[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57927-57937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-7080-N-31]


30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Implementation 
of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013; OMB Control 
No.: 2577-0286

AGENCY: Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, 
HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In 
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment 
from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. 
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of 
public comment.

DATES: Comments Due Date: August 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this proposal.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection can be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information 
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for 
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Interested persons 
are also invited to submit comments regarding this proposal by name 
and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, 
Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410-5000; 
telephone (202) 402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colette Pollard, Reports Management 
Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th 
Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email; 
[email protected] or telephone (202) 402-3400. This 
is not a toll-free number. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive 
calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as 
individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more 
about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from 
Ms. Pollard.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that HUD is 
seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in 
Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on 
the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on 
November 4, 2022, at 87 FR 66723.

A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Implementation of the Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.
    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0286.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with changes and an additional 
form, of previously approved collection for which approval has expired.
    Form Numbers: HUD-5380, HUD-5381, HUD-5382, HUD-5383, and VAWA 
Emergency Transfer Data Collection Form.
    Description of the need for the information and proposed used: The 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013), Public 
Law 113-4, 127 Stat. 54, reauthorized and amended the Violence Against 
Women Act of 1994, as previously amended (title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of 
Pub. L. 103-322, 42 U.S.C. 13925 et seq.). In doing so, VAWA 2013 
expanded the VAWA protections that applied to HUD's Section 8 and 
Public Housing programs and widened the range of HUD's housing programs 
that are subject to VAWA protections. The provisions of VAWA 2013 that 
afford protections to

[[Page 57928]]

victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking are statutory and statutorily directed to be implemented. 
Accordingly, on November 16, 2016, HUD published a final rule at 81 FR 
80724 (VAWA Rule), implementing VAWA 2013's provisions in its housing 
programs. The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 
(VAWA 2022) was signed into law on March 15, 2022. However, certain 
provisions of VAWA 2022 are not self-implementing. Once VAWA 2022 has 
been implemented, this PRA will be further updated, as appropriate.
    The HUD programs that include VAWA protections as required by VAWA 
2013 and the VAWA Rule include:
     Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly (12 U.S.C. 
1701q);
     Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with 
Disabilities (42 U.S.C. 8013);
     Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
program (42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.);
     HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program (42 U.S.C. 
12741 et seq.);
     Homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360 et seq.), including the 
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program; the Continuum of Care (CoC) 
program; and the Rural Housing Stability Assistance program;
     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);
     Multifamily rental housing under section 236 of the 
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1);
     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), tenant-based and project-
based rental assistance under section 8 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 
1437f), and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room 
Occupancy; and
     The Housing Trust Fund (12 U.S.C. 4568).
    To assure covered housing providers (CHPs) under the programs 
listed above comply with VAWA 2013 and the VAWA Rule, the Department 
must provide to all CHPs certain documents for use, as follows:
     Form HUD-5380: Notice of Occupancy Rights Under the 
Violence Against Women Act. HUD must provide this notice to CHPs, which 
must, in turn, distribute it to tenants and to applicants at the times 
specified in the VAWA Rule at minimum to ensure they are aware of their 
rights under VAWA and its implementing regulations. CHPs must add 
specific information to this form as indicated by the imbedded 
instructions, including contact information of the CHP and information 
on how to request a VAWA emergency transfer.
     Form HUD-5381: Model Emergency Transfer Plan for Victims 
of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking. HUD 
must provide this model document to CHPs. CHPs must develop their own 
VAWA Emergency Transfer Plans, as required by the VAWA Rule, must make 
their VAWA Emergency Transfer Plan available upon request, and, when 
feasible, must make their plan publicly available. CHPs may, at their 
discretion, use HUD-5381 to develop these plans. This model contains 
only general provisions of an emergency transfer plan that apply across 
the covered HUD programs. Adoption of this model plan without further 
customization and information concerning how the emergency transfer 
plan will operate will not be sufficient to meet a covered housing 
provider's responsibility to adopt an emergency transfer plan. CHPs 
must consult the applicable regulations and are encouraged to consult 
program-specific HUD guidance when developing their own VAWA emergency 
transfer plans to ensure those plans contain all required elements.
     Form HUD-5382: Certification of Domestic Violence, Dating 
Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking, and Alternate Documentation. HUD 
must provide this certification form to CHPs, which must, in turn, 
distribute it to tenants and applicants as a required complement and 
extension of the required Notice of Occupancy Rights Under the Violence 
Against Women Act (Form HUD-5380). As further explained on the Form 
HUD-5382, an applicant or tenant who is asking for or about VAWA 
protections may choose to fill out and submit this certification form 
as one of the four legally acceptable options the VAWA Rule provides 
for answering any CHP's written request for documentation that an 
individual is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking or that a covered incident or 
incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking occurred.
     Form HUD-5383: Emergency Transfer Request for Certain 
Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or 
Stalking. HUD provides this model emergency transfer request form to 
CHPs. CHPs may, at their discretion, distribute it to tenants. This 
form serves as a model for use by a CHP to accept requests for 
emergency transfers under its required VAWA Emergency Transfer Plan.
     VAWA Emergency Transfer Data Collection Form: HUD must 
provide the Emergency Transfer Data Collection form to CHPs, and it is 
the responsibility of CHPs to complete and submit this form to HUD, for 
purposes of fulfilling recordkeeping and reporting requirements. CHPs 
must keep a record of all emergency transfers requested under its 
emergency transfer plan, the outcomes of such requests, and retain 
these records for a period of three years, or for a period as specified 
in program regulations and guidance. Requests and outcomes of emergency 
transfers must also be reported to HUD annually. See 24 CFR 
5.2005(e)(12). HUD may tailor this form to ask certain questions by 
selecting different areas of this form that are relevant to specific 
covered housing programs.

Discussion of Significant Revisions

    HUD made changes to the VAWA forms in response to public comment 
received as part of the 60-day notice-and-comment period. As part of 
this package, HUD has revised the forms to more closely align with the 
VAWA Rule and clarify language. In addition to minor changes, HUD makes 
the specific changes described below.
General Comments
    Form readability. Commenters had suggestions to make the forms 
easier to read and understand. Commenters noted that the forms should 
be accessible, readable, and understandable for people with low 
literacy and those who have disabilities, are cognitively impaired, are 
color blind, or have visual impairments. Another suggested that the 
forms should be written such that someone who knows nothing about VAWA 
can understand the housing protections and rights. Some commenters 
suggested that HUD should strike repetitive or unnecessary words and 
should streamline the forms to give essential information. Another 
suggested that HUD should use simpler sentences or a chart form, 
including for illustrating program-specific terminology. Commenters 
noted that HUD should ensure it is using consistent language throughout 
the forms, such as referring consistently to ``violence/abuse'' instead 
of just ``abuse,'' and not alternating between ``perpetrator'' and 
``abuser.'' Another commenter noted that the distinction between 
``tenant'' versus ``household member'' is unclear, as is

[[Page 57929]]

the status of minors. Other commenters suggested that HUD should refer 
to the Notice of Occupancy Rights by form number and title when it's 
referenced in the other forms, and HUD should hyperlink documents and 
resources when referring to them. A commenter noted that HUD should 
encourage covered housing providers to use plain language and 
accessible practices in the development of the forms for their use.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates these suggestions from commenters. 
HUD has made edits throughout the forms to address these concerns about 
readability, including the specific edits described later in this 
Notice. Housing providers are encouraged to use plain language to the 
extent possible as they customize these forms.
    Language access. Commenters suggested that HUD translate the forms 
into other languages. One commenter suggested that HUD translate into 
the top 15 most commonly spoken languages. Commenters stated that HUD 
should prominently place the language access requirements for the VAWA 
forms as a stand-alone provision so survivors who have limited English 
proficiency (LEP) can easily see it and be informed of their right to 
have the forms interpreted or translated to them if necessary. 
Currently, the information is too low down on the form and is likely to 
be missed. A commenter suggested that HUD could create a cover document 
containing a simple statement in all relevant languages stating that it 
is an important VAWA document and providing information about where to 
seek language assistance.
    HUD response: HUD anticipates translating the forms into multiple 
languages, consistent with its Language Access Plan (LAP). The 
previously published versions of these forms are available in multiple 
languages on HUD's website. HUD has also revised the forms to emphasize 
language-access requirements, including placing information about 
language-access prominently and early on the HUD-5380 proposed form. 
HUD reminds covered housing providers that they have an obligation to 
take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and 
activities by LEP individuals. Covered housing providers should follow 
their LAPs and conduct the four-fact analysis described in HUD and DOJ 
guidance to understand the reasonable steps they are required to take, 
and they must provide language assistance as required.
    Administrative burden. Commenters suggested that HUD's estimate of 
the administrative burden is too low.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters and has reviewed the burden 
estimate and does not think further revisions are necessary.
    Funding. A commenter asked for funding to assist some VAWA 
survivors in escaping violence/abuse and for shelters for survivors.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates the need for funding to assist VAWA 
survivors, but it is beyond the scope of this proposed information 
collection.
    Safety and resources for survivors. According to commenters, HUD 
should ensure information about whether to seek additional help is on 
each form (5380, 5382, and 5383) because consistent information across 
all forms will strengthen survivor's access to and awareness of the 
resources and service options available. Commenters also suggested that 
the forms provide information about local and culturally specific 
services, such as by including a link to culturally specific hotlines. 
Some commenters urged HUD to ensure the forms and related training 
underscore the danger that survivors face when taking steps to end the 
abusive relationship and ensure safe housing because housing providers 
often disregard the danger that survivors face and the urgency of their 
circumstances, and there must be safety protocols in place when a 
survivor asserts their rights. Commenters noted that to meet safety 
planning needs, housing providers need to competently refer the 
survivors to a provider that understands and is trained on the 
escalation of violence, lethality indicators, or cultural nuances in 
the way violence may be described. One commenter supported that the 
forms list national hotlines, but suggested that HUD should consider 
whether such groups need training on specific VAWA rights. A commenter 
proposed that HUD should create a safety planning form for family 
break-ups and lease bifurcation processes that considers both short-
term and long-term needs. Commenters throughout noted that HUD has an 
obligation to ensure that, whenever possible, survivors are empowered 
to choose what works best for them, their families, and their 
situation, and safety planning should take this into consideration.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for these suggestions. Where 
appropriate in the forms, HUD has included information about where to 
seek additional help, and covered housing providers are strongly 
encouraged to customize the Notice of Occupancy Rights and Emergency 
Transfer Plan to include information about local resources and other 
resources for survivors, consistent with Federal requirements. HUD 
agrees that it is critical to empower survivors and encourages covered 
housing providers to work with survivors to best meet their needs and 
ensure that their VAWA rights are protected so that they do not need to 
choose between their safety and their housing. HUD will take these 
comments into consideration as it issues future VAWA guidance.
    Lease bifurcation and family breakup. Commenters had suggestions 
for the lease bifurcation and family breakup processes in general. Some 
commenters want HUD to make bifurcation more available or otherwise 
mandatory. A commenter suggested that HUD should make family break-up 
and lease bifurcation rights available to all survivors, regardless of 
what program they participate in. A commenter stated that 24 CFR 
982.315 empowers the survivor to request that the perpetrator be 
removed from their Housing Choice Voucher by requiring that following a 
family-break up, the survivor retain the assistance. The commenter 
states that all VAWA covered housing survivors, not just those in the 
HCV program, should be prioritized in this way to retain the subsidy. 
Another noted that survivors should be able to affirmatively request to 
have their lease bifurcated and covered housing providers must process 
those requests and offer, but not mandate, safety planning. A commenter 
stated that HUD must reverse its position that the availability of 
lease bifurcation depends on ``applicable state law'' because it's 
resulting in inconsistent access to this protection. HUD has the 
authority to mandate specific lease provisions to allow for lease 
bifurcation regardless of state law. If HUD does this, it should amend 
its forms as necessary. Another suggested that HUD should issue 
guidance to clarify that covered housing providers must have a lease 
bifurcation policy and should provide lease bifurcations to survivors 
who are able to verify their status as a survivor.
    A commenter asked HUD to clarify that no additional certification 
besides the HUD-5382 is required for a lease bifurcation. According to 
a commenter, covered housing providers are interpreting HUD's 
regulation at 24 CFR 5.2009(a) to elevate the proof requirements when 
considering bifurcation by putting the burden on survivors to 
demonstrate a nexus between criminal activity and VAWA violence/abuse. 
If a bifurcation is denied, all a survivor can do is grieve the 
decision, but bifurcation is not mandatory and such grievances are not 
expedited. The commenter states that,

[[Page 57930]]

therefore, HUD should remove the ``criminal activity'' requirement.
    Commenters suggest that the forms should provide information about 
lease bifurcation and family break-up, and how it interrelates to 
emergency transfers. Since emergency transfers are not successful when 
the perpetrator is on the lease and receiving subsidy, it's important 
to make survivors aware of bifurcation and family break-up rights. A 
commenter suggested that the three options need to be viewed 
collectively as a spectrum of housing retention options for survivors.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for this feedback. Many of the 
suggestions go beyond the scope of this information collection, but HUD 
will consider them as it engages in rulemaking to implement the most 
recent reauthorization of VAWA and for future VAWA guidance. HUD 
directs covered housing providers, survivors, and the public to 
existing VAWA guidance, specifically PIH-2017-08 (Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 Guidance) and H-2017-05 (Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013--Additional 
Guidance for Multifamily Owners and Management Agents). HUD also 
reminds covered housing providers that they must comply with the 
documentation requirements described at 24 CFR 5.2007 when seeking 
information about an individual's status as a survivor of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
    Emergency Transfers. Commenters had suggestions for the emergency 
transfer requirements under VAWA. Commenters asked HUD to stop 
distinguishing between internal and external transfers, since internal 
transfers rarely protect safety or reduce trauma and external transfers 
rarely occur. Instead, they request that HUD require transfers when 
there is an available, safe unit within the same subsidy program (or, 
in the case of RAD converted projects, also to public housing units) 
regardless of waitlist. Others suggested that HUD should consider 
transfers to other properties owned and/or managed by the same entities 
as internal transfers, requiring providers to coordinate across their 
own portfolios to facilitate survivor relocation. Commenters also noted 
that HUD should mandate that covered housing providers cover moving 
expenses for an emergency transfer. A commenter recommended that HUD 
should encourage providers to utilize their resources or partner with 
community organizations to alleviate survivors' cost burdens when 
there's a transfer.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for these suggestions, but they 
go beyond the scope of this proposed information collection. With 
respect to moving costs, while HUD's regulations do not make covered 
housing providers responsible for covering moving costs for survivors, 
HUD encourages covered housing providers to bear these costs where 
possible, or to work with victims to identify possibilities for funding 
transfers.
    Confidentiality. A commenter noted that HUD must do more to protect 
survivors' confidentiality and hold accountable providers who violate 
confidentiality rules. The commenter directed HUD to available 
resources on confidentiality practices.
    HUD response: HUD reiterates that complying with the 
confidentiality requirements in HUD's VAWA regulations is critical for 
protecting survivors' safety. If a survivor believes their VAWA 
confidentiality rights have been violated, they may file a complaint 
with HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO).
    Failure to issue notices and forms. A commenter requested that HUD 
make clear that compliance and occupancy reviews of HUD covered housing 
programs will flag covered housing providers who fail to issue required 
HUD VAWA notifications and plans and will cite them for corrective 
action.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for their feedback. Covered 
housing providers are required to comply with HUD's regulations 
implementing VAWA at 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, which include 
requirements for when these forms must be provided or otherwise made 
available, and HUD will enforce these requirements as applicable.
    Lease addendum. A commenter stated that HUD should require covered 
housing providers to use a VAWA lease addendum, and covered housing 
providers should have to certify that they are using it and that 
households are informed about the terms of the addendum during initial 
lease signing and subsequent renewals.
    HUD response: HUD's existing VAWA regulations 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 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 HUD's regulations implementing VAWA at 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart L.
    Technical assistance. Commenters noted a need for VAWA training and 
technical assistance on various topics, such as VAWA's housing 
provisions, facilitating emergency transfers, partnering with victim 
service providers, and meeting reporting requirements.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates the commenters' feedback and is 
working closely with VAWA Technical Assistance Providers to provide 
training and technical assistance that will address these needs.
Form HUD-5380
    Form readability. A commenter states that the revisions to the form 
are an improvement and make it easily readable. The commenter believes 
the question-and-answer format will assist residents in understanding 
what is required of them to assert their rights.
    Other commenters had suggestions to make the form more readable. A 
commenter notes that the question ``What is the Violence Against Women 
Act (VAWA)'' is followed by information that does not answer the 
question, and it does not explain that VAWA is a federal law that 
provides survivors rights in housing. Additionally, the definition of 
VAWA violence contains terms not defined in the form. To keep the 
document short and simple, a commenter suggested including an appendix 
or cross-referencing the definitions in HUD-5382, since that form must 
be provided at the same time. Another commenter recommended that HUD 
should include a chart addressing the answer to the question, ``how can 
I remove an abuser from my household'' by each program.
    A commenter notes that due in part to confusing language in the 
form, some housing providers may think that survivors of sexual assault 
are only eligible for an emergency transfer if the assault occurred on 
the property in the prior 90 days, but such survivors are also eligible 
if they have a reasonable fear of further violence if they remain in 
the housing.

[[Page 57931]]

    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for their responses and agrees 
that the forms should be as simple as possible and accessible to a wide 
audience. HUD has made edits to the response to the question on the 
form that asks ``What is the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)'' to 
better explain that it is a Federal law that protects survivors' 
housing rights. HUD has also included additional definitions; an answer 
to the question, ``Can the perpetrator be evicted or removed from my 
lease?'', and has added a chart to provide responses by program to the 
question, ``What happens if the lease bifurcation ends up removing the 
only tenant who qualified for the housing or assistance?''
    HUD also made edits to emphasize that survivors of sexual assault 
are eligible for an emergency transfer either based on a fear of 
imminent harm from further violence or because the assault occurred on 
the property in the prior 90-days. These edits include capitalizing and 
bolding the words ``either'' and ``or,'' and including a designated 
note that reiterates this point.
    Form title. A commenter recommends changing the title to ``Rights 
for Survivors'' or ``Help for Survivors'' because these are public 
facing documents and this will inform more survivors and help them 
understand that the Notice contains rights they have under Federal law. 
The Commenter notes that other Federal agencies have simplified titles 
of documents to help members of the public understand their rights.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates commenter's recommendation but 
declines to make this change. The title of this form is included in 
HUD's regulations implementing VAWA at 24 CFR 5.2005(a), limiting HUD's 
ability to make this change through the Paperwork Reduction Act 
process. Additionally, such a change is likely to cause confusion.
    Confidentiality. A commenter states that HUD should include 
confidentiality requirements in Form 5380, particularly the requirement 
prohibiting personally identifying information about survivors without 
informed, time-limited written consent. The form should clarify that 
the release must be in writing and time-limited.
    HUD response: While the form already included some information 
about confidentiality, HUD has now expanded the discussion of 
confidentiality to include the requirements that commenters mentioned.
    Bifurcation. A commenter states that the bifurcation language, 
while it helps survivors understand that their housing provider may 
remove the abuser from the lease, is too dense. The commenter 
recommends streamlined language. Additionally, HUD should amend the 
answer to the question, ``How can I remove an abuser from my 
household?'' to make clear that survivors can affirmatively request 
their lease bifurcated and that covered housing providers are required 
to have a lease bifurcation policy.
    HUD response: HUD has amended the question, ``How can I remove an 
abuser from my household?'' to instead ask, ``Can the perpetrator be 
evicted or removed from my lease?'' and provided a simplified response 
that explains that depending on the specific situation, a covered 
housing provider may be able divide the lease to evict just the 
perpetrator and this is called ``bifurcating the lease.''
    Adverse factors. A commenter notes that VAWA prohibits covered 
housing providers from denying admission to, denying assistance under, 
terminating participation in, or evicting a tenant based on an adverse 
factor, if the adverse factor is determined to be 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. HUD 
should include the list of adverse factors that it has included in its 
guidance in the form in order to provide notice to survivors.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for this suggestion but 
declines to add the list of adverse factors to form HUD-5380. HUD has 
included a list of examples of adverse factors in guidance, 
specifically PIH-2017-08 (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 
2013 Guidance) and H-2017-05 (Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 
Reauthorization Act of 2013--Additional Guidance for Multifamily Owners 
and Management Agents). This guidance includes non-exhaustive lists of 
potential adverse factors that could be a direct result of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Covered housing 
providers and survivors are encouraged to use this guidance, but there 
may be other adverse factors, in addition to those included in these 
lists, that are also a direct result of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The determination of an adverse 
factor will be fact specific. Because of this, and to limit the length 
of these forms, HUD has not added a list of adverse factors to HUD-
5380.
    Reasonable accommodations. Commenters recommend changes to better 
address reasonable accommodations that may be necessary for individuals 
with disabilities. HUD should revise the form to inform survivors that 
individuals with a disability may make a reasonable accommodation 
request at any time, including for the first time in an eviction. Also, 
the form should inform survivors that the law prohibits the housing 
provider from inquiring about the nature of the survivor's disability 
and that in the event of a denial of a reasonable accommodation, the 
housing provider may need to engage in the interactive process to 
determine the accommodation that will work to allow survivors to submit 
their forms. Additionally, HUD should include a footnote to joint HUD-
DOJ guidance about reasonable accommodations.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates commenter's suggestions and has added 
much of this information to the form while still ensuring that it is 
consistent with relevant fair housing and civil rights laws, including 
the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
    Actual and imminent threat. Commenters state that HUD needs to make 
clear that the actual and imminent threat exception to VAWA is quite 
limited by regulation and sub-regulatory guidance. HUD should include 
the factors under 24 CFR 5.2003 that a PHA or housing provider must 
consider in determining whether a situation involving a survivor falls 
under the ``actual and imminent'' exception. Without clarification, it 
appears that evicting a survivor without examining if there are 
mitigating circumstances is lawful. As boldly and prominently as HUD 
can make it, HUD should state that evictions should only occur if there 
is no other action to be taken that would reduce or eliminate the 
threat.
    HUD response: VAWA does not limit covered housing providers' 
authority to terminate assistance or evict a tenant under a covered 
housing program in the limited circumstances in which a covered housing 
provider can demonstrate an actual and imminent threat to other tenants 
or those employed at or providing service to the property of the 
covered housing provider would be present if that tenant or lawful 
occupant is not evicted or terminated from assistance. An actual or 
imminent threat is one in which there is 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

[[Page 57932]]

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. Only if no other action can be taken to 
reduce or eliminate the threat should a covered housing provider evict 
or end the assistance of the survivor. HUD has edited the answer to the 
question, ``Are there any reasons that I can be evicted or lose 
assistance?'' to better convey that this is a limited circumstance, and 
that eviction or termination should only be used as a last resort.
    Documentation. Commenters are concerned that the HUD-5380 does not 
adequately explain the types of documentation that a survivor may 
provide to establish their status as a survivor of VAWA violence/abuse, 
as described at 24 CFR 5.2007. HUD needs to revise the documentation 
section to include that a statement or other evidence can be used to 
satisfy a documentation request, and the housing provider must describe 
it in detail. Another commenter stated that this option (``any other 
statement or evidence that can be provided as documentation the 
applicant or tenant is a victim'') should be separated from the third 
option in the list of available documentation and have its own section. 
Additionally, the Notice needs to be clear that a covered housing 
provider is not required to request documentation when a survivor 
requests protections. Further, HUD needs to clarify that it is the 
survivor's choice about what form of documentation to provide and that 
the covered housing provider must accept this documentation and may not 
seek additional documentation. HUD also needs to clarify on the forms 
that only one form of documentation is required unless the 
documentation does not meet the criteria or there is conflicting 
information, as provided in HUD regulations.
    HUD response: HUD regulations provide a list of permissible types 
of documentation that a covered housing provider must accept from a 
tenant or applicant when the covered housing provider requests 
documentation of the occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, 
sexual assault, or stalking. To address commenter's concerns that the 
fourth type of acceptable documentation (``at the discretion of a 
covered housing provider, a statement or other evidence provided by the 
applicant or tenant'') be appropriately accounted for, HUD has revised 
the form to list this option on a separate line with its own numbering. 
HUD has also revised the response to the question, ``What do I need to 
document that I am a victim of VAWA abuse/violence?'' to clarify that 
only one form of documentation is required and that the survivor 
chooses which type of documentation to provide. HUD also added more 
information about the requirements that apply when a covered housing 
provider receives conflicting information.
    Failure to issue the HUD-5380. A commenter suggests that HUD should 
state that a failure to send the Notice with any notification of 
termination of subsidy or tenancy renders the termination notice 
defective under HUD regulations.
    HUD response: Where the form discusses the limited circumstances in 
which a survivor can be evicted or lose their assistance, HUD has 
included a reminder that covered housing providers must provide a copy 
of Form HUD-5380 and Form HUD-5382 with eviction or termination notices 
and prior to termination of tenancy.
    VAWA complaints. Commenters suggest that HUD should add information 
on the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) new 
complaint process for potential VAWA violations under ``have your 
protections under VAWA been denied?'' The current information about 
contacting HUD field offices is insufficient because field offices are 
rarely equipped to process complaints.
    HUD response: HUD has revised the form to include a link to FHEO's 
website which provides more information about filing a complaint and 
the link to the complaint form.
Form HUD-5381
    Readability. Commenters state that the drafting notes are helpful 
and will help correct the issue of housing providers failing to provide 
necessary specific information.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for this feedback.
    Use as a model form. Commenters are concerned that housing 
providers cannot rely on the model plan to be fully in compliance with 
the law. The intent of the statute was to make it easier for housing 
providers to comply with VAWA, but HUD's template requires each 
provider to ``reinvent the wheel'' and thus is not a ``model'' plan. 
Housing providers do not have equal level of resources and smaller ones 
are relying on their ability to adopt HUD's form. A commenter suggested 
that HUD provide a model plan for each applicable program that can be 
effectively used with only minor customization. Another suggestion is 
to provide a ``key elements'' notice that informs tenants of the key 
elements that need to be present in emergency transfer plans.
    A commenter recommends specific jurisdictions for HUD to evaluate 
emergency transfer policies as it considers its model plan because 
commenter believes these jurisdictions' plans demonstrate a level of 
commitment, innovation, and partnership to support survivors.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates this feedback from commenters. HUD's 
Model Emergency Transfer Plan serves as a model, but it is inherently 
necessary for covered housing providers to customize the form to their 
program and their housing portfolio to account for the distinctions 
among both program requirements and the discretionary choices made by 
covered housing providers. HUD has revised some drafting notes and 
customization instructions to clarify the necessary elements that 
covered housing providers must fill in.
    Burden estimate. A commenter thinks the number of hours required to 
tailor the HUD model plan is closer to 24 hours, not 8 as HUD suggests.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters and has reviewed the burden 
estimate and does not think further revisions are necessary.
    Defining timeframes. Commenters state that HUD should require 
providers to provide a timeframe for processing Emergency Transfer 
requests. Further, covered housing providers should identify a time 
frame by which they will confirm receipt or respond to a survivor's 
request.
    HUD response: While the form already prompts covered housing 
providers to insert time frames as part of their policies, HUD has 
clarified that it means time frames ``for approving or denying an 
emergency transfer request.''
    Availability of emergency transfer plans. A commenter states that 
Emergency Transfer Plans must be publicly available, including being 
displayed prominently on housing provider websites and tenant-
accessible bulletin boards. They further suggest that any member of the 
public should be able to receive a free copy of the plan in whatever 
format is accessible to them, and HUD should give further guidance on 
how to make plans publicly available using these methods.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for these suggestions but 
declines to make changes to the form. HUD regulations at 24 CFR 
5.2005(e)(11) require emergency transfer plans to be made publicly 
available when feasible, and the forms already conform to this 
standard. However, HUD notes that it is not aware of any instances in 
which it

[[Page 57933]]

has been infeasible to make a plan publicly available, such as by 
posting it on a covered housing provider's website or having a physical 
copy available in the covered housing provider's office, and HUD will 
consider issuing further guidance on this subject.
    Safety. Commenters suggest that Emergency Transfer Plans must allow 
survivors to consent in writing for a victim service provider, 
culturally specific organization, legal aid organization, friend, or 
family to be their point of contact to protect safety.
    HUD response: HUD declines to make this a mandatory requirement, 
but covered housing providers are encouraged to include a section on 
``Safety and Security of Tenants'' in their emergency transfer plans. 
HUD reminds covered housing providers that survivors may have different 
needs based on their circumstances and that they should strive to 
communicate with survivors in the way that best meets the survivor's 
safety needs.
    Memoranda of understanding. A commenter states that HUD should 
include more details in its drafting notes about what a memorandum of 
understanding should include, why it's important to establish cross-
provider partnerships, and that covered housing providers who are 
establishing these memoranda should work with victim service providers, 
culturally-specific organizations, and local HUD offices. This is 
particularly important because emergency transfers are difficult in 
project-based Section 8 housing and other HUD multifamily housing.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for these suggestions but 
declines to make these changes. HUD believes this information is more 
appropriately conveyed in guidance and technical assistance, and HUD 
will consider future information the agency can release on this 
subject.
    Transfer prioritization. A commenter states that HUD needs to 
provide more guidance on how to prioritize emergency transfer requests. 
The commenter points out an example of how a large public housing 
agency considers such transfer requests ``resident-initiated'' and thus 
low-priority, and, as a result of their policies for processing such 
transfers, VAWA survivors may have to wait over a year to move after an 
emergency transfer request has been approved.
    HUD response: HUD will consider issuing guidance on this topic.
    Protection of emergency transfer rights. A commenter states that 
HUD should include language in the forms that better explains to 
survivors the difference between an internal and an external transfer. 
The language from the Notice of Occupancy Rights should be included in 
the model plan regarding what a household can do if their transfer 
request is denied or other VAWA rights are otherwise violated.
    HUD response: The forms provide space for covered housing providers 
to describe their policies for internal and external emergency 
transfers. HUD expects that covered housing providers will fill in 
information with respect to their specific policies. Survivors should 
also be provided with the Notice of Occupancy Rights at all required 
times, and that document also elaborates on emergency transfer 
requirements and information, if a survivor believes their rights have 
been violated.
    Status in ``good standing.'' Commenters state that HUD needs to 
more directly state that whether a survivor is in good standing is 
irrelevant to the determination of whether they qualify for an 
emergency transfer. The current use of the words ``should not'' 
suggests that a provider may, if they choose, consider whether the 
survivor is in good standing when making the determination. They 
further suggest that HUD should provide examples of not being in good 
standing and explain that sometimes, this is due to VAWA violence/
abuse, and HUD guidance such as PIH-2017-08 provides clear explanations 
of adverse factors that might be a direct result of VAWA violence/
abuse, including examples that directly connect to good standing.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for these suggestions. Where 
the form notes that covered providers should not evaluate whether a 
tenant is in good standing when assessing eligibility for an emergency 
transfer, HUD has added, ``Whether or not a tenant is in good standing 
does not impact their ability to request an emergency transfer under 
VAWA.'' HUD notes that survivors, covered housing providers, and others 
are encouraged to review existing HUD guidance, including PIH-2017-08 
(Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 Guidance) and H-
2017-05 (Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 
2013--Additional Guidance for Multifamily Owners and Management Agents) 
for further guidance on adverse factors.
Form HUD-5382
    Confidentiality. Commenters suggest that HUD should adopt protocols 
to ensure the safety of the survivor and the confidentiality of their 
status as a VAWA survivor, including but not limited to clarifying the 
question that asks a survivor to identify the best method of contact. 
It should be reframed to ask through which method of contact they can 
``safely and securely receive communications'' regarding their rights 
and options, and should leave additional space for other circumstances 
to consider when communicating with a survivor. The form should note 
that survivors can regularly update their contact information as needed 
for safety purposes. The form should also permit a survivor to offer 
written consent and a release of information to another person, such as 
an advocate or lawyer, as the point of contact.
    HUD response: HUD has revised the section of the form that asks a 
survivor to provide contact information in response to these comments. 
The question now asks for the ``safest and most secure way'' to contact 
a survivor and allows them to select multiple options. It also provides 
space for survivors to include other information in response to a newly 
added question, ``Are there any additional circumstances your covered 
housing provider should consider to ensure your safety before 
communicating with you?''
    Reasonable accommodations. Commenters state that the form should 
inform survivors that the law prohibits the housing provider from 
inquiring about the nature of the survivor's disability and that in the 
event of a denial of a reasonable accommodation, the housing provider 
may need to engage in the interactive process to determine the 
accommodation that will work to allow survivors to submit their forms.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for these suggestions. HUD has 
revised the response to the question, ``Can I request a reasonable 
accommodation?'' to provide more information regarding reasonable 
accommodations that may be necessary for individuals with disabilities.
    Actual and imminent threat. A commenter suggests that as boldly and 
prominently as HUD can make it, HUD should state that evictions should 
only occur if there is no other action to be taken that would reduce or 
eliminate the threat.
    HUD response: As explained elsewhere in this Notice, HUD has 
revised Form HUD-5380 to address commenter's suggestions regarding 
actual and imminent threat. Form HUD-5380 must be provided to survivors 
along with the HUD-5382.
    Failure to issue the form. A commenter states that HUD should make 
clear that failure to send the 5382 with any notification of 
termination of subsidy or tenancy renders the

[[Page 57934]]

termination notice defective under HUD regulations.
    HUD response: As noted above, where the HUD-5380 form discusses the 
limited circumstances in which a survivor can be evicted or lose their 
assistance, HUD has included a reminder that covered housing providers 
must provide a copy of Form HUD-5380 and Form HUD-5382 with eviction or 
termination notices and prior to termination of tenancy.
Form HUD-5383
    Readability. A commenter recommends removing the check boxes under 
number 9 (``Note'') because they're confusing and suggested using 
bullets instead.
    HUD response: HUD retains the check boxes so survivors can indicate 
which features they are requesting.
    Requesting contact information. Commenters support changes made to 
this form regarding the best contact method for survivors and encourage 
further changes including allowing contact information to be updated, 
and providing space for survivors to list additional considerations, 
such as calling at certain times of day and not identifying the reason 
for the call if the survivor is not alone. The form should include 
space for survivors to give consent to speak with or work through a 
third-party, as allowed by confidentiality provisions, to support 
survivors who are under surveillance from the person harming them and 
offer additional safety means to communicate. Under the Best Method of 
Contact section, the form should allow space to list this third-party 
contact and consent to communicate with that contact.
    HUD response: HUD has revised the section of the form that asks a 
survivor to provide contact information in response to public comments. 
The question now asks for the ``safest and most secure way'' to contact 
a survivor and allows them to select multiple options. It also provides 
space for survivors to include other information in response to a newly 
added question, ``Are there any additional circumstances your covered 
housing provider should consider to ensure your safety before 
communicating with you?'' HUD reminds covered housing providers that 
survivors may have different needs based on their circumstances and 
that they should strive to communicate with survivors in the way that 
best meets the survivor's safety needs.
    Additions to the form. Commenters suggest additions to the form. 
The form should provide space for survivors to identify if they will be 
temporarily absent from the unit to eliminate common issues caused by 
the survivor's absence, including a housing provider issuing an 
eviction notice or considering the unit vacant.
    Commenters further suggest that HUD should explicitly identify 
space for survivors to request a reasonable accommodation, including 
space to describe what is needed. The form should also explain what a 
reasonable accommodation is in the explanatory section at the beginning 
of the form.
    Commenters also state that the form should include a section for 
survivors to request bifurcation of the lease. This section should be 
at the top of the form so survivors understand they have options to 
address both short-term and long-term needs. The form should make clear 
that is not either/or when it comes to bifurcation and emergency 
transfers, and both can be requested at the same time.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for their suggestions but 
believes the Form HUD-5383 should be tailored as narrowly as possible 
for use as an emergency transfer request form to minimize confusion and 
be as simple for use as possible. HUD has edited the form to provide 
space for additional circumstances for the covered housing provider to 
consider so as to ensure safety before communicating with a survivor, 
and survivors can include additional information in that space, such as 
if they will not be reachable in the unit for safety purposes. 
Similarly, HUD has provided space in the section that asks a survivor 
what features they are requesting for a safe unit, and survivors may 
write-in other applicable considerations here that would facilitate a 
suitable transfer, such as accessibility needs. The other forms in this 
package also explain that individuals can request a reasonable 
accommodation for a disability, and covered housing providers remain 
subject to obligations to provide reasonable accommodations as 
applicable under laws including the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    Safety considerations. Commenters support HUD's options for 
survivors to identify features of a safe unit. They note additional 
factors include whether a unit allows essential parts of their safety 
network to remain accessible, such as job, childcare, healthcare, 
family, or victim service providers, and HUD should include access to 
safety network supports as an option in the section. The list reads as 
an exclusive list as written, even though it does provide an option for 
``other.''
    HUD response: HUD does not intend for the list of potential 
requested features to be an exclusive list. HUD regulations at 24 CFR 
5.2005(e)(1)(iii) establish that a safe unit is one that the survivor 
believes is safe. HUD anticipates that survivors will have varied, 
fact-specific safety needs that will impact whether a unit for transfer 
is safe, and, therefore, the list provided in the form is intended to 
capture common potential features, but it cannot include every 
potential feature that a survivor may need. To address commenter's 
concern, HUD has included additional space for a survivor to write in 
``other'' requested features. While the form included limited space 
before, HUD has revised the form to provide more room for survivors to 
write-in their needs when they select the ``other'' box.
    Confidentiality. Commenters note that confidentiality is critical 
to ensure safety and to alleviate fear of reporting violence. They 
further suggest that consequently, HUD should inform survivors that 
they can request a compliance review from HUD if their information is 
improperly shared.
    HUD response: If a survivor believes their VAWA confidentiality 
rights have been violated, they may file a complaint with HUD.
    Use as an optional form. A commenter states that while the form is 
optional, HUD should make clear that all information contained in the 
form must be asked in writing by covered housing providers as survivors 
seek help.
    HUD response: HUD's regulations and guidance do not address this 
specific issue. HUD will consider releasing further guidance on this 
matter in the future.
VAWA Emergency Transfer Data Collection Form
    Support for the information collection. Commenters state that they 
support HUD's collection of this information and in defining what data 
covered housing providers must collect and report to HUD regarding 
emergency transfers. They further indicate that if done correctly, it 
will inform owners, agents, program offices, and HUD on both the 
effectiveness of existing emergency transfer plans and barriers to 
providing survivors such transfers.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for this feedback.
    Submission of reports. Commenters raise concerns regarding methods 
for data collection suggesting that the data collection should be 
streamlined and not entail a new system. They also suggest that HUD 
develop standardized

[[Page 57935]]

tools for covered housing providers. A commenter recommends that HUD 
review this information during Management and Occupancy reviews (MORs) 
performed at assisted housing sites and record the information in the 
appropriate HUD database. According to a commenter, for the Voucher 
program, HUD should coordinate the submission of data with other data 
collection requirements and record the information in the appropriate 
HUD database.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates commenters' concerns about 
efficiently collecting this information in a way that minimizes burden 
on covered housing providers to the extent possible. HUD intends to 
collect the information in the form through different methods depending 
on the program so that it can tailor the collection method to address 
this concern. Methods may include email communication, DocuSign, 
Microsoft Forms, or any other survey method collection.
    Accuracy of the burden estimate. A commenter notes that the 
proposed information collection may require new systems to be 
developed, which will take time and resources. The commenter states 
that HUD needs to develop standardized tools for covered housing 
providers to use to facilitate the process to ease burden. Another 
commenter suggests that burden estimate will vary based on factors such 
as the internal structure of the program, whether the covered housing 
program has an operable and streamlined emergency transfer plan, and 
whether HUD will develop an electronic tracking sheet.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for this feedback and has 
considered it in its burden estimate.
    Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected. Commenters state that HUD should use a 
standardized data collection form. HUD should use close-ended questions 
with standardized answer options because it will allow for better 
evaluation of the data. A mix of quantitative and qualitative 
information will allow for a more robust assessment. A commenter 
reminds HUD that it will need to make sure there is consistency among 
responses within a given report, to ensure reliable information is 
being collected.
    HUD response: HUD has taken these suggestions into account in 
developing the questions in the form. The questions seek to collect 
both quantitative and qualitative information and aggregate data, and 
some questions are broken into parts that are intended to build on each 
other to ensure internal consistency.
    Is HUD's list of potential outcomes adequate or are there outcomes 
that should be added or modified? A commenter states that the list of 
potential outcomes is adequate. Another commenter notes that the list 
of outcomes is great, and HUD can add additional outcomes. This 
includes adding process outcomes by program to capture the steps and 
processes used to develop best business practices. For example, looking 
at whether the covered housing provider has a VAWA coordinator, whether 
there's a step-by-step process for conducting transfers, whether 
there's software for searching housing across a portfolio, are there 
alerts when a unit becomes available, and the relationships that exist. 
For internal transfers, HUD should consider collecting data on how many 
requests resulted in transfers and did other transfers take precedence 
over the VAWA emergency transfer, and if so, why? For external 
transfers, HUD should collect information on how many requests resulted 
in transfers and of those, how many were to units in the covered 
housing provider's portfolio and how many not in their portfolio, as 
well as whether the receiving location had a VAWA preference.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates commenters' suggestions and has 
included many of them in the form. HUD proposes to ask about whether a 
covered housing provider has a VAWA coordinator, the relationships that 
exist for facilitating transfers, and other process questions.
    What is an appropriate measure for ``length of time'' for emergency 
transfers? Should a covered housing provider only measure from when the 
emergency transfer was requested to approval/denial and/or should it be 
measured to move-in date? If a victim is issued a Housing Choice 
Voucher (HCV) as a result of their emergency transfer request, should 
the length of time be measured from request to voucher issuance and/or 
lease-up date? A commenter suggests that the length of time should be 
based on the initial request and approval/denial decision or voucher 
issuance. Basing the measurement on move-in date or lease-up date would 
be an inaccurate reflection of the housing provider's obligations, 
since they do not have control over when the tenant can move. Another 
commenter said that a covered housing provider should measure both from 
when the request was made either orally or in writing to both the 
approval date and move-in date. The obligation continues past the 
approval of the transfer, but measuring only by move-in date does not 
facilitate the prompt processing of requests. For survivors who are 
issued Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), the length of time should be 
measured from the transfer request to both the issuance of the voucher 
and lease-up date. This will help identify barriers to using vouchers 
and if there are patterns of discrimination.
    Commenters note that the appropriate measure may vary. A reasonable 
timeframe depends on multiple factors, including whether the program 
has flexibility because it is inherently mobile or allows for short-
term placements for a survivor; the covered housing provider's housing 
portfolio, both in terms of size, number of management companies, 
internal waiting lists, preferences, and other criteria; and the 
housing stock available for the unit size and type in the appropriate 
geographic area, including turnover, waitlists, and preferences. 
Timeframe should be established by providing program-specific best 
practices.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for this feedback. Based on 
these responses, HUD proposes to use multiple metrics to measure the 
timeframe. The form asks covered housing providers how long it took for 
VAWA emergency transfer requests to be approved, denied, or determined 
to be incomplete after they were received (i.e. the time between when a 
request was expressly made to when the housing provider finished its 
review and (1) approved the request, (2) denied the request, or (3) 
determined that the request was incomplete). The form also asks how 
long it took for VAWA emergency transfer requests to be completed after 
they were approved (i.e., the time between when a request was approved 
to when the tenant has moved into a safe unit). The form then asks for 
length of time for VAWA emergency transfer requests to be completed 
after they were received (i.e., the time between when a request was 
expressly made to a housing provider to when the tenant has moved into 
a safe unit).
    Should covered housing providers be able to explain the 
circumstances that affected the length of time for emergency transfers 
(e.g., the victim turned down offered units due to safety concerns)? A 
commenter asserts that covered housing providers should not be required 
to explain the circumstances that affected the length of time for 
emergency transfer but should be able to offer that voluntarily for HUD 
to document.
    Other commenters assert that covered housing providers should be 
required to

[[Page 57936]]

explain the circumstances that affected the length of time for 
emergency transfers. Documenting efforts to comply with legal 
requirements is standard operating procedure and holds the covered 
housing provider accountable. It also protects staff and prevents 
liability. Similar processes are used for tracking reasonable 
accommodation requests. Understanding the reasons why is key for 
covered housing providers to self-evaluate their policies and practices 
and take corrective steps as necessary, and allows HUD to identify best 
practices.
    HUD response: HUD appreciates commenters' feedback. In the form, 
HUD asks questions to collect data on the circumstances that affected 
the length of time for emergency transfers, but the questions are 
designed such that covered housing providers will report aggregate data 
instead of explaining each request individually. HUD believes this will 
minimize burden on covered housing providers while still allowing for 
the collection of vital information that can be used to improve the 
emergency transfer process and ensure that survivors are receiving 
their VAWA protections, and their safety is prioritized.
    Additional emergency transfer information for HUD to collect. 
Commenters suggest other categories and types of data for HUD to 
collect about emergency transfers. Commenters recommend that HUD track 
the number of survivors who leave a housing program while their 
emergency transfer is pending. Since emergency transfers can take 
months to years to complete and survivors are left in unsafe housing, 
HUD should track whether the survivor gave up the subsidy, abandoned 
the unit, or was evicted while the transfer was pending. Another 
commenter suggests tracking the safety measures requested and provided 
while the transfer is pending.
    Covered housing providers should report on the average length of 
time between an emergency transfer request and approval and average 
length of time between approval and the tenant moving-in to the new 
housing unit. HUD should also collect whether the tenant was denied an 
emergency transfer and the reason why if so. If the denial occurred, 
did the covered housing provider identify another unit? A commenter 
suggests tracking the geographic location of the site being requested 
to transfer from and the parameters of the requested geographic area.
    Commenters suggest that covered housing providers should identify 
partnerships with local victim service providers and culturally 
specific organization and the amount of referrals made through that 
partnership. A commenter suggests tracking whether the survivor was 
working with an advocate and including a ``no-knowledge'' checkbox if 
the housing provider doesn't know. HUD should also ask if the covered 
housing provider had a working relationship with a service provider who 
assisted in the process.
    Commenters note that providers should identify if they have a VAWA 
coordinator on staff, including the number of hours the staff person 
has dedicated to this role and how many survivors have utilized this 
service. If they do not have a coordinator, they should identify who 
facilitated the emergency transfers.
    Commenters further recommend that providers should report if they 
have or have considered an admission preference, and if they determined 
not to provide a preference, the covered housing provider should 
explain the analysis it used. Covered housing providers should also 
describe the priority given to VAWA transfer requests relative to other 
transfer requests, such as overcrowding, reasonable accommodations and 
non-tenant initiated emergencies, and to waitlist applicants.
    Commenters also state that providers should report on how many 
emergency transfer requests are coupled with requests for an accessible 
unit or a reasonable accommodation request, and how many emergency 
transfers are requested in this situation and whether needs are met. 
Providers should also report if residents needed reasonable 
accommodations to participate in the emergency transfer request 
process. Providers should also report on whether the requestor had 
limited English proficiency and if so, what language they requested be 
used.
    A commenter suggests that providers should report on how many 
emergency transfer requests are provided to survivors of sexual assault 
that are not premised on fear of imminent threat of future violence.
    A commenter recommends that HUD should collect from providers a 
list of explanations for why admission to a housing program is denied 
and track whether decisions are later reversed for a VAWA-related 
reason, such as by tracking how many applicants submitted a VAWA 5382 
and were later admitted.
    A commenter further notes that providers should list all moving 
resources/transfer costs they provide and the number of survivors who 
have utilized these resources for a VAWA emergency transfer.
    A commenter recommends that providers should use a point-in-time 
count to track the number of internal and external units they have 
available for transfer. HUD should collect data on both inter- and 
intra-development transfers separately. Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) 
should be required to report how residents in former public housing 
units converted to project-based vouchers under the Rental Assistance 
Demonstration (``RAD'') program have access to both RAD and public 
housing units within the housing authority's jurisdiction in the event 
they need to seek an emergency transfer, since there is a statutory 
obligation that former public housing tenants in RAD converted 
properties retain the same rights and protection they had prior to 
conversion.
    HUD response: HUD thanks commenters for these suggestions. As 
explained elsewhere in this Notice, HUD designed this form to collect 
aggregate information about emergency transfers, as opposed to 
collecting information on each individual transfer request. HUD 
believes that this will produce the most useful data, minimize burden 
on covered housing providers, and protect the confidentiality of 
individual survivors. To that end, HUD has incorporated commenters' 
suggestions to the extent possible within this framework.
    The form asks covered housing providers to report on why emergency 
transfer requests were not completed, which includes an option for 
``victim vacated unit.'' The form also collects information about why 
an emergency transfer request was denied. There is also space for 
housing providers to indicate types of safety measures they offer, such 
as offering interim housing for survivors waiting for emergency 
transfers.
    As explained elsewhere in this Notice, HUD also seeks to collect 
information about timeframes throughout the emergency transfer process. 
As commenters suggested, the form proposes to collect information about 
how long it takes for a VAWA emergency transfer request to be completed 
after it is approved. The form also asks about incomplete and denied 
emergency transfer requests.
    HUD also proposes to collect other information suggested by 
commenters, including whether covered housing providers: collaborate or 
coordinate with public housing authorities, Continuums of Care, owners/
managers, consortiums, or other providers for purposes of providing 
housing and

[[Page 57937]]

services for victims; offer interim housing for VAWA victims waiting 
for emergency transfers; provide a waitlist preference for victims of 
domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking; have 
a VAWA service coordinator or someone who functions as a VAWA service 
coordinator; and conduct outreach activities to organizations that 
assist or provide resources to VAWA victims. HUD declines to collect 
all of the information suggested by commenters, as the form must 
prioritize collection of certain emergency transfer information to 
maximize the utility of the data collected while balancing concerns 
about burden on covered housing providers. HUD thanks commenters for 
these suggestions and will consider other ways to issue guidance on 
these and related matters.
    Respondents: Public housing agencies, private multifamily housing 
owners and management agents, state and local agencies, and grant 
recipients.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 293,176.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 5,044,764.
    Frequency of Responses: Varies. For the HUD-5380, there are 
approximately 3,918 Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher 
respondents with 65 responses per respondent. For Multifamily Housing, 
there are approximately 23,000 respondents with 34 responses per 
respondent. For HOME, there are 1,874 respondents with approximately 44 
responses per respondent. For HOPWA, there are 255 respondents with 50 
responses per respondent. For Homelessness programs (CoC, ESG, Rural 
Housing Stability) there are 6,350 respondents with 7 responses per 
respondent.
    Each respondent indicated will have to complete an emergency 
transfer plan using the HUD-5381 or other format. For the HUD-5382 
certification for documentation by survivor and emergency transfer 
request, there are approximately 231,965 responses.
    Average Hours per Response: Varies depending on form (0.44 based on 
total burden hours/total responses).
    Total Estimated Burden Hours: 2,230,480.58.

B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and 
affected parties concerning the collection of information described in 
Section A on the following:
    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
    (5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to 
these questions.

C. Authority

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
3507.

Colette Pollard,
Department Reports Management Officer, Office of Policy Development and 
Research, Chief Data Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-15555 Filed 7-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P