Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons With Disabilities in Multifamily Rental Housing; Accumulation of Deposits for Costs Attributable to Pets, 31451-31454 [2013-12456]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules + (20 log10(RF) (in GHz)) measured at 2 KHz*RF (in GHz) from carrier; (16) ‘‘Space-qualified’’ star tracker or star sensor with angular accuracy less than or equal to 1 arcsec in all three axes and a tracking rate equal to or greater than 3.0 deg/sec, and specially designed parts and components therefor (MT); *(17) Secondary or hosted payload, and specially designed parts and components therefor, that perform any of the functions described in paragraph (a) of this category; *(18) Department of Defense-funded secondary or hosted payload, and specially designed parts and components therefor; or (19) Spacecraft re-entry vehicles, and specially designed parts and components therefor, as follows (MT if usable in rockets, SLVs, missiles, drones, or UAVs capable of delivering a ‘‘payload’’ of at least 500 kg to a ‘‘range’’ of at least 300 km): (i) Heat shields, and components therefore, fabricated of ceramic or ablative materials; (ii) Heat sinks and components therefore, fabricated of light-weight, high heat capacity materials; or (iii) Electronic equipment specially designed for spacecraft re-entry vehicles; Note to paragraph (e)(19): For definition of ‘‘range’’ as it pertains to aircraft systems, see note to paragraph (c)(4) of this category. For definition of ‘‘range’’ as it pertains to rocket systems, see note to paragraph (f)(6) of USML Category VI. *(20) Any part, component, accessory, attachment, equipment, or system that (i) is classified; (ii) Contains classified software; or (iii) Is being developed using classified information. ‘‘Classified’’ means classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or predecessor order, and a security classification guide developed pursuant thereto or equivalent, or to the corresponding classification rules of another government or international organization. TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Note 1 to paragraph (e): Parts, components, accessories, and attachments specially designed for spacecraft enumerated in this category but not listed in paragraph (e) are subject to the EAR. Note 2 to paragraph (e): For the purposes of this paragraph, an article is ‘‘spacequalified’’ if it is designed, manufactured, or qualified through successful testing, for operation at altitudes greater than 100 km above the surface of the Earth. Notes: (1) A determination that a specific article (or commodity) (e.g., by product serial number) is ‘‘space-qualified’’ by virtue of testing does VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 May 23, 2013 Jkt 229001 not mean that other articles in the same production run or model series are ‘‘spacequalified’’ if not individually tested. (2) ‘‘Article’’ is synonymous with ‘‘commodity,’’ as defined in EAR § 772.1. (3) A specific article not designed or manufactured for use at altitudes greater than 100 km above the surface of the Earth is not ‘‘space-qualified’’ before it is successfully tested. (f) Technical data (see § 120.10 of this subchapter) and defense services (see § 120.9 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this category and classified technical data directly related to items controlled in ECCNs 9A515, 9B515, 9C515, and 9D515 and defense services using the classified technical data. (See § 125.4 of this subchapter for exemptions.) (MT for technical data and defense services related to articles designated as such.) (g)–(w) [Reserved] (x) Commodities, software, and technical data subject to the EAR (see § 120.42 of this subchapter) used in or with defense articles controlled in this category. Note to paragraph (x): Use of this paragraph is limited to license applications for defense articles controlled in this category where the purchase documentation includes commodities, software, or technical data subject to the EAR (see § 123.1(b) of this subchapter). * * * * * PART 124—AGREEMENTS, OFFSHORE PROCUREMENT, AND OTHER DEFENSE SERVICES 5. The authority citation for part 124 is revised it to read as follows: 31451 of Defense Trade Controls. Once approved, the defense services described in the agreements may generally be provided without further licensing in accordance with §§ 124.3 and 125.4(b)(2) of this subchapter. In exceptional cases, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, upon written request, will consider approving the provision of defense services described in § 120.9(a) of this subchapter by granting a license under part 125 of this subchapter. * * * * * ■ 7. Section 124.2 is amended by revising the section header, removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (b), and revising paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows: § 124.2 Exemptions for training and related technical data. * * * * * (c) For NATO countries, Australia, Japan, and Sweden, in addition to the basic maintenance information exemption in § 125.4(b)(5) of this subchapter, no technical assistance agreement is required for maintenance training or the performance of maintenance, including the export of supporting technical data, when the following criteria can be met: * * * * * Dated: May 14, 2013. Rose E. Gottemoeller, Acting Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security, Department of State. [FR Doc. 2013–11985 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710–25–P ■ Authority: Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90– 629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 2776; Pub. L. 105–261; Pub. L. 111–266; Section 1261, Pub. L. 112–239; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129. 6. In § 124.1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: ■ § 124.1 Manufacturing license agreements and technical assistance agreements. (a) Approval. The approval of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls must be obtained before the defense services described in § 120.9(a) of this subchapter may be furnished. In order to obtain such approval, the U.S. person must submit a proposed agreement to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Such agreements are generally characterized as manufacturing license agreements, technical assistance agreements, distribution agreements, or off-shore procurement agreements, and may not enter into force without the prior written approval of the Directorate PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. FR–5586–P–01] RIN 2501–AD60 Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons With Disabilities in Multifamily Rental Housing; Accumulation of Deposits for Costs Attributable to Pets Office of the Secretary, HUD. Proposed rule. AGENCY: ACTION: HUD regulations governing multifamily rental housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities allow for the residents of such housing to own common household pets, subject to the residents’ paying a refundable pet deposit. Currently, the regulations require that owners of HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules collect the deposit and any increases in the deposit from the pet owner only through gradual accumulation; that is, an initial payment followed by subsequent monthly payments. This requirement does not exist for public housing agencies (PHAs) and owners of other HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing. Rather, HUD regulations provide PHAs and owners of other HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing discretion to determine whether to gradually accumulate a pet deposit and any increases to the pet deposit. This proposed rule would provide owners of HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities, now subject to the gradual-accumulation pet deposit requirement, with the same flexibility, thereby bringing consistency to the pet deposit requirements for HUD programs and better enabling owners of such housing to handle the costs associated with pet ownership by tenants. This proposed rule only applies to policies for pets and not to service or assistance animals for persons with disabilities. DATES: Comment Due Date: July 23, 2013. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410– 0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title. 1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. 2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 May 23, 2013 Jkt 229001 instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically. Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the proposed rule. No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202–708– 3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie D. Head, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6106, Washington, DC 20410– 8000; telephone number 202–708–2495 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this telephone number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 227 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 1701r–1), provides for the ownership of common household pets in HUD’s public and other HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities. Section 227(a) provides that no owner or manager of federally assisted housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities 1 may, as a condition of tenancy: (1) Prohibit or prevent any tenant from owning or having common household pets living in the dwelling accommodations or (2) restrict or discriminate against any person in connection with admission to, or continued occupancy of, covered housing because of the ownership of such pets or their presence in the dwelling accommodations. HUD’s regulations implementing section 227 1 The term used in this 1983 statute is ‘‘handicapped.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 are codified at 24 CFR part 5, subpart C (entitled ‘‘Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons with Disabilities’’) (§§ 5.300 to 5.380). These regulations apply to rental housing assisted by HUD under the following programs: (1) The public housing program, (2) programs administered by the Assistant Secretary for Housing–Federal Housing Commissioner, and (3) programs for which the governing regulations are in 24 CFR Chapter VIII. This rule only addresses HUD programs that fall within the second and third categories; specifically, the: (1) Rent Supplements (24 CFR part 200, subpart W), (2) Rental Assistance Payments (24 CFR part 236, subpart D), (3) Section 8 New Construction (24 CFR part 880), (4) Section 8 Substantial Rehabilitation (24 CFR part 881), (5) Section 8 State Housing Agencies (24 CFR part 883), (6) Section 8 Set-Aside for Rural Rental Housing Projects (24 CFR part 884), (7) Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside and Property Disposition (24 CFR part 886), (8) Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly (24 CFR part 811, subpart B), (9) Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (24 CFR part 891, subpart C), and (10) Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Demonstration Program. For purposes of brevity and convenience, rental housing assisted under these programs is collectively referred to as ‘‘covered multifamily rental housing.’’ For tenants residing in covered multifamily rental housing, § 5.318(d)(2)(iii) currently requires the gradual accumulation of the deposit by the pet owner, through an initial payment not to exceed $50 when the pet is brought onto the premises and subsequent monthly payments not to exceed $10 per month until the amount of the deposit is reached. Section 5.318(d)(2) requires HUD to set the maximum pet deposit by notice, currently set at $300.2 Section 5.318(d)(2)(v)(A) also requires a gradual accumulation of any increase in the deposit, not to exceed $10 per month for these tenants. Other covered multifamily rental housing is subject to § 5.318(d)(2)(iv), which provides the owner with the discretion of establishing rules that ‘‘may provide for the gradual accumulation of the deposit by the pet owner.’’ The requirements for public housing are codified at § 5.318(d)(3), and similarly provide that the pet rules adopted by a PHA ‘‘may permit gradual 2 See HUD, No. 4350.3 REV–1, Occupancy Requirements of Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs (2009) at 6–24. E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules accumulation of the pet deposit by the pet owner.’’ HUD’s March 8, 1996, final rule (61 FR 9536) establishing the pet ownership regulations explained that the differing requirements governing deposits were based on the fact that tenants in the affected covered multifamily rental housing are, as a general rule, lower income and may have difficulty making the pet deposit. While this is still generally true, the regulatory mandate that owners gradually accumulate deposit amounts has also sometimes imposed an undue hardship for owners of covered multifamily housing. When funds are needed for repairs and replacements, fumigation, and animal care facilities shortly after a tenant brings a pet onto the premises, the accumulated pet deposit may be insufficient to pay repair and clean-up costs. Consequently, the owner may have to use the housing’s Reserve for Replacement account or the tenant’s security deposit to fund required repairs if a sufficient pet deposit has not been accumulated. regulations to no longer mandate the gradual accumulation of pet deposits in the covered multifamily rental housing, and provide owners of such housing with the discretion to: (1) Provide for the gradual accumulation of the pet deposit, and (2) provide for the gradual accumulation of approved pet deposit increases.3 In making this regulatory change, owners of covered multifamily rental housing would not be prohibited from providing for gradual accumulation of the deposit and increases in the pet deposit by the pet owner. The proposed rule will enable owners to determine how to collect the pet owner deposit based on the same rules that apply to other HUD-assisted rental housing; however, owners should consider the income characteristics of its tenants when setting pet deposit policies and are encouraged to continue to provide for gradual accumulation from lower-income residents where economically feasible given the costs of operating the housing project. II. This Proposed Rule As discussed in this preamble, the purpose of this proposed rule is to bring consistency to the pet deposit requirements for HUD programs and To address this concern and distinction in HUD regulations, the proposed rule would amend the III. Cost and Benefits of the Proposed Rule 31453 better enable owners of such housing to handle the costs associated with pet ownership by tenants. While difficult to predict, HUD has determined that the discounted benefits of the proposed rule may cause negligible transfers to tenants if the owner of their dwelling chooses to opt out of the gradual payment requirement. Assuming a pet deposit in a range from $100 to $300 and a 3 or 7 percent annual discount rate, the financial impact of the rule may range from $232,000 to $9.86 million. Currently, about 936,000 households in HUD assisted multifamily rental housing are classified as either elderly or disabled and will potentially be impacted by the change in regulation. It is very unlikely, however, that all elderly or disabled households in the concerned programs will own a pet and therefore be subject to the rule. Recognizing that about 62 percent of households in the United States own a pet, and applying that proportion to our target population, we derive an estimate of the number of affected households to be 580,000. We also make the cautious assumption that all of the 580,000 households are affected. The rule provides owners of housing the option to collect upfront fees. The total impact (cost to the tenants) will be as follows: Pet deposit TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Status-Quo (Current Rule with Gradual Payment) ...................................................................... —Upfront Payment ............................................................................................................... —Monthly Payment .............................................................................................................. —Number of Months ............................................................................................................ Present value payments at 3% annual discount ......................................................................... Present value payments at 7% annual discount ......................................................................... Cost of Rule (per Household at 3%) ........................................................................................... Cost of Rule (per Household at 7%) ........................................................................................... Total Elderly or Disabled Household in HUD Multifamily Rental Housing that own pets ........... Total Potential Impact (per Household at 3%) ............................................................................ Total Potential Impact (per Household at 7%) ............................................................................ $100 50 10 5 99.60 99.20 0.40 0.80 580,000 232,000 464,000 $200 50 10 15 197 193 3 7 580,000 1,740,000 4,060,000 $300 50 10 25 292 283 8 17 580,000 4,640,000 9,860,000 The potential benefits of the rule include a reduced burden on owners who have to cover costs associated with repairs, replacements, fumigation, and animal facilities when such costs result from pets on the premises and accrue before the entire pet deposit is accumulated and decrease the time and money spent to manage the gradual accumulation of the required pet deposit. There are also administrative costs associated with the management of pet-deposit accounts. Under current HUD regulations, there is a need to manage the gradual accumulation of the required pet deposit and the proposed rule will eliminate such a need. The implementation of this proposed rule will result in some savings, however small, for the owners if they do not have to manage the monthly payments of pet deposits. Based on this analysis, HUD has determined that the implementation of this proposed rule will not be economically significant under Executive Order 12866 4 and OMB Circular A– 4.5 IV. Findings and Certifications 3 This proposed rule only applies to policies for pets and not to service or assistance animals for persons with disabilities. Service and assistance animals are covered by separate HUD regulations at 24 CFR 5.303. 4 Office of Management and Budget, Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under Executive Order 12866, January 11, 1996, http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/riaguide.html. 5 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/cirulara4.pdf. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 May 23, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would revise HUD’s regulations governing the manner in which an owner of covered multifamily rental housing may require tenants of such E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1 31454 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules housing who maintain pets to pay a pet deposit. As discussed in the preamble, owners of covered multifamily rental housing were subject to different rules concerning pet deposits than rules that applied to other HUD-assisted rental housing. This proposed rule would provide owners of such covered multifamily rental housing with the discretion to determine whether to gradually accumulate a pet deposit, thereby bringing consistency to the pet deposit requirements for HUD rental housing programs and better enabling owners to handle the costs associated with pet ownership by tenants. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD’s determination that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD’s objectives as described in this preamble. TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Environmental Impact This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132 (entitled ‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 May 23, 2013 Jkt 229001 of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA. Lists of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 5 Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Crime, Government contracts, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Penalties, Pets, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 5 as follows: PART 5—GENERAL HUD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS; WAIVERS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 53 [REG–106499–12] RIN 1545–BL30 Community Health Needs Assessments for Charitable Hospitals; Correction Correction In proposed rule document 2013– 12013, appearing on pages 29628–29629 in the issue of Tuesday, May 21, 2013, make the following correction: This document inadvertently appeared in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of the Federal Register and should have appeared in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section. [FR Doc. C1–2013–12013 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505–01–D DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 5 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 3535(d), Sec. 327, Pub. L. 109– 115, 119 Stat. 2936, and Sec. 607, Pub. L. 109–162, 119 Stat. 3051. 2. Amend § 5.318 as follows: ■ a. Revise paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (iv); ■ b. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(v); and ■ c. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2)(vi) as (d)(2)(v). The revisions read as follows: ■ § 5.318 Discretionary pet rules. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) * * * (iii) The pet rules may provide for gradual accumulation of the pet deposit by the pet owner. (iv) The project owner may (subject to the HUD-prescribed limits) provide for gradual accumulation of an increase in the amount of the pet deposit by amending the house pet rules in accordance with § 5.353. * * * * * Dated: May 1, 2013. Shaun Donovan, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2013–12456 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–P PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG–2013–0257] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hudson River, Troy and Green Island, NY Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the highway bridge (Troy Green Island) across the Hudson River, mile 152.7, between Troy and Green Island, New York. The owner of the bridge, New York State Department of Transportation, requested that a twenty four hour advance notice be given for bridge openings. In addition, we are removing the regulations for the 112th Street Bridge, mile 155.4, between Troy and Cohoes which has been converted to a fixed bridge. It is expected that this change to the regulations would provide relief to the bridge owner from crewing the bridge while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation as well as remove obsolete regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 23, 2013. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31451-31454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 5

[Docket No. FR-5586-P-01]
RIN 2501-AD60


Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons With Disabilities in 
Multifamily Rental Housing; Accumulation of Deposits for Costs 
Attributable to Pets

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: HUD regulations governing multifamily rental housing for the 
elderly or persons with disabilities allow for the residents of such 
housing to own common household pets, subject to the residents' paying 
a refundable pet deposit. Currently, the regulations require that 
owners of HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing for the elderly or 
persons with disabilities

[[Page 31452]]

collect the deposit and any increases in the deposit from the pet owner 
only through gradual accumulation; that is, an initial payment followed 
by subsequent monthly payments. This requirement does not exist for 
public housing agencies (PHAs) and owners of other HUD-assisted 
multifamily rental housing. Rather, HUD regulations provide PHAs and 
owners of other HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing discretion to 
determine whether to gradually accumulate a pet deposit and any 
increases to the pet deposit. This proposed rule would provide owners 
of HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing for the elderly or persons 
with disabilities, now subject to the gradual-accumulation pet deposit 
requirement, with the same flexibility, thereby bringing consistency to 
the pet deposit requirements for HUD programs and better enabling 
owners of such housing to handle the costs associated with pet 
ownership by tenants. This proposed rule only applies to policies for 
pets and not to service or assistance animals for persons with 
disabilities.

DATES: Comment Due Date: July 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General 
Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 
SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer 
to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for 
submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above 
docket number and title.
    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by 
mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, 
Washington, DC 20410-0500.
    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit 
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit 
comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the 
commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely 
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to 
the public. Comments submitted electronically through the 
www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and 
interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the 
instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.


    Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must 
be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, 
all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the 
proposed rule. No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are 
not acceptable.


    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted 
comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for 
public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the 
above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters 
building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be 
scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is 
not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments 
may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay 
Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available 
for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie D. Head, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Multifamily Housing Programs, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6106, Washington, DC 20410-
8000; telephone number 202-708-2495 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this telephone 
number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 227 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (12 
U.S.C. 1701r-1), provides for the ownership of common household pets in 
HUD's public and other HUD-assisted multifamily rental housing for the 
elderly or persons with disabilities. Section 227(a) provides that no 
owner or manager of federally assisted housing for the elderly or 
persons with disabilities \1\ may, as a condition of tenancy: (1) 
Prohibit or prevent any tenant from owning or having common household 
pets living in the dwelling accommodations or (2) restrict or 
discriminate against any person in connection with admission to, or 
continued occupancy of, covered housing because of the ownership of 
such pets or their presence in the dwelling accommodations. HUD's 
regulations implementing section 227 are codified at 24 CFR part 5, 
subpart C (entitled ``Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons with 
Disabilities'') (Sec. Sec.  5.300 to 5.380). These regulations apply to 
rental housing assisted by HUD under the following programs: (1) The 
public housing program, (2) programs administered by the Assistant 
Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, and (3) programs 
for which the governing regulations are in 24 CFR Chapter VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term used in this 1983 statute is ``handicapped.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule only addresses HUD programs that fall within the second 
and third categories; specifically, the: (1) Rent Supplements (24 CFR 
part 200, subpart W), (2) Rental Assistance Payments (24 CFR part 236, 
subpart D), (3) Section 8 New Construction (24 CFR part 880), (4) 
Section 8 Substantial Rehabilitation (24 CFR part 881), (5) Section 8 
State Housing Agencies (24 CFR part 883), (6) Section 8 Set-Aside for 
Rural Rental Housing Projects (24 CFR part 884), (7) Section 8 Loan 
Management Set-Aside and Property Disposition (24 CFR part 886), (8) 
Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly (24 CFR part 811, 
subpart B), (9) Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with 
Disabilities (24 CFR part 891, subpart C), and (10) Section 811 Project 
Rental Assistance Demonstration Program. For purposes of brevity and 
convenience, rental housing assisted under these programs is 
collectively referred to as ``covered multifamily rental housing.''
    For tenants residing in covered multifamily rental housing, Sec.  
5.318(d)(2)(iii) currently requires the gradual accumulation of the 
deposit by the pet owner, through an initial payment not to exceed $50 
when the pet is brought onto the premises and subsequent monthly 
payments not to exceed $10 per month until the amount of the deposit is 
reached. Section 5.318(d)(2) requires HUD to set the maximum pet 
deposit by notice, currently set at $300.\2\ Section 5.318(d)(2)(v)(A) 
also requires a gradual accumulation of any increase in the deposit, 
not to exceed $10 per month for these tenants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See HUD, No. 4350.3 REV-1, Occupancy Requirements of 
Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs (2009) at 6-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other covered multifamily rental housing is subject to Sec.  
5.318(d)(2)(iv), which provides the owner with the discretion of 
establishing rules that ``may provide for the gradual accumulation of 
the deposit by the pet owner.'' The requirements for public housing are 
codified at Sec.  5.318(d)(3), and similarly provide that the pet rules 
adopted by a PHA ``may permit gradual

[[Page 31453]]

accumulation of the pet deposit by the pet owner.''
    HUD's March 8, 1996, final rule (61 FR 9536) establishing the pet 
ownership regulations explained that the differing requirements 
governing deposits were based on the fact that tenants in the affected 
covered multifamily rental housing are, as a general rule, lower income 
and may have difficulty making the pet deposit. While this is still 
generally true, the regulatory mandate that owners gradually accumulate 
deposit amounts has also sometimes imposed an undue hardship for owners 
of covered multifamily housing. When funds are needed for repairs and 
replacements, fumigation, and animal care facilities shortly after a 
tenant brings a pet onto the premises, the accumulated pet deposit may 
be insufficient to pay repair and clean-up costs. Consequently, the 
owner may have to use the housing's Reserve for Replacement account or 
the tenant's security deposit to fund required repairs if a sufficient 
pet deposit has not been accumulated.

II. This Proposed Rule

    To address this concern and distinction in HUD regulations, the 
proposed rule would amend the regulations to no longer mandate the 
gradual accumulation of pet deposits in the covered multifamily rental 
housing, and provide owners of such housing with the discretion to: (1) 
Provide for the gradual accumulation of the pet deposit, and (2) 
provide for the gradual accumulation of approved pet deposit 
increases.\3\ In making this regulatory change, owners of covered 
multifamily rental housing would not be prohibited from providing for 
gradual accumulation of the deposit and increases in the pet deposit by 
the pet owner. The proposed rule will enable owners to determine how to 
collect the pet owner deposit based on the same rules that apply to 
other HUD-assisted rental housing; however, owners should consider the 
income characteristics of its tenants when setting pet deposit policies 
and are encouraged to continue to provide for gradual accumulation from 
lower-income residents where economically feasible given the costs of 
operating the housing project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposed rule only applies to policies for pets and not 
to service or assistance animals for persons with disabilities. 
Service and assistance animals are covered by separate HUD 
regulations at 24 CFR 5.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Cost and Benefits of the Proposed Rule

    As discussed in this preamble, the purpose of this proposed rule is 
to bring consistency to the pet deposit requirements for HUD programs 
and better enable owners of such housing to handle the costs associated 
with pet ownership by tenants. While difficult to predict, HUD has 
determined that the discounted benefits of the proposed rule may cause 
negligible transfers to tenants if the owner of their dwelling chooses 
to opt out of the gradual payment requirement. Assuming a pet deposit 
in a range from $100 to $300 and a 3 or 7 percent annual discount rate, 
the financial impact of the rule may range from $232,000 to $9.86 
million.
    Currently, about 936,000 households in HUD assisted multifamily 
rental housing are classified as either elderly or disabled and will 
potentially be impacted by the change in regulation. It is very 
unlikely, however, that all elderly or disabled households in the 
concerned programs will own a pet and therefore be subject to the rule. 
Recognizing that about 62 percent of households in the United States 
own a pet, and applying that proportion to our target population, we 
derive an estimate of the number of affected households to be 580,000. 
We also make the cautious assumption that all of the 580,000 households 
are affected. The rule provides owners of housing the option to collect 
upfront fees. The total impact (cost to the tenants) will be as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Pet deposit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status-Quo (Current Rule with Gradual Payment)..................            $100            $200            $300
    --Upfront Payment...........................................              50              50              50
    --Monthly Payment...........................................              10              10              10
    --Number of Months..........................................               5              15              25
Present value payments at 3% annual discount....................           99.60             197             292
Present value payments at 7% annual discount....................           99.20             193             283
Cost of Rule (per Household at 3%)..............................            0.40               3               8
Cost of Rule (per Household at 7%)..............................            0.80               7              17
Total Elderly or Disabled Household in HUD Multifamily Rental            580,000         580,000         580,000
 Housing that own pets..........................................
Total Potential Impact (per Household at 3%)....................         232,000       1,740,000       4,640,000
Total Potential Impact (per Household at 7%)....................         464,000       4,060,000       9,860,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential benefits of the rule include a reduced burden on 
owners who have to cover costs associated with repairs, replacements, 
fumigation, and animal facilities when such costs result from pets on 
the premises and accrue before the entire pet deposit is accumulated 
and decrease the time and money spent to manage the gradual 
accumulation of the required pet deposit. There are also administrative 
costs associated with the management of pet-deposit accounts. Under 
current HUD regulations, there is a need to manage the gradual 
accumulation of the required pet deposit and the proposed rule will 
eliminate such a need. The implementation of this proposed rule will 
result in some savings, however small, for the owners if they do not 
have to manage the monthly payments of pet deposits.
    Based on this analysis, HUD has determined that the implementation 
of this proposed rule will not be economically significant under 
Executive Order 12866 \4\ and OMB Circular A- 4.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Office of Management and Budget, Economic Analysis of 
Federal Regulations Under Executive Order 12866, January 11, 1996, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/riaguide.html.
    \5\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/cirular-a4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Findings and Certifications

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 
requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This proposed rule would revise HUD's regulations governing the manner 
in which an owner of covered multifamily rental housing may require 
tenants of such

[[Page 31454]]

housing who maintain pets to pay a pet deposit. As discussed in the 
preamble, owners of covered multifamily rental housing were subject to 
different rules concerning pet deposits than rules that applied to 
other HUD-assisted rental housing. This proposed rule would provide 
owners of such covered multifamily rental housing with the discretion 
to determine whether to gradually accumulate a pet deposit, thereby 
bringing consistency to the pet deposit requirements for HUD rental 
housing programs and better enabling owners to handle the costs 
associated with pet ownership by tenants. Accordingly, the undersigned 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
HUD specifically invites comments regarding less burdensome 
alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described 
in this preamble.

Environmental Impact

    This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan 
and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real 
property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, 
demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for 
standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured 
housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule 
is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency 
from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule 
either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local 
governments and is not required by statute, or preempts state law, 
unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule would not have 
federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law 
within the meaning of the Executive Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Lists of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 5

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

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 
CFR part 5 as follows:

PART 5--GENERAL HUD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS; WAIVERS

0
1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 5 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 
3535(d), Sec. 327, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2936, and Sec. 607, 
Pub. L. 109-162, 119 Stat. 3051.

0
2. Amend Sec.  5.318 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (iv);
0
b. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(v); and
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2)(vi) as (d)(2)(v).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  5.318  Discretionary pet rules.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The pet rules may provide for gradual accumulation of the pet 
deposit by the pet owner.
    (iv) The project owner may (subject to the HUD-prescribed limits) 
provide for gradual accumulation of an increase in the amount of the 
pet deposit by amending the house pet rules in accordance with Sec.  
5.353.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 1, 2013.
Shaun Donovan,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12456 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P