a checklist documenting the 
specific extent of each partner's participation, a summary of any 
significant concerns that were raised during the planning process, and 
a description of how those concerns were resolved. In the past, when 
the statute required that states consult only victim service providers 
regarding the implementation plan, OVW heard from some state coalitions 
that they were being asked to document approval of an implementation 
plan without having any actual input into the plan. Proposed Sec.  
90.12(c) is intended to ensure meaningful collaboration with partners, 
while minimizing the administrative burden on states.
    Based on recommendations from the tribal listening session, 
consultation with tribal governments must include all tribes in a 
state, not just a selection of tribes or organizations that work with 
tribes, such as tribal coalitions. In addition to the statutorily 
mandated planning partners, the proposed rule also encourages states to 
consult with probation and parole entities and survivors based on 
recommendations from the listening sessions.
    Proposed subsection (d) implements 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(e)(2). This 
is similar to both the current Sec.  90.16(b) and Sec.  90.23(b). The 
language in current Sec.  90.16(b) is proposed to be removed both 
because it is duplicative and to provide additional flexibility for 
states by reducing unnecessary specificity regarding how states will 
document compliance with this requirement.
    Proposed subsection (e) implements 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(i)(2)(E) and 
includes some of the current Sec.  90.16(b)(4). The subsection allows 
states the flexibility to identify underserved populations, while 
requiring documentation of why the specific populations were selected. 
The statute requires specific consideration of culturally specific 
populations. At the recommendation of the participants in the listening 
sessions, the proposed subsection also would require states to consider 
the needs of victims who are underserved because of sexual orientation 
or gender identity and victims with limited English proficiency.
    Proposed paragraph (f) implements 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(i)(2)(G), 
which requires state implementation plans to include goals and 
objectives for reducing domestic violence-related homicide. The 
proposed subsection requires states to provide statistics on domestic 
violence homicide within the state, consult with relevant entities such 
as law enforcement and victim service providers, and establish specific 
goals and objectives to reduce homicide, including addressing 
challenges specific to the state and how the plan can overcome them.
    Proposed subsection (g) outlines additional content that 
implementation plans must include, as follows:
    (1) Current demographic information regarding a state's population
    (2) A description how the state will reach out to community-based 
organizations that provide linguistically and culturally specific 
services
    (3) A description of how the state will meet the needs of each 
category of victims (domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking) and how the state will hold offenders 
accountable
    (4) A description of how the state will ensure that eligible 
entities are aware of funding opportunities
    (5) Information on specific projects the state plans to fund
    (6) An explanation of how the state coordinated the plan with other 
relevant state formula grant administering agencies as required by 42 
U.S.C. 3796gg-1(c)(3)
    (7) Information on the state's compliance with the Prison Rape 
Elimination Act (PREA, Pub. L. 108-79) and how the state plans to use 
program funds towards compliance, if applicable
    (8) A description of how the state will identify and select 
applicants for subgrants
    These required elements are designed to help OVW ensure that states 
follow statutory requirements for the program and to provide a better 
understanding of how the state plans to allocate its STOP Program 
funds. Proposed paragraph (7), regarding PREA, is designed to ensure 
that states that submit assurances under PREA that they will spend five 
percent of ``covered funds'' towards compliance with PREA are including 
such funds in their planning.
    Proposed subsection (h) implements a change in VAWA 2013 that makes 
the implementation plans due at the time of application rather than 180 
days after award.
Sec.  90.13 Forensic Medical Examination Payment Requirement
    Section 3796gg-4 of Title 42 requires states to ensure that the 
state or another governmental entity bears the ``full out-of-pocket'' 
costs of sexual assault medical forensic examinations. Proposed Sec.  
90.13(b) provides a definition of ``full out-of-pocket costs.'' 
Proposed subsection (c) is the same as current Sec.  90.14(c), but text 
has been removed to reflect the fact that VAWA 2005 changed the statute 
to allow states to use STOP Formula grant funds to pay for forensic 
exams if certain requirements are met. Proposed subsection (d) would 
clarify that, if states use victims' personal health insurance to pay 
for the exams, they must ensure that any expenses not covered by 
insurance are not billed to the victims, as these would constitute 
``out-of-pocket'' costs. Proposed subsection (e) would implement a new 
provision from VAWA 2013 (42 U.S.C.

[[Page 29222]]

3796gg-4(a)(1)(B)), which requires states to coordinate with health 
care providers in the region to notify victims of the availability of 
forensic examinations.
Sec.  90.14 Judicial Notification Requirement
    Proposed Sec.  90.14 implements the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
3796gg-4(e), which provides that states and units of local government 
are not entitled to funds unless they certify that their judicial 
administrative policies and practices include notification to domestic 
violence offenders of relevant federal, state, and local firearms 
prohibitions that might affect them. This requirement was added by VAWA 
2005.
Sec.  90.15 Costs for Criminal Charges and Protection Orders
    Proposed Sec.  90.15 would implement the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
3796gg-5, which provides that states, tribes, and units of local 
government are not entitled to funds unless they certify that victims 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking are 
not charged certain costs associated with criminal prosecution or 
protection orders. These requirements were amended by VAWA 2000 and 
VAWA 2013.
Sec.  90.16 Polygraph Testing Prohibition
    Proposed Sec.  90.16 would implement 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-8, which 
provides that, to be eligible for STOP Program funding, states, tribes, 
and units of local government must certify that their laws, policies, 
and practices ensure that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and 
other government officials do not ask or require sexual assault victims 
to submit to a polygraph examination or other truth telling device as a 
condition for investigating the offense. These requirements were added 
by VAWA 2005.
Sec.  90.17 Subgranting of Funds
    Proposed Sec.  90.17(a) describes the type of entities that can 
receive subgrants from the state (state agencies and offices, courts, 
local governments, public agencies, tribal governments, victim service 
providers, community-based organizations, and legal services programs). 
This is currently addressed in Sec.  90.13(a), but it has been 
separated out for clarity and expanded to reflect statutory changes to 
the STOP Program and the types of entities that, in practice, receive 
subgrants under this program.
    Proposed Sec.  90.17(b) would allow states to use up to ten percent 
of each allocation category (law enforcement, prosecution, victim 
services, courts, and discretionary) to support the state's 
administrative costs. Examples of such costs include the salary and 
benefits of staff who administer the program and costs of conducting 
peer review. This proposed subsection codifies a long-standing OVW 
policy regarding state administrative costs.
Sec.  90.18 Matching Funds
    Proposed Sec.  90.18 would implement the match provisions of 42 
U.S.C. 3796gg-1(f) and 13925(b)(1). This topic is currently addressed 
in Sec.  90.17. VAWA 2005 provided that match could not be required for 
subgrants to tribes, territories, or victim service providers. It also 
authorized a waiver of match for states that have ``adequately 
demonstrated [their] financial need.'' 42 U.S.C. 13925(b)(1). VAWA 2013 
further specified that the costs of subgrants for victim services or 
tribes would not count toward the total amount of the STOP award in 
calculating match. 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(f).
    Proposed subsection (a) states the match requirement in general and 
reflects that the match requirement does not apply to territories.
    Proposed subsection (b) would allow for in-kind match, consistent 
with 2 CFR 200.306, and provide information on calculating the value of 
in-kind match.
    Proposed subsection (c) would provide that states may not require 
match for subgrants for Indian tribes or victim service providers. This 
is consistent with 42 U.S.C. 13925(b)(1), as added by VAWA 2005.
    Proposed subsection (d) would implements the waiver provisions of 
42 U.S.C. 13925(b)(1), as added by VAWA 2005. In developing the 
criteria for waiver, OVW balanced the importance of state and local 
support for the efforts funded under the STOP Program with the need for 
waiver where there is legitimate financial need. The proposed 
subsection would ensure that the needs identified by the state are 
specifically tied to funding for violence against women programs. For 
example, if a state has had across the board budget cuts, it would need 
to show how those cuts have impacted state funding for violence against 
women programs (and hence, its ability to provide matching funds). In 
most cases, a state would receive a partial waiver based on the 
specific impact of the cuts. For example, if the state had a 20-percent 
reduction in violence against women funding, then it would receive a 
20-percent waiver. The 20-percent cut should leave the state with 80-
percent of funds that could still be used toward match. In most cases, 
the states pass the match on to subgrantees, except for Indian tribes 
and victim service providers. In cases of awards to Indian tribes or 
awards to victim service providers for victim services purposes (as 
opposed to another purpose, such as law enforcement training) the state 
is exempted from the match requirement.
    Proposed subsection (e) would provide that matching funds must be 
used for the same purposes as the federal funds and must be tracked for 
accountability purposes. This is consistent with the current Sec.  
90.17(e).
Sec.  90.19 Application Content
    Proposed Sec.  90.19 would provide that states will apply for STOP 
Program funding using an annual solicitation issued by OVW. The 
proposed section differs from the current Sec.  90.20 to reflect 
current practice and significant changes that VAWA 2013 made to the 
application process. Prior to fiscal year 2014 (the year that VAWA 2013 
amendments to the STOP Program took effect), a STOP application 
included certain documentation and information, such as documentation 
from the prosecution, law enforcement, court, and victim service 
programs to be assisted, demonstrating the need for funds, the intended 
use of the funds, expected results, and demographic characteristics of 
the population to be served. The state then had 180 days from the date 
of award to complete and submit its implementation plan, which included 
more detail. VAWA 2013 streamlined this process by including most 
information and documentation in the implementation plan, but also 
requiring the plan to be submitted at the time of application.
Sec.  90.21 Evaluation
    Proposed Sec.  90.21 would encourage states to have plans for 
evaluating the impact and effectiveness of their programs and requires 
them to cooperate with federally-sponsored evaluations of their 
programs. This is generally consistent with current Sec.  90.21.
Sec.  90.22 Review of State Applications
    Proposed Sec.  90.22 would provide the basis for review of state 
applications and implement the single point of contact requirement of 
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs). 
Current subsection (c) has been removed because OVW is no longer part 
of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the section is no longer 
relevant.

[[Page 29223]]

Sec.  90.23 Annual Grantee and Subgrantee Reporting
    Proposed Sec.  90.23 describes the annual reporting requirement for 
the program. Subgrantees submit annual progress reports to the state, 
which then forwards them to OVW. States also submit an annual progress 
report. Information on progress reports, along with the forms and 
instructions are available at http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/vawamei/stopformulamain.htm. This is different from the current Sec.  90.24 
because OVW's grant reporting processes have changed, and OVW is no 
longer a component within OJP.
Sec.  90.24 Activities That May Compromise Victim Safety and Recovery
    Proposed Sec.  90.24 would provide that grant funds may not be used 
to support activities that compromise victim safety and recovery. This 
proposed section is based on the overall purpose of the Violence 
Against Women Act to enhance victim safety. Specific examples of such 
activities are included in the STOP Program solicitation each year. For 
example, past solicitations explained that such unsafe activities 
include procedures or policies that exclude victims from receiving safe 
shelter, advocacy services, counseling, and other assistance based on 
their actual or perceived age, immigration status, race, religion, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, mental health condition, physical 
health condition, criminal record, work in the sex industry, or the age 
and/or gender of their children.
Sec.  90.25 Reallocation of Funds
    Proposed Sec.  90.25 implements a new provision from VAWA 2013 (42 
U.S.C. 3796gg-1(j)), which allows states to reallocate funds in the law 
enforcement, prosecution, courts, and victim services (including 
culturally specific services) allocation categories if they did not 
receive ``sufficient eligible applications.'' The proposed section 
defines an ``eligible'' application and provides the information that 
states must have on file to document a lack of sufficient eligible 
applications. The proposed section would ensure that states conduct 
sufficient outreach to the eligible category of subgrantees before 
reallocating the funds.

V. Request for Comments

    OVW is soliciting comments on the proposed amendments to part 90 
subparts A and B. OVW welcomes all comments, including comments on 
specific sections of the rule.

Regulatory Certifications

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563--Regulatory Review
    This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' section 
1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' section 1(b). 
General Principles of Regulation.
    The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, Sec.  
3(f) because it is not likely to: (1) Have an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more; (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.
    (1) The rule's impact is limited to OVW grant funds. It does not 
change the economic impact of the grant funds and will impose very few 
economic costs, as discussed below.
    (2) The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a similar 
program under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), 
which uses some of the same definitions and a similar confidentiality 
provision. OVW and the HHS FVPSA office coordinate to ensure 
consistency in implementation of programs.
    (3) The requirements in the rule are statutory and apply only to 
OVW grantees. In some cases, OVW has added some additional specificity 
to clarify the statutory requirements. The rule provides details on 
what information the states must provide as ``documentation,'' but does 
not impose new requirements.
    (4) This rule does not raise any novel legal or policy issues.
    Further, both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to 
assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and 
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The 
Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation and 
believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits. 
In most cases, the proposed rule simply clarifies the statutory 
requirements, such as providing definitions, that would not have any 
cost or might reduce costs by providing administrators with clear 
guidance.
    OVW provides the following analysis of the most noteworthy costs, 
benefits, and alternative choices.
    Subpart A. In general, most of this subsection comes from the 
statute. OVW developed all of these provisions to answer questions 
received regularly from grantees and provide greater clarity for 
grantees and save them the time and effort of analyzing the 
requirements and seeking further guidance from OVW staff. Under the 
proposed rule, the victim service component will need a victim release 
to share the information. The use of the release will increase the 
degree of control that the victim has over his/her information, which 
is widely considered a best practice in the violence against women 
field. The cost of the proposed rule is the time and administrative 
burden in executing and tracking the release. This cost cannot be 
quantified, however, because the discussion of release with the victim 
would take place in the context of a larger conversation between the 
victim and the service provider about options for the victim and next 
steps. OVW considered whether to prevent the release of information 
about deceased victims in the context of fatality reviews, out of 
consideration for surviving family members, but concluded that the 
proposed rule could include protections that would meet the would meet 
the needs of the fatality reviews while protecting the privacy of 
surviving family members.
    Subpart B. In general, proposed changes to subpart B reflect a 
balance between the burden on the state Administrators and the need to 
ensure compliance with the statute. The relevant statute requires state 
implementation plans which must identify how the state will use STOP 
funds and meet certain statutory requirements. OVW opted to require 
full plans only every three years to reduce the burden on states in 
developing these plans. In the other years, states only submit updates 
to their plans.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive 
Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

[[Page 29224]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act
    The Office on Violence Against Women, in accordance with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this 
regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this regulation will 
not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of 
small entities for the following reason: Except for the match 
provisions in proposed Sec.  90.18, the direct economic impact is 
limited to the Office on Violence Against Women's appropriated funds. 
For more information on economic impact, please see above.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments
    This rule will not result in substantial direct increased costs to 
Indian Tribal governments. The definitions and confidentiality 
provisions of the rule will impact grantees that are tribes. OVW 
currently has 246 active awards to 159 tribes, for a total of over $140 
million. As discussed above, any financial costs imposed by the rule 
are minimal.
    In addition, although a small number of tribes are subgrantees of 
the STOP Formula Program, discussed in subpart B, the requirements of 
the rule are imposed on grantees, not subgrantees. The one provision in 
subpart B that will have a direct effect on tribes is proposed Sec.  
90.12(b)(3), which implements the statutory requirement that states 
consult with ``tribal governments in those States with State or 
federally recognized Indian tribes.'' 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(c)(2)(F). The 
proposed rule would require states to invite all State or federally 
recognized tribes in the state to participate in the planning process. 
This approach was recommended by tribal participants in the tribal 
listening session and at OVW's annual government-to-government tribal 
consultations in 2013 and 2014.
    As discussed above, OVW included regulatory implementation of 
statutory changes to the STOP Program as a topic at its annual tribal 
consultations in 2013 and 2014. At the 2013 consultation, tribal 
leaders were asked for testimony on terms that should be defined in the 
regulations, additional entities that states should consult with in 
developing their implementation plans, how states should document the 
participation of planning committee members, and how states should 
consult with tribes, among other specific questions. The questions 
presented at the 2014 consultation included how states might better 
consult with tribes during STOP implementation planning, and how states 
should include tribes in the equitable distribution of funds for 
underserved populations and culturally specific services. At both 
consultations, tribal leaders emphasized the importance of states 
engaging in meaningful consultation with all tribes in their state. 
Tribal leaders noted that such consultation should involve a 
cooperative decision making process designed to reach consensus before 
a decision is made or action is taken, and that effective consultation 
leads to an implementation plan that takes into account the needs of 
tribes. Tribal leaders also pointed out that a state's failure to 
consult with tribes can prevent tribes from accessing STOP funds or 
even being aware that they are available. Finally, testimony at the 
tribal consultations raised concerns about states asking tribal 
shelters to volunteer to provide matching funds in order to receive 
STOP subgrant funding.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not uniquely affect 
small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under 
the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule 
will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
more; a major increase in cost or prices; or significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to 
compete in domestic and export markets.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 90

    Grant programs; Judicial administration.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office on Violence 
Against Women proposes to amend 28 CFR part 90 as follows:

PART 90--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

0
1. The authority for part 90 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 13925.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 90.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1  General

    (a) This part implements certain provisions of the Violence Against 
Women Act (VAWA), and subsequent legislation as follows:
    (1) The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 
(Sept. 13, 1994);
    (2) The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (VAWA 2000), Division B 
of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 
Public Law 106-386 (Oct. 28, 2000);
    (3) The Violence Against Women Office Act, Title IV of the 21st 
Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public 
Law 107-273 (Nov. 2, 2002);
    (4) The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), Public Law 109-162 (January 5, 
2006); and,
    (5) The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 
2013), Public Law 113-4 (Mar. 7, 2013).
    (b) Subpart B of this part defines program eligibility criteria and 
sets forth requirements for application for and administration of 
formula grants to States to combat violent crimes against women. This 
program is codified at 42 U.S.C. 3796gg through 3796gg-5 and 3796gg-8.
    (c) Subpart C of this part was removed on September 9, 2013.
    (d) Subpart D of this part defines program eligibility criteria and 
sets forth requirements for the discretionary Grants to Encourage 
Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program.
0
3. Section 90.2 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  90.2  Definitions

    (a) In addition to the definitions in this section, the definitions 
in 42 U.S.C. 13925(a) apply to all grants awarded by the Office on 
Violence Against Women and all subgrants made under such awards.
    (b) The term ``community-based program'' has the meaning given the 
term ``community-based organization'' in 42 U.S.C. 13925(a).

[[Page 29225]]

    (c) The term ``forensic medical examination'' means an examination 
provided to a sexual assault victim by medical personnel to gather 
evidence of a sexual assault in a manner suitable for use in a court of 
law.
    (1) The examination should include at a minimum:
    (A) Gathering information from the patient for the forensic medical 
history;
    (B) head to toe examination of the patient;
    (C) documentation of biological and physical findings; and
    (D) collection of evidence from the patient.
    (2) Any costs associated with the items listed in paragraph (1), 
such as equipment or supplies, are considered part of the ``forensic 
medical examination.''
    (3) The inclusion of additional procedures (e.g., testing for 
sexually transmitted diseases) may be determined by the State, Indian 
tribal government, or unit of local government in accordance with its 
current laws, policies, and practices.
    (d) A prevention program is a program that has a goal of stopping 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking from 
happening in the first place. Prevention is distinguished from 
``outreach,'' which has the goal of informing victims and potential 
victims about available services.
    (e) The term ``prosecution'' means any public agency charged with 
direct responsibility for prosecuting criminal offenders, including 
such agency's component bureaus (such as governmental victim services 
programs). Public agencies that provide prosecution support services, 
such as overseeing or participating in Statewide or multi-
jurisdictional domestic violence task forces, conducting training for 
State, tribal, or local prosecutors or enforcing victim compensation 
and domestic violence-related restraining orders also fall within the 
meaning of ``prosecution'' for purposes of this definition.
    (f) The term ``public agency'' has the meaning provided in 42 
U.S.C. 3791.
    (g) For the purpose of this part, a ``unit of local government'' is 
any city, county, township, town, borough, parish, village, or other 
general purpose political subdivision of a State.
    The following are not considered units of local government for 
purposes of this part:
     Police departments;
     Pre-trial service agencies;
     District or city attorneys' offices;
     Sheriffs' departments;
     Probation and parole departments;
     Shelters;
     Nonprofit, nongovernmental victim service agencies 
including faith-based or community organizations; and
     Universities.
    (h) The term ``Victim services division or component of an 
organization, agency, or government'' refers to a division within a 
larger organization, agency, or government, where the division has as 
its primary purpose to assist or advocate for domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking victims and has a documented 
history of work concerning such victims.
0
4. Section 90.4 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  90.4  Grant conditions

    (a) In addition to the grant conditions in paragraphs (b) and (c), 
the grant conditions in 42 U.S.C. 13925(b) apply to all grants awarded 
by the Office on Violence Against Women and all subgrants made under 
such awards.
    (b) Nondisclosure of confidential or private information.
    (1) In general. In order to ensure the safety of adult, youth, and 
child victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking and their families, grantees and subgrantees under this part 
shall protect the confidentiality and privacy of persons receiving 
services.
    (2) Nondisclosure.
    (i) Subject to paragraph (b)(2)(iii), grantees and subgrantees 
shall not disclose any personally identifying information or individual 
information collected in connection with services requested, utilized, 
or denied through grantees' and subgrantees' programs, regardless of 
whether the information has been encoded, encrypted, hashed, or 
otherwise protected.
    (ii) This subsection applies whether the information is being 
requested for a Department of Justice grant program or another Federal 
agency, State, tribal, or territorial grant program. This subsection 
also limits disclosures by subgrantees to grantees, including 
disclosures to Statewide or regional databases.
    (C) This subsection also applies to disclosures from the victim 
services divisions or components of an organization, agency, or 
government to other non-victim service divisions within an 
organization, agency, or government. It also applies to disclosures 
from victim services divisions or components of an organization, 
agency, or government to the leadership of the organization, agency, or 
government (e.g., executive director or chief executive). Such 
executives shall have access without releases only in extraordinary and 
rare circumstances.
    (3) Release.
    (i) Personally identifying information or individual information 
that is collected as described in paragraph (b)(2) may not be released 
except under the following circumstances:
    (A) the victim signs a release as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii);
    (B) release is compelled by statutory mandate, which includes 
mandatory child abuse reporting laws; or
    (C) release is compelled by court mandate.
    (ii) Victim releases must meet the following criteria--
    (A) Releases must be written, informed, and reasonably time-
limited. Grantees and subgrantees may not use a blanket release and 
must specify the scope and limited circumstances of any disclosure. At 
a minimum, grantees and subgrantees must inform victims why the 
information might be shared, who would have access to the information, 
and what information could be shared under the terms of the release. A 
release must specify the duration for which information may be shared. 
The reasonableness of this time period will depend on the specific 
situation.
    (B) Grantees and subgrantees may not require consent to release of 
information as a condition of service.
    (C) Releases must be signed by the victim unless the victim is a 
minor who lacks the capacity to consent to release or is a legally 
incapacitated person and has a court-appointed guardian. Except as 
provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(D), in the case of an unemancipated 
minor, the release must be signed by the minor and a parent or 
guardian; in the case of a legally incapacitated person, it must be 
signed by a legally-appointed guardian. Consent may not be given by the 
abuser of the minor or incapacitated person or the abuser of the other 
parent of the minor.
    (D) If the minor or person with a legally appointed guardian is 
permitted by law to receive services without the parent's or guardian's 
consent, the minor or person with a guardian may consent to release 
information without additional consent.
    (iv) If the release is compelled by statutory or court mandate, 
grantees and subgrantees must make reasonable efforts to notify victims 
affected by the disclosure and take steps necessary to protect the 
privacy and safety of the affected persons.
    (4) Fatality reviews. The prohibition on sharing identifying 
information does not apply to information about deceased victims being 
sought for purposes of a

[[Page 29226]]

fatality review, assuming the fatality review meets the following 
requirements:
    (i) The underlying objectives of the fatality review are to prevent 
future deaths, enhance victim safety, and increase offender 
accountability; and
    (ii) The fatality review includes policies or protocols to protect 
identifying information, including identifying information about the 
victim's children, from further release outside the fatality review 
team.
    (5) Confidentiality assessment and assurances. Grantees and 
subgrantees are required to document their compliance with the 
requirements of this subsection. All applicants for Office on Violence 
Against Women funding are required to submit a signed acknowledgement 
form, indicating that they have notice that, if awarded funds, they 
will be required to comply with the provisions of this subsection, will 
mandate that subgrantees, if any, comply with this provision, and will 
create and maintain documentation of compliance, such as policies and 
procedures for release of victim information, and will mandate that 
subgrantees, if any, will do so as well.
    (c) Reports. An entity receiving a grant under this part shall 
submit to the Office on Violence Against Women reports detailing the 
activities undertaken with the grant funds. These reports must comply 
with the requirements set forth in 2 CFR 200.328 and provide any 
additional information that the Office on Violence Against Women 
requires.
0
5. Subpart B is revised to read as follows:

Subpart B--The STOP (Services--Training--Officers--Prosecutors) 
Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program

90.10 STOP (Services--Training--Officers--Prosecutors) Violence 
Against Women Formula Grant Program--General
90.11 State office
90.12 Implementation plans
90.13 Forensic medical examination payment requirement
90.14 Judicial notification requirement
90.15 Costs for criminal charges and protection orders
90.16 Polygraph testing prohibition
90.17 Subgranting of funds
90.18 Matching funds
90.19 Application content
90.20 [Reserved]
90.21 Evaluation
90.22 Review of State applications
90.23 Annual grantee and subgrantee reporting
90.24 Activities that may compromise victim safety and recovery
90.25 Reallocation of funds


Sec.  90.10  STOP (Services--Training--Officers--Prosecutors) Violence 
Against Women Formula Grant Program--General

    The purposes, criteria, and requirements for the STOP Violence 
Against Women Formula Grant Program are established by 42 U.S.C. 3796gg 
et seq. Eligible applicants for the program are the 50 States, American 
Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and the District of Columbia, hereinafter referred to as 
``States''.


Sec.  90.11  State office

    (a) Statewide plan and application. The chief executive of each 
participating State shall designate a State office for the purposes of:
    (1) Certifying qualifications for funding under this program;
    (2) developing a Statewide plan for implementation of the STOP 
Violence Against Women Formula Grants as described in section 90.12; 
and
    (3) preparing an application to receive funds under this program.
    (b) Administration and fund disbursement. In addition to the duties 
specified by subsection (a) of this section, the State office shall:
    (1) Administer funds received under this program, including 
receipt, review, processing, monitoring, progress and financial report 
review, technical assistance, grant adjustments, accounting, auditing, 
and fund disbursements; and
    (2) Coordinate the disbursement of funds provided under this part 
with other State agencies receiving Federal, State, or local funds for 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking 
prosecution, prevention, treatment, education, victim services, and 
research activities and programs.
    (c) Allocation requirement.
    (1) The State office shall allocate funds as provided in 42 U.S.C. 
3796gg-1(c)(4) to courts and for law enforcement, prosecution, and 
victim services (including funds that must be awarded to culturally 
specific community-based organizations).
    (2) The State office shall ensure that the allocated funds benefit 
law enforcement, prosecution and victim services and are awarded to 
courts and culturally specific community-based organizations. In 
ensuring that funds benefit the appropriate entities, if funds are not 
subgranted directly to law enforcement, prosecution, and victim 
services, the State must require demonstration from the entity to be 
benefitted in the form of a memorandum of understanding signed by the 
chief executives of both the entity and the subgrant recipient, stating 
that the entity supports the proposed project and agrees that it is to 
the entity's benefit.
    (3) Culturally Specific Allocation. 42 U.S.C. 13925 defines 
``culturally specific'' as primarily directed toward racial and ethnic 
minority groups (as defined in 42 U.S.C. 300u-6(g)). An organization 
will qualify for funding for the culturally specific allocation if its 
primary mission is to address the needs of racial and ethnic minority 
groups or if it has developed a special expertise regarding a 
particular racial and ethnic minority group. The organization must do 
more than merely provide services to the targeted group; rather, the 
organization must provide culturally competent services designed to 
meet the specific needs of the target population.
    (4) Sexual Assault Set Aside. As provided in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
1(c)(5), the State must also award at least 20 percent of the total 
State award to projects in two or more allocations in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
1(c)(4) that meaningfully address sexual assault. States should 
evaluate whether the interventions are tailored to meet the specific 
needs of sexual assault victims including ensuring that projects funded 
under the set aside have a legitimate focus on sexual assault and that 
personnel funded under such projects have sufficient expertise and 
experience on sexual assault. States may assess the percentage that a 
project addresses sexual assault and count that percentage of the 
project toward the set aside.


Sec.  90.12  Implementation plans

    (a) In general. Each State must submit a plan describing its 
identified goals under this program and how the funds will be used to 
accomplish those goals. The plan must include all of the elements 
specified in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(i). The plan will cover a three-year 
period. In years two and three of the plan, each State must submit 
information on any updates or changes to the plan, as well as updated 
demographic information.
    (b) Consultation and coordination. In developing this plan, a State 
must consult and coordinate with the entities specified in 42 U.S.C. 
3796gg-1(c)(2).
    (1) This consultation process must include at least one sexual 
assault victim service provider and one domestic violence victim 
service provider and may include other victim service providers.
    (2) In determining what population specific organizations, 
representatives from underserved populations, and culturally specific 
organizations to

[[Page 29227]]

include in the consultation process, States should look at the 
demographics of their State and include any significant underserved and 
culturally specific populations in the State. This includes 
organizations working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
(LGBT) people and organizations that focus on people with limited 
English proficiency. If the State does not have any culturally specific 
or population specific organizations at the State or local level, the 
State can use national organizations to collaborate on the plan.
    (3) States must invite all State or Federally recognized tribes to 
participate in the planning process. Tribal coalitions and State or 
regional tribal consortia can help the State reach out to the tribes 
but can not be used as a substitute for consultation with all tribes.
    (4) If possible, States should include survivors of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the planning 
process.
    (5) States should also include probation and parole entities in the 
planning process.
    (6) As provided in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(c)(3), States must also 
coordinate the plan with the State plan for the Family Violence 
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10407), the State Victim 
Assistance Formula Grants under the Victims of Crime Act (42 U.S.C. 
10603), and the Rape Prevention and Education Program (42 U.S.C. 280b-
1b). The purposes of this coordination process are to provide greater 
diversity of projects funded and leverage efforts across the various 
funding streams.
    (7) Although all of the entities specified in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
1(c)(2) must be consulted, they do not all need to be on the ``planning 
committee.'' The planning committee must include the following, at a 
minimum:
    (i) The State domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions as 
defined by 42 U.S.C. 13925(a)(32) and (33) (or dual coalition)
    (ii) A law enforcement entity or State law enforcement organization
    (C) A prosecution entity or State prosecution organization
    (D) A court or the State Administrative Office of the Courts
    (E) Representatives from tribes, tribal organizations, or tribal 
coalitions
    (F) Population specific organizations representing the most 
significant underserved populations and culturally specific populations 
in the State other than tribes, which are addressed separately.
    (8) The full consultation should include more robust representation 
from each of the required groups as well as all State and Federally 
recognized tribes.
    (c) Documentation of consultation. As part of the implementation 
plan, the grantee must submit a checklist documenting the type and 
extent of each entity's or individual's participation in the planning 
process, as well as major issues that were raised during the process 
and how they were resolved. This must include all of the entities 
specified in both subsection (b) and in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(c)(2).
    (1) The State must retain documentation regarding attendees at all 
planning meetings.
    (2) For in-person meetings, the State should use and retain a sign-
in sheet with name, title, organization, which of the required entity 
types (e.g., tribal government, population specific organization, 
prosecution, courts, State coalition) the person is representing, phone 
number, email address, and signature.
    (3) For phone or online meetings, attendees should ``sign-in'' by 
emailing or faxing that they are on the call and the State should 
retain these emails and/or faxes.
    (4) The State must create a summary of major concerns that were 
raised during the development process and how they were addressed, or 
why they awere not addressed. This should be sent to the planning 
committee along with any draft implementation plan and with the final 
plan.
    (5) The State must keep track of any method of document review that 
occurred outside the context of a meeting, such as to whom the draft 
implementation plan was sent, how it was sent (for example by email 
versus mail), and who responded. Although States do not need to note 
every comment and how it was addressed, if there are serious or 
significant concerns with the draft implementation plan, these should 
be added to the summary of major concerns described above.
    (6) The State must create and submit to the Office on Violence 
Against Women a checklist for each planning committee member that 
documents, at a minimum, whether they were informed of meetings, 
whether they attended meetings, whether they were given drafts of the 
implementation plan to review, whether they submitted comments on the 
draft, and whether they received a copy of the final plan and the 
State's summary of major concerns. The checklist should also include 
space for participants to include any major concerns that they have 
with the final plan. Each participant should check the appropriate 
categories on the checklist, sign the form, and return it to the State, 
which will attach the checklists to the plan when submitting the plan 
to the Office on Violence Against Women.
    (7) Only the checklists and summary of significant concerns must be 
sent to OVW with the implementation plans. The remaining documentation 
described above must be kept on file by the State.
    (d) Equitable distribution. The implementation plan must describe, 
on an annual or three-year basis, how the State, in disbursing monies, 
will:
    (1) Give priority to areas of varying geographic size with the 
greatest showing of need based on the range and availability of 
existing domestic violence and sexual assault programs in the 
population and geographic area to be served in relation to the 
availability of such programs in other such populations and geographic 
areas, including Indian reservations;
    (2) Determine the amount of subgrants based on the population and 
geographic area to be served;
    (3) Equitably distribute monies on a geographic basis including 
nonurban and rural areas of various geographic sizes; and
    (4) Recognize and meaningfully respond to the needs of underserved 
populations and ensure that monies set aside to fund linguistically and 
culturally specific services and activities for underserved populations 
are distributed equitably among those populations.
    (e) Underserved populations. Each State has flexibility to 
determine the methods it uses for identifying underserved populations 
within the State, which may include public hearings, needs assessments, 
task forces, and United States Census Bureau data. The implementation 
plan must include details regarding the methods used and the results of 
those methods. It must also include information on how the State plans 
to meet the needs of identified underserved populations, including, but 
not limited to, culturally specific populations, victims who are 
underserved because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and 
victims with limited English proficiency.
    (f) Goals and objectives for reducing domestic violence homicide. 
As required in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(i)(2)(G), State plans must include 
goals and objectives for reducing domestic violence homicide.
    (1) The plan must include available statistics on the rates of 
domestic violence homicide within the State.
    (2) As part of the State's consultation with law enforcement, 
prosecution, and victim service providers, the State and

[[Page 29228]]

these entities should discuss and document the perceived accuracy of 
these statistics and the best ways to address domestic violence 
homicide.
    (3) The plan must identify specific goals and objectives for 
reducing domestic violence homicide, based on these discussions, which 
include challenges specific to the State and how the plan can overcome 
them.
    (g) Additional contents. State plans must also include the 
following:
    (1) Demographic information regarding the population of the State 
derived from the most recent available United States Census Bureau data 
including population data on race, ethnicity, age, disability, and 
limited English proficiency.
    (2) A description of how the State will reach out to community-
based organizations that provide linguistically and culturally specific 
services.
    (3) A description of how the State will address the needs of sexual 
assault victims, domestic violence victims, dating violence victims, 
and stalking victims, as well as how the State will hold offenders who 
commit each of these crimes accountable.
    (4) A description of how the State will ensure that eligible 
entities are aware of funding opportunities, including projects serving 
underserved populations as defined by 42 U.S.C. 13925(a).
    (5) Information on specific projects the State plans to fund.
    (6) An explanation of how the State coordinated the plan as 
described in paragraph (b)(6) and the impact of that coordination on 
the contents of the plan.
    (7) Information on the status of the State's compliance with the 
Prison Rape Elimination Act standards (28 CFR part 115) and how the 
State plans to use STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program 
funds towards compliance, if applicable.
    (8) A description of how the State will identify and select 
applicants for subgrant funding, including whether a competitive 
process will be used.
    (h) Deadline. State plans will be due at application. If the Office 
on Violence Against Women determines the submitted plan is incomplete, 
the State will receive the award, but will not be able to access 
funding until the plan is completed and approved. The State will have 
60 days from the award date to complete the plan. If the State does not 
complete it in that time, then the funds will be deobligated and the 
award closed.


Sec.  90.13  Forensic medical examination payment requirement

    (a) To be eligible for funding under this program, a State must 
meet the requirements at 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-4(a)(1) with regard to 
incurring the full out-of-pocket costs of forensic medical examinations 
for victims of sexual assault.
    (b) ``Full out-of-pocket costs'' means any expense that may be 
charged to a victim in connection with a forensic medical examination 
for the purpose of gathering evidence of a sexual assault (e.g., the 
full cost of the examination, an insurance deductible, or a fee 
established by the facility conducting the examination). For 
individuals covered by insurance, full out-of-pocket costs means any 
costs that the insurer does not pay.
    (c) Coverage of the cost of additional procedures (e.g., testing 
for sexually transmitted diseases) may be determined by the State or 
governmental entity responsible for paying the costs.
    (d) States may only use the victims' private insurance as a source 
of payment for the exams if they are not using STOP Violence Against 
Women Formula Grant Program funds to pay for the cost of the exams. In 
addition, any expenses not covered by the insurer must be covered by 
the State or other governmental entity and cannot be billed to the 
victim. This includes any deductibles or denial of claims by the 
insurer.
    (e) The State or other governmental entity responsible for paying 
the costs of forensic medical exams must coordinate with health care 
providers in the region to notify victims of sexual assault of the 
availability of rape exams at no cost to the victims. States can meet 
this obligation by partnering with associations that are likely to have 
the broadest reach to the relevant health care providers, such as 
forensic nursing or hospital associations. States with significant 
tribal populations should also consider reaching out to local Indian 
Health Services facilities.


Sec.  90.14  Judicial notification requirement

    (a) To be eligible for funding under this program, a State must 
meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-4(e) with regard to judicial 
notification to domestic violence offenders of federal prohibitions on 
their possession of a firearm or ammunition in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) and 
(9) and any applicable related Federal, State, or local laws.
    (b) A unit of local government shall not be eligible for subgrants 
from the State unless it complies with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
3796gg-4(e) with respect to its judicial administrative policies and 
practices.


Sec.  90.15  Costs for criminal charges and protection orders

    (a) To be eligible for funding under this program, a State must 
meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-5 with regard to not 
requiring victims to bear the costs for criminal charges and protection 
orders in cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking.
    (b) An Indian tribal government, unit of local government, or court 
shall not be eligible for subgrants from the State unless it complies 
with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-5 with respect to its laws, 
policies, and practices not requiring victims to bear the costs for 
criminal charges and protection orders in cases of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.


Sec.  90.16  Polygraph testing prohibition

    (a) To be eligible for funding under this program, a State must 
meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-8 with regard to restricting 
polygraph testing of sexual assault victims.
    (b) An Indian tribal government or unit of local government shall 
not be eligible for subgrants from the State unless it complies with 
the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-8 with respect to its laws, 
policies, or practices restricting polygraph testing of sexual assault 
victims.


Sec.  90.17  Subgranting of funds

    (a) In general. Funds granted to qualified States are to be further 
subgranted by the State to agencies, offices, and programs including, 
but not limited to, State agencies and offices; State and local courts; 
units of local government; public agencies; Indian tribal governments; 
victim service providers; community-based organizations; and legal 
services programs to carry out programs and projects to develop and 
strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to 
combat violent crimes against women, and to develop and strengthen 
victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women, and 
specifically for the purposes listed in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg(b) and 
according to the allocations specified in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(c)(4) for 
law enforcement, prosecution, victim services, and courts.
    (b) Administrative Costs. States are allowed to use up to ten 
percent of the award amount for each allocation category under 42 
U.S.C. 3796gg-1(c)(4) (law enforcement, prosecution, courts, victim 
services, and discretionary) to

[[Page 29229]]

support the State's administrative costs. Amounts not used for 
administrative costs should be used to support subgrants.


Sec.  90.18  Matching funds

    (a) In general. Subject to certain exclusions, States are required 
to provide a 25 percent non-Federal match. This does not apply to 
territories. This 25 percent match may be cash or in-kind services. 
States are expected to submit written documentation that identifies the 
source of the match. Funds awarded to victim service providers for 
victim services or to tribes are excluded from the total award amount 
for purposes of calculating match.
    (b) In-kind match. In-kind match may include donations of 
expendable equipment; office supplies; workshop or education and 
training materials; work space; or the monetary value of time 
contributed by professional and technical personnel and other skilled 
and unskilled labor, if the services provided are an integral and 
necessary part of a funded project. Value for in-kind match is guided 
by 2 CFR 200.306. The value placed on loaned equipment may not exceed 
its fair rental value. The value placed on donated services must be 
consistent with the rate of compensation paid for similar work in the 
organization or the labor market. Fringe benefits may be included in 
the valuation. Volunteer services must be documented and, to the extent 
feasible, supported by the same valuation methods used by the recipient 
organization for its own employees. The value of donated space may not 
exceed the fair rental value of comparable space, as established by an 
independent appraisal of comparable space and facilities in a privately 
owned building in the same locality. The value for donated supplies 
shall be reasonable and not exceed the fair market value at the time of 
the donation. The basis for determining the value of personal services, 
materials, equipment, and space must be documented.
    (c) Tribes and victim services providers. States may not require 
match to be provided in subgrants for Indian tribes or victim services 
providers.
    (d) Waiver. States may petition the Office on Violence Against 
Women for a waiver of match if they are able to adequately demonstrate 
financial need.
    (1) State match waiver. States may apply for full or partial 
waivers of match by submitting specific documentation of financial 
need. Documentation must include the following:
    (i) The sources of non-Federal funds available to the State for 
match and the amount available from each source, including in-kind 
match and match provided by subgrantees or other entities;
    (B) Efforts made by the State to obtain the matching funds, 
including, if applicable, letters from other State agencies stating 
that the funds available from such agencies may not be used for match;
    (C) The specific dollar amount or percentage waiver that is 
requested;
    (D) Cause and extent of the constraints on projected ability to 
raise violence against women program matching funds and changed 
circumstances that make past sources of match unavailable; and
    (E) If applicable, specific evidence of economic distress, such as 
documentation of double-digit unemployment rates or designation as a 
Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated disaster area.
    (F) In a request for a partial waiver of match for a particular 
allocation, the State could provide letters from the entities under 
that allocation attesting to their financial hardship.
    (2) The State must demonstrate how the submitted documentation 
affects the State's ability to provide violence against women matching 
funds. For example, if a State shows that across the board budget cuts 
have directly reduced violence against women funding by 20 percent, 
that State would be considered for a 20 percent waiver, not a full 
waiver. Reductions in Federal funds are not relevant to State match 
unless the State can show that the reduced Federal funding directly 
reduced available State violence against women funds.
    (e) Accountability. All funds designated as match are restricted to 
the same uses as the program funds as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg(b) 
and must be expended within the grant period. The State must ensure 
that match is identified in a manner that guarantees its accountability 
during an audit.


Sec.  90.19  Application content.

    (a) Format. Applications from the States for the STOP Violence 
Against Women Formula Grant Program must be submitted as described in 
the annual solicitation. The Office on Violence Against Women will 
notify each State office as designated pursuant to section 90.11 when 
the annual solicitation is available. The solicitation will include 
guidance on how to prepare and submit an application for grants under 
this subpart.
    (b) The application shall include all information required under 42 
U.S.C. 3796gg-1(d).


Sec.  90.20  [Reserved]


Sec.  90.21  Evaluation.

    (a) Recipients of funds under this subpart must agree to cooperate 
with Federally-sponsored evaluations of their projects.
    (b) Recipients of STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program 
funds are strongly encouraged to develop a local evaluation strategy to 
assess the impact and effectiveness of the program funded under the 
STOP program. Funds may not be used for conducting research or 
evaluations. Applicants should consider entering into partnerships with 
research organizations that are submitting simultaneous grant 
applications to the National Institute of Justice for this purpose.


Sec.  90.22  Review of State applications.

    (a) The provisions of Part T of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3796gg et seq., and of these regulations 
provide the basis for review and approval or disapproval of State 
applications and amendments.
    (b) Intergovernmental review. This program is covered by Executive 
Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) and 
implementing regulations at 28 CFR part 30. A copy of the application 
submitted to the Office on Violence Against Women should also be 
submitted at the same time to the State's Single Point of Contact, if 
there is a Single Point of Contact.


Sec.  90.23  Annual grantee and subgrantee reporting.

    Subgrantees shall complete annual progress reports and submit them 
to the State, which shall review them and submit them to the Office on 
Violence Against Women. In addition, the State shall complete an annual 
progress report, including an assessment of whether or not annual goals 
and objectives were achieved.


Sec.  90.24  Activities that may compromise victim safety and recovery.

    Because of the overall purpose of the program to enhance victim 
safety and offender accountability, grant funds may not be used to 
support activities that compromise victim safety and recovery. The 
grant program solicitation each year will provide examples of such 
activities.


Sec.  90.25  Reallocation of funds.

    As described in 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(j), States may reallocate funds 
returned to the State or if the State does not receive sufficient 
eligible applications to award the full funding under the allocations 
in

[[Page 29230]]

42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1(c)(4). An ``eligible'' application is one that is 
from an eligible entity that has the capacity to perform the proposed 
services, proposes activities within the scope of the program, and does 
not propose significant activities that compromise victim safety. 
States should have the following information on file to document the 
lack of sufficient eligible applications:
    (1) A copy of their solicitation;
    (2) Documentation on how the solicitation was distributed, 
including all outreach efforts to entities from the allocation in 
question;
    (3) An explanation of their selection process;
    (4) A list of who participated in the selection process (name, 
title, and employer);
    (5) Number of applications that were received for the specific 
allocation category;
    (6) Information about the applications received, such as who they 
were from, how much money they were requesting, and any reasons the 
applications were not funded;
    (7) Letters from any relevant State-wide body explaining the lack 
of applications. For example, if the State is seeking to reallocate 
money from courts, they should have a letter from the State Court 
Administrator;
    (8) For the culturally specific allocation, demographic statistics 
of the relevant racial and ethnic minority groups within the State and 
documentation that the State has reached out to relevant organizations 
within the State or national organizations.

    Dated: April 20, 2016.
Bea Hanson,
Principal Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 2016-10564 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-FX-P