30 Day FR

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices
(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 and
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.

(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 the use
of appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to
submit comment in response to these
questions.

A. Overview of Information Collection
Title of Information Collection:
Insurance Termination Request for
Multifamily Mortgage.
OMB Approval Number: 2502–0416.
Type of Request: Reinstatement, with
change, of previously approved
collection for which approval has
expired.
Form Number: 9807.
Description of the need for the
information and proposed use: This
information collection is used for
mortgagees to request HUD to terminate
a mortgage insurance contract for an
FHA-insured mortgage upon
prepayment in full of the mortgage prior
to its maturity date, or by an owner’s
and mortgagee’s mutual agreement to
voluntarily terminate the contract of
mortgage insurance without a
prepayment. Adjustments were
necessary for the number of respondents
and number of responses as the
previous collection did not capture the
correct information. This revision
captures the correct information.
Respondents: Business (mortgage
lenders).
Estimated Number of Respondents:
14,580.
Estimated Number of Responses:
14,580.
Frequency of Response: 1.
Average Hours per Response: .25.
Total Estimated Burdens: 3,645.

Jeffrey D. Little,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office
of Housing.

B. Solicitation of Public Comment
This Notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected
agencies 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;

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

C. Authority
Section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35.

[FR Doc. 2024–15544 Filed 7–15–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

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

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
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57927

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:
PaperworkReductionActOffice@
hud.gov.
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; PaperworkReductionActOffice@
hud.gov 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/telecommunicationsrelay-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

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

57928

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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 programspecific 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

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 noticeand-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

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices
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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57929

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,

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

57930

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 crossreferencing 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.

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices
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 90days. 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 timelimited.
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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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 nonexhaustive 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

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57931

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

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

57932

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices
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 lowpriority, 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57933

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

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

57934

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices
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 closeended 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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-bystep 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 leaseup 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

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57935

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

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

57936

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices

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 selfevaluate 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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 ‘‘noknowledge’’ 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 nontenant 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

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Notices
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jul 15, 2024

Jkt 262001

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2024–0070;
FXES11140300000–245–FF03E00000]

Draft Environmental Assessment and
Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan;
Receipt of an Application for an
Incidental Take Permit; Alliant Energy,
Iowa and Minnesota
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comment and information.
AGENCY:

We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), have received
an application from Alliant Energy’s
Interstate Power and Light Company
and Wisconsin Power and Light
Company (Alliant; applicant), for an
incidental take permit (ITP) under the
Endangered Species Act, for wind
facilities in Iowa and Minnesota
(project). The applicant requests the ITP
for the take of four bat species
incidental to the otherwise lawful
activities associated with the project.
The applicant proposes a conservation
program to minimize and mitigate for
the unavoidable incidental take as

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57937

described in their habitat conservation
plan (HCP). The Service requests public
comment on the application, which
includes the applicant’s proposed HCP,
and the Service’s draft environmental
assessment, prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act. The
Service provides this notice to seek
comments from the public and Federal,
Tribal, State, and local governments.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
August 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Obtaining Documents: Electronic
copies of the documents this notice
announces, along with public comments
received, will be available online in
Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2024–0070 at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Submitting Comments: If you wish to
submit comments on any of the
documents, you may do so in writing by
one of the following methods:
• Online: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2024–0070.
• U.S. mail: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R3–
ES–2024–0070; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB/
3W; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kraig McPeek, Field Supervisor,
Illinois-Iowa Ecological Services Field
Office, by email at kraig_mcpeek@
fws.gov or by telephone at 309–757–
5800, extension 202; or Andrew Horton,
Regional HCP Coordinator, by email at
andrew_horton@fws.gov or by telephone
at 612–713–5337. Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind,
hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
have received an application from
Alliant Energy’s Interstate Power and
Light Company and Wisconsin Power
and Light Company (Alliant; applicant),
for an incidental take permit (ITP) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
for its eight wind facilities in Iowa and
one facility in Minnesota (project). The
applicant requests the ITP, which would
be for a 30-year period, for the take of
the four covered bat species in table 1,
incidental to the otherwise lawful
activities associated with the project.

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1