[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80724-80825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25888]



[[Page 80723]]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 221

November 16, 2016

Part II





Department of Housing and Urban Development





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





24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, et al.





Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013: Implementation in 
HUD Housing Programs; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 80724]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, 93, 200, 247, 574, 576, 578, 880, 882, 883, 
884, 886, 891, 905, 960, 966, 982, and 983

[Docket No. FR-5720-F-03]
RIN 2501-AD71


Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013: 
Implementation in HUD Housing Programs

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements in HUD's regulations the 
requirements of the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act (VAWA), which applies for all victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking, regardless of sex, gender 
identity, or sexual orientation, and which must be applied consistent 
with all nondiscrimination and fair housing requirements. The 2013 
reauthorization (VAWA 2013) expands housing protections to HUD programs 
beyond HUD's public housing program and HUD's tenant-based and project-
based Section 8 programs (collectively, the Section 8 programs) that 
were covered by the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act (VAWA 2005). Additionally, the 2013 law provides enhanced 
protections and options for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Specifically, this rule amends 
HUD's generally applicable regulations, HUD's regulations for the 
public housing and Section 8 programs that already pertain to VAWA, and 
the regulations of programs newly covered by VAWA 2013.
    In addition to this final rule, HUD is publishing a notice titled 
the Notice of Occupancy Rights under the Violence Against Women Act 
(Notice of Occupancy Rights) that certain housing providers must give 
to tenants and applicants to ensure they are aware of their rights 
under VAWA and these implementing regulations, a model emergency 
transfer plan that may be used by housing providers to develop their 
own emergency transfer plans, a model emergency transfer request form 
that housing providers could provide to tenants requesting an emergency 
transfer under these regulations, and a new certification form for 
documenting incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking that must be used by housing providers.
    This rule reflects the statutory changes made by VAWA 2013, as well 
as HUD's recognition of the importance of providing housing protections 
and rights to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking. By increasing opportunities for all individuals 
to live in safe housing, this will reduce the risk of homelessness and 
further HUD's mission of utilizing housing to improve quality of life.

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective on December 16, 
2016.
    Compliance Date: Compliance with the rule with respect to 
completing an emergency transfer plan and providing emergency 
transfers, and associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements, is 
required no later than May 15, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about: HUD's Public 
Housing program, contact Monica Shepherd, Director Public Housing 
Management and Occupancy Division, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 
Room 4204, telephone number 202-402-5687; HUD's Housing Choice Voucher 
program and Project-Based Voucher, contact Becky Primeaux, Director, 
Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public 
and Indian Housing, Room 4216, telephone number 202-402-6050; HUD's 
Multifamily Housing programs, contact Yvette M. Viviani, Director, 
Housing Assistance Policy Division, Office of Housing, Room 6138, 
telephone number 202-708-3000; HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships 
program, contact Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable 
Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Room 
7164, telephone number 202-708-2684; HUD's Housing Opportunities for 
Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program, contact Rita Flegel, Director, 
Office of HIV/AIDS Housing, Office of Community Planning and 
Development, Room 7248, telephone number 202-402-5374; and HUD's 
Homeless programs, contact Norman Suchar, Director, Office of Special 
Needs Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, 
telephone number 202-708-4300. The address for all offices is the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20410. The telephone numbers listed above are not toll-
free numbers. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access 
these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-
free, at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

Purpose of This Regulatory Action

    This rule implements the HUD housing provisions in VAWA 2013, which 
are found in Title VI of the statute. (See Pub. L. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54, 
approved March 7, 2013, at 127 Stat. 101). VAWA 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162, 
119 Stat. 2959, approved January 5, 2006) applied VAWA protections to 
certain HUD programs by amending the authorizing statutes for HUD's 
public housing and section 8 programs to provide protections for 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. VAWA 2013 
removes these amendments from the public housing and section 8 
authorizing statutes, and in its place provides stand-alone VAWA 
protections that apply to these programs, as well as additional HUD 
programs, and also to victims of sexual assault. In addition, VAWA 2013 
expands protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking by amending the definition of domestic 
violence to include violence committed by intimate partners of victims, 
and by providing that tenants cannot be denied assistance because an 
affiliated individual of theirs is or was a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking (collectively 
VAWA crimes). The new law also expands remedies for victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking by requiring 
covered housing providers to have emergency transfer plans, and 
providing that if housing providers allow for bifurcation of a lease, 
then tenants should have a reasonable time to establish eligibility for 
assistance under a VAWA-covered program or to find new housing when an 
assisted household has to be divided as a result of the violence or 
abuse covered by VAWA.
    VAWA 2013 provides protections for both applicants for and tenants 
of assistance under a VAWA-covered housing program. VAWA 2013 covers 
applicants, as well as tenants, in the statute's nondiscrimination and 
notification provisions. However, the emergency transfer and 
bifurcation provisions of the rule are applicable solely to tenants. 
The statutory provisions of VAWA that require a notice of occupancy 
rights, an emergency transfer plan, and allow for the possibility of 
bifurcation of a lease, support that it is a rental housing situation 
that is the focus of the VAWA protections. However, as described in 
this final rule, the core statutory protections of VAWA that prohibit

[[Page 80725]]

denial or termination of assistance or eviction solely on the basis 
that an individual is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
stalking or sexual assault apply to certain housing programs subsidized 
by HUD even where there is no lease. HUD funds many shelters, temporary 
housing, short-term supported housing, and safe havens, and no person 
is to be denied access to such facility or required to leave such 
facility solely on the basis that the person is or has been a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. It is 
equally important to note, as was noted in HUD's proposed rule, that 
the core statutory protections of VAWA 2013 that apply to applicants 
and tenants, were applicable upon enactment of VAWA 2013. As was 
discussed in HUD's proposed rule and reiterated in this final rule, 
regulations were not necessary to mandate adherence to this 
nondiscrimination requirement. That is, if an individual meets all 
eligibility requirements and complies with all occupancy requirements, 
the individual cannot be denied assistance or have assistance 
terminated solely on the basis that the individual is a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault.
    This rule better enables housing providers to comply with the 
mandates of VAWA 2013, and it reflects Federal policies that recognize 
that all individuals should be able to live in their homes without fear 
of violence. The implementation of VAWA protections in HUD programs 
increases opportunities for all individuals to live in safe housing and 
reduces the risk of homelessness for individuals who might otherwise be 
evicted, be denied housing assistance, or flee their homes.

Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action

    Major provisions of this rule include:
     Specifying ``sexual assault'' as a crime covered by VAWA 
in HUD-covered programs.
     Establishing a definition for ``affiliated individual'' 
based on the statutory definition and that is usable and workable for 
HUD-covered programs.
     Applying VAWA protections to all covered HUD programs as 
well as the Housing Trust Fund, which was not statutorily listed as a 
covered program.
     Ensuring that existing tenants, as well as new tenants, of 
all HUD-covered programs receive notification of their rights under 
VAWA and HUD's VAWA regulations.
     Establishing reasonable time periods during which a tenant 
who is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking may establish eligibility to remain in housing, where the 
tenant's household is divided due to a VAWA crime, and where the tenant 
was not the member of the household that previously established 
eligibility for assistance.
     Establishing that housing providers may, but are not 
required to, request certain documentation from tenants seeking 
emergency transfers under VAWA.
     Providing for a six-month transition period to complete an 
emergency transfer plan and provide emergency transfers, when 
requested, under the plan.
     Revising and establishing new program-specific regulations 
for implementing VAWA protections in a manner that is workable for each 
HUD-covered program.
    Please refer to section II of this preamble, entitled ``This Final 
Rule'' for a more detailed discussion of all the changes made to HUD's 
existing regulations by this rule. In developing this rule, HUD 
identified outdated terminology in its regulations (for example, the 
use of the term ``alcohol abuser'' in part 982). HUD will be issuing a 
future rule to update and correct such terms.

Costs and Benefits

    The benefits of HUD's rule include codifying in regulation the 
protections that VAWA 2013 provides applicants to and tenants of HUD 
programs covered by VAWA; strengthening the rights of victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in HUD-
covered programs, including notification and confidentiality rights; 
and possibly minimizing the loss of housing by such victims through the 
bifurcation of lease provision and emergency transfer provisions. With 
respect to rental housing, VAWA was enacted to bring housing stability 
to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or 
stalking. It was determined that legislation was needed to require 
protections for such victims because housing providers often responded 
to VAWA crimes occurring in one of their rental units or on their 
property by evicting the tenant regardless of whether the tenant was a 
victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, and refusing to rent to such victims on the basis that 
violence would erupt in the victim's unit or on a housing provider's 
property if the individual was accepted as a tenant. To ensure that 
housing providers administering HUD assistance did not respond to 
domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking by denying or 
terminating assistance, VAWA 2005 brought HUD's public housing and 
Section 8 programs under the statute's purview, and VAWA 2013 covered 
the overwhelming majority of HUD programs providing rental assistance.
    The costs of the regulations are primarily paperwork costs. These 
are the costs of providing notice to applicants and tenants of their 
occupancy rights under VAWA, the preparation of an emergency transfer 
plan, and documenting an incident or incidents of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The costs, however, are 
minimized by the fact that VAWA 2013 requires HUD to prepare the notice 
of occupancy rights to be distributed to applicants and tenants; to 
prepare the certification form that serves as a means of documenting 
the incident or incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking; and to prepare a model emergency transfer plan 
that guides the entities and individuals administering the rental 
assistance provided by HUD in developing their own plans. In addition, 
costs to covered housing providers will be minimized because HUD will 
translate the notice of occupancy rights and certification form into 
the most popularly spoken languages in the United States, and HUD has 
prepared a model transfer request form that housing providers and 
tenants requesting emergency transfer may use. There may also be costs 
with respect to a tenant claiming the protections of VAWA and a covered 
housing provider responding to such incident, although these costs will 
vary depending on the incidence of claims in a given year and the 
nature and complexity of the situation.

I. Background

    On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed into law VAWA 2013 (Pub. 
L. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54). VAWA 2013 reauthorizes and amends VAWA 1994 
(Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of Pub. L. 103-322), which was previously 
reauthorized by VAWA 2000 (Pub. L. 106-386) and VAWA 2005 (Pub. L. 109-
162, approved January 5, 2006, with technical corrections made by Pub. 
L. 109-271, approved August 12, 2006).
    The VAWA 2005 reauthorization brought HUD's public housing program 
and HUD's Section 8 programs under coverage of VAWA by amending the 
authorizing statutes for those programs, sections 6 and 8 of the United 
States Housing Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act) (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.). 
VAWA 2005 established that being a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, or

[[Page 80726]]

stalking cannot be the basis for denial of assistance or admission to 
public or Section 8 housing, and provided other protections for 
victims. VAWA 2005 also contained requirements for notification to 
tenants of the rights and protections provided under VAWA, provisions 
on the rights and responsibilities of public housing agencies (PHAs) 
and owners and managers of assisted housing, and provisions pertaining 
to acceptable documentation of incidents of VAWA crimes and maintaining 
the confidentiality of the victim. HUD regulations pertaining to VAWA 
2005 protections, rights, and responsibilities are codified in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L.
    Title VI of VAWA 2013, ``Safe Homes for Victims of Domestic 
Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking,'' contains the 
provisions that are applicable to HUD programs. Specifically, section 
601 of VAWA 2013 removes VAWA protections from the 1937 Act and adds a 
new chapter to Subtitle N of VAWA 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043e et seq.) 
entitled ``Housing Rights.'' As applicable to HUD, this chapter 
provides additional protections for tenants beyond those provided in 
VAWA 2005, and expands VAWA protections to other HUD programs.
    On August 6, 2013, at 78 FR 47717, HUD published a Federal Register 
notice that provided an overview of the applicability of VAWA 2013 to 
HUD programs. This notice listed the new HUD housing programs covered 
by VAWA 2013, described the changes that VAWA 2013 made to existing 
VAWA protections, and identified certain issues for which HUD 
specifically sought public comment. HUD solicited public comment for a 
period of 60 days, and the public comment period closed on October 7, 
2013. HUD appreciates the public comments submitted in response to the 
August 6, 2013, notice, and these public comments were taken into 
consideration in the development of this rule. The public comments on 
the August 6, 2013, notice can be found at the www.regulations.gov 
government-wide portal, under docket number FR-5720-N-01, at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=HUD-2013-0074.
    Many of the comments submitted in response to the August 6, 2013, 
notice asked HUD to advise program participants that certain VAWA 
protections are in effect without the necessity of rulemaking. In 
response to these comments, HUD offices administering HUD-covered 
programs reached out to participants in their programs to advise them 
that the core statutory protections of VAWA--not denying or terminating 
assistance to, or evicting an individual solely on the basis that an 
individual is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, stalking, or sexual assault--were effective upon enactment 
and do not require notice and comment rulemaking for implementing these 
protections and that they should proceed to provide the basic VAWA 
protections.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, for example, the letter to Executive Directors of 
public housing agencies from the Assistant Secretary for Public and 
Indian Housing, issued September 30, 2013, at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=sept2013vawaltr_phas.pdf, as well as 
communications from HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships Programs 
(HOME) at https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/HOMEfires-Vol11-No1-Violence-Against-Women-Reauthorization-Act-2013.pdf, and 
from HUD's Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs at https://www.onecpd.info/news/reauthorization-of-the-violence-against-women-act-vawa/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 1, 2015, HUD published its proposed rule that provided the 
amendments to HUD's existing regulations that HUD determined necessary 
to fully implement VAWA 2013. The public comment period on the April 1, 
2015, rule closed on June 1, 2015. HUD received 94 comments, including 
duplicate mass mailings, resulting in 68 distinct comments. The 
comments were submitted by housing authorities, other housing 
providers, organizations that represent or provide services to specific 
groups of housing providers, organizations that advocate for victims 
and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, state coalitions against 
domestic violence, other advocacy and not-for-profit organizations and 
associations, state and local government agencies, a tribal 
organization, and numerous unaffiliated individuals. All public 
comments can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=HUD-2015-0028.
    Most commenters expressed support for the rule, with different 
questions and comments about specific provisions. There were many 
comments regarding emergency transfers, lease bifurcation, and 
documentation requirements, as well as comments on eligibility for and 
limitations on VAWA protections, the roles and responsibilities of 
different housing providers under different HUD programs, the notice of 
occupancy rights, implementation and enforcement of the rule, 
confidentiality, and other issues. In addition, there were a number of 
program-specific comments. HUD responds to issues raised by the public 
comments in Section II.B. of this preamble.
    This final rule reflects the Federal government's recognition that 
all people have a right to live their lives safely. On September 9, 
2014, in Presidential Proclamation 9164--Twentieth Anniversary of the 
Violence Against Women Act, and on September 30, 2014, in Presidential 
Proclamation 9181--National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, 2014, 
President Obama discussed the ``basic human right to be free from 
violence and abuse.'' The implementation of the policies laid out in 
this rule will help to enforce this basic human right.
    HUD notes that, in addition to utilizing housing protections in 
VAWA, victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
and stalking, and those assisting them, may wish to consider other 
available protections and assistance. On the Federal level, for 
example, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) administers programs that 
provide funding for victims of crime, including victims covered by 
VAWA. The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), part of DOJ, administers 
the Crime Victims Fund, which provides direct reimbursement to crime 
victims for financial losses from crimes including medical costs, 
mental health counseling, and lost wages or loss of support. This 
provides reimbursement for victims during a time when they may be 
facing financial constraints. The Crime Victims Fund may also be used 
to fund transitional housing and shelter for victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who need the 
transitional housing or shelter because they were a victim of one of 
these crimes, and to fund relocation expenses for those who need to 
move because they were a victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. OVC also provides grants to public and 
non-profit organizations for essential services to victims of crime, 
including emergency shelter, and the Office of Violence Against Women 
(OVW), also part of DOJ, administers 24 grant programs where funds are 
provided to states, territories, local government, non-profit 
organizations, and community organizations for various targeted 
persons. Information about the Crime Victims Fund is available at: 
http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/crimevictimsfundfs/intro.html#VictimAssist and 
information about OVW grants is available at http://www.justice.gov/ovw/grant-programs. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking may consult with local victim services 
providers and state and local social service agencies to

[[Page 80727]]

determine whether funding and other forms of help and support may be 
available.
    Further, victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking should be aware that State and local laws may 
provide greater protections than Federal law, and local victim service 
providers and social service agencies may have further information 
regarding this.

II. This Final Rule

A. Overview of Changes Made at the Final Rule Stage

    After review and consideration of the public comments and upon 
HUD's further consideration of VAWA 2013 and the issues raised in the 
proposed rule, HUD has made certain changes in this final rule. The 
following highlights the substantive changes made by HUD in this final 
rule from the proposed rule.
    The final rule:
     Clarifies that, consistent with HUD's nondiscrimination 
and equal opportunity requirements, victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking cannot be discriminated 
against on the basis of any protected characteristics (including race, 
color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, or 
age), and HUD programs must also be operated consistently with HUD's 
Equal Access Rule (HUD-assisted and HUD-insured housing must be made 
available to all otherwise eligible individuals and families without 
regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or 
marital status). (See Sec.  5.2001(a).)
     Provides that in regulations governing short-term 
supported housing, emergency shelters, and safe havens, these forms of 
shelter are subject to the core protections of VAWA that prohibit 
denial of admission or eviction or termination to an individual solely 
on the basis that the individual is a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, or stalking, or sexual assault. (See Sec. Sec.  
574.604(a)(2), 576.409(f), and 578.99(j)(9).)
     Revises the definition of ``affiliated individual'' to 
incorporate situations where an individual has guardianship over 
another individual who is not a child. (See Sec.  5.2003.)
     Revises the definition of ``domestic violence'' to 
incorporate a definition of ``spouse or intimate partner'' rather than 
cross-reference to another definition of the term, and to eliminate the 
cross-reference to ``crime of violence,'' a more restricting term. (See 
Sec.  5.2003.)
     Provides that existing tenants in HUD-covered programs 
receive HUD's Notice of Occupancy Rights and accompanying certification 
form no later than one year after this rule takes effect, during the 
annual recertification or lease renewal process, if applicable, or 
through other means if there will be no annual recertification or lease 
renewal process for a tenant. (See Sec.  5.2005(a)(2)(iv).)
     Retains the provision of HUD's regulations implementing 
VAWA 2005, for those HUD programs covered by VAWA 2005, which states 
that the HUD-required lease, lease addendum, or tenancy addendum must 
include a description of the specific protections afforded to the 
victims of VAWA crimes. (See Sec.  5.2005(a)(4).)
     Clarifies that applicants may not be denied assistance and 
tenants may not have assistance terminated under a covered housing 
program for factors resulting from the fact that the applicant or 
tenant is or has been a victim of a VAWA crime. (See Sec.  
5.2005(b)(1).)
     Emphasizes that victims of sexual assault may qualify for 
an emergency transfer if they either reasonably believe there is a 
threat of imminent harm from further violence if they remain in their 
dwelling unit, or the sexual assault occurred on the premises during 
the 90-calendar-day period preceding the date of the request for 
transfer. (See Sec.  5.2005(e)(2)(ii).)
     Provides that emergency transfer plans must detail the 
measure of any priority given to tenants who qualify for an emergency 
transfer under VAWA in relation to other categories of individuals 
seeking transfers or placement on waiting lists. (See Sec.  
5.2005(e)(3).)
     Provides that emergency transfer plans must allow for a 
tenant to transfer to a new unit when a safe unit is immediately 
available and the tenant would not have to apply in order to occupy the 
new unit (Sec.  5.2005(e)(5)).
     Provides that emergency transfer plans must describe 
policies for assisting tenants to make emergency transfers when a safe 
unit is not immediately available, both for situations where a tenant 
would not have to apply in order to occupy the new unit, and where the 
tenant would have to apply in order to occupy the new unit. (See Sec.  
5.2005(e)(6), Sec.  5.2005(e)(7), and Sec.  5.2005(e)(8)).
     Provides that the emergency transfer plans must describe 
policies for assisting tenants who have tenant-based rental assistance 
to make emergency moves with that assistance. (Sec.  5.2005(e)(9)).
     Adds a provision that emergency transfer plans may require 
documentation, as long as tenants can establish eligibility for an 
emergency transfer by submitting a written certification to their 
housing provider, and no other documentation is required for tenants 
who have established that they are victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking to verify eligibility for a 
transfer. (See Sec.  5.2005(e)(10).)
     Requires housing providers to make emergency transfer 
plans available upon request, and to make them publicly available 
whenever feasible. (See Sec.  5.2005(e)(11).)
     Provides for a six-month transition period to complete an 
emergency transfer plan and provide emergency transfers, when 
requested, under such plan. (See Sec.  5.2005(e) or applicable program 
regulations)
     Emphasizes that tenants and applicants may choose which of 
the forms of documentation listed in the rule to give to housing 
providers to document the occurrence of a VAWA crime. (See Sec.  
5.2007(b)(1).)
     Provides that in cases of conflicting evidence, tenants 
and applicants who may need to submit third-party documentation to 
document occurrence of a VAWA crime have 30 calendar days to submit the 
third-party documentation. (See Sec.  5.2007(b)(2).)
     Provides that if a covered housing provider bifurcates a 
lease under VAWA, any remaining tenants who had not already established 
eligibility for assistance must be given either the maximum time 
permitted by statute, or, if there are no statutory prohibitions, at 
least 90 calendar days from the date of bifurcation of the lease or 
until expiration of the lease, depending on the covered housing 
program, to establish eligibility for a covered housing program, or 
find alternative housing (See Sec.  5.2009(b)(2).)
     Provides that if a family in a HOME-assisted rental unit 
separates under Sec.  5.2009(a), the remaining tenant(s) will retain 
the unit. (See Sec.  92.359(d)(1).)
     Provides that if a family receiving HOME tenant-based 
rental assistance separates under Sec.  5.2009(a), the tenant(s) who 
are not removed will retain the HOME tenant-based rental assistance, 
and the participating jurisdiction must determine whether a tenant who 
was removed from the unit will receive HOME tenant-based rental 
assistance. (See Sec.  92.359(d)(2).)
     Establishes VAWA regulations for the Housing Trust Fund, 
based on the regulations for the HOME program. (See 24 CFR part 93.)
     Emphasizes that VAWA protections apply to eviction actions 
for tenants in

[[Page 80728]]

housing under a HUD-covered housing program. (See 24 CFR 247.1(b).)
     Clarifies in the HOPWA regulations that the grantee or 
project sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the owner or manager 
of a facility assisted under HOPWA develops and uses a VAWA lease 
addendum. (See part 574.)
     Clarifies who is the covered housing provider for HUD's 
multifamily Section 8 project-based programs and the Section 202 and 
Section 811 programs, by providing that the covered housing provider is 
the owner for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Programs for 
New Construction (part 880), for Section 515 Rural Rental Housing 
Projects (part 884), and for Special Allocations (part 886), as well as 
for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs (part 891) and that PHAs 
and owners each have certain responsibilities as covered housing 
providers for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program (part 882), 
and the Section 8 State Housing Agencies Program for State Housing 
Agencies (part 883).
     Updates various section 8 and public housing VAWA 2005 
regulations to broadly state that VAWA protections apply, so that all 
tenants and applicants, and not only those determined to be victims of 
VAWA crimes, receive statutorily required notification of their VAWA 
rights. (See parts 880, 882, 883, 884, 886, 891, 960, 966, and 982.)
     Clarifies that VAWA protections and requirements apply to 
mixed finance developments. (See Sec.  905.100(g).)
     Clarifies that public housing agencies (PHAs), like other 
covered providers, may establish preferences for victims of dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking, in addition to domestic 
violence, consistent with their statutory authority. (See Sec. Sec.  
960.206(b)(4), 982.207(b)(4).)
     Clarifies that for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 
and Project-Based Voucher programs, the PHA is the housing provider 
responsible for complying with VAWA emergency transfer provisions. (See 
Sec. Sec.  982.53(e), 983.3(b).)

B. Summary of Public Comments and HUD Responses

    As noted earlier in this preamble, the majority of the commenters 
expressed support for the rule, but they also presented questions and 
comments about specific provisions of the rule. The primary provisions 
of the rule on which commenters posted comments pertained to emergency 
transfers, lease bifurcation, documentation requirements, eligibility 
for and limitations on VAWA protections, the roles and responsibilities 
of different housing providers under different HUD programs, the notice 
of occupancy rights, implementation and enforcement of the rule, and 
confidentiality requirements. The following presents the significant 
issues raised by the commenters and HUD's response to the comments.
1. Applicability
a. Eligibility for VAWA Protections
    Comment: Ensure proper evaluation of individuals who are or have 
been victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking. Commenters stated that HUD's final rule should ensure 
applicants are not denied assistance or housing for independent bases 
that result from their status as a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Commenters said that HUD's 
currently codified regulations do not address how to evaluate when an 
applicant who is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking can show that denial of 
assistance or housing is on that basis. Commenters stated that 
survivors may have negative credit, housing, or criminal records based 
on the violence committed against them that then disqualifies them in 
the housing application process. Commenters said that HUD acknowledged 
this barrier in its 2003 Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook,\2\ which 
encouraged staff to exercise discretion and inquire about the 
circumstances that may have contributed to the negative reporting to 
determine whether domestic violence was a factor. Commenters 
recommended that the final rule contain similar guidance and asked HUD 
to include language in Sec.  5.2005 that applicants be provided with an 
opportunity to show that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking was a factor in any negative rental, tenancy, or 
criminal records that would result in denial of admission or 
assistance; and, if it is determined such is the case, and the 
applicant otherwise qualifies, the covered housing provider must grant 
the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/rhiip/phguidebooknew.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter stated that HUD's final rule's definitions of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking must be 
sufficiently clear so as not to cause survivors to be punished for 
ancillary crimes as a result of the abuse they have suffered or cause 
survivors to be blamed for the abuse. Commenters said some survivors 
have been evicted because they ``invited'' the perpetrator into the 
home and subsequently received an eviction notice under Crime Free Drug 
Free policies \3\ or a Crime Free Lease Addendum.\4\ Commenters said 
victims of VAWA crimes are disadvantaged because landlords typically do 
not mention domestic violence, sexual violence or stalking in the 
eviction notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Crime Free Drug Free policies generally refer to policies 
set forth in lease addendum in which a renter agrees to maintain 
their rental residence crime free or face eviction. See, for 
example, the following lease addendum. http://www.cityofkasson.com/vertical/sites/%7BC3C7597A-7E80-4164-9E1A-84A37B5D7AAF%7D/uploads/Crime_Free_Lease_Addendum.pdf. A provision pertaining to domestic 
violence may be worded as follows: Any resident, or member of the 
resident's household, who is or has been a victim of domestic 
violence, is encouraged to take reasonable action to safeguard 
themselves, other members of the community, and property from future 
injury or damage. This may include obtaining a protection order 
against potential abusers, filing a copy of said protection order 
and a picture of the respondent with management, report any 
violation of the protection order to the police and management, and 
prepare and file a personal safety plan with management. and that a 
violation of this provision shall be cause for termination of the 
tenancy. See http://www.cityofportorchard.us/docs/police/Crime_Free_Addendum.pdf.
    \4\ A Crime Free Lease Addendum is a lease addendum that puts 
potential tenants on notice that they are liable for any criminal 
activity within their units, and if criminal activity does occur, 
the lease can be terminated and eviction action initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters asked that HUD revise Sec.  5.2005(b) to state that 
an applicant may not be denied assistance, or a tenant have assistance 
terminated or be evicted ``on the basis or as a result of the fact that 
the applicant or tenant is or has been a victim of domestic violence . 
. .'' in order to clarify that victims are protected from the results 
of economic abuse, such as poor credit.
    HUD Response: HUD interprets the term ``on the basis'' in VAWA 
2013's statutory prohibitions against denying admission to, denying 
assistance under, terminating a tenant from participation in, or 
evicting a tenant from housing ``on the basis'' that the applicant or 
tenant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, to include factors directly resulting from 
the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. 
For example, if an individual has a poor rental or credit history, or a 
criminal record, or other adverse factors that directly result from 
being a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking, the individual cannot be denied assistance under a HUD 
program if the individual otherwise qualifies for the program. To

[[Page 80729]]

clarify this understanding, HUD accepts the commenters' suggestion to 
amend proposed Sec.  5.2005(b), and the section now states that an 
applicant or tenant may not be denied admission to, denied assistance 
under, terminated from participation in, or evicted from housing or a 
housing program on the basis or as a direct result of the fact that the 
applicant or tenant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the applicant or 
tenant otherwise qualifies for admission, assistance, participation, or 
occupancy.
    In addition to revising Sec.  5.2005(b), HUD will provide guidance 
for covered housing providers to aid how they may determine whether 
factors that might otherwise serve as a basis for denial or termination 
of assistance or eviction have directly resulted from the fact that an 
applicant or tenant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. As commenters noted, HUD 
has already provided in its Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook that 
PHAs should inquire about the circumstances that may have contributed 
to negative reporting to determine whether that negative reporting was 
a consequence of domestic violence.
    Rule Change: HUD revises Sec.  5.2005(b) to state that an applicant 
or tenant may not be denied admission to, denied assistance under, 
terminated from participation in, or evicted from housing or a housing 
program on the basis or as a direct result of the fact that the 
applicant or tenant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, of the applicant or 
tenant otherwise qualifies for admission, assistance, participation, or 
occupancy.
    Comment: Include victims of ``economic abuse'' as covered by VAWA 
protections. Commenters stated that VAWA 2013 was meant to protect 
victims of economic abuse, the legislative history of the statute 
contains many references to the effects of economic abuse, and the 
final rule should clarify that VAWA protections apply to victims of 
economic abuse. Commenters said economic abuse includes a broad range 
of conduct, including but not limited to, interfering with the victim's 
employment, controlling how money is spent, forcing the victim to write 
bad checks, incurring significant debt in the victim's name, or 
otherwise harming the victim's financial security. Commenters stated 
that persons who have poor credit, no credit or an inability to access 
money can be denied housing, which often results in homelessness. 
Commenters said the proposed definition of ``stalking'' eliminates the 
harassment and intimidation considerations that arguably make economic 
abuse a form of stalking under current regulations, and the consequence 
is removing protections available to current tenants, and this runs 
counter to VAWA 2013, which is intended to increase not reduce 
protections.
    Commenters suggested that HUD add economic abuse to the scope of 
VAWA protections in Sec.  5.2001 and to the list of protected victims 
throughout Sec.  5.2005. A commenter said that, should HUD determine 
not to revise the text of the regulations to address economic abuse, 
HUD should nevertheless clarify that VAWA covers economic abuse.
    Commenters also suggested that HUD establish a notification and 
certification process to ensure that victims of economic abuse receive 
VAWA protections. Commenters said a victim of economic abuse could 
supply a certification regarding such abuse when applying for a HUD 
program. Commenters said that whenever an individual's ability to 
participate in a HUD program is compromised due to economic factors, 
the individual must be notified that VAWA protections may apply.
    HUD Response: As previously discussed, HUD interprets VAWA to 
prohibit covered housing providers from denying admission to, denying 
assistance under, terminating a tenant from participation in, or 
evicting a tenant from housing as a result of factors directly 
resulting from the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking. Where an individual faces adverse economic factors, such 
as a poor credit or rental history, that result from being a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the 
individual cannot be denied assistance under a HUD program if the 
individual otherwise qualifies for the program. HUD declines, however, 
to explicitly state in regulation that victims of economic abuse 
receive the protections of VAWA. Such expansion would be beyond the 
scope of HUD's VAWA rulemaking, which is intended to implement the 
housing protections in VAWA 2013, as enacted. VAWA 2013 does not 
independently provide protections for victims of economic abuse who are 
not also victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking. HUD also declines to implement a process in this rule 
where applicants who are denied admission to or assistance under a HUD 
program specifically due to their economic situations will then receive 
notice that they may be protected under VAWA and be provided an 
opportunity to show that their economic situation is a result of 
economic abuse. Both VAWA 2013 and this final rule provide that 
applicants will be provided with notice when they are denied assistance 
or admission under a covered housing program for any reason. Applicants 
would then have the opportunity to assert that they are or were victims 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and 
that they are eligible for VAWA protections.
    As described in the proposed rule, VAWA 2013 removed the statutory 
definition of stalking that HUD incorporated into the rule implementing 
VAWA 2005, but maintained a universal definition of stalking that 
applies throughout VAWA, as codified in 42 U.S.C. 13925(a)(30). As a 
result, this rule replaces the statutorily removed definition of 
stalking with the universal definition of stalking in VAWA. HUD 
disagrees with the commenters' assertion that this change reduces VAWA 
protections by eliminating harassment and intimidation considerations. 
The previous definition of ``stalking'' included specific actions 
(including harassment and intimidation) that either placed a person in 
reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury or caused substantial 
emotional harm. The universal definition of ``stalking,'' provided in 
this final rule, involves any course of conduct directed at a specific 
person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their own 
safety or the safety of others, or suffer substantial emotional 
distress.
    Comment: Clarify which individuals are entitled to VAWA 
protections: Commenters stated that the rule and related documents 
provided to tenants and applicants must be clear about which 
individuals are entitled to VAWA protections. A commenter stated that 
the final rule should clarify that VAWA protections do not apply to 
guests, unauthorized residents, or service providers hired by the 
resident, such as live in aides. In contrast to these commenters, other 
commenters stated that live-in aides should be covered by VAWA 
protections under certain circumstances. Commenters stated that, 
although live-in aides are not parties to the lease they are listed as 
household members on tenant certifications and subject to the covered 
property's ``house rules,'' and HUD requires that the covered property 
be their sole residence. The commenters concluded that under these 
circumstances live-in aides are similar to tenants. Commenters further 
said that in the case where a tenant is abusing the live-in aide, the 
aide can

[[Page 80730]]

leave the tenant's employ and VAWA protections would not apply, but in 
the case where the live-in aide is a victim of abuse by someone living 
outside the unit and the tenant continues to require the aide's 
services, the housing provider should be required to offer the 
household all VAWA protections and the entire household (including the 
aide) should qualify for an emergency transfer.
    Another commenter stated that the proposed rule advised that if an 
unreported member of the household is the victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the tenant may not be 
evicted because of such action as long as the tenant was not the 
perpetrator. The commenter stated that, in the proposed rule, HUD 
agreed with comments that VAWA protections should not extend to 
individuals violating program regulations, such as housing unauthorized 
occupants. The commenter stated that HUD's statement seems 
contradictory because HUD is in effect extending VAWA protections to a 
tenant who violates program regulations by allowing a person who is not 
authorized to reside in the unit. The commenter asked HUD to advise how 
to respond if a housing provider learns of the existence of an 
unreported member of the household in violation of program regulations, 
based solely on a tenant's reporting of a VAWA incident against the 
unreported member. The commenter said HUD's rule does not establish a 
clear nexus for the prohibition against denial or termination of 
assistance ``on the basis'' that an applicant or tenant is or has been 
a domestic violence victim.
    Other commenters stated that the preamble to the proposed rule 
created confusion when it stated that affiliated individuals do not 
receive VAWA protections if they are not on the lease and that the 
protections of VAWA are directed to tenants. Commenters stated that 
specific protections, however, may extend to affiliated individuals or 
be limited to tenants or lawful occupants. In support of this 
statement, the commenters stated that no individual may be denied 
housing in a covered program based on the individual's status as a 
survivor, but the right to bifurcate the lease and preserve the subsidy 
is limited to tenants or lawful occupants. Commenters asked HUD to 
correct language in the preamble to the proposed rule that they stated 
incorrectly construed the protections of VAWA as applying only to those 
named on the lease, and added that whether an individual is a 
``tenant'' or a ``lawful occupant'' is a question of State law on which 
HUD should not take a position, as this could conflict with State law. 
Commenters further stated that, as part of the dynamics of an abusive 
relationship, a survivor will often not be listed as a tenant on the 
lease but may be a lawful occupant. Commenters concluded their comments 
stating that, to limit protections to ``tenants'' or to individuals 
specifically named on the lease, without regard for how a lawful 
occupant might be characterized under State or local laws, undermines 
the very purpose of VAWA.
    HUD Response: Only tenants who are assisted by a covered housing 
program can invoke the VAWA protections that apply solely to tenants. 
Several provisions in VAWA 2013, including the prohibited basis for 
denial or termination of assistance or eviction and the emergency 
transfer protection, apply to ``tenants,'' a term that VAWA 2013 does 
not define. The term ``tenant'' refers to an assisted family and the 
members of the household on their lease, but does not include guests or 
unreported members of a household. In addition, a live-in aide or 
caregiver is not a tenant, unless otherwise provided by program 
regulations, and cannot invoke VAWA protections. However, as is the 
case for anyone, a live-in aide or other service provider is entitled 
to VAWA protections if the person becomes an applicant for HUD 
assistance; that is, one does not have to have been a tenant in HUD 
subsidized housing to invoke VAWA protections in later applying to 
become a tenant in HUD subsidized housing.
    A live-in aide or a guest could be an affiliated individual of a 
tenant, and if that aide or guest is a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the tenant with whom the 
affiliated individual is associated cannot be evicted or have 
assistance terminated on the basis that the affiliated individual was a 
victim of a VAWA crime. Moreover, where a live-in aide is a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and 
the tenant seeks to maintain the services of the live-in aide, the 
housing provider cannot require that the live-in aide be removed from 
the household on the grounds of being a victim of abuse covered by 
VAWA. The live-in aide resides in the unit as a reasonable 
accommodation for the tenant with a disability. Indeed, to require 
removal of the live-in aide solely because the aide is a victim of 
abuse covered by VAWA likely would violate Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, as applicable, which require housing providers to 
permit such reasonable accommodations. In addition, if a tenant 
requests and qualifies for an emergency transfer on the grounds that 
the live-in aide is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, the tenant's entire household, which 
includes the live-in aide, can be transferred.
    Section 5.2005(d)(2) of this final rule states that covered housing 
providers can evict or terminate assistance to a tenant for any 
violation not premised on an act of domestic violence. However, if an 
individual, who is a victim of domestic violence, has an unreported 
member residing in the individual's household and the individual is 
afraid of asking the unreported member to leave because of the 
individual's domestic violence experience, then terminating the 
individual's tenancy because of the unreported household member would 
be ``premised on an act of domestic violence.'' Therefore, depending on 
the situation, a tenant who violates program regulations by housing a 
person not authorized to reside in the unit could be covered by VAWA's 
anti-discrimination provisions, and eligible for remedies provided 
under VAWA.
    As discussed above, HUD interprets the term ``on the basis'' in 
VAWA 2013's prohibitions against denying admission to, denying 
assistance under, terminating a tenant from participation in, or 
evicting a tenant from housing ``on the basis'' that the applicant or 
tenant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, to include factors directly resulting from 
the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    With respect to the comments about applying the VAWA protections to 
survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking whether they are named on the lease or not, HUD notes that the 
term ``lawful occupant'' is not defined in VAWA 2013 and appears in the 
statute four times in the following contexts: (i) In the definition of 
``affiliated individual'' as a type of ``affiliated individual''; (ii) 
in the documentation section of the statute as those who could be 
evicted if they commit violations of the lease if the applicant or 
tenant does not provide requested documentation; (iii) in the 
bifurcation section, as those who could be evicted for engaging in 
criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and (iv) as those who might not 
be negatively affected if a lease is bifurcated. Other than stating 
that a housing provider may, at the provider's discretion, bifurcate a 
lease

[[Page 80731]]

without penalizing a lawful occupant, VAWA 2013 does not provide 
protections or benefits for lawful occupants.
    Comment: Clarify whether housing providers who have a mixed 
portfolio of projects and units will be required to offer protection 
for some tenants but will not be required to offer them to others. 
Commenters asked whether housing providers that have both covered and 
non-covered projects will be faced with offering protections for 
tenants in only some of their properties. Other commenters stated that 
certain HUD-assisted properties have some units that must abide by HUD 
regulations, while others are not subject to HUD regulations. Commenter 
asked HUD to confirm whether, in such a complex, some tenants would be 
eligible for VAWA protections while others would not be.
    HUD Response: VAWA 2013 and HUD's rule apply only to HUD-covered 
housing programs. Therefore, covered housing providers will be required 
to provide VAWA protections to tenants and applicants under the covered 
housing programs, but will not be required to provide such protections 
to other tenants and applicants. Although this rule only applies to 
tenants in and applicants to HUD-covered housing programs, housing 
providers may choose to offer VAWA protections and remedies to all 
tenants and applicants, where applicable. HUD encourages housing 
providers to provide VAWA's core protections--not denying or 
terminating assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking--to all tenants and applicants. 
HUD also encourages housing providers to offer all VAWA protections, 
such as emergency transfer and bifurcation provisions, to all tenants 
where possible.
    All housing providers should be aware of other Federal, State and 
local laws that may provide similar or more extensive rights to victims 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 
For example, properties funded with Low-Income Housing Credits (LIHTCs) 
are also subject to VAWA requirements, and housing providers should 
look to the regulatory agency responsible for LIHTCs--the Department of 
Treasury--for how to implement VAWA protections in those properties.
    Housing providers should also be aware more generally of other 
Federal fair housing and civil rights laws that may be applicable, 
including, but not limited to, the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act. For example, housing providers might violate 
the Fair Housing Act under a discriminatory effects theory if they have 
an unjustified policy of evicting victims of domestic violence, as such 
a policy might disproportionately harm females or individuals that have 
another protected characteristic.
    Comment: Clarify whether VAWA protections can be invoked on 
multiple occasions and whether other limits to protections could apply. 
Commenters asked whether there is a limit to the number of times 
covered housing providers must provide VAWA protections when the victim 
continues to allow the perpetrator access to the property. Another 
commenter said that one of the recurring issues for housing providers 
is that victims may evoke VAWA protections repeatedly but then invite 
or allow the perpetrator into their unit, often leading to repeated 
instances of abuse and danger or disturbance for other households at 
the property. Commenter asked whether, in order to continue to invoke 
VAWA protections, VAWA allows covered housing providers to require that 
a victim obtain a restraining order against the perpetrator, notify 
local law enforcement if a restraining order is being violated, or 
refuse to invite or allow the perpetrator onto the property.
    In contrast to this comment, another commenter stated that HUD's 
final rule should make clear that a tenant or family can be entitled to 
VAWA protection on more than one occasion and cannot be subjected to 
additional conditions that adversely affect their tenancy because they 
have invoked VAWA protections. The commenter said it has dealt with 
covered housing providers that decided to impose additional 
requirements on tenants who sought VAWA protections, such as requiring 
tenants to obtain protective orders or call the police, conditions they 
do not impose on other tenants, including those who are victims of 
other crimes (non-VAWA crimes), and this violates VAWA.\5\ The 
commenter said these requirements conflict with recognized best 
practices that affirm that the most effective way to ensure a 
survivor's safety is to respect the survivor's autonomy in deciding 
whether to obtain a protective order or to call the police.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See footnotes 2 and 3, which provide examples of these types 
of lease provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD Response: HUD agrees that a tenant or family may invoke VAWA 
protections on more than one occasion and cannot be subjected to 
additional conditions that adversely affect their tenancy because they 
have invoked VAWA protections. Individuals and families may be subject 
to abuse or violence on multiple occasions and it would be contrary to 
the intent of VAWA to say that the protections no longer apply after a 
certain point, even if violence or abuse continues, or the victim and 
the victim's family members are still in danger. In cases where the 
presence of the perpetrator on the property will endanger others, not 
solely the unit in which the perpetrator resides, this final rule 
maintains the provision that a housing provider may evict or terminate 
assistance to a tenant if the housing provider can demonstrate an 
actual and imminent threat to other tenants, or those employed at or 
providing services to the property, if the tenant is not evicted or 
assistance is not terminated. However, as discussed elsewhere in this 
rule, housing providers should only take such actions when there are no 
other actions that could be taken to reduce or eliminate the threat.
    Allowing housing providers to apply a different occupancy standard 
to survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking than that applied to victims of other crimes violates the 
intent of VAWA, which provides that housing providers cannot 
discriminate against survivors and victims of a VAWA crime. HUD also 
agrees that survivors do not have to contact authorities, such as 
police, or initiate legal proceedings against an abuser or perpetrator 
in order to qualify for VAWA protections. The statute has no such 
requirements and instead allows survivors to provide self-certification 
about the VAWA incident(s).
    Comment: Eliminate or better explain the provision that eviction or 
termination of assistance should only be used as a last resort. A 
commenter stated that HUD retains paragraph (d)(3) of currently 
codified Sec.  5.2005, which encourages a covered housing provider to 
evict or terminate assistance only when there are no other actions that 
could be taken to reduce or eliminate the threat of domestic violence. 
The commenter said the ability of housing providers to avoid eviction 
or termination will vary widely depending on factors that are generally 
out of the control of the provider, and that HUD inserted paragraph 
(d)(3) of Sec.  5.2005 during a prior rulemaking. The commenter stated 
that this language is not in the VAWA statute, and should be stricken. 
With respect to this provision, another commenter asked how far a 
landlord is expected to go to keep the

[[Page 80732]]

property safe, how much the landlord is expected to expend to ensure 
the safety of tenants, and what responsibility the tenants have in 
ensuring their own safety.
    HUD Response: As the commenter noted, Sec.  5.2005(d)(3)--now 
designated as Sec.  5.2005(d)(4)--is already in HUD's VAWA regulations 
and is in effect. HUD has no reason to eliminate this provision now, as 
VAWA 2013 was meant to expand, and not to retract VAWA protections. HUD 
agrees with the commenter that the ability and resources of the housing 
provider to provide alternatives to evictions will vary, just as the 
circumstances of the abuse and the safety needs of the victim will 
vary. This variation, however, does not preclude a policy that sets 
eviction as the last resort.
b. Covered Programs
    Comment: List all program/subsidy types to which VAWA regulations 
apply. Commenters said HUD regulations should specifically list all 
programs and subsidy types to which VAWA protections apply, and not 
solely those listed in the statute. A commenter said this is necessary 
because there are many HUD programs that fall under the multifamily 
umbrella and, in the past, VAWA requirements for the Section 8 programs 
differed from other program types. Another commenter said it does not 
appear that VAWA applies to certain Section 202 Direct Loan Projects 
that do not have project-based Section 8 assistance, or to certain 
Section 221(d)(3)/(d)(5) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) projects, or 
to certain Section 236 projects. Commenter asked whether these programs 
would be included. Another commenter said there should be an easier way 
to explain which programs do not fall under VAWA.
    HUD Response: HUD's final rule lists all HUD programs covered by 
VAWA 2013 in the definition of covered housing program, and addresses 
questions about specific programs below.
    Comment: The Housing Trust Fund was not listed in VAWA as a covered 
program. Commenters expressed concern about HUD's coverage of the 
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) program, which was not specifically identified 
as a ``covered housing program'' in the VAWA statute, and, said that 
without specific statutory authority to apply VAWA to HTF, either a 
tenant or housing provider could challenge the rule and its 
application, which could lead to litigation expenses for all parties. 
Other commenters stated that HTF should be a covered program. 
Commenters stated that such coverage is consistent with Congressional 
intent, which, through VAWA 2013, sought to expand VAWA protections to 
all HUD programs that provide rental assistance. The commenters further 
stated that maintaining similarity in the regulatory treatment of HOME 
and HTF is efficient for program participants and appropriate because 
many of the HTF's program requirements are similar to those that apply 
to the HOME program.
    HUD Response: HUD maintains the HTF program as a covered program in 
this final rule. HUD has authority to establish regulations for its 
programs where they do not conflict with other laws. Rather than 
conflicting with VAWA 2013, including the HTF program as a covered 
program aligns with the intent of the law, which expanded the 
protections of VAWA to HUD's programs that provide rental assistance. 
As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule and, as commenters have 
themselves said, the HTF program is very similar to the HOME program 
and to HUD, it is not logical to exclude the HTF program.
    Rule Change: This final rule adds Sec.  93.356 (VAWA requirements) 
to the HTF interim regulations, which generally applies the same VAWA 
requirements to HTF as apply to the HOME program at 92.359. This final 
rule also revises Sec.  93.303 (Tenant protections and selection) by 
revising Sec.  93.303(a) and adding Sec.  93.303(d)(7) to mirror Sec.  
92.253 (a) and Sec.  92.253(d)(7) of this final rule's HOME 
regulations. In addition, this rule revises Sec.  93.404(c) to state 
that written agreements with subgrantees and eligible recipients must 
set forth all obligations the grantee imposes on them in order to meet 
the VAWA requirements under Sec.  93.356, including notice obligations 
and obligations under the emergency transfer plan.
    Comment: All Section 202 Direct Loan projects should be subject to 
VAWA protections. Commenters said the proposed rule was not clear as to 
why Section 202 Direct Loan projects without project-based rental 
assistance were excluded from VAWA protections, and recommended that 
HUD include these properties. Another commenter said that HUD's 
decision to exclude the Section 202 Direct Loan program from VAWA's 
coverage is based on an interpretation that is unnecessarily 
restrictive and violates the VAWA statute. A commenter stated VAWA 
2013's plain statutory language is broad in scope, expressing no 
further limitation or ambiguity, and any property funded under Section 
202 qualifies. Other commenters said that covering Section 202 Direct 
Loan properties without Section 8 contracts extends these important 
protections to all similar HUD-supported housing programs, which 
follows congressional and HUD intent.
    HUD Response: HUD maintains that its interpretation provided in the 
proposed rule with respect to Section 202 Direct loans is correct, but 
includes additional information to elaborate on HUD's proposed rule 
statement. In the proposed rule, at 80 FR 17752, HUD stated that 
section 202 of the National Housing Act of 1959 authorized HUD to make 
long-term loans directly to multifamily housing projects and the loan 
proceeds are to be used to finance the construction of multifamily 
rental housing for persons age 62 years or older and for persons with 
disabilities. The Section 202 Direct Loan program ran from 1959 to 
1990.\6\ The purpose of the program was primarily to provide direct 
Federal loans for the development or substantial rehabilitation of 
housing for the elderly or for persons with disabilities. Amendments to 
Section 202 Direct Loan program in 1990, made by the Cranston-Gonzalez 
National Affordable Housing Act, replaced this program with capital 
advance programs for owners of housing designed for the elderly or 
residents with disabilities, and established two parallel programs for 
the elderly and for persons with disabilities--the Section 202 
Supportive Housing for the Elderly program and the Section 811 
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program.\7\ These two 
programs, which are rental programs, and which reflect the majority of 
the legacy of the Section 202 Direct Loan program, are covered by VAWA. 
Further, all projects that received Section 202 direct loans and 
receive project-based assistance under Section 8 are required to comply 
with VAWA protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See https://www.hudexchange.info/course-content/hud-multifamily-affordable-housing-preservation-clinics/Preservation-Clinic-Workshop-Section-202-Direct-Loan.pdf.
    \7\ See Public Law 101-625, 104 Stat. 4079, approved November 
28, 1990. See specifically Title VIII at 104 Stat. 4297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as mentioned in the proposed rule, there have been no new 
Section 202 direct loans since 1990. All Section 202 direct loan 
projects, as with projects under other HUD programs, that received any 
type of direct assistance prior to VAWA 2013 are not subject to new 
statutory requirements on HUD programs unless there is some ongoing 
contractual agreement with HUD or the statute specifically speaks to 
retroactive application for existing projects. Therefore, unless the 
Section

[[Page 80733]]

202 direct loan project has an agreement or contract with HUD 
otherwise, such as with project-based assistance under Section 8, those 
direct loans entered into prior to 2013 would not be subject to VAWA 
requirements because VAWA did not specifically apply its requirements 
retroactively.
    Comment: Encourage, if not require, housing providers under 
additional Federally-financed programs to offer VAWA protections. 
Commenters asked HUD to make clear that housing providers in programs 
not covered by HUD's VAWA regulations can offer VAWA protections, and 
to encourage these providers to offer VAWA protections. Commenters also 
urged HUD to ensure that all affordable units with HUD funds are 
subject to VAWA, including existing units that undergo affordable 
housing preservation efforts by HUD, such as the Rental Assistance 
Demonstration (RAD) units, Choice Neighborhood units, and multifamily 
units in the Rent Supplement Program. Commenters asked that the final 
rule's description of public housing explicitly include public housing 
that has been assisted by, for example, HOPE VI, Mixed Finance, Choice 
Neighborhoods, or converted under the RAD program. Another commenter 
asked that HUD generally state in its regulations that VAWA applies to 
affordable units that HUD preserves and, where applicable, that the 
VAWA obligation be set forth in any relevant Notice of Funding 
Availability (NOFA). Other commenters further recommended that HUD's 
regulations reflect HUD's authority to expand VAWA protections to other 
types of HUD affordable housing that may be established in the future 
and the agency will do so by HUD or Federal Register notice.
    A commenter also said that the proposed regulations in 24 CFR 
574.604(a)(2) and 578.99(j) are too broad, and where rental assistance 
is provided and there is a written agreement or a lease, VAWA should 
apply to short-term supported housing and McKinney-Vento Safe Havens. 
Another commenter asked for guidance that clearly allows senior housing 
providers the option to extend VAWA protections to victim residents, 
even if their program type was not specifically included in the 
statute.
    HUD Response: HUD's VAWA regulations apply only to HUD-covered 
housing programs, but, as HUD has earlier stated in this preamble, 
housing providers have discretion to apply the rule's provisions to all 
tenants and applicants and HUD indeed encourages housing providers to 
provide VAWA protections to all tenants not only to those covered in 
HUD subsidized units. With respect to HUD's authority to expand 
coverage to other HUD programs not listed in the statute, HUD has such 
authority and the inclusion of the HTF program in this rule evidences 
such authority.
    Tenants in units under a HUD-covered program maintain their VAWA 
protections where their units are converted to coverage under a new HUD 
program. The conversion does not eliminate their VAWA protections. With 
respect to RAD, tenants in converted units continue to be covered by 
VAWA's protections provided under HUD's Section 8 Project-Based Voucher 
program or Project-Based Rental Assistance Program.
    Choice Neighborhoods is a development tool that uses grant funds to 
develop housing to address struggling neighborhoods with distressed 
public or HUD-assisted housing. The assistance may come from public 
housing, RAD or HOME funds. Therefore, tenants residing in units 
developed with Choice funds receive VAWA protections under the relevant 
rental subsidy programs where assistance comes from a HUD-covered 
housing program.
    The Rent Supplement program provides continued assistance on active 
or newly expired original term contracts. Though the program is no 
longer active, families continue to be supported until each Rent 
Supplement contract expires. For the VAWA protections to apply, tenants 
need to be residing in a project that receives Rent Supplement payments 
and is also subject to VAWA, such a section 221(d)(3)/(d)(5) project or 
section 236 project. Once a Rent Supplement contract expires, families 
may receive tenant protection vouchers and are then under the Housing 
Choice Voucher (HCV) program (i.e., the Section 8 tenant-based 
program), a covered housing program.
    Tenants in public housing that received funding under the HOPE VI 
program would continue to have the same VAWA rights as other public 
housing residents.
    To ensure tenants in mixed-finance projects receive VAWA 
protections, this final rule adds a new provision at 24 CFR 905.100(g) 
that provides that PHAs must apply the VAWA protections under part 5 
for mixed finance developments.
    This rule maintains the provisions in Sec. Sec.  574.604(a)(2) and 
578.99(j) that state the requirements in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, that 
are specific to tenants or those who are applying to become tenants 
(such as the notice of occupancy rights for tenants and applicants, and 
bifurcation of leases and emergency transfer plans for tenants) do not 
apply to short-term supported housing and McKinney-Vento Safe Havens, 
as the regulations for tenants could not be applied in those contexts. 
However, in response to commenters' concerns, the regulations in this 
final rule explicitly provide that safe havens and short-term supported 
housing are subject to the core protections of VAWA (the prohibitions 
against denying admission or terminating assistance on the basis that 
the individual is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, stalking or sexual assault).
    Rule Change: This rule includes a new provision at 24 CFR 
905.100(g) for mixed finance developments in 24 CFR part 905, subpart 
F, which provides that public housing agencies must apply the VAWA 
protections in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L.
    This rule clarifies, in the HOPWA regulations at 24 CFR 
574.604(a)(2), and the regulations for the Continuum of Care (CoC) 
program at 578.99(j), that, although the requirements in 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L, do not apply to short-term supported housing or safe havens, 
no individual may be denied admission to or removed from the short-term 
supported housing or safe haven on the basis or as a direct result of 
the fact that the individual is or has been a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the 
individual otherwise qualifies for admission or occupancy.
    Comment: The Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program final rule 
should incorporate VAWA protections and obligations. Commenters stated 
that the proposed rule does not provide any amendments to the Rural 
Housing Stability Assistance Program (RHSP), and commenters urged HUD 
to ensure that the RHSP final rule comprehensively incorporates VAWA's 
protections and obligations. Commenters said that the RHSP proposed 
rule provided an exception for VAWA victims who needed to relocate for 
safety reasons by allowing victims with tenant-based assistance to move 
out of the county, but the requirements are inconsistent with VAWA and 
there is no mention of VAWA in the RHSP rule governing termination of 
assistance. Commenters asked HUD to make sure that the VAWA obligations 
and policies of the RHSP program are consistent within HUD's homeless 
assistance programs, as well as across all programs administered by 
HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development. Commenters 
recommended amending 24 CFR 579.418 and 579.424 to include references 
to VAWA.

[[Page 80734]]

    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these comments, and notes that the 
VAWA Reauthorization Act of 2013 occurred prior to the publication of 
the RHSP proposed rule. HUD will include the applicable VAWA provisions 
in the RHSP final rule.
    Comment: HUD's rule should cover McKinney-Vento homeless shelters. 
Commenters said the proposed rule did not include emergency shelters, 
as it limits the types of assistance to short or medium-term rental 
assistance and permanent or transitional housing. Commenters urged HUD 
to include emergency shelters in the final rule interpreting programs 
covered under Title IV of the McKinney Vento/Homeless Emergency 
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, and to include 
program-specific amendments to Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) and CoC 
regulations that clarify that emergency shelter is part of a VAWA 
covered housing program. A commenter asked HUD specifically to address, 
in the shelter context, the applicability of VAWA's notice of occupancy 
rights, and the prohibition against denial of admission or assistance 
and termination from participation in shelter.
    Commenters stated that the plain language of VAWA does not exclude 
shelters, and said that ``applicable assistance,'' which cannot be 
denied or terminated pursuant to VAWA, does not necessarily have to be 
tied to rental assistance. Commenters said admission and termination 
policies and practices at homeless shelters can often exclude survivors 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, and 
victims report having to recount the violence and report being subject 
to a higher standard of admission and conditions of stay than other 
participants, such as producing orders of protection. Commenters said 
these victims are also denied admission if they are considered 
``unsafe'' for the program, and in family shelters, domestic violence 
survivors are sometimes terminated from the program along with the 
perpetrator if they are abused on the property.
    Commenters said Continuums of Care often choose homeless shelter 
programs as the main entry point into coordinated assessment, and if 
shelters' exclusionary practices continue without VAWA's protections, 
survivors may be excluded from access not only to emergency shelter, 
but also to other resources and housing. Commenters said such practices 
undermine HUD's efforts to end homelessness to exclude shelters from 
VAWA protection because, in many CoCs, they will be the entry point 
through which victims experiencing homelessness access tenant-based 
rental assistance, transitional housing and other HUD-funded 
homelessness programs.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with the commenters that the core VAWA 
nondiscrimination protections should apply to emergency shelters 
subsidized by HUD, and individuals are not to be denied shelter because 
they are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking. In this final rule, HUD adds language to the ESG program 
regulation to make the VAWA core protections apply to emergency 
shelter.
    However, as HUD stated in its proposed rule, the regulatory 
requirements in 24 CFR part 5, including the notice of occupancy 
rights, apply to assistance for rental housing, which generally 
involves a tenant, a landlord (the individual or entity that owns and/
or leases rental units) and a lease specifying the occupancy rights and 
obligations of the tenant. This is because, as explained elsewhere in 
this rule, those VAWA protections are directed to rental housing.
    Rule Change: In this final rule, HUD provides in 24 CFR 576.409(f) 
that for emergency shelters funded under 24 CFR 576.102, no individual 
or family may be denied admission to or removed from the emergency 
shelter on the basis or as a direct result of the fact that the 
individual or family is or has been a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the individual or 
family otherwise qualifies for admission or occupancy.
    Comment: Explain how housing providers should coordinate multiple 
forms of assistance for a single housing unit. Commenters stated that 
HUD's proposed rule did not address the ways in which multiple forms of 
assistance covered by VAWA requirements may be coordinated under the 
HTF program, in other mixed finance properties or when multiple forms 
of assistance apply to a given housing unit.
    HUD Response: HUD provides in Sec.  5.2001(b)(2) of this final rule 
that, when assistance is provided under more than one covered housing 
program and there is a conflict between VAWA protections or remedies 
under those programs, the individual seeking the VAWA protections or 
remedies may choose to use the protections or remedies under any or all 
of those programs, as long as the protections or remedies would be 
feasible and permissible under each of the program statutes. As 
explained later in this preamble, where housing is covered under 
multiple HUD programs, the responsible housing provider under each 
program will provide the required Notice of Occupancy Rights and 
certification form, and tenants may request emergency transfers or 
lease bifurcations under any applicable program, unless prohibited from 
doing so because of statutory constraints. For example, if a lease is 
bifurcated for a permanent supportive housing unit that is assisted 
under both HOME and the CoC Program, and the CoC Program rule would 
prohibit the remaining family member from continuing to reside in the 
unit beyond the existing lease term, because the family member does not 
have a disability, then the family member cannot depend on the 
bifurcation regulations for the HOME program to remain in the unit for 
longer than the existing lease term.
    Rule Change: HUD revises Sec.  5.2001(b)(2) to clarify that, when 
assistance is provided under more than one covered housing program and 
there is a conflict between VAWA protections or remedies under those 
programs, the individual seeking the VAWA protections or remedies may 
choose to use the protections or remedies under any or all of those 
programs, as long as the protections or remedies would be feasible and 
permissible under each of the program statutes.
2. Definitions and Terminology
a. General Terminology
    Comment: Clarify that VAWA does not apply solely to women. A 
commenter stated that while the name of VAWA cannot be changed, 
references to VAWA could instead be made to a housing violence policy 
to encourage more individuals to seek protections.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates this comment and has repeatedly 
stated in its rule, documents, and in guidance that VAWA applies 
regardless of sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. In the very 
first paragraph of the first regulatory section (24 CFR 5.2001(a)) HUD 
states that notwithstanding the title of the statute victims covered by 
VAWA protections are not limited to women. However, HUD declines to 
change references to VAWA out of concern that this will cause confusion 
as to whether HUD's regulations are associated with the statute. It is 
important that the public are aware that these protections are mandated 
by statute.
    HUD emphasizes in this final rule that victims cannot be 
discriminated against on the basis of any protected characteristic, 
including race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial

[[Page 80735]]

status, disability, or age, and HUD programs must also be operated 
consistently with HUD's Equal Access Rule at 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2), which 
requires that HUD-assisted and HUD-insured housing are made available 
to all otherwise eligible individuals and families regardless of actual 
or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.
    Rule Change: In this final rule, HUD adds a provision in Sec.  
5.2001 that states that, consistent with the nondiscrimination and 
equal opportunity requirements at 24 CFR 5.105(a), victims cannot be 
discriminated against on the basis of any protected characteristic, 
including race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, 
disability, or age, and HUD programs must also be operated consistently 
with HUD's Equal Access Rule at 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2)
    Comment: Use terminology that applies to all VAWA victims. In order 
to support housing providers in considering the needs of sexual assault 
victims, commenters recommended that HUD always list the four protected 
crimes separately (domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault 
and stalking) rather than using umbrella terms like ``domestic and 
sexual violence.'' Commenters stated that the self-certification form 
collectively refers to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking as ``domestic violence,'' but they advised that 
this can cause confusion for a survivor of stalking or sexual assault 
whose perpetrator may have been a stranger, and to ensure all survivors 
covered under VAWA protections are aware of their rights, ``domestic 
violence'' should not be used as a catch-all term, and each term should 
be used separately. Commenters further suggested that HUD use terms 
like ``perpetrator'' rather than ``abuser'' to fit a multiple crimes 
context. Commenters also said that HUD should not solely reference 
victims fleeing from abuse, but also those recovering from violence in 
order to better address the nature of trauma from the impact of sexual 
violence.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these comments and agrees with the 
concerns expressed by the commenters. HUD has revised the certification 
form, notice of occupancy rights, and model emergency transfer plan to 
list the four protected crimes separately, and to use the term 
``perpetrator'' in lieu of, or in addition to the term ``abuser'' when 
referencing a person who commits one of the VAWA crimes. HUD has also 
revised the notice of rights and model emergency transfer plan to 
provide resources for victims of sexual assault and stalking, in 
addition to resources for victims of domestic violence.
b. Affiliated Individual
    Comment: The definition of ``affiliated individual'' and its use in 
the proposed rule is not clear. Commenters said HUD's proposed rule 
indicated that HUD's replacement of, ``immediate family members,'' with 
``affiliated individual'' will include any legitimate household member, 
whether a family member or not. Commenters said the language in the 
proposed rule appeared to reach beyond that as the proposed rule 
included ``any individual, tenants, or lawful occupants.'' Commenters 
stated that inclusion of ``any individual'' is separate from ``lawful 
occupant,'' further stating that these two classes are not identical. A 
commenter said that if ``any individual'' refers to an unauthorized 
occupant, then the regulations must explain what protections, if any, 
such individuals may receive if the individual is a victim of a VAWA 
crime or is an innocent household member in a household where a VAWA 
crime was committed. The commenter asked, for example, if those who are 
not tenants or lawful occupants would be afforded a reasonable time to 
establish eligibility for a covered housing program following a lease 
bifurcation. Commenters said that if the term ``any individual'' refers 
to an unauthorized occupant, the regulation should state that this 
individual has no rights to the unit. Another commenter said the 
definition of ``any individual'' must explicitly exclude guests or 
illegitimate occupants. Another commenter said the final rule should 
clarify that an affiliated individual can only be somebody lawfully 
living in the household. The commenter said that while VAWA protections 
apply only to lawful tenants, the rule asserts an affiliated individual 
may receive indirect benefits, but the final rule should clarify VAWA 
benefits do not apply to unreported or unauthorized members of the 
household.
    HUD Response: Under VAWA 2013 and HUD's regulations, the term 
``affiliated individual'' does not refer to the tenant who requests or 
is eligible for VAWA protections. Rather, an affiliated individual 
refers to a person who has a certain relationship to a tenant who is 
eligible for VAWA protections and remedies.
    Under both VAWA 2013 and HUD's regulations, a tenant may not be 
denied tenancy or occupancy rights solely on the basis of criminal 
activity directly relating to domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking if that tenant or an affiliated individual 
of the tenant is the victim or threatened victim of such domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. In essence, the 
inclusion of affiliated individual is to add a further protection for 
tenants by providing that a VAWA crime committed against an affiliated 
individual, an individual without VAWA protections, is not a basis for 
denying or terminating assistance to the tenant. HUD declines to change 
or limit the definition of ``affiliated individual'' to exclude ``any 
individual.'' The statute provides that the term includes any 
individual ``living in the household of the person who is eligible for 
VAWA protections.''
    Comment: HUD's language change from ``in loco parentis'' may not 
include guardianships of non-competent adults. Commenters stated that 
the definition of ``affiliated individual'' refers repeatedly to 
relationships with children, but the definition should include all 
circumstances where a household member has some form of guardianship 
over a non-competent household member of any age.
    HUD Response: The statutory definition of ``affiliated individual'' 
includes any individual living in the household of a person, and 
therefore a non-competent household member would be included as an 
affiliated individual. However, the familial and close relationships in 
the first part of the definition of affiliated individual do not 
require that the affiliated individual live in the same household as 
the person seeking VAWA protections. HUD appreciates the commenter's 
concern that HUD's change from the statutory phrase ``in loco 
parentis'' to language regarding a relationship like that of a parent 
to a child may be under-inclusive. HUD has revised the definition of 
``affiliated individual'' to include a relationship where an individual 
has a guardianship of another individual, regardless of age.
    Rule Change: HUD revises the definition of ``affiliated 
individual'' in Sec.  5.2003 to provide that affiliated individual, 
with respect to an individual, means: (A) A spouse, parent, brother, 
sister, or child of that individual, or a person to whom that 
individual stands in the place of a parent or guardian (for example, 
the affiliated individual is a person in the care, custody, or control 
of that individual); or (B) any individual, tenant, or lawful occupant 
living in the household of that individual.

[[Page 80736]]

c. Covered Housing Provider
    Comment: Clarify which covered housing provider has which 
responsibilities under VAWA. Commenters stated that in sections of the 
proposed regulation on HUD's multifamily Section 8 project-based 
programs in 24 CFR parts 880, 882, 883, 884, 886, and 891, the covered 
housing provider is defined as either the PHA or the owner, depending 
on the circumstances; for example, the commenter stated, the definition 
provides that the PHA would be responsible for providing the notice of 
occupancy rights and certification form. The commenters questioned this 
responsibility since PHAs under these programs do not have the contact 
with applicants or tenants that owners have, and said this is more 
properly an owner's responsibility, particularly when serving a notice 
of eviction. A commenter said that HUD should provide copies of the 
notice and certification form to the owner, and then the owner must 
provide the notice and form when required.
    Commenters also said HUD's proposed rule identifies the PHA as the 
entity responsible for providing the reasonable time to establish 
eligibility for assistance following bifurcation of a lease for HUD's 
multifamily Section 8 project-based programs, but Sec.  5.2009(b) of 
the rule defines the time that a tenant has to establish eligibility 
for assistance and does not give a covered housing provider flexibility 
in that regard. A commenter said that, it is the owner, not the PHA 
that establishes eligibility, and therefore, it should be the owner, 
not the PHA, to provide the reasonable time to establish eligibility.
    A commenter stated that the definition of ``covered housing 
provider'' in 24 CFR parts 880, 882, 884, 886, 891, 982, and 983 was 
proposed, in the April 1, 2015, proposed rule to be the same as in 24 
CFR part 883. The commenter encouraged HUD to review the definition of 
covered housing provider in the context of how each of the programs is 
actually administered and reevaluated whether the definition is 
appropriate. A commenter recommended that any activity that requires an 
interaction with a tenant should be assigned to the owner or its 
manager; and a State housing agency should be responsible only for 
monitoring the delivery of appropriate notices and that correct 
policies are in place and being followed. The commenter stated that, if 
model forms for use by an owner are required, the State housing agency, 
if not HUD, could provide them.
    Other commenters stated that, for the Moderate Rehabilitation 
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) program, the proposed rule stated that the 
owner is the covered housing provider, but it is unclear why the PHA is 
not also considered the covered housing provider since the PHA has 
duties in administering the program. The commenters stated that it is 
unclear which entity is responsible for adopting, administering, and 
facilitating the emergency transfer plan, which entity is responsible 
for maintaining confidentiality and lease bifurcation, and which entity 
is responsible for providing the VAWA housing rights notice and 
certification form. Commenters stated that confidentiality must be 
maintained by the entity that obtains the information about the victim, 
and when a lease bifurcation occurs, the owner and the PHA must 
coordinate to provide a reasonable time for the tenant to establish 
eligibility for the same covered program or another covered program.
    Another commenter said that the State recipient should be the 
conduit and responsible party for implementation. The commenter said 
that, because CoCs operate distinctly across a State and PHAs have 
considerable local control, it is important that the implementation of 
VAWA be consistent and equally applied to survivors, regardless of 
where they may reside in a State, and the State recipient could serve 
in an ombudsman-type role in order to ensure that all organizations and 
individuals understand their roles and obligations. The commenter said 
State recipients should specifically be tasked with developing model 
notices, forms, and the emergency transfer plans in collaboration with 
the statewide domestic violence and sexual assault coalition(s), which 
then can be adopted and implemented by local CoCs. Commenters 
recommended that HUD's final rule clarify the duties of housing 
providers under Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) and CoC programs with 
regard to enacting VAWA protections.
    Commenters further stated that the proposed rule did not address 
how the various VAWA obligations will be delegated or shared among the 
various parties--recipient, subrecipient, owner or landlord--that may 
be responsible for ensuring the delivery of VAWA obligations and 
protections, particularly regarding evictions and establishing a 
reasonable time for an individual to establish eligibility or find 
alternative housing.
    A commenter stated that proposed Sec.  960.102 provides the 
definition of ``covered housing provider'' for public housing and 
states that it is the PHA, but this is not appropriate or effective in 
those situations where another entity owns the public housing units and 
the PHA manages the units, for example, in mixed finance units, HOPE VI 
units, or Choice Neighborhoods developments. For the public housing 
units that are not owned by the PHA, the commenter said the 
responsibilities to comply with court orders, request documentation, 
maintain confidentiality of documentation, determine the 
appropriateness of lease bifurcation, and reasonable times to provide 
an individual to establish program eligibility, must apply to both the 
PHA and the owner. The commenter said the owner, who has the lease with 
the tenant, must be responsible for providing the notice and 
certification form, determining whether to evict or terminate for 
reasons other than those protected by VAWA, or if there is an ``actual 
or imminent threat,'' and to assist victims to remain in their unit and 
bear the cost of transfer, where permissible. In addition, the 
commenter said the PHA must adopt an emergency transfer plan with which 
the owner must comply, and owners should be restricted from taking any 
steps toward evicting or terminating a tenant until the PHA notifies 
the owner that the documentation from a claimed victim has not been 
received or conflicting claims of victimization have been resolved.
    Commenters recommended that HUD amend Sec. Sec.  960.102, 
960.103(d), 960.203(c)(4), 966.4(e) to acknowledge situations where the 
public housing units are owned by a private owner and are managed by a 
PHA. The commenters further recommended that HUD state generally that 
the entity taking the action (i.e. denying admission, evicting, 
terminating assistance) is the entity responsible for providing the 
notice and form, and further clarify these roles in the regulation, 
guidance, and training.
    HUD Response: HUD understands and appreciates the concerns 
expressed by the commenters. For several of the HUD programs added by 
VAWA 2013, there is more than one entity administering the assistance, 
and it is not always immediately obvious which entity is responsible 
for which actions mandated by VAWA. HUD sought to clarify which 
entities undertake which responsibilities but given the concerns raised 
by the commenters, HUD acknowledges further clarification is called 
for.
    For HUD's multifamily Section 8 project-based programs in 24 CFR 
parts 880, 884, and 886, and for the Section

[[Page 80737]]

202 and Section 811 programs in part 891, this final rule provides that 
the owner is the covered housing provider for all purposes related to 
this rule. Unless a PHA is the owner of a project, PHAs plays no role 
under these programs for which they could have responsibilities 
pertaining to granting VAWA protections, providing notice of VAWA 
protections, administering emergency transfer plans, or bifurcating 
leases. Where PHAs are owners of projects under these programs, they 
will be the covered housing provider for all purposes related to this 
rule.
    For the multifamily Section 8 programs under parts 882 and 883, 
however, the PHA (which would be a state agency for part 883) 
administers the programs. Therefore, it is the PHA that has primary 
oversight responsibilities under VAWA, and it is the PHA that has the 
contract with the owner of the housing (not HUD) and consequently the 
PHA must set the housing policy to be followed and must ensure that the 
owner and all of the owners with whom the PHA has a contract comply 
with the VAWA regulations and those VAWA policies that the PHA has been 
given discretion to determine. For these reasons, in these programs HUD 
maintains the provision in the proposed rule that identifies the PHA as 
the covered housing provider responsible for providing the notice of 
occupancy rights under VAWA and the certification form to tenants and 
applicants. In this final rule, HUD further clarifies that the PHA is 
responsible for providing the notice and form to owners to give to 
tenants and applicants. In addition, for parts 882 and 883, including 
the Moderate Rehabilitation SRO program, HUD further clarifies in this 
final rule that both the PHA and the owner are responsible for ensuring 
an emergency transfer plan is in place for the covered housing, but it 
is the owner that has responsibility for implementing the emergency 
transfer plan when an emergency arises, since the PHA does not have a 
direct relationship with the tenant. Since both PHAs and owners are 
covered housing providers for these programs, both PHAs and owners must 
adhere to this rule's basic provisions regarding denial or termination 
of assistance or occupancy rights and the construction of lease terms 
in Sec.  5.2005(b) and (c), and the limitations of VAWA protection in 
Sec.  5.2005(d) also apply to both PHAs and owners. Similarly, the 
documentation and confidentiality provisions in Sec.  5.2007 of this 
rule also apply to both owners and PHAs.
    HUD agrees with commenters that the provisions in the proposed rule 
that the PHA is responsible for providing the reasonable time to 
establish eligibility for assistance following bifurcation of a lease 
in the definition of covered housing provider in parts 880, 882, 883, 
884, 886, and 891, as well as in Sec.  982.53(e) and Sec.  983.3, was 
unclear and unnecessary. HUD removes these provisions in this final 
rule. In each of these programs, this final rule clarifies that the 
owner is the covered housing provider that may choose to bifurcate a 
lease and, if the owner chooses to do so, must follow any applicable 
regulations relating to lease bifurcation.
    For the regulations in part 982 (the housing choice voucher 
program) and in part 983 (the project-based voucher program), this 
final rule clarifies that it is the PHA that is the covered housing 
provider responsible for complying with the emergency transfer plan 
requirements in Sec.  5.2005(e). Unlike the case with HUD's multifamily 
Section 8 project-based programs, PHAs do have a direct relationship 
with tenants in the housing choice voucher and project-based voucher 
program, and it is appropriate for tenants to contact the PHA about 
emergency transfers under VAWA, as they would contact the PHA about 
other matters related to administration of their housing assistance. In 
addition, given the relationship between the tenant and the PHA in 
these programs, this rule maintains the provisions in the proposed rule 
that the PHA is responsible for providing the notice of occupancy 
rights and the certification form. As is the case for HUD's multifamily 
Section 8 programs under parts 882 and 883, for the housing choice 
voucher and project-based voucher programs, both PHAs and owners are 
covered housing providers who must adhere to this rule's basic 
provisions regarding denial or termination of assistance or occupancy 
rights and the construction of lease terms in Sec.  5.2005(b) and (c), 
and the limitations of VAWA protection in Sec.  5.2005(d) also apply to 
both PHAs and owners. Similarly, the documentation and confidentiality 
provisions in Sec.  5.2007 of this rule also apply to both owners and 
PHAs.
    For the CoC and ESG programs, the proposed rule and this final rule 
lay out the responsibilities of recipients, subrecipients, and housing 
owners in Sec.  576.407(g) (for ESG) and Sec.  578.99(j) (for CoC).
    For mixed finance units and public housing developments that 
received public housing assistance under the Choice Neighborhoods and 
HOPE VI programs' NOFAs, the PHA is the covered housing provider 
because these units are generally administered in the same manner as 
other public housing units.
    For FHA multifamily programs, HUD revises the definition of covered 
housing provider under this rule in Sec.  200.38(b) to remove the 
provision that HUD will provide guidance as to who the covered housing 
provider is. HUD clarifies in this rule that the covered housing 
provider is generally the mortgagor for FHA multifamily programs 
covered by VAWA. However, where an existing mortgagor/owner sells the 
project to a new entity ``subject to'' the mortgage, in which case the 
new entity would own the project but not be the mortgagor under the 
mortgage, then the owner would be the covered housing provider.
    Rule Change: In this final rule, HUD has revised Sec.  200.38(b) to 
remove the provision that HUD will provide guidance as to who the 
covered housing provider is for FHA multifamily programs administered 
under section 236 and under sections 221(d)(3) and (d)(5) of the 
National Housing Act.
    Further, HUD has revised the regulations for HUD's multifamily 
Section 8 project-based programs in 24 CFR parts 880, 884, and 886 to 
specify that the owner is the covered housing provider. HUD has also 
revised the regulations for the Section 202 and Section 811 programs in 
part 891 to clarify that the owner is the covered housing provider.
    HUD has revised the definition of covered housing provider in 24 
CFR part 883, as well as the definition of covered housing provider in 
Sec.  882.102 for Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Programs, other 
than the Single Room Occupancy Program for Homeless Individuals, to 
clarify that the PHA is the covered housing provider responsible for 
providing the notice of occupancy rights and certification form under 
VAWA, and that the PHA may provide this notice and form to owners, and 
charge an owner with distribution to tenants. HUD also revises the 
regulations in these parts to eliminate the provision that the PHA is 
the covered housing provider responsible for providing the reasonable 
time to establish eligibility for assistance following bifurcation of a 
lease, and to clarify that the PHA and owner are both responsible for 
ensuring that an emergency transfer plan is in place, and it is the 
owner that is responsible for implementing the emergency transfer plan 
when an emergency occurs. HUD retains the provision in Sec.  882.802 
that the owner is the covered housing

[[Page 80738]]

provider for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room 
Occupancy program for Homeless Individuals.
    In addition, HUD has revised regulations for the Housing Choice 
Voucher program, at Sec.  982.53(e) and the project-based voucher 
program, at Sec.  983.3, to remove the provision that the PHA is the 
covered housing provider responsible for providing the reasonable time 
to establish eligibility for assistance following bifurcation of a 
lease. HUD also revises the regulations in these parts to clarify that 
the PHA is responsible for complying with this rule's provisions on 
emergency transfer plans.
    Comment: Clarify responsibility for implementing VAWA requirements 
when there are multiple housing providers. Similar to the above 
comments, commenter asked who the covered entity is if a family uses 
voucher assistance in otherwise covered rental housing where another 
entity also may be a covered housing provider. The commenter asked 
which entity is responsible for providing VAWA protections and 
implementing VAWA requirements in circumstances such as these. The 
commenter stated that in essence, it was asking whether each covered 
housing provider would have to provide notices of occupancy rights and 
obtain certifications. The commenter stated that the providers may 
implement different policies concerning, for example, the time a tenant 
will be given to establish program eligibility, and therefore further 
clarity in this area is necessary.
    Another commenter stated that, if PHAs are collaborating with ESG 
and CoC program grantees, PHAs would still be subject to the lease 
requirements currently imposed by HUD with respect to the public 
housing and Section 8 programs, and if HUD seeks to impose different 
lease requirements on these programs when overlaid with ESG and CoC 
programs, HUD will need to provide additional guidance to the PHAs.
    HUD Response: The program-specific regulations in this rule explain 
which housing provider has responsibility for which VAWA requirements 
when there are multiple housing providers within a single program. More 
importantly, however, the notice of occupancy rights to be given to 
each applicant and tenant identify the covered housing provider that 
will interact with the tenant.
    Where housing is covered under multiple HUD programs, such as under 
the HOME and Section 8 Project-Based programs, the responsible housing 
provider under each program will provide the required notice of 
occupancy rights and certification form, and tenants may request 
emergency transfers or lease bifurcations under either program. Where 
there is a conflict between different program regulations, Sec.  
5.2001(b)(2) of HUD's VAWA regulation applies. As discussed earlier in 
this preamble, Sec.  5.2001(b)(2) states that, where assistance is 
provided under more than one covered housing program and the VAWA 
protections or remedies under those programs conflict, the individual 
seeking the VAWA protections or remedies may choose to use the 
protections or remedies under any or all of those programs, as long as 
the protections or remedies would be feasible and permissible under 
each of the program statutes.
d. Domestic Violence
    Comment: Do not include a limiting definition of ``crimes of 
violence'' in the definition of ``domestic violence'' and provide a 
more expansive definition. Commenters recommended that HUD eliminate 
the cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 16 in the proposed rule, as the term 
``crimes of violence'' in 18 U.S.C. 16, is too limiting for VAWA 
protections. Commenters stated that, recently, the U.S. Supreme Court 
found in U.S. v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014), that ``domestic 
`violence' is not merely a type of violence; it is a term of art 
encompassing acts that one might not characterize as `violent' in a 
nondomestic context.'' The commenters state that, in Castleman, the 
Supreme Court recognized that under an appropriate definition of 
``domestic violence,'' a seemingly ``minor'' act, in combination with 
other acts, whether seriously violent or merely harassing, could result 
in the complete victimization of an intimate partner, and that 
appropriate remedies should be available as a result. Some commenters 
urged HUD to follow the Supreme Court's discussion in Castleman and 
build upon that definition to define ``domestic violence'' in these 
regulations as a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use 
of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or other abusive 
behavior by a person to harm, threaten, intimidate, harass, coerce, 
control, isolate, restrain, or monitor a current or former intimate 
partner.
    A commenter stated that the definition of ``domestic violence'' 
should not be tied to 18 U.S.C. 16 because that definition excludes a 
great deal of domestic violence crimes under State and tribal laws, as 
well as common law definitions of ``battery.'' The commenter stated 
that with the proposed rule's definition, there will be a great deal of 
uncertainty as to whether a particular conviction actually constitutes 
a crime under 18 U.S.C. 16.
    Another commenter said that the matter of domestic violence has 
specific legal implications in most jurisdictions. The commenter stated 
that the proposed rule includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of 
violence in the definition, which implies formal charges filed by a 
prosecutor. The commenter said that in the locality in which the 
commenter resides, all cases initially thought to meet the test for 
domestic violence are further reviewed by prosecutors and are often re-
classified to different charges.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that the definition of ``domestic 
violence'' should not include a cross-reference to the definition of 
``crimes of violence'' in 18 U.S.C. 16. On further consideration, HUD 
agrees that the cross-reference has the consequence of making HUD's 
definition of ``domestic violence'' too limiting and could well 
exclude, as commenters pointed out, domestic violence crimes under 
tribal, State, or local laws. The term ``crimes of violence'' is not 
new to VAWA 2013. The term has been in the definition of ``domestic 
violence'' since VAWA was first enacted in 1994, and was in HUD's 
regulations implementing VAWA 2005, and has not previously referred to 
18 U.S.C. 16. Therefore, HUD withdraws its proposal to define crimes of 
violence in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 16, and implements the definition 
of domestic violence as it appears in VAWA 2013.
    Rule Change: HUD revises the definition of domestic violence to 
remove the reference to 18 U.S.C. 16.
    Comment: The term intimate partner is too broad as defined in HUD 
regulations. Commenters stated that in the revised definition of 
``domestic violence,'' HUD included ``intimate partner'' as defined in 
title 18 of U.S.C. Commenters said that definition appears to bestow 
this status on any person who has ever cohabited or been in a romantic 
or intimate relationship in perpetuity, and asked HUD to indicate how 
long a person may have this status.
    HUD Response: HUD's proposed definition of ``domestic violence'' 
tracks the statutory definition from VAWA, which, as amended by VAWA 
2013, defines ``domestic violence'' as including the following: Felony 
or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former 
spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the 
victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with 
or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by 
a person similarly situated to a spouse of the

[[Page 80739]]

victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction 
receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or 
youth victim who is protected from that person's acts under the 
domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. VAWA does not 
limit domestic violence to those acts committed by an individual who is 
a current spouse or intimate partner of the victim, but rather 
expressly provides domestic violence is a crime of violence committed 
by a current or former spouse or intimate partner. As the statute does 
not place a time restriction on what it means to be a former spouse or 
intimate partner, HUD declines to do so. However, HUD is removing the 
proposed cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 2266 in defining ``intimate 
partner.'' The definition of ``spouse or intimate partner'' in 18 
U.S.C. 2266(7) provides that this person includes: (i) A spouse or 
former spouse of the abuser, a person who shares a child in common with 
the abuser, and a person who cohabits or has cohabited as a spouse with 
the abuser; or (ii) a person who is or has been in a social 
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser, as 
determined by the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, 
and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the 
relationship.
    On further consideration, HUD determined that a cross-reference to 
18 U.S.C. 2266(7) may be confusing, as the term ``domestic violence'' 
includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a 
current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, or others, 
and 18 U.S.C. 2266(7) defines ``intimate partner'' as the victim and 
not the abuser. As a result, the cross reference reads as if domestic 
violence is a crime of violence committed by the victim, rather than 
the perpetrator.
    Rule Change: HUD revises its definition of ``domestic violence'' to 
remove the cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 2266. In its place, HUD 
clarifies that the term ``spouse or intimate partner of the victim'' 
includes a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a 
romantic or intimate nature with the victim, as determined by the 
length of the relationship, the type of the relationship, and the 
frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the 
relationship.
e. Lawful Occupant and Tenant
    Comment: Define ``lawful occupant'' and ``tenant'' and clarify how 
each is affected by the rule. Commenters asked for HUD to include in 
its final rule definitions of ``lawful occupant'' and ``tenant.'' The 
commenters said proposed 24 CFR 5.2005(b) discusses termination of the 
``tenant'' or ``affiliated individual'' and, unlike proposed Sec.  
5.2003 that addresses definitions and Sec.  5.2009 that addresses 
bifurcation of leases, there is no mention of ``lawful occupants.'' The 
commenters said the omission of defining ``lawful occupant'' and 
``tenant'' may cause confusion as to lawful occupants' rights if crimes 
covered by VAWA occur. The commenters said proposed Sec.  5.2005(d)(2) 
similarly omits reference to lawful occupant, and Sec.  5.2005 (d)(3) 
may create confusion because this section permits a covered housing 
provider to ``terminate assistance to or evict a tenant'' if that 
tenant or lawful occupant presents an actual and imminent threat to 
others.
    HUD Response: The usage of the terms ``lawful occupant'' and 
``tenant'' in the proposed rule reflect their usage in VAWA 2013. VAWA 
2013 does not define these terms, and HUD declines to define them in 
this final rule. Generally, while the term ``lawful occupant'' as 
defined by state law would be applicable in determining whether or not 
someone would be an affiliated individual, it would not be for lease 
bifurcations. The term ``lawful occupant'' for lease bifurcations would 
be whether or not the person is a lawful occupant (beneficiary or 
tenant, or recognized member of the household) per the program 
regulations of the specific HUD program. Therefore, while someone may 
be a ``lawful occupant'' under state law, if they are not on the lease 
or receiving assistance under the HUD program regulations they are not 
eligible for lease bifurcation.
f. Stalking
    Comment: Provide a clearer definition of stalking. Commenters asked 
that there be a more detailed definition of ``stalking.'' The 
commenters questioned whether the definition applies to all stalking 
situations, or only when the individual is being stalked by someone 
with whom the individual was in a `domestic relationship'?
    HUD Response: The definition of ``stalking'' in this rule is the 
same definition that is in title I of VAWA. It applies to all 
situations where an individual, the perpetrator, engages in a course of 
conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable 
person to fear for their own safety or the safety of others, or suffer 
substantial emotional distress. Stalking is not limited to situations 
where the perpetrator is someone with whom the victim was in any 
specific type of relationship.
g. Victim
    Comment: The definition of ``victim'' needs further clarity. 
Commenters said the definition of ``victim'' needs further 
clarification. The commenters said there is some confusion within the 
industry as to the definition of a ``victim''--whether this term is 
defined as someone who is abused by another individual living at the 
property, or is abused on the property grounds, and must be known and 
named by the victim, or, that a tenant can be a victim regardless of 
whether the abuse was perpetrated by a tenant living on the property, 
or it was on the property grounds, and that the tenant is not required 
to know or name the abuser.
    HUD Response: A tenant or an applicant may be a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking regardless of 
whether the act was perpetrated by a tenant living on the property, or 
whether the act occurred on the property grounds, or, in cases of 
sexual assault or stalking, whether the tenant knows the perpetrator. 
The rule's definitions of ``domestic violence,'' ``dating violence,'' 
``sexual assault,'' and ``stalking'' should not be read to include any 
additional restrictions on these acts are, or who qualifies as a victim 
of such acts beyond what is explicitly stated in the definitions.
3. Emergency Transfers
a. Emergency Transfer Documentation Requirements
    Comment: Clearly specify emergency transfer documentation 
requirements, specifically documentation requirements. There were many 
comments on documentation requirements associated with emergency 
transfer plans, and the comments raised the following issues.
    The VAWA statute does not apply documentation requirements to 
emergency transfers. Commenters stated that VAWA's documentation 
requirements do not apply to the emergency transfer provisions and 
therefore HUD should not apply any documentation requirements to 
emergency transfers.
    Need further rulemaking to impose additional documentation 
requirements for emergency transfer plans. Commenters said that if HUD 
seeks to impose documentation requirements for emergency transfer 
requests beyond those described in the proposed rule, HUD must do so 
through additional notice and comment rulemaking. Other commenters said 
documentation requirements for emergency transfers should be the same 
as the rule's other

[[Page 80740]]

documentation requirements and not exceed those requirements. 
Commenters said requiring additional documentation requirements will 
expose victims and housing providers to inconsistency and confusion.
    Prohibit housing providers from requiring documentation for 
emergency transfers beyond requirements established by HUD. Other 
commenters said HUD must establish the documentation requirements for 
transfers across all HUD-covered housing programs and not permit 
covered housing providers to establish documentation requirements 
separate from those mandated in HUD's rule. Commenters said HUD must 
continue to prohibit covered housing programs from requiring a victim 
to submit third-party proof, as this documentation cannot always be 
easily secured, and eligibility should be determined by whether a 
person in the victim's shoes would reasonably believe he or she is 
threatened with imminent harm from further violence.
    Do not assume victims requesting emergency transfers were 
previously determined to be VAWA victims. Another commenter said the 
preamble to the proposed rule unfairly assumed that persons seeking 
emergency transfers have already been determined to be victims covered 
by VAWA's protections. The commenter said that in many cases, the first 
indication that a tenant is a victim of violence may be the request for 
an emergency transfer.
    Requiring documentation in order to determine if an emergency 
transfer is appropriate. Some commenters said that HUD should require 
documentation before a landlord makes a decision about emergency 
transfers. Commenters said documentation should be required prior to 
transfer to ensure the appropriate use of resources and to ensure that 
tenants qualify, considering that transfers are costly and families 
must wait while transfers are processed for others. Other commenters 
said it is unclear what would happen after a transfer if the tenant did 
not provide sufficient documentation of the need for an emergency 
transfer. Another commenter expressed its support for requiring a 
tenant seeking a transfer to provide some form of documentation, 
provided the documentation is not so complex and burdensome as to deter 
a pro-se victim from seeking assistance. A commenter stated that, 
because victims have the option of signing a self-certification form, 
which can be done in minutes, requiring documentation prior to transfer 
should not cause any delay in obtaining an emergency transfer. A 
commenter said that third-party documentation prior to an emergency 
transfer is necessary unless the situation of violence is observable by 
a responsible entity. Commenter recommended that the specific type of 
third-party documentation required for an emergency transfer should be 
established through local and regional policy. Commenter also said 
that, for homeless assistance programs, documentation is vital when 
transferring a tenant because victims may need to be relocated to 
another safe place that may require documentation for when this person 
first became homeless in order to qualify.
    A delay in emergency transfer until certain documentation is 
received jeopardizes the safety of the victim. Commenters said victims 
needing the protections of VAWA should not be required to submit 
documentation before a transfer. A commenter stated that the emergency 
transfer plan already requires the tenant to submit a written request 
for a transfer, and documentation beyond this requirement may be 
difficult to access and is vulnerable to being obtained or destroyed by 
the perpetrator. Commenters said that gathering the requested 
documentation, particularly when violence is imminent, can unduly delay 
the transfer process and further endanger the victim.
    Allow post-transfer documentation. Other commenters asked that a 
tenant requesting a transfer be permitted to submit documentation at 
least 14 days after the transfer has been completed, so that the 
provider's focus is on expeditiously completing the transfer.
    Require documentation beyond self-certification. Commenters stated 
that victims should provide documentation other than self-certification 
when seeking an emergency transfer. Commenters stated that 
documentation could include police reports, court orders, incident 
reports, notarized witness statements, verification from a domestic 
violence shelter, 911 calls, or a statement from a service provider. 
Some commenters stated that official government documentation should be 
required, while others said the documentation could be a written or 
oral statement from a witness.
    A commenter stated that third-party documentation may help to 
eliminate transfer of the same situation to a new location, and that 
this documentation is necessary for the housing provider to document 
the case in detail. The commenters said that documentation other than 
self-certification is necessary to verify the need for an emergency 
transfer, as the form's provisions regarding penalties for fraud would 
be difficult to enforce, and some victims may attempt to use an 
incident of domestic violence to obtain a superior housing unit or 
break their current lease, even if this is unrelated to a VAWA 
incident. A commenter pointed to a State law allowing a tenant who is 
the victim of domestic violence to legally break a lease, but only with 
some type of third-party documentation. Commenters said requiring 
additional documentation is logical because housing providers will take 
a monetary and temporal loss for transfers. Other commenters stated 
that statements from legal, medical, psychological or social service 
providers stating their belief that a transfer will have a strong 
probability of reducing a recurrence of the violence should be required 
for emergency transfers. Another commenter stated that landlords should 
request a detailed statement from the victim, and then interview the 
victims after the transfer and obtain a written statement from 
regarding whether the violence stopped or the transfer benefited the 
resident.
    Allow the housing provider to determine when and what type of 
documentation may be needed for emergency transfers. Commenters said 
that HUD should allow housing providers to determine whether 
documentation is necessary for emergency transfers and what 
documentation may be necessary. A commenter stated that many PHAs have 
very high occupancy rates and relocation should be reserved for 
individuals with the highest level of need. A commenter said that 
allowing somebody to submit a self-certifying form with no supporting 
documentation could leave PHAs susceptible to fraud. The commenter said 
documentation serves to protect both the housing provider and the 
program participants by ensuring that there are standards that guide 
these decisions, and HUD should allow housing providers to determine 
what supporting information would be sufficient. The commenter said 
that rather than HUD establishing documentation standards for emergency 
transfers that HUD allow the housing providers to use their discretion 
to make determinations on a case-by-case basis because the 
circumstances that can lead a tenant to request an emergency transfer 
under VAWA are highly personal and individual.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates all of the comments received on 
whether and how to document emergency transfer requests. HUD has 
considered all of these comments and has included in this final rule 
specific provisions on emergency transfer documentation. HUD 
understands that housing

[[Page 80741]]

providers may incur costs when transferring tenants and that other 
families may need available units. Therefore, for the reasons further 
described below, this final rule allows housing providers, at their 
discretion, to require that tenants requesting transfers submit a 
written request before a transfer occurs certifying that they meet the 
criteria for an emergency transfer under this rule. To minimize burden, 
HUD has created a model emergency transfer request. Housing providers 
may accept third-party documentation if that documentation is offered 
by tenants, but housing providers will not be allowed to require any 
third-party documentation in order to determine whether a tenant 
seeking an emergency transfer is eligible for an emergency transfer.
    HUD understands that tenants seeking emergency transfers may not 
have already submitted to their housing provider documentation of any 
occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, and HUD did not intend to indicate that there is an 
assumption that a tenant seeking an emergency transfer has already been 
previously determined to be a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. HUD clarifies in this final rule 
that housing providers may require tenants seeking emergency transfers 
to document an occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking, in addition to documenting eligibility for an 
emergency transfer, consistent with the HUD requirement that 
individuals certify eligibility in order to establish that the tenant 
is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, if the individual has not already provided documentation of 
that occurrence. HUD notes as part of certifying eligibility for VAWA 
protections an individual may provide self-certification in lieu of any 
other documentation to document an occurrence of a VAWA-protected 
incident. Because self-certification can be submitted fairly quickly, 
submission of a self-certification should not delay any requests for an 
emergency transfer.
    In addition to documentation--which could be self-certification--of 
the occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking, the final rule allows housing providers to require that 
tenants seeking emergency transfers provide documentation--which could 
be a written request--that they meet the requirements for a transfer. 
HUD is allowing housing providers to request this additional 
documentation because an individual may be a victim of violence covered 
by VAWA, and yet not meet the requirements for an emergency transfer 
that are specified in VAWA 2013. Those requirements are that the 
individual expressly request the transfer and either reasonably believe 
there is a threat of imminent harm from further violence if the tenant 
remains in the same dwelling unit that the tenant is currently 
occupying or, in the case of a tenant who is a victim of sexual 
assault, the tenant also qualifies for a transfer if the assault 
occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period preceding 
the date of request for the transfer.
    HUD appreciates commenters' concerns that third-party proof cannot 
always be easily obtained, that it may not be available to some tenants 
who qualify for emergency transfers, and the requirement to obtain 
third-party documentation could delay transfers, resulting in harm to 
tenants. It is for these reasons that the final rule stipulates that 
housing providers may not require third-party documentation for an 
emergency transfer.
    As noted above, housing providers may, however, require that 
tenants submit a written request for an emergency transfer where they 
certify their need for a transfer. This is a change from the proposed 
rule. Although the proposed model emergency transfer plan stated that 
tenants should submit a written request for a transfer, the proposed 
rule did provide that housing providers may require this request. HUD 
disagrees with commenter's interpretation of VAWA 2013 that because the 
statute does not discuss documentation requirements for emergency 
transfers, HUD may not allow housing providers to require that tenants 
submit any documentation whatsoever.
    HUD also does not agree with some of the arguments that commenters 
presented in favor of requiring third-party documentation for an 
emergency transfer. HUD does not believe that a failure to require 
third-party documentation would result in negating the benefits of a 
transfer, and leave the tenant in an endangered situation. Rather, 
strict confidentiality measures to prevent a perpetrator from learning 
the new location of the transferred tenant would help to reduce the 
possibility of future violence.
    HUD understands that some housing providers expressed concern that 
there may be tenants who request an emergency transfer for the purpose 
of obtaining a superior housing unit or to break their current lease. 
This situation may occur but, for the following reasons, HUD does not 
agree that this justifies a third-party documentation requirement that 
could endanger the lives of those tenants who are victims of VAWA 
crimes and for whom safety and security is a real threat.
    First, third-party documentation of a VAWA-protected incident would 
not necessarily help a housing provider determine whether a victim 
reasonably believes that the victim is in imminent harm from further 
violence without a transfer. Second, the housing provider may request 
that the tenant sign a written request for the transfer that states 
that the information in the request is accurate, and that submission of 
false information could jeopardize program eligibility and be the basis 
for denial of admission, termination of assistance, or eviction. HUD 
further disagrees with commenters who suggested that landlords should 
request a detailed statement from, and interview, victims. There are 
housing providers who may have experience working with victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, but 
there are also housing providers who do not. Regardless, under this 
rule, housing providers will not judge the merits of the claims of 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking. HUD understands that the documentation of homelessness may be 
important when transferring a tenant, but this does not require third-
party documentation of the need for a transfer due to domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    HUD agrees with those commenters who said that providers should be 
permitted to use their discretion to determine whether documentation is 
needed, and housing providers will not be required to request 
documentation from those seeking an emergency transfer due to an 
incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, just as housing providers are not required to request 
documentation of the VAWA-related incidence. However, as previously 
discussed, under this final rule, housing providers will not be allowed 
to require that tenants requesting an emergency transfer under VAWA 
submit third-party documentation to qualify for an emergency transfer. 
HUD understands that many PHAs have high occupancy rates, but notes 
that transfers are only required where there is a safe and available 
unit to transfer the tenant to, and, where there is a transfer, the 
unit from which the tenant is transferring will become available. 
Further, allowing housing providers to decide for themselves what 
documentation is sufficient for an emergency transfer could leave them 
more legally

[[Page 80742]]

vulnerable than they would be under this rule, which clearly requires 
covered housing providers to accept self-certification, if they require 
documentation.
    Rule Change: This final rule revises Sec.  5.2005(e) to specify 
that housing providers may, at their discretion, require tenants 
seeking emergency transfers to submit written requests expressly 
requesting the emergency transfer, in which the tenants must certify 
that they meet the requirements for an emergency transfer. This written 
request is different from any self-certification or documentation that 
an individual may have given, or the housing provider may ask for, to 
document the occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking in accordance with Sec.  5.2007. HUD has developed 
a model emergency transfer request that housing providers may give to 
tenants who ask for an emergency transfer.
    This final rule also revises Sec.  5.2007(a)(1) to remove the 
provision that the documentation requirements in the section are not 
applicable to a request made by the tenant for an emergency transfer. 
This provision was removed because housing providers may require 
tenants seeking emergency transfers to document an occurrence of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if 
they have not done so already, in addition to documenting eligibility 
for an emergency transfer.
    Comment: Housing providers that create a preference for VAWA 
transfers should be permitted to establish their own criteria for 
verification for a transfer. Commenters said that if a PHA establishes 
a preference for housing VAWA victims, the PHA should be permitted to 
establish criteria for the verification of domestic violence for 
purposes of honoring the preference. A commenter said many PHAs may 
already give a priority to victims of domestic violence who need to 
relocate from public housing through assistance from the HCV program 
and for those PHAs the documentation requirements to implement the 
transfer are already set forth in their Section 8 Administrative Plan. 
Commenters suggested that PHAs be allowed to continue to utilize the 
verification requirements as set forth within their Section 8 
Administrative Plans \8\ for preferences for victims of domestic 
violence necessitating said transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The requirements for the Section 8 Administrative Plan are 
found in 24 CFR 982.54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD Response: HUD understands the concerns raised by the commenters 
in not altering requirements that are already in place for PHAs that 
give preference in housing to victims of domestic violence. However, 
providing preferences in housing to certain groups, and PHAs have 
authority to establish such preferences, is not the same as complying 
with the emergency transfer provisions of VAWA 2013. Providing 
preferences to certain groups may help meet emergency housing needs of 
these groups but do not constitute a need for an emergency transfer as 
is contemplated by VAWA 2013.
    As previously discussed, under this final rule, covered housing 
providers may require in their emergency transfer plans that victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking submit 
a written request to their housing provider, where the tenants certify 
that they meet the requirements for an emergency transfer, in addition 
to any self-certification or other documentation of an occurrence of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. This 
means that if the tenant provides these self-certifications, and the 
covered housing provider has another safe and available unit for which 
the victim qualifies, the housing provider must allow the tenant to 
transfer. If the covered housing provider has a VAWA emergency transfer 
waiting list, the only documentation that a housing provider could 
require the tenant to submit in order to be placed on the waiting list 
is a written emergency transfer request, where the tenant certifies to 
meeting the requirements for an emergency transfer under VAWA, in 
addition to any self-certification or other documentation of an 
occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or 
stalking, as described in Sec.  5.2005(e)(6).
    Comment: Owners and agents should maintain documentation of an 
emergency transfer. Commenters said owners and agents should have to 
maintain documentation of emergency transfers to provide records for 
the covered housing provider as to why a move was necessary.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that covered housing providers should 
maintain documentation of emergency transfer requests and the outcomes 
of such requests, and HUD believes that, in order to ensure compliance 
with the emergency transfer provisions of this rule, covered housing 
providers should have to report this information to HUD in the 
aggregate. Accordingly, in this final rule, HUD adds to the regulations 
governing emergency transfer plans that covered housing providers must 
keep a record of all emergency transfers requested, and the outcomes of 
such requests, and retain these records for a period of three years, or 
for the period of time specified in program regulations, and report 
them to HUD annually. HUD understands that this may entail additional 
costs for covered housing providers, and HUD will solicit comment on 
this provision through separate notice before covered housing providers 
must comply with this provision.
    Rule Change: This final rule revises 24 CFR 5.2005 to state that 
the covered housing provider must keep a record of all emergency 
transfers requested under its emergency transfer plan, and the outcomes 
of such requests, and retain these records for a period of three years, 
or for a period of time as specified in program regulations. HUD's 
proposed changes aligns to the record retention periods of each covered 
programs to the extent possible. The rule also provides that requests 
and outcomes of such requests must be reported to HUD annually. 
Further, this rule revises the following program regulations to include 
documentation and reporting of VAWA emergency transfer requests and 
outcomes: 24 CFR 91.520, which details performance report requirements 
for HOME participating jurisdictions and jurisdictions receiving 
funding under the HOPWA, ESG, and HTF programs; HOME program 
regulations at 24 CFR 92.508 (Recordkeeping); HTF program regulations 
at 24 CFR 93.407 (Recordkeeping); HOPWA regulations at 24 CFR 574.520 
(Performance reports) and 24 CFR 574.530 (Recordkeeping); ESG 
regulations at 24 CFR 576.500 (Recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements); CoC regulations at 24 CFR 578.103 (Recordkeeping 
requirements); and Multifamily program regulations at 24 CFR 882.407 
(Other Federal requirements) and Sec.  882.804 (Other Federal 
requirements). The rule also includes in newly added regulations for 
Multifamily programs in 24 CFR 880.613, 884.226, 886.139, 886.339, and 
891.190 (Emergency transfer for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence sexual assault, and stalking) reporting requirements for 
emergency transfers requested under VAWA. All public housing agencies 
will be required to comply with the general reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e).
    Comment: Updated documentation of need for emergency transfer may 
be necessary. Commenters stated that updated documentation for an 
emergency transfer may be necessary in cases where a period of time has 
passed between the date a family submitted domestic violence 
verification and the

[[Page 80743]]

date they ask for an emergency transfer. Commenters provided an example 
in which a family was admitted to a program based on a Federal 
preference for domestic violence in 1995, and in 2015 the family 
requests an emergency transfer under VAWA. The commenters said that it 
would be reasonable for the housing provider to request updated 
documentation in such a case.
    HUD Response: In order to qualify for an emergency transfer under 
VAWA 2013, a tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking must reasonably believe there is 
a threat of imminent harm from further violence. It does not matter 
when an initial act occurred if the current belief of a threat of 
imminent harm is reasonable, or, in cases of sexual assault, the 
assault occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period 
preceding the transfer request. Housing providers may require that 
tenants who request emergency transfers under VAWA submit a written 
transfer request where the tenant certifies that he or she believes 
there is a threat of imminent harm from further violence, or that he or 
she was a victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises 
during the 90-calendar-day period preceding the transfer request.
b. Emergency Transfer Costs
    Comment: Transfers have costs. Commenters stated that emergency 
transfers could be costly and time-consuming for housing providers and 
could include costs related to utilities, packing and moving, damage 
repairs, painting, cleaning, inspections, lease execution and 
explanation and assuring housing eligibility. A commenter stated that 
ordinary turnover costs for the landlord, with no renovation, may 
include new carpet, new paint, cleaning fees, damage remediation, time 
involved by a project's service team, and time involved by a leasing 
team. The commenter further stated that rehabilitating a unit is 
costly, but that in all cases paperwork is minimal--a new lease and a 
new certification. The commenter stated that, overall, the work and 
cost to transfer a resident is minimal, though it is not recoverable, 
and asked if HUD could provide some reimbursement when an emergency 
transfer arises.
    Other commenters said costs can be substantial. A commenter said 
costs also include criminal background and drug tests. Another 
commenter said it currently employs an entire team dedicated to 
processing emergency transfers for public housing tenants and HCV 
participants and, in addition to these personnel costs, the commenter 
said that it spends approximately $14,000 on preparing each public 
housing unit for a new occupant, and $200 in administrative costs for 
each HCV emergency transfer. Commenter said that if the perpetrator is 
not removed from the apartment before transferring the victim, 
subsidizing the perpetrator in one apartment and the victim in a second 
apartment could occur, thereby greatly increasing the transfer costs.
    A commenter said that an informal poll of its PHA members finds 
that unit transfers cost between $500 and $5500, depending on the 
amount of work that needs to be undertaken upon turnover. The commenter 
explained that an estimate of $3000-$4000 would include painting, 
carpet or tile replacement, cleaning costs, lock changes, possible 
appliance replacement or repair, and shade replacement, and an 
additional $500 should be added for each additional bedroom.
    Another commenter estimated that relocation of a public housing 
tenant through HCV assistance costs between 5 and 17 staff hours and 
$50 to $100 in subcontractor fees for inspections. The commenter said 
that, at best, relocation through the HCV program involves staff time 
spent issuing a voucher, reviewing the ``Request for Tenancy 
Approval,'' inspection and rent reasonableness determination of a new 
unit, preparation of a new lease and housing assistance payments 
contract (HAP), and recertification of the family. The commenter added 
that costs may increase for a PHA due to additional inspections, since 
an initially chosen unit may not be affordable or appropriate, and the 
processing of multiple Requests for Tenancy Approval forms. The 
commenter further stated that, if the perpetrator is a member of the 
assisted household, the PHA may also be undergoing the process of 
terminating the perpetrator's individual assistance, which could result 
in hearing costs and potential legal fees.
    A commenter said public housing costs include moving costs and 
damage caused by the tenant beyond normal wear and tear, an average 
turnaround time of 8 days during which time the unit is not occupied 
while it is being made ready for the next family, and an average cost 
in parts and labor of $215 plus an additional $200 for cleaning. For 
the HCV program, the commenter said moving costs and damage caused by 
the tenant and any additional costs to make the unit ready for the next 
occupant is born by the landlord. The commenter said that HCV staff 
spend about 8 hours processing moves, and the total cost of their time 
and the resources expended is about $200.
    Another commenter said that if there are damages beyond normal wear 
and tear, and if the participant fails to pay those costs, landlords 
must not only incur these costs but face the costs of pursuing 
collection. This commenter said lost rent on each unit while it is 
vacant could amount to 60 or 90 days, which could result in the loss of 
Operating Fund eligibility in the subsequent year for public housing, 
and in the voucher program, costs include the loss of renewal funding 
in subsequent years for lost unit months leased (UMLs) and lost fees.
    A commenter said that in the past 5 years it has spent over 
$339,000 on 118 emergency transfers for temporary hotel accommodations 
as well as moving expenses. Commenter said it has been experiencing a 
steady annual increase in the number of emergency transfer requests in 
general and in VAWA specifically.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the information on costs provided by 
the commenters. HUD understands that housing providers face 
administrative and unit turnover costs for transfers, and where there 
is an increase in transfers, regardless of the reason, the costs to 
housing providers may rise. HUD recognizes that VAWA's provision for 
emergency transfers may result in an increase in transfer costs. HUD 
notes, however, that transfers may not be a unique occurrence for PHAs 
and owners and management agents, but a part of administering public 
and assisted housing. Further, PHAs can utilize the limited vacancy 
provision of 24 CFR 990.150 that allows operating subsidy to be paid 
for a limited number of vacant units under an annual contributions 
contract (ACC).
    Comment: Housing providers should not be required to pay for 
transfers. Commenters stated that the rule should make clear that 
housing providers are not required to pay for transfers and either HUD 
or tenants should be required to pay for, or provide reimbursement for, 
costs. A commenter said housing providers should not be responsible for 
costs since this is not a reasonable accommodation covered under 
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). Another 
commenter said that a PHA would bear the cost of all paperwork and 
issuing vouchers and inspecting units, but other costs associated with 
moving into a new unit, such as application fees to owners, deposits, 
and moving costs, should not be allowed as they are above the statutory 
requirements of the HCV program. Another commenter said that

[[Page 80744]]

covering expenses such as utility deposits and moving costs would be 
devastating to small PHAs.
    A commenter said that if the tenant and management agree that the 
tenant cannot afford transfer costs, services representatives can seek 
assistance from local resources, or, management could put forth the 
costs and allow the tenant to repay them under a payment plan. A 
commenter said departing residents paying costs under a repayment plan 
is consistent with HUD's policy with respect to other resident-
initiated transfers as set forth in the Public Housing Occupancy 
Guidebook.\9\ Another commenter said it is not aware of a situation 
where the housing provider would pay transfer costs, but suggested it 
would be beneficial to tenants to be given an extended period of time 
to pay off fees. A commenter suggested that, in the case of emergency 
transfers, any damage to the unit or unpaid rent should still be the 
responsibility of the departing resident, but, any financial penalties 
for breaking a lease could be waived by the owner based upon a 
confirmed instance of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/rhiip/phguidebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters suggested that HUD establish a special fee to ensure 
that PHAs are able to withstand the financial implications of transfers 
under VAWA. Others commenters said moving costs should be considered to 
be permissible program expenses. Commenters said HUD should reimburse 
covered housing providers for costs associated with these transfers and 
such requirement should be provided for in the rule and could be 
established in a PIH notice.
    HUD Response: For HUD programs that have existing guidance related 
to paying costs of transfers, housing providers should follow that 
guidance and may follow any existing transfer policies and procedures 
they have, including those for repayment plans. Under this final rule, 
housing providers will not be required to bear moving costs that 
tenants and their household members generally pay, including 
application fees and deposits, in addition to costs to physically move 
households and their belongings.
    In response to commenters who stated housing providers should not 
be responsible for costs since this is not a reasonable accommodation 
covered under Section 504, the issue of whether housing providers must 
pay for emergency transfers is a separate issue from reasonable 
accommodation requests under Section 504. Section 504 pertains to 
providing and paying for structural modifications that may be necessary 
as a reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities.
    Comment: A specific process is needed for ESG or CoC funds to be 
used pay for damages caused by early lease termination. Commenters 
expressed support that the rule allows the use of ESG and CoC funds to 
pay for damages resulting from early lease terminations if the tenant 
meets the emergency transfer requirements under VAWA, but they 
expressed concern that this will deplete limited funds for homeless 
families. Commenters further expressed concern that owners or landlords 
might turn to these funds before attempting to mitigate damages caused 
by the lease terminations. Commenters recommended that HUD develop a 
process for housing providers to apply for these funds where they must 
document the hardship, explain why the funds are needed, and report 
efforts to mitigate damages.
    HUD Response: In this rule HUD does not intend to restrict 
currently available resources that could fund emergency transfers. As a 
result, HUD maintains that paying for damages is an eligible cost of 
ESG and CoC funds, and declines to develop the process that the 
commenter suggested.
    Comment: Housing providers should pay transfer costs. A commenter 
applauded HUD for including a provision that encourages covered housing 
providers to bear emergency transfer costs. The commenter said only 
about half the States have protections for victims who terminate their 
leases to escape from violence and recommended that HUD require that 
covered housing providers not penalize victims who exercise their 
transfer rights. The commenter suggested that covered housing providers 
be responsible for covering the costs of emergency transfers, such as 
moving costs, which are often prohibitive for survivor tenants. The 
commenter stated that, under the Philadelphia Housing Authority lease 
agreement, the housing authority agrees to pay for reasonable costs 
related to mandatory transfers and reasonable accommodation transfers.
    HUD Response: HUD understands that moving costs may be prohibitive 
for some victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking, and encourages housing providers to bear these costs where 
possible, or to work with victims to identify possibilities for funding 
transfers. Local victim service providers may be able to provide help 
with funding transfers. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the U.S. 
Department of Justice (DOJ) administers programs that provide funding 
for victims covered by VAWA, and the Victims Crime Fund could be used 
to pay for relocation expenses of these victims, or to provide other 
sources of support, which could free up funding to pay for moving 
costs.
    As noted in the proposed rule, HUD's CoC regulations, in addition 
to containing regulations that provide for a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to retain their 
tenant-based rental assistance and move to a different CoC geographic 
area, include reasonable one-time moving costs as eligible supportive 
services cost. (See 24 CFR 578.53(e)(2).) In addition, under this 
rule's HOME regulations at Sec.  92.359 (e), HOPWA regulations at Sec.  
574.604(f), and CoC regulations at Sec.  578.99(j), leases and 
occupancy agreements must include a provision that tenants may 
terminate their leases without penalty if they meet the conditions for 
an emergency transfer under this rule.
c. Model Transfer Requests
    Comment: HUD should issue a model emergency transfer request. 
Commenters recommended that HUD create a model emergency transfer 
request, and that issuance of such a model would help facilitate the 
transfer. Another commenter said that issuance of such a model would 
help ensure consistency across HUD-covered programs. A commenter stated 
a model transfer request is important since a less experienced landlord 
may doubt a victim's claims. Another commenter said a model transfer 
request would be beneficial to housing providers as it would provide 
specific guidance for them on what a request should contain, and would 
enable them to quickly identify the type of transfer being requested, 
with the hope that a transfer of this nature would be prioritized over 
other types of requests.
    Commenters said HUD should prepare a model emergency transfer 
request that includes the following information: The eligibility 
criteria for requesting the emergency transfer, the definition of a 
``safe and available'' unit, a checklist for the required documentation 
the victim must provide to support the need for such a transfer, 
including a statement that the tenant reasonably believes he or she is 
imminently threatened by harm and documentation of the violence and the 
basis for that belief, and any conditions the tenant must meet to 
continue to receive VAWA protections, such as not inviting/allowing the 
perpetrator into

[[Page 80745]]

the new unit or not revealing the location of the new unit to the 
perpetrator. Another commenter stated that the model should specify the 
location to be transferred, time of transfer, and other pertinent 
information for the emergency transfer.
    Another commenter said the model request should allow the survivor 
to assert either an imminent threat of violence or a sexual assault 
that occurred on the premises within the last 90 days and should 
reflect the date on which the survivor submitted the request to 
transfer. Commenter said additional recommendations for inclusion in 
the model included: Establishment of a grievance plan when transfers 
are denied, or are granted but unsafe; a provision that survivors incur 
no costs other than their own expenses to move; a provision that 
transfer requests be considered mandatory; and a requirement that 
covered housing programs not penalize survivors who meet the emergency 
transfer requirements for exercising their rights. A commenter said a 
model request should include name of the perpetrator, if known, name of 
the victim(s), names of the family members who would be transferring 
with the victim, a brief description of why the victim would fear 
imminent harm or personal threat if made to remain in the unit, and/or 
self-identification as a sexual assault survivor.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these comments and has created a 
model emergency transfer request that housing providers may use if they 
choose to require that tenants requesting emergency transfers submit 
documentation. The model emergency transfer request includes the 
requirements that victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking must meet to qualify for an emergency transfer 
under VAWA; information about other types of documentation that those 
requesting a transfer may submit if the victim has such documentation 
and it is safe to provide; information on maintaining confidentiality 
of information the victim submits to the housing provider; and it 
requests information from victims about their households, the accused 
perpetrators if this is known and can be safely disclosed, and about 
why the victims qualify for an emergency transfer under VAWA. The model 
emergency transfer request also notes that submission of false 
information could jeopardize program eligibility and could be the basis 
for denial of admission, termination of assistance, or eviction, and 
has a line for the person filling out the form to sign and date it. The 
model emergency transfer request does not include details about a 
housing provider's emergency transfer policy because it is incumbent on 
the housing provider to provide such information in its emergency 
transfer plan.
    Comment: A model emergency transfer request should not be 
mandatory. Commenters said a model transfer request form would be 
helpful but should not be mandatory. Commenters said this could lessen 
the burden on housing providers and ensure providers are using a 
standard product that satisfies the rule's requirements, but housing 
providers should be free to develop and use their own forms if they so 
desire, which could be tailored to the individual requirements of the 
covered housing provider, and any model request should be optional.
    HUD Response: The model transfer request form is only a model form 
and housing providers are not required to use it.
    Comment: Any model request should include certain aspects and 
should be considered documentation. Some commenters suggested that if 
HUD develops a model emergency transfer request form, any description 
of the need for a transfer by a tenant must be brief and in the 
tenant's own words, and have a date the request was made and the date 
it was granted or denied, and a description of where the tenant 
believes she or he will be safe or unsafe to move. Additionally, 
commenters said if HUD develops a model emergency transfer request 
form, this form should be used as documentation of the need for a 
transfer, and the existing documentation requirements under Sec.  
5.2007 should be supplanted by this form and this should be adopted in 
regulations under Sec.  5.2005.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that the model emergency transfer request 
form may serve as documentation of the need for a transfer. As 
described earlier in this preamble Sec.  5.2005(e) of this final rule 
specifies that housing providers may, at their discretion, require 
tenants seeking emergency transfers to submit written requests and 
housing providers may ask tenants who request an emergency transfer to 
fill out the model transfer request form. However, as also described 
earlier, this form will not supplant documentation requirements under 
Sec.  5.2007, because the first criteria a tenant requesting an 
emergency transfer under VAWA must meet is that the tenant is a victim 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. 
Therefore, housing providers may, but do not need to, request 
documentation in accordance with Sec.  5.2007 to document the 
occurrence of the VAWA incident or incidents. This model transfer 
request form also does not ask the tenant to identify areas where he or 
she feels safe or unsafe, although housing providers are welcome to 
include that on their own forms.
    Comment: There could be problems with including criteria for 
requesting an emergency transfer in a model request. A commenter 
expressed concerns about including criteria for requesting the 
emergency transfer within a model emergency transfer request. According 
to commenter, different situations could justify an emergency transfer 
so any language around criteria would need to be broad and give 
providers the flexibility to interpret the criteria based on a tenant's 
situation. The commenter also recommended that HUD seek out domestic 
violence experts for their suggestions on appropriate criteria and 
language to avoid language like ``reasonable belief that the tenant is 
being threatened'' which is overly restrictive and not that helpful for 
providers new to this issue in understanding what merits reasonable 
belief.
    HUD Response: HUD reiterates that the model emergency transfer 
request is a model request and is not required to be used. The model 
emergency transfer request form developed by HUD asks those who request 
an emergency transfer under VAWA to certify that they meet the criteria 
for an emergency transfer under VAWA. The model form explains, 
consistent with the language of VAWA, that a reasonable belief that the 
tenant is threatened with imminent harm from further violence means 
that the tenant has a reason to fear that, without a transfer, the 
tenant would suffer violence in the very near future.
d. Transfer Plans
    Comment: HUD should provide separate model emergency transfer plans 
for different housing programs. Commenters recommended that HUD provide 
separate model emergency plans for public housing, the voucher program, 
project-based rental assistance, and other programs in recognition of 
the various laws and regulations applicable to different housing 
programs. A commenter said that, as an alternative to formulating 
specific plans, there could be one plan that provides specific 
applications for each program.
    HUD Response: HUD's emergency transfer plan contains specific 
elements, described in Sec.  5.2005(e), that must be adopted by all 
housing providers, regardless of the HUD housing program in which they 
participate, in formulating their own plans. However,

[[Page 80746]]

housing providers have discretion as to other elements that should be 
included in their plans, subject to program-specific requirements that 
supplement the requirements in Sec.  5.2005(e), as the plan is to be 
tailored to specific capabilities of the provider and any specific 
requirements of the HUD housing program in which they participate that 
may affect the ability of a housing provider to facilitate a transfer 
on an emergency basis. HUD program offices will provide assistance to 
housing providers in developing emergency transfer plans.
    Comment: HUD should allow flexibility for housing providers to 
determine what their emergency transfer plans look like. Commenter 
stated that thoughtful screening and implementation are required and an 
emergency transfer may take different forms and timelines depending on 
resources and process. Another commenter expressed support for HUD 
providing a model emergency transfer plan for housing providers, as an 
example only, and recommended allowing providers the flexibility to 
develop or continue implementing their own plans based on local needs 
and resources to manage emergency transfer requests. Another commenter 
said the regulation should make clear that covered housing providers do 
not have to utilize the exact language in HUD's model plan, so long as 
the housing provider's plan includes all mandatory components. To ease 
administrative burden and to assist housing providers in implementing 
or amending their emergency transfer plans, commenter said the 
regulation should also identify mandatory and discretionary components. 
A commenter said providers must adopt an emergency transfer policy 
substantively the same as HUD's model, so a provider's plan could 
eliminate the irrelevant paragraph on introductory matter in HUD's 
model and remain substantively the same.
    Another commenter said that VAWA 2013 does not require housing 
providers to adopt the agencies' plans and it may be that providers 
will write, or will have written, their own plans. Other commenters 
cited a Senate Committee report from 2012 that said it is the 
Committee's intent that emergency transfer policies should be tailored 
to the various types of housing programs covered by the bill, 
recognizing that housing providers have varying abilities to transfer 
occupants based on the volume and availability of dwelling units under 
their control.
    HUD Response: As described above, HUD's model emergency transfer 
plan is a model plan that presents the basic elements set out in Sec.  
5.2005(e) of this rule to be included in any plan. Housing providers, 
however, will adopt their own plans that incorporates such other 
elements specific to the HUD housing program in which the housing 
provider participates that may need to be addressed in the emergency 
transfer plan.
    Comment: Emergency transfer plans should provide more guidance. 
Commenters stated that a 2012 Senate Committee report said that the 
emergency transfer plans should include guidance for use in situations 
where it is not feasible for a housing provider to provide a transfer. 
The commenters said that, for example, HUD should consider including a 
HUD resource person in each HUD hub or HUD program center to assist 
tenants with alternate housing options, including, assisted housing 
properties with local preferences for victims of domestic violence, 
referral to the local PHA, and access to and use of tenant protection 
vouchers. Another commenter said the plan should also provide more 
detailed explanations of the protections afforded to victims and 
provide specific examples of transfers in order to help ensure 
conformity among housing providers when responding to emergency 
requests to transfer.
    A commenter said HUD's model transfer plan must address the 
obligations for a covered housing provider that receives a request to 
relocate a survivor to their jurisdiction from another covered housing 
provider. The commenter said that, at the very least, the model 
transfer plan should provide guidance for how a covered housing 
provider should analyze the request and set forth a time frame for 
responding to the request.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these suggestions, but declines to 
require that a housing provider address each of these suggestions in 
its emergency transfer plan. However, HUD encourages housing providers 
to consider these suggestions. Housing providers should be familiar 
with and, if they have not already done so, establish relationships 
with organizations that assist survivors of domestic violence, 
particularly those that offer help in locating safe housing for victims 
of domestic violence. HUD is fully aware of the shortage of available 
units assisted by HUD under all of its covered HUD programs, and these 
organizations can be a valuable resource in helping victims of domestic 
violence. HUD will provide assistance to help housing providers develop 
their own emergency transfer plans, and further assist in helping to 
identify HUD housing providers located in the same jurisdiction that 
may be able to assist one another in helping, even on a temporary 
basis, a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking who has been residing in or occupying housing covered by 
this rule.
    Comment: The model transfer plan should include reasonable 
timeframes for tenants and providers regarding submission of documents 
and responding to requests. Commenters said HUD should require housing 
providers to give tenants a status update on their request within a 
reasonable amount of time. A commenter stated that, because of the 
urgent nature of the situation, there should be time periods set out 
for effecting emergency transfers. The commenters said, for example, 
that all transfer applications submitted because of a household 
member's status as a victim of domestic or sexual violence should be 
processed and responded to within 48 to 72 hours. A commenter said, if 
granted, the housing provider should be required to show the household 
an available unit at least 1.5 miles from the current unit and current 
address of the perpetrator within one week; and if the resident 
accepts, the housing provider must sign a lease and allow the tenant to 
move within 24 hours of acceptance. The commenters suggested that if a 
unit is not available, then the housing provider should be required to 
make a referral to other housing providers or the agency administering 
Section 8 vouchers within 48 to 72 hours of the request.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these suggestions and emphasizes that 
housing providers should process emergency transfer requests as quickly 
as possible to protect the health and safety of those requesting 
emergency transfers under VAWA. The housing providers should also give 
tenants a status update of their request if the emergency transfer 
cannot be provided immediately. However, in this final rule, HUD does 
not mandate specific time periods for responding to emergency transfer 
requests, but may consider establishing timelines in future rulemaking 
after time to determine the effectiveness of different emergency 
transfer policies implemented in accordance with this rule. HUD 
declines to mandate that housing providers show tenants requesting an 
emergency transfer an available unit that is a specific distance away 
from the current unit as closer available units may be safe, and may be 
more desirable to the tenant requesting the transfer, depending on 
different circumstances.

[[Page 80747]]

    Comment: The model transfer plan should include a provision 
explaining that tenants are not responsible for rent if they have to 
relocate to a shelter. A commenter suggested that the model transfer 
plan include language saying that, in cases where the family is in 
immediate danger and needs to relocate to a domestic violence shelter 
or other temporary housing while waiting for a housing provider to 
process the transfer, the tenant will not be responsible for ongoing 
rent so long as the tenant has removed all belongings and returned the 
keys to the unit. The commenter further suggested that the model plan 
state that, under these circumstances, the housing provider will waive 
any normally required notice of lease termination.
    HUD Response: HUD's model emergency transfer plan outlines 
generally applicable requirements under VAWA and this rule. The 
authority to exempt a tenant, who is a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking from payment of rent after 
the tenant departs the unit or the authority to waive any required 
notification of lease termination is program-specific. Not all HUD 
programs have this authority. However, where a housing provider has 
such authority, the housing provider should include this information in 
its own emergency transfer plan. Where any requirement that may impede 
the emergency transfer of a victim of domestic violence is a HUD 
regulation, and not a statutory requirement, HUD stands ready to 
consider waiving the regulation for good cause shown, which would be 
the need to transfer a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking to a safe location as quickly as possible. 
Please see the table, set out later in this preamble, which lists the 
covered HUD programs and which programs have the authority to allow 
remaining family members to remain in the subsidized unit after the 
tenant who established eligibility for the unit has left.
    Comment: HUD should add language for clarity to the model emergency 
transfer plan. Commenters recommended that HUD add language about 
``sexual assault'' and ``eligibility to all victims, regardless of sex 
or gender identity'' to the model emergency transfer plan. Another 
commenter said there is a paragraph in the model emergency transfer 
plan that indicates that requests must be ``explicit,'' but 
participants must request emergency transfers in writing and the 
paragraph should expressly state that the request has to be in writing. 
Another commenter said the plan should clarify that the size of the 
housing provider may affect the ability of the housing provider to 
execute emergency transfer requests; that is a housing provider with a 
small number of units may be limited in its ability to find a safe 
available unit.
    HUD Response: HUD has revised the title of the model emergency 
transfer plan to read ``Model Emergency Transfer Plan for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking.'' HUD 
has also moved discussion of the fact that eligibility extends to all 
victims regardless of sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation into 
the main body of the document rather than only providing this 
information in a footnote. HUD has also inserted a footnote stating 
that housing providers cannot discriminate on the basis of any 
protected characteristic, including race, color, national origin, 
religion, sex, familial status, disability, or age, and that HUD-
assisted and HUD-insured housing programs must be made available to all 
otherwise eligible individuals regardless of actual or perceived sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or marital status.
    HUD declines, however, to revise the model plan in the other ways 
suggested by the commenters. This final rule clarifies, in Sec.  
5.2005(e), that housing providers may request that participants request 
emergency transfers in writing, but they are not required to do so, and 
housing providers may process emergency transfers requests that are not 
in writing as long as the tenant expressly requests the transfer. As to 
reference to the size of the housing provider, the model plan already 
indicates that the housing provider, regardless of size, cannot 
guarantee that a transfer request will be approved. As HUD noted 
earlier, HUD is aware of the limited availability of units assisted by 
HUD under its programs. HUD reiterates that HUD's emergency transfer 
plan is a model plan and that each housing provider will adopt its own 
plan. HUD encourages all housing providers to include as much specific 
information applicable to the transfer as possible, consistent with the 
requirements of the HUD program in which the housing provider 
participates.
    Comment: The emergency transfer plan must incorporate strict 
confidentiality measures. Commenters strongly expressed support for 
HUD's language in the model emergency transfer plan to maintain 
``strict'' confidentiality measures for emergency transfer. The 
commenters said that, at a minimum, these measures must meet the 
standards outlined in Sec.  5.2007(c), including prohibitions against 
employee access to confidential information, entering information into 
shared databases, or disclosing, revealing or releasing information 
except for as provided in Sec.  5.2007(c). Commenters said that 
inclusion of this language is necessary to ensure that the covered 
housing provider does not disclose the location of the dwelling unit of 
the tenant to a person who committed or threatened to commit an act of 
domestic violence, dating violence sexual assault or stalking against 
the tenant.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with commenters about the importance of 
strict confidentiality, and retains language in the model emergency 
transfer plan that the housing provider keep confidential any 
information that the tenant submits in requesting an emergency 
transfer, and information about the emergency transfer, unless the 
tenant gives the housing provider written permission to release the 
information, or disclosure is required by law or required for use in an 
eviction proceeding or hearing regarding termination of assistance from 
the covered program. The confidentiality required includes keeping 
confidential the new location of the dwelling unit of the tenant, if 
one is provided, from the person(s) that committed an act(s) of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking against 
the tenant. HUD has added to the model emergency transfer form that 
tenants should see the Notice of Occupancy Rights Under the Violence 
Against Women Act for more information about a housing provider's 
responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of information related 
to incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking.
    Comment: Transfer plans should be developed with the consultation 
of State and local experts on domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking. Commenters said that the emergency 
transfer plans and other VAWA policies are greatly improved when 
developed in consultation with victim advocacy experts. Commenters 
recommended inserting a statement in Sec.  5.2005(e) that all plans 
must be developed in consultation with state and local experts.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with the commenters' suggestion and, 
although HUD is not mandating consultation, HUD strongly encourages 
housing providers to consult with victim advocacy experts in developing 
their emergency transfer plans. In this final rule, HUD lists outreach 
activities to organizations that assist or provide resources to victims 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as 
one of the efforts

[[Page 80748]]

covered housing providers may take to assist tenants in making 
emergency transfers. Please see HUD's response to an earlier comment in 
which HUD stressed the importance of housing providers becoming 
familiar and establishing relationships with victim advocacy 
organizations, and with becoming familiar with other housing providers, 
whether providing private market units, or other government-assisted 
units, not solely HUD-assisted, to establish a network of support which 
a housing provider could use to help a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who needs to move quickly.
    Comment: Correct error in ESG program regulation and clarify who is 
responsible for developing and implementing the emergency transfer 
plan. Commenters identified a paragraph numbering error in the proposed 
VAWA regulations for the ESG program, at Sec.  576.407(g)(3)(i) (where 
the section is listed twice), but also stated that the second 
occurrence of the provision gives the recipient several options for 
designating which entity is responsible for developing and implementing 
the emergency transfer plan. The commenter recommended changing this 
proposed provision to say that the recipient must develop an emergency 
transfer plan to meet VAWA requirements and each CoC, in which 
subrecipients are located, must submit their own plan for approval by 
the recipient. The plan would be a CoC-specific plan in compliance with 
the recipient's plan, which provides CoC implementation detail. The 
commenter further said that all plans must be developed in consultation 
with State and local experts on domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking.
    Another commenter asked which of HUD's housing programs must adopt 
an emergency transfer plan based on HUD's model plan.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the commenter advising HUD of the 
error in Sec.  576.407(g) in the proposed rule and HUD corrects this in 
this final rule. The final rule also makes clarifying changes to the 
new Sec.  576.409(d) to clearly establish who is responsible for 
developing emergency transfer plans in ESG. This provision is 
consistent with the existing ESG requirements for developing written 
standards for administering ESG assistance. HUD emphasizes that all 
emergency transfer plans must incorporate the components listed in 
Sec.  5.2005(e) of this rule, and for ESG it must also include the 
requirements provided under Sec.  576.409. As discussed in Sec.  
5.2005(e) and later in this preamble, all emergency transfer plans must 
describe policies to assist tenants who qualify for emergency transfers 
under VAWA, such as any outreach activities to organizations that 
assist or provide resources to victims. HUD encourages all housing 
providers to work with victim service providers to develop emergency 
transfer plans, wherever feasible. Covered housing providers in each of 
HUD's housing programs must adopt an emergency transfer plan. Where 
there are multiple covered housing providers within a program, the 
program-specific regulations identify which housing providers are 
responsible for developing and carrying out emergency transfer plans.
    Rule Change: HUD moves the ESG VAWA requirements from Sec.  
576.407(g) to Sec.  576.409 and clarifies the responsibility for 
developing emergency transfer plans to be more consistent with existing 
ESG requirements on developing written standards for ESG assistance.
    Comment: Emergency transfer plans should provide ``approval'' 
criteria housing providers can reference to guide as the basis for 
approving a request for emergency transfer. Commenters stated that HUD 
should provide criteria in the model emergency transfer plan for 
covered housing providers to reference when approving an emergency 
transfer, which should include factors that take into consideration a 
wide range of possible scenarios and that can be uniformly standardized 
for each specific covered housing provider. Commenters said 
standardized criteria will help covered housing providers to evaluate 
transfer requests and to demonstrate their reasonable attempt to 
qualify a tenant for an emergency transfer, affording them some degree 
of safe harbor from litigation. Commenters said HUD's model emergency 
transfer plan should include required criteria for requesting an 
emergency transfer to an ``available and safe unit.''
    HUD Response: As previously discussed, and with this final rule, 
HUD presents a generally applicable model emergency transfer plan. 
HUD's program offices will be able to assist housing providers in 
covered programs that they administer with creating their own emergency 
transfer plans. HUD understands the requests for more specific criteria 
in a model transfer plan. The request made by these commenters for more 
specific criteria is one of several that HUD has already addressed in 
this preamble. VAWA 2013 brought under coverage HUD programs that are 
very different from each other. The housing providers under these 
programs are not always direct grantees, such as the case with PHAs, 
but may be subrecipients receiving assistance from governmental 
entities that received HUD assistance through formula programs. 
Consequently, the program requirements vary because of the varied 
nature of HUD programs. As HUD has further stated, although HUD is 
providing a general model emergency transfer plan, one designed to 
incorporate the key protections of VAWA 2013, housing providers not 
only should but are expected to design emergency transfer plans that 
not only incorporate the key protections of VAWA 2013, but reflect 
unique requirements or features of their programs. Again, HUD program 
staff will be available to assist covered housing providers or other 
grantees or recipients charged with the development of an emergency 
transfer plan. As to standardized criteria for evaluating transfer 
requests, HUD discussed earlier in this preamble that, under this final 
rule, housing providers may request that individuals submit written 
requests certifying that they meet the criteria for an emergency 
transfer under VAWA, as well as documentation that they qualify for 
VAWA protections, but cannot require victims requesting emergency 
transfers to provide third-party or other additional forms of 
documentation in order to qualify for an emergency transfer.
    Comment: Transfer plans should contain more information about 
protection for victims. Commenters said that in order to better notify 
victims of their rights under VAWA, a provision should be added under 
the title ``Emergency Transfer Request Documentation'' that if a victim 
verbally requests an emergency transfer, the housing provider must 
notify the victim within 24 hours that a written request for a transfer 
must be submitted, and the notice to the victim should include 
information on how to submit a written request for a transfer and what 
information must be provided. Commenters said the plan should also 
state that third-party verification of the person's status as a victim 
is not required until after the transfer and only self-certification is 
required prior to it. Commenters also said HUD's model emergency 
transfer plan should include a provision that the victim may reject an 
offered unit that does not reduce the risk of harm and request that the 
housing provider offer another unit if available. Commenters further 
said a provision should be added to the plan stating that a housing 
provider may not

[[Page 80749]]

require a tenant to pay certain costs in order to transfer, which 
include but are not limited to paying off a previous balance or paying 
an additional security deposit if the tenant relocates to another unit 
from the same housing provider, and a victim should not bear the costs 
associated with the transfer.
    HUD Response: As previously discussed in this preamble, HUD amends 
Sec.  5.2005(e) of this rule, and also amends the Notice of Occupancy 
Rights Under VAWA that all tenants will receive, to clarify that 
housing providers may require written requests for emergency transfers. 
Housing providers should explain in their emergency transfer plans 
whether they will require written requests for transfers, and, if so, 
whether a specific form will be required or any written request will 
suffice. If a written request is required, HUD has developed a model 
form to help facilitate the submission and processing of a request. 
However, HUD encourages housing providers not to require written 
requests in exigent circumstances where an individual's health or 
safety is at risk. As also explained previously, housing providers may 
not require third-party documentation in order for a tenant to be 
eligible for an emergency transfer.
    As commenter suggested, HUD has revised its model plan to include a 
statement that if a tenant reasonably believes a proposed transfer 
would not be safe, the tenant may request a transfer to a different 
unit. HUD has also revised its model plan to add a provision stating 
that tenants who are not in good standing may still request an 
emergency transfer if they meet the eligibility requirements in this 
section. As explained elsewhere in this preamble, however, tenants may 
have to pay certain costs associated with transfers.
    Comment: Transfer plans should be readily available to tenants. 
Commenters said the covered housing program's emergency transfer plan 
must be publicly available and prominently displayed at the project 
site, so that tenants understand they have this option.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees and requires housing providers to make 
emergency transfer plans publicly available whenever feasible, and, in 
all circumstances, available upon request.
    Rule Change: Section 5.2005(e) is revised in this final rule to 
state that housing providers must make emergency transfer plans 
available upon request, and must make them publicly available whenever 
feasible.
e. Transfer Eligibility
    Comment: Residents should be allowed to transfer even if their 
incomes are too high. Commenters stated that residents should be 
allowed to transfer if they are currently receiving a subsidy even if 
the household is receiving income in excess of published limits. The 
commenter said that, for example, the Tenant Rental Assistance 
Certification System (TRACS) allows for a transfer even if an 
individual no longer meets the income limit required for a new move-in, 
but not exceeds those limits. A commenter stated that victims should 
not fail to exercise their protections because they are afraid of 
losing their housing/subsidy.
    HUD Response: This rule does not establish any new requirements for 
determining program eligibility, or include requirements pertaining to 
transfers other than the requirements with respect to emergency 
transfers that are implemented by this final rule. Existing program 
regulations govern transfers apart from emergency transfers requests by 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or 
stalking.
    Comment: Explain whether minors are eligible for emergency 
transfers. Commenters asked if a VAWA claim is made by an individual 
under the age of 18, whether management can transfer the victim to 
another unit, or whether a third party should be involved.
    HUD Response: Un-emancipated minors would not be eligible to sign 
leases under HUD programs. Housing providers should consider contacting 
child welfare or child protective services, or law enforcement when a 
minor claims to be the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking.
    Comment: Clarify whether housing providers may or must establish 
eligibility preferences for victims under VAWA, or waive program 
requirements. Commenters asked how VAWA emergency transfer plans impact 
covered housing providers' waiting lists. A commenter stated that the 
rule should clarify that housing providers are allowed, but not 
required to establish preferences for victims under VAWA, and that any 
preferences do not waive eligibility requirements. The commenter also 
stated that housing providers should be allowed to provide preferences 
for VAWA victims that are existing residents without providing 
preferences to individuals who have no relationship with the housing 
provider. Other commenters asked if agencies that administer vouchers 
would be required to give absolute priority for the next available 
voucher to satisfy an emergency transfer request. These commenters also 
asked whether, if there are no vouchers available at the time of an 
emergency transfer request, or the waiting list for the voucher program 
is closed, there would be legal ramifications or other consequences for 
being unable to satisfy such a request.
    Another commenter said HUD should clearly specify how covered 
housing providers are to balance the interests of applicants and 
current tenants who may need VAWA protections. Some commenters said HUD 
should expressly state that housing providers' obligation to help 
tenants transfer to safe housing supersedes wait list, tenant 
preference, or prioritization obligations and non-emergency transfers. 
Commenter said the negative effects of delay in transfers include 
forced homelessness and seeking emergency shelter, which can affect 
one's employment and getting children to school.
    Other commenters said that HUD should require a preference for 
victims who have met emergency transfer documentation requirements so 
that they may move to the top of the waiting list for a transfer to 
another property under the covered housing provider's control. Other 
commenters asked that HUD address the implementation of emergency 
transfers as they relate to other competing tenant preferences such as 
disability and homelessness.
    Commenters said HUD should clarify that housing providers can 
establish a voluntary preference for the emergency transfer of VAWA-
related victims, which could help facilitate a relocation that may 
require an effective termination at one property, and enable priority 
move-in at another site that may be separately owned or operated. A 
commenter asked that HUD articulate how housing providers may adopt a 
preference for VAWA.
    A commenter stated that HUD's model emergency transfer plan does 
not clarify what the housing provider is required or allowed to do to 
expedite the transfer process, and requested that HUD expressly state 
how a PHA and owner should comply with the transfer requirement given 
the covered providers' obligation to observe waitlist rules. A 
commenter recommended that HUD expressly state whether the waitlist 
rules under the HOME program are violated by complying with a VAWA 
emergency transfer policy.
    HUD Response: HUD commends these commenters who raise concerns that 
reflect the desire to help victims of those crimes addressed in VAWA 
without interfering with the housing needs of individuals and families

[[Page 80750]]

residing in units administered by the housing provider or on the 
housing provider's applicant waitlist. HUD acknowledges the difficulty 
of achieving the right balance. This is the reason that VAWA 2013 
requires an emergency transfer plan so that covered housing providers 
may plan in advance, what actions to take when a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking needs an 
emergency transfer. The goal is for the plan to facilitate an emergency 
transfer under VAWA as expeditiously as possible. The suggestion by one 
commenter that housing providers establish a preference for victims 
that need an emergency transfer, not all victims but again those that 
need an emergency transfer, may be one way to achieve that goal.
    Consistent with program requirements and allowances, housing 
providers in covered programs are allowed to establish preferences for 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking. These preferences, if established, must be established in 
accordance with statutory or regulatory requirements that govern the 
establishment of preferences.\10\ HUD notes that existing regulations 
for the public housing and housing choice voucher programs (in 24 CFR 
960.206(b)(4) and 24 CFR 982.207(b)(4)) provide that PHAs should 
consider adoption of a local preference for admission of families that 
include victims of domestic violence. Such adoption would be an 
admission preference, admitting individuals as new tenants to a covered 
program, and not to be confused with a transfer priority list, which a 
housing provider could use to assist existing tenants. While HUD's 
final rule does not require housing providers to establish admission 
preferences for victims of VAWA incidents or transfer priority lists to 
aid existing tenants in a covered housing program to make an emergency 
transfer, HUD encourages housing providers to do so. Whether a housing 
provider chooses an admission preference or establishes a transfer 
priority list, or chooses not to or is unable to choose these 
approaches because of statutory provisions, the fact remains that a 
housing provider must prepare a workable emergency transfer plan; that 
is, if a housing provider cannot provide a tenant who needs an 
emergency transfer with an available safe unit immediately, the housing 
provider must have resources and policies that it can turn to help this 
tenant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility 
Act of 1998 repealed mandatory Federal preferences for public 
housing and Section 8 programs. Under HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 
960.206(a)(1) and 24 CFR 982.207(a)(2), a PHA's system of local 
preferences must be based on local housing needs and priorities, 
and, in determining such needs and priorities, PHAs must use 
generally accepted data sources. Regarding the HOME program, housing 
providers must follow the procedures described in their written 
selection policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD further clarifies in this final rule that covered housing 
providers must detail in their emergency transfer plans the measure of 
any priority that those who qualify for an emergency transfer under 
VAWA will receive. Existing tenants of a housing provider who request a 
transfer to another unit for which they would not be required to submit 
an application (what this rule calls an internal emergency transfer, 
and an example would be where no application would be required for a 
public housing tenant to transfer from one building within a PHA's 
portfolio to another building within the PHA's portfolio) should not be 
placed on applicant waiting lists, as these tenants are not new 
applicants. Where a tenant requests a transfer to a housing unit where 
an application would be required (what this rule calls an external 
emergency transfer, and an example would be a transfer to a different 
program or to a unit that the housing provider does not control), each 
covered housing provider's emergency transfer plan must provide 
measures to assist these tenants. For example, under the plan a 
provider may have established relationships with other covered housing 
providers in the same jurisdiction where they share updated information 
on available units, or relationships with victim service providers who 
can assist tenants in locating, and quickly moving to, a safe and 
available unit.
    The purpose of these clarifications is to ensure individuals who 
qualify for an emergency transfer under VAWA receive a meaningful 
opportunity to transfer as expeditiously as possible and to avoid the 
possibility that such individuals may, for example, be placed on the 
bottom of an applicant waiting list with no other measures taken to 
assist the individuals, counter to the intent of the emergency transfer 
provision. The provider, through their emergency transfer plan, must 
develop a plan for what actions to take when a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking needs an 
emergency transfer while balancing the needs of other eligible 
individuals.
    HUD understands that housing providers receive requests for 
emergency transfers other than by those who may be victims of VAWA 
crimes, and therefore housing providers may maintain a list of those 
requesting emergency transfers. Where a housing provider maintains such 
a list, an individual seeking an emergency transfer under VAWA must be 
placed on this list or on a separate list for emergency transfers under 
VAWA. Such lists for providing emergency transfers must be maintained 
consistent with program confidentiality requirements and HUD's 
confidentiality requirements at Sec.  5.2007(c). Alternatively, if 
there is no list, an individual requesting an emergency transfer under 
VAWA must, at a minimum, be given any priority as an emergency transfer 
requestor that is consistent with the mechanism the housing provider 
has in place to track emergency transfer or general transfer requests.
    In cases where there are multiple individuals who need and qualify 
for a vacant unit, HUD strongly encourages housing providers to 
transfer applicants who qualify for an emergency transfer under VAWA as 
quickly as possible, and to prioritize between multiple individuals 
that need transfers when there are vacant units for which the tenant 
requesting the emergency transfer qualifies. Housing providers may give 
priority to VAWA emergency transfer requests regardless of whether the 
housing provider prioritizes other types of emergency transfer 
requests. HUD encourages consideration of the danger to the victim of a 
VAWA crime until a transfer can be made.
    Emergency transfer obligations under VAWA do not supersede any 
eligibility or other occupancy requirements that may apply under a 
covered housing program. For example, the tenancy priority for an 
available accessible unit required to be accessible under HUD's Section 
504 regulation must still be applied to maximize the utilization of 
accessible units by individuals who need the accessibility features. 
The objective of the emergency transfer plan is to develop a plan for 
how to fill an available unit cognizant of the need to transfer an 
individual who qualifies for an emergency transfer as quickly as 
possible while meeting other obligations and balancing competing needs.
    As for the HOME program, owners must continue to comply with 
existing statutory requirements when it comes to admitting tenant but 
are encouraged to implement preferences in their HOME-funded projects 
for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking so to assist those needing emergency transfers. HUD will issue 
guidance on implementing the

[[Page 80751]]

VAWA emergency transfer plan in state and local HOME programs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The HOME statute at 42 U.S.C. 12755(d) permits owners of 
HOME-assisted rental projects to establish certain preferences for 
HOME-assisted units, but requires them to admit applicants in 
chronological order from the waiting list. Consequently, absent a 
specific project preference for victims of domestic violence, a 
victim who is not already at the top of a waiting list for a project 
may not be admitted to a vacant HOME-assisted unit before other 
eligible applicants on the waiting list. HUD encourages 
participating jurisdictions to implement such preferences in their 
HOME-funded projects, but cannot dictate that establishment of any 
specific preferences in HOME projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule Change: Section 5.2005(e) of this final rule requires that 
emergency transfer plans must describe how covered housing providers 
will assist tenants in making an emergency relocation to another unit 
where the tenant would not be a new applicant (an internal emergency 
transfer) when a safe unit is not immediately available for the tenant, 
and how covered housing providers will assist tenants in making an 
emergency relocation to another unit where the tenant would have to 
undergo an application process to reside in the new unit (an external 
emergency transfer) when a safe unit is not immediately available.
    The rule specifies that tenants must be able to seek an internal 
emergency transfer and an external emergency transfer concurrently if a 
safe unit is not immediately available so that the tenant has a greater 
opportunity to move to a safe unit as quickly as possible. For example, 
if a tenant is not able to immediately relocate to a safe unit because 
there is none available for which the tenant would not have to go 
through an application process, emergency transfer plans must have 
policies that assist the tenant in making an internal emergency 
transfer as expeditiously as possible, for example, by placing that 
tenant on an emergency transfer list, and simultaneously provide the 
tenant with resources or assistance to seek an external emergency 
transfer to a unit that may be under a different provider or different 
program. The rule specifies that policies for assisting tenants to make 
external emergency transfer include arrangements with other covered 
housing providers to facilitate moves. These arrangements could be 
those that allow housing providers to share tenant files, if the tenant 
provides written consent to do so and any applicable confidentiality 
requirements are met, in order to expedite a tenant's new application 
process, and arrangements where covered housing providers alert one 
another when a unit becomes newly available for occupancy. The rule 
also specifies that policies may include outreach activities to 
organizations that assist or provide resources to victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. For example, as 
discussed earlier, covered housing providers could develop 
relationships with groups that assist victims covered by VAWA in making 
emergency transfers.
    Section 5.2005(e)(3) of this final rule provides that, for purposes 
of notification to existing tenants, and overall public awareness, the 
emergency transfer plan must describe any measure of priority given to 
individuals who qualify for an emergency transfer under VAWA in 
relation to other categories of transfers and waiting lists. Under the 
final rule at 5.2005(e)(6) tenants who request and qualify for an 
internal emergency transfer must, at a minimum, be given any priority 
that housing providers may already provide to other types of emergency 
transfer requests. The rule also requires, in Sec.  5.2005(e)(9), that 
emergency transfer plans must describe policies for tenants who have 
tenant-based rental assistance to make emergency moves with that 
assistance if this is something that the covered housing provider may 
encounter.
    Additionally, HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 982.207(b)(4) and 
960.206(b)(4) are revised to include victims of dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking, as well as victims of domestic violence, as 
those whose families should be considered for admission preferences.
    Comment: Explain whether a victim always has to be eligible for a 
program in order to receive a transfer, or whether requirements could 
be waived. Commenters stated that it is unclear whether an emergency 
transfer can be provided to a victim who is not eligible for a unit or 
whether the VAWA transfer requirement supersedes the eligibility 
requirements for special populations, such as elderly or disabled. 
Other commenters stated that, after the first year of assistance at a 
PBV site, families are eligible to receive a tenant-based voucher, and 
asked whether the one-year requirement would be waived for VAWA. A 
commenter suggested that HUD allow families needing an emergency 
transfer under VAWA to request a voucher within the first year of 
assistance at the PBV development, and said PHAs could be required to 
create a priority on their tenant- based HCV waiting list for these 
transfers from a PBV development due to domestic violence. A commenter 
asked which of its housing resources should be prioritized for victims 
of domestic violence requesting an emergency transfer and requested 
confirmation from HUD of any waivers it may need from HUD to grant an 
emergency transfer request that may require tenant assignment 
procedures to operate outside of the agency's standard practices and 
policies.
    HUD Response: The provisions in VAWA on emergency transfer requests 
do not supersede eligibility requirements for HUD housing serving 
specific populations, or for any HUD housing covered by VAWA 2013. 
Unlike VAWA 2005, VAWA 2013 did not revise the underlying statutes 
governing the HUD programs covered by VAWA 2013, and therefore, the 
eligibility requirements for each of the covered HUD programs are 
unchanged by VAWA 2013. Housing providers must continue to comply with 
the HUD program regulations regarding eligibility, as may be 
supplemented by guidance that aids covered housing providers in 
addressing specific fact situations. Although VAWA 2013 does not 
override the specific program requirements for the HUD programs covered 
by VAWA 2013, VAWA 2013 requires housing providers in each of the HUD-
covered programs to develop and issue an emergency transfer plan. As 
discussed above, to fulfill this requirement, each housing provider 
must develop a plan that does its best to transfer a victim of domestic 
violence to a safe, available unit as quickly as possible. HUD 
recognizes that because of statutory requirements, a victim receiving 
assistance under one HUD program may not be eligible for assistance 
under another HUD program because of the different eligibility 
requirements. It is for these reasons that, under this final rule, 
housing providers must take measures to assist victims who may not be 
eligible to transfer to an available unit, such as engaging in outreach 
to other organizations, such as domestic advocacy organizations, faith-
based organizations and State and local government entities, to measure 
the availability of assistance that can be provided on an emergency 
basis. HUD housing providers should also reach out to other housing 
providers, private market providers and other government-assisted 
providers to determine where they may be able to assist each other in 
domestic violence situations. While a housing provider may not have an 
available safe unit at a point in time when a victim of domestic 
violence may need one, HUD expects that housing providers' emergency 
transfer plans will provide for other means to help keep victims of 
domestic violence safe.
    With respect to the comments about project-based voucher housing, 
commenters are correct that, after the

[[Page 80752]]

first year of assistance at a PBV site, families are eligible to 
receive a tenant-based voucher. This is a statutory provision that is 
not changed by HUD's VAWA regulations. HUD allows, but does not 
require, PHAs to establish reasonable transfer policies that do not 
conflict with statutory provisions, HUD occupancy regulations, or 
housing goals. However, this final rule does alter the family right to 
move provisions for project-based vouchers in 24 CFR 983.261, which 
provides that families will not be required to notify a PHA before they 
leave a unit if they are leaving because a member of the family is the 
victim of a VAWA crime and the move is needed to protect the health and 
safety of a family member, or a family member was a victim of sexual 
assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period 
before the family requests to move. In such a case, the family will 
have to notify the PHA as soon as possible after they leave the unit, 
and the PHA will have to offer the family assistance to a different 
unit, or the PHA may offer the family a housing choice voucher if the 
family had been in the unit for at least a year. Under this final rule, 
24 CFR 983.261 also now specifies that a PHA may offer a victim tenant-
based rental assistance if a family breaks up as a result of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    With respect to prioritizing victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking for placement in housing, HUD 
does not mandate that housing providers create preferences for victims 
of domestic violence, but encourages housing providers to provide 
preferences for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking consistent with any regulations that govern the 
establishment of preferences. For example, a PHA's system of local 
preferences must be based on local housing needs and priorities by 
using general accepted data sources and information obtained through 
the PHA Plan public comment process (24 CFR 960.206(a)(1) for public 
housing and 24 CFR 982.207(a)(2) for the HCV program.
    Rule Change: 24 CFR 983.261 is revised in this final rule to 
specify that requirements that families contact PHAs in advance of 
terminating a lease to request comparable tenant-based rental 
assistance if the family wishes to move do not apply if a member of the 
family is the victim of a VAWA crime and the move is needed to protect 
the health and safety of a family member, or a family member was a 
victim of sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-
calendar-day period before the family requests to move. Under this 
final rule, a PHA may not terminate assistance if the family, with or 
without prior notification to the PHA, moves out of a unit in violation 
of the lease, if such move occurs to protect the health or safety of a 
family member who is or has been the victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking and who reasonably 
believed he or she was threatened with imminent harm from further 
violence if he or she remained in the dwelling unit, or any family 
member has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the 
premises during the 90-calendar-day period preceding the family's 
request to move. This section is also revised to specify that if a 
family breaks up as a result of an occurrence of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the PHA may offer the 
victim the opportunity for continued tenant-based rental assistance.
f. Effectiveness of Transfers
    Comment: Emergency transfers may be ineffective if they are within 
the same property, or if victims or survivors compromise their new 
locations to perpetrators. Commenters stated that emergency relocation 
to other units within the same development may not be effective in 
protecting a victim, and housing providers should not transfer a victim 
to a unit in the same development. A commenter asked whether management 
could refuse to allow a victim to transfer back to the perpetrator's 
unit if the victim sought such transfer. Another commenter said that 
rather than provide transfers, it would be more effective to evaluate 
every victim's situation on a case-by-case basis and use domestic 
violence shelters where necessary.
    Commenters also expressed concern about the victims themselves 
disclosing their new location to perpetrators. The commenters said that 
a victim, as well as other household members, should be required to 
self-certify a declaration that they will not disclose the location of 
a new unit to the perpetrator (if known) nor to anyone known to the 
victim, and that if they do disclose the new unit's location, the 
family will not be entitled to any additional unit transfers under the 
umbrella of VAWA protections. Commenters further suggested that any 
tenant who invites a perpetrator that the tenant knows is not permitted 
on property grounds into the tenant's unit should receive a lease 
violation notice.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates commenters' concerns, but declines to 
place restrictions on emergency transfers that would be contrary to the 
intent of VAWA 2013. VAWA provides that individuals are eligible for 
emergency transfers if they expressly request the transfer and 
reasonably believe there is a threat of imminent harm from further 
violence if they remain in the same dwelling unit, or, for sexual 
assault victims, the assault occurred on the premises during the 90-
calendar-day period preceding the date of the transfer request. There 
are no other restrictions on eligibility that are in the statute.
    HUD is not in a position to speculate on why a survivor might 
return to live in the perpetrator's unit, or how or why a perpetrator 
might come to know of a survivor's new address. Each victim's situation 
will be unique to the victim. If an individual reasonably believes that 
there is a threat of imminent harm, or if an individual has been 
sexually assaulted on the premises, and that individual requests a 
transfer, then that individual is eligible for a transfer under VAWA to 
an available unit that they believe to be safe.
    Regarding transfers within the same property, HUD understands that 
a transfer to a unit within the same development in which the 
perpetrator resides might not be safe for victims. However, if the unit 
in the same development is the only one available, the victim should be 
allowed to consider transferring to the unit. This option should not be 
foreclosed to the victim. The victim is in the best position to make 
this decision. Accordingly, HUD does not prohibit emergency transfers 
within the same property, but encourage housing providers to endeavor 
to identify an available unit in another property.
g. Emergency Transfers for Sexual Assault
    Comment: Clarify the requirements for an emergency transfer for 
victims of sexual assault. Commenters asked HUD to clarify whether the 
condition that the sexual assault occurred on the premises and happened 
during a 90-day period preceding the tenant request for transfer is 
intended to waive the requirement of reasonable belief of imminent harm 
for other emergency transfers. A commenter said that language in HUD's 
regulation should explicitly state the conditions under which a victim 
of sexual assault can request an emergency transfer. A commenter also 
asked if a victim of sexual assault expressly requests a transfer and 
reasonably believes that there is a threat of imminent harm, whether it 
matters when the sexual assault occurred.
    Other commenters said HUD should rescind the specifications that 
the

[[Page 80753]]

assault must have occurred within 90 days of the emergency transfer 
request, and that it must have occurred on the premises in order for 
the victim to be provided an emergency transfer. A commenter said HUD's 
model emergency transfer plan appears to outline stricter guidelines 
for victims of sexual assault to access protections as compared to 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence and stalking. A commenter 
stated that victims of sexual violence may experience delayed or long-
lasting reactions to the trauma and there are many reasons why victims 
may not report the sexual assault immediately.
    Another commenter stated that if an individual is dragged off the 
premises and sexually assaulted elsewhere, that individual should be 
able to ask for an emergency transfer. A commenter said that, in the 
case of children at the very least, who may not disclose the assault 
for some period of time out of fear, it should not matter if the sexual 
assault occurred more than 90 days prior. A commenter said that it 
should not matter if a rape occurred off premises if the perpetrator of 
the rape is on the lease and the victim is a tenant.
    Other commenters said that covered housing providers should be 
encouraged to apply a longer time frame when necessary, and, at a 
minimum, the language of HUD's proposed regulation at Sec.  
5.2005(e)(1)(b)(ii) should be changed so it is clear that nothing in 
the regulations prohibits housing providers from considering and 
approving transfers for victims of sexual assault when the assault 
occurred more than 90 days before the transfer request was made or the 
sexual assault did not occur on the premises. Commenters said the 
proposed regulatory provision, as written, may cause some confusion or 
be misinterpreted to suggest that moves to protect the health and 
safety of the family also must be within the 90-day time frame or 
experienced on the premises.
    HUD Response: HUD's regulations on emergency transfer for victims 
of sexual assault mirror the provisions in VAWA 2013. The 90-day time 
frame is from the statute. However, the statutory provisions are the 
minimum requirements that covered housing providers must meet. Covered 
housing providers may allow more time. They are not confined to the 90-
day period, and should consider additional time, as commenters 
suggested, given that certain victims of sexual assault may fear 
disclosure.
    Under VAWA 2013, victims of sexual assault qualify for an emergency 
transfer if they either reasonably believe there is threat of imminent 
harm from further violence if they remain in their dwelling unit, or, 
the sexual assault occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day 
period preceding the date of the request for transfer. Thus, emergency 
transfer plans must provide that victims of sexual assault will be 
eligible for an emergency transfer if they expressly request the 
transfer and they either reasonably believe there is threat of imminent 
harm from further violence if they remain in their unit, regardless of 
where or when the sexual assault occurred, or, the sexual assault 
occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period preceding 
the date of the request for transfer, regardless of whether they 
reasonably believe there is a threat of imminent harm from further 
violence if they remain in their unit. HUD has revised the Notice of 
Occupancy Rights under VAWA and the Model Emergency Transfer Plan to 
clarify that there are two ways that victims of sexual assault may 
qualify for an emergency transfer under VAWA. HUD also clarifies this 
in the rule.
    With respect to a commenter's statement that a victim who was 
attacked by a perpetrator on the grounds of the covered housing 
provider but dragged from the property and sexually assaulted elsewhere 
should be considered as meeting the VAWA requirements for a sexual 
assault occurring on the premises, HUD finds that this situation would 
meet the requirement because, in essence, the start of the assault 
occurred on the premises.
    Rule Change: Section 5.2005(e)(2)(ii)(B) is revised to clarify that 
in the case of a tenant who is a victim of sexual assault, the tenant 
qualifies for a transfer if either the tenant reasonably believes there 
is a threat of imminent harm from further violence if the tenant 
remains within the same unit that the tenant is currently occupying, or 
the sexual assault occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day 
period preceding the date of the request for transfer.
h. The Scope of the Transfer Provision
    Comment: Clarify whether a transfer can happen between different 
properties and different programs, and whether such transfer would be 
required and how it would be achieved. Commenters asked for 
clarification on the meaning of ``transfer''--whether a transfer means 
a transfer within a property, within properties that a housing provider 
administers, or includes properties not in the housing provider's 
control. A commenter asked if survivors would be able to establish 
eligibility across different HUD programs, different covered housing 
providers, different geographies, and housing programs in other 
agencies, or whether they would be limited to the program and housing 
provider where they currently reside.
    Commenters asked how a transfer between properties would be 
coordinated and sought more guidance from HUD on transfers. Commenters 
asked how a PHA that administers the HCV program should effect a 
transfer and whether the PHA will be responsible for finding the victim 
a new unit. A commenter asked whether it would be acceptable for a PHA 
to process an expedited ``move with continued assistance'' (MWCA) or 
allow a MWCA when it would otherwise not be allowed.
    Commenters asked whether it is mandatory or discretionary for PHAs 
to transfer a family from public housing to Section 8 housing. A 
commenter said that flexibility in this area would facilitate a 
transfer by giving PHAs the ability to transfer the household to the 
first unit or voucher that is available for the household's size 
regardless of program. A commenter also asked whether PHAs would be 
expected to issue a voucher to a project-based participant at risk of 
domestic violence.
    A commenter asked what a housing provider should do if there are no 
units available on the current property to transfer the victim to, or 
there is a unit available but it does not have enough bedrooms to 
accommodate the victim and the victim's family.
    HUD Response: In this final rule, HUD clarifies that covered 
housing providers must allow tenants who meet the rule's criteria for 
an emergency transfer to make an internal emergency transfer, which, as 
discussed above, is one where a tenant could reside in a new unit 
without having to undergo an application process, when a safe unit is 
immediately available. A significant obligation of every housing 
provider is to keep its own tenants safe, and where an existing tenant 
meets the eligibility requirements and would not have to undergo an 
application process in order to move to an available unit that is safe, 
the tenant must be offered the transfer to this unit.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, HUD reads ``under a covered 
housing program'' to mean the covered housing provider must, at a 
minimum, transfer the tenant to a unit under the provider's control and 
assisted under the same covered program as the unit in which the tenant 
was residing, if a unit is available and is safe. This means housing 
providers may be required to transfer certain tenants to different

[[Page 80754]]

properties that are under the housing providers' control, provided that 
these properties are under the same program in which the tenant is 
assisted, and the properties are subject to one wait list. If there is 
a separate wait list for each of these properties, then the housing 
provider may not, depending upon program requirements, be able to 
easily transfer a tenant to another property.
    The proposed rule stated that, in addition, covered housing 
providers must allow tenants who qualify for emergency transfers to 
transfer to a safe and available unit that is under their control and 
under another covered housing program, if such transfer is permissible 
under applicable program regulations. This means the program 
regulations for both the program that the tenant is leaving and the 
program regulations for the program the tenant would be joining allow 
for a transfer between programs. After further review, HUD has removed 
this language from the final rule, as at the present time, there are no 
HUD programs to which an individual could transfer from another program 
without applying for housing under a new program. Tenants seeking to 
move to a unit covered by a different program may apply for housing 
under the new program. However, a housing provider is not fulfilling 
its emergency transfer obligation if the only relief offered to a 
tenant is to be placed at the bottom of a waiting list for a new 
program. The housing provider that administered the unit in which the 
tenant became a victim of domestic violence must have in its emergency 
transfer plan a process through which the provider will assist the 
victim in finding alternative housing. For example, the plan could 
include providing the victim with names, addresses, or phone numbers of 
domestic advocacy organizations that stand ready to assist victims of 
domestic violence on an emergency basis, and a list of other housing 
providers, whether private market providers or other government-
assisted housing providers, that may have offered their availability to 
be contacted by the housing provider who has a tenant who is a victim 
of domestic violence, and may possibly be able to offer assistance to a 
victim of domestic violence.
    Certain HUD programs have additional specific requirements under 
this rule as to actions that housing providers must take to assist 
tenants in transferring when a safe unit is not immediately available 
for victims who qualify for emergency transfers under VAWA. HOME and 
HTF require that the participating jurisdiction (in the case of HOME) 
or the grantee (in the case of HTF) must provide a list of properties 
in the jurisdiction that include HOME or HTF-units (depending on which 
program the tenant is currently under) to tenants in these programs 
that request and qualify for external emergency transfers under VAWA. 
Under this rule, the list must include for each property: The 
property's address, contact information, the unit sizes (number of 
bedrooms) for the HOME or HTF-assisted units, and, to the extent known, 
any tenant preferences or eligibility restrictions for the HOME or HTF-
assisted units. In addition, the participating jurisdiction or the 
grantee may establish a preference under the program for tenants who 
qualify for emergency transfers, and coordinate with victim service 
providers and advocates to develop the emergency transfer plan, make 
referrals, and facilitate emergency transfers to safe and available 
units. For the HOME program, the participating jurisdiction may provide 
HOME tenant-based rental assistance to tenants who qualify for 
emergency transfers under 24 CFR 5.2005(e). Under the ESG and CoC 
programs, tenants who live in assisted units and qualify for emergency 
transfers under VAWA but cannot make an immediate internal emergency 
transfer to a safe unit receive priority over all other applicants for 
new assistance or housing, subject to certain eligibility restrictions. 
Additionally, given that 24 CFR 5.2005(e)(9) provides for tenants who 
are receiving tenant-based rental assistance and qualify for an 
emergency transfer to move quickly with that assistance, the ESG and 
CoC program rules require the emergency transfer plan to specify what 
will happen with respect to the non-transferring family member(s), if 
the family separates in order to effect an emergency transfer. Under 
HUD's Section 8 programs and Section 202 and Section 811 programs, this 
final rule provides that covered housing providers may adopt or modify 
existing admission preferences or transfer waitlist priorities to 
facilitate emergency transfers for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and must review their existing 
inventory of units and determine when the next vacant unit may be 
available, and provide a list of nearby HUD subsidized rental 
properties to tenants who qualify for emergency transfers under VAWA.
    As noted earlier in this preamble and provided in Sec.  
5.2005(e)(12), emergency transfer obligations under VAWA do not 
supersede any eligibility or other occupancy requirements that may 
apply under a covered housing program.
    Housing providers are strongly encouraged to accept emergency 
transfers from different housing providers, including transfers from 
other HUD-covered programs as long as program eligibility requirements 
are met, even though they are not required to do so. HUD strongly 
encourages housing providers who accept emergency transfer requests 
from other housing providers to prioritize those requests from other 
providers in the same manner that they prioritize VAWA emergency 
transfer requests that they receive from their own tenants. However, 
where there may be a conflict between a tenant of a housing provider 
needing an emergency transfer and a tenant of another housing provider 
needing an emergency transfer, the housing providers' first obligation 
is to its own tenants.
    With regard to carrying out a transfer for an HCV participant, the 
transfer would follow current PHA policies regarding transfers. 
Pursuant to existing regulations, the PHA must allow the family in the 
tenant-based voucher program to move with continued tenant-based 
assistance (24 CFR 982.354(b)(4), 982.353(b)). The PHA must issue the 
victim a voucher allowing the victim to search for another unit in its 
jurisdiction, or begin the portability process if the victim wishes to 
move outside of the PHA's jurisdiction.
    Under the PBV program, the assistance is tied to the unit as 
opposed, in the case of tenant-based assistance, to the family. 
Therefore, PBV families cannot move with their PBV assistance. However, 
if the victim seeks to move from the victim's unit, has been living in 
the PBV unit for more than one year, and has given the owner advance 
written notice of intent to vacate (with a copy to the PHA) in 
accordance with the lease, the PHA must give the victim priority to 
receive the next available opportunity for continued tenant-based 
rental assistance (24 CFR 983.261).
    In response to the comment about transferring tenants between 
public housing and Section 8 housing, these are different programs, 
with separate statutory and regulatory requirements, and in order for a 
tenant to receive assistance through a program in which they are not 
currently participating, they would have to apply for housing under the 
new program. However, owners may, and HUD strongly encourages owners 
to, assist tenants in facilitating moves to other programs. Housing 
providers may be able to facilitate tenant transfers between different 
programs and different providers by

[[Page 80755]]

establishing a preference for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    Rule Change: Section 5.2005 is revised to state that the emergency 
transfer plan must allow tenants who are victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to make an internal 
emergency transfer under VAWA when a safe unit is immediately 
available. The statement regarding transfers to a unit in another 
covered housing program if such transfer is permissible under 
applicable program regulations has been removed. Additionally, as 
previously discussed, Sec.  5.2005 requires that emergency transfer 
plans describe policies for assisting tenants in making internal and 
external emergency transfers when a safe unit is not immediate 
available.
    Additionally, this rule revises HUD's HOME and HTF regulations in 
Sec.  92.359 and Sec.  93.356, respectively, to require that 
participating jurisdictions or grantees must provide a list of 
properties in the jurisdiction that include HOME or HTF-assisted units, 
and information about each property, to tenants who qualify for, and 
wish to make, an external emergency transfer under VAWA. The 
regulations provide additional actions the participating jurisdiction 
or grantee may take to comply with this rule. The rule also revises 
HUD's ESG and CoC regulations, in Sec. Sec.  576.400(e) and 576.409 
(for ESG) and Sec. Sec.  578.7 and 578.99 (for CoC), to provide that 
families living in units assisted under these programs who qualify for 
emergency transfers under VAWA but cannot make an immediate internal 
emergency transfer must be provided with priority over all other 
applicants for a new unit under these programs or other assistance 
under these programs, subject to certain restrictions.
    Under HUD's Section 8 programs and Section 202 and Section 811 
programs, this final rule provides, in Sec. Sec.  880.613, 882.407, 
882.804, 884.226, 886.139, and 891.190, that covered housing providers 
may adopt or modify existing admission preferences or transfer waitlist 
priorities to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and must 
review their existing inventory of units and determine when the next 
vacant unit may be available, and provide a list of nearby HUD 
subsidized rental properties to tenants who qualify for emergency 
transfers under VAWA.
    Comment: Clarify that a housing provider cannot guarantee safety in 
a new unit, or that a perpetrator will not learn the new unit's 
location. Commenters stated that there is no way a housing provider can 
guarantee safety, and a commenter asked that references to an owner's 
obligation to transfer a victim to a ``safe'' dwelling unit be removed 
from the rule. Another commenter expressed concern that most HOME-
funded developments are single-building, 50- to 100-unit building, and 
for transfers made to another unit in the same building where the 
victim's perpetrator continues to live, the perpetrator could very 
quickly learn the location of the victim's emergency transfer unit. 
Commenter asked HUD to make explicit acknowledgement of this scenario 
in the final regulation.
    HUD Response: Neither the VAWA statute nor HUD's regulations 
require a housing provider to guarantee safety. As noted in Sec.  
5.2005 (e)(1), this rule defines a safe unit for emergency transfer 
purposes as one that the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking believes is safe. The VAWA statute 
specifies that the unit to which a housing provider transfers a victim, 
under an emergency transfer request, is to be available and safe. 
Accordingly, HUD is not removing reference to the unit being ``safe'' 
from the regulations. Housing providers do not have to guarantee 
safety, but should do their best to identify an available unit that the 
victim considers safe.
    Rule Change: Section 5.2005(e)(1) of this final rule is revised to 
state that for purposes of VAWA emergency transfers, a safe unit refers 
to a unit that the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking believes is safe.
    Comment: Units should be left vacant for a period of time. A 
commenter stated that units should remain vacant for a reasonable 
period of time after the victim has moved because the perpetrator may 
not know that the victim moved, thus endangering a new resident.
    HUD Response: HUD declines to require housing providers to keep 
units vacant for a period of time after a victim has moved from a unit. 
Consistent with program requirements, housing providers may choose to 
leave units vacant if they believe that will be in the best interest of 
the property's residents, but HUD is not requiring housing providers 
take this action.
    Comment: Clarify that ``emergency transfer'' applies only to truly 
emergency situations. Commenters stated that HUD's rule should be clear 
that an emergency transfer should be in response to an imminent danger, 
where removal of the victim from the victim's current residence is 
necessary for the victim's safety. Commenter also stated that the 
proposed rule referred to an emergency transfer being authorized in the 
case of sexual assault that occurred within 90 days of the date of the 
request, but a 90-day delay seems inconsistent with the common 
understanding of the word ``emergency.''
    HUD Response: VAWA 2013 provides that tenants are allowed to 
transfer if they expressly request the transfer and reasonably believe 
they are threatened with imminent harm from further violence if they 
remain within the same dwelling unit; or in the case of a tenant who is 
a victim of sexual assault, the sexual assault occurred on the premises 
during the 90-calendar-day period preceding the request for transfer. 
This rule tracks these statutorily required conditions.
    Comment: The proposed rule and notice of rights and model emergency 
transfer plan should guarantee the ability to transfer that is provided 
in VAWA 2013. Commenters stated that the rule and associated documents 
should be revised to require covered housing providers to transfer 
tenants who are victims under VAWA to another unit in any covered 
housing program, instead of only requiring covered housing providers to 
transfer such tenants to a unit under the control of the covered 
housing provider and assisted under the same covered program.
    Commenters further stated that the permissive language in the rule, 
notice, and model emergency transfer plan that emergency transfers may 
occur if a tenant is eligible for housing in the unit to which the 
tenant would be transferred should be changed to mandatory language 
that emergency transfers shall occur if a tenant is eligible for 
housing. A commenter suggested that the rule should be revised to 
eliminate provisions that a transfer is contingent on if such transfer 
is permissible under applicable program regulations and that waiting 
lists or tenant preferences or prioritization must be considered. The 
commenter stated that these changes are necessary because the text, 
purpose, and legislative history of VAWA 2013 require that, under the 
statutory emergency transfer provisions, a transfer must be provided to 
an available and safe unit under any covered housing program. The 
commenter stated that the text of VAWA requires agencies to adopt a 
model plan that allows tenants to transfer to another available and 
safe unit that is assisted under ``a'' and not ``the'' covered housing 
program.
    HUD Response: As was discussed previously in response to an earlier

[[Page 80756]]

comment, this rule does not require that covered housing providers 
transfer tenants who are victims of domestic violence to another unit 
in any HUD-covered housing program. A tenant who moves to a unit 
covered under a different housing program or a different provider would 
be a new applicant, and not a transferee, and certain application 
procedures would need to be followed. In addition, VAWA does not 
override the eligibility or occupancy requirements of the different 
covered programs. Therefore, a transfer cannot disregard the 
eligibility or occupancy requirements of the different covered housing 
programs, unless the authorities governing an individual covered 
program allow those eligibility and occupancy requirements to be set 
aside or waived under certain circumstances. The specific eligibility 
requirements in program-specific statutes still apply, and housing 
providers must comply with those requirements. HUD therefore maintains 
the provision in the proposed rule that emergency transfer requirements 
do not supersede any eligibility or other occupancy requirements that 
may apply under a covered housing program.
    HUD is committed to developing ways to facilitate emergency 
transfers among different providers and different covered housing 
programs, and will continually examine ways to improve the efficacy of 
the current policies. For example, HUD will examine the variations in 
eligibility requirements and strive to identify those programs that 
have eligibility requirements that are comparable but not identical to 
see if HUD can develop a ``fast-track'' admission process, so to speak, 
for facilitating a tenant of one HUD-covered program and who is a 
victim of a VAWA crime to quickly meet the eligibility requirements of 
another HUD-covered program. Further, HUD is considering developing a 
model ``collaborative'' emergency plan in which covered housing 
providers in a given area work together and commit to aid one another 
in finding available safe units for their tenants who are victims of 
domestic violence.
    HUD encourages housing providers to assist those who qualify for 
emergency transfers under VAWA to expedite applications for new housing 
units, in situations where a new application would be required, and to 
explain such measures in their emergency transfer plans. To facilitate 
adoption of this proposal, this rule revises the standards for PHA 
tenant selection criteria in public housing to state that PHAs may 
accept and use a prior covered housing provider's determination of 
eligibility and tenant screening and verification information so that 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking who qualify for emergency transfers under VAWA can move more 
quickly. HUD notes that portability procedures for the Housing Choice 
Voucher Program in 24 CFR 982.355(c)(7) already state that when a 
family moves under portability to an area outside the initial PHA's 
jurisdiction, the initial PHA must promptly notify the receiving PHA to 
expect the family, and the initial PHA must give the receiving PHA the 
most recent form HUD 50058 (Family Report) for the family, and all 
related verification information.
    Rule Change: This rule revises 24 CFR 960.203 to include a 
provision that, in cases of requests for emergency transfers under 
VAWA, with the written consent of the victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the receiving PHA may 
accept and use the prior covered housing provider's determination of 
eligibility and tenant screening and all related verification 
information, including form HUD 50058 (Family Report).
    Comment: Housing providers should work with victims to ensure they 
are placed in a housing unit. Commenters said that emergency homeless 
shelters are not viable, long-term alternatives for re-housing domestic 
violence survivors, and a survivor and their affiliated individuals 
should be placed in a housing unit whenever possible. Commenters said 
if housing is not available at the time that the victim seeks to move, 
housing providers should demonstrate they are immediately and 
continually working to find new housing for survivors.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with commenter that emergency homeless 
shelters may provide immediate accommodation but are not long-term 
alternatives for rehousing anyone who needs housing. Victims who are 
eligible for emergency transfers should be moved to a safe housing unit 
if one is available as soon as possible. The requirement to transfer 
victims, who seek to move from their unit, does not end at a specific 
time, but remains until the victim, who requested the transfer, informs 
the housing provider that the victim no longer seeks the transfer, or 
the victim, no longer receives housing or housing assistance through a 
covered housing program.
    Comment: Clarify that transfers will not be guaranteed, especially 
to a particular site. A commenter said language in HUD's model 
emergency transfer plan that the housing provider cannot guarantee that 
a transfer request will be approved or how long it will take to process 
a transfer request should be reiterated and emphasized repeatedly so 
that tenants fully understand this is not a guarantee. Other commenters 
said plans and guidelines should not suggest that a tenant will be 
transferred to a specific site, and the family should accept an 
appropriate unit. A commenter said it has experienced residents trying 
to use emergency transfer procedures to get into a specific site.
    HUD Response: The language in the model emergency transfer plan 
stating that the housing provider cannot guarantee that a transfer 
request will be approved or how long it will take to process is 
sufficient. Having said that however, because it is an emergency 
transfer plan required by VAWA 2013, the expectation is that housing 
providers address every emergency transfer request as an emergency and 
move as expeditiously as possible to place the victim of domestic 
violence in a safe unit, either one that is in the housing provider's 
control, or one that is made available by the network of support that 
HUD encourages every housing provider to establish. Protecting victims 
of domestic violence should be a collaborative effort of the public 
sector and private sector in every community.
    As for the safety issue, housing providers may add in their own 
emergency transfer plans additional language noting the inability to 
guarantee the safety of a specific unit or site. It is also important 
to note that although housing providers may believe that they have 
identified a safe unit, the housing provider may not force victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to 
transfer to a site where the victim does not feel safe. Such a move 
would not be a transfer to a ``safe'' unit in accordance with VAWA 2013 
and HUD's final rule.
    Comment: Provide for appeals if a tenant is denied a transfer. A 
commenter said that when a tenant is denied a transfer under VAWA, or 
offered an unsafe unit, the tenant seeking the transfer must have the 
ability to challenge the action irrespective of the particular covered 
housing program. The commenter said all transfer denials should be in 
writing and explain the basis for the denial of the housing transfer 
and, if the transfer is not granted within 72 hours, the tenant can 
assume it has been denied and grieve or appeal the decision.
    HUD Response: Tenants will be made aware of their rights regarding 
emergency transfers through the Notice of Occupancy Rights, and as 
described in Sec.  5.2005(e), tenants will have the

[[Page 80757]]

right to review their housing provider's emergency transfer plan. A 
tenant should feel free to ask to talk to their housing provider about 
any provision of the emergency transfer for which the tenant may have 
questions. If a victim feels that there has been an unfair denial of an 
emergency transfer and is unable to resolve this situation with their 
housing provider, the victim should contact HUD.
    Comment: Explain whether there are limitations to transfers. A 
commenter asked how often a covered housing provider must transfer a 
victim and whether it matters if the need for a subsequent transfer 
results from the victim informing the perpetrator of where the victim 
lives. The commenter also asked, if there are multiple victims in a 
household, is there is any limit to the number of transfers that must 
occur if different household members request transfers.
    HUD Response: Housing providers may not deny transfers to a safe 
and available unit if the transfer is necessary because a perpetrator 
learned of the victim's new location, regardless of how the perpetrator 
learned of the location. In addition, housing providers may not limit 
transfers based on the number of household members who request 
transfers, provided the victims meet the statutory requirements for an 
emergency transfer.
i. Emergency Transfer Logistics
    Comment: Explain how emergency transfers will work, particularly 
when a housing provider does not have other available and safe units or 
cannot afford the transfer. Commenters asked how a small PHA could 
transfer a victim if it does not have another safe unit and there are 
no other forms of assistance available. Commenters asked whether HUD 
has considered alternative ways to fund transfers other than tenant 
protection vouchers, if these are not available. Another commenter said 
that HUD should consider what resources it can provide to victims when 
housing providers are not able to accommodate a transfer request based 
on the availability of units under their control. Another commenter 
asked whether, if a PHA bifurcates a lease and offers an emergency 
transfer, the PHA will be penalized if it cannot grant a transfer for 
lack of funding.
    Commenters said that it is particularly important to recognize the 
differing characteristics, roles and capabilities of various housing 
providers and property types. Commenters said that, while a PHA may be 
able to relocate tenants upon request, private property owners and 
managers are generally not in a position to transfer tenants or assist 
tenants in making alternative housing choices. A commenter said 
emergency transfer provisions should acknowledge the limitations of 
transfer policies and reflect the practical realities of the rental 
housing sector. Another commenter said that it can provide a voucher, 
if funding is available, to accommodate an emergency transfer request 
from one of its public housing units, but, due to different eligibility 
criteria, it cannot readily transfer public housing families to its 
project-based Section 8 properties.
    Another commenter said that if the housing provider does not have a 
unit available under another covered program it administers, then the 
housing provider should make a referral to the appropriate agency 
administering HCV vouchers so that the victim may be provided with a 
voucher. A commenter said HUD should develop rules and procedures for 
the agency administering vouchers to accept referrals from covered 
housing providers in the agency's area to streamline the process and 
reduce the time in which a victim receives a tenant protection voucher. 
The commenter also said housing providers should make referrals to 
other local or regional housing providers when no appropriate units are 
immediately available.
    A commenter asked what recourse an owner has in the event that a 
VAWA victim declines to move to the proposed transfer unit. Another 
commenter said a tenant's rejection of the proposed transfer cannot 
serve as a basis for good cause termination of assistance or lease 
termination.
    HUD Response: HUD has addressed similar comments already in this 
preamble. HUD recognizes the challenges of finding available units in 
its covered housing programs. Waiting lists are long and units are not 
available in abundance. If there is no safe and available unit to which 
a victim can transfer, then the housing provider will not be able to 
provide an emergency transfer, but as also stated earlier in this 
preamble, VAWA requires each housing provider to develop and issue an 
emergency transfer plan. The emergency nature of such a plan must be 
taken seriously. HUD has acknowledged the limitation of available units 
in all of HUD's covered housing programs, which is why HUD has 
encouraged emergency transfer plans that are in consultation with and 
work in collaboration with other public and private organizations and 
entities that are dedicated to helping victims of domestic violence. 
HUD also encourages housing providers to reach out to other housing 
providers in their jurisdiction, and strive to establish a relationship 
in which the housing providers, whether private market providers or 
government-assisted providers, help one another to the extent feasible 
address emergency domestic violence situations. Reference to such other 
resources in an emergency transfer plan reflects that the plan is 
designed to facilitate a transfer as quickly as possible. The purpose 
of a lease bifurcation is to remove the perpetrator from a unit without 
evicting, removing, terminating assistance to, or otherwise penalizing 
a victim who seeks to remain in the unit. The purpose of an emergency 
transfer is to transfer a victim to a unit away from the perpetrator 
where the victim feels safe. An emergency transfer is not required as a 
result of a lease bifurcation.
    With respect to the question of what recourse is available to an 
owner in the event that a VAWA victim declines to move to a proposed 
transfer unit, there is no HUD program where a tenant's rejection of a 
proposed transfer in accordance with Sec.  5.2005(e) would serve as a 
basis for good cause termination of a lease.
    Comment: Housing providers should consider units with different 
ownership for emergency transfers. Commenters said HUD must make clear 
to housing providers that management entities have the option of 
considering units with different ownership and that individual HAP 
contracts, or ownership distinctions, are not unmovable barriers to 
transfers.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with commenters and emphasizes that 
housing providers should consider, for emergency transfer requests, 
safe and available units with different ownership where such a transfer 
is feasible, and adheres to statutory requirements that may govern the 
transfer.
    Comment: Housing providers should only be required to consider 
units that are under their control and that are part of the same 
housing program in which the victim participates. Commenters said 
allowing transfers to other housing programs would open the door to 
abuse as many might use this as a way to circumvent long waiting lists 
for their program of choice. Another commenter said various program 
limitations, including funding considerations, voucher availability, 
and fairness concerns in waiting list administration, may limit a 
provider's flexibility in transferring a victim from one of its 
programs to the other, and the rule should state that a housing 
provider is not required to transfer a victim to a different covered 
housing program it operates or administers.

[[Page 80758]]

    HUD Response: As previously discussed, under this final rule, 
covered housing providers must allow tenants to transfer to units that 
are available and safe when the tenant may reside in the new unit 
without having to undergo an application process. This means that 
transfers will not be required to units outside of a provider's control 
and in a different program. However, as also previously discussed in 
greater depth, this final rule requires housing providers to establish 
procedures in their emergency transfer plan for transferring tenants 
who qualify for an emergency transfer under VAWA when the provider does 
not have a safe and available unit for which the tenant requesting the 
transfer can immediately transfer. HUD believes these requirements 
ensure that emergency transfer plans seriously consider the needs of 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking, and have measures in place to assist such victims, while 
giving housing providers flexibility as to how they will be best able 
handle VAWA emergency transfer requests.
    As provided in Sec.  5.2005(e)(12) of this final rule, and already 
stated in this preamble, emergency transfer obligations do not 
supersede any eligibility or other occupancy requirements that may 
apply under a covered housing program. Housing providers are strongly 
encouraged to accept emergency transfers from different housing 
providers, as long as all program requirements that affect the 
transfer, those applicable to the housing provider seeking assistance 
and those applicable to the housing provider willing to accept the 
tenant, are followed.
    Comment: HUD should issue tenant protection vouchers and establish 
policies and procedures related to tenant protection vouchers. 
Commenters asked that HUD issue tenant protection vouchers to assist 
victims of VAWA crimes. A commenter asked that these vouchers be issued 
with reference to PHA size and to the number of emergency transfers 
issued during the immediately preceding fiscal year. A commenter said 
such vouchers give victims the ability to transfer to a unit in another 
jurisdiction, where they may feel there is greater safety. A commenter 
said that it is unlikely other HUD-funded units will be available for 
emergency transfers, and HUD should provide vouchers to jurisdictions 
that do not have extra vouchers, although this could lead to false 
allegations of victimization. Other commenters asked HUD to encourage 
its Congressional appropriators to increase funding for tenant 
protection vouchers and/or to encourage a separate set-aside of 
vouchers for victims of VAWA crimes.
    Commenters said that, under VAWA 2013, HUD is required to establish 
policies and procedures for how victims requesting an emergency 
transfer may receive tenant protection vouchers, subject to their 
availability. Commenters stated that the proposed rule did not provide 
policies and procedures for these vouchers, and said it makes sense to 
spell out a policy for these vouchers in the context of HUD's model 
emergency transfer plan.
    HUD Response: The fiscal year 2016 appropriations for HUD does not 
provide funding specifically for tenant protection vouchers for victims 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. If 
future appropriations provide funding for tenant protection vouchers 
for victims of VAWA crimes, HUD will issue policies and procedures for 
the provision and use of the vouchers.
    Comment: The rule should define ``safe and available'' and explain 
who determines whether a unit is safe and available. Commenters asked 
that HUD provide a definition of ``safe'' and ``available.'' Commenter 
said a definition of ``safe'' would allow housing providers to document 
that they reasonably met this standard and limit their vulnerability to 
litigation. A commenter said that the definition of a ``safe dwelling 
unit'' should take into account the realities of tribal and rural 
housing agencies that cannot predict vacancies.
    Commenters emphasized that a ``safe'' dwelling unit could be 
defined as a unit in a different property, stating that a unit in the 
same property would not be safe, and a unit in an adjacent property may 
not be safe. A commenter suggested a safe unit be defined as a unit in 
a different property that is managed by the same owner and/or managing 
agent or that is within the same assisted housing program. A commenter 
said that in some situations, transferring to a different unit within 
the property may be helpful, but may not be sufficient for every 
situation. Another commenter said the unit should be inspected to 
ensure that all locks are in good working order, and the tenant should 
be permitted, at the tenant's expense, to add additional locks. 
Commenters further said the definition should include that the location 
of the safe unit will not be disclosed to the perpetrator by either the 
housing provider or anyone in the victim's household.
    A commenter suggested that a ``safe'' unit should refer to the 
existing definition in 24 CFR 5.703, regarding physical condition 
standards for HUD housing, and if the resident declines the offer to 
transfer because the only available unit is next door to the tenant's 
current unit, then HUD must take the leading role in helping the 
resident find new housing. Another commenter stated that any unit 
receiving subsidy is subject to HUD's prevailing physical inspection 
standards. A commenter said a ``safe'' unit should be defined based on 
objective criteria and should not impose unrealistic requirements, and 
housing providers should be allowed to adopt additional transfer 
guidelines to enhance safety (such as neighborhood restrictions).
    Other commenters said that the consideration of what is a ``safe'' 
dwelling unit should be determined by the tenant who is requesting the 
transfer, based on the tenant's personal knowledge and reasonable 
belief about what areas of the city, or what developments, would be 
safe for the tenant. Commenters said that establishing both physical 
and psychological safety can be a critical factor for survivors to 
recover from violence they experienced.
    A commenter suggested that an ``available'' dwelling unit can be 
defined as a vacant unit of appropriate unit size, located in a 
different apartment complex that is covered by VAWA protections and is 
managed by the same owner and/or managing agent. A commenter said the 
word ``available'' refers to a subsidized unit under the same program 
and under the control of the provider. Another commenter said the 
definition of ``available'' should encompass any units owned or managed 
by the housing provider even if the unit is under a different program.
    Another commenter asked if ``available'' has a specific time period 
as to when the unit will be available. Other commenters said 
``available'' means that all options must be explored for finding a 
safe and available unit, in and outside of the covered housing 
program's control or program before denying a transfer request.
    Commenters said that, overall, criteria to be considered as to what 
is a safe and available dwelling unit are: Expressed safety concerns; 
availability of safe housing, as determined by these concerns, within 
the housing providers' control; the availability of safe housing of the 
same covered housing program type; and availability of safe housing of 
a different covered housing program type. Other commenters said that 
the rule's provision that available and safe dwelling units are those 
controlled by the provider with the same form of

[[Page 80759]]

assistance as the prior unit sufficiently avoid undue burdens on 
providers while offering domestic violence victims reasonable 
opportunities to transfer. A commenter said that while it is 
administratively easier to remain in the covered program, HUD should 
provide guidance and tools on how providers could look to possible 
units across their portfolio and also across programs to help providers 
understand when such moves could be feasible and allowed. A commenter 
asked that the rule state that a PHA may use its discretion to 
determine what ``available and safe dwelling units'' means.
    Another commenter asked that, in situations where a tenant is 
transferred to a different unit under a different covered housing 
provider, which covered housing provider will be expected to fulfill 
the VAWA responsibility of determining a unit as ``safe.''
    A commenter asked that Section 504-modified apartments otherwise 
reserved for households with a mobility-impaired individual, not be 
considered ``available'' to those seeking a transfer under VAWA.
    HUD Response: HUD declines to set a specific standard for what is 
``safe,'' as the meaning of this term may vary greatly in different 
situations. HUD agrees with commenters who said that what is a ``safe'' 
dwelling unit should be primarily determined by the tenant-victim who 
is requesting the transfer, based on the tenant's personal knowledge 
and reasonable belief about what is safe. HUD believes that limiting 
``safe'' to physical condition standards, as suggested by some 
commenters, is too limiting and is contrary to the intent of VAWA. 
Program regulations and policies for physical condition standards will 
still apply for emergency transfers, in the same manner that they apply 
to other housing under those programs. What is a ``safe'' distance from 
a perpetrator is one factor that housing providers and victims may 
consider, but HUD again declines to provide a specific definition of 
the term ``safe'' that would exclude certain units, such as those 
within the same property, or include other units, such as those at 
different properties.
    Similarly, what is an ``available'' unit will vary in different 
situations. Generally, an available unit is one that is not occupied 
and is available to tenants given program requirements and possible 
considerations that may be applicable, such as eligibility 
requirements, unit restrictions, or term limitations. HUD will assist 
housing providers in identifying available units under the different 
HUD programs covered by VAWA.
    HUD's Section 504 implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 8 
describe the process by which accessible units required to be 
accessible under HUD's Section 504 regulation must be occupied. In 
order to maximize the utilization of such units by eligible individuals 
who require the accessibility features of the particular unit, the 
housing owner or manager must first offer such a unit to a current 
occupant of another unit of the same project or comparable projects 
under common control who needs the accessibility features of the vacant 
unit, and then to an eligible qualified individual on the waiting list 
needing such features. After this, the owner or manager may then offer 
the unit to individuals without disabilities, including individuals who 
need an emergency transfer under VAWA. In other words, if there remains 
a vacant accessible unit after engaging in this priority placement, the 
unit would qualify as an available unit for an emergency transfer under 
VAWA.
    Comment: Housing owners and managers, not participating 
jurisdictions or State agencies, will have control over property and be 
in the best position to determine whether an emergency transfer is 
warranted. Commenters said that, in most cases, participating 
jurisdictions will not have control over housing for which HOME funds 
have been provided, and the rule needs to be clear about how a covered 
housing provider's control of property establishes the provider's 
responsibility to provide alternative housing when a transfer is 
needed. A commenter stated that Sec.  92.359(e) in the proposed rule 
requires the participating jurisdiction to develop a VAWA lease term/
addendum that must permit the tenant to terminate the lease without 
penalty if the participating jurisdiction ``or its designee'' 
determines that the tenant has met the conditions for an emergency 
transfer. The commenter said participating jurisdictions are not in a 
position to evaluate and make timely judgments about a tenant's 
eligibility for an emergency transfer and asked that participating 
jurisdictions be permitted to designate the owner of HOME-assisted 
rental housing as the entity that determines whether a tenant has met 
the conditions for an emergency transfer.
    Commenters said HUD's interpretation of ``under a covered housing 
program'' is reasonable and fair if applied only to an owner of a 
property, and noted that a state housing agency administering project-
based section 8 under 24 CFR part 883 does not ``control'' assisted 
units, nor does a HOME participating jurisdiction. Commenter said this 
notion of control should be explicitly stated in the regulatory text.
    HUD Response: This final rule maintains the provisions in the 
proposed rule that the participating jurisdiction is the covered 
housing provider for purposes of developing and issuing an emergency 
transfer plan. The final rule also iterates that the participating 
jurisdiction must determine whether a tenant qualifies for an emergency 
transfer under the plan, as provided under the proposed rule. 
Individual project owners, however, will be involved in implementing 
the emergency transfer plan, including at a minimum transferring 
tenants to other units as provided in the emergency transfer plan and 
the written agreements required under section 92.504. The final rule 
includes changes to reflect this owner involvement. In this final rule, 
HUD removes language that was in the proposed rule's HOME regulations 
about the participating jurisdiction's designee. The HOME regulations 
do not discuss a participating jurisdiction's designee. Section 
92.504(a) of the HOME regulations explains how a participating 
jurisdiction can carry out its program. HUD also removes language about 
a participating jurisdiction or its designee from the proposed HTF 
regulations, as the HTF regulations in 24 CFR part 93 place 
responsibilities on a ``grantee.'' In this final rule, the HTF 
regulations for VAWA explain the responsibilities of grantees and 
owners, rather than participating jurisdictions, or their designees, 
and owners.
    More generally, as explained earlier, this final rule no longer 
uses the term control to describe which units individuals may transfer 
to, and instead uses defined terms, internal emergency transfer and 
external emergency transfer, to describe transfer possibilities.
    Rule Change: Section 92.359 of this final rule discusses VAWA 
responsibilities in the HOME program only for owners and participating 
jurisdictions. Section 93.356 of this final rule discusses VAWA 
responsibilities in the HTF program only for owners and grantees.
    Comment: Any required recertification should only occur after a 
tenant has been transferred. Commenters said HUD should clarify that 
any required recertification, for example due to the change in 
household composition if the perpetrator no longer lives in the unit, 
should occur only after the tenant has been transferred. A commenter 
said that the covered

[[Page 80760]]

housing provider would, however, be free to change the size of the 
unit, if unit size eligibility is altered.
    HUD Response: This rule does not impose any new requirements 
regarding recertification. Existing program regulations and policies 
govern.
    Comment: Residents should be allowed to transfer without losing 
their subsidy. Commenters suggested that where there is no ``safe and 
available'' unit subsidized under the same covered program and under 
the administration of the tenant's current housing provider, but a unit 
is available in a separate property or in another property where the 
provider has made an agreement with the other property's housing owner, 
then the transfer should be accomplished through a negotiated 
``termination, or move out'' and priority ``move-in'' at another site. 
A commenter said this could be accomplished using Tenant Rental 
Assistance Certification System (TRACS) database codes that will not 
require establishing new eligibility, but will enable a transfer of 
subsidy to another property so that the tenant will not have to risk 
loss of subsidy by having to meet income limits as required for a 
first-time eligibility determination.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the suggestions of these commenters. 
Because HUD is unable to provide regulatory text that will address 
every feasible scenario, HUD program offices will supplement the 
regulatory text on how specific fact scenarios should be addressed 
under the requirements of the HUD-covered program at issue.
    Comment: Residents requesting emergency transfer should be offered 
a reasonable time to establish eligibility for other programs. A 
commenter recommended that HUD provide a victim seeking an emergency 
transfer a reasonable time period, consistent with lease bifurcation 
provisions, to establish eligibility for other covered housing 
programs.
    HUD Response: In this rule, HUD declines to set a time period for 
victims seeking emergency transfers to establish eligibility for other 
programs. In the case of bifurcation, the reasonable time period 
applies so that tenants may be protected from immediate eviction when a 
perpetrator leaves a unit. In the case of tenants requesting emergency 
transfers under VAWA, the tenant is not facing eviction, and although 
it may be unsafe for tenants to remain in their units, emergency 
transfers are subject to whether there is a safe and available unit to 
which the tenant may transfer. As discussed earlier in this preamble, 
the requirement to transfer victims who qualify for and request an 
emergency transfer does not end at a specific time, but remains until 
the victim informs the housing provider that the victim no longer seeks 
the transfer, or the victim no longer receives housing or assistance 
under a covered housing program. As also stated earlier in this 
preamble, tenants seeking emergency transfers may apply for housing 
under a new program, but emergency transfer obligations under VAWA do 
not supersede any eligibility or other occupancy requirements that may 
apply under a covered housing program.
    Comment: Tenants should generally remain responsible for rent while 
temporarily relocated. A commenter said it has been its practice that, 
for all emergency transfers, the tenant remains responsible for the 
rent of its unit during the period of the tenant's temporary 
relocation. The commenter said any mitigating circumstance to having 
the tenant remain responsible for the rent during temporary relocation 
would be addressed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the victim 
does not lose eligibility for continued housing assistance.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the commenter's suggestion on how the 
commenter handles emergency transfers. This final rule does not set 
requirements for recovery of lost rent for tenants who may be 
temporarily relocated. The program regulations that apply to the 
covered housing govern who bears the cost of lost rent.
    Comment: Explain whether a housing provider can terminate 
assistance to a perpetrator when an emergency transfer happens. 
Commenters asked whether management can terminate assistance to the 
perpetrator. A commenter asked if termination is permitted whether the 
termination would take place when the emergency transfer happens or 
when the victim asserts a VAWA crime has been committed.
    HUD Response: Housing providers that seek to terminate assistance 
to a perpetrator or an alleged perpetrator must ensure they are 
following existing program regulations and policies, including lease 
policies, which allow for such termination, as well as any applicable 
state and local laws. Housing providers should also ensure that tenants 
are aware that commission of crimes under VAWA may result in 
termination.
    Comment: HUD should work with other organizations and agencies to 
transfer victims. Commenters stated that HUD needs to make use of 
available local and State resources for emergency transfer, and 
suggested that contacts be made with local shelters that house VAWA 
victims, as well as sheriffs' offices that have relationships with 
shelters, for advice and direction. Commenters stated that tenants 
should be informed of these resources and assistance should be provided 
to tenants to use these resources, if a tenant becomes a victim of a 
VAWA crime. Commenters stressed the importance of sharing the personal 
information of tenants only when necessary and then only to protect the 
victim.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the suggestion of working with other 
organizations experienced in helping victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, to help facilitate 
transfers to a safe location or to provide a safe location for victims. 
In this final rule, HUD requires emergency transfer plans to describe 
policies to assist a tenant to make an emergency move when a safe unit 
is not immediately available for transfer, and encourages policies that 
include outreach activities to organizations that assist or provide 
resources to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking. As to sharing personal information, this final 
rule maintains the provisions in the proposed rule that emergency 
transfer plans must incorporate strict confidentiality measures, and 
HUD's model emergency plan contains a section on confidentiality that 
specifies that the housing provider will keep confidential any 
information that the victim submits about an emergency transfer unless 
the victim gives the housing provider written permission to release the 
information or disclosure is required by law.
    Comment: HUD and housing providers should take proactive steps to 
implement emergency transfer plans. Commenters said HUD should oversee 
and ensure accountability for each covered housing program's emergency 
transfer plan. Commenters said tenants seeking transfers may be 
directed differently depending on the covered housing program and 
covered housing provider, and suggested that HUD Regional offices could 
lead transfer efforts within their area, similar to efforts undertaken 
by HUD's Chicago Multifamily Regional Office. HUD's Chicago Regional 
Multifamily Office help to facilitate transfers needed by victims of 
domestic violence by helping to identify vacancies and striving to have 
the transfer occur between 48 hours and 2 weeks depending upon the 
victim's need and the availability of safe units.\12\ Commenter said 
HUD

[[Page 80761]]

multifamily field offices, PHAs, or the contract administrator can 
assist in identifying assisted housing within different properties. 
Commenters also said HUD should encourage PHAs to work regionally to 
identify available units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See page 11 of the following PowerPoint presentation http://nhlp.org/files/00%20Slides%20HUD%20Proposed%20VAWA%20Rule%20Webinar.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters said HUD can provide guidance to covered housing 
programs so that emergency transfer policies are institutionalized and 
implemented at all levels of the agency and survive employee turnover. 
Commenters said housing agencies should take measures to shorten 
transfer wait times, and to give survivors specific timeframes on when 
they can expect to be transferred. Commenters cited an example of a 
transfer policy that is working is from the Philadelphia Housing 
Authority. Commenters further suggested said that HUD encourage 
regional planning for emergency transfers and regional cooperative 
agreements or working groups between various housing providers of 
different housing programs and victim advocates.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the information on how certain HUD 
offices and PHAs have addressed emergency transfer situations, and such 
information will aid HUD in development of guidance and best practices.
    Comment: HUD needs to better explain how emergency transfers will 
work for the HCV program. A commenter said that HUD's discussion of 
emergency transfers in conjunction with the HCV program's portability 
feature oversimplifies the issues faced by the covered provider 
administering the HCV program and needs further explanation. The 
commenter said HUD conflates a tenant's use of portability (moving with 
assistance between jurisdictions) and moving from one housing unit to 
another in the same jurisdiction. The commenter said the rule indicates 
that a provider may not terminate assistance if a family leaves 
subsidized privately owned housing without notifying the PHA. The 
commenter asked if this means that a PHA may not terminate assistance 
based on the family moving out of the unit without notice to the PHA 
that may consider such a move as a material violation of the lease and 
pursue remedies such as recovering costs for reoccupying the unit from 
the former tenant.
    HUD Response: HUD's HCV program regulations at 24 CFR 982.353(b) 
provide an exception to the prohibition against a family moving under 
portability provisions in violation of the lease. This exception 
provides that if the family has complied with all other obligations of 
the voucher program and has moved out of the assisted dwelling unit in 
order to protect the health or safety of a household member who is or 
has been the a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking and who reasonably believes the household member 
to be threatened with imminent harm from further violence by remaining 
in the dwelling unit (or if any family member has been the victim of a 
sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day 
period preceding the family's move or request to move), and has 
otherwise complied with all other obligations under the Section 8 
program, the family may receive a voucher from the initial PHA and move 
to another jurisdiction under the HCV Program.
    For example, a program participant is a victim of dating violence 
and moves out of the assisted dwelling unit and into an emergency 
shelter because the victim reasonably believes to be threatened with 
imminent harm from further violence by remaining in the unit. The 
victim fails to promptly notify the PHA of the absence in violation of 
the PHA's policy on absence from the unit. The PHA determines that the 
victim has violated PHA policy on absence from a unit. The PHA 
undertakes proceedings to terminate assistance and terminates the 
Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract with the owner. The program 
participant also notifies the PHA that the program participant is a 
victim of dating violence and moved out of the unit because the program 
participant reasonably believes to be threatened with imminent harm 
from further violence by remaining in the dwelling unit. The PHA makes 
a written request to the program participant to submit documentation 
about the incident or incidents of dating violence. In response to the 
request, a Certification of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 
Assault, or Stalking is submitted to the PHA. Because the absence from 
the unit was a result of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking and the victim reasonably believed to be 
threatened with imminent harm from further violence by remaining in the 
dwelling unit, the PHA halts proceedings to terminate assistance. The 
PHA would then issue a new voucher allowing the program participant to 
search for housing. If the program participant indicates the desire to 
move to an area outside of the PHA's jurisdiction, the PHA follows the 
provisions for portability under 24 CFR 982.355. The program 
participant moves to the jurisdiction of another PHA with continued 
assistance. This move, however, does not relieve the family of any 
financial obligations on the original lease.
4. Documentation and Verifications
    Comment: Clarify what forms are required for implementation of 
VAWA. Commenters requested information about forms required for non-
project-based section 8 households to use VAWA. Another commenter asked 
whether housing providers have discretion to determine documentation 
requirements.
    HUD Response: Except for documentation for emergency transfers, as 
previously discussed, documentation provisions and requirements are set 
out in Sec.  5.2007 of this rule, and reflect the statutory 
documentation provisions in VAWA 2013. Housing providers must accept 
any one of the forms of documentation listed in Sec.  5.2007, at the 
discretion of the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking. Under the statute and this rule, housing 
providers may accept another form of documentation provided by the 
applicant or the tenant, but the provider must still accept all of the 
other forms of documentation described in the rule. In the case of 
conflicting evidence, housing providers must accept one of the three 
forms of third-party documentation described in Sec.  5.2007.
    Comment: Certification forms should not differ for different 
programs. Commenters said there should be one VAWA certification form, 
and the exact same form should be used by both Public and Indian 
Housing and Multifamily Housing, because using different forms, which 
may expire or be changed at different times, is confusing and 
unnecessary.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees and has created a certification form that 
will be used for all covered programs.
    Comment: The 14-day time period should not strictly apply to all 
third-party documentation requirements in cases of conflicting 
evidence. Commenters stated that some VAWA victims may not be able to 
acquire the proper documentation within 14 business days. Commenters 
suggested there be a longer period of time for victims to be able to 
provide third-party documentation. A commenter said this is especially 
important in large cities where there is often a waiting period for 
supportive services. Another commenter said law enforcement, court, or

[[Page 80762]]

administrative agency records can take a long time to obtain, as could 
medical documentation from a hospital. The commenter recommended that 
60 days is a more reasonable period to obtain such documentation. 
Commenters said HUD should consider adding language to address what 
should occur when a tenant seeks requested documentation but cannot 
obtain the documentation due to a nonresponsive third party. A 
commenter said that if the tenant tries, but cannot procure the 
requested information, the housing provider should be instructed to 
make a decision based on the available evidence.
    Commenters said that when victims are fleeing or have fled abuse, 
they can lack access to records and it can take time to understand 
their legal rights when information is shared. The commenters 
recommended that HUD allow 28 business days from the date the written 
request for documentation was received to obtain third-party 
documentation, and allow housing providers to use their discretion to 
extend the deadline past 28 days.
    Other commenters said that the 14-day time period should also apply 
to third-party documents, but the covered housing provider should be 
able to extend this time period, particularly if the tenant 
demonstrates that the tenant has begun the process of obtaining the 
third-party documentation. A commenter suggested that the victim be 
required to request any extension within the initial 14-day time 
period. Another commenter said the time period is appropriate with the 
understanding that local agencies have the discretion to set a longer 
locally appropriate time period and that policies governing these time 
periods for PHAs are subject to public review and board approval as 
part of agencies' planning processes.
    HUD Response: HUD understands that some VAWA victims may not be 
able to acquire third-party documentation within 14 business days. 
Under this final rule, tenants will have 30 days--generally the period 
of one rent cycle--to submit third-party documentation in cases of 
conflicting evidence. Housing providers may grant extensions where 
appropriate.
    Rule Change: Section 5.2007(b)(2) of the proposed rule is revised 
to state that, in cases of conflicting information, covered housing 
providers may require an applicant or tenant to submit third-party 
documentation within 30 calendar days of the date of the request for 
the third-party documentation.
    Comment: The 14-day time period should apply to third-party 
documentation requirements. In contrast to the above commenters, other 
commenters stated that 14 days is reasonable. A commenter stated that 
if an individual is in an unsafe situation, submission of documentation 
should be complete in 14 business days (or less) to ensure a prompt 
response to a request for relocation. Another commenter said that if 
this is a true emergency and the family needs to be relocated, 10 
business days, excluding holidays and weekends, should be sufficient, 
and if there are mitigating circumstances the housing provider can 
allow for additional days.
    HUD Response: The third-party documentation requirements are not 
requirements for an emergency transfer, but are requirements for 
documenting an occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking when there is conflicting evidence.
    Comment: Clarify that housing providers can require third-party 
certification when it is unclear whether domestic violence occurred, or 
who is the victim. Commenters said that HUD's implementing guidance and 
forms should reflect that housing providers can require third-party 
certification when there is not clear evidence that domestic violence 
incident occurred, or there is a question about which occupant is the 
victim.
    HUD Response: This rule and HUD's Notice of Occupancy Rights that 
will be distributed to tenants and applicants both advise that housing 
providers have the right to request third-party documentation in order 
to resolve conflicts in situations where the housing providers have 
received conflicting evidence. With that exception, HUD does not read 
VAWA 2013 as allowing for housing providers to request third-party 
documentation. Housing providers should speak to the victim to try and 
clarify any information the housing provider believes is not clear. In 
accordance with VAWA 2013, HUD declines to allow housing providers to 
require third-party documentation of an occurrence of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in any situation 
except for those involving conflicting evidence.
    Comment: HUD should provide clarification regarding situations 
where housing providers receive conflicting evidence. Commenters said 
that HUD should explain that the party providing third-party 
documentation when two parties claim VAWA protections in the same 
incident is not automatically deemed the victim, as perpetrators 
sometimes obtain a restraining order, protective order, or file a 
police report as forms of continued abuse, control, or retaliation. A 
commenter said many survivors are unable to timely access courts or law 
enforcement due to language barriers, disabilities, cultural norms, or 
safety concerns. Another commenter said that, rather than terminate the 
tenancy of the party who fails to provide third-party verification when 
conflicting evidence is received from both parties claiming VAWA 
protections, housing providers should use a grievance hearing or 
administrative review process to determine which party is the victim to 
be protected by VAWA.
    Another commenter said HUD should clarify protocol for addressing 
equally compelling and competing claims, including ones with court 
actions pending. The commenter said that, frequently, households with 
competing VAWA claims also have court actions pending simultaneously 
and those cases may continue for years without a final resolution, and 
statuses that are apparently final can later change or have to be 
reconsidered.
    Another commenter said situations in which cross-complainants 
submit conflicting third-party documentation, such as opposing orders 
of protection, create intractable situations for housing providers, 
which are not in a position to adjudicate family disputes or identify 
the primary aggressor. The commenter asked that HUD relieve PHAs of the 
obligation to afford VAWA protections to either complainant if 
documentation fails to identify a primary aggressor, or if third-party 
documents are themselves in conflict as to which complainant is the 
victim and which complainant is the perpetrator.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the points raised by the commenters 
and will consider them in drafting guidance to assist housing providers 
who receive conflicting evidence.
    Comment: Any form of third-party documentation should be acceptable 
in cases where there is conflicting evidence. Commenters said that, 
based upon the proposed list of acceptable alternative documentation, 
victims could encounter difficulty documenting evidence of a crime 
committed under VAWA in conflicting statement cases when, at the 
discretion of the covered housing provider, ``statements or other 
evidence'' are not accepted, and the victim is required to submit 
documentation from a professional or law enforcement. Commenters said 
that, in many cases, a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
stalking, or sexual assault does not report the incidents to law 
enforcement and may not utilize the assistance of a professional and, 
therefore, the only

[[Page 80763]]

form of third-party documentation available may be witness statements 
or other evidence which, under the proposed regulations, may not be 
acceptable forms of documentation if left to the discretion of the 
covered housing provider.
    HUD Response: The list of acceptable third-party documentation 
provided in this rule is the list provided in VAWA 2013. The statute 
provides that, if a covered housing provider receives documentation 
that contains conflicting information, the covered housing provider may 
require an applicant or tenant to submit third-party documentation in 
one of the forms described in the statute, which are the same forms HUD 
describes in this rule.
    Comment: Emphasize that survivors can choose which form of 
documentation to submit under the law, without further specifications. 
Commenters stated that the use of ``or'' in the section of VAWA 2013 
that lists forms of documentation means that neither HUD nor a covered 
housing provider can eliminate the acceptability of one of the three 
listed documentation forms. Another commenter said that because many 
victims are reluctant to report abuse for fear of retaliations or other 
repercussions, self-certifications that the tenants are victims of 
domestic violence based solely on their own-signed attestation on a 
HUD-approved certification form should be recognized as an available 
option. Another commenter stated that, in the preamble to HUD's final 
rule implementing VAWA 2005, HUD asserted that victims could choose 
whether to submit self-certification or third-party documentation, and 
this still applies.
    Commenters stated that PHAs and project owners are demanding Orders 
of Protection, Harassment orders, Trespass Orders, or police reports, 
contrary to HUD's directive to PHAs and project owners that third-party 
documentation cannot be required. Commenter said some PHAs and project 
owners require documentation that is ``current,'' such as a less than 
30-day old police report. Additionally, commenters said some PHAs and 
project owners are requiring multiple forms of proof. Commenter said 
the regulations must be clear on this section in order to reduce these 
unlawful and onerous documentation practices, as they were in 2005.
    Other commenters suggested adding to proposed Sec.  5.2007 language 
that provides that nothing should be construed to require a participant 
to provide documentation other than the self-certification form, except 
in the case of conflicting evidence.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates commenters pointing out that the rule 
could more clearly state that victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking can choose, at their discretion, 
which form of documentation to submit, including self-certifications, 
except in the case of conflicting evidence. HUD has clarified this is 
Sec.  5.2007, as well as in the housing rights notice, and the self-
certification form.
    Rule Change: Section 5.2007(b) of the proposed rule is revised in 
this final rule to state that applicants or tenants may submit, at 
their discretion, any one of the listed forms of documentation.
    Comment: Housing providers should not have to accept self-
certification. Commenters said housing providers should have discretion 
in determining the documentation requirements. A commenter said this is 
particularly the case with respect to the ability for housing providers 
to accept self-certification and the ability to determine when third-
party documentation will be required, such as in instances when a 
housing authority receives conflicting information. The commenter said 
these documentation requirements can be maintained in the housing 
authority's written policies in order to ensure consistent application 
of documentation requirements. Other commenters stated that housing 
providers should be able to create their own certification form that 
could be used instead of the HUD-approved form.
    A commenter said relying on self-certifications to qualify 
applicants leaves the housing provider vulnerable to penalties that may 
be imposed as a result HUD program audits, and the imposition of 
penalties causes disruptions and delays in the program, which adversely 
affect the program's ability to provide services to those that need 
them. The commenter recommended that the rule should state that 
responsible entities accept self-certification as a last resort. 
Another commenter said self-certification, even if supported by a 
police report, should not be mandated as sufficient proof, and that 
housing providers must be permitted to require third-party verification 
or other documentation signed by a professional from whom the victim 
has sought assistance directly relating to domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or the effects of abuse. Another 
commenter said that the statute does not establish a hierarchy of 
documentation, so the rule should not limit the circumstances under 
which a housing provider can seek third-party documentation. A 
commenter said that if a program is allowed to accept self-
certification then it is likely that parties will make an allegation, 
withdraw the allegation days later, and then make another allegation 
when the relationship is challenged again. The commenter said this will 
generate a considerable investment of time to identify alternate 
housing, determine eligibility, and bifurcate the lease--all to have 
the allegation withdrawn or proven false.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the commenters' concerns, but HUD 
interprets VAWA to require that housing providers accept self-
certification if that is the form that a tenant or applicant provides, 
except in cases involving conflicting evidence. In addition, as HUD 
noted in response to an earlier comment, this is not a new policy. In 
implementing VAWA 2005, HUD explained that victims could choose whether 
to submit self-certification or third-party documentation.
    The statute also requires that HUD, or other appropriate housing 
agency covered under the law, approve the certification form. In order 
to avoid inconsistent requirements, HUD declines to allow housing 
providers to use their own certification forms in lieu of HUD's form. 
Under VAWA 2013 and this final rule, however, housing providers may 
allow victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking to use a certification form that the housing provider has 
created, as long as it is clear that victims do not need to use that 
form and can use the HUD form instead (again, except for cases where 
there is conflicting evidence).
    Comment: Housing providers should not have discretion to evaluate 
truthfulness of allegations. A commenter stated that housing providers 
may not have the necessary expertise and experience to evaluate whether 
there is a credible threat of domestic violence or other crime under 
VAWA that may be mitigated by a move, and training housing providers to 
help them gain that experience could be costly. This commenter further 
stated that victims may be reluctant to disclose their victimization to 
owners or management agents for a variety of reasons, including shame, 
embarrassment, or fear of retribution, and it would be more appropriate 
for housing providers to refer the tenants to their caseworkers to 
evaluate the truthfulness of the victim's allegations.
    HUD Response: HUD understands and appreciates commenter's point 
that victims may be reluctant to disclose incidents of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking to

[[Page 80764]]

housing providers, but the rule maintains the documentation 
requirements that are provided in VAWA 2013. Housing providers must 
accept signed self-certification forms for documenting incidents of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, so 
they will not be evaluating the truthfulness of allegations. Similarly, 
as described in the section on emergency transfers, housing providers 
must accept a signed written statement from VAWA victims that they 
qualify for emergency transfers, so housing providers will not be 
evaluating whether a threat of domestic violence may be mitigated by a 
move.
    Comment: Housing providers should not have to request certification 
in writing. A commenter said it is overly burdensome to require the 
housing provider to have to put in writing a request to the victim to 
provide certification following a request from the victim for 
assistance under VAWA. The commenter said to make this a requirement of 
housing providers may result in unintended consequences if the provider 
fails to document but continues to assist the victim.
    HUD Response: HUD's rule follows VAWA 2013 in stating that housing 
providers may request documentation in writing and lay out procedures 
for how a housing provider may respond if it does not receive a timely 
response to the request.
    Comment: Explain how housing providers can verify VAWA claims in 
light of confidentiality concerns. Commenters questioned how, 
considering confidentiality concerns, a housing provider could verify a 
claim that an individual owes money to a former housing provider (for 
damages to a unit, for example) for VAWA-related reasons, and not for 
another reason. A commenter asked what would happen if the applicant 
and previous management company have different stories as to whether 
the money was owed for a VAWA-related reason or another reason.
    HUD Response: As previously stated in this preamble, HUD will 
provide guidance to covered housing providers as to how to determine 
whether domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking 
was the reason behind adverse factors that could jeopardize tenancy or 
participation in a HUD program.
5. Content of the Certification Form and the Notice of Occupancy Rights
a. Certification Form
    Comment: The certification form should be readable and define 
necessary terms. Commenters said that HUD's increased use of plain 
language and precise regulatory language throughout the proposed 
certification form significantly improves readability and comprehension 
of the rights conveyed, as compared to the previous forms. Commenters 
said these improvements should be incorporated into the final version 
of the certification form.
    In contrast, another commenter said that the certification form is 
not designed to be comprehensible to applicants and participants, and 
Microsoft Office 365 Word reports a poor Flesch Readability Ease 
measure. The commenter also said that the form uses the term 
``responsible entity'' without ever indicating who or what that entity 
is.
    HUD Response: HUD has revised the certification form to make it 
easier to understand. In addition, the revised certification form does 
not use the term ``responsible entity.''
    Comment: The certification form should be changed in certain ways. 
Commenters commended HUD for abbreviating the space for descriptive 
text and discouraging disclosure of unnecessary details, but suggested 
the form should be changed in other ways. The commenters said the 
introductory paragraph regarding ``Alternate Documentation'' should be 
modified to explain that the victim or someone acting on behalf of the 
victim has the option of submitting alternative documentation instead 
of the certification form and, only in cases where the responsible 
entity receives conflicting statements, may the responsible entity 
require third-party documentation. Commenters said the form should also 
indicate that a responsible entity's request for third-party 
documentation must be made in writing. Additionally, commenters said 
the list of available alternate documentation should mirror the 
proposed regulatory language at Sec.  5.2007(b)(1). Other commenters 
said that the form should direct responsible entities to accept self-
certification as a last resort, or the form should include information 
on whether an individual has third-party documentation and a space to 
provide information on any barriers that exist to obtaining third-party 
documentation.
    Another commenter said that the language used on the form to 
indicate the time period to submit documentation should mirror the 
proposed regulatory language. According to the commenter, the form says 
the deadline to submit documentation to a responsible entity is 14 days 
from the date that the entity submits a written request, rather than 
the proposed regulatory deadline of 14 days from the date that the 
tenant/applicant receives a written request. The commenter stated that 
the proposed certification form currently requests both the date and 
time of the incident(s), and said the request for the time is overly 
burdensome, as the victim may not recall it, or may be seeking 
certification based on a series of incidents. Similarly, other 
commenters said victims may not be able to recall dates, particularly 
if multiple events are involved. The commenters recommended that the 
form be revised to request date(s) and time and location of incident(s) 
``if known.'' Similarly, a commenter recommended the certification line 
read that it is to certify that the information provided on this form 
is true and correct ``to the best of my knowledge and recollection.''
    In addition, commenters said the confidentiality clause at the end 
of the certification form should be amended to say that employees may 
not disclose, reveal, or release information, except to the extent that 
disclosure is consented to by the victim in a time-limited written 
release. The commenters said that the proposed form's inclusion of the 
``Public Reporting Burden'' paragraph should be removed, but if this 
paragraph has to be on the form, it should be moved to the end of the 
form and the confidentiality paragraph should be moved higher on the 
form.
    Another commenter said that the signature block should include the 
warning that the signatory is making such statements under penalty of 
perjury.
    A commenter said that the certification should specially call out 
that the resident or participant is to take steps to ensure that the 
perpetrator does not learn of the new unit location, and if the victim 
allows the perpetrator back into the new unit then the victim may be 
denied a future emergency transfer if requested again.
    In the interest of lessening the administrative burden on housing 
providers, a commenter suggested HUD allow the responsible entity to 
make an oral, rather than written, request for documentation. The 
commenter said this is especially important in emergency situations 
where there may not be a contact address for the victim, and when the 
alleged perpetrator may be put on notice of the victim's request for 
assistance should a written request be sent to the household.
    HUD Response: HUD's revised certification form clarifies that 
victims may complete the certification form, or may submit third-party 
documentation,

[[Page 80765]]

for reasons described elsewhere in this preamble. In addition, the 
Notice of Occupancy Rights, which all tenants and applicants will 
receive at the same time they receive the certification form, explains 
that it is the tenant or applicant's choice, which form of 
documentation to submit, except for cases where there is conflicting 
evidence. HUD declines to amend the certification form to discuss that 
a request for third-party documentation must be in writing, since the 
provider may only ask for third party documentation in cases of 
conflicting evidence, and then the certification form would not be 
applicable at that point.
    HUD appreciates commenters pointing out that the list of available 
alternate documentation in the proposed certification form differed 
from the types of alternate documentation described in VAWA 2013 and 
the proposed rule. As a result, HUD has amended this language on the 
certification form so that it properly reflects the statutory and 
regulatory text. HUD has also revised the form to clarify that the 
deadline to submit documentation to a responsible entity is 14 business 
days from the date that the tenant or applicant receives a written 
request. Further, HUD has revised the certification form to incorporate 
commenters' suggestion that victims should specify the date(s) and 
time(s) of incidents if known. In addition, the certification signature 
block is revised to say that the information provided is true and 
correct to the best of the knowledge and recollection of the person who 
fills out the form. HUD has also accepted commenters' suggestion of 
moving the confidentiality paragraph higher on the form and moving down 
the paragraph in the public reporting burden, in order to emphasize the 
confidentiality provisions.
    HUD declines to amend the certification form to say that employees 
may not reveal or release information, as HUD uses the term 
``disclose'' to encompass revealing, or releasing. Because it is 
standard for waivers of confidentiality provisions to be time-limited, 
HUD accepts the proposal to add that victims must consent to disclosure 
in a time-limited written release. HUD also makes this change in 24 CFR 
5.2007(c)(2)(i). However, HUD declines to alter the signature block to 
say that the signatory is making statements under penalty of perjury. 
The signature block states that submission of false information could 
jeopardize program eligibility and could be the basis for denial of 
admission, termination of assistance, or eviction, as terminating or 
denying assistance are actions within HUD's jurisdiction.
    HUD also will not revise the certification form to say that the 
resident or participant is to take steps to ensure that the perpetrator 
does not learn of the new unit location. This purpose of this 
certification form is to document incidents of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and is not documentation 
for emergency transfers. The model emergency transfer plan explains 
that the resident is urged to take all reasonable precautions to be 
safe.
    HUD understands commenter's rationale for the request to allow 
housing providers to make oral, rather than written, requests for 
documentation. However, the provision requiring a written request is in 
VAWA 2013, and such requirement provides a record for tenants and 
applicants and housing providers as to compliance with the 
documentation provisions of this rule. HUD notes that, where possible, 
housing providers should give written documentation requests to victims 
in person.
b. Notice of Occupancy Rights
    Comment: The notice of occupancy rights should be more readable and 
accessible. Commenters said that the notice of occupancy rights in the 
proposed rule is inaccessible to many and should be shortened or 
simplified. A commenter said that Web sites that measure text 
readability determined that the notice required the reader to have 
advanced education. Commenters said the notice must use simple, direct 
language. Another commenter said the use of statutory language and 
terms is appropriate and necessary in some contexts, but inclusion of 
the statutory provisions can decrease the reader's ability to 
understand and use the information. The commenter recommended including 
definitions for particularly complex terms used in the notice.
    Other commenters suggested that the notice use plain-language. A 
commenter explained that someone may not relate to the words ``victim'' 
or ``perpetrator,'' but they may relate to this language: ``if someone 
has harmed another person in the home, there are options available.'' 
Commenters stated that a number of sentences in the notice are lengthy, 
with complicated sentence structures, and they include more detail than 
necessary. Commenters provided examples of sentences in the notice that 
could be simplified, including changing: ``Also attached is a HUD-
approved certification form for documenting an incident of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking for a tenant who 
seeks the protections of VAWA as provided in this notice of occupancy 
rights and in HUD's regulations'' to ``A form is attached to this 
notice. You can fill out this form to show that you are a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and 
that you wish to use your rights under VAWA.'' A commenter said simpler 
wording would also facilitate translation into other languages.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates commenters' suggestions and has 
revised the notice of occupancy rights to make it more easily readable. 
However, as discussed below, the notice does use the terms ``abuser'' 
and ``perpetrator.'' HUD believes language that ``somebody may have 
harmed another'' is too vague and that the terms ``abuser'' and 
``perpetrator'' are easily understandable.
    Comment: The notice should use different language for accuracy and 
effect. Commenters said that the term ``abuser'' is used throughout the 
Notice of Occupancy Rights, but that HUD's notice needs to also include 
the term ``perpetrator,'' in order to reference perpetrators of sexual 
assault or stalking. A commenter further said the notice should not use 
language that excludes victims who are not fleeing or escaping abuse, 
such as victims of sexual assault, and should thus use words such as 
``looking for help,'' ``healing'' or ``recovering'' in referencing 
their current circumstances.
    Commenters also said the text of the notice itself, and not a 
footnote, should make it clear that despite the name of the law, VAWA 
protection is available regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual 
orientation, disability, or age. A commenter further stated that 
sections of the notice use the phrase ``may not,'' such as ``you may 
not be denied admission or denied assistance,'' and that changing the 
language to ``must not'' sends a stronger message about the degree to 
which VAWA prohibits such discrimination.
    A commenter recommended that the section of the notice on removing 
the abuser from the household, the notice should say ``HP can (rather 
than ``may'') choose to divide your lease. . .'' to more clearly convey 
that the housing provider has the discretion to bifurcate a lease. The 
commenter said that the notice does not mention that the remaining 
tenant can try to establish eligibility for another housing program 
covered by VAWA, and tenants may not be aware of this option. The 
commenter further said the notice should be clarified to say the 
housing provider

[[Page 80766]]

may, but is not required to, ask for documentation. Another commenter 
stated that it did not know whether ``divide'' means to ``bifurcate'' 
and requested that HUD clarify. The commenter said that if ``divide'' 
does mean ``bifurcate,'' the notice should make clear to tenants that 
an owner, and not a PHA, can divide the lease. A commenter said that, 
in the section on documenting that one has been a victim, the notice 
should clarify when a housing provider is exercising discretion, and 
ensure that tenants and applicants understand that the housing provider 
is not required to, but is merely allowed to, extend the 14-day time 
period to submit documentation.
    Commenters said the notice also needs to make clear that the tenant 
or applicant asserting VAWA protections can choose which form of 
acceptable documentation to provide, except in circumstances where 
there is conflicting evidence. The commenter further said that in 
discussing the types of documentation that could be provided as a 
record of Federal, State, tribal, territorial, or local law enforcement 
agency, providing one or two examples (e.g., restraining order, 
protective order, etc.) would be helpful.
    A commenter stated that, in the section of the notice of reasons a 
tenant may be evicted, it should be clear that victims can be evicted 
or terminated if the housing provider demonstrates that the victim's 
continued tenancy poses an ``actual and imminent threat'' to other 
tenants or employees, and should explain what this means. The commenter 
suggested this section also note that eviction or termination should be 
pursued only when there are no other actions that could be taken to 
reduce or eliminate the threat.
    Commenters said the notice is addressed to ``all tenants and 
prospective tenants,'' and this appears to cover even eligible 
households that have not applied for assistance. Commenters said HUD 
should only require providers to notify existing participants and 
applicants. A commenter said the notice grossly oversimplifies the 
process required to remove a member from the household. The commenter 
said the provider and other household members must cooperate to remove 
a member who has some property rights to the housing or assistance, and 
it is not the provider alone who can divide the lease or remove the 
abuser from the household.
    Other commenters said the form contains extraneous information. A 
commenter stated that the first bullet describing documentation 
includes a description of the information contained in the 
certification, but if participants and applicants receive the 
certification form, the notice need not describe its contents. The 
commenter further stated that after listing professionals who may 
provide documentation, the notice contains a parenthetical that says, 
``(collectively, ``professional''),'' and this extra language adds 
nothing.
    A commenter said the transfer right must be described in the 
proposed notice in more detail for a tenant to sufficiently be able to 
act on that right and to understand that this is an emergency transfer 
and not a traditional, slow transfer process, and the notice should 
explain any necessary documentation requirements. A commenter said the 
language should not use the term ``another unit'' because it gives the 
impression that the move is only to a unit within the existing covered 
housing project. The commenter said the language should state that ``if 
you reasonably believe there is a threat of imminent harm from violence 
if you stay in the same unit or development where you live now, or if 
you are a victim of sexual assault that recently happened at your 
development, you have the right to ask for an emergency transfer to a 
different unit, including a unit in a different development, different 
type of affordable housing, and in a different location.'' The 
commenter said the notice should also emphasize that requests for 
transfers and the location of the move will be kept confidential.
    Another commenter said the notice should include language that 
informs an applicant of the possibility of overcoming a negative 
rental, tenant, or criminal history if that history relates to their 
victimization. The commenter said this will allow a survivor to obtain 
and provide appropriate information to the covered housing program at 
the outset of the application process.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these comments and has revised the 
Notice of Occupancy Rights to more accurately reflect the scope of VAWA 
protections. The revised notice states in the text, and not only in a 
footnote that the VAWA protections are not only available to women, but 
are available equally to all individuals. Further, the notice uses the 
term ``perpetrator'' in addition to ``abuser'' in order to reference 
perpetrators of sexual assault and stalking. The proposed notice did 
not use the term ``fleeing'' and only referred to ``escaping'' an 
abusive relationship when providing victims of domestic violence with a 
resource, but the revised notice no longer discusses ``escaping'' an 
abusive relationship. The revised notice now notes that after a lease 
bifurcation, remaining tenants can try to establish eligibility for 
another housing program covered by VAWA.
    HUD has also revised the notice as suggested by commenters to 
improve clarity. The notice now explicitly states that dividing a lease 
means the same thing as bifurcating a lease, but the notice does not 
specify which housing provider would bifurcate a lease, as this differs 
across programs. Housing providers that issue the notice of rights 
should clarify who is responsible for lease bifurcation. The revised 
notice also clarifies that a housing provider can, but is not required 
to, ask for documentation, and may but is not required to, extend the 
deadline to submit documentation. The revised notice also states that 
except for cases where there is conflicting evidence, it is the choice 
of the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking which form of documentation to submit. The notice also now 
states that examples of reports from law enforcement agencies and 
courts include police reports, protective orders, and restraining 
orders, among others.
    In response to the comment that the notice should explain when a 
tenant could be evicted or assistance could be terminated, the revised 
notice states that the VAWA protections may not apply if the housing 
provider can demonstrate that not evicting a tenant or terminating the 
tenant's assistance would present a real physical danger that would 
occur within an immediate time frame, and could result in death or 
serious bodily harm to other tenants or those who work on the property. 
The notice explains that housing providers should only evict tenants or 
terminate assistance when they cannot take other actions to reduce or 
eliminate the threat. Further, the revised notice is addressed to 
tenants and applicants, rather than tenants and prospective tenants. 
The revised notice also explains the criteria for requesting an 
emergency transfer, but it does not provide further information on 
emergency transfers, which vary across housing programs and providers, 
and instead notifies tenants that their housing provider has an 
emergency transfer plan that contains more information, and tenants 
have a right to see the plan.
    There are some changes suggested by commenters that HUD did not 
make to the revised notice. HUD has not replaced the phrase ``may not'' 
throughout the notice to ``must not.'' HUD maintains that ``may not'' 
sufficiently denotes that an action is prohibited. HUD also declines to 
replace the word ``may'' in the sentence that

[[Page 80767]]

says a housing provider ``may'' bifurcate a lease with the word 
``can,'' because HUD believes ``may'' better signifies that the housing 
provider has discretion whether to bifurcate a lease. The notice does 
not provide additional language regarding the mechanics of the 
bifurcation process, and the role of other household members. The 
notice says that the housing provider must follow Federal, State, and 
local eviction procedures, and that the housing provider may ask for 
documentation of the VAWA-covered incident(s). HUD declines to place 
additional responsibilities for removal of a perpetrator on a victim 
who has asked for that removal, as, due to household violence, the 
victim may be unable to provide it. Additionally, this notice includes 
the description of the certification form that will be attached, so 
that tenants and applicants know that they have a right to use that 
specific form. The form also retains the parenthetical that explains 
the use of the word ``professional'' later in the paragraph. Further, 
HUD declines to provide detail in this notice of basic protections 
about different ways in which somebody could be denied assistance, 
terminated from participation in, or be evicted from rental housing 
because somebody has been a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    Comment: The notice should provide more resources and information. 
Commenters said the notice should also include the Rape, Abuse and 
Incest National Network (RAINN) hotline for victims of sexual assault 
to supplement the hotline number already provided for victims of 
domestic violence. A commenter also suggested the notice include a 
blank space where the housing provider can insert contact information 
for local legal services and victim services providers. Another 
commenter recommended that HUD revise the notice to indicate to tenants 
that the notice is not an exhaustive list of tenant protections, and 
they are entitled to many additional protections at the state, local, 
and administrative level, and that they should consult their local PHA 
for information on rights afforded in their respective jurisdiction.
    A commenter suggested that the notice encourage tenants or 
applicants who think they may qualify for VAWA protections to seek the 
assistance of a legal services attorney or victim services provider.
    HUD Response: HUD's Notice of Occupancy Rights has been revised to 
include spaces for housing providers to fill in contact information for 
relevant organizations, including victim service providers or legal aid 
attorneys, that may be able to assist victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. HUD encourages housing 
providers to include contact information on the notice for local 
organizations, as these organizations may be in the best position to 
understand the victim's situation and available options. In addition, 
or where housing providers do not know of local organizations or none 
are available, housing providers should include national resources, 
such as: The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which was listed on 
the proposed notice and is still listed on this final notice; the Rape, 
Abuse & Incest National Network's National Sexual Assault Hotline at 
800-656-HOPE, or at https://ohl.rainn.org/online/ for victims of sexual 
assault; and the National Center for Victims of Crime's Stalking 
Resource Center at https://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center, for victims of stalking.
    The revised notice now explicitly states that tenants and 
applicants may be entitled to additional housing protections for 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking under other Federal laws, as well as under State and local 
laws.
    Comment: The notice should be more specific on rights and 
responsibilities. Commenters said that rather than state that tenants 
may stay ``in the unit for a period of time'' until they can find 
alternate housing or establish eligibility under the HUD program, the 
notice of occupancy rights should be specific as to what this time is 
to ensure the victimized tenant is not left without secure housing. A 
commenter also stated that the notice should be clear about when a 
housing provider can request proof that an individual is requesting to 
move because of a VAWA-related incident. The commenter said that the 
notice states a housing provider ``may'' ask for proof. Another 
commenter said that HUD's discussion of confidentiality in the notice 
is overly simplified. The commenter said the notice states that 
information may be released if, ``A law requires HP or your landlord to 
release the information.'' The commenter said this phrase includes a 
broad array of possible disclosures not necessarily obvious to an 
ordinary reader, for instance, in connection with reviews by HUD staff, 
audits by HUD's Inspector General, and to an independent public 
auditor, among other possibilities. Commenter said it may be 
unreasonable for HUD to develop a comprehensive list of how information 
may be disclosed in this notice, but the notice currently understates 
the potential for such disclosures.
    HUD Response: HUD's Notice of Occupancy Rights describes basic VAWA 
protections that apply across all programs, which is why the notice 
states that tenants may stay in units for a period of time if a housing 
provider chooses to bifurcate a lease. The revised notice explains that 
housing providers may ask for documentation that an individual 
qualifies for an emergency transfer. The notice provides the criteria 
for qualifying for an emergency transfer, and it directs tenants to the 
housing provider's emergency transfer plan for further information. HUD 
believes that providing notice that confidential information may be 
released if a law requires it is sufficiently broad to alert tenants 
and applicants of that possibility.
    Comment: HUD should create different notices for different housing 
programs to account for necessary variations. Commenters said HUD, and 
not a housing provider, is in the best position to create a series of 
different notices that outline how VAWA rights will apply in different 
housing programs. Other commenters said that permitting housing 
providers to customize the notice is very concerning because there is 
no mechanism for quality control and no way to ensure that the notices 
being distributed accurately reflect the VAWA protections, resulting in 
confusion and inconsistency. A commenter said that HUD should create 
different notices to prevent additional burdens on covered housing 
providers that would otherwise be expected to determine how VAWA 2013 
protections play out in their programs. Commenters said that, to the 
extent that HUD wishes for there to be a local point of contact for 
tenants and applicants, HUD should include blanks that would allow the 
housing provider to add contact information, but housing providers 
should not be ``filling in the blanks'' regarding programmatic 
operations. Another commenter specifically recommended that HUD create 
two separate notices, one targeting tenant-based recipients and another 
that targets households with a subsidy that is tied to the unit. 
Commenter said the current notice refers to ``rental assistance,'' 
which may be confusing to tenants subsidized by covered housing 
programs other than HCVs.
    HUD Response: HUD's Notice of Occupancy Rights contains basic 
information that apply across all

[[Page 80768]]

programs, and the only information housing providers provide is the 
name of the housing provider, the relevant HUD program, and contact 
information for local organizations that may be able to assist victims 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 
Therefore, HUD will not create notices for different housing programs. 
HUD has revised the notice to clarify that it applies to assistance 
under HUD-covered housing programs.
    Comment: The notice of occupancy rights is so important that it 
should be reissued for public comment with any changes after the 
issuance of the final rule. Commenters stated that creation of the 
Notice of Occupancy Rights is a crucial step in the VAWA 2013 
implementation process, particularly since the U.S. Department of 
Treasury and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will also utilize this 
notice in their housing programs. Commenters said that since the 
regulation has not yet been finalized, and changes will likely arise 
out of the notice and comment period, HUD should reissue the Notice for 
public comment after the issuance of the Final Rule.
    HUD Response: The changes that HUD has made to the Notice of 
Occupancy Rights respond to concerns by commenters that the language in 
the rule should be simplified and better explain protections provided 
under VAWA 2013 and HUD's implementing regulations. HUD appreciates the 
comments and suggestions on changes to improve the Notice of Occupancy 
Rights, and has incorporated many of the changes. As a result, and 
because HUD maintains that there should be no further delay in 
providing tenants and applicants with the Notice of Occupancy Rights, 
HUD declines to seek further comment on the notice.
6. Provision of the Notice of Occupancy Rights and Certification Form
    Comment: Include notice of VAWA protections in leases and other 
existing materials. A commenter stated that the legal rights of tenants 
can be ensured by attaching a copy of the statute to the tenant lease. 
Another commenter asked that any additions to leases about VAWA rights 
be written in simple, direct language and avoid legal jargon. Other 
commenters recommended that HUD incorporate the notification language 
into existing materials, such as the Tenants' Rights and 
Responsibilities brochure.
    Other commenters said that while VAWA 2013 requires HUD to develop 
a notice of rights, the form of the notice is not prescribed in the 
statute. Commenters suggested that a separate notice is not required, 
and the commenters referenced a 2012 Senate Committee report saying 
that the Committee intended that notification be incorporated into 
existing standard notification documents that are provided to tenants. 
Commenters said that such incorporation would reduce administrative 
burden. A commenter said owners could be required to include language 
about VAWA protections in any notice of rejection or termination. The 
commenter said that since such notices must provide residents and 
applicants an opportunity to appeal eviction or termination, these 
notices would be an appropriate place to explain that being a victim of 
an act covered under VAWA would be grounds for reconsideration. 
According to the commenter, incorporation of VAWA protections into 
existing notification documents would dispense with the need for a 
separate document on VAWA protections.
    Another commenter stated that the notification process conflicts 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act by requiring more paper, and adding an 
individual document, rather than incorporating the notice into other 
documents, increases the chances that a tenant will not see the 
notification because a housing provider may forget to provide it, or 
because the tenant will not read it. Commenter further stated that 
housing providers should not be required to provide the entire VAWA 
policy in tenant selection plans or in House Rules.
    HUD Response: Regardless of the legislative history of VAWA 2013, 
the statute itself as enacted requires HUD to develop a notice of 
rights under VAWA and requires covered housing providers to submit that 
notice to a tenant or applicant at three specific times: (1) When an 
individual is denied residency under an assisted program; (2) when an 
individual is admitted to a dwelling unit assisted under the covered 
housing program; and (3) with any notification of eviction or 
termination of assistance. HUD believes that it is important to provide 
a separate notice of occupancy rights under VAWA to ensure applicants 
and residents are aware of these rights. Therefore, HUD requires that 
housing providers give a separate notice of housing rights to tenants 
at the times specified in this rule.
    HUD maintains the provisions in the proposed rule that require 
descriptions of VAWA protections in leases, lease addendum or 
contracts, as specified in the regulations for the HOME, HOPWA, ESG, 
and CoC programs. For public housing and section 8 programs covered by 
VAWA 2005, this rule does not eliminate any existing notification 
requirements. Prior to this rule becoming effective, 24 CFR 
5.2005(a)(4) provided that a HUD-required lease, lease addendum, or 
tenancy addendum, as applicable, must include a description of specific 
protections afforded to the victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, or stalking, as provided in this subpart. This final rule 
clarifies that this remains a requirement, and adds that a description 
of protections afforded to victims of sexual assault is also required.
    Rule Change: This final rule maintains existing 24 CFR 5.2005(a)(4) 
for programs covered by VAWA prior to the 2013 reauthorization, and 
adds sexual assault to the list of the types of victims covered by 
VAWA.
    Comment: HUD should not mandate including attachments with the 
notice of housing rights or certification form. Commenters said HUD 
should not require that the VAWA regulations be included with the 
notice of housing rights. Commenters said it is unlikely that many 
tenants or prospective tenants have the time or background knowledge to 
understand the full scope of their rights by reading the VAWA 
regulations and doing so may confuse or overwhelm them or cause them to 
ignore the entire document. Commenters suggested that, instead of 
providing a copy of the regulations, the notice should make the 
regulations available to tenants and applicants. Some commenters 
suggested providing a link to the regulations, perhaps in a footnote 
that would include the Federal Register citation for the final rule.
    Some commenters said that requiring providers to send copies of 
regulations is an overly burdensome requirement that would impose 
considerable cost on providers for printing and mailing without adding 
anything to most recipients' understanding of their protections under 
VAWA. A commenter stated that tenants and applicants could potentially 
receive copies of the rule multiple times (as an applicant, if denied 
assistance, or if notified of termination or eviction), and there is no 
need to receive multiple copies of the regulations. Another commenter 
said including attachments of the regulations and a listing of local 
organizations offering assistance to victims of domestic violence is 
unnecessary and can lead to greater confusion for victims during a 
stressful time.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that housing providers should not have to 
include a copy of the VAWA regulations every time they give a tenant or 
applicant the notice of housing rights and certification form, but the

[[Page 80769]]

regulations should be made available to tenants and applicants who 
request to see the regulations. Therefore, HUD revised the Notice of 
Occupancy Rights to provide a link to HUD's VAWA regulations. Because 
not every tenant or applicant will be able to access these regulations 
on-line, the revised Notice of Occupancy Rights states that housing 
providers must make a copy of the regulations available to tenants and 
applicants who ask to see them. HUD also revised its model emergency 
transfer plan to remove the reference to an attachment of the 
regulations. The final model emergency transfer plan, however, 
maintains the reference to the attachment that lists local 
organizations offering assistance to victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and HUD encourages 
housing providers to make this list available to tenant and applicants 
who ask for the list.
    Comment: The timing for submission of notification of occupancy 
rights should be changed. Commenters asked if, rather that distributing 
the notice of occupancy rights on three occasions, the notice could be 
provided to all applicants at the time they submit their original 
application. Other commenters said the notification process in the 
proposed regulations is burdensome and unnecessary because the vast 
majority of terminations and evictions are for reasons unrelated to 
VAWA. A commenter suggested that the notice be provided at the 
following times: When an application is rejected; at the time of entry 
into a covered program; and upon tenant request. Another commenter said 
that adding this notice and its attachments to each eviction notice 
adds an unwarranted due process procedure to an already overly burdened 
due process. The commenter sated that failure to serve such notice 
should not be grounds to appeal termination or eviction. Another 
commenter said providing the notice when an individual is provided 
assistance or admission is overkill because they will not be exercising 
VAWA rights at that time.
    Other commenters said that submitting these notices to all denied 
applicants could be administratively prohibitive. A commenter stated 
that for its HOME projects, it currently administers an online housing 
lottery that frequently results in tens of thousands of applications, 
many of which are pre-determined to be ineligible based on measures 
like income. Commenter said that such applicants do not receive 
rejection letters and it would be unreasonable, impracticable, 
administratively burdensome, and confusing to applicants, for commenter 
to send these families a VAWA notice. The commenter stated that it 
would more reasonable to provide the VAWA notice to those applicants 
who have been selected by the lottery and were subsequently interviewed 
but found to be ineligible. The commenter asked that the final rule 
provide such clarification for the benefit of agencies that are 
responsible for marketing units of covered programs.
    HUD Response: The VAWA statute itself requires the notice of 
occupancy rights and specifies when this notice must be submitted to 
tenants and applicants, and HUD has no authority to changes these 
statutory requirements. However, for purposes of the HOME program, the 
final rule clarifies that notice is not required upon any denial of 
HOME rental housing but rather any denial based on the owner's tenant 
selection policies and criteria.
    Comment: Notification and certification forms should be given to 
existing tenants. Commenters stated that to reduce costs and time 
burdens to housing providers, VAWA forms should not have to be 
distributed to existing tenants outside of routine contacts in the year 
following the effective date of HUD's final rule, and some suggested 
that the information could be given to tenants during the annual 
recertification process. Commenters said that generally every existing 
tenant undergoes recertification during any 12-month period, and while 
this means some tenants would not be notified for nearly one year after 
the effective date of the final rule, the VAWA protections are only 
relevant for existing tenants in response to a notice of termination or 
eviction, which would trigger the legal requirement to provide the VAWA 
notice and form anyway. Commenters said that HUD could post VAWA rights 
on its Web site for interested parties to access at any time.
    A commenter said that covered housing providers may not know which 
tenants are due a notice, or the provider may not know which program 
applies, so the notice should not be given to existing tenants until 
either recertification or lease renewal. Another commenter said that to 
lessen the rule's administrative and financial burden, housing 
providers should be permitted to provide the notice at lease renewal.
    Other commenters recommended that HUD give housing providers 
flexibility regarding how to distribute the notices to existing 
tenants, in accordance with existing procedures. Other commenters 
emphasized that notice be given to all current tenants, regardless of 
whether their programs were previously covered by VAWA, because under 
VAWA 2005 there was no uniform notice received by all tenants and VAWA 
2013 includes new housing protections. Another commenter suggested that 
a general mailing to all of the tenants may be the only way to reach 
everyone in a timely manner.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with some of the recommendations made by 
the commenters and under the final rule, housing providers must give 
all tenants the notice of occupancy rights and the certification form 
at annual recertification or lease renewal, or if there is no annual 
recertification or lease renewal, then at some other time, during the 
12-month period following the effective date of this rule.
    Rule Change: This final rule includes new Sec.  5.2005(a)(2)(iv) 
that states that during the 12-month period following the effective 
date of this rule, housing providers must give tenants the notice of 
occupancy rights and the certification form either during the annual 
recertification or lease renewal process, or, if there will be no 
recertification or lease renewal for a tenant during the first year 
after the rule takes effect, through other means.
    Comment: Notification should be provided annually at 
recertification, and at additional times. Commenters said the final 
rule should instruct housing providers to distribute the notice at 
additional times, including upon family break-up and as part of a 
tenant's recertification or reexamination process. Commenters said that 
HUD should provide in the final rule that covered housing providers 
have discretion to provide the notice to tenants in other contexts, 
such as when a tenant raises safety concerns with the housing provider, 
but does not explicitly reference a VAWA crime. The commenters stated 
that submission in this context would provide housing providers and 
tenants with additional time to explore housing options--such as 
locating a victim services provider or legal services attorney, lease 
bifurcation, or emergency transfers, before an eviction or termination 
notice for a violation has been issued.
    Commenters also recommended that, at minimum, tenants should 
receive notice on an annual basis as a matter of course going forward 
to ensure distribution is not simply limited to times where the 
existing tenants are facing eviction or termination. A commenter 
suggested that HUD require housing providers to host routine 
information sessions, about tenants' and covered program participants' 
rights pursuant to VAWA and should require housing providers to review 
VAWA

[[Page 80770]]

rights at all annual program recertifications.
    Another commenter stated that short notices indicating that more 
information is available in housing providers' offices would aid 
disseminating information about VAWA protections, as would posting 
these notices in common area locations. Commenter also stated that it 
should be clear that staff of the housing provider is available to 
review this material with tenants and to answer questions. The 
commenter further suggested using all available media to alert tenants 
of VAWA protections, and to do so in easy to understand language.
    HUD Response: As discussed above, under this final rule, housing 
providers must give tenants the notice of occupancy rights and the 
certification form during either the recertification or lease renewal 
processes for the 12-month period following the effective date of this 
rule, or if there will be no recertification or lease renewal process 
during that 12-month period, through other means, in addition to 
providing the notice and form at the times specified in VAWA 2013, 
which times are included in HUD's VAWA regulations. HUD believes these 
required distribution times are sufficient to inform all tenants in a 
HUD-covered housing program of their rights under VAWA, and therefore 
the final rule does not require housing providers to give tenants the 
notice of occupancy rights and the certification form on other 
occasions. Housing providers are free and encouraged to provide the 
notice and form to tenants at any additional times determined to be 
helpful in informing tenants of their rights under VAWA. HUD also 
encourages housing providers to post the notice of occupancy rights 
under VAWA in public areas such as waiting rooms, community bulletin 
boards, and lobbies, where all tenants may view them. HUD further 
encourages, but does not require, housing providers with Web sites to 
post the certification form and notice of occupancy rights under VAWA 
online. HUD also encourages housing providers to work with tenants, and 
applicants, who need help understanding their rights under VAWA, either 
directly, or by providing information about local organizations that 
could help. In addition, housing providers should be able to answer any 
questions about emergency transfer plans that they have developed.
    Comment: Notification and certification forms do not need to be 
submitted at recertification or to existing tenants. A commenter stated 
that Section 8 property managers are already required to include VAWA 
policies in tenant selection plans and house rules, and such a 
requirement could be added for other covered programs. The commenter 
stated that existing tenants are already aware of VAWA protections, so 
there should be no requirement to provide new information other than 
modifying house rules to incorporate new VAWA protections. Another 
commenter said HUD should refrain from imposing additional financial 
obligations onto HUD-covered housing programs beyond what is stipulated 
in the VAWA statute.
    HUD Response: This final rule does not require housing providers to 
give tenants the notice of occupancy rights and certification form on 
an annual basis, but only to give tenants the notice and form during 
the 12-month period following the effective date of this rule, either 
during recertifications or lease renewals, or if there will be no 
recertification or lease renewal process during that 12-month period, 
through other means. This requirement will help to ensure all tenants 
receive notice of their rights under VAWA 2013.
    Comment: HUD should translate the notice of occupancy rights and 
the certification form. Commenters asked who would have responsibility 
for translating VAWA-related documents. Many commenters requested that 
HUD, rather than the housing providers, translate the notice of 
occupancy rights and the certification form. A commenter said that 
forms should be translated based on project occupancy. Other commenters 
said that with 208,000 covered providers, it would be a huge 
administrative burden and cost, and potentially create confusion and 
inconsistency if each provider were to create its own translation of 
these forms. A commenter said providing translated versions of the 
documents will help housing providers save limited resources, and 
perhaps apply these resources toward other language access needs. 
Commenters requested translation into languages including Arabic, 
Bengali, Bhutanese, Chinese, Egyptian Arabic, French, French Creole, 
Italian, Korean, Polish, Nepalese, Russian, Spanish and Vietnamese.
    Commenters said it would be very helpful if HUD translated the 
documents and posted them on HUD's Web site. Commenters said that HUD's 
translation of the notice and forms would be an important step towards 
ensuring that victims with limited English proficiency (LEP victims) 
would be aware of their rights under VAWA 2013. Commenters said they 
believe that HUD is in a much better position than individual housing 
providers to provide translations expediently, particularly for 
languages with smaller constituencies. Commenters said that, in some 
areas, housing providers would not otherwise be directed by the LEP 
Guidance to provide translated copies of the notice, but would instead 
be directed by the LEP Guidance to orally interpret the notice's 
contents. Commenters said that HUD has previously provided translations 
of forms, including the self-certification forms issued under VAWA 2005 
(in 13 languages), and translated versions of the VAWA 2005 lease 
addendum, as well as non-VAWA-related documents.
    The commenters said that centralizing translation responsibility at 
HUD imposes consistency and uniformity in translation, and allows for 
quality control, and would create a central place whereby advocates can 
express concerns about any inaccuracies with the translations. 
Commenters also said that it is important for HUD consider not only 
direct translation of notification/forms, but also transcreation \13\ 
to ensure that the intended meaning resonates across cultures and 
languages. Another commenter said the version of the notice, as 
provided in the proposed rule, as written and in English, poses 
readability issues for those who do not read at more advanced levels. 
The commenter said that in translating the notice and certification 
form, HUD should ensure that they can be easily understood by those who 
read at different levels. Commenters encouraged HUD to not merely 
translate each word, but instead ensure the information is conveyed in 
a meaningful way for the average reader in other languages, which would 
include ensuring documents are written in plain language and are 
culturally competent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Transcreation refers to the process of adapting a message 
from one language to another while maintaining its intent, style, 
tone and context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter said that it believes VAWA 2013's mandate that 
HUD develop a notice of housing rights includes developing translated 
versions of the notice. Commenter said covered housing providers should 
not be charged with developing any version of the notice or the VAWA 
self-certification form, including these forms' non-English-language 
counterparts.
    HUD Response: As HUD provided following enactment of VAWA 2005, HUD 
will translate the notice of housing rights and certification form and 
post them on HUD's Web site. HUD appreciates commenters' request on 
ensuring the notice of occupancy rights certification forms are 
understandable

[[Page 80771]]

across languages and cultures. Housing providers who have LEP 
applicants and tenants who do not read a language that HUD has 
translated the form and notice into may have to provide those 
applicants and tenants with a notice and form translated into languages 
they do understand, in accordance with HUD's LEP guidance.
    Comment: The rule should provide ways to ensure all individuals, 
regardless of language or reading ability, understand the protections 
of VAWA. A commenter stated that, because not all LEP applicants and 
tenants can read their native language, and certain LEP individuals 
communicate in languages that are unwritten, HUD should emphasize in 
the final rule the importance of providing culturally competent, 
sensitive interpretation of the notice when any LEP individual requires 
oral interpretation. Commenter asked that housing providers make 
available interpreters who are qualified to do sight translation and 
that, for languages that do not meet the HUD threshold requirement for 
translating vital documents, tenants be given a document stating: 
``This is an important document that could affect your housing rights. 
If you read this language, please call for further assistance.'' A 
commenter said this would allow those populations with smaller numbers 
to understand they need to call to receive oral interpretation of 
important information. Similarly, the commenter said, appropriate 
notification should be placed on documents indicating that sign 
language interpretation is available. Other commenters asked HUD to 
provide additional guidance for housing providers on how to provide 
VAWA information in a culturally competent way that would not 
jeopardize victims' safety or confidentiality.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates commenters' concerns about ensuring 
that tenants understand VAWA protections. Housing providers must comply 
with all applicable fair housing and civil rights laws and requirements 
in the implementation of VAWA requirements. This includes, but is not 
limited to, the Fair Housing Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. See 24 CFR 5.105(a). For example, housing providers 
must provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with 
disabilities, such as a reasonable accommodation to any requirement 
that the emergency transfer request be in writing, and must help 
certain survivors put their request in writing, if requested or where 
the need for such assistance is obvious. Individuals with disabilities 
may request a reasonable accommodation at any time to any program 
rules, policies, or practices that may be necessary.
    Housing providers must also ensure that communications and 
materials are provided in a manner that is effective for persons with 
hearing, visual, and other communication-related disabilities 
consistent with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, and their implementing regulations. Housing 
providers must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services 
necessary to ensure effective communication, which includes ensuring 
that information is provided in appropriate accessible formats as 
needed, e.g., Braille, audio, large type, assistive listening devices, 
and sign language interpreters.
    With respect to LEP obligations, providers must take reasonable 
steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities to 
LEP individuals. Please see the Department's Final Guidance to Federal 
Financial Assistance Recipients: Title VI Prohibition Against National 
Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons (LEP 
Guidance), http://www.lep.gov/guidance/HUD_guidance_Jan07.pdf. This 
final rule does not require housing providers to do more than is 
required by HUD's LEP guidance. However, HUD encourages housing 
providers to strive to ensure that all applicants and tenants have 
notice of their rights under VAWA.
    Rule Change: In this final rule, HUD has inserted a new subsection 
under Subpart L at 24 CFR 5.2011 that references fair housing and civil 
rights statutes and requirements.
    Comment: Clarify housing providers' responsibilities related to 
providing notice of occupancy rights and the certification form. 
Commenters asked whether housing authorities must provide the actual 
certification form in the Notice of Occupancy Rights or whether 
including language in the letter is sufficient. Commenters also asked 
whether housing providers need to document in tenant files that that 
they provided the required VAWA notices to tenants at the required 
times, or whether adopting and implementing the policy of providing the 
notices at admission is sufficient. Another commenter suggested the 
notice of occupancy rights include an ``acknowledgement of receipt'' 
section to be signed by household members age 16 and above when the 
notice is provided at admission, recertification, or upon the threat of 
eviction or termination, but obtaining a signature after being denied 
housing seems impractical.
    A commenter said that all adult family members should be given 
notice of any proposed action by the housing provider due to a VAWA-
related incident, and said a minimum of 30 days' notice should be 
provided. The commenter said that if the victim has fled the unit and 
given the housing provider a new address, then the provider should send 
notice to the new address.
    Another commenter asked if there a timeframe by which HUD will be 
required to develop this notice, and whether covered housing providers 
will be required to use, distribute, and abide by this notice, or 
whether it will be optional.
    A commenter said that HUD's proposed rule would have required 
covered housing providers to give the notice of occupancy rights and 
certification form to applicants and tenants along with ``any 
notification of eviction or notification of termination of 
assistance,'' but many different notifications are generated in the 
course of holdover, licensee, and termination of tenancy proceedings. 
The commenter asked HUD to specify which documents constitute a 
``notification of eviction'' or ``notification of termination of 
assistance,'' and clarify that housing providers are only required to 
give a tenant the notice once during the course of any tenancy 
termination or eviction proceeding.
    HUD Response: VAWA 2013 and HUD's VAWA regulations require covered 
housing providers to give tenants and applicants both the certification 
form and the notice of rights. The certification form and the notice of 
rights that housing providers will use are being published with this 
final rule. It is a statutory requirement to provide both the form and 
the notice of rights at the times specified in VAWA 2013 and in HUD's 
VAWA regulations. Housing providers that do not comply with the 
statutory and regulatory requirements are in violation of program 
requirements. Among the other times specified in this rule, housing 
providers are required to give the notice of rights and the 
certification form to tenants with any initial notification of eviction 
or termination of assistance. However, housing providers do not need to 
provide the notice and rights and certification form with subsequent 
notices sent for the same infraction.
    HUD's final rule does not require housing providers to document in 
tenant files that they provided the required notice at the required 
times, nor does HUD's final rule require an ``acknowledgement of 
receipt.'' Further, this final rule does not provide

[[Page 80772]]

additional notification requirements for housing providers that take 
actions due to a VAWA-related incident, as housing providers may not 
know that an incident is VAWA-related. As described elsewhere in this 
preamble, under VAWA 2013 and HUD's final rule, housing providers are 
prohibited from denying or terminating assistance to or evicting a 
victim protected under VAWA, solely on the basis that the tenant is a 
victim under VAWA. Housing providers, however, may ask tenants or 
applicants to provide a form of documentation specified in the statute 
and in this rule to show they are subject to VAWA protections.
    Comment: The notice of occupancy rights should be distributed to 
all persons, and not just heads of households. Commenters urged HUD to 
distribute the notice of occupancy rights to all persons and to find 
various means and times at which to distribute a copy of the notice to 
every existing individual adult tenant, not just the head of household, 
to ensure the notice is not only seen by an abuser or perpetrator. 
Commenters suggested distributing the notice during such meetings as an 
in-person recertification or reexamination increases the likelihood 
that all adult members of the household are present and will receive 
copies of the notice. The commenters said that HUD's final rule should 
require covered housing providers to prominently post the notice in 
visible, regularly-used common areas where other information is made 
available (e.g., community bulletin boards, housing authority waiting 
areas, laundry rooms etc.), and HUD should encourage housing providers 
to take advantage of other community events as opportunities to 
distribute the notice of occupancy rights. Another commenter suggested 
HUD consider allowing applicants to designate an alternate ``safe 
address'' to receive the VAWA notice.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these suggestions and agrees with 
commenters that housing providers should do their best to ensure that 
all adult members of a household and not just the head of household 
receive the notice of rights and certification form. Section 5.2005 of 
this rule requires that the notice and certification form be provided 
to each applicant and to each tenant. In addition, as discussed earlier 
in this preamble, housing providers will be required to give the notice 
and form to existing tenants during the recertification and lease 
renewal processes for the 12-month period following the effective date 
of this rule. In the limited circumstances where there may be no 
recertification or lease renewal process for a tenant during the 12-
month period following the effective date of this rule, housing 
providers will be required to give the notice and form to tenants 
through some other means within the 12-month period after this rule 
becomes effective.
7. Lease Bifurcation
a. Reasonable Time Periods To Establish Eligibility and Find New 
Housing
    Comment: 90 days to establish eligibility for a program or find new 
housing after a lease is generally reasonable. Some commenters 
expressed agreement with the time periods to establish eligibility for 
assistance provided in the proposed rule, saying they are sufficient to 
establish eligibility for a covered program or find alternative 
housing. Other commenters stated that the time periods are reasonable 
but extensions should be permitted. Commenters stated that this time 
period should be at least 90 days, with one commenter saying it should 
be up to one year. Commenters stated that in areas where there are 
housing shortages it may take longer to find other housing, that it can 
be complicated to navigate the housing system, and victims may stay 
with their abusers for fear of losing their housing. Other commenters 
suggested a minimum of 90 days should be allowed with an extension of 
90 days in 30-day increments, each at the discretion of the housing 
provider on a case-by-case basis, based on a victim's documented 
progress being made toward establishing eligibility to remain in the 
property, determining if an emergency transfer can be arranged, or 
finding alternative housing.
    HUD Response: This final rule maintains the combined 90-day time 
period for establishing eligibility for a program and finding new 
housing, and the combined 60-day extension period. Unlike the proposed 
rule, this final rule does not divide the time to (1) establish 
eligibility for a HUD program, and (2) find new housing into 60 and 30-
day time periods, nor does the final rule divide the allowable 
extension for establishing eligibility and finding new housing into two 
30-day time periods. HUD removes the divisions so that victims have the 
flexibility to use the overall time period allowed to establish 
eligibility and find new housing in a way that most benefits the 
victim.
    However, as explained further below, HUD clarifies in this final 
rule that the 90-day time period will not apply in situations where 
there are statutory prohibitions to its application. The 90-day period 
also will not apply where the lease will expire prior to termination of 
the 90-day period, and, as a result of the lease expiration, assistance 
is terminated. However, the expiration of the lease will not 
necessarily terminate assistance in the HOPWA program.
    HUD stresses that the reasonable time period to establish 
eligibility following a lease bifurcation is triggered only in 
situations where the tenant removed from the unit is the one family 
member whose characteristics qualified the rest of the family to live 
in the unit or receive assistance. In many covered housing programs, 
including HOME, HTF, ESG, RHSP, and Section 221(d)(3), the reasonable 
time period provisions of this rule related to lease bifurcation will 
never be triggered because the family's eligibility is based on the 
characteristics of the family as a whole, not the characteristics of 
any one family member. Therefore, the eligibility of remaining tenants 
in these covered housing programs will have already been established at 
the time of bifurcation. For the Section 236, public housing, and 
Section 8 programs, which allow pro-ration of rent or assistance for 
certain families where eligibility has not been established for all 
members, the remaining tenants following a VAWA lease bifurcation might 
still need to establish their eligibility for the covered housing 
program if they have not provided documentation of satisfactory 
immigration status.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In some rare cases, a student status may make be an 
additional reason why someone would be ineligible for continued 
Section 8 assistance. See ``Final Rule Eligibility of Students for 
Assisted Housing Under Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937'' 
at 70 FR 77742 implementing Section 327 of HUD's Fiscal Year 2006 
appropriations, Title III of Public Law 109-115, and HUD's guidance 
``Eligibility of Students for Assisted Housing Under Section 8 of 
the U.S. Housing Act of 1937; Supplementary Guidance'' at 71 FR 
18146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each covered housing program, HUD has reviewed the governing 
statutes and explains in the below chart why remaining tenants might 
not have established eligibility for a program, and in those 
circumstances, specifically what may impact the prescribed 90- day time 
period for those remaining family members to either establish 
eligibility for a covered housing program or to find new housing 
following a VAWA lease bifurcation.

[[Page 80773]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Possible eligibility                             Reasonable time period
                                             limitations          Regulatory provision      to remain in unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 202/811 PRAC and SPRAC......  Age (for Section 202)    24 CFR 5.2009..........  90 days or when the
                                        and Disability (for                               lease expires,
                                        Section 811).                                     whichever is first.
Section 202/8........................  Age; Immigration Status  24 CFR 5.2009..........  90 days or when the
                                                                                          lease expires,
                                                                                          whichever is first; 30
                                                                                          days if immigration
                                                                                          status is an
                                                                                          eligibility
                                                                                          limitation.
HOPWA................................  HIV/AIDS...............  24 CFR 574.460.........  90 days to 1 year.
HOME.................................  .......................  24 CFR 92.359..........  All residents already
                                                                                          meet eligibility.
HTF..................................  .......................  24 CFR 93.356..........  All residents already
                                                                                          meet eligibility.
ESG..................................  .......................  24 CFR 576.409.........  All residents already
                                                                                          meet eligibility.
CoC..................................  Qualifying Disability    24 CFR 578.75..........  Until expiration of the
                                        (for Permanent                                    lease.
                                        Supportive Housing);
                                        Chronically Homeless
                                        Status.
RHSP.................................  .......................  24 CFR 5.2009..........  All residents already
                                                                                          meet eligibility.
Section 221(d)(3)/(d)(5).............  .......................  24 CFR 5.2009..........  All residents already
                                                                                          meet eligibility.
Section 236 (including RAP)..........  Immigration Status.....  24 CFR 5.2009..........  30 days to meet
                                                                                          eligibility.
Public Housing.......................  Immigration Status.....  24 CFR 5.2009..........  30 days to meet
                                                                                          eligibility.
Section 8 HCV Voucher................  Immigration Status.....  24 CFR 5.2009..........  30 days to meet
                                                                                          eligibility.
Section 8 PBV Voucher................  Immigration Status.....  24 CFR 5.2009..........  30 days to meet
                                                                                          eligibility.
Section 8 PBRA and Mod Rehab/SRO.....  Immigration Status.....  24 CFR 5.2009..........  30 days to meet
                                                                                          eligibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the above chart, under the Section 202 and Section 811 
programs, there are requirements that the tenant be 62 or older 
(section 202) or disabled (section 811). Section 202 of the Housing Act 
of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q) (section 202) and section 811 of the National 
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013) (section 811) require units to 
be leased to eligible low-income disabled persons or families. Under 
the Section 202 and Section 811 statutes, HUD cannot continue to 
subsidize a unit for remaining family members after a lease has been 
bifurcated if at least one of the remaining family members has not 
established eligibility for the program. Therefore, although this 
regulation provides that if a landlord chooses to bifurcate a lease 
under VAWA for a unit with a Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) 
under the Section 202 or Section 811 programs, and the remaining family 
members have not established eligibility for the program, the landlord 
must provide a reasonable time period of 90 days for the remaining 
family members to remain in the unit, HUD will no longer be able to 
provide a subsidy to that unit during the time when it has not been 
established that an eligible individual is residing in the unit.
    The above chart also provides a shorter reasonable time period in 
cases where the remaining tenant in a unit covered under the 202/8 
program, Section 236 program, public housing, or a Section 8 assisted 
unit is not eligible because of immigration status. This is because 
Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 (42 
U.S.C. 1436a(d)(4)) requires that assistance under these programs be 
terminated after 30 days if the remaining family member has not 
submitted documentation evidencing a satisfactory immigration status or 
a pending appeal of a verification determination of the family member's 
immigration status.
    Rule Change: This final rule revises Sec.  5.2009(b) to combine the 
paragraphs and respective time periods that provide reasonable time 
periods for establishing eligibility for a covered housing program and 
finding new housing after a lease bifurcation. HUD revises this section 
to clarify that covered housing providers who choose to bifurcate a 
lease must provide remaining tenants who have not already established 
eligibility for the program 90 calendar days to establish eligibility 
for a covered housing program or find alternative housing. Further, HUD 
revises this section to state that this 90-calendar-day period will not 
be available to a remaining household member if statutory requirements 
of the covered program prohibit it, and that the 90-day calendar period 
also will not apply beyond the expiration of a lease, unless program 
regulations provide for a longer time period.
    Comment: The time periods set out in the rule need to be changed or 
clarified. Some commenters said the reasonable time periods for 
establishing eligibility after bifurcation or finding new housing 
should be lengthened. Commenters recommended that the reasonable time 
to establish eligibility to remain in housing after bifurcation be 
extended to 120 days, consistent with HUD policies that allow 120 days 
for tenants in HUD's multifamily programs to provide information to 
maintain continued housing assistance. Commenters also said the 
extension is necessary because survivors may have poor credit, prior 
arrests, or a prior eviction as a result of the abuse, and may be 
unable to access identification documents taken by abusers. A commenter 
said that HUD justified using 90 days for reasons related to obtaining 
a social security number, but if it can take up to 90 days just to 
provide a single piece of information, additional time is necessary to 
apply for and establish eligibility for a program.
    Commenters said that there are certain parts of the eligibility 
process that are out of the control of the housing provider as well as 
the household members, such as income verifications by third parties. 
In instances where the survivor cannot establish eligibility, 
commenters recommended that an additional 60 days or more be granted. 
Commenters cited a critical shortage of affordable and public housing 
as the reason for a need for a longer time period. Another commenter 
said that, under the HCV program, 30 calendar days to find alternative 
housing is not a reasonable timeframe, taking into account voucher 
holders' success rate and low local vacancy rates. Commenter

[[Page 80774]]

said that, for the HCV Program, the initial term of the voucher issued 
to the family to find an eligible unit is 60 days, and for HUD-Veterans 
Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH), it is 120 days.
    A commenter said it understands the desire to establish uniform 
time periods to ensure that expectations are clear for both survivors 
and housing providers, but a system that focuses on activities and 
goals, rather than strict timelines, would better recognize the 
external and domestic violence-related barriers to housing. The 
commenter said that, if an explicitly-defined time limit is necessary, 
HUD allow housing providers to waive the requirement whenever needed.
    In contrast to the above comments, other commenters said an 
eligibility determination can generally be completed in significantly 
less than 60 days, and suggested that 90 days should be established as 
the maximum amount of time allowed to establish eligibility. A 
commenter suggested that once a family is determined to be ineligible 
for a program, the family should be given 30 days to vacate the unit. 
Some commenters said the rationale for the combined 90-day time period 
is unclear. Another commenter asked when the victim would not be able 
to establish eligibility, and when a reasonable time period to find 
other housing would be necessary.
    Other commenters suggested that it should not take long to 
establish eligibility for the HUD program as properties have the 
household's most recent certification and necessary information. A 
commenter said that 60 days is too long for the initial period to 
establish eligibility, given the current waiting lists for individuals 
and families already determined to be eligible and, in the interest of 
lessening the burden on housing providers, HUD should permit PHAs the 
discretion to shorten the initial period to establish eligibility up to 
30 days. Other commenters said it would take more time to find new 
housing than it would to establish eligibility in tight housing 
markets, and suggested that HUD reverse the timeframes to provide 
remaining occupants 30 calendar days to establish eligibility and, if 
they cannot, 60 calendar days to find alternative housing. Commenters 
said that, whatever time period is granted, it should not be separated 
into two distinct time periods since that is confusing and the 
potential is high that the family will not start looking until after 
they are determined to not be eligible. Commenters said these time 
periods provided in the proposed rule appear to ignore the complexity 
of bifurcation of a lease under the HCV program where, in addition to 
establishing eligibility and locating alternative housing, a household 
may also need to negotiate a new lease.
    A commenter requested clarification from HUD regarding the PHA's 
responsibilities during this initial period and whether only the 
tenant's eligibility needs be established, and it is not the case that 
the PHA must have processed the new paperwork and have either the unit 
ready for move-in or the assistance ready for the tenant's use within 
this initial period. A commenter said the burden should be on the 
tenant to meet their obligation to provide the required information to 
establish eligibility within this initial period.
    Another commenter said that, in an era of greatly diminished 
financial resources to administer existing housing programs, housing 
providers should be able to choose at their discretion to provide the 
tenant time to establish eligibility and find new housing as the 
housing provider determines reasonable given housing market conditions 
in the area of the housing provider. In contrast to this comment, 
another commenter said that there should be consistency across HUD 
programs to provide certainty as to how much time a tenant would be 
given to relocate in the event of bifurcation.
    HUD Response: In the final rule, HUD maintains the time period in 
the proposed rule of 90 days to establish eligibility for a covered 
housing program or find new housing, with the possibility of a 60-day 
extension, at the discretion of the housing provider. As discussed 
above, in this final rule the time periods are not separated into two 
different periods, and the time periods do not apply under certain 
programs and circumstances.
    HUD declines to expand or eliminate these time periods because, 
under VAWA 2013, lease bifurcation is not mandatory, and HUD does not 
want to dissuade housing providers from considering this as an option 
by requiring housing providers to allow those who may be ineligible for 
a covered housing program--because they do not meet income or age or 
any other program requirement--to remain in their units for lengthy 
time periods. Given the high demand for housing subsidized by HUD by 
numerous populations, including the homeless, persons with 
disabilities, and the elderly, as well as other victims of crimes, HUD 
declines to provide for further extensions. HUD also declines to 
abbreviate these time periods in the interest of providing greater 
numbers of tenants with sufficient time to establish eligibility for a 
covered program, or find new housing after a lease is bifurcated. For 
similar reasons, HUD eliminates in this final rule the provision that 
housing providers may extend the reasonable time period subject to 
authorization under the regulations of the applicable housing program.
    For the HCV program, the victim and PHA do not have to wait for an 
owner to bifurcate the lease for the PHA to offer continued assistance 
for a new unit. While the family would not have to wait for bifurcation 
to occur, it would have to wait for eligibility to be determined.
    The period to establish eligibility and find new housing is limited 
to those activities, and does not include any possible additional 
processing or inspection time.
    Rule Change: HUD removes Sec.  5.2009(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(ii) 
from the proposed rule, which stated that housing providers may extend 
the reasonable time period ``subject to authorization under the 
regulations of the applicable housing program.'' HUD revises this 
language to state that housing providers have the option of extending 
the reasonable time period by up to 60 calendar days, unless prohibited 
by the governing statute of the covered program or unless the time 
period would extend beyond termination of the lease. In addition, HUD 
revises Sec.  982.314 in the proposed rule to reflect this section's 
redesignation as Sec.  982.354 by HUD's August 2015 Portability Rule.
    Comment: Extensions to reasonable time periods should be allowed 
for public housing and HCV programs. Commenters stated that the 
preamble to the proposed rule provided little justification for 
withholding the discretion to extend the reasonable time period from 
administrators of public housing or a HCV program because all housing 
programs, and not just those two programs, face severe shortages of 
units, and housing agencies should have local discretion to extend the 
time in public housing and HCV programs, the same as in other 
assistance programs. Another commenter proposed there be an initial 30-
day period to establish eligibility for public housing and section 8 
programs, but, at the sole discretion of the PHA, this period may be 
extended for two, additional 30-day periods.
    HUD Response: As discussed above, family members remaining in a 
unit after lease bifurcation under the HCV and Section 8 programs will 
often already be eligible to remain in the unit and, where an 
individual would be

[[Page 80775]]

ineligible is because of immigration status, HUD is statutorily 
prohibited from permitting that family member to stay in the unit 
beyond 30 days if satisfactory immigration status cannot be proven.
    Comment: Those with tenant-based assistance should have the 
opportunity to remain in their housing while attempting to establish 
eligibility for the program and finding new housing. A commenter said 
that HUD stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that the 
reasonable time period does not apply to tenant-based assistance, but 
made this statement with no comprehensible justification. The commenter 
stated that HUD did not explain its assertion that the reasonable time 
period resulting from lease bifurcation may only be provided to tenants 
by covered housing providers that remain subject to the requirements of 
the other covered housing program once the eligible tenant departs the 
unit.
    Another commenter said it does not understand why HUD, in 
application of VAWA rights and protections, makes the distinction 
between project-based assistance and tenant-based assistance. The 
commenter recommended that tenants be allowed to stay in their units 
while attempting to establish eligibility, and that there be no time 
period imposed on remaining tenants trying to transfer to tenant-based 
assistance. The commenter said its recommendation is particularly 
important because the evicted perpetrator who has the tenant-based 
assistance is entitled to due process rights, and if the abuser or 
perpetrator chooses to exercise these rights, the timeline of when a 
victim can establish eligibility for the tenant-based assistance 
becomes very unpredictable.
    Another commenter asked HUD to identify the HUD's programs to which 
it refers when referencing HUD ``tenant-based rental assistance'' and 
``project-based assistance,'' and to clarify which programs are subject 
to the reasonable time period accommodation. The commenter stated that 
the proposed rule advised that agencies administering Section 8 voucher 
programs should provide the reasonable time period for a maximum period 
of 90 days, but then said that the reasonable time period does not 
apply, generally, if the only assistance provided is tenant-based 
rental assistance.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with commenters that those with tenant-
based assistance should have the opportunity to remain in their housing 
while attempting to establish eligibility for a covered program or find 
new housing. HUD clarifies in this final rule that the reasonable time 
periods specified in this rule apply to tenant-based assistance.
    Comment: Clarify the interaction between the reasonable time period 
provided in the proposed rule and reasonable time periods in different 
programs. A commenter stated that proposed Sec.  5.2009(b)(1)(ii) 
provided that the reasonable time to establish eligibility for 
assistance can only be provided to remaining tenants if the governing 
statute of the covered program authorizes an ineligible tenant to 
remain in the unit without assistance. The commenter strongly urged HUD 
to remove this sentence from the rule because such statement is 
contrary to Congressional intent to require covered housing providers 
to give tenants who remain after a lease bifurcation the right to have 
``reasonable time'' to establish eligibility. The commenter said that 
by mandating a ``reasonable time'' in this context, Congress chose to 
suspend, for a limited time, applicable program eligibility 
requirements so that victims do not lose housing assistance. The 
commenter also said it is unclear which program statutes HUD was 
referring to, and whether there are any statutes that authorize an 
ineligible person to remain in units without assistance. The commenter 
stated that proposed Sec.  5.2009(b)(1)(ii) said the 60 days does not 
supersede any time period to establish eligibility that may already be 
provided by the covered housing program. The commenter expressed 
confusion about whether this statement referred to existing time period 
requirements for remaining family members to establish eligibility, in 
which case the longer time period applies, or whether the statement was 
indicating that there are programs with regulations implementing VAWA 
that outline their own ``reasonable time'' periods.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that the language in Sec.  
5.2009(b)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule was not as clear as HUD intended 
when HUD stated that the reasonable time to establish eligibility could 
only be provided to a remaining tenant if the governing statute of the 
covered program authorizes an ineligible tenant to remain in the unit 
without assistance. As discussed above, in this final rule, HUD revises 
Sec.  5.2009(b) to clarify that covered housing providers who choose to 
bifurcate a lease must provide remaining tenants who have not already 
established eligibility for the program 90 calendar days to establish 
eligibility for a covered housing program or find alternative housing. 
Further, HUD revises this section to state that this 90-calendar-day 
period will not be available to a remaining household member if the 
governing statute of the covered program prohibits it, and that the 90-
day calendar period also will not apply beyond the expiration of a 
lease, unless program regulations provide for a longer time period. See 
the chart and explanation earlier in this preamble that explains 
applicable reasonable time periods for covered housing programs.
    Comment: For the CoC Program, reasonable time requirements of VAWA 
should apply in the scenario where the time remaining on the lease is 
shorter than the reasonable time to establish eligibility. Commenters 
said proposed Sec.  578.75(i)(2), which addresses treatment of 
remaining program participants following bifurcation of a lease or 
eviction as a result of domestic violence, should be clarified to 
include transitional housing, and HUD should direct programs to use 
whatever period is longer--the rest of the time on the lease or the 
amount of time permitted by the general VAWA lease bifurcation 
provision--on occasions where the time left on the lease is shorter 
than the reasonable time allowed to establish eligibility or find new 
housing. Other commenters suggested striking Sec.  578.99(j)(8), which 
states that HUD's generally applicable bifurcation requirements 
pertaining to reasonable time periods under VAWA in 24 CFR 5.2009(b) do 
not apply, and the reasonable time period for the CoC program is set 
forth in Sec.  578.75(i)(2).
    HUD Response: Section 578.75(i)(2) applies to permanent supportive 
housing projects, in which the qualifying member of the household must 
have a qualifying disability. This final rule does not change this 
section to include transitional housing because transitional housing 
does not have the same qualifying member requirement. Once determined 
eligible, the entire household is considered eligible under 
transitional housing.
    This final rule does not maintain Sec.  578.99(j)(8) of the 
proposed rule, which, as noted above, says that the reasonable time 
periods in 24 CFR 5.2009 do not apply to the CoC program, but instead 
drafts a separate bifurcation section at Sec.  578.99(j)(7). However, 
HUD maintains that the reasonable time requirements do not apply 
because they would conflict with other CoC program requirements.
    With the exception of permanent supportive housing projects, the 
eligibility of the household is based on the entire household, not just 
one member, so in the event of a lease bifurcation the household would 
retain the housing for the length of time remaining in their original 
period of

[[Page 80776]]

assistance. Once the period of assistance has ceased then the household 
would re-certify or re-apply. In the event of lease bifurcation in 
transitional housing, covered housing providers have the ability to 
extend the assistance beyond 24 months, on a case-by-case basis, where 
it is necessary to facilitate the movement to permanent housing. HUD 
will continue to allow covered housing providers the discretion that 
they currently have in assisting families when the families' 
circumstances change during their original period of assistance. 
Existing CoC regulations state that surviving members of a household 
living in a permanent supportive housing unit have a right to rental 
assistance until the lease expires.
    Rule Change: HUD removes the requirement in Sec.  578.99(j)(8) and 
provides for a new section on lease bifurcations at Sec.  578.99(j)(7).
b. Bifurcation Logistics
    Comment: Clarify how bifurcation applies to affiliated individuals 
and lawful occupants. Commenter stated that the definition of 
bifurcation in the regulations explains that if a VAWA act occurs, 
``certain tenants or lawful occupants'' can be evicted while the 
remaining ``tenants or lawful occupants'' can continue to reside in the 
unit. Commenter said this section should specify whether the phrase 
``tenants or lawful occupants'' includes ``affiliated individuals.'' 
Commenter also requested clarification on the meaning of the terms 
``affiliated individual'' and ``other individual'' in proposed Sec.  
5.2009(a)(1). A commenter asked the following questions: (1) If a 
member of a household is a lawful occupant and not a signatory to the 
lease, but is also the abuser, is ``bifurcation'' an appropriate remedy 
to terminate the abuser's occupancy rights; (2) is bifurcation an 
appropriate remedy if an ``affiliated individual'' is the abuser; (3) 
if a member of a household is an unauthorized occupant and is also the 
abuser, what actions may the covered housing provider take against the 
abuser; (4) if a member of a household is an unauthorized occupant and 
also the abuser, may the covered housing provider take action against 
the tenant-lease signatory for permitting an unauthorized occupant to 
reside in the unit without violating VAWA; (5) can a lease be 
bifurcated if the abuser is a tenant or lawful occupant of the unit, 
but the victim lives elsewhere; and (6) what remedies does an 
``affiliated individual'' have, if any, if the affiliated individual is 
the victim of a VAWA act, or a non-victim household member?
    HUD Response: The phrase ``tenants or lawful occupants'' does not 
include affiliated individuals who are neither tenants nor lawful 
occupants. Affiliated individuals are not themselves afforded 
protections or remedies under VAWA 2013 or HUD's VAWA regulations. 
Rather, a tenant may be entitled to VAWA protections and remedies 
because an affiliated individual of that tenant is or was a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. 
However, an affiliated individual cannot seek remedies from the housing 
provider.
    HUD's proposed language in Sec.  5.2009(a)(1), which provides that 
a covered housing provider may bifurcate a lease in order to evict, 
remove, or terminate assistance to an individual who engages in 
criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault or stalking against an ``affiliated individual 
or other individual,'' mirrors language in VAWA 2013. HUD interprets 
this statutory language to mean that a housing provider may bifurcate a 
lease to remove a member of the household who engages in criminal 
activity directly relating to domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, against any individual.
    Generally speaking, a lawful occupant will not have rights to a 
unit under a covered housing program unless the lawful occupant is a 
tenant on the lease. Bifurcation is not the appropriate remedy to 
remove a household member who is not on the lease and who is not a 
tenant. There would be no need to divide the lease to remove a 
household member who is not on the lease. As explained elsewhere in 
this preamble, under VAWA, a covered housing provider may not evict or 
terminate assistance to a tenant solely on the basis that the tenant 
has an unauthorized abuser or perpetrator in the household, where the 
unreported household member is in the unit because he or she has 
committed an act of domestic violence against the tenant, and the 
tenant is afraid to report him or her.
    Comment: HUD should outline a process for victims to establish 
eligibility and find new housing. Commenter said it is important for 
HUD to outline a process and timeframe for victims to exercise their 
right to establish eligibility for the current program, and the process 
should be modeled off of one that already exists for the multifamily 
programs in the recertification context. Commenter suggested the 
covered housing provider should immediately provide a notice to the 
remaining tenants stating their right to establish eligibility under 
the current program within a specified time period, and the time period 
should not start to run unless the required notice has been provided. 
Commenter suggested the notice describe how the tenants can apply for 
the program and include a deadline by which the tenants must submit the 
information necessary to apply for the program, with the possibility of 
an extension. Commenter said the housing provider should have to 
determine the household's eligibility for the program and issue a 
notice of determination well before the time period for the tenant to 
remain in the housing expires, and there should be an opportunity for a 
tenant to appeal an adverse decision. Commenter said the time period 
for establishing eligibility should not be tolled until an appeal 
decision is final. The commenter said that alternatively, for remaining 
tenants who do not respond to the initial notice in a timely manner, 
the housing provider must send a notice stating that the tenants have 
waived their right to establish eligibility for the current program 
under VAWA, but such waiver does not preclude the tenants from applying 
for the program in the future.
    HUD Response: Because lease bifurcation is an option and housing 
providers are not required to bifurcate a lease, HUD declines to impose 
requirements, at this time, beyond those specified in Sec.  5.2009 of 
this rule, as to how a bifurcation of lease process should occur. State 
and local laws may address lease bifurcation and, where they do address 
lease bifurcation, covered housing providers must follow these laws. 
Housing providers, however, are free to establish their own policies on 
steps to be taken when a lease is bifurcated, and HUD encourages 
housing providers to establish such policies and make these policies 
known to tenants.
    Comment: Explain how lease bifurcation will work. A commenter 
requested clarification of whether the reasonable time period begins 
upon an owner's initiation of a lease bifurcation, the date of 
eviction, or another point in the bifurcation process. A commenter 
asked where a PHA administers an HCV program, and terminates assistance 
to a family member after determining that the family member committed 
criminal acts of physical violence against others in the household, and 
that family member has signed the lease, the PHA is required to 
bifurcate the lease. The commenter further asked whether the PHA, by 
the action of terminating assistance to the family member who committed 
domestic violence, could require the owner of the housing in which the 
family resides to bifurcate the

[[Page 80777]]

lease. Another commenter asked whether a housing provider would be able 
to terminate the assistance and tenancy of the abuser immediately, and 
whether law enforcement would need to be involved. Another commenter 
asked whether the housing provider would need to obtain a court order 
to remove a tenant from the unit and remove the tenant's name from the 
lease without the tenant's permission. A commenter requested that HUD 
clarify a PHA's specific responsibilities when a lease bifurcation is 
initiated by an owner, and how an owner should decide that a lease 
bifurcation is appropriate and that an individual can be legally 
evicted.
    A commenter said that, given that the termination of occupancy 
rights must be carried out in accordance with State and/or local laws, 
the rule's bifurcation provision does not provide a helpful tool for 
housing providers to expedite dividing the family if both the victim 
and perpetrator have property rights to the unit and, in such cases, 
the housing provider could only relocate the victim to another unit and 
follow a separate track to evict or terminate the perpetrator in 
accordance with due process procedures. Commenters asked for advice on 
how to address a situation where the tenant and owner disagree about 
bifurcation of a lease.
    HUD Response: As stated in Sec.  5.2009, the reasonable time period 
begins on the date of bifurcation of the lease; that is, the date when 
bifurcation of the lease is legally effective, and not at the start of 
the process to bifurcate a lease.
    If a PHA terminates assistance to an individual because that 
individual was a perpetrator of a crime under VAWA, that does not mean 
that an owner must bifurcate the lease if the unit has other household 
members. Similarly, a PHA cannot require an owner to terminate or 
bifurcate a lease where the PHA has terminated assistance for reasons 
unrelated to VAWA. Further, Sec.  982.53 of this rule provides that the 
owner, and not the PHA, is the covered housing provider that may choose 
to bifurcate a lease.
    For housing choice and project-based vouchers, if an owner 
bifurcates a lease, the owner must immediately notify the PHA of the 
change in the lease and provide a copy of all such changes to the PHA. 
This requirement is in 24 CFR 982.308(g) for the tenant-based voucher 
program and 24 CFR 983.256(e) for the project-based voucher program. 
With the exception of PHA-owned units, the PHA is not a party to the 
lease and therefore cannot bifurcate a lease agreement between an owner 
and a tenant. It is up to the owner to bifurcate the family's lease and 
to evict or remove the perpetrator from the unit. Under VAWA 2013 and 
as reflected in this rule, bifurcation of a lease is an option and not 
a requirement, so an owner would not be required to bifurcate a lease.
    HUD notes that any eviction, removal, termination of occupancy 
rights, or termination of assistance must be undertaken in accordance 
with the procedures prescribed by Federal, State, or local law for 
termination of leases.
    Comment: Clarify whether subsidies continue and who is responsible 
for housing costs during the reasonable time period when tenants try to 
establish eligibility or find other housing. Commenters asked HUD to 
clarify whether housing providers would continue to subsidize units for 
those who are found to be ineligible after a lease is bifurcated. 
Commenters said that if the remaining family members cannot pay the 
rent, the loss of rental revenue and possible eviction costs is an 
additional financial burden for housing providers and asked for clarity 
as to who pays the housing costs in this event.
    Commenters said housing providers should work with victims to 
determine if they are eligible for a HUD program, and HUD should 
continue to provide housing assistance to tenants who are trying to 
establish eligibility for a program or find new housing. Commenters 
said that at the end of the eligibility period, owners or agents should 
prepare a recertification showing any changes in household composition 
or HUD assistance and, if the victim is not eligible for assistance, 
the termination of subsidy or tenancy should not be effective until the 
last day of the month following a 30-day notice period. Commenter said 
that not ensuring assistance for victims and their families will lead 
to evictions and homelessness. A commenter said housing providers 
should continue to pay subsidies until the reasonable time period has 
elapsed.
    Another commenter said that tenants who remain in the units after 
lease bifurcation should pay the same amount of rent owed before the 
bifurcation, or, the minimum rents as outlined in applicable program 
rules, until the time periods in the regulations to establish 
eligibility and find other housing runs out or until the family is able 
to establish eligibility for a covered housing program or has found 
other housing. The commenter said that, for those covered housing 
programs that do not have minimum rents, HUD should require that the 
remaining tenants in these units to pay 30 percent of the remaining 
tenants' income while attempting to establish eligibility or while 
looking for new housing. The commenter also said these interim rents 
should include exemptions for remaining tenants who cannot pay because 
of the violence or abuse.
    Commenters said the final rule should be clear that housing 
providers are not responsible for rent payments, and should not 
otherwise incur losses, after a lease is bifurcated. Commenters said 
HUD should clarify that remaining tenants are responsible for rent 
payments and other lease obligations during the period when individuals 
are trying to establish eligibility for a covered housing program or 
find alternative housing, or HUD should commit to continuing assistance 
to the unit during the reasonable time period. A commenter said HUD 
should continue to provide assistance for the amount shown on the 
tenant certification.
    Another commenter said HUD should give housing providers additional 
financial resources commensurate with the reasonable period, and 
housing providers should not be forced to forgo rent, housing 
assistance payments, operating funds, or other funds that they would 
otherwise receive. A commenter said the rule should include language 
that housing providers are not required to provide housing and 
utilities free of charge during reasonable time periods.
    HUD Response: HUD is able to and will continue to subsidize units 
or families, as appropriate under different programs, after a lease 
bifurcation during the time periods specified in this rule (see chart 
explaining applicable time periods earlier in this preamble). As 
previously discussed, HUD cannot continue to subsidize a Section 202 or 
a Section 811 unit that does not contain an individual who is not 
eligible for that program during the 90-calendar-day period following a 
lease bifurcation. HUD stresses that it is the covered housing 
provider's decision whether or not to bifurcate a lease under VAWA. HUD 
also notes that section 5.2009(c) of this rule encourages housing 
providers to help victims of VAWA incidents remain in their units or 
move to other units in a covered housing program whenever possible.
    Comment: Clarify any interim rent obligations that may arise from 
bifurcation of a lease. Commenters offered various suggestions on how 
to address any interim rent obligations that may arise following 
bifurcation of a lease. A commenter said that rent should not be 
changed for remaining tenants who are eligible for assistance because 
any tenant in the unit should already have been determined to be

[[Page 80778]]

eligible. Another commenter recommended that housing providers be 
allowed to follow their existing policy for when a head of household or 
other adult is removed for any other reason when determining interim 
rent obligations after bifurcation. A commenter stated that after a 
tenancy ends, remaining tenants have to pay the lower of either (1) an 
amount equal to the rent of the former tenant, or (2) an amount based 
on the income of the current occupant(s).
    Other commenters said an interim recertification should be 
completed during the reasonable time period and interim rent should be 
established based on the income of remaining family members. A 
commenter said that, if the remaining tenant is ineligible to receive a 
subsidy, the rent could be set at current market rate for a section 8 
or PBV tenant and flat rent limits for public housing tenants. A 
commenter said that use of these rents would provide incentive for 
participants to resolve eligibility issues quickly and help protect 
providers from revenue losses.
    A commenter said that while eligibility approval is pending after a 
lease bifurcation, HUD's rule should require that any increase in the 
remaining family's share of rent be effective the first day of the 
month following a 30-day notice of changes to the rent obligation. The 
commenter said this time frame is consistent with current rules 
governing interim rent increases for HUD Multifamily Housing and should 
be implemented in other Federal housing programs.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these suggestions, but existing 
program regulations govern interim rent obligations, and HUD is not 
altering the existing requirements for purposes of implementing VAWA.
    Comment: Housing providers should have some latitude in allowing 
victims who do not qualify for a program to remain in a unit when a 
lease is bifurcated. Commenters stated that if a tenant is at the 
threshold of being eligible for certain housing, for example, a 
survivor who will qualify for age-restricted housing in a year, the 
housing provider should be allowed to let the survivor remain in the 
housing. Another commenter said housing providers should be allowed to 
continue to provide subsidy to a victim who in ineligible for a program 
based on such factors as age or disability.
    HUD Response: The statutes authorizing the covered housing programs 
determine basic program eligibility requirements. Tenants who are 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, will not be eligible for programs for which they would be 
ineligible if they had not been victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. HUD and housing providers do not 
have the discretion to depart from statutory requirements.
    Comment: Housing providers should not be expected to allow an 
ineligible family to remain in an assisted unit or to retain 
assistance. A commenter said HUD should not expect a PHA to allow an 
ineligible family to remain in an assisted unit, or in a market rate 
landlord's unit receiving tenant-based assistance, especially if HUD 
may not cover the assistance. The commenter said that assisting an 
ineligible family creates a hardship and denies a unit or voucher to an 
eligible waiting list applicant. The commenter said that HUD does not 
allow PHAs to maintain any funding overages that could be used to 
assist an ineligible family for any period of time.
    HUD Response: Under VAWA 2013 and this final rule, housing 
providers that exercise the option of bifurcating a lease must give 
remaining tenants a reasonable period of time, as specified in Sec.  
5.2009 of this rule and applicable program regulations, to remain in a 
unit to establish eligibility for a HUD program or find new housing. 
Housing providers may evict or terminate assistance to those who are 
unable to establish eligibility at the expiration of the applicable 
reasonable time period.
    Comment: Procedures to certify a new head of household should 
impose minimal burden on the family. A commenter said that where the 
abuser was the eligible head of household and leaves, the housing 
provider's procedures for certification of a new head of household 
should impose minimal burden on the family. The commenter suggested 
that where there is only one remaining adult member of the household, 
there should be a presumption that that adult should be the new head of 
household and, where there is more than one adult, the housing provider 
should be required to send notice to all eligible members, have the 
family select the head of household, and establish procedures for when 
the family cannot. The commenter said that where the removal of the 
abuser leaves the family with no member who can qualify, a qualified 
person with physical custody of the children should be added to the 
household to become the head of household. The commenter said the rules 
should absolve the new head of household from responsibility for any 
funds owed prior to the removal of the abuser and PHAs should continue 
paying subsidies until the substitution of the new head of household is 
made. The commenters further said victims may not be aware of their 
rights to have rent recalculated when the abuser is removed from the 
household and should not have to report a change of household income, 
but rent should be recalculated and effective the first month after the 
abuser leaves.
    HUD Response: HUD will not require PHAs to deviate from their 
current procedures to certify a new head of household. Procedures for 
certifying a new head of household may be similar to the procedures for 
any family break up or death of the head of household, or for adding a 
new person to the family, and must be described in the PHA's 
administrative plan and other policy documents.
    Comment: Explain how bifurcation will work with families with mixed 
immigration status. Commenters requested that HUD explain or issue 
guidance on how to provide assistance to mixed family households where 
the sole household member with citizenship or eligible immigration 
status is the perpetrator and has been removed from the household 
through bifurcation. A commenter stated that, in this scenario, the 
remaining household members who lack eligible citizenship status would 
not be eligible for assistance and would risk losing their housing 
based on reporting the abuse. The commenter said that certain families 
will be able to apply for nonimmigrant status and seek temporary 
immigration benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act, but 
might require much longer than a 90-day period to establish 
eligibility, and they should be given additional time. The commenter 
said that any extensions granted to mixed families under this section 
should be harmonized with Sec.  5.518, which establishes the 
requirements for temporary deferral of termination of assistance for 
families lacking eligible immigration status, and affords eligible 
families an initial deferral period of up to six months. The commenters 
said that for those families who do not qualify for nonimmigrant 
status, HUD should implement procedures to waive its mixed family 
requirements to authorize victims without eligible immigration status 
to continue receiving assistance, and HUD should either waive prorated 
rent payment requirements for such victims, or issue special subsidies 
to assist them.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates commenters' concerns, but altering 
existing program regulations regarding

[[Page 80779]]

mixed families is outside of the scope of this rule.
    Comment: Clarify whether section 8 assistance can be bifurcated. 
Commenters asked whether a housing provider can bifurcate Section 8 
assistance and, if so, requested procedural guidance on how this would 
be done. Commenters said that, absent the ability to bifurcate 
assistance, PHAs would be left in an untenable position in cases where 
a voucher is issued to two individuals and one commits a VAWA act 
against the other.
    HUD Response: Tenant-based Section 8 assistance cannot be 
bifurcated because bifurcation relates to the division of a lease, not 
the division of assistance. The PHA's family break-up policies will 
apply in situations where a household divides due to domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    Comment: Clarify that housing providers should not pressure victims 
to remain in unit. A commenter commended HUD for including a provision 
that encourages covered housing providers to assist victims, but 
recommended that HUD clarify that covered housing providers should only 
provide assistance to victims and their household members who want to 
remain in their units, and should not pressure those who do not feel 
safe in these units to remain there. The commenter said that, in these 
situations, the covered housing providers should be encouraged to work 
with the victims to find safe and affordable units elsewhere.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that covered housing providers should only 
provide assistance to victims and their household members who want to 
remain in the units, and should not pressure those who do not feel safe 
in these units to remain there. HUD emphasizes that bifurcation of a 
lease is one option of possible remedy to address a family divided by 
domestic violence, and HUD's final rule at Sec.  5.2009(c) encourages 
covered housing providers to undertake whatever actions are permissible 
and feasible under their respective programs to assist individuals to 
remain in their unit or other units under the covered housing program. 
Individuals who do not feel safe in their unit may wish to request an 
emergency transfer if they meet the rule's criteria for requesting 
emergency transfer in Sec.  5.2005(e).
    Comment: Clarify that covered providers may bifurcate a lease under 
VAWA regardless of whether State law specifically provides for lease 
bifurcation. A commenter asked that HUD clarify that housing providers 
may bifurcate a lease under VAWA regardless of whether State law 
specifically provides for lease bifurcation, but that the providers 
must do so using processes consistent with Federal, State, and local 
law.
    HUD Response: Section 5.2009(a)(2) of the final rule provides that 
bifurcation is an option as long as it is carried out in accordance 
with any requirements or procedures as may be prescribed by Federal, 
State, or local law for termination of assistance or leases and in 
accordance with any requirements under the relevant covered housing 
program. Where State or local laws address lease bifurcation, and these 
laws require bifurcation, permit bifurcation or prohibit bifurcation, 
and, where permitted or required, specify processes to be followed, the 
housing providers must follow these laws.
    Comment: Clarify that housing providers are not expected to act in 
ways that are not accord with Federal, State and local laws. A 
commenter stated that housing providers cannot guarantee that a judge 
will grant, or a local agency will enforce, an eviction where a lease 
is bifurcated. Another commenter asked how a PHA that operates in a 
State that requires that public housing residents be evicted in court 
in order to terminate tenancy can only require the HUD self-
certification form when initiating the bifurcation of a lease. Other 
commenters stated that, since bifurcation of a lease is subject to 
State and local laws, this may create inconsistencies in actual 
application.
    HUD Response: As addressed in the response to the preceding 
comment, Sec.  5.2009(a)(2) of the final rule provides that bifurcation 
must be carried out in accordance with any requirements or procedures 
as may be prescribed by Federal, State, or local law. Where a PHA 
operates in a State where public housing residents must be evicted in 
court, then the PHA must follow that procedure, but that does not 
change the fact that in order to establish eligibility for VAWA 
protections, the PHA must accept self-certification, unless there are 
conflicting certifications. HUD recognizes that this means that there 
will be differences in how bifurcation operates in different States or 
localities.
    Comment: There should be a database or other online management tool 
to assist individuals in locating new housing. A commenter stated that 
an individual who is seeking to bifurcate a lease and look for 
alternative housing would benefit from being able to search for housing 
options on a government Web site.
    HUD Response: HUD's Web page, entitled Rental Assistance, at the 
following Web site http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/rental_assistance provides nationwide information on how to find 
affordable rental housing.
    Comment: Do not mandate requirements to help remaining tenants stay 
in housing after bifurcation, but offer guidance. A commenter said HUD 
should not mandate a specific set of requirements that covered housing 
providers must take to help remaining tenants stay in housing, as these 
may be burdensome and costly depending on the housing provider's 
internal and community resources. The commenter, however, supported HUD 
providing guidance to housing providers, including recommendations on a 
quick response plan for eligibility determinations of remaining 
tenants, and coordinating with community resources to prioritize these 
families for rapid re-housing and other programs.
    HUD Response: Unless discussed elsewhere in the preamble, the only 
provisions on bifurcation in HUD's final rule are those required by 
statute. As provided throughout this section of the preamble that 
addresses the issues raised by commenters, HUD intends to supplement 
its VAWA regulations with program guidance.
    Comment: After bifurcation, housing providers should take steps to 
ensure perpetrators are kept away from the victim's unit. Commenters 
said that when a lease is bifurcated the owner or agent should work 
with the local police and legal system to ensure, to the extent 
possible, that the perpetrator is not allowed on property grounds, with 
limited exceptions. A commenter said that once the lease has been 
bifurcated, unit locks should be changed immediately.
    HUD Response: As has also been stated through this section of the 
preamble that addresses issues raised by commenters, HUD strongly 
supports covered housing providers taking whatever actions they can to 
keep victims safe.
    Comment: Advise how housing providers can rehouse both victims and 
offenders. A commenter stated that in determining bifurcation policies, 
there should be consideration of how housing providers can rapidly 
house the household in question including both victim and offender, 
where the offender is not incarcerated or otherwise apprehended for 
their involvement in a crime. The commenter suggested offering 
referrals to the offender when alternate living arrangements are not 
feasible, such as a referral to a community shelter service. Another 
commenter stated that after evicting an

[[Page 80780]]

abuser, a housing provider has the right to reject any future 
application where the abuser is part of the household, including adding 
an abuser to an existing household on the property.
    HUD Response: As discussed in this preamble, victims of VAWA 
incidents in HUD-covered housing will generally be provided a 
reasonable time to establish eligibility for housing in their current 
units after a lease bifurcation. HUD appreciates commenters' suggestion 
for rehousing everyone in a household after a lease bifurcation, but 
declines in this rule to require housing providers to take specific 
steps for rehousing household members after a lease bifurcation. HUD 
does not wish to discourage housing providers from choosing to 
bifurcate leases where it is appropriate to do so.
    This rule does not adopt a policy that, after evicting an abuser, a 
housing provider has the right to reject any future application where 
that abuser is part of this household, as this may be prohibited by 
State, local, and Federal laws, as well as HUD program requirements, 
and is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
8. Implementation and Enforcement
    Comment: Strong enforcement of the rule is important considering 
the strong connection between VAWA crimes and homelessness. Commenters 
said that 92 percent of homeless women report having experienced severe 
physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives, and upwards 
of 50 percent of all homeless women report that domestic violence was 
the immediate cause of their homelessness. Another commenter cited 
statistics that 28 percent of families reported to be homeless because 
of domestic violence. Other commenters further stated that nearly 1 in 
5 women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape, and over 
80 percent of women who were victimized experienced significant impacts 
such as post-traumatic stress disorder, injury, and missed time at work 
or school. Commenters said economic insecurity and the trauma that 
often follows sexual assault make it difficult, if not impossible, for 
many victims to access safe, affordable housing options. Commenters 
stated that when survivors have access to safe and affordable housing, 
such access reduces their risk of homelessness, which reduces their 
risk of future violence. A commenter said that that women and men who 
experience housing insecurity reported a higher prevalence of sexual 
violence, physical violence, and stalking.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with the commenters regarding the 
connection between VAWA-related crimes and homelessness. Such 
connection underscores the importance of HUD and its housing providers 
taking all actions, consistent with VAWA 2013, to protect victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and 
to house them in the safest locations possible. Further, HUD strongly 
encourages housing providers to take actions beyond the minimum 
required by VAWA 2013, where possible and consistent with Federal, 
State, and local laws.
    To ensure implementation, HUD is requiring that covered housing 
provider keep a record of all emergency transfers requested under its 
emergency transfer plan, and the outcomes of such requests, and retain 
these records for a period of three years, or for a period of time as 
specified in program regulations. HUD is also providing in the ``Notice 
of Occupancy Rights'' contact information for individuals to report a 
covered housing provider that fails to comply with this regulation.
    Comment: Provide clear and robust guidance and technical assistance 
to housing providers. Commenters stated that HUD must give housing 
providers clear and robust guidance so that VAWA is fully and correctly 
implemented. Another commenter said that housing providers should be 
aided by manuals that cover the emergency transfer process and 
applicable time frames, and with manuals to connect victims with 
counseling, legal aid, and other services to bolster social work 
efforts. Other commenters said that HUD should work closely with DOJ to 
develop VAWA guidance for HUD staff, including staff of HUD's Office of 
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), for housing providers, and 
for housing judges and legal aid.
    A commenter said HUD staff and housing providers should be required 
to participate in annual training to ensure compliance with VAWA. 
Another commenter urged HUD to consider significant technical 
assistance to PHAs around domestic violence and the VAWA regulations--
including education on financial abuse, as this may manifest itself as 
``nonpayment of rent'' for housing providers, notification of housing 
rights under VAWA, and translating forms and notices into other 
languages.
    A commenter said HUD will also need to provide program-specific 
guidance, as implementation of certain provisions will vary between 
programs. The commenter said, for example, HOME grantees and LIHTC 
owners may need to add language to their tenant selection plans to 
handle transfer requests and allow a domestic violence survivor to have 
access to an available unit. The commenter said HUD will also need to 
provide clear guidance to each field office on how VAWA 2013 should be 
implemented across the various HUD programs, especially in regards to 
unit transfers, and provide a path for escalation if there are unclear 
or confusing situations.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the commenters emphasizing the 
importance of guidance and technical assistance to aid covered housing 
providers in implementing VAWA, and, as HUD has already stated in the 
preamble, HUD intends to provide such.
    Comment: HUD and housing providers should collaborate with others 
in implementing VAWA. A commenter stated that HUD should work with law 
enforcement and justice officials to determine the best remedy for a 
victim and a remedy that is consistent with the needs and wishes of the 
victim through a shared informational database. The commenter 
emphasized the importance of a collaborative approach to client case 
management issues and stated that information data bases could be an 
important tool, where individuals consent to the sharing of 
information. Another commenter said that owners and agents should be 
strongly encouraged to develop a resource folder of sources within a 
15-mile radius of the property providing help and counseling services 
to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and 
stalking. Commenters said covered housing providers should work with 
local law enforcement to take all legal means to ensure that the 
perpetrator does not come onto the property grounds, including getting 
a restraining order.
    A commenter says there should not be separate duplicative 
requirements for LIHTCs, administered by the Department of Treasury, as 
HUD's HCV and PBV programs often coexist with the LIHTCs.
    Another commenter said that many of the multifamily developments 
funded with HOME funds and expected to be funded with HTF funds are 
also constructed or operated with resources from other Federal 
agencies. Commenters urged HUD to coordinate with these agencies so 
that, within statutory limits, a development is not subjected to 
inconsistent VAWA 2013 compliance requirements.
    Commenters asked that HUD clarify that communities need to include 
the full participation of domestic violence and sexual assault experts 
in their

[[Page 80781]]

Continuums of Care, and HUD or the State recipient should monitor how 
PHAs and CoCs have partnered with these experts. Commenters said HUD 
should release further guidance directing communities to ensure that 
the safety needs of survivors are met and that survivors can have 
preference in allocating housing resources. Commenters expressed 
concern that housing assessment tools that under-assess the housing 
needs of survivors can reduce the number of survivors prioritized for 
housing.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with commenters on the importance of 
working with housing providers and other agencies to implement VAWA 
effectively. With respect to establishing databases, HUD cautions that 
VAWA 2013 and HUD's regulations prohibit entering VAWA-related 
information documenting or certifying to the occurrence of a VAWA-
related incident into shared databases for confidentiality reasons, 
although this will not apply if the disclosure is requested or 
consented to in a time-limited written release by the individual who 
submitted the documentation.
    Comment: Victims of domestic violence should be supported with 
portable housing funding. A commenter stated that the importance of 
housing individuals in violence-free environments requires a new 
approach to community housing that precludes housing families in low-
income neighborhoods. Commenter stated that victims of violence should 
be supported with portable housing funding that can be applied to 
market rents to prevent the development of crime-riddled low-income 
neighborhoods. Another commenter said housing programs should attach 
assistance to the tenant rather than the unit in order for the tenant 
to obtain continued, unbroken assistance in HUD programs. This 
commenter said this is important for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or 
transgender (LGBT) persons who are uniquely vulnerable to limitations 
on where they may live and find work.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that tenant-based assistance may provide 
certain victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
or stalking with more options for transferring to a different unit than 
project-based assistance provides. However, as noted earlier in this 
preamble, the fiscal year 2016 appropriations for HUD does not provide 
funding specifically for tenant protection vouchers for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    Comment: Issue guidance for housing providers working with LGBT 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking. Commenters said guidance is necessary to ensure that people 
working with LGBT victims are equipped with the knowledge and cultural 
competence to fully implement VAWA protections. Commenters said LGBT 
victims have often been denied access to domestic violence services, 
due to misconceptions. A commenter stated that transgender survivors of 
domestic violence are four times as likely to suffer harassment and 
intimidation by law enforcement officers, and these numbers were even 
higher for transgender women and transgender people of color. The 
commenter said that it is for these reasons that many LGBT survivors 
are less likely to seek help from the authorities or claim the 
protections that VAWA has to offer.
    Another commenter expressed appreciation for the inclusion of LGBT 
persons within the description of individuals covered by the statute in 
Sec.  5.2001 and throughout the accompanying appendix. The commenter 
said that, in order to ensure that LGBT victims receive the full 
protection intended by the statute, housing providers implementing 
these regulations must be able to recognize LGBT victims seeking 
assistance, or facing termination on the basis of criminal activity 
linked to a domestic violence incident, as victims may be arrested 
alongside their abusers. The commenter said housing providers should 
receive adequate training to recognize such abuse and to ensure victims 
are eligible for an emergency transfer and are not unnecessarily denied 
housing.
    HUD Response: HUD emphasizes that housing providers must provide 
LGBT victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking, with the protections and remedies that VAWA 2013 directs be 
provided to all tenants and applicants. Failure to do so not only 
violates VAWA 2013 and HUD's regulations, but also may violate HUD's 
2012 Equal Access Rule, which requires that HUD-assisted and HUD-
insured housing are made available without regard to actual or 
perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.
    Comment: Provide clear guidance regarding confidentiality measures. 
Commenters said that HUD, in consultation with confidentiality and 
victim advocacy experts, should provide very direct and clear guidance, 
regulations, training, protocols and policies that help all entities 
maintain confidentiality within their practices, and HUD should also 
establish a complaint process for alleged breaches of confidentiality. 
Commenters said that CoCs that utilize Homeless Management Information 
Systems (HMIS)/shared databases for their admissions and distribution 
of resources often exclude victims of violence from accessing the 
housing resources because the survivor is being served by a victim 
service program barred from entering information into HMIS or because 
the survivor chooses to not have their information entered in HMIS for 
safety reasons. Commenters said service providers entering information 
into HMIS are not asking the appropriate questions regarding domestic 
violence prior to entering information into the shared database, and 
victims are often confused about what information they are ``required'' 
to provide and fear they won't receive these vital housing supports if 
they refuse to give this information. A commenter said confidentiality 
regulations must be cross-referenced in the governing regulations of 
the housing provider.
    HUD Response: Confidentiality measures will be discussed in 
guidance on VAWA. HUD takes seriously any complaints regarding alleged 
breaches of confidentiality in violation of VAWA, and violations of the 
confidentiality provisions of this rule are program violations that 
could jeopardize the receipt of HUD funding.
    Comment: Provide mechanisms for review for victims who believe 
their VAWA rights have been violated. Commenters said victims who have 
been denied, terminated, or evicted from housing currently do not have 
a federal administrative remedy for VAWA violations, leaving many with 
no recourse in cases where they have been improperly denied their 
housing rights under VAWA. A commenter stated that many covered housing 
providers have not complied with VAWA's requirements to address 
violence in their planning documents, permit survivors to move with 
their vouchers to a new jurisdiction for safety reasons, and provide 
notice to subsidized tenants regarding their VAWA rights. Commenters 
asked that HUD formalize mechanisms for enforcing VAWA rights so that 
such rights are available to all who need them, and urged HUD to 
provide additional guidance for specific programs on the available 
review mechanisms.
    Commenters said formalized administrative remedies are required for 
several reasons. Commenters said that HUD's Office of FHEO's regional 
offices will only investigate VAWA violations

[[Page 80782]]

that sufficiently present an allegation of discrimination under the 
Fair Housing Act. Commenters said there is no publicly available 
information regarding which staff at HUD, either in headquarters or the 
regional offices, will handle VAWA requests. Commenters further said 
there are instances where local HUD offices and housing authorities do 
not recognize the application of VAWA.
    Commenters recommended that a special assistant or advisor within 
the Office of the Secretary be named who would oversee coordination of 
VAWA implementation, including with programs not covered by HUD, and 
resolution of complaints of VAWA violations, and staff persons within 
each program covered by VAWA should be designated in HUD headquarters 
to respond to questions and issues with VAWA implementation and to 
address complaints of VAWA violations, in conjunction with regional 
offices. Commenters asked that the names and contact information for 
these staff be made public.
    HUD Response: The ``For Further Information'' section of this rule 
identifies points of contact in the covered HUD programs. Additionally, 
HUD intends to identify points of contact in HUD's regional and field 
offices.
    Comment: HUD should coordinate investigation of VAWA violations 
with Fair Housing Act violations. Commenters recommended that HUD 
create a mechanism to ensure that complaints regarding a VAWA violation 
or a Fair Housing Act violation based on domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking are screened for violations of 
both laws in order to ensure that survivors receive all of the legal 
relief to which they are entitled. Commenters said a potential model 
would be the joint review process established by the HUD Offices of 
FHEO and PIH in cases relating to public housing demolition and 
disposition. The commenters stated that because members of the public 
who experience violation of federal housing law most often pursue their 
grievances through the fair housing process, all FHEO investigators 
should receive training on the intersection of VAWA 2013 and the Fair 
Housing Act. Commenters also recommended that HUD's Office of FHEO 
receive and investigate complaints of VAWA violations, as it is the 
component of HUD that regularly receives and investigates complaints 
from the public.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the commenters' suggestions. Because 
of the variation in program requirements and the need for familiarity 
with these requirements, each HUD program office that administers a 
covered housing program will oversee enforcement of VAWA and all HUD 
staff in these offices--at Headquarters and in HUD's Regional and Field 
Offices will be trained on VAWA's requirements. HUD's Office of FHEO 
will be involved in complaints where complaints also involve violations 
of the Fair Housing Act.
    Comment: Ensure immigrant victims are able to utilize VAWA 
protections and access emergency shelters and transitional housing. A 
commenter stated that the likelihood that an immigrant or LEP woman 
will become a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault falls in 
the range of 30 percent to 52 percent, and immigrant victims face 
additional difficulties than other victims, such as potential 
dependence on an abuser because of immigration status. The commenters 
said immigrants, LEP individuals, and certain racial and ethnic 
minorities have received services from transitional housing programs at 
lower rates than white and African American victims, and a large number 
of immigrant domestic and sexual violence victims have been turned away 
from these programs.
    The commenter said that one reason why immigrant victims have had 
difficulties accessing transitional housing services is because several 
programs have imposed means testing as a way to evaluate eligibility, 
even though this is not required by HUD or other Federal law. The 
commenter said this is problematic for immigrant victims because they 
may be incapable of producing the required documentation, such as the 
ability to secure work or proof of legal employment. The commenter 
recommended that HUD include a provision in the implementing 
regulations for VAWA 2013 that prohibits all means-testing from 
programs that provide short term emergency shelter and transitional 
housing programs for up to 2 years. The commenter said access to 
emergency shelter and up to 2 years of transitional housing is 
essential for immigrant victims because it can take up to 2 years for 
an immigrant crime victim to prepare, file, and receive an adjudication 
that provides work authorization. The commenter said this inclusion 
would reflect VAWA 2013's new anti-discrimination protections.
    The commenter asked that HUD require all HUD-funded emergency 
shelter and transitional housing programs to be open to all victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human 
trafficking, child abuse, elder abuse and other U visa criminal 
activity without regard to the victim's immigration status.\15\ The 
commenter said that, in 2001, HUD issued a policy letter implementing 
the Attorney General's Order regarding Programs Necessary to Protect 
Life and Safety, which stated that HUD-funded programs that provide 
emergency shelter and transitional housing for up to 2 years, are to 
make these services equally available to all needy persons, including 
individuals who are not `qualified aliens' without verification of 
citizenship, nationality or immigration status.\16\ The commenter asked 
that this letter be updated to: Extend applicability to all Federal 
agencies funding emergency shelter and transitional housing, and not 
just HUD; to reflect the full range of VAWA, T \17\ and U visa crimes 
covered by VAWA and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; to impose 
any credible evidence standards, where no specific documents to types 
of documentation should be required to support a crime victim's 
application for emergency shelter or transitional housing; and to 
incorporate federal anti-discrimination law requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A U visa is a nonimmigrant status visa set aside for 
victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse 
and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the 
investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. Congress created 
the U nonimmigrant visa with the passage of the Victims of 
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (including the Battered 
Immigrant Women's Protection Act) in October 2000. The legislation 
was intended to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies 
to investigate and prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual 
assault, trafficking of aliens and other crimes, while also 
protecting victims of crimes who have suffered substantial mental or 
physical abuse due to the crime and are willing to help law 
enforcement authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the 
criminal activity. The legislation also helps law enforcement 
agencies to better serve victims of crimes. See http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/victims-human-trafficking-other-crimes/victims-criminal-activity-u-nonimmigrant-status/victims-criminal-activity-u-nonimmigrant-status.
    \16\ See http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/ImmigrantAccess.pdf.
    \17\ The T Nonimmigrant Status (T visa) is a set aside for those 
who are or have been victims of human trafficking, protects victims 
of human trafficking and allows victims to remain in the United 
States to assist in an investigation or prosecution of human 
trafficking. See http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/victims-human-trafficking-other-crimes/victims-human-trafficking-t-nonimmigrant-status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also recommended that HUD and other Federal agencies 
establish grant conditions for transitional housing programs that 
require compliance with Federal anti-discrimination laws and 
nondiscrimination against victims

[[Page 80783]]

defined as underserved by VAWA. The commenter said that HUD and other 
Federal agencies that fund transitional housing could require grant 
recipients to revise their admission and eligibility policies to 
incorporate best practices for promoting greater access to transitional 
housing for victims of VAWA crimes, or provide additional points in 
competitive grant processes for recipients that have adopted such best 
practices. The commenter further said that all programs receiving 
Federal funding for transitional housing should be required to report 
to their funder the extent to which they are providing services to 
immigrant, LEP, individual racial and ethnic minority, and other 
underserved victims.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these comments and notes that HUD, 
HHS and DOJ recently updated its guidance regarding Programs Necessary 
to Protect Life and Safety on August 5, 2016.\18\ HUD will also review 
the other proposals and consider them for guidance or future 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See https://www.justice.gov/ovw/file/883641/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: HUD should classify VAWA victims as ``chronically 
homeless.'' A commenter stated that HUD should classify victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human 
trafficking, child abuse, elder abuse, and other U visa listed crimes 
as ``chronically homeless.'' The commenter said that, because of the 
high likelihood that domestic violence and other life-threatening 
crimes can cause homelessness, these individuals and families should 
automatically qualify as chronically homelessness and be eligible for 
transitional housing programs and not be required to provide income 
eligibility documentation in order to receive services. The commenter 
said that HUD's final VAWA rule should consider extending the 
chronically homeless definition to this category of immigrant and LEP 
crime victims even if they have not at the time of application to the 
transitional housing program left their abusive home for a safe haven 
or emergency shelter.
    HUD Response: HUD published its final rule on Defining Chronically 
Homeless on December 4, 2015, at 80 FR 75791. This final rule results 
from four years of careful consideration of public comments and 
discussions with experts on how ``chronically homeless'' should be 
defined based on the statutory definition of ``chronically homeless'' 
in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Public comments were 
solicited in response to a December 5, 2011 interim rule establishing 
regulations for Emergency Solutions Grants Program (see 76 FR 75954), 
in the Continuum of Care Continuum of Care Program interim rule, 
published July 31, 2012 (77 FR 45422), from a May 30, 2012 convening 
with nationally recognized experts, which was described in the Rural 
Housing Stability Assistance Program proposed rule, and the March 27, 
2013 proposed rule establishing regulations for the Rural Housing 
Stability Assistance Program (see 78 FR 18726). The final rule defining 
``chronically homeless'' explains the rationale for HUD's definition.
    Comment: Instruct grantees to update documents to account for VAWA 
protections. A commenter said HUD should instruct PHAs to amend 
planning documents, leases, and house rules to incorporate a model 
emergency transfer policy. The commenter said HUD should also instruct 
owners of Sections 221d3, 236, 202 and 811 properties and project-based 
Section 8 properties to revise their tenant selection plans and review 
all tenant leases to ensure they contain language regarding VAWA 
protections. Commenters said that HUD should require State and local 
governments to revise their consolidated plans to address the VAWA 
emergency transfer policy obligations as they relate to HOME 
properties. Commenters further said that HUD should urge recipients of 
HUD financing to work with the entity responsible for developing 
Qualified Allocation Plans \19\ to include a plan that allows for 
emergency transfers between housing types. Another commenter said the 
final rule should require HUD funding recipients to include steps taken 
to implement VAWA 2013's protections in consolidated plans and PHA 
annual and five-year plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) is a federally mandated 
planning requirement that states annually use to explain the basis 
upon which they distribute their LIHTC allocations. Based on their 
QAP, states establish preferences and set-asides within their tax 
credit competitions so as to target the credits towards specific 
places (such as rural areas) or types of people (such as elderly 
households). Analysis of State Qualified Allocation Plans for the 
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program examines how those preferences 
and set-asides were used and changed based on content analysis of 
1990 and 2000 Qualified Allocation Plans from nearly every state 
along with discussions with the staff that prepared the plans. See 
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/hsgfin/analysis_of_sqa_plans.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD Response: As described earlier in this preamble, under this 
final rule, descriptions of VAWA protections will be required in lease 
terms or addenda or contracts, as specified in the regulations for the 
HOME, HOPWA, ESG, CoC, and public housing and section 8 programs. 
Owners would only be required to revise their tenant selection plans in 
relation to this rule if there are changes to the plans resulting from 
this rule.
    HUD's final rule does not require PHAs to amend their documents, or 
require State and local governments to revise their consolidated plans, 
to address emergency transfer obligations. HUD notes that the HOME 
regulations require participating jurisdiction to have written policies 
and procedures that address several program requirements (for example, 
underwriting and subsidy layering or rehabilitation standards) while 
not requiring submission of those policies and procedures to HUD the 
participation jurisdiction will need to comply with the new 
requirements. HUD reviews all of its grantees to ensure compliance with 
its regulations, and such reviews will include compliance with these 
new VAWA regulations. VAWA emergency transfer policies may be reviewed 
during onsite monitoring of the HOME program by staff of HUD's Office 
of Community Planning and Development (CPD) in the Field Offices. As 
described earlier in this preamble, this final rule provides that 
emergency transfer plans must be made publicly available, whenever 
feasible, and always available upon request.
    Comment: HUD should update its guidance and documents to reflect 
VAWA protections, and should update regulations when necessary. 
Commenters said once HUD has developed an emergency transfer policy, 
the relevant handbooks and guidebooks should be revised and a HUD 
notice applicable to all of the programs issued. The commenter said HUD 
should develop lease language applicable to all of the programs and 
require that recipients of HUD funds adopt such leases that reference 
the transfer policy. A commenter recommended that HUD amend the 
applicable rules relating to lease provisions for each of the HUD-
covered programs and urged that HUD set forth specifically the 
regulatory language that is required to incorporate VAWA's protections 
and requirements into the leases and to publish the required VAWA lease 
addenda. In addition, the commenter asked that translations of these 
leases and lease addenda continue to be provided by HUD. A commenter 
said HUD should be careful to add or include VAWA provisions whenever 
changes to programs are made.
    HUD Response: HUD will update existing guidance to reflect new VAWA 
provisions. As noted in response to the preceding comment and earlier 
in this

[[Page 80784]]

preamble, under this final rule, descriptions of VAWA protections will 
be required in lease terms or addenda or contracts, as specified in the 
regulations for the HOME, HOPWA, ESG, CoC, and public housing and 
section 8 programs.
9. Costs and Burden
    Comment: Housing providers should have some means of recuperating 
costs for damages to property associated with a VAWA-related incident. 
A commenter stated that if damages to a unit are caused by an instance 
of VAWA violence, the housing provider should be authorized to use 
reserves for replacement or residual receipts to repair such damage if 
charging the resident is not appropriate or if a resident does not pay.
    HUD Response: Means of recuperating costs for damages will vary 
depending on the HUD-covered program. HUD notes that under CoC program 
regulations, at 24 CFR 578.51(j), recipients and subrecipients may use 
grant funds in an amount not to exceed one month's rent to pay for any 
damage to housing due to the action of a program participant.
    Comment: Changes to existing regulations will result in increased 
burden for housing providers. Commenters stated that, previously, VAWA 
protections had to be incorporated into the Housing Choice Voucher 
Administrative Plan, the Public Housing Admissions and Continued 
Occupancy Plan, and the public housing lease. Commenters said that 
altering these plans or the public housing lease to reflect updated 
definitions and requirements involves providing adequate public notice 
and board approval, and changes in the public housing lease also 
require that every household in public housing sign a new revised 
lease.
    Commenters expressed concern that HUD is publishing new regulations 
in a time of historically low funding, and said that it would be 
difficult to comply with new requirements. Commenters said that 
language in the proposed rule suggests that the added cost to the 
housing provider is primarily paperwork, but the costs of administering 
the notification and documentation requirements will be significant, 
and there will be costs in evaluating how resident's needs must then be 
addressed, and then taking steps to address those needs. The commenters 
said providers must establish an organizational framework to ensure 
compliance with HUD's VAWA regulations, including the creation of a 
document management system, adoption of policies, and the training of 
staff, and the costs of these activities are in addition to emergency 
transfer costs. Commenters asked HUD to consider how requirements to 
implement VAWA could be made more efficient and effective. A commenter 
said HUD's estimates of burden hours should take into account the 
impact on the housing providers that must take various steps following 
receipt of these forms.
    A commenter said that, according to HUD's estimates, these new 
regulations will impact over 208,000 covered housing providers 
implementing assisted rental housing programs, and will impose an 
additional administrative burden on those institutions of 4,392,189 
hours annually, which amount to almost 2,112 full time equivalents each 
year. The commenters said that, since no new funding is available, as a 
result of VAWA's reauthorization and the new requirements imposed, 
housing providers' human resources will require a substantial 
reallocation of personnel to assure procedural compliance with VAWA and 
such reallocation will be at the expense of core assisted housing 
management tasks at a time when funding for assisted housing programs 
is under extreme pressure. The commenter said housing agencies already 
must make difficult decisions allocating human resources among 
competing critical tasks, and this proposed rule will add to those 
difficulties.
    HUD Response: HUD is cognizant of the constraints within which 
program participants must operate in the current budgetary environment, 
and in this rule has sought to minimize burdens on housing providers 
while implementing VAWA 2013. HUD notes that PHAs are required to 
include any changes in the ACOP in the Annual Plan, and even Qualified 
PHAs \20\ that only submit five-year plans must still hold annual 
public hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), Title VII, 
Small Public Housing Authorities Paperwork Reduction Act exempted 
qualified PHAs from the requirement to prepare and submit an annual 
plan. A Qualified PHA is a PHA that: (1) Has a combined unit total 
of 550 or less public housing units and section 8 vouchers; and (2) 
is not designated troubled under section 6(j)(2) of the 1937 Act, 
the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS), as a troubled public 
housing agency during the prior 12 months; and (3) does not have a 
failing score under the Section 8 Management Assessment Program 
(SEMAP) during the prior 12 months. Although HERA exempts qualified 
PHAs from the requirement to prepare and submit and annual plan, 
qualified PHAs must carry out certain other annual requirements, 
including an annual public hearing. See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/pha/qualified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Clarify whether housing providers bear the costs for 
transfers. A commenter said that language in proposed Sec.  5.2009(c) 
stating, ``. . . and for the covered housing provider to bear the costs 
of any transfer, where permissible,'' is problematic, creates 
uncertainty and risk of litigation, and should be deleted, even though 
the language appears to be non-binding. The commenters said that the 
term ``covered housing provider'' is not defined for this section and 
could be construed to mean a State entity. Commenter said that a 
mandate to have the State pay for costs associated with transfers is 
not supported by statute, would be contrary to Executive Order 13132, 
and could be unconstitutional. Commenters further said that ``costs of 
transfer'' is not defined, and this phrase could mean many things.
    HUD Response: The commenter is correct that Sec.  5.2009(c) is non-
binding. The section says that covered housing providers are encouraged 
to take whatever actions are permissible and feasible, including 
bearing the costs of transfers. As previously stated in this preamble, 
housing providers will not be required to bear the costs of transfers, 
but HUD maintains Sec.  5.2009(c) in the final rule to encourage 
housing providers to take whatever actions they feasibly can to assist 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking.
    Comment: HUD should clarify the obligations of small entities. A 
commenter said HUD provided only a cursory discussion of the rule's 
impact on small entities, and a passing acknowledgement that small 
providers may be unable to carry out emergency transfer plans or 
bifurcation of leases. The commenter said this concept should be 
highlighted in the preamble of the appropriate section and also covered 
in the regulations. The commenter also said that if HUD refuses to 
translate the required certification forms, the cost of providing 
translations would fall disproportionately on small entities, a 
potential violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    A commenter said the rule's definition of ``covered housing 
provider'' should clarify that small providers may be exempt from 
certain requirements due to infeasibility, or at the very least 
acknowledge that there are limitations based on the size of the covered 
provider. In contrast, another commenter was concerned about language 
in the proposed rule that states small entities ``are not required to 
carry out'' bifurcation and emergency transfers ``that may be more 
burdensome, and, indeed may not be feasible given the fewer number of 
units generally managed by small entities'' Commenters were concerned 
that this

[[Page 80785]]

language conflicts with the statute, which does not exempt any covered 
housing provider from bifurcating leases or carrying out transfers 
based on their size. The commenters said that, depending on the 
situation, a small housing provider could be required to carry out a 
lease bifurcation, even though doing so is technically discretionary 
(e.g., in cases where there is a permanent protective order that 
excludes the abuser from the premises). Other commenters said they do 
not believe that ``small entity'' housing providers should 
automatically be excused of any emergency transfer obligation and 
should, at a minimum be required to examine whether there are safe and 
available transfer options in their portfolios that could be offered to 
survivors. The commenters said HUD must also include a definition of a 
small entity.
    HUD Response: As HUD noted in the proposed rule, VAWA 2013 does not 
allow for covered housing providers who could be considered to be small 
entities to provide fewer protections than covered entities that are 
larger. HUD's assertion in the proposed rule that bifurcation is not a 
mandate under VAWA 2013 or under these regulations does not preclude 
the possibility that any provider, including a small entity, may be 
required to bifurcate a lease in certain circumstances under State or 
local laws. In addition, the fact that tenant transfers under the 
emergency transfer plan are contingent upon whether there are safe and 
available units to which victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking may transfer, and smaller housing providers 
that own or manage fewer properties may not have the same abilities to 
transfer victims, does not mean that smaller housing providers are 
excused from emergency transfer obligations. Small housing providers 
must transfer tenants who meet the criteria for an emergency transfer 
when there is a safe and available unit to which they could transfer 
the tenant, and must describe in their emergency transfer plans 
policies to assist a tenant to make an emergency move when a safe unit 
is not immediately available for a transfer. As small entities are not 
statutorily exempt from any VAWA protections, HUD declines to define 
them for purposes of this rule.
    With respect to the issue of translation of documents, as noted 
earlier in this preamble, HUD has stated that it will provide versions 
of the certification form and notice of housing rights in different 
languages.
10. Other Requirements and Protections for Victims and Survivors
    Comment: The rule and notification provided to tenants and 
applicants should provide that individuals can terminate a lease for 
VAWA-related reasons. A commenter suggested that a housing provider 
should be allowed to waive requirements for 30-day notices to vacate 
where victims have provided documentation to certify their status as a 
victim and want to move to escape abuse. This commenter also suggested 
permitting housing providers to waive requirements for a review of 
landlord history where contacting a previous landlord could put a 
survivor at risk by exposing the survivor's current location.
    HUD Response: HUD's final rule maintains the provisions in the 
proposed rule at Sec. Sec.  92.359(e), 574.604(f), and 578.99(j), and 
adds a provision for the Housing Trust Fund at 93.359(e), that a VAWA 
lease term/addendum must provide that the tenant may terminate the 
lease without penalty if a determination is made that the tenant has 
met the conditions for an emergency transfer under this rule.
    Comment: Clarify that housing providers should work with LEP 
victims to ensure they understand their rights under VAWA. A commenter 
stated that, in the preamble to the proposed rule, HUD said its LEP 
guidance ``contains a four-part individualized assessment for 
recipients to use to determine the extent of their obligations . . .'' 
The commenter said that, though this is an accurate description of the 
guidance, such language could encourage housing providers to do only 
what they determine is the minimum required. The commenter said HUD 
should insert additional language that states that, in situations 
involving domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking, housing providers should do their best, given current 
resources, to work with LEP victims to ensure that they are apprised of 
their VAWA protections, even if those attempts go beyond steps 
generally included in the recipient's language access plan. The 
commenters urged HUD to emphasize that housing providers are to use 
qualified, trained, and professional interpreters when interpreting 
information concerning VAWA protections to LEP applicants and tenants. 
Commenters further said that it should be clear that covered housing 
providers have to orally communicate with LEP individuals in their 
language, either through bilingual staff or interpreters. A commenter 
said this is extremely important because LEP victims will likely have 
follow-up questions, require assistance with filling out forms, and/or 
need help accessing other rights and remedies. The commenter also said 
that housing providers should be strongly discouraged from using 
friends or family members to interpret, absent an emergency; and 
alleged perpetrators and minor children should be completely prohibited 
from interpreting. Commenters said that the final rule should require 
housing providers to update existing language access plans to include 
provisions for specifically serving LEP victims and their families.
    HUD Response: Executive Order 13166 directs all federal agencies to 
ensure that programs receiving Federal financial assistance provide 
meaningful access to LEP persons. To ensure compliance with this 
direction, DOJ's LEP Guidance four-factor analysis applies to the 
programs and activities of Federal agencies.\21\ HUD's LEP guidance 
complies with Executive Order 13166, and is consistent with the DOJ LEP 
Guidance.\22\ Therefore, HUD cannot require recipients to go beyond 
that which is required by law. The HUD-issued LEP guidance does require 
that recipients take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to 
LEP persons. This may include providing oral interpretation services, 
hiring bilingual staff, and providing notices to staff and served 
populations of the availability of LEP services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See http://www.lep.gov/guidance/guidance_DOJ_Guidance.html.
    \22\ See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-01-22/pdf/07-217.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD does require all recipients to provide the appropriate language 
assistance to the populations that they serve, and adequately serve LEP 
persons without delay. As the population needs and capacity of each 
recipient differs, the four-factor analysis is intended to be flexible 
to balance the need to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons, while 
not imposing an undue burden on recipients, which includes small 
businesses, small local governments and small nonprofit organizations. 
HUD does encourage that LEP persons utilize the language assistance 
services expressly offered to them by the HUD recipients, rather than 
family or acquaintances.
    Comment: VAWA protections should serve mixed status immigrant 
families. A commenter asked that HUD extend VAWA protections to mixed-
status immigrant families, and noted that mixed-status LGBT immigrant 
families are less likely to report unauthorized family members, and 
survivors of domestic violence, dating violence,

[[Page 80786]]

sexual assault, and stalking may not seek appropriate action if they 
fear a negative immigration result.
    HUD Response: VAWA protections apply to tenants in mixed status 
immigrant families as they apply to other tenants.
    Comment: Abusive parties should be responsible for VAWA-related 
costs. A commenter suggested that the abusive party in a household be 
held responsible for the full amount of back rent, if any, and for the 
current and upcoming rent so that the victim can move on to other 
housing or remain in the home with a clean record.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates this suggestion but would need to 
study its feasibility and effects before creating such a policy.
    Comment: Clarify that VAWA 2013 provides the same or greater 
protections than previously existed. A commenter said proposed Sec.  
5.2011 should be amended to clarify that VAWA 2013 provides the same or 
greater protections to survivors than those that existed at the time of 
enactment of the first VAWA statute.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that VAWA 2013 provides expanded 
protections to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking, but HUD declines to add this statement in the 
regulatory text.
11. Limitations of VAWA Protections
    Comment: Explain the change that VAWA protections do not apply for 
lease violations ``unrelated to'' an act of domestic violence to VAWA 
protections do not apply for lease violations ``not premised on'' an 
act of domestic violence. A commenter asked why HUD made this change in 
terminology in the proposed rule, stating that the change substantially 
limits the reach of VAWA protections by removing from such protection 
those lease violations or incidents that may be in some way related to 
domestic violence, and instead requires that VAWA protections be 
premised on an actual act of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking.
    HUD Response: VAWA 2013 uses the phrase ``not premised on'' to 
clarify that VAWA protections do not limit the authority of housing 
providers to evict or terminate assistance to a tenant for any 
violation of a lease ``not premised on'' the act of violence in 
question. The change in HUD's proposed rule tracks the statutory change 
by providing in Sec.  5.2005 that nothing in the section limits any 
authority of a covered housing provider to evict or terminate 
assistance to a tenant for any violation not premised on an act of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking that is 
in question against the tenant or an affiliated individual of the 
tenant.
    HUD disagrees that the new language limits VAWA protections. The 
term ``premised'' better conveys that there must be a connection 
between the alleged violation and the domestic violence to trigger the 
protections of VAWA. In contrast, the term ``unrelated'' made it more 
difficult for a covered housing provider to determine whether a 
tenant's lease violation was related to an act of violence 
necessitating VAWA protections. ``Premised'' is more exact, less 
discretionary, and less open to misinterpretation. The term provides 
covered housing providers with uniform guidance to protect victims of 
domestic violence, while continuing to administer their program.
    Comment: There is inconsistency when VAWA protections will or will 
not apply and clarification is needed. A commenter stated that HUD's 
proposed rule seems to apply a different standard of applicability of 
the VAWA protections in defining those instances where the housing 
provider is prohibited from denying or terminating assistance, and the 
exceptions where the PHA or housing provider may deny or terminate 
assistance. The commenter stated that proposed Sec.  5.2005(b) says 
that the VAWA protections apply to victims of domestic violence 
(applicants) and criminal activity ``directly related to'' domestic 
violence (tenants); but proposed Sec.  5.2005(d)(2) now says the VAWA 
protections do not apply to any violation that is not ``premised on'' 
an act of domestic violence. The commenter stated that, in deciding 
whether the VAWA protections apply, housing providers must determine 
whether the underlying act was ``directly related'' to domestic 
violence, or ``premised on an act'' of domestic violence, but the act 
could be directly related to domestic violence without being premised 
on an act of domestic violence.
    HUD Response: The usage of the terms ``not premised on'' and 
``directly related'' in the proposed rule reflect the usage of these 
terms in VAWA 2013. HUD disagrees that the usage of these terms create 
a conflict in terminology. As noted in response to the preceding 
comment, HUD interprets ``premised on'' to mean that a logical nexus 
must exist between the alleged violation and the domestic violence. 
Therefore, the term ``not premised on'' means that there is not a 
logical nexus between an alleged violation and domestic violence.
12. Confidentiality
    Comment: Provide technical assistance on maintaining the privacy of 
VAWA documentation. Commenters emphasized the importance of maintaining 
confidentiality and privacy with respect to a victim of a VAWA crime, 
as the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence is when 
the victim takes steps to leave a relationship with the abuser. 
Commenters said many victims are stalked for years after having escaped 
from their partners, and the severity of this ``separation violence'' 
often compels the victim to stay in abusive relationships rather than 
risk greater injury. Commenters said victims need assurances of 
confidentiality in order to believe they can safely access their rights 
and supportive options, and asked HUD to stress the importance of 
confidentiality to housing providers. Commenters said that, as the 
transfer processes begins to be used, it is extremely important that 
all owners, managers, landlords, and PHAs understand their 
confidentiality obligations.
    Another commenter said it would be helpful for HUD to provide 
technical assistance on matters such as: How to maintain an auditable 
trail while also protecting the privacy of details of a tenant's 
status; whether VAWA documentation should be retained separately from 
the tenant file, and if so how actions such as transfers should be 
documented in the tenant file (for example, listed as VAWA or 
``emergency circumstances'' more broadly); and how to maintain privacy 
in electronic records, including the new address for the household, and 
establishing safeguards for information accessible to agency staff.
    HUD Response: HUD understands the importance of maintaining 
confidentiality under VAWA and thanks commenters for these comments and 
will take steps to ensure that housing providers understand their 
obligations with respect to maintaining confidentiality.
    Comment: All entities should be required to maintain 
confidentiality. A commenter said that, at various points, the 
conforming regulations for the covered housing programs state that 
confidentiality must be maintained by the entity that obtains the 
information from the victim. The commenters said this language must be 
expanded so that confidentiality is guaranteed even if a victim gives 
the information to the wrong party or a housing provider mistakenly 
gains access to this information. Commenters recommended that HUD's 
VAWA regulations state that

[[Page 80787]]

any entity that receives the information concerning the victim's status 
as a victim should be required to maintain confidentiality under VAWA.
    HUD Response: HUD believes that the confidentiality provisions in 
VAWA 2013 and in this rule sufficiently protect information that 
individuals might otherwise not share with their housing providers, out 
of fear of disclosure, and HUD thus declines to change the 
confidentiality provisions in the rule as commenter suggested.
    Comment: Clarify how VAWA's confidentiality protections will apply 
to shared databases. Commenters commended HUD for saying, in proposed 
Sec.  5.2007(c)(2) that covered housing providers shall not enter 
information into any shared databases. Other commenters stated that, as 
coordinated access becomes a core component of the housing process in 
Continuums of Care, there has been a move to utilize shared databases/
HMIS. Commenters said HUD should clarify, in the regulations, that 
covered housing providers shall not enter confidential information 
under VAWA into shared databases, including HMIS. A commenter expressed 
concerns about the reduced access to homelessness services for 
survivors who receive services from the domestic violence program and 
do not enter the survivor's information into an HMIS/shared database. 
The commenter recommended including a provision in the regulation that 
states a covered housing provider cannot deny a survivor access to 
services for refusing to permit the inclusion of confidential 
information in a shared database.
    Other commenters recommended clarifying, in proposed Sec.  
5.2007(c)(2), that all methods of information sharing are prohibited, 
and cross referencing this prohibition in the Notice of Occupancy 
Rights. Commenters said Sec.  5.2007(c)(2) should be revised to say 
that covered housing providers shall not disclose, or ``reveal or 
release'' such (confidential) information. Commenter recommended 
revising Sec.  5.2007(c)(2)(i) to say that such information could be 
disclosed when requested or consented to ``by an individual in an 
informed, written, and reasonably time-limited release.''
    In contrast to these commenters, a commenter said that the 
prohibition against entering ``any'' information submitted by the 
tenant to the covered housing provider into a shared database raises 
practical operating concerns. Commenters said that while maintaining 
confidentiality is important, covered housing providers must be able to 
demonstrate compliance with occupancy requirements, including 
documenting requests for unit transfers, for example. A commenter said 
many housing providers make use of software programs to manage tenant 
information, and, presumably, a simple notation of ``VAWA'' entered 
into a database field to denote the reason for a unit transfer request 
would not violate the victim's confidentiality, and such documentation 
should be re-considered by HUD.
    HUD Response: Housing providers must comply with any existing 
confidentiality provisions that apply to them, in addition to 
confidentiality provisions provided under this rule and any relevant 
guidance issued in accordance with this rule.
    HUD declines to amend the Notice of Occupancy Rights and these 
regulations to broadly state that all methods of information sharing 
are prohibited and to say that covered housing providers shall not 
reveal of release (in addition to disclosing) confidential information. 
However, as discussed above, HUD has revised 24 CFR 5.2007(c)(2)(i) to 
state that disclosure must be requested or consented to in writing by 
the individual in a time-limited release. As discussed above, HUD 
believes that the confidentiality provisions in VAWA 2013 and in this 
rule sufficiently protect information that individuals might otherwise 
not share with their housing providers, out of fear of disclosure. As 
discussed earlier in this preamble, HUD uses the term ``disclose'' to 
encompass revealing or releasing.
    Rule Change: HUD has revised 24 CFR 5.2007(c)(2)(i) to state that 
disclosure must be requested or consented to in writing by the 
individual in a time-limited release.
    Comment: Disclosure of confidential information may be necessary 
under certain circumstances. A commenter stated that the 
confidentiality provisions in the rule should be revised to permit 
disclosure of the fact that the individual is a victim of domestic 
violence to law enforcement and other government or social services 
agencies, as necessary, in order to secure the protections set forth in 
the proposed rule. Another commenter said blanket statements about 
total non-disclosure are not realistically tenable, and perhaps some 
redacted version of the VAWA-related need for an emergency transfer or 
negotiated ``termination,'' and some certification about non-disclosure 
of the new location can and should be placed in the tenant file. The 
commenter suggested that this should be the topic of a facilitated 
stakeholder discussion to more clearly identify and explore options and 
recommendations from housing providers, victim advocates and others.
    A commenter said that, because HOME-grantees are responsible for 
ensuring HOME-funded developments are complying with all program 
requirements, HUD must clarify how the housing provider can responsibly 
share information about a VAWA claim with its regulatory oversight 
agency without violating any confidentiality concerns. Another 
commenter said it is common practice for housing providers to document 
in their business system requests and actions taken for administrative 
purposes, and covered housing providers may also consult with sources 
of third-party documentation regarding VAWA incidents, including but 
not limited to police, court officials and/or medical/social service 
providers. The commenter said the documentation of such incidences in 
business systems or communications with third-party verification 
sources should not be considered a violation of the confidentiality 
provision.
    HUD Response: This final rule maintains the confidentiality 
provisions from VAWA 2013. Of the exceptions to the confidentiality 
provisions that were enumerated in VAWA 2013, there is no specific 
exception for disclosure to law enforcement or government agencies. 
However, where disclosure of that fact that somebody is a victim of a 
VAWA crime is necessary to secure VAWA protections, the individual 
requesting VAWA protections may consent to the disclosure.
    Comment: Clarify the scope of VAWA's confidentiality provisions. A 
commenter asked whether the HCV's prohibition from disclosing 
information about the specific covered act, which prompted the move, 
applies to the owner of the property being vacated. Another commenter 
said it is unclear why HUD is proposing to elevate confidentiality of 
VAWA information above that of Enterprise Income Verification (EIV), 
which is arguably of equal importance, and this raises liability 
concerns for covered providers who may make an unintentional error.
    HUD Response: VAWA's confidentiality provisions apply to covered 
housing providers, which, for the HCV program, include both the PHA and 
the owner. This rule's confidentiality provisions are mandated by VAWA 
2013 and do not conflict with EIV system.
    Comment: Explain where a housing provider must keep VAWA-related 
documents. A commenter asked whether VAWA documents have to be kept in 
a separate location, outside of a

[[Page 80788]]

manager's office, or have the information maintained in a file separate 
from a resident's file.
    HUD Response: This rule does not require housing providers to 
maintain VAWA-related documents in a particular location. Housing 
providers, using the resources they have, should determine the best 
strategy for maintaining confidentiality in accordance with VAWA 2013.
    Comment: Programs should honor and keep confidential a tenant's 
different name or gender identity marker. A commenter expressed concern 
that individuals or covered housing providers may not understand the 
importance of an LGBT individual's necessity for privacy when dealing 
with gender identity markers or the individual's name change. The 
commenter stated that disclosure may lead to possible harm, more 
trauma, and a reluctance to seek help if the survivor believes that 
they will be ``outed.'' The commenter said disclosure by family 
members, the perpetrator, or others should be limited by the survivor's 
right to confidentiality, and housing providers should not be able to 
share information provided by parties who are not the tenant seeking 
protections.
    HUD Response: The rule's confidentiality provisions are those 
provided in VAWA 2013, and are designed to protect information that any 
tenant or applicant shares with housing providers in order to obtain 
VAWA protections and remedies. All such information is subject to very 
strict confidentiality requirements.
    Comment: Confidentiality provisions should be included in program-
specific regulations. A commenter said recordkeeping is an essential 
element in ensuring confidentiality, and confidentiality and 
documentation regulations should be built into existing regulations for 
covered housing programs. The commenter said that, without the cross-
references, the housing providers could maintain recordkeeping and 
information entering, storage, and disclosure practices that are built 
into their practices.
    A commenter said existing regulations require PHAs to provide 
available information to a landlord regarding the prior residence of a 
tenant and information regarding prior tenancy history, and this can 
threaten the health and safety of an individual or family that is 
fleeing violence or abuse. The commenters recommended changing HCV and 
PBV regulations on tenant screening at Sec.  982.307(b)(4) and Sec.  
983.255(d) to say that the PHA shall maintain the confidentiality of 
any information provided by the applicant relating to domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and if the 
applicant is a victim, the PHA shall not provide any information to an 
owner or landlord regarding current or prior landlords, addresses, or 
tenancy history subject to 24 CFR 5.2007(c).
    The commenter recommended that Sec.  91.325(c)(3) of HUD's existing 
regulations be changed to say that the State will develop and implement 
procedures to ensure the confidentiality of records pertaining to any 
individual who is a victim of family violence, domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault or stalking under any project assisted 
under the ESG program, including those who have received VAWA 
protections. The commenter also recommended amending Sec.  578.103(b) 
to say that all records containing protected information of those who 
apply for Continuum of Care assistance will be kept confidential and 
that VAWA-related information will not be entered into shared 
databases, and to reference VAWA regulations in part 5 and the VAWA 
statute, and to reference VAWA regulations and the statute in 
Sec. Sec.  580.31(g), 579.304, and 579.504 of HUD's regulations.
    HUD Response: HUD declines to revise the regulations to broadly 
state that if an applicant is a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault or stalking, a PHA shall not provide any 
information to an owner or landlord regarding current or prior 
landlords, addresses, or tenancy history. This prohibition could limit 
a PHA from providing other landlords and owners with relevant and 
necessary information about a tenancy that is unrelated to a VAWA 
crime. Sections 982.307(b)(4) and 983.255(d) of this rule state that 
the VAWA protections apply in cases involving a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking for tenant 
screening in the HCV and PBV programs.
    Section 91.325(c)(3), pertaining to certifications for the ESG 
program, and the parallel provision in Sec.  91.225, implement a 
certification requirement in the McKinney-Vento Act that is separate 
from VAWA protections. The ESG and CoC program rules at Sec. Sec.  
576.409 and 578.99(j), respectively, contain provisions about the 
applicability of VAWA's general confidentiality requirements in Sec.  
5.2007, and provide that the recipient or subrecipient can limit 
receipt of documentation by an owner to protect an individual's 
confidentiality. HUD declines to include additional confidentiality 
provisions for the ESG and CoC programs, as described by the commenter.
13. Program-Specific Concerns
a. Community Planning and Development (CPD) Programs
    Comment: Documentation and transfer requirements for the CoC and 
RHSP programs should be consistent with general VAWA requirements. 
Commenters said the preamble states that CoC regulations currently 
provide for transfer of tenant-based rental assistance for a family 
fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking 
at Sec.  578.51(c)(3) and documentation requirements at Sec.  578.103, 
and a similar option is provided in the Rural Housing Stability 
Assistance program at Sec.  579.216(c)(2). The commenters stated that, 
as these regulations pre-date the passage of VAWA, it is important that 
they be amended to reflect the transfer and documentation requirements 
in VAWA, and HUD should ensure that the requirements are consistent to 
improve compliance and provide greater protection for survivors.
    Commenters said the documentation requirements in the CoC and RHSP 
rules far exceed the VAWA standard and will likely further endanger 
victims. Commenters said this rule should not maintain different and 
more demanding documentation requirements for ``original incidence'' 
and ``reasonable belief of imminent threat of further domestic 
violence,'' but rather should simply allow a victim to attest to the 
violence or assault. Specifically, commenters requested that Sec. Sec.  
578.51, 578.103, 579.216, and 579.504 be amended to reference VAWA 
requirements.
    The commenters said that once these documents are collected it is 
essential that records are kept confidential, not included in shared 
databases, and any records to establish status as a victim should be 
noted in files by employees and then destroyed or returned to the 
victim.
    HUD Response: Section 578.7 of this rule provides that CoCs must 
develop an emergency transfer plan to coordinate emergency transfers 
within the geographic area. Existing regulations, as cited by the 
commenters, allow for the transfer of tenant based assistance to a 
separate geographic area. HUD maintains these provisions for moving 
with tenant based rental assistance as a separate, but complementary, 
option that is available to victims who are at imminent risk of future 
harm. In some situations, it may be easier to move an existing voucher 
than to invoke the emergency transfer track, and HUD wishes to maintain 
this flexibility.

[[Page 80789]]

    As explained earlier in this preamble, the 2013 reauthorization of 
VAWA occurred prior to the publication of the RHSP proposed rule and 
HUD will include applicable VAWA provisions on the RHSP final rule.
    Comment: The ESG and CoC regulations should provide that recipients 
and subrecipients must establish a written policy that allows victims 
to seek their assistance, and HUD should draft such model policy. 
Commenters pointed to the ``optional policy'' in the proposed CoC and 
ESG regulations regarding how a survivor might prevent a landlord from 
taking unlawful actions against the survivor, and asked HUD to draft a 
model policy to maintain consistency. Commenters recommended amending 
Sec. Sec.  576.407(g)(4) and 578.99(j)(5) to say that recipients or 
subrecipients ``must,'' and not ``may'', establish a written policy 
that allows program participants (the individual beneficiary) to seek 
the recipient's assistance in invoking VAWA protections, and adding 
that nothing in this policy prohibits the participant from seeking 
legal counsel.
    HUD Response: This final rule maintains the option for recipients 
and subrecipients in ESG and CoC to limit receipt of documentation by 
an owner to protect an individual's confidentiality. See Sec. Sec.  
576.409 and 578.99. However, HUD no longer includes regulatory language 
discussing the ``optional policy'' because whether the recipient or 
subrecipient establishes such a policy, the program participant would 
not be prohibited from asking for the recipient's or subrecipient's 
help to ensure owners comply with the VAWA requirements that are 
incorporated into their contractual agreements. Establishing such a 
policy is not a requirement in other HUD-covered programs involving 
intermediary parties, and requiring such a policy could result in 
administrative confusion for providers administering multiple types of 
HUD assistance.
    To assist tenants, HUD adds to the ``Notice of Occupancy Rights'' a 
provision notifying tenants that if a covered housing provider fails to 
comply with the requirements in the notice, or the tenant needs 
assistance, the tenant can contact any applicable intermediary or HUD.
    Comment: VAWA incidents must be considered when determining whether 
a program participant is in compliance with RHSP and CoC regulations. A 
commenter said that, in both the RHSP and CoC program, participants 
must be in compliance with the program in order to have the option to 
transfer their assistance to another community. The commenter said it 
is important for HUD to provide guidance and training on the reasons 
why someone might seem out of compliance with a program, as the actions 
of perpetrators can cause a victim to seem out of ``program 
compliance.'' The commenters said that for example many perpetrators 
control finances, which could cause victims to miss rent payments, and 
abusers may also damage property and exert other controls over the 
victim that result in violations of program rules.
    HUD Response: HUD thanks commenters for these suggestions and will 
take them into account for guidance and training to program 
participants.
    Comment: Clarify whether additional lease requirements apply when 
tenant-based rental assistance is used for homelessness prevention 
under the ESG and CoC programs. Commenters recommended that in 
instances where the lease would be amended to reflect the rental 
assistance, the same VAWA amendments that are in the leases and rental 
agreements at proposed Sec. Sec.  576.106(e) and (g) and Sec.  
578.99(j)(6) should apply. Commenters said that in instances where no 
changes are made to the lease, recipients and subrecipients should 
include the notice of VAWA rights in communication with the participant 
and in any communication to the landlord or owner. Commenters further 
stated that in Sec. Sec.  576.106 and 578.99(j)(6), HUD should clarify 
that owners and landlords may continue to include the VAWA protections 
after the assistance has ended, as this will benefit survivors and also 
keep consistency across owners' properties.
    Another commenter recommended that there be a lease requirement 
that the perpetrator cannot be listed on the new lease, and if there is 
a restraining order placed on the perpetrator by the victim, the victim 
should be required to honor that restraining order. The commenter also 
said the lease should require that the unit must not be substandard 
housing.
    Other commenters said they do not support including additional 
lease requirements, as this can discourage private landlord 
participation in programs and have the unintended effect of making it 
more difficult for all families, and not just victims, to find housing. 
A commenter stated that, for ESG tenant-based rental assistance, the 
subrecipient is currently not responsible for reviewing the lease 
between the program participant and the owner, and, structurally, it 
makes more sense to have conditions of ESG program participation in the 
rental assistance agreement, as HUD has outlined in proposed Sec.  
576.106(e), and not require provisions in a lease. The commenter said 
that, alternatively, HUD could elect to not require either the rental 
assistance agreement or the lease to contain VAWA 2013 requirements 
where there is only short-term assistance, which would be in alignment 
with requirements in the HOPWA program where per proposed Sec.  
574.330, VAWA does not apply to short-term housing.
    HUD Response: If a participant is receiving ongoing homelessness 
prevention in an existing unit, the rental agreement between the 
landlord and the recipient or subrecipient will contain the required 
VAWA provisions. In instances where a participant is receiving 
homelessness prevention in a new unit or a new lease will be executed, 
then the VAWA protections will be incorporated with the lease and the 
participant will be covered by both the rental agreement and a lease 
and the recipient will have the option of extending the VAWA 
protections after the provision of assistance ends. However, HUD will 
not require the recipient to have to extend the provisions after the 
assistance ends. Some landlords are reluctant to work with individuals 
and families that are homeless or formerly homeless and imposing 
additional lease requirements as a condition of accepting our funds 
that then continue after HUD funds are made available makes it more 
difficult to recruit landlords.
    HUD declines to impose additional lease requirements, including 
that the perpetrator cannot be listed on the new lease and victims must 
honor restraining orders.
    Comment: It is unclear how certain VAWA requirements would apply to 
ESG assistance. Commenters said that, in the case of homeless 
prevention, funds are used to maintain persons in their rental housing, 
such persons are already under a lease agreement, and it is not clear 
how VAWA provisions apply in this instance or how violations would be 
handled. Commenters said that providing notice to recipients of ESG 
rental assistance should be limited to the period for which the 
assistance is provided, and the requirement to create an emergency 
transfer plan should not apply to short term ESG assistance.
    Another commenter said that it administers ESG funding for shelter 
operations, rapid re-housing and homeless prevention. The commenter 
said that, in the case of the rapid re-housing, it processes payments 
to owners and will assume responsibility for providing the recipient 
with a copy of the agreements with private owners who will provide 
permanent housing for

[[Page 80790]]

the participant. The commenter said that it has no problem requiring 
the owner to advise when a notice to vacate is issued during the term 
of the agreement, but there is no mention of a penalty if the private 
owner fails to provide this notice and, since payment will have been 
made by then, there would be no recourse to the commenter.
    HUD Response: If a tenant requests homelessness prevention 
assistance for a new unit, then VAWA protections would be included in 
the new lease they are signing. The tenant lease will also supplement 
the ESG recipient rental agreement in this case. In a scenario where a 
new lease must be executed, then the recipient or subrecipient is 
required to put the requirements into the lease. The recipient or 
subrecipient has the option of writing the lease in such a way so that 
those extra requirements expire when the ESG assistance ends. In a 
homelessness prevention assistance scenario, the protections are in the 
rental assistance agreement so they would cease to apply when the 
rental assistance agreement ends, which is when the assistance ends. 
However, the recipient or subrecipient has the option of writing the 
lease so that the protections continue to apply even after the 
assistance ends.
    This rule's requirements, including the emergency transfer 
requirements, apply to both short-term and medium-term ESG rental 
assistance. Even short-term rental assistance is assistance that would 
trigger the requirements of this rule.
    Comment: Clarify whether tenants in HOME-assisted units are covered 
by VAWA. Commenters said the notice of occupancy rights refers only to 
tenants who are receiving rental assistance, but the commenters 
expressed belief that tenants in HOME-assisted units (who are not 
receiving rental assistance) are also covered by VAWA protections. The 
commenters encouraged HUD to review the proposed rule through the eyes 
of a HOME-grantee to ensure that all provisions apply appropriately 
when the federal assistance is used solely for development assistance.
    HUD Response: Section 5.2001(b)(1) of this rule explains that, for 
project-based assistance, the assistance may consist of such assistance 
as operating assistance, development assistance, and mortgage interest 
rate subsidy. Further, the revisions to the HOME regulations state that 
the VAWA requirements apply to ``all HOME tenant based rental 
assistance and rental housing assisted with HOME funds.'' Under the 
HOME program, rental housing assisted with HOME funds is rental housing 
that has been newly constructed or acquired or rehabbed with HOME 
funds. Therefore, when HOME assistance is provided ``solely for 
development assistance,'' VAWA would apply. HUD has revised the Notice 
of Occupancy Rights and the model emergency transfer plan to clarify 
that the VAWA rights, rules and remedies apply to HUD assistance 
generally for covered programs.
    Comment: Confirm that HOME-funded rental projects begun prior to 
the effective date of the rule are not subject to the rule, and provide 
time to implement requirements. A commenter asked for confirmation that 
Sec.  92.359(b) exempts HOME-funded rental projects begun prior to the 
effective date of HUD's final rule from the rule's requirements. 
Another commenter asked that HUD provide an implementation period of at 
least four months to draft loan, grant, and covenant documents, 
policies, lease addendums, and other necessary documents.
    HUD Response: Section 92.359(b) provides that compliance with the 
regulations set forth in this rule is required for any tenant-based 
rental assistance or rental housing project for which the date of the 
HOME funding commitment is on or after the effective date of this rule. 
However, as HUD has stated several times, in publicly issued documents 
since 2013, and in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the 
preamble to this final rule, basic statutory core protections of VAWA 
were effective upon enactment of VAWA 2013. HUD has made clear that 
regulations are not needed to make these core statutory protections 
applicable, and the core requirements do apply to HOME funding 
commitments made prior to the effective date of this rule. Therefore, 
HUD has amended Sec.  92.359 to make clear the application of the core 
protections at the time the statute passed.
    As discussed in the DATES section of this rule and overview of 
changes, the compliance date for completing an emergency transfer plan, 
under Sec.  5.2005(e) or applicable program regulations, and then 
providing emergency transfers under the emergency transfer plan is no 
later than May 15, 2017.
    Rule Change: HUD has revised 24 CFR 92.359 to provide that the core 
statutory protections of VAWA applied upon enactment of VAWA 2013, and 
compliance with the VAWA requirements that require regulations apply to 
tenant-based rental assistance or rental housing project for which the 
date of the HOME funding commitment is made on or after the effective 
date of this rule.
    Comment: Remove proposed effective dates for CPD programs. 
Commenters urged HUD to remove the proposed effective dates for VAWA 
compliance that appear in the proposed rules for the programs 
administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) 
that restrict VAWA implementation to applicants and tenants in future 
assisted units or with future tenant-based contracts and rental 
assistance. A commenter said that HUD does not explain why any HUD 
program would require such effective dates, and there is no indication 
that Congress anticipated or directed HUD to implement VAWA 2013 only 
for future tenants and applicants, especially since HUD implemented 
VAWA 2005 for all applicants and tenants in existing as well as future 
assisted units.
    The commenter said the proposed CPD effective dates are contrary to 
current HUD policy, as HUD has already reached out to participants in 
the HUD programs to advise them that the basic protections of VAWA were 
currently in effect, and do not require notice and comment rulemaking 
for compliance. The commenter said that in December 2013, HUD advised 
housing providers with HOME funds to comply with the basic VAWA 
protections, so it is contradictory for HUD to indicate in the Proposed 
Rule that VAWA only applies to units funded by the HOME program 
prospectively.
    HUD Response: As HUD noted in response to the preceding comment, 
the core statutory protections of VAWA applied upon enactment of VAWA 
2013, to all covered HUD programs without the necessity of rulemaking. 
The HOME Program is different than many other covered programs in that: 
(1) HOME funds the construction or rehabilitation of housing and does 
not provide ongoing operating or rental assistance; and (2) HUD does 
not have a contractual relationship with the housing provider--the HOME 
written agreement is executed by the housing provider and the HOME 
participating jurisdiction. The HOME agreement reflects the regulations 
in effect at the time HOME funds are committed to the project. There is 
not now and never was a requirement that HOME written agreements 
require project owners to comply with ``HOME regulations as they may be 
amended.'' HUD cannot require participating jurisdictions to amend 
existing HOME agreements and participating jurisdictions would have no 
power to compel project owners to agree to amendments. In 2013, HUD 
made comprehensive changes to the

[[Page 80791]]

HOME regulations. Those changes are only applicable to projects to 
which HOME funds were committed after the effective date of the rule. 
The applicability of the VAWA in HOME is consistent with HUD's 
regulatory authority. The remaining VAWA requirements apply 
prospectively to all HOME rental housing for which a commitment of HOME 
funds is made (meaning, the required written agreement is executed) 
after the regulation becomes effective. While HUD recognizes that, 
except for the core statutory protections of VAWA HOME-assisted rental 
housing is not subject to the regulatory requirements unless included 
in the written agreement with the participating jurisdiction, HUD 
strongly encourages owners of HOME-assisted rental housing to comply 
with the regulations to the maximum extent feasible.
    For similar reasons, except for the core statutory protections of 
VAWA, compliance with the VAWA requirements are not required for HOPWA 
projects with funding commitments earlier than the effective date of 
this rule, CoC grants awarded prior to the effective date of this rule, 
or ESG rental assistance agreements that are not executed or renewed 
after the effective date of this rule.
    Rule Change: HUD has revised 24 CFR 574.604, 576.106, 576.409, and 
578,99 to state that the core statutory protections of VAWA applied 
upon enactment of VAWA 2013, and compliance with the VAWA requirements 
that required regulations apply prospectively to HOPWA funding 
commitments, CoC awards, and ESG rental assistance agreements.
    Comment: Clarify applicability of certain VAWA provisions to the 
HOME program. A commenter said that in order to make clear that VAWA 
applies in the context of evictions in the HOME program, HUD should add 
a reference to VAWA in current Sec.  92.253(c), which provides that 
there must be good cause for tenancy terminations. The commenter 
recommended that HUD state that an owner's tenant selection policies 
may not deny a family admission to the HOME program solely on the basis 
of criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence. In 
addition, the commenter stated that proposed Sec.  92.359(c)(2) 
provides that the entity administering the HOME tenant-based assistance 
program must provide the tenant with the VAWA rights notice when ``the 
entity learns that the tenant's housing owner intends to provide the 
tenant with notification of eviction.'' The commenter recommended that 
HUD's final rule add the requirement that the owner provide to the 
family the VAWA rights notice along with the eviction notice. The 
commenter said it would be simpler and more efficient to impose the 
notice obligation on both the owner and the entity administering the 
program.
    The commenter also said HUD's proposed regulations for lease 
bifurcation in the HOME program must be amended to ensure that victims' 
protections after lease bifurcations are consistent. The commenter said 
HUD does not explain why the general ``reasonable time'' provisions in 
24 CFR part 5 do not apply to the HOME program and why the different 
system in proposed Sec.  92.359(d) is necessary. The commenter said 
that by allowing participating jurisdictions to craft their own 
bifurcation policies, victims in the HOME program can have different 
lease bifurcation rights, and this will cause great confusion among 
victims. The commenter said proposed Sec.  92.359(d) does not reflect 
VAWA's requirement that tenants who remain after bifurcations be 
provided with a ``reasonable time'' to establish eligibility for the 
existing program or for other covered housing programs, and this latter 
requirement must be added to the HOME regulations. In addition, 
commenters said that while proposed Sec.  92.359(d)(2) mentions that 
remaining tenants who cannot establish eligibility for HOME project-
based assistance are entitled to at least 60 days to find other 
housing, this additional time to find other housing is not available 
for HOME tenant-based assistance. The commenter also suggested adding 
language to the HOME regulations similar to what exists for the HCV 
program--the housing provider must ensure that the victim retains the 
assistance.
    The commenter said it is unclear why HUD included proposed Sec.  
92.359(d)(1)(iii), and recommended its deletion. The commenters advised 
that it did not understand why the VAWA protections for the remaining 
tenants would differ if the existing assistance were tenant-based 
versus project-based. In addition, the commenter cited proposed Sec.  
92.359(e) and urged that HUD, and not the participating jurisdiction, 
develop the VAWA lease addendum, as this may be the only opportunity 
for tenants to become aware of their housing responsibilities and 
rights under the law and is important for quality control. The 
commenter said the basic elements of the lease addendum can be modeled 
after the VAWA 2005 lease addenda for the Section 8 housing programs, 
and this could serve as a template for other programs newly covered by 
VAWA. The commenter said that issues that must be decided locally can 
be identified and the unique information left blank to be completed by 
the appropriate covered housing provider. The commenter also commended 
HUD for allowing victims who receive emergency transfers to terminate 
their leases without penalty, and recommended that this provision be 
expanded for the HOME program to permit a victim in VAWA-covered 
housing to terminate the lease upon a 30-day written notice, except 
this 30-day notice would not be required in emergency transfer 
situations.
    In addition, the commenter said proposed Sec.  92.359(e) states 
that the owner must notify the entity administering HOME tenant-based 
program prior to starting a lease bifurcation, but the commenter is 
concerned this will cause unnecessary delay. The commenter recommended 
the provision say that when HOME tenant-based rental assistance is 
provided, the lease term/addendum must require the owner to notify the 
entity administering the HOME tenant-based rental assistance when the 
owner bifurcates a lease and in non-lease bifurcation circumstances 
before the owner provides notification of eviction to the tenant.
    HUD Response: It is unnecessary to add a reference to Sec.  
92.253(c) to make it clear that VAWA applies to terminations of 
tenancy, as Sec.  92.359 of this rule clearly specifies that VAWA 
requirements apply to HOME tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) and 
rental housing assisted with HOME funds. Similarly, it is unnecessary 
to specify that an owner's tenant selection policies may not deny a 
family admission to the HOME program solely on the basis of criminal 
activity directly relating to domestic violence because Sec.  
92.253(d)(7) includes this in stating that tenant selection policies 
must comply with VAWA requirements.
    Further, because a housing owner must notify the participating 
jurisdiction prior to initiating an eviction, the participating 
jurisdiction will be able to provide the notice in a timely manner and 
HUD believes it is unnecessary to require that the housing owner also 
provide the notice along with the eviction notice.
    This final rule revises Sec.  92.359 to reflect the fact that, for 
both HOME-assisted rental projects and HOME TBRA, it is unnecessary for 
the participating jurisdiction to establish or implement a policy that 
specifies the reasonable time period for a remaining tenant to 
establish eligibility. The entire household must be qualified to reside 
in a HOME-assisted unit or to receive

[[Page 80792]]

HOME TBRA, so any members of the household are already determined to be 
eligible. Further, being over income is not a permitted basis for 
eviction under the HOME program. The owner will review the household's 
income as usual at recertification. Thus, there is no need to establish 
a reasonable time period for remaining tenants to establish eligibility 
for the housing if a lease is bifurcated. HUD agrees with commenter 
that Sec.  92.359(d)(1)(iii) in the proposed rule should be deleted and 
has done so in this final rule. Similar to the provision in Sec.  
982.315, regarding family break-up in the housing choice voucher 
program, which states that the housing provider must ensure that the 
victim retains assistance, Sec.  92.359(d)(2) of this rule provides 
that if a tenant receiving HOME tenant-based rental assistance is 
removed from the lease through the bifurcation, any remaining tenant(s) 
are eligible to retain the HOME tenant-based rental assistance.
    HUD declines to implement commenters' suggestions regarding the 
VAWA lease term/addendum. The requirement in Sec.  92.359(e) that a 
participating jurisdiction must develop the lease term/addendum is 
consistent with HOME regulations, but this rule specifies what the 
lease term/addendum must include. Further, HUD declines to include a 
section in this rule permitting a victim in VAWA-covered housing to 
terminate the lease upon a 30-day written notice, which would not be 
required in emergency transfer situations. Such a provision may 
conflict with State and local law and HUD will not implement it at this 
time without seeking further comment. In addition, this final rule does 
not revise the provision in the proposed rule that the owner must 
notify the participating jurisdiction prior to starting a lease 
bifurcation. The participating jurisdiction is responsible for 
compliance with the HOME requirements and, given this oversight role, a 
housing provider cannot initiate such changes without prior 
notification to the participating jurisdiction.
    Rule Change: This final rule revises Sec.  92.359(d) to provide 
that if a family living in a HOME-assisted rental unit separates under 
24 CFR 5.2009(a), the remaining tenant(s) may remain in the HOME-
assisted unit, and if a family who is receiving HOME tenant-based 
rental assistance separates under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), the remaining 
tenant(s) will retain the HOME tenant-based rental assistance and the 
participating jurisdiction must determine whether the tenant that was 
removed from the unit will receive HOME tenant-based rental assistance.
    Comment: Clarify applicability of certain VAWA requirements to the 
HOPWA program. A commenter cited proposed Sec.  574.604(c), pertaining 
to protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking, and said that when authorizing the HOPWA 
program, Congress emphasized the similarity to Section 8 and commanded 
that the HOPWA program ``shall be provided in the manner provided under 
[U.S.C.] 1437f.'' The commenter said that, therefore, as with the 
Section 8 program, VAWA must be immediately applicable to all current 
and future HOPWA units and tenant-based assistance, and proposed Sec.  
574.604(c) should be removed.
    The commenter said proposed Sec.  574.604(f) provides that the 
HOPWA facility or housing owner is obligated to develop the lease 
addendum, but urged HUD to develop the required basic elements of the 
lease addendum for the HOPWA program. In addition, the commenter said 
proposed Sec.  5.2005(c) must be cross-referenced in proposed Sec.  
574.604(f). Commenters recommended that this section permit a victim in 
VAWA-covered housing to terminate the lease upon a 30-day written 
notice, which would not be required in emergency transfer situations.
    The commenters said proposed Sec. Sec.  574.604(b)(1)(i)(B) and 
574.604(b)(2)(i)(B) must be amended to ensure that the responsible 
entity provides the VAWA rights notice and the self-certification form 
at all three mandated junctures, and the ``or'' in this paragraph 
should be substituted with ``and.''
    The commenter also said current HOPWA program regulations permit 
the owner to terminate a ``participant's assistance . . . only in the 
most severe cases,'' and this should be expanded with a reference to 
the obligation to comply with VAWA, and the current limitations on 
eligibility should be expanded to prohibit a denial of assistance to a 
VAWA victim. The commenter suggested amending Sec.  574.310 to include 
these references to VAWA.
    The commenter said language regarding admissions/eligibility for 
VAWA victims should be added to either the definition of an ``eligible 
person'' at Sec.  574.3 or a new section in Sec.  574.310.
    HUD Response: HUD disagrees that the requirements of this rule 
should be applied retroactively. As stated in the proposed rule, VAWA 
2005 provided VAWA protections for victims under HUD's public housing 
and Section 8 programs. Those protections were only expanded to the 
HOPWA program when Congress enacted VAWA 2013. This was the case 
notwithstanding the provision in the HOPWA statute, which provides that 
rental assistance under HOPWA ``shall be provided to the extent 
practicable in the manner provided under section 8 of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937.'' (42 U.S.C. 12908(a)(1)). Nothing in VAWA 2013 
suggests that Congress intended these VAWA protections to be applied 
retroactively by HUD. Accordingly, HUD is retaining the proposed 
regulation at Sec.  574.604(c).
    This final rule amends Sec.  574.604(c) to clarify that, for 
competitive grants, VAWA requirements apply to awards made on or after 
this rule becomes effective. The proposed rule stated that VAWA 
requirements are incorporated in the annual notice of funding 
availability and made applicable through the grant agreement or Renewal 
Memorandum, but the VAWA requirements are incorporated into the 
program's regulatory framework and will apply to competitive grants 
awarded on or after the rule's effective date because the grant 
agreement will subject the award to the entirety of 24 CFR part 574 in 
effect at the time of the award. The requirements do not need to be in 
the NOFA or made applicable through the Renewal Memorandum to apply to 
competitive awards.
    HUD appreciates the commenter's suggestion regarding basic elements 
of a lease addendum, and HUD is taking these suggestions under 
consideration. In this final rule, HUD clarifies that, consistent with 
other HOPWA requirements for grantees and project sponsors, the grantee 
or project sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the housing or 
facility owner or manager adds the VAWA lease term/addendum to leases 
for HOPWA-assisted units and eligible persons receiving HOPWA tenant-
based rental assistance. Further, HUD agrees that including a cross-
reference to Sec.  5.2005(c) in Sec.  574.604(f) adds clarity to the 
rule, and accepts the commenter's recommended change. However, as 
discussed in relation to the HOME program, HUD declines to include a 
section in this rule permitting a victim in VAWA-covered housing to 
terminate the lease upon a 30-day written notice, which would not be 
required in emergency transfer situations. Such a provision may 
conflict with state and local law and HUD will not implement it at this 
time without seeking further comment.
    HUD appreciates commenter's suggestion of amending Sec. Sec.  
574.604(b)(1)(i)(B) and 574.604(b)(2)(i)(B) to ensure that the

[[Page 80793]]

housing provider provides the VAWA rights notice and the self-
certification form at all junctures mandated by VAWA 2013. This final 
rule revises these two sections to say that the housing providers must 
provide the notice of occupancy rights and the certification form at 
the times listed in paragraph (d) of the section, and revises paragraph 
(d) to state that the grantee is responsible for ensuring that the 
notice of occupancy rights and certification form is provided to each 
person in a HOPWA-assisted unit or receiving HOPWA assistance at each 
of the times listed in the statute, as well as during the 12-month 
period following the date that this rule becomes effective, either 
during annual recertification or lease renewal, or if there will be no 
recertification or lease renewal for a tenant during the first year 
after the rule takes effect, through other means. This is consistent 
with the general notification requirements in part 5 of this final 
rule.
    HUD accepts commenter's suggestion to amend Sec.  574.310 to 
include references to VAWA protections.
    Eligibility of HOPWA program participants is governed by HOPWA's 
program statute. HOPWA assistance is limited to an ``eligible person'' 
which the statute defines as ``a person with acquired immunodeficiency 
syndrome or a related disease and the family of such person.'' 42 
U.S.C. 12902(12). HUD is not authorized to expand program eligibility 
to VAWA victims, as the commenter suggests. VAWA victims are eligible 
for assistance under the program if they can also meet the definition 
of an ``eligible person.'' However, HUD has provided some relief to 
victims in cases where the abuser is the person with HIV/AIDS. Section 
574.460 allows victims in those cases a grace period to continue to 
receive HOPWA assistance, and an opportunity to demonstrate program 
eligibility.
    Rule Change: This final rule revises Sec.  574.604(f) from the 
proposed rule to include a cross-reference to Sec.  5.2005(c), in 
addition to the reference to Sec.  5.2005(b). This rule also amends 
Sec.  574.310 to include references to VAWA protections. HUD also 
revises proposed Sec.  574.460 and Sec.  574.604, at this final rule 
stage, to include dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. HUD 
also revises these sections to more closely track the VAWA provisions 
in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, for consistency with other HOPWA program 
regulations in 24 CFR part 574 and other regulations of other program 
covered by this rule, and for clarity. For example, this final rule 
clarifies the following with respect to the HOPWA program: That the 
grantee or project sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the housing 
or facility owner or manager develops and uses a VAWA lease addendum; 
that the reasonable grace period begins at the date of bifurcation of 
the lease rather than the date of eviction of the person with AIDS, and 
that housing assistance and supportive services under the HOPWA program 
shall continue for the remaining persons residing in the unit during 
the grace period; that the grantee must develop the emergency transfer 
plan; that persons in HOPWA-assisted units or receiving HOPWA 
assistance must be given the notice of occupancy rights and 
accompanying certification form during the 12-month period following 
the date that this rule becomes effective, as well as at each of the 
times required by statute; and that the grantee or project sponsor is 
responsible for ensuring that the housing or facility owner or manager 
is made aware of the option to bifurcate a lease. Additionally, this 
rule revises proposed Sec.  574.604(c) to state that, for competitive 
grants, VAWA requirements apply to awards made on or after the date 
that this rule becomes effective.
b. Public Housing and Voucher Programs
    Comment: VAWA regulations for public housing and voucher programs 
should mirror and reference the generally applicable regulations and 
those that apply to other programs. A commenter said the public housing 
and housing choice voucher regulations refer to criminal activity 
``related to'' domestic violence'' and said HUD should include 
``directly,'' in its discussion, as the generally applicable 
regulations refer to criminal activity ``directly related'' to VAWA 
incidents. The commenter said HUD must describe how VAWA protections 
apply to tenuous allegations of domestic violence.
    A commenter said that the language concerning lease requirements in 
HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 966 applies VAWA protections if a 
``current or future tenant'' is or becomes a victim of domestic 
violence, but HUD must explain its inclusion of future tenants here, as 
this section concerns requirements for leases with existing tenants. 
Commenters asked if the term ``future tenants'' refers to a different 
set of households than ``applicants.'' A commenter said the proposed 
VAWA provisions applicable to public housing tenant leases is limited 
to an individual who becomes a victim, but stated that VAWA requires 
covered housing providers to provide the VAWA notice and self-
certification form to all applicants and tenants at three junctures, 
regardless of whether that tenant is a victim or an affiliated member 
of a victim.
    A commenter said that under the current regulations, a PHA may 
exclude certain tenants from a grievance hearing because of criminal 
activity, but such exclusion should not apply to victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, and Sec.  
966.51 should be amended to reflect this.
    A commenter recommended that HUD add language to Sec.  983.253 
(Leasing of contract units) to clarify that owners cannot discriminate 
against VAWA victims and their affiliated individuals.
    For the HCV program, a commenter recommended changing Sec.  
982.202(d) to include that the PHA admission policy must state the 
system of admission preferences that the PHA uses, including 
preferences for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking. The commenter said the current HCV lease and 
tenancy rules and Sec.  982.308 must be amended to reference the VAWA 
protections and any notice of eviction shall include a notice of 
occupancy rights and self-certification form, and that the notice and 
form are required as attachments to the lease.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees with commenters that the program 
regulations should reflect the general VAWA regulations in part 5. HUD 
recognizes that the proposed regulations do not adequately reflect the 
notification requirements in part 5, in that they limit the 
responsibility to comply with part 5 protections to cases where 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is 
involved or claimed to be involved, and the notice of VAWA rights must 
be provided to all tenants and applicants at the times described in 
this statute and rule. Therefore, this final rule revises Sec.  
880.504(f), 880.607(c)(5), 882.511(g), 883.605, 884.216(c), 884.223(f), 
886.128, 886.132, 886.328, 886.329(f), 891.575(f), 891.610(c), 
891.630(c), 960.103(d), 966.4(a)(1)(vi), 982.53(e), 982.201(a), and 
982.553(e) to generally note that the VAWA regulations in 24 CFR part 
5, subpart L apply. HUD will provide assistance to housing providers to 
aid in determining whether criminal activity is directly related to a 
VAWA crime. In addition, HUD adds a paragraph to Sec.  983.253 to 
clarify that VAWA regulations apply to the leasing of contract units in 
the project-based voucher program.
    This final rule does not revise Sec.  966.51 as a commenter 
suggested. If a tenant is excluded from a grievance hearing, under 
Sec.  966.51, that tenant is

[[Page 80794]]

still entitled to a due process determination and the opportunity for a 
hearing in court.
    This rule also does not amend Sec.  982.202(d), as Sec.  
982.207(b)(4) already states that PHAs should consider whether to adopt 
a local preference for admission of families that include victims of 
domestic violence. This final rule does, however, amend Sec.  
982.207(b)(4) (on preferences for victims of domestic violence in the 
housing choice voucher program), as well as Sec.  960.206(b)(4) (on 
preferences for victims of domestic violence in public housing) to 
clarify that preferences may be established not only for victims of 
domestic violence, but also for victims of dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking.
    It is unnecessary to amend Sec.  982.308 as a commenter suggested 
because, as explained earlier in this preamble, this final rule 
maintains existing 24 CFR 5.2005(a)(4), which says that the HUD-
required lease, lease addendum, or tenancy addendum must include a 
description of specific protections for victims of VAWA crimes, for 
programs covered by VAWA prior to the 2013 reauthorization. Further, 
Sec.  982.53(e) specifies that the PHA must apply VAWA protections, 
which includes the provision of the notice of VAWA rights and 
certification form with notification of eviction.
    Rule Change: Sections 880.504(f), 880.607(c)(5), 882.511(g), 
883.605, 884.216(c), 884.223(f), 886.128, 886.132, 886.328, 886.329(f), 
891.575(f), 891.610(c), 891.630(c), 960.103(d), 966.4(a)(1)(vi), 
982.53(e), and 982.553(e) are revised to generally state that 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) applies.
    This final rule adds Sec.  983.253(a)(4), which says that in 
selecting tenants, an owner must comply with HUD's regulations in 24 
CFR part 5, subpart L (Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).
    This rule amends Sec.  982.207(b)(4) (preferences for victims of 
domestic violence in the housing choice voucher program), as well as 
Sec.  960.206(b)(4) (on preferences for victims of domestic violence in 
public housing) to clarify that preferences may be established not only 
for victims of domestic violence, but also for victims of dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    Comment: Portability requirements should not be overly restrictive 
for victims of sexual assault. A commenter said the HUD rules on 
portability of vouchers allow a victim of sexual assault to be 
protected if the assault occurred within the prior 90 days and on the 
project premises. The commenter said this requirement is too 
restrictive because the presence or proximity of an offender can cause 
continued or new safety concerns for the victim after 90 days and PHAs 
should be encouraged to apply a longer time frame when necessary. The 
commenter recommended amending Sec.  982.353 to say it does not 
prohibit a PHA or owner from increasing the protections for victims of 
sexual assault by increasing the time period within which the sexual 
assault occurred or expanding the location within which the sexual 
assault occurred.
    HUD Response: Section 982.314(b)(4) of the proposed rule, which as 
described earlier, has been redesignated as Sec.  982.354(b)(4) 
following publication of HUD's August, 2015 Portability Rule at 80 FR 
50564, follows the transfer provisions in VAWA 2013 and this rule. The 
provision applies to victims of sexual assault if they either 
reasonably believe they are threatened with imminent harm from further 
violence if they remain in the unit, or if the sexual assault occurred 
on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period preceding the 
family's move or request to move. Therefore, victims of sexual assault 
who have safety concerns might be able to move under this provision 
even if the sexual assault occurred more than 90 days before the move 
or the request to move.
    Rule Change: HUD revises redesignated Sec.  982.354(b)(4) in this 
final rule to clarify that the provision applies if the family or a 
member of the family, is or has been the victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), and the move is needed to 
protect the health or safety of the family or family member, or if any 
family member has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on 
the premises during the 90-calendar-day period preceding the family's 
request to move.
    Comment: Certain public housing and voucher program regulations are 
unclear. A commenter said proposed Sec. Sec.  982.314, 982.315, and 
982.353 are overly complicated in that housing providers may need to 
determine if a move is necessary to protect health and safety; if a 
family believed that the move was for that purpose; and if family 
members believed that they were in imminent threat of harm, and housing 
providers need guidance on this. Another commenter questioned the use 
of the words ``applicable'' and ``allegedly'' in proposed Sec.  
960.103(d), and said that use of the word ``allegedly'' raises issues 
about whether acts should first be proven. A commenter asked HUD to 
distinguish more clearly a PHA's responsibilities under tenant-based 
and project-based rental assistance programs.
    HUD Response: As noted earlier in this preamble, this final rule 
revises Sec.  960.103(d), which no longer includes the words 
``applicable'' or ``allegedly.'' Covered housing providers must 
consider tenants and applicants to be victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking if they submit 
documentation in accordance with Sec.  5.2007 of this rule. In 
addition, as stated earlier in this preamble, HUD will provide guidance 
on the responsibilities of housing providers in different HUD programs 
where necessary.
    Comment: The rule may discourage owners from participating in the 
HCV program. A commenter said proposed Sec. Sec.  982.53, 982.310, 
982.314 contain clarifications as to which responsibilities for 
compliance rest with the PHA and which ones rest with the owner. The 
commenter said that while the burden is on the PHA, the impact on the 
owner may still reduce the number of participating owners.
    HUD Response: HUD has sought to minimize the burden on owners 
participating in the HCV program while still adhering to the 
requirements of VAWA.
    Comment: Ensure regulatory policies are incorporated in PHA 
documents. A commenter stated that proposed Sec.  982.315(a)(2) states 
in part that the PHA must ensure that the victim retains assistance. 
The commenter said this language should be mandatory in administrative 
plans and other policies.
    HUD Response: PHAs may incorporate the language of Sec.  
982.315(a)(2) or similar language into their administrative plans. PHAs 
must comply with all HCV program requirements whether or not they are 
specified in their administrative plans, and HUD does not mandate that 
all applicable regulations are included in plans.
    Comment: The regulations should incorporate proposed guidance on 
VAWA in the HUD-VASH program. Commenters said HUD should incorporate 
into the proposed regulations the guidance it has issued in its Q&As on 
the HUD-VASH program; specifically, that in cases where the VASH 
voucher recipient has been terminated for committing a VAWA act, the 
remaining victim should be issued

[[Page 80795]]

a Section 8 voucher if one is available, or, if one is not available, 
should be authorized to continue utilizing the VASH voucher up until 
the voucher's turnover.
    HUD Response: Guidance is generally not appropriate for regulatory 
text. The regulatory text is to advise what actions are required. As 
HUD has stated throughout the preamble, HUD intends to supplement its 
VAWA regulations with guidance.
c. FHA Programs
    Comment: Ensure that VAWA protections apply to all parts of the 
Section 236 and 221(d)(3) and (d)(5) BMIR programs. A commenter said 
the program regulations for the Section 236 program do not explicitly 
cross reference to the regulations in 24 CFR part 200, and recommended 
that in 24 CFR 236.1, HUD insert a cross-reference to proposed Sec.  
200.38. The commenter also said the eviction rules in 24 CFR part 247 
that are explicitly made applicable to the Section 236, 221(d)(3) & 
(d)(5) BMIR, and 202 programs by Sec.  247.2 must be amended to include 
VAWA protections, particularly the primary rule governing good cause 
for eviction at 24 CFR 247.3.
    HUD Response: Section 200.38 explicitly provides that VAWA applies 
to the Section 236 program and the cross-reference in Sec.  236.1 is 
unnecessary. For greater clarity, however, this rule adds a provision 
in Sec.  247.1 that notes that covered housing providers are subject to 
VAWA requirements. HUD also notes that while VAWA applies to Section 
221(d)(3)/221(d)(5) and Section 236, these programs are no longer 
active programs (i.e. no new grants are being distributed). However, 
there may be a few of such projects still in existence and a number of 
section 236 projects enter new contracts with HUD when they decouple 
their Interest Reduction Payment (IRP), enter into a five-year use 
agreement extension required in an IRP decoupling, or choice to 
participate in RAD. Many 221(d)(3)/(d)(5) and 236 projects also receive 
Section 8 funding. In the case that a project is participating in RAD 
or receives Section 8 funding, the requirements for those programs 
would govern the treatment of tenants for purposes of VAWA. In cases 
where there is no Section 8 funding, and a 236 project is entering into 
a new contract with HUD, the owner must ensure that VAWA requirements 
are being followed.
    Rule Change: Section 247.1 (Applicability) is revised to include a 
paragraph explaining that landlords of subsidized projects that are 
listed as covered housing programs in 24 CFR 5.2003 must comply with 24 
CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).
d. Multifamily Programs
    Comment: Section 811 regulations should allow for continued 
assistance in the event of a VAWA incident. A commenter said that, for 
Section 811, HUD should provide a period of stability for those 
households that have experienced domestic violence and should amend its 
regulations and guidance to state that if the qualifying tenant leaves 
the unit, the owner can continue to receive the assistance for the 
remaining members of the household during the requalification period. 
The commenter said this approach would align with the change that HUD 
proposed to make for HOPWA program, where previously continuance of 
assistance was only allowed in the case of the death of the qualified 
tenant.
    HUD Response: The HOPWA program allows for tenants to retain 
assistance under certain circumstances when the qualifying tenant no 
longer resides in the unit, but, as explained earlier in this preamble, 
the Section 811 program does not provide that flexibility.
    Comment: Integrate VAWA into the program-specific regulations. A 
commenter recommended changing the program-specific regulations at 24 
CFR parts 880, 882, 883, 884, 886, and 891 so that the VAWA 
requirements are fully implemented in all the programs.
    HUD Response: The references to 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, in these 
regulations ensure that VAWA requirements are implemented in specific 
programs.
    Comment: Clarify VAWA protections in project-based section 8 
regulations and lease addenda. A commenter said that for all project-
based section 8 programs, HUD should identify correctly who the covered 
housing provider(s) are, and the VAWA lease addenda for these programs 
should include copies of the VAWA rights notice and certification form, 
as well as language informing tenants that they must be given the 
notice and form at the three junctures required by the statute.
    HUD Response: This final rule revises the definition of covered 
housing provider for the project-based section 8 programs. As also 
discussed earlier in the preamble, this final rule maintains existing 
24 CFR 5.2005(a)(4) for programs covered by VAWA prior to the 2013 
reauthorization, which include the project-based section 8 regulations. 
This provision states that the HUD-required lease, lease addendum, or 
tenancy addendum, as applicable, must include a description of specific 
protections afforded to the victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L.
e. Cross-Cutting Program Comments
    Comment: The ``family break up'' rule set forth in the HCV and HOME 
regulations should be included in the rules for all of the HUD-covered 
housing programs. A commenter said the most critical aspect of the HCV 
``family break up'' rule is that it clearly states that if the family 
breakup results from an occurrence of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the housing provider must ensure 
that the victim retains the assistance. The commenter said the factors 
to be considered in the event of family breakup in making the decision 
to allocate assistance should be included in VAWA rules for all HUD-
covered housing programs. The commenter said the HOME rule at proposed 
Sec.  92.359 permits the housing provider to determine that after a 
family breakup, both newly formed families could receive assistance.
    HUD Response: HUD agrees that clear standards would help to 
expedite allocation of a family's TBRA and preserve that assistance for 
the victim when a family receiving TBRA separates during an emergency 
transfer. Therefore, this final rule provides that, where applicable, 
the emergency transfer plan must describe policies for a tenant who has 
tenant-based rental assistance and qualifies for an emergency transfer 
to move quickly with that assistance. The program rules for the ESG and 
CoC programs are also amended to ensure that the emergency transfer 
plan addresses what happens with respect to any family member(s) 
excluded from the emergency transfer. The final rule further specifies 
that when a family receiving TBRA splits via bifurcation the family's 
TBRA will continue for the family member(s) who qualified for the VAWA 
remedy.
    For HOME, this rule, similar to ESG and CoC program language, 
clarifies that if a family living in a HOME-assisted rental unit 
separates under the rule's bifurcation provisions, the remaining 
tenant(s) are eligible to remain in the HOME-assisted unit, and if a 
family who is receiving HOME tenant-based rental assistance separates 
under the rule's bifurcation provisions, the remaining tenant(s) will 
retain the HOME tenant-based rental assistance and the participating 
jurisdiction must determine whether the tenant that was removed from 
the unit will receive HOME tenant-based rental assistance.

[[Page 80796]]

    Rule Change: HUD changes the emergency transfer provision in 24 CFR 
5.2005(e)(9) to provide that, where applicable, the emergency transfer 
plan must describe policies for a tenant who has tenant-based rental 
assistance and qualifies for an emergency transfer to move quickly with 
that assistance. HUD also makes related changes to the ESG and CoC 
regulations to both protect the victim's housing or assistance and 
address what happens to the non-transferring family member(s) when a 
family separates in those programs at Sec. Sec.  576.409(d)-(e) and 
578.99(j)(7)-(8).
    Comment: Ensure consistent VAWA occupancy requirements and rights. 
A Commenter said the proposed rules conforming VAWA to the individual 
programs fairly consistently address the applicability of VAWA at 
admission, eviction, and termination, but there is less consistency to 
the applicability of VAWA to occupancy rights. The commenter 
recommended that HUD ensure that language concerning occupancy 
requirements and rights under VAWA is consistent.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates commenter's concern and has 
maintained consistency across program requirements where possible, 
while trying to afford victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking, with the greatest level of protections 
possible under both VAWA and particular program requirements.
    Comment: Provided that in the event of conflict with other 
regulations, VAWA regulations control. A commenter asked HUD to adopt 
an overarching policy statement indicating that any interpretation of a 
covered housing program's regulations should include a presumption that 
the VAWA regulations govern in the event of conflict. The commenter 
said many HUD programs have regulations with multiple or overlapping 
provisions relating to admission, selection, and occupancy rights, 
eviction and termination, and HUD's proposed VAWA rule did not apply 
VAWA requirements to all. The commenter said that to ensure that VAWA 
is fully implemented in all aspects of these programs; each program 
regulation should have a clause stating that in the event of conflict, 
the VAWA regulations shall control.
    HUD Response: Unlike VAWA 2005, which amended the laws for public 
housing and Section 8 programs, VAWA 2013 did not amend the statutory 
authority for any housing program, and therefore HUD is unable to 
include the language the commenters recommend.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this rule have 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) for review and 
approval.

IV. Findings and Certifications

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    OMB reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review''). This rule was determined to be a 
``significant regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of the 
order but not economically significant, as provided in section 3(f)(1) 
of the order. In accordance with the Executive order, HUD has assessed 
the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of 
this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this 
regulatory action are those resulting primarily from the statute's 
documentation requirements.

Need for Regulatory Action

    This regulatory action is required to conform the provisions of 
HUD's VAWA regulations to those of title VI of VAWA 2013, codified at 
42 U.S.C. 14043e et seq. The 2013 statutory changes both expand the HUD 
programs to which VAWA applies and expand the scope of the VAWA 
protections. Therefore, this regulatory action is necessary for HUD's 
regulations to reflect and implement the full protection and coverage 
of VAWA.
    The importance of having HUD's VAWA regulations updated cannot be 
overstated. The expansion of VAWA 2013 to other HUD rental assistance 
programs emphasizes the importance of protecting victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, in all HUD 
housing offering rental assistance. By having all covered housing 
providers be aware of the protections of VAWA and the actions that they 
must take to provide such protections if needed, HUD signals to all 
tenants in the covered housing programs that HUD is an active part of 
the national response to prevent domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, and stalking.
    In addition to expanding the applicability of VAWA to HUD programs 
beyond HUD's Section 8 and public housing programs, VAWA 2013 expands 
the protections provided to victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking, which must be incorporated in 
HUD's codified regulations. For example, under VAWA 2013, victims of 
sexual assault are specifically protected under VAWA for the first time 
in HUD-covered programs. Another example is the statutory replacement 
of the term ``immediate family member'' with the term ``affiliated 
individual.'' Where HUD's current VAWA regulations provided that a non-
perpetrator tenant would be protected from being evicted or denied 
housing because of acts of domestic violence, dating violence, or 
stalking committed against a family member (see current 24 CFR 
5.2005(c)(2)), under VAWA 2013, the same protections apply to a non-
perpetrator tenant because of acts of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking committed against an ``affiliated 
individual.'' The replacement of ``immediate family member'' with 
``affiliated individual'' reflects differing domestic arrangements and 
must be incorporated in HUD's regulations.
    VAWA 2013 also increases protection for victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking by requiring 
HUD to develop a model emergency transfer plan to guide covered housing 
providers in the development and adoption of their own emergency 
transfer plans. VAWA also changes the procedures for the notification 
to tenants and applicants of their occupancy rights under VAWA. Prior 
to VAWA 2013, public housing agencies administering HUD's public 
housing and Section 8 assistance were responsible for the development 
and issuance of such notification to tenants. Under VAWA 2013, HUD must 
develop the notice. Thus, HUD's VAWA regulations must reflect that HUD 
will prescribe the notice of occupancy rights to be distributed by 
covered housing providers.
    In addition, certain provisions of VAWA 2013, particularly those 
pertaining to emergency transfer plans and lease bifurcations, require 
further clarification in order to be implemented in HUD programs. For 
example, this regulatory action is needed to explain whether and what 
documentation requirements may apply in the case of emergency 
transfers, and what a reasonable time period for a tenant to establish 
eligibility for housing under a covered housing program, or to find new 
housing, after a lease bifurcation would be.

Costs and Benefits

    As noted in the Executive Summary of this preamble, this rule 
provides several benefits, including expanding

[[Page 80797]]

the protections of VAWA to applicants and tenants beyond those in HUD's 
public housing and Section 8 programs; strengthening the rights, 
including confidentiality rights, of victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in HUD-covered programs; 
and possibly minimizing the loss of housing by such victims through the 
bifurcation of lease and emergency transfer plan provisions. The notice 
of occupancy rights to be distributed to all applicants and tenants 
signals the concern of HUD and the covered housing provider about the 
serious consequences of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking on the individual tenant victim and, at times, 
the victim's family or individuals affiliated to the victim, and 
confirms the protections to be afforded to the tenant victim if such 
violence occurs. The notice of occupancy rights is presented with the 
goal of helping applicants and tenants understand their occupancy 
rights under VAWA. Awareness of such rights is an important benefit.
    The costs of the regulations, as also noted earlier in this 
preamble, are primarily paperwork costs. These are the costs of 
providing notice to applicants and tenants of their occupancy rights 
under VAWA, the preparation of an emergency transfer plan, and 
documenting the incident or incidents of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The costs, however, are 
minimized to some extent by the fact that VAWA 2013 requires HUD to 
prepare the notice of occupancy rights, the certification form, and the 
model emergency transfer plan. In addition, as discussed in the 
preamble, costs to covered housing providers will be minimized because 
HUD will translate the notice of occupancy rights and certification 
form into the most popularly spoken languages in the United States, and 
HUD has prepared a model transfer request form that housing providers 
and tenants requesting emergency transfer may use.
    In addition to the costs related to these documents, which HUD 
submits is not significant given HUD's role in creating the documents, 
there may be a cost with respect to a tenant claiming the protections 
of VAWA and a covered housing provider responding to such incident. 
This cost will vary, however, depending on the incidence of claims in a 
given year and the nature and complexity of the situation. The costs 
will also depend on the supply and demand for the available and safe 
units in the situation of an emergency transfer request. HUD's covered 
housing providers did not confront such ``movement'' costs under VAWA 
2005, so it remains to be seen, through implementation of VAWA 2013, if 
the transfer to a safe and available unit can be realized in most 
situations in which such a request is made, and the costs a housing 
provider may face as a result.
    The reporting and recordkeeping matrix that accompanies HUD's 
Paperwork Reduction Act statement, provided above, provides HUD's 
estimate of the workload associated with the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.
    The docket file is available for public inspection between the 
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, in the Regulations Division, 
Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to 
security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an 
appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations 
Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with 
hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via 
TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.

Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally 
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule implements the protections of VAWA 2013 in all HUD-
covered housing programs. These protections are statutory and 
statutorily directed to be implemented. The statute does not allow for 
covered housing providers who are, or may qualify as small entities to 
not provide such protections to its applicants or tenants or provide 
fewer protections than covered entities that are larger entities. 
However, with respect to processes that may be found to be burdensome 
to small covered housing providers--such as bifurcation of the lease 
and the emergency transfer plan--bifurcation of the lease is a 
statutory option not a mandate, and transferring a tenant under the 
emergency transfer plan is contingent upon whether a housing provider 
has a safe and available unit to which a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking can transfer may seek 
transfer. Therefore, small entities are not required to carry out the 
bifurcation option, and emergency transfers may not be feasible given 
the fewer number of units generally managed by smaller entities.

Environmental Impact

    This rule involves a policy document that sets out 
nondiscrimination standards. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3) this 
rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency 
from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule 
either (i) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and 
local governments and is not required by statute, or (ii) preempts 
State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This rule does not 
have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law 
within the meaning of the Executive order. The scope of this rule is 
limited to HUD-covered housing programs, as such term is defined in the 
rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to 
assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and 
tribal governments, and the private sector. This rule does not impose 
any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal government, or the 
private sector within the meaning of UMRA.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers applicable to 
the programs that would be affected by this rule are: 14.103, 14.135, 
14.157, 14.181, 14.195, 14.231, 14.267, 14.268, 14.239, 14.241, 14.850, 
14.856, and 14.871.

List of Subjects

24 CFR Part 5

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Crime, 
Government contracts, Grant programs--housing and community 
development, Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental 
relations, Loan programs--housing and community development, Low and 
moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Penalties, Pets, Public 
housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Social

[[Page 80798]]

security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.

24 CFR Part 91

    Aged, Grant programs--housing and community development, Homeless, 
Individuals with disabilities, Low and moderate income housing, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 92

    Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs--housing and 
community development, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured 
homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 93

    Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs--housing and 
community development, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured 
homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment 
opportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards, Lead 
poisoning, Loan programs--housing and community development, Mortgage 
insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping, Social Security, Unemployment 
compensation, Wages.

24 CFR Part 247

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Loan programs--
housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, 
Rent subsidies.

24 CFR Part 574

    Community facilities, Grant programs--housing and community 
development, Grant programs--social programs, HIV/AIDS, Low and 
moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 576

    Community facilities, Grant programs--housing and community 
development, Grant programs--social programs, Homeless, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 578

    Community development, Community facilities, Grant programs--
housing and community development, Grant program--social programs, 
Homeless, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 880

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Rent subsidies, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 882

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Homeless, Lead 
poisoning, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 883

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Rent subsidies, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 884

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Rent subsidies, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.

24 CFR Part 886

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Lead poisoning, 
Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 891

    Aged, Grant programs--housing and community development, 
Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs--housing and community 
development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 905

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Public housing, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 960

    Aged, Grant programs--housing and community development, 
Individuals with disabilities, Pets, Public housing.

24 CFR Part 966

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Public housing, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 982

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Grant programs--
Indians, Indians, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 983

    Grant programs--housing and community development, Low and moderate 
income housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, and in 
accordance with HUD's authority in 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), HUD amends 24 CFR 
parts 5, 92, 93, 200, 247, 574, 576, 578, 880, 882, 883, 884, 886, 891, 
905, 960, 966, 982, and 983, as follows:

PART 5--GENERAL HUD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS; WAIVERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 5 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 
3535(d), Sec. 327, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2936, and 42 U.S.C. 
14043e et seq., Sec. 601, Pub. L. 113-4, 127 Stat. 101.


0
2. Revise Subpart L to read as follows:
Subpart L--Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking
Sec.
5.2001 Applicability.
5.2003 Definitions.
5.2005 VAWA protections.
5.2007 Documenting the occurrence of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
5.2009 Remedies available to victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
5.2011 Effect on other laws.

Subpart L--Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking


Sec.  5.2001   Applicability.

    (a) This subpart addresses the protections for victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who are applying 
for, or are the beneficiaries of, assistance under a HUD program 
covered by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 
13925 and 42 U.S.C. 14043e et seq.) (``covered housing program,'' as 
defined in Sec.  5.2003). Notwithstanding the title of the statute, 
protections are not limited to women but cover victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, regardless of 
sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Consistent with the 
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements at 24 CFR 
5.105(a), victims cannot be discriminated against on the basis of any 
protected characteristic, including race, color, national origin, 
religion, sex, familial status, disability, or age. HUD programs must 
also be operated consistently with HUD's Equal Access Rule at Sec.  
5.105(a)(2), which requires that HUD-assisted and HUD-insured housing 
are made available to all otherwise eligible individuals and families 
regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, 
or marital status.

[[Page 80799]]

    (b)(1) The applicable assistance provided under a covered housing 
program generally consists of two types of assistance (one or both may 
be provided): Tenant-based rental assistance, which is rental 
assistance that is provided to the tenant; and project-based 
assistance, which is assistance that attaches to the unit in which the 
tenant resides. For project-based assistance, the assistance may 
consist of such assistance as operating assistance, development 
assistance, and mortgage interest rate subsidy.
    (2) The regulations in this subpart are supplemented by the 
specific regulations for the HUD-covered housing programs listed in 
Sec.  5.2003. The program-specific regulations address how certain VAWA 
requirements are to be implemented and whether they can be implemented 
(for example, reasonable time to establish eligibility for assistance 
as provided in Sec.  5.2009(b)) for the applicable covered housing 
program, given the statutory and regulatory framework for the program. 
When there is conflict between the regulations of this subpart and the 
program-specific regulations, the program-specific regulations govern. 
Where assistance is provided under more than one covered housing 
program and there is a conflict between VAWA protections or remedies 
under those programs, the individual seeking the VAWA protections or 
remedies may choose to use the protections or remedies under any or all 
of those programs, as long as the protections or remedies would be 
feasible and permissible under each of the program statutes.


Sec.  5.2003   Definitions.

    The definitions of PHA, HUD, household, and other person under the 
tenant's control are defined in subpart A of this part. As used in this 
subpart L:
    Actual and imminent threat refers to a physical danger that is 
real, would occur within an immediate time frame, and could result in 
death or serious bodily harm. In determining whether an individual 
would pose an actual and imminent threat, the factors to be considered 
include: The duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the 
potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and 
the length of time before the potential harm would occur.
    Affiliated individual, with respect to an individual, means:
    (1) A spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child of that individual, 
or a person to whom that individual stands in the place of a parent or 
guardian (for example, the affiliated individual is a person in the 
care, custody, or control of that individual); or
    (2) Any individual, tenant, or lawful occupant living in the 
household of that individual.
    Bifurcate means to divide a lease as a matter of law, subject to 
the permissibility of such process under the requirements of the 
applicable HUD-covered program and State or local law, such that 
certain tenants or lawful occupants can be evicted or removed and the 
remaining tenants or lawful occupants can continue to reside in the 
unit under the same lease requirements or as may be revised depending 
upon the eligibility for continued occupancy of the remaining tenants 
and lawful occupants.
    Covered housing program consists of the following HUD programs:
    (1) Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly (12 U.S.C. 
1701q), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 891.
    (2) Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities 
(42 U.S.C. 8013), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 891.
    (3) Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program (42 
U.S.C. 12901 et seq.), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 
574.
    (4) HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program (42 U.S.C. 12741 et 
seq.), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 92.
    (5) Homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360 et seq.), including the Emergency 
Solutions Grants program (with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 
576), the Continuum of Care program (with implementing regulations at 
24 CFR part 578), and the Rural Housing Stability Assistance program 
(with regulations forthcoming).
    (6) Multifamily rental housing under section 221(d)(3) of the 
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 17151(d)) with a below-market interest 
rate (BMIR) pursuant to section 221(d)(5), with implementing 
regulations at 24 CFR part 221.
    (7) Multifamily rental housing under section 236 of the National 
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1), with implementing regulations at 24 
CFR part 236.
    (8) HUD programs assisted under the United States Housing Act of 
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.); specifically, public housing under 
section 6 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437d) (with regulations at 24 CFR 
Chapter IX), tenant-based and project-based rental assistance under 
section 8 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f) (with regulations at 24 CFR 
chapters VIII and IX), and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single 
Room Occupancy (with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 882, 
subpart H).
    (9) The Housing Trust Fund (12 U.S.C. 4568) (with implementing 
regulations at 24 CFR part 93).
    Covered housing provider refers to the individual or entity under a 
covered housing program that has responsibility for the administration 
and/or oversight of VAWA protections and includes PHAs, sponsors, 
owners, mortgagors, managers, State and local governments or agencies 
thereof, nonprofit or for-profit organizations or entities. The 
program-specific regulations for the covered housing programs identify 
the individual or entity that carries out the duties and 
responsibilities of the covered housing provider as set forth in part 
5, subpart L. For any of the covered housing programs, it is possible 
that there may be more than one covered housing provider; that is, 
depending upon the VAWA duty or responsibility to be performed by a 
covered housing provider, the covered housing provider may not always 
be the same individual or entity.
    Dating violence means violence committed by a person:
    (1) Who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or 
intimate nature with the victim; and
    (2) Where the existence of such a relationship shall be determined 
based on a consideration of the following factors:
    (i) The length of the relationship;
    (ii) The type of relationship; and
    (iii) The frequency of interaction between the persons involved in 
the relationship.
    Domestic violence includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence 
committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the 
victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a 
person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a 
spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse 
of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the 
jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an 
adult or youth victim who is protected from that person's acts under 
the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. The term 
``spouse or intimate partner of the victim'' includes a person who is 
or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature 
with the victim, as determined by the length of the relationship, the 
type of the relationship, and the frequency of

[[Page 80800]]

interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
    Sexual assault means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by 
Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity 
to consent.
    Stalking means engaging in a course of conduct directed at a 
specific person that would cause a reasonable person to:
    (1) Fear for the person's individual safety or the safety of 
others; or
    (2) Suffer substantial emotional distress.
    VAWA means the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 13925 and 42 U.S.C. 14043e et seq.).


Sec.  5.2005   VAWA protections.

    (a) Notification of occupancy rights under VAWA, and certification 
form. (1) A covered housing provider must provide to each of its 
applicants and to each of its tenants the notice of occupancy rights 
and the certification form as described in this section:
    (i) A ``Notice of Occupancy Rights under the Violence Against Women 
Act,'' as prescribed and in accordance with directions provided by HUD, 
that explains the VAWA protections under this subpart, including the 
right to confidentiality, and any limitations on those protections; and
    (ii) A certification form, in a form approved by HUD, to be 
completed by the victim to document an incident of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, and that:
    (A) States that the applicant or tenant is a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
    (B) States that the incident of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking that is the ground for protection under 
this subpart meets the applicable definition for such incident under 
Sec.  5.2003; and
    (C) Includes the name of the individual who committed the domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the name is 
known and safe to provide.
    (2) The notice required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section and 
certification form required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section 
must be provided to an applicant or tenant no later than at each of the 
following times:
    (i) At the time the applicant is denied assistance or admission 
under a covered housing program;
    (ii) At the time the individual is provided assistance or admission 
under the covered housing program;
    (iii) With any notification of eviction or notification of 
termination of assistance; and
    (iv) During the 12-month period following December 16, 2016, either 
during the annual recertification or lease renewal process, whichever 
is applicable, or, if there will be no recertification or lease renewal 
for a tenant during the first year after the rule takes effect, through 
other means.
    (3) The notice required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section and 
the certification form required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section 
must be made available in multiple languages, consistent with guidance 
issued by HUD in accordance with Executive Order 13166 (Improving 
Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, signed 
August 11, 2000, and published in the Federal Register on August 16, 
2000 (at 65 FR 50121).
    (4) For the Housing Choice Voucher program under 24 CFR part 982, 
the project-based voucher program under 24 CFR part 983, the public 
housing admission and occupancy requirements under 24 CFR part 960, and 
renewed funding or leases of the Section 8 project-based program under 
24 CFR parts 880, 882, 883, 884, 886, as well as project-based section 
8 provided in connection with housing under part 891, the HUD-required 
lease, lease addendum, or tenancy addendum, as applicable, must include 
a description of specific protections afforded to the victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as 
provided in this subpart.
    (b) Prohibited basis for denial or termination of assistance or 
eviction--(1) General. An applicant for assistance or tenant assisted 
under a covered housing program may not be denied admission to, denied 
assistance under, terminated from participation in, or evicted from the 
housing on the basis or as a direct result of the fact that the 
applicant or tenant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the applicant or 
tenant otherwise qualifies for admission, assistance, participation, or 
occupancy.
    (2) Termination on the basis of criminal activity. A tenant in a 
covered housing program may not be denied tenancy or occupancy rights 
solely on the basis of criminal activity directly relating to domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking if:
    (i) The criminal activity is engaged in by a member of the 
household of the tenant or any guest or other person under the control 
of the tenant, and
    (ii) The tenant or an affiliated individual of the tenant is the 
victim or threatened victim of such domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault or stalking.
    (c) Construction of lease terms and terms of assistance. An 
incident of actual or threatened domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking shall not be construed as:
    (1) A serious or repeated violation of a lease executed under a 
covered housing program by the victim or threatened victim of such 
incident; or
    (2) Good cause for terminating the assistance, tenancy, or 
occupancy rights under a covered housing program of the victim or 
threatened victim of such incident.
    (d) Limitations of VAWA protections. (1) Nothing in this section 
limits the authority of a covered housing provider, when notified of a 
court order, to comply with a court order with respect to:
    (i) The rights of access or control of property, including civil 
protection orders issued to protect a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; or
    (ii) The distribution or possession of property among members of a 
household.
    (2) Nothing in this section limits any available authority of a 
covered housing provider to evict or terminate assistance to a tenant 
for any violation not premised on an act of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking that is in question against the 
tenant or an affiliated individual of the tenant. However, the covered 
housing provider must not subject the tenant, who is or has been a 
victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, or is affiliated with an individual who is or has been a 
victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or 
stalking, to a more demanding standard than other tenants in 
determining whether to evict or terminate assistance.
    (3) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a covered 
housing provider to terminate assistance to or evict a tenant under a 
covered housing program if the covered housing provider can demonstrate 
an actual and imminent threat to other tenants or those employed at or 
providing service to property of the covered housing provider would be 
present if that tenant or lawful occupant is not evicted or terminated 
from assistance. In this context, words, gestures, actions, or other 
indicators will be considered an ``actual and imminent threat'' if they 
meet the standards provided in the definition of ``actual and imminent 
threat'' in Sec.  5.2003.
    (4) Any eviction or termination of assistance, as provided in 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section should be utilized

[[Page 80801]]

by a covered housing provider only when there are no other actions that 
could be taken to reduce or eliminate the threat, including, but not 
limited to, transferring the victim to a different unit, barring the 
perpetrator from the property, contacting law enforcement to increase 
police presence or develop other plans to keep the property safe, or 
seeking other legal remedies to prevent the perpetrator from acting on 
a threat. Restrictions predicated on public safety cannot be based on 
stereotypes, but must be tailored to particularized concerns about 
individual residents.
    (e) Emergency transfer plan. Each covered housing provider, as 
identified in the program-specific regulations for the covered housing 
program, shall adopt an emergency transfer plan, no later than June 14, 
2017 based on HUD's model emergency transfer plan, in accordance with 
the following:
    (1) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
    (i) Internal emergency transfer refers to an emergency relocation 
of a tenant to another unit where the tenant would not be categorized 
as a new applicant; that is, the tenant may reside in the new unit 
without having to undergo an application process.
    (ii) External emergency transfer refers to an emergency relocation 
of a tenant to another unit where the tenant would be categorized as a 
new applicant; that is the tenant must undergo an application process 
in order to reside in the new unit.
    (iii) Safe unit refers to a unit that the victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking believes is 
safe.
    (2) The emergency transfer plan must provide that a tenant 
receiving rental assistance through, or residing in a unit subsidized 
under, a covered housing program who is a victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking qualifies for an emergency 
transfer if:
    (i) The tenant expressly requests the transfer; and
    (ii)(A) The tenant reasonably believes there is a threat of 
imminent harm from further violence if the tenant remains within the 
same dwelling unit that the tenant is currently occupying; or
    (B) In the case of a tenant who is a victim of sexual assault, 
either the tenant reasonably believes there is a threat of imminent 
harm from further violence if the tenant remains within the same 
dwelling unit that the tenant is currently occupying, or the sexual 
assault occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period 
preceding the date of the request for transfer.
    (3) The emergency transfer plan must detail the measure of any 
priority given to tenants who qualify for an emergency transfer under 
VAWA in relation to other categories of tenants seeking transfers and 
individuals seeking placement on waiting lists.
    (4) The emergency transfer plan must incorporate strict 
confidentiality measures to ensure that the covered housing provider 
does not disclose the location of the dwelling unit of the tenant to a 
person who committed or threatened to commit an act of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking against the 
tenant.
    (5) The emergency transfer plan must allow a tenant to make an 
internal emergency transfer under VAWA when a safe unit is immediately 
available.
    (6) The emergency transfer plan must describe policies for 
assisting a tenant in making an internal emergency transfer under VAWA 
when a safe unit is not immediately available, and these policies must 
ensure that requests for internal emergency transfers under VAWA 
receive, at a minimum, any applicable additional priority that housing 
providers may already provide to other types of emergency transfer 
requests.
    (7) The emergency transfer plan must describe reasonable efforts 
the covered housing provider will take to assist a tenant who wishes to 
make an external emergency transfer when a safe unit is not immediately 
available. The plan must include policies for assisting a tenant who is 
seeking an external emergency transfer under VAWA out of the covered 
housing provider's program or project, and a tenant who is seeking an 
external emergency transfer under VAWA into the covered housing 
provider's program or project. These policies may include:
    (i) Arrangements, including memoranda of understanding, with other 
covered housing providers to facilitate moves; and
    (ii) Outreach activities to organizations that assist or provide 
resources to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking.
    (8) Nothing may preclude a tenant from seeking an internal 
emergency transfer and an external emergency transfer concurrently if a 
safe unit is not immediately available.
    (9) Where applicable, the emergency transfer plan must describe 
policies for a tenant who has tenant-based rental assistance and who 
meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(2) of this section to move 
quickly with that assistance.
    (10) The emergency transfer plan may require documentation from a 
tenant seeking an emergency transfer, provided that:
    (i) The tenant's submission of a written request to the covered 
housing provider, where the tenant certifies that they meet the 
criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, shall be sufficient 
documentation of the requirements in paragraph (e)(2) of this section;
    (ii) The covered housing provider may, at its discretion, ask an 
individual seeking an emergency transfer to document the occurrence of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, in 
accordance with Sec.  5.2007, for which the individual is seeking the 
emergency transfer, if the individual has not already provided 
documentation of that occurrence; and
    (iii) No other documentation is required to qualify the tenant for 
an emergency transfer.
    (11) The covered housing provider must make its emergency transfer 
plan available upon request and, when feasible, must make its plan 
publicly available.
    (12) The covered housing provider must keep a record of all 
emergency transfers requested under its emergency transfer plan, and 
the outcomes of such requests, and retain these records for a period of 
three years, or for a period of time as specified in program 
regulations. Requests and outcomes of such requests must be reported to 
HUD annually.
    (13) Nothing in this paragraph (e) may be construed to supersede 
any eligibility or other occupancy requirements that may apply under a 
covered housing program.


Sec.  5.2007   Documenting the occurrence of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

    (a) Request for documentation. (1) Under a covered housing program, 
if an applicant or tenant represents to the covered housing provider 
that the individual is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking entitled to the protections under Sec.  
5.2005, or remedies under Sec.  5.2009, the covered housing provider 
may request, in writing, that the applicant or tenant submit to the 
covered housing provider the documentation specified in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (2)(i) If an applicant or tenant does not provide the documentation 
requested under paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 14 business 
days after the date that the tenant receives a request in writing for 
such documentation from

[[Page 80802]]

the covered housing provider, nothing in Sec.  5.2005 or Sec.  5.2009, 
which addresses the protections of VAWA, may be construed to limit the 
authority of the covered housing provider to:
    (A) Deny admission by the applicant or tenant to the covered 
housing program;
    (B) Deny assistance under the covered housing program to the 
applicant or tenant;
    (C) Terminate the participation of the tenant in the covered 
housing program; or
    (D) Evict the tenant, or a lawful occupant that commits a violation 
of a lease.
    (ii) A covered housing provider may, at its discretion, extend the 
14-business-day deadline under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (b) Permissible documentation and submission requirements. (1) In 
response to a written request to the applicant or tenant from the 
covered housing provider, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, 
the applicant or tenant may submit, as documentation of the occurrence 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, any 
one of the following forms of documentation, where it is at the 
discretion of the tenant or applicant which one of the following forms 
of documentation to submit:
    (i) The certification form described in Sec.  5.2005(a)(1)(ii); or
    (ii) A document:
    (A) Signed by an employee, agent, or volunteer of a victim service 
provider, an attorney, or medical professional, or a mental health 
professional (collectively, ``professional'') from whom the victim has 
sought assistance relating to domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, or the effects of abuse;
    (B) Signed by the applicant or tenant; and
    (C) That specifies, under penalty of perjury, that the professional 
believes in the occurrence of the incident of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking that is the ground for protection 
and remedies under this subpart, and that the incident meets the 
applicable definition of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking under Sec.  5.2003; or
    (iii) A record of a Federal, State, tribal, territorial or local 
law enforcement agency, court, or administrative agency; or
    (iv) At the discretion of a covered housing provider, a statement 
or other evidence provided by the applicant or tenant.
    (2) If a covered housing provider receives documentation under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section that contains conflicting information 
(including certification forms from two or more members of a household 
each claiming to be a victim and naming one or more of the other 
petitioning household members as the perpetrator), the covered housing 
provider may require an applicant or tenant to submit third-party 
documentation, as described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii), or 
(b)(1)(iv) of this section, within 30 calendar days of the date of the 
request for the third-party documentation.
    (3) Nothing in this paragraph (b) shall be construed to require a 
covered housing provider to request that an individual submit 
documentation of the status of the individual as a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    (c) Confidentiality. Any information submitted to a covered housing 
provider under this section, including the fact that an individual is a 
victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking (confidential information), shall be maintained in strict 
confidence by the covered housing provider.
    (1) The covered housing provider shall not allow any individual 
administering assistance on behalf of the covered housing provider or 
any persons within their employ (e.g., contractors) or in the employ of 
the covered housing provider to have access to confidential information 
unless explicitly authorized by the covered housing provider for 
reasons that specifically call for these individuals to have access to 
this information under applicable Federal, State, or local law.
    (2) The covered housing provider shall not enter confidential 
information described in paragraph (c) of this section into any shared 
database or disclose such information to any other entity or 
individual, except to the extent that the disclosure is:
    (i) Requested or consented to in writing by the individual in a 
time-limited release
    (ii) Required for use in an eviction proceeding or hearing 
regarding termination of assistance from the covered program; or
    (iii) Otherwise required by applicable law.
    (d) A covered housing provider's compliance with the protections of 
Sec. Sec.  5.2005 and 5.2009, based on documentation received under 
this section shall not be sufficient to constitute evidence of an 
unreasonable act or omission by the covered housing provider. However, 
nothing in this paragraph (d) of this section shall be construed to 
limit the liability of a covered housing provider for failure to comply 
with Sec. Sec.  5.2005 and 5.2009.


Sec.  5.2009   Remedies available to victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

    (a) Lease bifurcation. (1) A covered housing provider may in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, bifurcate a lease, or 
remove a household member from a lease in order to evict, remove, 
terminate occupancy rights, or terminate assistance to such member who 
engages in criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking against an affiliated 
individual or other individual:
    (i) Without regard to whether the household member is a signatory 
to the lease; and
    (ii) Without evicting, removing, terminating assistance to, or 
otherwise penalizing a victim of such criminal activity who is also a 
tenant or lawful occupant.
    (2) A lease bifurcation, as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, shall be carried out in accordance with any requirements or 
procedures as may be prescribed by Federal, State, or local law for 
termination of assistance or leases and in accordance with any 
requirements under the relevant covered housing program.
    (b) Reasonable time to establish eligibility for assistance or find 
alternative housing following bifurcation of a lease--(1) 
Applicability. The reasonable time to establish eligibility under a 
covered housing program or find alternative housing is specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, or alternatively in the program-specific 
regulations governing the applicable covered housing program. Some 
covered housing programs may provide different time frames than are 
specified in this paragraph (b), and in such cases, the program-
specific regulations govern.
    (2) Reasonable time to establish eligibility assistance or find 
alternative housing. (i) If a covered housing provider exercises the 
option to bifurcate a lease as provided in paragraph (a) of this 
section, and the individual who was evicted or for whom assistance was 
terminated was the eligible tenant under the covered housing program, 
the covered housing provider shall provide to any remaining tenant or 
tenants that were not already eligible a period of 90 calendar days 
from the date of bifurcation of the lease to:

[[Page 80803]]

    (A) Establish eligibility for the same covered housing program 
under which the evicted or terminated tenant was the recipient of 
assistance at the time of bifurcation of the lease; or
    (B) Establish eligibility under another covered housing program; or
    (C) Find alternative housing.
    (ii) The 90-calendar-day period provided by paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section will not be available to a remaining household member if 
the statutory requirements for the covered housing program prohibit it. 
The 90-day calendar period also will not apply beyond the expiration of 
a lease, unless this is permitted by program regulations. The 90-
calendar-day period is the total period provided to a remaining tenant 
to establish eligibility under the three options provided in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i)(A), (B), and (C) of this section.
    (iii) The covered housing provider may extend the 90-calendar-day 
period in paragraph (b)(2) of this section up to an additional 60 
calendar days, unless prohibited from doing so by statutory 
requirements of the covered program or unless the time period would 
extend beyond expiration of the lease.
    (c) Efforts to promote housing stability for victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Covered housing 
providers are encouraged to undertake whatever actions permissible and 
feasible under their respective programs to assist individuals residing 
in their units who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking to remain in their units or other units 
under the covered housing program or other covered housing providers, 
and for the covered housing provider to bear the costs of any transfer, 
where permissible.


Sec.  5.2011   Effect on other laws.

    (a) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to supersede any 
provision of any Federal, State, or local law that provides greater 
protection than this section for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    (b) All applicable fair housing and civil rights statutes and 
requirements apply in the implementation of VAWA requirements. See 
Sec.  5.105(a).

PART 91--CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND 
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

0
3. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388, 
12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.


0
4. In Sec.  91.520, revise paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  91.520   Performance reports.

* * * * *
    (e) HOME. For HOME participating jurisdictions, the report shall 
include the results of on-site inspections of affordable rental housing 
assisted under the program to determine compliance with housing codes 
and other applicable regulations, an assessment of the jurisdiction's 
affirmative marketing actions and outreach to minority-owned and women-
owned businesses, data on the amount and use of program income for 
projects, including the number of projects and owner and tenant 
characteristics, and data on emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 
5.2005(e) and 24 CFR 92.359, pertaining to victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including data 
on the outcomes of such requests.
    (f) HOPWA. For jurisdictions receiving funding under the Housing 
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program, the report must include 
the number of individuals assisted and the types of assistance 
provided, as well as data on emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 
5.2005(e), pertaining to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, including data on the outcomes of such 
requests.
    (g) ESG. For jurisdictions receiving funding under the ESG program 
provided in 24 CFR part 576, the report, in a form prescribed by HUD, 
must include the number of persons assisted, the types of assistance 
provided, the project or program outcomes data measured under the 
performance standards developed in consultation with the Continuum(s) 
of Care, and data on emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 
5.2005(e) and 24 CFR 576.409, pertaining to victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including data 
on the outcomes of such requests.
    (h) HTF. For jurisdictions receiving HTF funds, the report must 
describe the HTF program's accomplishments, and the extent to which the 
jurisdiction complied with its approved HTF allocation plan and the 
requirements of 24 CFR part 93, as well as data on emergency transfers 
requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e) and 24 CFR 93.356, pertaining to 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, including data on the outcomes of such requests.
* * * * *

PART 92--HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

0
5. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701-12839.


0
6. In Sec.  92.253, paragraph (a) is revised, the word ``and'' is 
removed from the end of paragraph (d)(5), the period is removed and ``; 
and'' is added at the end of paragraph (d)(6), and paragraph (d)(7) is 
added to read as follows:


Sec.  92.253   Tenant protections and selection.

    (a) Lease. There must be a written lease between the tenant and the 
owner of rental housing assisted with HOME funds that is for a period 
of not less than 1 year, unless by mutual agreement between the tenant 
and the owner a shorter period is specified. The lease must incorporate 
the VAWA lease term/addendum required under Sec.  92.359(e), except as 
otherwise provided by Sec.  92.359(b).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) Comply with the VAWA requirements prescribed in Sec.  92.359.

0
7. Section 92.359 is added to subpart H to read as follows:


Sec.  92.359   VAWA requirements.

    (a) General. (1) The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) requirements 
set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, apply to all HOME tenant-based 
rental assistance and rental housing assisted with HOME funds, as 
supplemented by this section.
    (2) For the HOME program, the ``covered housing provider,'' as this 
term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, refers 
to:
    (i) The housing owner for the purposes of 24 CFR 5.2005(d)(1), 
(d)(3), and (d)(4) and Sec.  5.2009(a); and
    (ii) The participating jurisdiction and the owner for purposes of 
24 CFR 5.2005(d)(2), 5.2005(e), and 5.2007, except as otherwise 
provided in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (b) Effective date. The core statutory protections of VAWA that 
prohibit denial or termination of assistance or eviction solely because 
an applicant or tenant is a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking became applicable upon enactment 
of VAWA 2013 on March 7, 2013. Compliance with the VAWA regulatory 
requirements under this section and 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, are

[[Page 80804]]

required for any tenant-based rental assistance or rental housing 
project for which the date of the HOME funding commitment is on or 
after December 16, 2016.
    (c) Notification requirements. The participating jurisdiction must 
provide a notice and certification form that meet the requirements of 
24 CFR 5.2005(a) to the owner of HOME-assisted rental housing.
    (1) For HOME-assisted units. The owner of HOME-assisted rental 
housing must provide the notice and certification form described in 24 
CFR 5.2005(a) to the applicant for a HOME-assisted unit at the time the 
applicant is admitted to a HOME-assisted unit, or denied admission to a 
HOME-assisted unit based on the owner's tenant selection policies and 
criteria. The owner of HOME-assisted rental housing must also provide 
the notice and certification form described in 24 CFR 5.2005 with any 
notification of eviction from a HOME-assisted unit.
    (2) For HOME tenant-based rental assistance. The participating 
jurisdiction must provide the notice and certification form described 
in 24 CFR 5.2005(a) to the applicant for HOME tenant-based rental 
assistance when the applicant's HOME tenant-based rental assistance is 
approved or denied. The participating jurisdiction must also provide 
the notice and certification form described in 24 CFR 5.2005(a) to a 
tenant receiving HOME tenant-based rental assistance when the 
participating jurisdiction provides the tenant with notification of 
termination of the HOME tenant-based rental assistance, and when the 
participating jurisdiction learns that the tenant's housing owner 
intends to provide the tenant with notification of eviction.
    (d) Bifurcation of lease requirements. For the purposes of this 
part, the following requirements shall apply in place of the 
requirements at 24 CFR 5.2009(b):
    (1) If a family living in a HOME-assisted rental unit separates 
under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), the remaining tenant(s) may remain in the HOME-
assisted unit.
    (2) If a family who is receiving HOME tenant-based rental 
assistance separates under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), the remaining tenant(s) 
will retain the HOME tenant-based rental assistance. The participating 
jurisdiction must determine whether the tenant that was removed from 
the unit will receive HOME tenant-based rental assistance.
    (e) VAWA lease term/addendum. The participating jurisdiction must 
develop a VAWA lease term/addendum to incorporate all requirements that 
apply to the owner or lease under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and this 
section, including the prohibited bases for eviction and restrictions 
on construing lease terms under 24 CFR 5.2005(b) and (c). This VAWA 
lease term/addendum must also provide that the tenant may terminate the 
lease without penalty if the participating jurisdiction determines that 
the tenant has met the conditions for an emergency transfer under 24 
CFR 5.2005(e). When HOME tenant-based rental assistance is provided, 
the lease term/addendum must require the owner to notify the 
participating jurisdiction before the owner bifurcates the lease or 
provides notification of eviction to the tenant. If HOME tenant-based 
rental assistance is the only assistance provided (i.e., the unit is 
not receiving project-based assistance under a covered housing program, 
as defined in 24 CFR 5.2003), the VAWA lease term/addendum may be 
written to expire at the end of the rental assistance period.
    (f) Period of applicability. For HOME-assisted rental housing, the 
requirements of this section shall apply to the owner of the housing 
for the duration of the affordability period. For HOME tenant-based 
rental assistance, the requirements of this section shall apply to the 
owner of the tenant's housing for the period for which the rental 
assistance is provided.
    (g) Emergency Transfer Plan. (1) The participating jurisdiction 
must develop and implement an emergency transfer plan and must make the 
determination of whether a tenant qualifies under the plan. The plan 
must meet the requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e), as supplemented by this 
section.
    (2) For the purposes of Sec.  5.2005(e)(7), the required policies 
must specify that for tenants who qualify for an emergency transfer and 
who wish to make an external emergency transfer when a safe unit is not 
immediately available, the participating jurisdiction must provide a 
list of properties in the jurisdiction that include HOME-assisted 
units. The list must include the following information for each 
property: The property's address, contact information, the unit sizes 
(number of bedrooms) for the HOME-assisted units, and, to the extent 
known, any tenant preferences or eligibility restrictions for the HOME-
assisted units. In addition, the participating jurisdiction may:
    (i) Establish a preference under the participating jurisdiction's 
HOME program for tenants who qualify for emergency transfers under 24 
CFR 5.2005(e);
    (ii) Provide HOME tenant-based rental assistance to tenants who 
qualify for emergency transfers under 24 CFR 5.2005(e); or
    (iii) Coordinate with victim service providers and advocates to 
develop the emergency transfer plan, make referrals, and facilitate 
emergency transfers to safe and available units.

0
8. Section 92.504(c) is amended by adding a sentence to the end of 
paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (c)(2)(iv), adding paragraph (c)(3)(v)(F), 
and adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (c)(4)(ii), to read as 
follows:


Sec.  92.504  Participating jurisdiction responsibilities; written 
agreements; on-site inspection.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) * * * If HOME funds are provided for development of rental 
housing or provision of tenant-based rental assistance, the agreement 
must set forth all obligations the State imposes on the State recipient 
in order to meet the VAWA requirements under Sec.  92.359, including 
notice obligations and any obligations with respect to the emergency 
transfer plan (including whether the State recipient must develop its 
own plan or follow the State's plan).
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * * If HOME funds are being provided to develop rental 
housing or provide tenant-based rental assistance, the agreement must 
set forth all obligations the participating jurisdiction imposes on the 
subrecipient in order to meet the VAWA requirements under Sec.  92.359, 
including notice obligations and obligations under the emergency 
transfer plan.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (F) If HOME funds are being provided to develop rental housing, the 
agreement must set forth all obligations the participating jurisdiction 
imposes on the owner in order to meet the VAWA requirements under Sec.  
92.359, including the owner's notice obligations and owner obligations 
under the emergency transfer plan.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * * If applicable to the work under the contract, the 
agreement must set forth all obligations the participating jurisdiction 
imposes on the contractor in order to meet the VAWA requirements under 
Sec.  92.359, including any notice obligations and any obligations 
under the emergency transfer plan.
* * * * *

[[Page 80805]]


0
9. In Sec.  92.508, paragraph (a)(7)(x) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  92.508  Recordkeeping.

    (a) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (x) Records of emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e) 
and 92.359 pertaining to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, including data on the outcomes of those 
requests.
* * * * *

PART 93--HOUSING TRUST FUND

0
10. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12 U.S.C. 4568.


0
11. In Sec.  93.303, paragraph (a) is revised, paragraph (d)(5) is 
amended by removing the ``and'' at the end, paragraph (d)(6) is amended 
by removing the period and adding ``:and'' in its place, and paragraph 
(d)(7) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  93.303  Tenant protections and selection.

    (a) Lease. There must be a written lease between the tenant and the 
owner of rental housing assisted with HTF funds that is for a period of 
not less than one year, unless by mutual agreement between the tenant 
and the owner a shorter period is specified. The lease must incorporate 
the VAWA lease term/addendum required under Sec.  93.356(d).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) Comply with the VAWA requirements prescribed in Sec.  93.356.

0
12. Section 93.356 is added to subpart H to read as follows:


Sec.  93.356   VAWA requirements.

    (a) General. (1) The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) requirements 
set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, apply to all rental housing 
assisted with HTF funds, as provided in this section.
    (2) For the HTF program, the ``covered housing provider,'' as this 
term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, refers 
to:
    (i) The owner of HTF-assisted rental housing for the purposes of 24 
CFR 5.2005(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) and 5.2009(a); and
    (ii) The owner and the grantee for purposes of 24 CFR 5.2005(e) and 
5.2007, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (b) Notification requirements. The grantee must provide a notice 
and certification form that meet the requirements of 24 CFR 5.2005(a) 
to the owner of HTF-assisted rental housing. The owner of HTF-assisted 
rental housing must provide the notice and certification form described 
in 24 CFR 5.2005(a) to the applicant for a HTF-assisted unit at the 
time the applicant is admitted to an HTF-assisted unit, or denied 
admission to a HTF-assisted unit based on the owner's tenant selection 
policies and criteria. The owner of HTF-assisted rental housing must 
also provide the notice and certification form described in 24 CFR 
5.2005 with any notification of eviction from a HTF-assisted unit.
    (c) Bifurcation of lease requirements. For purposes of this part, 
the requirements of 24 CFR 5.2009(b) do not apply. If a family who 
lives in a HTF-assisted rental unit separates under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), 
the remaining tenant(s) may remain in the HTF-assisted unit.
    (d) VAWA lease term/addendum. The grantee must develop a VAWA lease 
term/addendum to incorporate all requirements that apply to the owner 
or lease of HTF-assisted rental housing under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, 
and this section, including the prohibited bases for eviction and 
restrictions on construing lease terms under 24 CFR 5.2005(b) and (c). 
This VAWA lease term/addendum must also provide that the tenant may 
terminate the lease without penalty if the grantee determines that the 
tenant has met the conditions for an emergency transfer under 24 CFR 
5.2005(e).
    (e) Period of applicability. The requirements of this section shall 
apply to the owner of the HTF-assisted rental housing for the duration 
of the affordability period.
    (f) Emergency transfer plan. The grantee must develop and implement 
an emergency transfer plan and must make the determination of whether a 
tenant qualifies for an emergency transfer under the plan. The plan 
must meet the requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e), where, for the purposes 
of Sec.  5.2005(e)(7), the required policies must specify that for 
tenants who qualify for an emergency transfer and who wish to make an 
external emergency transfer when a safe unit is not immediately 
available, the grantee must provide a list of properties in the 
jurisdiction that include HTF-assisted units. The list must include the 
following information for each property: The property's address, 
contact information, the unit sizes (number of bedrooms) for the HTF-
assisted units, and, to the extent known, any tenant preferences or 
eligibility restrictions for the HTF-assisted units. In addition, the 
grantee may:
    (1) Establish a preference under the grantee's HTF program for 
tenants who qualify for emergency transfers under 24 CFR 5.2005(e); and
    (2) Coordinate with victim service providers and advocates to 
develop the emergency transfer plan, make referrals, and facilitate 
emergency transfers to safe and available units.

0
13. In Sec.  93.404, paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (c)(2)(vi) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  93.404   Grantee responsibilities; written agreements; onsite 
inspections; financial oversight.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) Other program requirements. The agreement must require the 
subgrantee to carry out each project in compliance with all Federal 
laws and regulations described in Sec. Sec.  93.350 through 93.356. The 
agreement must set forth all obligations the grantee imposes on the 
subgrantee in order to meet the VAWA requirements under Sec.  93.356, 
including notice obligations and obligations under the emergency 
transfer plan.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) Other program requirements. The agreement must require the 
eligible recipient to carry out each project in compliance with all 
Federal laws and regulations described in Sec. Sec.  93.350 through 
93.356. The agreement must set forth all obligations the grantee 
imposes on the recipient in order to meet the VAWA requirements under 
Sec.  93.356, including notice obligations and obligations under the 
emergency transfer plan.
* * * * *

0
14. In Sec.  93.407, add paragraph (a)(5)(ix) to read as follows:


Sec.  93.407   Recordkeeping.

    (a) General. * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ix) Documentation on emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 
5.2005(e) and Sec.  93.356 pertaining to victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including data on the 
outcomes of such requests.
* * * * *

PART 200--INTRODUCTION TO FHA PROGRAMS

0
15. The authority citation for Part 200 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21 and 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).


0
16. Add Sec.  200.38 to read as follows:

[[Page 80806]]

Sec.  200.38   Protections for victims of domestic violence.

    (a) The requirements for protection for victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 
5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply to programs administered 
under section 236 and under sections 221(d)(3) and (d)(5) of the 
National Housing Act, as follows:
    (1) Multifamily rental housing under section 221(d)(3) of the 
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 17151(d)) with a below-market interest 
rate (BMIR) pursuant to section 221(d)(5), with implementing 
regulations at 24 CFR part 221. The Section 221(d)(3) BMIR program 
insured and subsidized mortgage loans to facilitate new construction or 
substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental cooperative housing 
for low- and moderate-income families. The program is no longer active, 
but Section 221(d)(3) BMIR properties that remain in existence are 
covered by VAWA. Coverage of section 221(d)(3) and (d)(5) BMIR housing 
does not include section 221(d)(3) and (d)(5) BMIR projects that 
refinance under section 223(a)(7) or 223(f) of the National Housing Act 
where the interest rate is no longer determined under section 
221(d)(5).
    (2) Multifamily rental housing under section 236 of the National 
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1), with implementing regulations at 24 
CFR part 236. Coverage of the section 236 program includes not only 
those projects with FHA-insured project mortgages under section 236(j), 
but also non-FHA-insured projects that receive interest reduction 
payments (``IRP'') under section 236(b) and formerly insured section 
236 projects that continue to receive interest reduction payments 
through a ``decoupled'' IRP contract under section 236(e)(2). Coverage 
also includes projects that receive rental assistance payments 
authorized under section 236(f)(2).
    (b) For the programs administered under paragraph (a) of this 
section, ``covered housing provider'' as such term is used in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L, refers to the mortgagor, or owner, as applicable.

PART 247--EVICTIONS FROM CERTAIN SUBSIDIZED AND HUD-OWNED PROJECTS

0
17. The authority citation for part 247 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 1701q, 1701s, 1715b, 1715l, and 1715z-1; 
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, and 3535(d).


0
18. In Sec.  247.1, redesignate the undesignated paragraph as paragraph 
(a) and add paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  247.1   Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) Landlords of subsidized projects that have been assisted under 
a covered housing program listed in 24 CFR 5.2003 must comply with 24 
CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), as described in Sec.  
200.38.

PART 574--HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

0
19. The authority citation for part 574 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12901-12912.


0
20. In Sec.  574.310, revise paragraph (e)(2)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  574.310   General standards for eligible housing activities.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * * (i) Basis. Assistance to participants who reside in 
housing programs assisted under this part may be terminated if the 
participant violates program requirements or conditions of occupancy, 
subject to the VAWA protections in 24 CFR 5.2005(b) and 24 CFR 
5.2005(c). Grantees must ensure that supportive services are provided, 
so that a participant's assistance is terminated only in the most 
severe cases.
* * * * *

0
21. Add Sec.  574.460 to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  574.460   Remaining participants following bifurcation of a lease 
or eviction as a result of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking.

    When a covered housing provider exercises the option to bifurcate a 
lease, as provided in 24 CFR 5.2009(a), in order to evict, remove, 
terminate occupancy rights, or terminate assistance to a person with 
AIDS or related diseases that receives rental assistance or resides in 
rental housing assisted under the HOPWA program for engaging in 
criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault or stalking, the covered housing provider 
shall provide the remaining persons residing in the unit a reasonable 
grace period to establish eligibility to receive HOPWA assistance or 
find alternative housing. The grantee or project sponsor shall set the 
reasonable grace period, which shall be no less than 90 calendar days, 
and not more than one year, from the date of the bifurcation of the 
lease. Housing assistance and supportive services under the HOPWA 
program shall continue for the remaining persons residing in the unit 
during the grace period. The grantee or project sponsor shall notify 
the remaining persons residing in the unit of the duration of the 
reasonable grace period and may assist them with information on other 
available housing programs and with moving expenses.

0
22. Revise Sec.  574.520(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  574.520   Performance reports.

* * * * *
    (b) Competitive grants. A grantee shall submit to HUD annually a 
report describing the use of the amounts received, including the number 
of individuals assisted, the types of assistance provided, data on 
emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), pertaining to 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, including data on the outcomes of such requests, and any 
other information that HUD may require. Annual reports are required 
until all grant funds are expended.

0
23. Add Sec.  574.530(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  574.530   Recordkeeping.

* * * * *
    (c) Data on emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), 
pertaining to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking, including data on the outcomes of such requests.

0
24. Add Sec.  574.604 to read as follows:


Sec.  574.604   Protections for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

    (a) General--(1) Applicability of VAWA requirements. Except as 
provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Violence Against 
Women Act (VAWA) requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L 
(Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 
Assault, or Stalking), apply to housing assisted with HOPWA grant funds 
for acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, lease, and repair of 
facilities to provide housing; new construction; and operating costs, 
as provided in Sec.  574.300. The requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 
5, subpart L, also apply to project-based and tenant-based rental 
assistance, as provided in Sec. Sec.  574.300 and 574.320,

[[Page 80807]]

and community residences, as provided in Sec.  574.340.
    (2) Limited applicability of VAWA requirements. The VAWA 
requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L do not apply to 
short-term supported housing, as provided in Sec.  574.330, except that 
no individual may be denied admission to or removed from the short-term 
supported housing on the basis or as a direct result of the fact that 
the individual is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the individual otherwise 
qualifies for admission or occupancy.
    (3) The terms ``affiliated individual,'' ``dating violence,'' 
``domestic violence,'' ``sexual assault,'' and ``stalking'' are defined 
in 24 CFR 5.2003.
    (b) Covered housing provider. As used in this part, the term, 
``covered housing provider,'' which is defined in 24 CFR 5.2003, refers 
to the HOPWA grantee, project sponsor, or housing or facility owner, or 
manager, as described in this section.
    (1)(i) For housing assisted with HOPWA grant funds for acquisition, 
rehabilitation, conversion, lease, and repair of facilities to provide 
housing; new construction; operating costs; community residences; and 
project-based rental assistance, the HOPWA grantee is responsible for 
ensuring that each project sponsor undertakes the following actions 
(or, if administering the HOPWA assistance directly, the grantee shall 
undertake the following actions):
    (A) Sets a policy for determining the ``reasonable grace period'' 
for remaining persons residing in the unit to establish eligibility for 
HOPWA assistance or find alternative housing, which period shall be no 
less than 90 calendar days nor more than one year from the date of 
bifurcation of a lease, consistent with 24 CFR 574.460;
    (B) Provides notice of occupancy rights and the certification form 
at the times listed in paragraph (d) of this section;
    (C) Adopts and administers an emergency transfer plan, as developed 
by the grantee in accordance with 24 CFR 5.2005(e) of this section, and 
facilitates emergency transfers; and
    (D) Maintains the confidentiality of documentation submitted by 
tenants requesting emergency transfers and of each tenant's housing 
location consistent with Sec.  574.440 and 24 CFR 5.2007(c).
    (ii)(A) If a tenant seeks VAWA protections, set forth in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L, the tenant must submit such request through the 
project sponsor (or the grantee if the grantee is directly 
administering HOPWA assistance). Grantees and project sponsors will 
work with the housing or facility owner or manager to facilitate 
protections on the tenant's behalf. Project sponsors must follow the 
documentation specifications in 24 CFR 5.2007, including the 
confidentiality requirements in 24 CFR 5.2007(c).
    (B) The grantee or project sponsor is responsible for ensuring that 
the housing or facility owner or manager develops and uses a HOPWA 
lease addendum with VAWA protections and is made aware of the option to 
bifurcate a lease in accordance with Sec.  574.460 and 24 CFR 5.2009.
    (2)(i) For tenant-based rental assistance, the HOPWA grantee is 
responsible for ensuring that each project sponsor providing tenant-
based rental assistance undertakes the following actions (or, if 
administering the HOPWA assistance directly, the grantee shall 
undertake the following actions):
    (A) Sets policy for determining the ``reasonable grace period'' for 
remaining persons residing in the unit to establish eligibility for 
HOPWA assistance or find alternative housing, which period shall be no 
less than 90 calendar days and no more than one year from the date of 
bifurcation of a lease, consistent with 24 CFR 574.460;
    (B) Provides notice of occupancy rights and the certification form 
at the times listed in paragraph (d) of this section;
    (C) Adopts and administers an emergency transfer plan, as developed 
by the grantee in accordance with 24 CFR 5.2005(e) of this section, and 
facilitates emergency transfers; and
    (D) Maintains the confidentiality of documentation submitted by 
tenants requesting emergency transfers and of each tenant's housing 
location consistent with Sec.  574.440 and 24 CFR 5.2007(c).
    (ii)(A) If a tenant seeks VAWA protections set forth in 24 CFR part 
5, subpart L, the tenant must submit such request through the project 
sponsor (or the grantee if the grantee is directly administering HOPWA 
assistance). The project sponsor will work with the housing owner or 
manager to facilitate protections on the tenant's behalf. Project 
sponsors must follow the documentation specifications in 24 CFR 5.2007, 
including the confidentiality requirements in 24 CFR 5.2007(c). The 
project sponsor (or the grantee if the grantee is directly 
administering HOPWA assistance) is also responsible for determining on 
a case-by-case basis whether to provide new tenant-based rental 
assistance to a remaining tenant if lease bifurcation or an emergency 
transfer results in division of the household.
    (B) The grantee or project sponsor is responsible for ensuring that 
the housing owner or manager develops and uses a HOPWA lease addendum 
with VAWA protections and is made aware of the option to bifurcate a 
lease in accordance with Sec.  574.460 and 24 CFR 5.2009.
    (c) Effective date. The core statutory protections of VAWA that 
prohibit denial or termination of assistance or eviction because an 
applicant or tenant is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking applied upon enactment of VAWA 2013 on 
March 7, 2013. For formula grants, compliance with the VAWA regulatory 
requirements under this section and 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, are 
required for any project covered under Sec.  574.604(a) for which the 
date of the HOPWA funding commitment is made on or after December 16, 
2016. For competitive grants, compliance with the VAWA regulatory 
requirements under this section and 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, are 
required for awards made on or after December 16, 2016.
    (d) Notification requirements. (1) As provided in paragraph (b) of 
this section, the grantee is responsible for ensuring that the notice 
of occupancy rights and certification form described in 24 CFR 
5.2005(a) is provided to each person receiving project-based or tenant-
based rental assistance under HOPWA or residing in rental housing 
assisted under the eligible activities described in Sec.  574.604(a) at 
the following times:
    (i) At the time the person is denied rental assistance or admission 
to a HOPWA-assisted unit;
    (ii) At the time the person is admitted to a HOPWA-assisted unit or 
is provided rental assistance;
    (iii) With any notification of eviction from the HOPWA-assisted 
unit or notification of termination of rental assistance; and
    (iv) During the 12-month period following December 16, 2016, either 
during annual recertification or lease renewal, whichever is 
applicable, or, if there will be no recertification or lease renewal 
for a tenant during the first year after the rule takes effect, through 
other means.
    (2) The grantee is responsible for ensuring that, for each tenant 
receiving HOPWA tenant-based rental assistance, the owner or manager of 
the tenant's housing unit commits to provide the notice of occupancy 
rights and certification form described in 24 CFR 5.2005 with any 
notification of eviction

[[Page 80808]]

that the owner or manager provides to the tenant during the period for 
which the tenant is receiving HOPWA tenant-based rental assistance. 
This commitment, as well as the confidentiality requirements under 24 
CFR 5.2007(c), must be set forth in the VAWA lease term/addendum 
required under paragraph (f) of this section.
    (e) Definition of reasonable time. For the purpose of 24 CFR 
5.2009(b), the reasonable time to establish eligibility or find 
alternative housing following bifurcation of a lease is the reasonable 
grace period described in Sec.  574.460.
    (f) VAWA lease term/addendum. As provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section, the grantee or project sponsor is responsible for ensuring 
that the housing or facility owner or manager, as applicable, develops 
and uses a VAWA lease term/addendum to incorporate all requirements 
that apply to the housing or facility owner or manager under 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L, and this section, including the prohibited bases for 
eviction under 24 CFR 5.2005(b), the provisions regarding construction 
of lease terms and terms of assistance under 24 CFR 5.2005(c), and the 
confidentiality of documentation submitted by tenants requesting 
emergency transfers and of each tenant's housing location consistent 
with 24 CFR 5.2007(c). The VAWA lease term/addendum must also provide 
that the tenant may terminate the lease without penalty if a 
determination is made that the tenant has met the conditions for an 
emergency transfer under 24 CFR 5.2005(e). The grantee or project 
sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the housing or facility owner, 
or manager, as applicable, adds the VAWA lease term/addendum to the 
leases for all HOPWA-assisted units and the leases for all eligible 
persons receiving HOPWA tenant-based rental assistance.

PART 576--EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM

0
25. The authority citation for part 576 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).


0
26. In Sec.  576.105, add paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  576.105  Housing relocation and stabilization services.

    (a) * * *
    (7) If a program participant receiving short- or medium-term rental 
assistance under Sec.  576.106 meets the conditions for an emergency 
transfer under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), ESG funds may be used to pay amounts 
owed for breaking a lease to effect an emergency transfer. These costs 
are not subject to the 24-month limit on rental assistance under Sec.  
576.106.
* * * * *

0
27. In Sec.  576.106, paragraphs (e) and (g) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  576.106  Short-term and medium-term rental assistance.

* * * * *
    (e) Rental assistance agreement. The recipient or subrecipient may 
make rental assistance payments only to an owner with whom the 
recipient or subrecipient has entered into a rental assistance 
agreement. The rental assistance agreement must set forth the terms 
under which rental assistance will be provided, including the 
requirements that apply under this section. The rental assistance 
agreement must provide that, during the term of the agreement, the 
owner must give the recipient or subrecipient a copy of any notice to 
the program participant to vacate the housing unit or any complaint 
used under State or local law to commence an eviction action against 
the program participant. Each rental assistance agreement that is 
executed or renewed on or after December 16, 2016 must include all 
protections that apply to tenants and applicants under 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L, as supplemented by Sec.  576.409, except for the emergency 
transfer plan requirements under 24 CFR 5.2005(e) and 576.409(d). If 
the housing is not assisted under another ``covered housing program'', 
as defined in 24 CFR 5.2003, the agreement may provide that the owner's 
obligations under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), 
expire at the end of the rental assistance period.
* * * * *
    (g) Lease. Each program participant receiving rental assistance 
must have a legally binding, written lease for the rental unit, unless 
the assistance is solely for rental arrears. The lease must be between 
the owner and the program participant. Where the assistance is solely 
for rental arrears, an oral agreement may be accepted in place of a 
written lease, if the agreement gives the program participant an 
enforceable leasehold interest under state law and the agreement and 
rent owed are sufficiently documented by the owner's financial records, 
rent ledgers, or canceled checks. For program participants living in 
housing with project-based rental assistance under paragraph (i) of 
this section, the lease must have an initial term of 1 year. Each lease 
executed on or after December 16, 2016 must include a lease provision 
or incorporate a lease addendum that includes all requirements that 
apply to tenants, the owner or lease under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L 
(Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 
Assault, or Stalking), as supplemented by 24 CFR 576.409, including the 
prohibited bases for eviction and restrictions on construing lease 
terms under 24 CFR 5.2005(b) and (c). If the housing is not assisted 
under another ``covered housing program,'' as defined in 24 CFR 5.2003, 
the lease provision or lease addendum may be written to expire at the 
end of the rental assistance period.
* * * * *

0
28. In Sec.  576.400, revise paragraph (e)(3)(vi) to read as follows:


Sec.  576.400  Area-wide systems coordination requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vi) Policies and procedures for determining and prioritizing which 
eligible families and individuals will receive homelessness prevention 
assistance and which eligible families and individuals will receive 
rapid re-housing assistance (these policies must include the emergency 
transfer priority required under Sec.  576.409);
* * * * *

0
29. Add Sec.  576.409 to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  576.409  Protection for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

    (a) Applicability of VAWA protections. The core statutory 
protections of VAWA that prohibit denial or termination of assistance 
or eviction solely because an applicant or tenant is a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking applied 
upon enactment of VAWA 2013 on March 7, 2013. The VAWA regulatory 
requirements under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, as supplemented by this 
section, apply to all eligibility and termination decisions that are 
made with respect to ESG rental assistance on or after December 16, 
2016. The recipient must ensure that the requirements under 24 CFR part 
5, subpart L, are included or incorporated into rental assistance 
agreements and leases as provided in Sec.  576.106(e) and (g).
    (b) Covered housing provider. For the ESG program, ``covered 
housing provider,'' as such term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L, refers to:

[[Page 80809]]

    (1) The recipient or subrecipient that administers the rental 
assistance for the purposes of 24 CFR 5.2005(e);
    (2) The housing owner for the purposes of 24 CFR 5.2005(d)(1), 
(d)(3), and (d)(4) and 5.2009(a);
    (3) The housing owner and the recipient or subrecipient that 
administers the rental assistance for the purposes of 24 CFR 
5.2005(d)(2); and
    (4) The housing owner and the recipient or subrecipient that 
administers the rental assistance for the purposes of 24 CFR 5.2007. 
However, the recipient or subrecipient may limit documentation requests 
under 24 CFR 5.2007 to only the recipient or subrecipient, provided 
that:
    (i) This limitation is made clear in both the notice described 
under 24 CFR 5.2005(a)(1) and the rental assistance agreement;
    (ii) The entity designated to receive documentation requests 
determines whether the program participant is entitled to protection 
under VAWA and immediately advise the program participant of the 
determination; and
    (iii) If the program participant is entitled to protection, the 
entity designated to receive documentation requests must notify the 
owner in writing that the program participant is entitled to protection 
under VAWA and work with the owner on the program participant's behalf. 
Any further sharing or disclosure of the program participant's 
information will be subject to the requirements in 24 CFR 5.2007.
    (c) Notification. As provided under 24 CFR 5.2005(a) each recipient 
or subrecipient that determines eligibility for or administers ESG 
rental assistance is responsible for ensuring that the notice and 
certification form described under 24 CFR 5.2005(a)(1) is provided to 
each applicant for ESG rental assistance and each program participant 
receiving ESG rental assistance at each of the following times:
    (1) When an individual or family is denied ESG rental assistance;
    (2) When an individual or family's application for a unit receiving 
project-based rental assistance is denied;
    (3) When a program participant begins receiving ESG rental 
assistance;
    (4) When a program participant is notified of termination of ESG 
rental assistance; and
    (5) When a program participant receives notification of eviction.
    (d) Emergency transfer plan. (1) The recipient must develop the 
emergency transfer plan under 24 CFR 5.2005(e) or, if the recipient is 
a state, require its subrecipients that administer ESG rental 
assistance to develop the emergency transfer plan(s) required under 24 
CFR 5.2005(e). If the state's subrecipients are required to develop the 
plan(s), the recipient must specify whether an emergency transfer plan 
is to be developed for:
    (i) The state as a whole;
    (ii) Each area within the state that is covered by a Continuum of 
Care; or
    (iii) Each subrecipient that administers ESG rental assistance.
    (2) Once the applicable plan is developed in accordance with this 
section, the recipient and each subrecipient that administers ESG 
rental assistance must implement the plan in accordance with 24 CFR 
5.2005(e).
    (3) Each emergency transfer plan must meet the requirements in 24 
CFR 5.2005(e) and include the following program requirements:
    (i) For families living in units receiving project-based rental 
assistance (assisted units), the required policies must provide that if 
a program participant qualifies for an emergency transfer, but a safe 
unit is not immediately available for an internal emergency transfer, 
that program participant shall have priority over all other applicants 
for tenant-based rental assistance, utility assistance, and units for 
which project-based rental assistance is provided.
    (ii) For families receiving tenant-based rental assistance, the 
required policies must specify what will happen with respect to the 
non-transferring family member(s), if the family separates in order to 
effect an emergency transfer.
    (e) Bifurcation. For the purposes of this part, the following 
requirements shall apply in place of the requirements at 24 CFR 
5.2009(b):
    (1) When a family receiving tenant-based rental assistance 
separates under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), the family's tenant-based rental 
assistance and utility assistance, if any, shall continue for the 
family member(s) who are not evicted or removed.
    (2) If a family living in a unit receiving project-based rental 
assistance separates under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), the family member(s) who 
are not evicted or removed can remain in the assisted unit without 
interruption to the rental assistance or utility assistance provided 
for the unit.
    (f) Emergency shelters. The following requirements apply to 
emergency shelters funded under Sec.  576.102:
    (1) No individual or family may be denied admission to or removed 
from the emergency shelter on the basis or as a direct result of the 
fact that the individual or family is or has been a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the 
individual or family otherwise qualifies for admission or occupancy.
    (2) The terms ``affiliated individual,'' ``dating violence,'' 
``domestic violence,'' ``sexual assault,'' and ``stalking'' are defined 
in 24 CFR 5.2003.

0
30. In Sec.  576.500, revise the introductory text of paragraph (s) and 
add paragraph (s)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  576.500   Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (s) Other Federal requirements. The recipient and its subrecipients 
must document their compliance with the Federal requirements in Sec.  
576.407 and Sec.  576.409, as applicable, including:
* * * * *
    (5) Data on emergency transfers requested under Sec.  576.409, 
pertaining to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking, including data on the outcomes of such requests.
* * * * *

PART 578--CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM

0
31. The authority citation for part 578 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

0
32. In Sec.  578.7, paragraphs (a)(9)(ii), (iii) and (v) are revised 
and paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  578.7   Responsibilities of the Continuum of Care.

    (a) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (ii) Policies and procedures for determining and prioritizing which 
eligible individuals and families will receive transitional housing 
assistance (these policies must include the emergency transfer priority 
required under Sec.  578.99(j)(8));
    (iii) Policies and procedures for determining and prioritizing 
which eligible individuals and families will receive rapid rehousing 
assistance (these policies must include the emergency transfer priority 
required under Sec.  578.99(j)(8));
* * * * *
    (v) Policies and procedures for determining and prioritizing which 
eligible individuals and families will receive permanent supportive 
housing assistance (these policies must include the emergency transfer 
priority required under Sec.  578.99(j)(8)); and
* * * * *
    (d) VAWA emergency transfer plan. The Continuum of Care must 
develop the emergency transfer plan for the

[[Page 80810]]

Continuum of Care that meets the requirements under Sec.  578.99(j)(8).

0
 33. In Sec.  578.51, add paragraph (m) to read as follows:


Sec.  578.51   Rental assistance.

* * * * *
    (m) VAWA emergency transfer plan costs. Recipients and 
subrecipients of grants for tenant-based rental assistance may use 
grant funds to pay amounts owed for breaking the lease if the family 
qualifies for an emergency transfer under the emergency transfer plan 
established under Sec.  578.99(j)(8).

0
34. In Sec.  578.75, add paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  578.75   General operations.

* * * * *
    (j) Remaining program participants following bifurcation of a lease 
or eviction as a result of domestic violence. For permanent supportive 
housing projects, members of any household who were living in a unit 
assisted under this part at the time of a qualifying member's eviction 
from the unit because the qualifying member was found to have engaged 
in criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, have the right to rental 
assistance under this section until the expiration of the lease in 
effect at the time of the qualifying member's eviction.

0
35. In Sec.  578.99, add paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  578.99   Applicability of other Federal requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) Protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking--(1) General. The requirements set forth in 
24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), implementing the 
requirements of VAWA apply to all permanent housing and transitional 
housing for which Continuum of Care program funds are used for 
acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, leasing, rental 
assistance, or operating costs. The requirements also apply where funds 
are used for homelessness prevention, but only where the funds are used 
to provide short- and/or medium-term rental assistance. Safe havens are 
subject only to the requirements in paragraph (j)(9) of this section.
    (2) Definition of covered housing provider. For the Continuum of 
Care program, ``covered housing provider,'' as such term is used in 
HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L refers to:
    (i) The owner or landlord, which may be the recipient or 
subrecipient, for purposes of 24 CFR 5.2005(d)(1) and 5.2009(a);
    (ii) The recipient, subrecipient, and owner or landlord for 
purposes of 24 CFR 5.2005(d)(2) through (d)(4); and
    (iii) The recipient, subrecipient, and owner or landlord for 
purposes of 24 CFR 5.2007. However, the recipient or subrecipient may 
limit documentation requests under Sec.  5.2007 to only the recipient 
or subrecipient, provided that:
    (i) This limitation is made clear in both the notice described 
under 24 CFR 5.2005(a)(1) and the rental assistance agreement;
    (ii) The entity designated to receive documentation requests 
determines whether the program participant is entitled to protection 
under VAWA and immediately advise the program participant of the 
determination; and
    (iii) If the program participant is entitled to protection, the 
entity designated to receive documentation requests must notify the 
owner in writing that the program participant is entitled to protection 
under VAWA and work with the owner on the program participant's behalf. 
Any further sharing or disclosure of the program participant's 
information will be subject to the requirements in 24 CFR 5.2007.
    (3) Effective date. The core statutory protections of VAWA that 
prohibit denial or termination of assistance or eviction solely because 
an applicant or tenant is a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, applied upon enactment of VAWA 
2013 on March 7, 2013. Compliance with the VAWA regulatory requirements 
under this section and at 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, is required for 
grants awarded pursuant to NOFAs published on or after December 16, 
2016.
    (4) Notification requirements. (i) The recipient or subrecipient 
must provide each individual or family applying for permanent housing 
and transitional housing and each program participant the notice and 
the certification form described in 24 CFR 5.2005 at each of the 
following times:
    (A) When an individual or family is denied permanent housing or 
transitional housing;
    (B) When a program participant is admitted to permanent housing or 
transitional housing;
    (C) When a program participant receives notification of eviction; 
and
    (D) When a program participant is notified of termination of 
assistance.
    (ii) When grant funds are used for rental assistance, the recipient 
or subrecipient must ensure that the owner or manager of the housing 
provides the notice and certification form described in 24 CFR 
5.2005(a) to the program participant with any notification of eviction. 
This commitment and the confidentiality requirements under 24 CFR 
5.2007(c) must be set forth in a contract with the owner or landlord.
    (5) Contract, lease, and occupancy agreement provisions. (i) 
Recipients and subrecipients must include in any contracts and leases 
between the recipient or subrecipient, and an owner or landlord of the 
housing:
    (A) The requirement to comply with 24 CFR part 5, subpart L; and
    (B) Where the owner or landlord of the housing will have a lease 
with a program participant, the requirement to include a lease 
provision that include all requirements that apply to tenants, the 
owner or the lease under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, as supplemented by 
this part, including the prohibited bases for eviction and restrictions 
on construing lease terms under 24 CFR 5.2005(b) and (c).
    (ii) The recipient or subrecipient must include in any lease, 
sublease, and occupancy agreement with the program participant a 
provision that include all requirements that apply to tenants, the 
owner or the lease under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, as supplemented by 
this part, including the prohibited bases for eviction and restrictions 
on construing lease terms under 24 CFR 5.2005(b) and (c). The lease, 
sublease, and occupancy agreement may specify that the protections 
under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, apply only during the period of 
assistance under the Continuum of Care Program. The period of 
assistance for housing where grant funds were used for acquisition, 
construction, or rehabilitation is 15 years from the date of initial 
occupancy or date of initial service provision.
    (iii) Except for tenant-based rental assistance, recipients and 
subrecipients must require that any lease, sublease, or occupancy 
agreement with a program participant permits the program participant to 
terminate the lease, sublease, or occupancy agreement without penalty 
if the recipient or subrecipient determines that the program 
participant qualifies for an emergency transfer under the emergency 
transfer plan established under paragraph (j)(8) of this section.
    (iv) For tenant-based rental assistance, the recipient or 
subrecipient must enter into a contract with the owner or landlord of 
the housing that:

[[Page 80811]]

    (A) Requires the owner or landlord of the housing to comply with 
the provisions of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L; and
    (B) Requires the owner or landlord of the housing to include a 
lease provision that include all requirements that apply to tenants, 
the owner or the lease under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, as supplemented 
by this part, including the prohibited bases for eviction and 
restrictions on construing lease terms under 24 CFR 5.005(b) and (c). 
The lease may specify that the protections under 24 CFR part 5, subpart 
L, only apply while the program participant receives tenant-based 
rental assistance under the Continuum of Care Program.
    (6) Transition. (i) The recipient or subrecipient must ensure that 
the requirements set forth in paragraph (j)(5) of this section apply to 
any contracts, leases, subleases, or occupancy agreements entered into, 
or renewed, following the expiration of an existing term, on or after 
the effective date in paragraph (j)(2) of this section. This obligation 
includes any contracts, leases, subleases, and occupancy agreements 
that will automatically renew on or after the effective date in 
paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
    (ii) For leases for tenant-based rental assistance existing prior 
to the effective date in paragraph (j)(2) of this section, recipients 
and subrecipients must enter into a contract under paragraph (j)(6)(iv) 
of this section before the next renewal of the lease.
    (7) Bifurcation. For the purposes of this part, the following 
requirements shall apply in place of the requirements at 24 CFR 
5.2009(b):
    (i) If a family who is receiving tenant-based rental assistance 
under this part separates under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), the family's tenant-
based rental assistance and any utility assistance shall continue for 
the family member(s) who are not evicted or removed.
    (ii) If a family living in permanent supportive housing separates 
under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), and the family's eligibility for the housing 
was based on the evicted individual's disability or chronically 
homeless status, the remaining tenants may stay in the project as 
provided under Sec.  578.75(i)(2). Otherwise, if a family living in a 
project funded under this part separates under 24 CFR 5.2009(a), the 
remaining tenant(s) will be eligible to remain in the project.
    (8) Emergency transfer plan. The Continuum of Care must develop an 
emergency transfer plan for the Continuum of Care, and recipients and 
subrecipients in the Continuum of Care must follow that plan. The plan 
must comply with 24 CFR 5.2005(e) and include the following program 
requirements:
    (i) For families receiving tenant-based rental assistance, the plan 
must specify what will happen with respect to the non-transferring 
family member(s), if the family separates in order to effect an 
emergency transfer.
    (ii) For families living in units that are otherwise assisted under 
this part (assisted units), the required policies must provide that for 
program participants who qualify for an emergency transfer but a safe 
unit is not immediately available for an internal emergency transfer, 
the individual or family shall have priority over all other applicants 
for rental assistance, transitional housing, and permanent supportive 
housing projects funded under this part, provided that: The individual 
or family meets all eligibility criteria required by Federal law or 
regulation or HUD NOFA; and the individual or family meets any 
additional criteria or preferences established in accordance with Sec.  
578.93(b)(1), (4), (6), or (7). The individual or family shall not be 
required to meet any other eligibility criteria or preferences for the 
project. The individual or family shall retain their original homeless 
or chronically homeless status for the purposes of the transfer.
    (9) Protections with respect to safe havens. The following 
requirements apply to safe havens funded under this part:
    (i) No individual may be denied admission to or removed from the 
safe haven on the basis or as a direct result of the fact that the 
individual is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the individual otherwise 
qualifies for admission or occupancy.
    (iii) The terms ``affiliated individual,'' ``dating violence,'' 
``domestic violence,'' ``sexual assault,'' and ``stalking'' are defined 
in 24 CFR 5.2003.

0
36. In Sec.  578.103, revise the heading of paragraph (a)(6), 
redesignate paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs (a)(6)(i)(A) 
and (B), respectively, redesignate paragraph (a)(6) introductory text 
as (a)(6)(i) introductory text, and add new paragraph (a)(6)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  578.103  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Moves for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking. * * *
    (ii) Data on emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e) 
and Sec.  578.99, pertaining to victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including data on the outcomes 
of such requests.
* * * * *

PART 880--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT PROGRAM FOR NEW 
CONSTRUCTION

0
37. The authority citation for part 880 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 
13611-13619.

0
38. In Sec.  880.201, a definition of ``covered housing provider'' is 
added in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  880.201  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered housing provider. For the Section 8 Housing Assistance 
Payment Program for New Construction, ``covered housing provider,'' as 
such term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L 
(Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 
Assault, or Stalking), refers to the owner.
* * * * *

0
39. Revise Sec.  880.504(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  880.504   Leasing to eligible families.

* * * * *
    (f) Protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. The regulations of 24 CFR part 5, subpart 
L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 
Assault, or Stalking), apply to this section.

0
40. In Sec.  880.607, revise paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  880.607   Termination of tenancy and modification of lease.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) In actions or potential actions to terminate tenancy, the owner 
shall follow 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).
* * * * *

0
41. Add Sec.  880.613 to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  880.613   Emergency transfers for victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

    (a) Covered housing providers must develop and implement an 
emergency transfer plan that meets the requirements in 24 CFR 
5.2005(e).
    (b) In order to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, 
covered housing providers have discretion to adopt new,

[[Page 80812]]

and modify any existing, admission preferences or transfer waitlist 
priorities.
    (c) In addition to following requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e), when 
a safe unit is not immediately available for a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who qualifies 
for an emergency transfer, covered housing providers must:
    (1) Review the covered housing provider's existing inventory of 
units and determine when the next vacant unit may be available; and
    (2) Provide a listing of nearby HUD subsidized rental properties, 
with or without preference for persons of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and contact information for the 
local HUD field office.
    (d) Each year, covered housing providers must submit to HUD data on 
all emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), including 
data on the outcomes of such requests.

PART 882--SECTION 8 MODERATE REHABILITATION PROGRAMS

0
42. The authority citation for part 882 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535d.


0
43. In Sec.  882.102(b), a definition of ``covered housing provider'' 
is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  882.102   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Covered housing provider. For the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation 
Programs, as provided in subparts A, D, and E of this part, ``covered 
housing provider,'' as such term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), refers to the PHA or owner, as 
applicable given the responsibilities of the covered housing provider 
as set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L. For example, the PHA is the 
covered housing provider responsible for providing the notice of 
occupancy rights under VAWA and certification form described at 24 CFR 
5.2005(a), though the PHA may provide this notice and form to owners, 
and charge owners with distributing the notice and form to tenants. In 
addition, the owner is the covered housing provider that may choose to 
bifurcate a lease as described at 24 CFR 5.2009(a), while both the PHA 
and owner are both responsible for ensuring that an emergency transfer 
plan is in place in accordance with 24 CFR 5.2005(e), and the owner is 
responsible for implementing the emergency transfer plan when an 
emergency occurs.
* * * * *

0
44. Revise Sec.  882.407 to read as follows:


Sec.  882.407   Other Federal requirements.

    (a) The moderate rehabilitation program is subject to applicable 
Federal requirements in 24 CFR 5.105 and to the requirements for 
protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking).
    (b) In order to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, 
covered housing providers have discretion to adopt and modify any 
existing admission preferences or transfer waitlist priorities for 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking.
    (c) Covered housing providers must develop and implement an 
emergency transfer plan that meets the requirements in 24 CFR 
5.2005(e), and when a safe unit is not immediately available for a 
victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking who qualifies for an emergency transfer, covered housing 
providers must, at a minimum:
    (1) Review the covered housing provider's existing inventory of 
units and determine when the next vacant unit may be available; and
    (2) Provide a listing of nearby HUD subsidized rental properties, 
with or without preference for persons of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and contact information for the 
local HUD field office.
    (d) Each year, the covered housing provider must submit to HUD data 
on all emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), pertaining 
to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, including data on the outcomes of such requests.

0
45. Revise Sec.  882.511(g) to read as follows:


Sec.  882.511   Lease and termination of tenancy.

* * * * *
    (g) In actions or potential actions to terminate tenancy, the owner 
shall follow 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).

0
46. In Sec.  882.514(c), revise the fourth sentence, to read as 
follows:


Sec.  882.514   Family participation.

* * * * *
    (c) Owner selection of families. * * * However, the owner must not 
deny program assistance or admission to an applicant based on the fact 
that the applicant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the applicant otherwise 
qualifies for assistance or admission. * * *
* * * * *

0
47. In Sec.  882.802, a definition of ``covered housing provider'' is 
added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  882.802   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered housing provider. For the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation 
Single Room Occupancy Program for Homeless Individuals, ``covered 
housing provider,'' as such term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), refers to the owner.
* * * * *

0
48. In Sec.  882.804, paragraph (a) is revised, paragraphs (b) and (c) 
are redesignated as paragraphs (e) and (f), respectively, and new 
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  882.804  Other Federal requirements.

    (a) Participation in this program requires compliance with the 
Federal requirements set forth in 24 CFR 5.105, with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), and with the regulations in 
24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).
    (b) In order to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, 
covered housing providers have discretion to adopt and modify any 
existing admission preferences or transfer waitlist priorities for 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking.
    (c) Covered housing providers must develop and implement an 
emergency transfer plan that meets the requirements in 24 CFR 
5.2005(e), and when a safe unit is not immediately available for a 
victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking who qualifies for an emergency transfer, covered housing 
providers must, at a minimum:
    (1) Review the covered housing provider's existing inventory of 
units and determine when the next vacant unit may be available; and

[[Page 80813]]

    (2) Provide a listing of nearby HUD subsidized rental properties, 
with or without preference for persons of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and contact information for the 
local HUD field office.
    (d) Each year, the covered housing provider must submit to HUD data 
on all emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), pertaining 
to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, including data on the outcomes of such requests.
* * * * *

PART 883--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAMS--STATE 
HOUSING AGENCIES

0
49. The authority citation for part 883 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-
13619.


0
50. In Sec.  883.302, a definition of ``covered housing provider'' is 
added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  883.302   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered housing provider. For the Section 8 Housing Assistance 
Payments Programs--State Housing Agencies, ``covered housing 
provider,'' as such term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), refers to the HFA or owner, as 
applicable given the responsibilities of the covered housing provider 
as set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L. For example, the PHA is the 
covered housing provider responsible for providing the notice of 
occupancy rights under VAWA and certification form described at 24 CFR 
5.2005(a), though the PHA may provide this notice and form to owners, 
and charge owners with distributing the notice and form to tenants. In 
addition, the owner is the covered housing provider that may choose to 
bifurcate a lease as described at 24 CFR 5.2009(a), while both the PHA 
and owner are both responsible for ensuring that an emergency transfer 
plan is in place in accordance with 24 CFR 5.2005(e), and the owner is 
responsible for implementing the emergency transfer plan when an 
emergency occurs.
* * * * *

0
51. Revise Sec.  883.605 to read as follows:


Sec.  883.605   Leasing to eligible families.

    The provisions of 24 CFR 880.504 apply to this section, including 
reference at 24 CFR 880.504(f) to the requirements of 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), subject to the requirements of 
Sec.  883.105.

PART 884--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM, NEW 
CONSTRUCTION SET-ASIDE FOR SECTION 515 RURAL RENTAL HOUSING

0
52. The authority citation for part 884 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-
13619.


0
53. In Sec.  884.102, a definition of ``covered housing provider'' is 
added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  884.102   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered housing provider. For the Section 8 Housing Assistance 
Payments Programs, New Construction Set-Aside for Section 515 Rural 
Rental Housing, ``covered housing provider,'' as such term is used in 
HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims 
of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), 
refers to the owner
* * * * *

0
54. Revise Sec.  884.216(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  884.216   Termination of tenancy.

* * * * *
    (c) In actions or potential actions to terminate tenancy, the owner 
shall follow 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).

0
55. Revise Sec.  884.223(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  884.223   Leasing to eligible families.

* * * * *
    (f) The regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking) apply to this section.

0
56. Add Sec.  884.226 to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec.  884.226   Emergency transfers for victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

    (a) Covered housing providers must develop and implement an 
emergency transfer plan that meets the requirements in 24 CFR 
5.2005(e).
    (b) In order to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, 
covered housing providers have discretion to adopt new, and modify any 
existing, admission preferences or transfer waitlist priorities.
    (c) In addition to following requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e), when 
a safe unit is not immediately available for a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who qualifies 
for an emergency transfer, covered housing providers must:
    (1) Review the covered housing provider's existing inventory of 
units and determine when the next vacant unit may be available; and
    (2) Provide a listing of nearby HUD subsidized rental properties, 
with or without preference for persons of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and contact information for the 
local HUD field office.
    (d) Each year, covered housing providers must submit to HUD data on 
all emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), including 
data on the outcomes of such requests.

PART 886--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM--SPECIAL 
ALLOCATIONS

0
57. The authority citation for part 886 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-
13619.


0
58. In Sec.  886.102, a definition of ``covered housing provider'' is 
added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  886.102   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered housing provider. For the Section 8 Housing Assistance 
Payments Programs--Special Allocations, subpart A of this part, 
``covered housing provider,'' as such term is used in HUD's regulations 
at 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic 
Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) refers to the 
owner.
* * * * *

0
59. Revise Sec.  886.128 to read as follows:


Sec.  886.128   Termination of tenancy.

    Part 247 of this title (24 CFR part 247) applies to the termination 
of tenancy and eviction of a family assisted under this subpart. For 
cases involving termination of tenancy because of a failure to 
establish citizenship or eligible immigration status, the procedures of 
24 CFR parts 247 and 5 shall apply. The provisions of 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence,

[[Page 80814]]

Sexual Assault, or Stalking), apply to this section. The provisions of 
24 CFR part 5, subpart E, of this title concerning certain assistance 
for mixed families (families whose members include those with eligible 
immigration status, and those without eligible immigration status) in 
lieu of termination of assistance, and concerning deferral of 
termination of assistance, also shall apply.

0
60. Revise Sec.  886.132 to read as follows:


Sec.  886.132   Tenant selection.

    Subpart F of 24 CFR part 5 governs selection of tenants and 
occupancy requirements applicable under this subpart A of part 886. 
Subpart L of 24 CFR part 5 (Protection for Victims of Domestic 
Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) applies to this 
section.

0
61. Add Sec.  886.139 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  886.139   Emergency transfers for victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

    (a) Covered housing providers must develop and implement an 
emergency transfer plan that meets the requirements in 24 CFR 
5.2005(e).
    (b) In order to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, 
covered housing providers have discretion to adopt new, and modify any 
existing, admission preferences or transfer waitlist priorities.
    (c) In addition to following requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e), when 
a safe unit is not immediately available for a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who qualifies 
for an emergency transfer, covered housing providers must: (1) Review 
the covered housing provider's existing inventory of units and 
determine when the next vacant unit may be available; and
    (2) Provide a listing of nearby HUD subsidized rental properties, 
with or without preference for persons of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and contact information for the 
local HUD field office.
    (d) Each year, covered housing providers must submit to HUD data on 
all emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), including 
data on the outcomes of such requests.

0
62. In Sec.  886.302, a definition of ``covered housing provider'' is 
added, in the alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  886.302   Definitions

* * * * *
    Covered housing provider. For the Section 8 Housing Assistance 
Program for the Disposition of HUD-Owned Projects, under subpart C of 
this part, ``covered housing provider,'' as such term is used in HUD's 
regulations at 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), 
refers to the owner.
* * * * *

0
63. Revise Sec.  886.328 to read as follows:


Sec.  886.328   Termination of tenancy.

    Part 247 of this title (24 CFR part 247) applies to the termination 
of tenancy and eviction of a family assisted under this subpart. For 
cases involving termination of tenancy because of a failure to 
establish citizenship or eligible immigration status, the procedures of 
24 CFR part 247 and 24 CFR part 5 shall apply. The provisions of 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply to this section. The 
provisions of 24 CFR part 5, subpart E, concerning certain assistance 
for mixed families (families whose members include those with eligible 
immigration status, and those without eligible immigration status) in 
lieu of termination of assistance, and concerning deferral of 
termination of assistance, also shall apply.

0
64. Revise Sec.  886.329(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  886.329   Leasing to eligible families.

* * * * *
    (f) The regulations of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking) apply to this section.

0
65. Add Sec.  886.339 to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  886.339   Emergency transfers for victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

    (a) Covered housing providers must develop and implement an 
emergency transfer plan that meets the requirements in 24 CFR 
5.2005(e).
    (b) In order to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, 
covered housing providers have discretion to adopt new, and modify any 
existing, admission preferences or transfer waitlist priorities.
    (c) In addition to following requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e), when 
a safe unit is not immediately available for a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who qualifies 
for an emergency transfer, covered housing providers must:
    (1) Review the covered housing provider's existing inventory of 
units and determine when the next vacant unit may be available; and
    (2) Provide a listing of nearby HUD subsidized rental properties, 
with or without preference for persons of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and contact information for the 
local HUD field office.
    (d) Each year, covered housing providers must submit to HUD data on 
all emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), including 
data on the outcomes of such requests.

PART 891--SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH 
DISABILITIES

0
66. The authority citation for part 891 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535(d), and 8013.


0
67. In Sec.  891.105 a definition of ``covered housing provider'' is 
added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  891.105  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered housing provider. For the Supportive Housing for the 
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program, ``covered housing 
provider,'' as such term is used in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), refers to the owner (as defined 
in Sec. Sec.  891.205 and 891.305).
* * * * *

0
68. Add Sec.  891.190 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  891.190  Emergency transfers for victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

    (a) Covered housing providers must develop and implement an 
emergency transfer plan that meets the requirements in 24 CFR 
5.2005(e).
    (b) In order to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, 
covered housing providers have discretion to adopt new, and modify any 
existing, admission preferences or transfer waitlist priorities.
    (c) In addition to following requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e), when 
a safe unit is not immediately available for a victim of domestic 
violence, dating

[[Page 80815]]

violence, sexual assault, or stalking who qualifies for an emergency 
transfer, covered housing providers must:
    (1) Review the covered housing provider's existing inventory of 
units and determine when the next vacant unit may be available; and
    (2) Provide a listing of nearby HUD subsidized rental properties, 
with or without preference for persons of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and contact information for the 
local HUD field office.
    (d) Each year, covered housing providers must submit to HUD data on 
all emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), including 
data on the outcomes of such requests.

0
69. Revise Sec.  891.575(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  891.575  Leasing to eligible families.

* * * * *
    (f) The regulations of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking) apply to this section.

0
70. Revise Sec.  891.610(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  891.610  Selection and admission of tenants.

* * * * *
    (c) Determination of eligibility and selection of tenants. The 
borrower is responsible for determining whether applicants are eligible 
for admission and for selection of families. To be eligible for 
admission, an applicant must be an elderly or handicapped family as 
defined in Sec.  891.505; meet any project occupancy requirements 
approved by HUD; meet the disclosure and verification requirement for 
Social Security numbers and sign and submit consent forms for obtaining 
wage and claim information from State Wage Information Collection 
Agencies, as provided by 24 CFR part 5, subpart B; and, if applying for 
an assisted unit, be eligible for admission under subpart F of 24 CFR 
part 5, which governs selection of tenants and occupancy requirements. 
The provisions of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply 
to this section.
* * * * *

0
71. Revise Sec.  891.630(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  891.630  Denial of admission, termination of tenancy, and 
modification of lease.

* * * * *
    (c) In actions or potential actions to terminate tenancy, the owner 
shall follow 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).

PART 905--THE PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM

0
72. The authority citation for part 905 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437g, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-2, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-
7, and 3535(d).


0
73. In Sec.  905.100, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  905.100  Purpose, general description, and other requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, 
Sexual Assault and Stalking. Public housing agencies must apply the 
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 
5, subpart L, to mixed finance developments covered under Sec.  
905.604.

PART 960--ADMISSION TO, AND OCCUPANCY OF, PUBLIC HOUSING

0
74. The authority citation for part 960 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437n, 1437z-3, and 
3535(d).


0
75. In Sec.  960.102(b) a definition of ``covered housing provider'' is 
added in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  960.102  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Covered housing provider. For HUD's public housing program, 
``covered housing provider,'' as such term is in used HUD's regulations 
at 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic 
Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), is the PHA.
* * * * *

0
76. In Sec.  960.103, revise the section heading and paragraph (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  960.103   Equal opportunity requirements and protection for 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking.

* * * * *
    (d) Protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. The PHA must apply the requirements in 24 
CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).

0
77. In Sec.  960.200, revise paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  960.200  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) Protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking).

0
78. In Sec.  960.203, revise paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  960.203  Standards for PHA tenant selection criteria.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) PHA tenant selection criteria are subject to 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking). In cases of requests for 
emergency transfers under VAWA, with the written consent of the victim 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the 
receiving PHA may accept and use the prior covered housing provider's 
determination of eligibility and tenant screening and all related 
verification information, including form HUD 50058 (Family Report).
* * * * *

0
79. In Sec.  960.206, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  960.206  Waiting List: Local preferences in admission to public 
housing program.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Preference for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. The PHA should consider whether to adopt a 
local preference for admission of families that include victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
* * * * *

PART 966--PUBLIC HOUSING LEASE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

0
80. The authority citation for part 966 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d).


0
81. In Sec.  966.4, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) and (e)(9) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  966.4  Lease requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking) apply.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 80816]]

    (9) To consider lease bifurcation, as provided in 24 CFR 5.2009, in 
circumstances involving domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking addressed in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection 
for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking), provided that, if a PHA chooses to bifurcate a lease, no 
assistance will be given for an individual who does not meet public 
housing eligibility and 24 CFR 5.508(h)(2) applies to submission of 
evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status.
* * * * *

PART 982--SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER 
PROGRAM

0
82. The authority citation for part 982 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535d.

0
83. In Sec.  982.53, revise the section heading and paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  982.53  Equal opportunity requirements and protection for victims 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

* * * * *
    (e) Protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. The PHA must apply the requirements in 24 
CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking). For purposes of 
compliance with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, the 
covered housing provider is the PHA or owner, as applicable given the 
responsibilities of the covered housing provider as set forth in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L. For example, the PHA is the covered housing provider 
responsible for providing the Notice of occupancy rights under VAWA and 
certification form described at 24 CFR 5.2005(a). In addition, the 
owner is the covered housing provider that may choose to bifurcate a 
lease as described at 24 CFR 5.2009(a), while the PHA is the covered 
housing provider responsible for complying with emergency transfer plan 
provisions at 24 CFR 5.2005(e).

0
84. In Sec.  982.201, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  982.201  Eligibility and targeting.

    (a) When applicant is eligible: General. The PHA may admit only 
eligible families to the program. To be eligible, an applicant must be 
a ``family;'' must be income-eligible in accordance with paragraph (b) 
of this section and 24 CFR part 5, subpart F; and must be a citizen or 
a noncitizen who has eligible immigration status as determined in 
accordance with 24 CFR part 5, subpart E. If the applicant is a victim 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, 24 
CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) applies.
* * * * *

0
85. In Sec.  982.202, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  982.202   How applicants are selected: General requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Admission policy. The PHA must admit applicants for 
participation in accordance with HUD regulations and other 
requirements, including, but not limited to, 24 CFR part 5, subpart L 
(Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 
Assault, or Stalking), and with PHA policies stated in the PHA 
administrative plan and the PHA plan. The PHA admission policy must 
state the system of admission preferences that the PHA uses to select 
applicants from the waiting list, including any residency preference or 
other local preference.

0
86. In Sec.  982.207, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  982.207   Waiting List: Local preferences in admission to 
program.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Preference for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. The PHA should consider whether to adopt a 
local preference for admission of families that include victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
* * * * *

0
87. In Sec.  982.307, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  982.307   Tenant screening.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) In cases involving a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, 24 CFR part 5, subpart L 
(Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 
Assault, or Stalking) applies.

0
88. In Sec.  982.310, revise paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  982.310   Owner termination of tenancy.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Nondiscrimination limitation and protection for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The 
owner's termination of tenancy actions must be consistent with the fair 
housing and equal opportunity provisions of 24 CFR 5.105, and with the 
provisions for protection of victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L 
(Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 
Assault, or Stalking).

0
89. In Sec.  982.315, revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  982.315   Family break-up.

    (a) * * *
    (2) If the family break-up results from an occurrence of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking as provided in 
24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, 
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), the PHA must ensure that 
the victim retains assistance.
    (b) The factors to be considered in making this decision under the 
PHA policy may include:
    (1) Whether the assistance should remain with family members 
remaining in the original assisted unit.
    (2) The interest of minor children or of ill, elderly, or disabled 
family members.
    (3) Whether family members are forced to leave the unit as a result 
of actual or threatened domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking.
    (4) Whether any of the family members are receiving protection as 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and whether the 
abuser is still in the household.
    (5) Other factors specified by the PHA.
* * * * *

0
90. In Sec.  982.353, revise paragraph (b) and add paragraph (c)(4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  982.353   Where family can lease a unit with tenant-based 
assistance.

* * * * *
    (b) Portability: Assistance outside the initial PHA jurisdiction. 
Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, and to Sec.  982.552 and 
Sec.  982.553, a voucher-holder or participant family has the right to 
receive tenant-based voucher assistance, in accordance with 
requirements of this part, to lease a unit outside the initial PHA 
jurisdiction, anywhere in the United States, in the jurisdiction of a 
PHA with a tenant-based program under this part. The

[[Page 80817]]

initial PHA must not provide such portable assistance for a participant 
if the family has moved out of the assisted unit in violation of the 
lease except as provided for in this subsection. If the family moves 
out in violation of the lease in order to protect the health or safety 
of a person who is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking and who reasonably believes him- 
or herself to be threatened with imminent harm from further violence by 
remaining in the dwelling unit (or any family member has been the 
victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-
calendar-day period preceding the family's move or request to move), 
and has otherwise complied with all other obligations under the Section 
8 program, the family may receive a voucher from the initial PHA and 
move to another jurisdiction under the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply when the family or 
a member of the family is or has been the victim of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), and the move is needed to 
protect the health or safety of the family or family member, or any 
family member who has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred 
on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period preceding the 
family's request to move.
* * * * *

0
91. In Sec.  982.354, revise paragraph (b)(4), remove ``and'' from the 
end of paragraph (c)(2)(i), remove the period and add ``; and'' in its 
place at the end of paragraph (c)(2)(ii), and add paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  982.354   Move with continued tenant-based assistance.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) The family or a member of the family, is or has been the victim 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as 
provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), and 
the move is needed to protect the health or safety of the family or 
family member, or if any family member has been the victim of a sexual 
assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period 
preceding the family's request to move. A PHA may not terminate 
assistance if the family, with or without prior notification to the 
PHA, moves out of a unit in violation of the lease, if such move occurs 
to protect the health or safety of a family member who is or has been 
the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking and who reasonably believed he or she was threatened with 
imminent harm from further violence if he or she remained in the 
dwelling unit. However, any family member that has been the victim of a 
sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day 
period preceding the family's move or request to move is not required 
to believe that he or she was threatened with imminent harm from 
further violence if he or she remained in the dwelling unit.
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The above policies do not apply when the family or a member 
of the family is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L, and the move is needed to protect the health or safety of 
the family or family member, or any family member has been the victim 
of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-
calendar-day period preceding the family's request to move.
* * * * *

0
92. In Sec.  982.452, revise the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  982.452   Owner responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The fact that an applicant is or has been a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is not 
an appropriate basis for denial of tenancy if the applicant otherwise 
qualifies for tenancy.
* * * * *

0
93. In Sec.  982.551, revise paragraphs (e) and (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  982.551   Obligations of participant.

* * * * *
    (e) Violation of lease. The family may not commit any serious or 
repeated violation of the lease. Under 24 CFR 5.2005(c), an incident or 
incidents of actual or threatened domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking will not be construed as a serious or 
repeated lease violation by the victim, or threatened victim, of the 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or as 
good cause to terminate the tenancy, occupancy rights, or assistance of 
the victim.
* * * * *
    (l) Crime by household members. The members of the household may 
not engage in drug-related criminal activity or violent criminal 
activity or other criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, 
or right to peaceful enjoyment of other residents and persons residing 
in the immediate vicinity of the premises (see Sec.  982.553). Under 24 
CFR 5.2005(b)(2), criminal activity directly related to domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, engaged in by a 
member of a tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the 
tenant's control, shall not be cause for termination of tenancy, 
occupancy rights, or assistance of the victim, if the tenant or an 
affiliated individual of the tenant, as defined in 24 CFR 5.2003, is 
the victim.
* * * * *

0
94. In Sec.  982.552, revise paragraph (c)(2)(v) to read as follows:


Sec.  982.552   PHA denial or termination of assistance for the family.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Nondiscrimination limitation and protection for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The 
PHA's admission and termination actions must be consistent with fair 
housing and equal opportunity provisions of 24 CFR 5.105, and with the 
requirements of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).
* * * * *

0
95. In Sec.  982.553, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  982.553   Denial of admission and termination of assistance for 
criminals and alcohol abusers.

* * * * *
    (e) The requirements in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking) apply to this section.

0
96. In Sec.  982.637, revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  982.637   Homeownership option: Move with continued tenant-based 
assistance.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The PHA may not commence continued tenant-based assistance for 
occupancy of the new unit so long as any family member owns any title 
or other interest in the prior home.

[[Page 80818]]

However, when the family or a member of the family is or has been the 
victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking), and the move is needed to protect the health or safety of 
the family or family member (or any family member has been the victim 
of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-
calendar-day period preceding the family's request to move), such 
family or family member may be assisted with continued tenant-based 
assistance even if such family or family member owns any title or other 
interest in the prior home.
    (3) The PHA may establish policies that prohibit more than one move 
by the family during any one-year period. However, these policies do 
not apply when the family or a member of the family is or has been the 
victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and the move is 
needed to protect the health or safety of the family or family member, 
or any family member has been the victim of a sexual assault that 
occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period preceding 
the family's request to move.
* * * * *

PART 983--PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER (PBV) PROGRAM

0
97. The authority citation for part 983 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).


0
98. In Sec.  983.3(b), add the definition of ``covered housing 
provider,'' in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  983.3   PBV definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Covered housing provider. For Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program, 
``covered housing provider,'' as such term is used in HUD's regulations 
in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic 
Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) refers to the 
PHA or owner (as defined in 24 CFR 982.4), as applicable given the 
responsibilities of the covered housing provider as set forth in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L. For example, the PHA is the covered housing provider 
responsible for providing the notice of occupancy rights under VAWA and 
certification form described at 24 CFR 5.2005(a). In addition, the 
owner is the covered housing provider that may choose to bifurcate a 
lease as described at 24 CFR 5.2009(a), while the PHA is the covered 
housing provider responsible for complying with emergency transfer plan 
provisions at 24 CFR 5.2005(e).
* * * * *

0
99. In Sec.  983.4, remove the paragraph ``Protection for victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence or stalking'' and add a paragraph 
``Protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  983.4   Cross-reference to other Federal requirements.

* * * * *
    Protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. See 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection 
for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking). For purposes of compliance with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR 
part 5, subpart L, the covered housing provider is the PHA or owner, as 
applicable given the responsibilities of the covered housing provider 
as set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L.
* * * * *

0
100. In Sec.  983.251, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  983.251   How participants are selected.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The protections for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, 
apply to admission to the project-based program.
* * * * *

0
101. In Sec.  983.253, add paragraphs (a)(4) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  983.253   Leasing of contract units.

    (a) * * *
    (4) The owner must comply with 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection 
for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking).
* * * * *
    (c) The protections for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, 
apply to tenant screening.

0
102. In Sec.  983.255, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  983.255   Tenant screening.

* * * * *
    (d) The protections for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, 
apply to tenant screening.

0
103. In Sec.  983.257, revise the last sentence of paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  983.257   Owner termination of tenancy and eviction.

    (a) * * * 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) 
applies to this part.
* * * * *

0
104. In Sec.  983.261, add paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  983.261   Family right to move.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The above policies do not apply when the family or a member of 
the family is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L, and the move is needed to protect the health or safety of 
the family or family member, or any family member has been the victim 
of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-
calendar-day period preceding the family's request to move. A PHA may 
not terminate assistance if the family, with or without prior 
notification to the PHA, moves out of a unit in violation of the lease, 
if such move occurs to protect the health or safety of a family member 
who is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking and who reasonably believed he or she was 
threatened with imminent harm from further violence if he or she 
remained in the dwelling unit, or any family member has been the victim 
of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-
calendar-day period preceding the family's request to move.
    (2) If a family breaks up as a result of an occurrence of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 
24 CFR part 5, subpart L, the PHA may offer the victim the opportunity 
for continued tenant-based rental assistance.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 20, 2016.
Juli[aacute]n Castro,
Secretary.

    Note:  The following appendices will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.


[[Page 80819]]



Appendix A

[Insert Name of Housing Provider \23\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The notice uses HP for housing provider but the housing 
provider should insert its name where HP is used. HUD's program-
specific regulations identify the individual or entity responsible 
for providing the notice of occupancy rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of Occupancy Rights Under the Violence Against Women Act \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Despite the name of this law, VAWA protection is available 
regardless of sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all Tenants and Applicants

    The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides protections for 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking. VAWA protections are not only available to women, but are 
available equally to all individuals regardless of sex, gender 
identity, or sexual orientation.\25\ The U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD) is the Federal agency that oversees that 
[insert name of program or rental assistance] is in compliance with 
VAWA. This notice explains your rights under VAWA. A HUD-approved 
certification form is attached to this notice. You can fill out this 
form to show that you are or have been a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and that you 
wish to use your rights under VAWA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Housing providers cannot discriminate on the basis of any 
protected characteristic, including race, color, national origin, 
religion, sex, familial status, disability, or age. HUD-assisted and 
HUD-insured housing must be made available to all otherwise eligible 
individuals regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation, 
gender identity, or marital status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protections for Applicants

    If you otherwise qualify for assistance under [insert name of 
program or rental assistance], you cannot be denied admission or 
denied assistance because you are or have been a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

Protections for Tenants

    If you are receiving assistance under [insert name of program or 
rental assistance], you may not be denied assistance, terminated 
from participation, or be evicted from your rental housing because 
you are or have been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking.
    Also, if you or an affiliated individual of yours is or has been 
the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking by a member of your household or any guest, you may not be 
denied rental assistance or occupancy rights under [insert name of 
program or rental assistance] solely on the basis of criminal 
activity directly relating to that domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    Affiliated individual means your spouse, parent, brother, 
sister, or child, or a person to whom you stand in the place of a 
parent or guardian (for example, the affiliated individual is in 
your care, custody, or control); or any individual, tenant, or 
lawful occupant living in your household.

Removing the Abuser or Perpetrator From the Household

    HP may divide (bifurcate) your lease in order to evict the 
individual or terminate the assistance of the individual who has 
engaged in criminal activity (the abuser or perpetrator) directly 
relating to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking.
    If HP chooses to remove the abuser or perpetrator, HP may not 
take away the rights of eligible tenants to the unit or otherwise 
punish the remaining tenants. If the evicted abuser or perpetrator 
was the sole tenant to have established eligibility for assistance 
under the program, HP must allow the tenant who is or has been a 
victim and other household members to remain in the unit for a 
period of time, in order to establish eligibility under the program 
or under another HUD housing program covered by VAWA, or, find 
alternative housing.
    In removing the abuser or perpetrator from the household, HP 
must follow Federal, State, and local eviction procedures. In order 
to divide a lease, HP may, but is not required to, ask you for 
documentation or certification of the incidences of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

Moving to Another Unit

    Upon your request, HP may permit you to move to another unit, 
subject to the availability of other units, and still keep your 
assistance. In order to approve a request, HP may ask you to provide 
documentation that you are requesting to move because of an 
incidence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking. If the request is a request for emergency transfer, the 
housing provider may ask you to submit a written request or fill out 
a form where you certify that you meet the criteria for an emergency 
transfer under VAWA. The criteria are:
    (1) You are a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. If your housing provider does not 
already have documentation that you are a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, your housing 
provider may ask you for such documentation, as described in the 
documentation section below.
    (2) You expressly request the emergency transfer. Your housing 
provider may choose to require that you submit a form, or may accept 
another written or oral request.
    (3) You reasonably believe you are threatened with imminent harm 
from further violence if you remain in your current unit. This means 
you have a reason to fear that if you do not receive a transfer you 
would suffer violence in the very near future.

OR

    You are a victim of sexual assault and the assault occurred on 
the premises during the 90-calendar-day period before you request a 
transfer. If you are a victim of sexual assault, then in addition to 
qualifying for an emergency transfer because you reasonably believe 
you are threatened with imminent harm from further violence if you 
remain in your unit, you may qualify for an emergency transfer if 
the sexual assault occurred on the premises of the property from 
which you are seeking your transfer, and that assault happened 
within the 90-calendar-day period before you expressly request the 
transfer.
    HP will keep confidential requests for emergency transfers by 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking, and the location of any move by such victims and their 
families.
    HP's emergency transfer plan provides further information on 
emergency transfers, and HP must make a copy of its emergency 
transfer plan available to you if you ask to see it.

Documenting You Are or Have Been a Victim of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault or Stalking

    HP can, but is not required to, ask you to provide documentation 
to ``certify'' that you are or have been a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Such request 
from HP must be in writing, and HP must give you at least 14 
business days (Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays do not 
count) from the day you receive the request to provide the 
documentation. HP may, but does not have to, extend the deadline for 
the submission of documentation upon your request.
    You can provide one of the following to HP as documentation. It 
is your choice which of the following to submit if HP asks you to 
provide documentation that you are or have been a victim of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
     A complete HUD-approved certification form given to you 
by HP with this notice, that documents an incident of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The form 
will ask for your name, the date, time, and location of the incident 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, 
and a description of the incident. The certification form provides 
for including the name of the abuser or perpetrator if the name of 
the abuser or perpetrator is known and is safe to provide.
     A record of a Federal, State, tribal, territorial, or 
local law enforcement agency, court, or administrative agency that 
documents the incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking. Examples of such records include police 
reports, protective orders, and restraining orders, among others.
     A statement, which you must sign, along with the 
signature of an employee, agent, or volunteer of a victim service 
provider, an attorney, a medical professional or a mental health 
professional (collectively, ``professional'') from whom you sought 
assistance in addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, or stalking, or the effects of abuse, and with the 
professional selected by you attesting under penalty of perjury that 
he or she believes that the incident or incidents of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking are grounds 
for protection.
     Any other statement or evidence that HP has agreed to 
accept.
    If you fail or refuse to provide one of these documents within 
the 14 business days, HP does not have to provide you with the 
protections contained in this notice.
    If HP receives conflicting evidence that an incident of domestic 
violence, dating

[[Page 80820]]

violence, sexual assault, or stalking has been committed (such as 
certification forms from two or more members of a household each 
claiming to be a victim and naming one or more of the other 
petitioning household members as the abuser or perpetrator), HP has 
the right to request that you provide third-party documentation 
within thirty 30 calendar days in order to resolve the conflict. If 
you fail or refuse to provide third-party documentation where there 
is conflicting evidence, HP does not have to provide you with the 
protections contained in this notice.

Confidentiality

    HP must keep confidential any information you provide related to 
the exercise of your rights under VAWA, including the fact that you 
are exercising your rights under VAWA.
    HP must not allow any individual administering assistance or 
other services on behalf of HP (for example, employees and 
contractors) to have access to confidential information unless for 
reasons that specifically call for these individuals to have access 
to this information under applicable Federal, State, or local law.
    HP must not enter your information into any shared database or 
disclose your information to any other entity or individual. HP, 
however, may disclose the information provided if:
     You give written permission to HP to release the 
information on a time limited basis.
     HP needs to use the information in an eviction or 
termination proceeding, such as to evict your abuser or perpetrator 
or terminate your abuser or perpetrator from assistance under this 
program.
     A law requires HP or your landlord to release the 
information.
    VAWA does not limit HP's duty to honor court orders about access 
to or control of the property. This includes orders issued to 
protect a victim and orders dividing property among household 
members in cases where a family breaks up.

Reasons a Tenant Eligible for Occupancy Rights Under VAWA May Be 
Evicted or Assistance May Be Terminated

    You can be evicted and your assistance can be terminated for 
serious or repeated lease violations that are not related to 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking 
committed against you. However, HP cannot hold tenants who have been 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking to a more demanding set of rules than it applies to tenants 
who have not been victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking.
    The protections described in this notice might not apply, and 
you could be evicted and your assistance terminated, if HP can 
demonstrate that not evicting you or terminating your assistance 
would present a real physical danger that:
    1) Would occur within an immediate time frame, and
    2) Could result in death or serious bodily harm to other tenants 
or those who work on the property.
    If HP can demonstrate the above, HP should only terminate your 
assistance or evict you if there are no other actions that could be 
taken to reduce or eliminate the threat.

Other Laws

    VAWA does not replace any Federal, State, or local law that 
provides greater protection for victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. You may be entitled to 
additional housing protections for victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking under other Federal 
laws, as well as under State and local laws.

Non-Compliance With The Requirements of This Notice

    You may report a covered housing provider's violations of these 
rights and seek additional assistance, if needed, by contacting or 
filing a complaint with [insert contact information for any 
intermediary, if applicable] or [insert HUD field office].

For Additional Information

    You may view a copy of HUD's final VAWA rule at [insert Federal 
Register link].
    Additionally, HP must make a copy of HUD's VAWA regulations 
available to you if you ask to see them.
    For questions regarding VAWA, please contact [insert name of 
program or rental assistance contact information able to answer 
questions on VAWA].
    For help regarding an abusive relationship, you may call the 
National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 or, for persons 
with hearing impairments, 1-800-787-3224 (TTY). You may also contact 
[Insert contact information for relevant local organizations].
    For tenants who are or have been victims of stalking seeking 
help may visit the National Center for Victims of Crime's Stalking 
Resource Center at https://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center.
    For help regarding sexual assault, you may contact [Insert 
contact information for relevant organizations].
    Victims of stalking seeking help may contact [Insert contact 
information for relevant organizations].
    Attachment: Certification form HUD-XXXXX [form approved for this 
program to be included]

Appendix B

[Insert name of covered housing provider]

Model Emergency Transfer Plan for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking

Emergency Transfers

    [Insert name of covered housing provider (acronym HP for 
purposes of this model plan)] is concerned about the safety of its 
tenants, and such concern extends to tenants who are victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. In 
accordance with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),\26\ HP allows 
tenants who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking to request an emergency transfer from 
the tenant's current unit to another unit. The ability to request a 
transfer is available regardless of sex, gender identity, or sexual 
orientation.\27\ The ability of HP to honor such request for tenants 
currently receiving assistance, however, may depend upon a 
preliminary determination that the tenant is or has been a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and 
on whether HP has another dwelling unit that is available and is 
safe to offer the tenant for temporary or more permanent occupancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Despite the name of this law, VAWA protection is available 
to all victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking, regardless of sex, gender identity, or sexual 
orientation.
    \27\ Housing providers cannot discriminate on the basis of any 
protected characteristic, including race, color, national origin, 
religion, sex, familial status, disability, or age. HUD-assisted and 
HUD-insured housing must be made available to all otherwise eligible 
individuals regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation, 
gender identity, or marital status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This plan identifies tenants who are eligible for an emergency 
transfer, the documentation needed to request an emergency transfer, 
confidentiality protections, how an emergency transfer may occur, 
and guidance to tenants on safety and security. This plan is based 
on a model emergency transfer plan published by the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal agency that 
oversees that [insert name of program or rental assistance here] is 
in compliance with VAWA.

Eligibility for Emergency Transfers

    A tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in HUD's regulations at 24 
CFR part 5, subpart L is eligible for an emergency transfer, if: The 
tenant reasonably believes that there is a threat of imminent harm 
from further violence if the tenant remains within the same unit. If 
the tenant is a victim of sexual assault, the tenant may also be 
eligible to transfer if the sexual assault occurred on the premises 
within the 90-calendar-day period preceding a request for an 
emergency transfer.
    A tenant requesting an emergency transfer must expressly request 
the transfer in accordance with the procedures described in this 
plan.
    Tenants who are not in good standing may still request an 
emergency transfer if they meet the eligibility requirements in this 
section.

Emergency Transfer Request Documentation

    To request an emergency transfer, the tenant shall notify HP's 
management office and submit a written request for a transfer to [HP 
to insert location]. HP will provide reasonable accommodations to 
this policy for individuals with disabilities. The tenant's written 
request for an emergency transfer should include either:
    1. A statement expressing that the tenant reasonably believes 
that there is a threat of imminent harm from further violence if the 
tenant were to remain in the same dwelling unit assisted under HP's 
program; OR

[[Page 80821]]

    2. A statement that the tenant was a sexual assault victim and 
that the sexual assault occurred on the premises during the 90-
calendar-day period preceding the tenant's request for an emergency 
transfer.

Confidentiality

    HP will keep confidential any information that the tenant 
submits in requesting an emergency transfer, and information about 
the emergency transfer, unless the tenant gives HP written 
permission to release the information on a time limited basis, or 
disclosure of the information is required by law or required for use 
in an eviction proceeding or hearing regarding termination of 
assistance from the covered program. This includes keeping 
confidential the new location of the dwelling unit of the tenant, if 
one is provided, from the person(s) that committed an act(s) of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking 
against the tenant. See the Notice of Occupancy Rights under the 
Violence Against Women Act For All Tenants for more information 
about HP's responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of 
information related to incidents of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

Emergency Transfer Timing and Availability

    HP cannot guarantee that a transfer request will be approved or 
how long it will take to process a transfer request. HP will, 
however, act as quickly as possible to move a tenant who is a victim 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking 
to another unit, subject to availability and safety of a unit. If a 
tenant reasonably believes a proposed transfer would not be safe, 
the tenant may request a transfer to a different unit. If a unit is 
available, the transferred tenant must agree to abide by the terms 
and conditions that govern occupancy in the unit to which the tenant 
has been transferred. HP may be unable to transfer a tenant to a 
particular unit if the tenant has not or cannot establish 
eligibility for that unit.
    If HP has no safe and available units for which a tenant who 
needs an emergency is eligible, HP will assist the tenant in 
identifying other housing providers who may have safe and available 
units to which the tenant could move. At the tenant's request, HP 
will also assist tenants in contacting the local organizations 
offering assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking that are attached to this 
plan.

Safety and Security of Tenants

    Pending processing of the transfer and the actual transfer, if 
it is approved and occurs, the tenant is urged to take all 
reasonable precautions to be safe.
    Tenants who are or have been victims of domestic violence are 
encouraged to contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-
800-799-7233, or a local domestic violence shelter, for assistance 
in creating a safety plan. For persons with hearing impairments, 
that hotline can be accessed by calling 1-800-787-3224 (TTY).
    Tenants who have been victims of sexual assault may call the 
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network's National Sexual Assault 
Hotline at 800-656-HOPE, or visit the online hotline at https://ohl.rainn.org/online/.
    Tenants who are or have been victims of stalking seeking help 
may visit the National Center for Victims of Crime's Stalking 
Resource Center at https://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center.
    Attachment: Local organizations offering assistance to victims 
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
BILLING CODE P

[[Page 80822]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO16.008


[[Page 80823]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO16.009


[[Page 80824]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO16.010


[[Page 80825]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16NO16.011

[FR Doc. 2016-25888 Filed 11-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE C