30-Day Notification Requirement Prior To Termination of Lease for Nonpayment of Rent, 101270-101304 [2024-28861]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
101270
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 247, 880, 884, 886, 891,
and 966
[Docket No. FR–6387–F–02]
RIN 2501–AE09
30-Day Notification Requirement Prior
To Termination of Lease for
Nonpayment of Rent
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule provides that
public housing agencies (PHAs) and
owners of properties receiving projectbased rental assistance (PBRA) must
provide written notification to tenants
facing eviction for nonpayment of rent
30 days prior to filing a formal judicial
eviction procedure. For purposes of this
rule, PBRA and other forms of project
rental assistance includes projects in the
following programs: Section 8 ProjectBased Rental Assistance, Section 202/
162 Project Assistance Contract (PAC),
Section 202 Project Rental Assistance
Contract (PRAC), Section 811 PRAC,
Section 811 Project Rental Assistance
Program (811 PRA), and Senior
Preservation Rental Assistance Contract
Projects (SPRAC). This final rule largely
adopts the proposed rule and, in
response to public comments, has been
revised to include additional
requirements in the 30-day notice and to
clarify the timing of the notice.
DATES:
Effective date: January 13, 2025.
Compliance dates: Compliance with
this rule is required no later than
January 13, 2025, except PHA
compliance with 24 CFR 966.4(q) is
required no later than June 15, 2026.
PBRA owner compliance with certain
requirements in new 24 CFR 880.606(b),
884.215, 886.127(c), 886.327(c), and
891.425(d), is required no later than 14
months from the date that HUD
publishes final model leases that
incorporates these requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Public and Indian Housing: Danielle
Bastarache, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Public Housing and Voucher
Programs, 451 7th Street SW, Room
4204, Washington, DC 20410, telephone
number 202–402–1380 (this is not a tollfree number). For a quicker response,
email publichousingpolicyquestions@
hud.gov.
For Multifamily: Ethan Handelman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
Office of Multifamily Housing Programs,
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
451 7th Street SW, Room 6106,
Washington, DC 20410, telephone
number 202–708–2495 (this is not a tollfree number). For a quicker response,
email mfcommunications@hud.gov.
HUD welcomes and is prepared to
receive calls from individuals who are
deaf or hard of hearing, as well as
individuals with speech or
communication disabilities. To learn
more about how to make an accessible
telephone call, please visit https://
www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/
telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 7, 2021, HUD published
an interim final rule titled ‘‘Extension of
Time and Required Disclosures for
Notification of Nonpayment of Rent’’
(the ‘‘interim final rule’’), to assist with
the response to the national COVID–19
pandemic and future national
emergencies (86 FR 55693, October 7,
2021). HUD, along with other Federal
agencies, responded to the national
emergency declaration during the
COVID–19 pandemic with efforts to
support families impacted financially by
the COVID–19 pandemic and at risk of
losing their housing. Pursuant to the
interim final rule, HUD also issued a
joint Public and Indian Housing (PIH)
and Housing notice on October 7, 2021
(Notice PIH 2021–29 and H 2021–06).
On December 1, 2023, HUD published
for public comment the ‘‘30-Day
Notification Requirement Prior to
Termination of Lease for Nonpayment of
Rent’’ proposed rule (the ‘‘proposed
rule’’) (88 FR 83877, December 1, 2023).
The proposed rule sought to make the
interim final rule generally applicable
and no longer contingent on the
existence of a national emergency or the
availability of emergency rental
assistance funds by revising HUD’s
regulations to provide for a 30-day
notification requirement prior to
initiating an eviction proceeding against
a tenant for nonpayment of rent.
Prior to 2021 when the interim final
rule was implemented, certain HUD
programs had requirements for nonpayment of rent evictions and timing of
eviction notices.1 For example, PBRA
programs require 30 days’ notice for a
termination of tenancy for ‘‘other good
cause.’’ Public Housing and Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation Program
require a 14-day, or 5 business day,
notice respectively before initiating a
termination of tenancy action for
nonpayment of rent. However, absent a
Federal rule, tenants in HUD-subsidized
housing are subject to varying State and
1 88
PO 00000
FR 83880.
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
local notice requirements. PHAs and
owners have had to comply with State
and local tenant laws and only the
District of Columbia requires 30 days’
notice prior to the initiation of eviction
proceedings for the nonpayment of rent,
while two States require 30 days’ notice
in certain cases.2
HUD seeks to remove the variable
patchwork of notice requirements and
reduce the number of preventable
evictions filed against HUD-assisted
tenants. Most households in HUDsubsidized housing are low-income,
with annual household incomes in
public housing and project-based
Section 8 PBRA both under $16,000.3
Studies have shown that evictions cause
housing instability, an increased risk of
homelessness, loss of employment,
physical and mental health issues, and
long-term negative consequences to
families, especially children.4 Studies
have also shown that evictions are
unequally distributed as people of color,
women, and families with children are
more likely to be evicted.5 Yet, evictions
2 Estimate based on HUD’s cross-reference on
distribution of subsidized households across states
with external analysis of legal requirements per
state for non-payment of rent notice (https://
www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-laws-ontermination-for-nonpayment-of-rent.html). The
following States require 30 days’ notice: Wisconsin
(only if the lease term is longer than one year) and
Minnesota (only if the lease term is longer than
twenty years).
3 Data available at https://www.huduser.gov/
portal/datasets/assthsg.html.
4 Sandel, Megan, et al. (2018). Unstable housing
and caregiver and child health in renter families.
Pediatrics 141(2); Cutts, Diana B., et al. (2022).
Eviction and household health and hardships in
families with very young children. Pediatrics
150(4); Treglia, Daniel, Thomas Byrne, and Vijaya
Tamla Rai. 2023. ‘‘Quantifying the Impact of
Evictions and Eviction Filings on Homelessness
Rates in the United States.’’ Housing Policy Debate;
Desmond, Matthew and Carl Gershenson. 2016.
‘‘Housing and Employment Insecurity among the
Working Poor.’’ Social Problems. 63(1): 46–67;
Desmond, M., Gershenson, C., & Kiviat, B., Forced
Relocation and Residential Instability Among Urban
Renters, Journal of Urban Health, 92(2), 254–267
(2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9932-2;
and Desmond, M., & Shollenberger, T., Forced
Displacement from Rental Housing: Prevalence and
Neighborhood Consequences, Demography, 52(5),
1751–1772 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524015-0424-y; Cutts, D.B., Darby, M.L., & Billings, J.,
The Role of Housing Assistance in Achieving
Educational Goals for Low-Income Children,
American Journal of Public Health, 100(S1), S84–
S90 (2010), https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.
170910; Desmond, M., & Kimbro, R.T., Eviction’s
Fallout: Housing, Hardship, and Health, Social
Forces, 94(1), 295–324 (2015), https://doi.org/
10.1093/sf/sou065; HUD (2021), Affordable
Housing, Eviction, and Health, Evidence Matters,
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/
Summer21/highlight1.html. See also Desmond,
Matthew, Unaffordable America: Poverty, housing,
and eviction, Fast Focus, 22–2015, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on
Poverty, 4.
5 Hepburn, P., Louis, R., & Desmond, M., Racial
and Gender Disparities among Evicted Americans.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
for HUD-assisted housing could be
prevented with more time and notice
which might help all parties work
together to pay the rent owed or attain
a rent hardship exemption, rent
recalculation, and/or other financial
rental assistance.
There are other tools to employ before
reaching an eviction. For example,
when a tenant or household’s income is
reduced, they can request an interim
reexamination to determine whether the
current amount that they pay in rent can
be changed, and the PHA or owner must
process this request within a reasonable
time.6 Tenants can also request a rent
hardship exemption which is an
exemption from paying the minimum
rent that the PHA or owner normally
charges if the household experiences a
qualifying financial hardship.7 A rent
recalculation may be granted based on
the household’s income reduction.8
Even if a tenant or household does not
qualify for a rent hardship exemption,
repayment agreements are another
option to prevent evictions at the PHA’s
and owner’s discretion.
The proposed rule included a
requirement that the 30-day notice
include instructions on how tenants can
cure lease violations for nonpayment of
rent; the alleged amount of rent owed by
the tenant and any other arrearages
allowed by HUD; the date by which the
tenant must pay rent and arrearages to
avoid the filing of an eviction;
information on how tenants can
recertify their income; how tenants can
request a minimum rent hardship
exemption, if applicable; and in the
event of a Presidential declaration of a
national emergency, such information as
Sociological Science 7, 657 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.15195/v7.a27.
6 24 CFR 960.257(b); see also https://
www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PHOG_
Reexaminations_FINAL.pdf and https://
www.hud.gov/sites/documents/43503c5HSGH.PDF.
7 24 CFR 5.630, see also Public Housing
Minimum Rent and Hardship Exemption
Requirements Toolkit, HUD Exchange, https://
www.hudexchange.info/programs/public-housing/
public-housing-minimum-rent-and-hardshipexemption-requirements-toolkit/ and the specific
additional circumstances that qualify as qualifying
financial hardships in the PHA’s or Multifamily
housing (MFH) owner’s ACOPs (Admissions and
Continued Occupancy Policy), Administrative
Plans, or Tenant Selection Plans, as applicable;
Circumstances that always constitute a qualifying
financial hardship are detailed in 24 CFR
5.630(b)(1)(i) through (iv); additional circumstances
are provided by the housing provider in the PHA’s
or MFH owner’s ACOPs, Administrative Plans, or
Tenant Selection Plans, as applicable.
8 Section 3(a) United States Housing Act of 1937,
as amended by section 102 of the Housing
Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016
(HOTMA), Public Law 114–201, 130 Stat. 782. Also
see, HUD’s implementing regulations at 24 CFR
5.657(c)(2); 882.515(b)(2); 891.410; 960.257(b)(2);
and 982.516(c)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
required by the Secretary. HUD also
recommended that PHAs and owners
provide rental repayment agreements to
tenants as an alternative to requesting
lump-sum payments for past due
amounts and required PHAs to include
information about how to switch from
flat rent to income-based rent.
Additionally, the proposed rule
reminded PHAs and owners that the 30day notice must be provided in
accessible formats to ensure effective
communication with individuals with
disabilities and in a form to allow
meaningful access for individuals with
limited English proficiency (LEP).
The proposed rule explained that the
30-day notice requirement sets a
minimum requirement so that PHAs and
owners can provide a longer notice
period at their discretion. HUD stated
that it will issue sample language PHAs
and owners may use, but PHAs and
owners are also permitted to draft their
own notices as long as they include the
required contents. HUD further noted
that the requirements under this rule,
including the requirement that the 30day notice may run consecutive to any
additional State or local notice
requirements if required by State or
local law, do not preempt any State or
local law that provides greater or equal
protection for tenants. Lastly, the
proposed rule emphasized that PHAs
and owners must amend all current and
future leases to incorporate the 30-day
notice requirement for nonpayment of
rent and therefore need to provide
tenants with notification of changes to
the lease under existing requirements in
24 CFR 880.607(d) and 966.3.9
II. This Final Rule
This final rule adopts the proposed
rule with the following revisions based
on public comments.
First, to clarify the timing of the 30day notice, HUD is revising 24 CFR
247.4(c) and adding new
§§ 880.607(c)(7), 884.216(e), and
966.4(r). The revised and added
language states that a PHA or owner
must not provide tenants with a
termination notice before the day after
the rent is due according to the lease.
Also, a PHA or owner must not proceed
with filing an eviction if the tenant pays
the alleged amount of rent owed within
9 Section 880.607(d) requires that an owner, when
modifying a lease, serve appropriate notice to
tenants at least 30 days prior to the last date on
which a tenant has the right to terminate tenancy.
This provision applies to PBRA projects under 24
CFR parts 880, 881, and 883 (the New Construction,
Substantial Rehab and Housing Finance Agency
(HFA) programs). Section 966.3 requires a PHA to
provide at least 30 days’ notice to tenants of
proposed changes to the lease, and an opportunity
for tenants to present written comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101271
the 30-day notification period.10
Second, HUD uses clarifying language to
explain that notification must be
provided before a formal judicial
eviction can be filed in 24 CFR
247.4(e)(1), 880.606(b), 880.607(c)(6)(i),
884.215, 886.216(d)(1), 886.127(c),
886.327(c), 891.425(d), and
966.4(l)(3)(ii)(A).
Lastly, this final rule revises 24 CFR
247.4(e)(1), 880.607(c)(6)(i),
884.216(d)(1), and 966.4(1)(3)(ii)(A) to
require the 30-day notice include an
itemized amount, which is separated by
month, of alleged rent owed by the
tenant, along with any other arrearages
allowed by HUD and included in the
lease which must also be separated by
month, and the date by which the tenant
must pay the amount of rent owed
before a formal judicial eviction can be
filed for nonpayment of rent. The
arrearages, which might include late
fees or other fees, must also be itemized
separately from the alleged rent amount
owed by the tenant.11 If the tenant pays
the full amount of the alleged rent owed
but not the arrearages, the nonpayment
will still be considered cured, and an
eviction for nonpayment of rent cannot
be filed. This will alleviate confusion
among tenants, PHAs, and owners about
when and how much is due to avoid an
eviction filing for nonpayment of rent.
However, HUD emphasizes that the
protections in this rule do not apply to
other types of evictions that result from
non-rent lease violations, such as
nonpayment of arrearages if allowed
under the applicable HUD program and
specified in the lease.12
HUD also reiterates in this final rule
that HUD strongly recommends the best
practice of entering into a rental
repayment agreement as an alternative
to a lump-sum payment for past due
amounts. PHAs must also include
information in the 30-day notification
about how to switch from flat rent to
income-based rent. Additionally, HUD
reminds PHAs and owners that the 30day notice must be provided in
accessible formats to ensure effective
communication for individuals with
10 24 CFR 886.128 and 891.430 applies the
provisions in 24 CFR part 247 for termination of
tenancy.
11 See Non-Rent Fees for Subsidized Multifamily
Housing Programs and Non-Rent Fees for Public
Housing https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/
documents/Existing_Policy_on_Non-Rent_Fees_for_
Subsidized_Multifamily_Housing_Programs.pdf;
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/
PH%20Non-Rent%20Fees%20Chart_Final.pdf.
12 Evictions for certain arrearages are not
permissible under certain HUD programs. See, e.g.,
HUD Handbook 4350.3: Occupancy Requirements
of Subsidized Programs (Change 4—November
2013), p. 6–39, ‘‘An owner must not evict a tenant
for failure to pay late charges.’’
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101272
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
disabilities, and the notice must provide
meaningful access for persons with LEP.
PHAs and owners must also comply
with the nondiscrimination
requirements contained in title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(section 504) along with HUD’s
regulations implementing those laws.
Title VI’s requirements with respect to
national origin discrimination including
meaningful access for people with
limited English proficiency are
explained in HUD’s ‘‘Final Guidance to
Federal Financial Assistance Recipients
Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against
National Origin Discrimination
Affecting Limited English Proficient
Persons’’ issued on January 22, 2007,
and available at https://www.hud.gov/
sites/documents/FINALLEP2007.PDF.
HUD also suggests the 30-day notice
advise individuals of their right to
request reasonable accommodations,
include information on how individuals
with disabilities can request a
reasonable accommodation, and include
a point of contact for reasonable
accommodation requests.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
III. Severability
It is HUD’s intention that the
provisions of this rule operate
independently of each other. The
purpose of this rule is to require that
PHAs and owners provide written
notification to tenants facing eviction
for nonpayment of rent 30 days prior to
filing a formal judicial eviction
procedure. In the event that this rule or
any portion of this rule is ultimately
declared invalid or stayed as to a
particular program, it is HUD’s intent
that the rule nonetheless be severable
and remain valid with respect to those
programs not at issue. Additionally, it is
HUD’s intention that any provision(s) of
the rule not affected by a declaration of
invalidity or stayed shall be severable
and remain valid. HUD concludes it will
separately adopt all of the provisions
contained in this rule.
IV. The Public Comments
The public comment period for the
proposed rule ended on January 30,
2024. HUD received 316 comments.
These comments were received from
individuals, landlords, tenants, property
owners (‘‘owners’’), housing authorities,
housing cooperatives, non-profit
housing organizations, non-profit
organizations representing seniors or
individuals with disabilities, housing
associations, case managers for
individuals experiencing homelessness,
churches, law firms, etc. The public
comments are discussed in four
categories: comments in support of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
rule, comments in opposition to the
rule, suggested changes and
clarifications to the rule, and alternative
solutions and issues.
A. Comments in Support of the Rule
General Support
Several commenters generally
supported the proposed rule. Many
commenters said the rule is a step in the
right direction. One commenter stated
that this rule is consistent with the
history of tenant-landlord law which
balances the landlord’s right to reclaim
a property over nonpayment of rent
with the right for the tenant to pay the
arrears to save their housing.
Many commenters noted their support
for this rule, stating that families are
struggling financially and housing
instability is increasing. A commenter
stated that those who live in
government assisted homes are already
seeking help and struggling to get by.
The commenter stated that average
income has not kept up with recent
financial hardships such as the
pandemic and rising cost of living and
therefore tenants’ housing options are
very limited if they are evicted.
A commenter noted that this rule will
add important protections for America’s
most vulnerable populations including
children, families of color, and victims
of domestic abuse. Another commenter
stated the 30-day notification period is
helpful to avoid evictions for those with
low housing security. One commenter
said that the rule is a great idea
especially since people with children
are struggling financially. Additionally,
a commenter stated that the rule comes
during a time of record homelessness
and unaffordable housing, and that we
must tackle these issues from a moral
and just standpoint. Another commenter
stated that the rule honors the
challenges that Americans face such as
unemployment, disabilities, low
income, and the healthcare crisis. One
commenter cited a survey that found
that HUD evictions are returning to prepandemic levels or higher, underscoring
the need to formalize the proposed
rule.13 Another commenter cited an
article noting that eviction filings are up
an estimated 50% compared to prepandemic averages.14 The commenter
pointed to the large number of evictions
13 National Law Housing Project, ‘‘Rising
Evictions in HUD-Assisted Housing’’ (2022).
14 Michael Casey and R.J. Rico, Eviction filings
are 50% higher than they were pre-pandemic in
some cities as rents rise, Associated Press (Jun. 16,
2023), https://apnews.com/article/evictionshomelessness-affordable-housing-landlords-rentalassistance-dc4a03864011334538f82d2f404d2afb.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
by PHAs in Omaha, New York City,
Baltimore, and Massachusetts.
A commenter in Connecticut stated
that rent and other costs of living
continue to rise in the State with
inflation making it harder for tenants to
maintain housing stability. The
commenter also stated that rent has
increased 33% since 2017 and 53% of
tenants are already cost-burdened and
spending 30% of their income on rent.
The commenter expressed that more
families in Connecticut are facing
eviction than prior to the pandemic.15
The commenter also stated that
advancing policies to keep people
housed will benefit children and reduce
stress for caregivers. The commenter
cited the Connecticut Department of
Education which reported that 2,516
students experienced homelessness in
the 2022–2023 school year.
Another commenter pointed to data
showing that 32% of adults in Colorado
are living in households where the
likelihood of eviction or foreclosure
within the next two months is
distressingly high, and nearly 56,000
households are behind on rent,
impacting 45,000 children. A few
commenters noted the struggle for
families to find affordable housing and
that many Americans are cost burdened,
spending more than 30% of their
income on rent. A commenter noted that
high-cost burdens were most prevalent
among very low-income tenants and
households of color and that families
with young children are
disproportionately impacted by
eviction.
Commenters noted that this rule
would align non-payment requirements
across HUD programs. A commenter
said that a uniform 30-day notice
standard will provide clarity and
consistency for landlords, potentially
reducing wrongful eviction claims.
Commenters also stated that the rule
will help individuals and families
remain in their current homes and
provide protection from homelessness.
A commenter stated that the rule will
reduce housing instability for tenants of
public housing and PBRA properties.
Additionally, commenters noted that
this rule will reduce evictions and its
consequences related to finding
subsequent housing, maintaining
employment, accessing education and
medical care.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the
comments and recognizes the trends in
the rental market that may be increasing
people’s housing cost burdens and its
downstream effects that may result in
15 The commenter cited to https://
www.ctdata.org/evictions-report.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
homelessness. Data from the Census’
Household Pulse Survey from March
2024 suggests that nearly five million
renter households in the United States
are behind on their rent and nearly two
million fear eviction in the next two
months.16 Renters living in HUDassisted housing have some protections
from evictions, such as the ability to
recertify their income. However, it has
been reported to HUD that it can take a
significant amount of time to work
through the administrative process and
to resolve issues that routinely come up
for assisted households, such as
problems meeting annual recertification
deadlines, supplying the required
paperwork, or insufficient information
about how to obtain a hardship
exemption. Providing assisted
households with information about
accessing additional rental assistance, or
other emergency funding, and
additional time to take advantage of
these programs enhances the protections
already in place and gives households a
better chance to resolve their
nonpayment of rent with the housing
provider.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Eviction Harms
Many commenters wrote about the
detrimental effects of evictions. One
commenter cited an article stating that
eviction is associated with loss of
income, onset of depression, aggravation
of mental illness, increased substance
abuse, domestic violence, marital
breakdown, accidents and disease,
decreased school performance, and
homelessness.17 Another commenter
also cited to an article explaining that
evictions can have a detrimental effect
on housing stability and a tenant’s
health and well-being.18
Commenters stated that eviction
records will make it more difficult to
keep and find housing. Some
commenters stated that those who live
in government assisted homes are
16 HUD analysis of data collected between March
5, 2024, and April 1, 2024, through the Census
Household Pulse Survey.
17 The commenter cited to Collinson and Reed,
‘‘The Effects of Evictions on Low-Income
Households,’’ New York University School of Law
(2018).
18 The commenter cited to Collinson, Robert, John
Eric Humphries, Nicholas Mader, Davin Reed,
Daniel I. Tannenbaum, and Winnie van Dijk. 2023.
‘‘Eviction and Poverty in American Cities’’. 30382;
Desmond, Matthew. 2016. ‘‘Evicted: Poverty and
Profit in the American City.’’ New York: Broadway
Books; Graetz, Nick, Carl Gershenson, Sonya R.
Porter, Danielle H. Sandler, Emily Lemmerman, and
Matthew Desmond. 2023. ‘‘The Impacts of Rent
Burden and Eviction on Mortality in the United
States, 2000–2019.’’ Social Science & Medicine
340(October 2023):116398; and So, Wonyoung.
2023. ‘‘Which Information Matters? Measuring
Landlord Assessment of Tenant Screening Reports.’’
Housing Policy Debate 33(6):1484–1510.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
already seeking help and struggling to
get by and eviction often means the loss
of the only housing the tenant can
afford. A commenter said that an
eviction filing, no matter how the case
is resolved, will show up on tenant
screening reports every time the tenant
applies for rental housing in the future
and can prevent tenants from finding
housing. A few commenters stated that
tenant applications may be rejected
following an eviction from a PBRA
property for three years, or more if the
amount is still owed. Commenters also
noted that eviction filings can
negatively impact credit scores, which
broadly impact tenants’ lives.
A commenter noted the loss of
connections to community support that
comes with evictions. One commenter
noted that this rule will help protect the
vital human-animal bond that tenants
share with pets and companion animals.
A commenter noted that pets are also
impacted by evictions because pets are
more likely to be surrendered to shelters
when a family faces unstable housing.
The commenter noted that pets may be
locked inside rental units because of
legal lockouts and property managers
may release pets or tie them up alone
next to tenants’ personal possessions on
the street.
One commenter explained that many
tenants living in Durham, North
Carolina, only require one emergency to
create a financial hardship, and many of
them are women of color with
nontraditional jobs. The commenter
stated that when these tenants have to
go through the eviction process their
income is further reduced due to court
costs and taking time off of work for any
judicial proceedings.
Many commenters noted that
evictions can disrupt a positive
relationship with public housing staff.
Commenters also noted the strain that
evictions have on landlords, including
court costs and fees, the costs of turning
over units, and that landlords are often
unable to collect the unpaid rent. One
commenter stated that evictions are
costly in time and money for public
housing agencies. Additionally, many
commenters noted the strain evictions
have on government and social service
providers such as health care systems
and shelter systems. One commenter
quoted the Delaware Legislature stating
that eviction proceedings create
significant costs for State and local
governments related to shelters,
education, health care, transportation,
and foster care.
HUD Response: HUD agrees with
commenters that evictions can cause
detrimental harm. Research has shown
that evictions can cause an increased
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101273
risk of homelessness, job loss, and longterm negative consequences, especially
for children.19 Through this rule, HUD
seeks to reduce the harms that evictions
cause by curtailing preventable and
unnecessary eviction filings and
evictions for nonpayment of rent.
Homelessness and Housing Insecurity
Commenters also stated that the rule
will help individuals and families
remain in their current homes and
provide protection from homelessness.
Another commenter explained that
giving tenants time to get their affairs in
order is the difference between an
individual remaining stable, employed,
and housed, and losing everything due
to homelessness. Another commenter
stated that homelessness has been on an
upward trend since 2017 and the
number of people experiencing
homelessness on a single night
increased by 12% between 2022 and
2023.
One commenter pointed to articles
and reports stating that because those
who rely on public housing have very
low income, they are more likely to
become unhoused when evicted. The
commenter noted the harms of evictions
and homelessness, including the risk to
unhoused lives from extreme heat and
cold. Further, the commenter stated that
in Detroit, the systems that unhoused
people rely on are dysfunctional and
can be traumatizing. The commenter
also stated that the lack of affordable
housing in Detroit means that unhoused
people spend longer times in shelters
and temporary housing, and shelters
and emergency services in Detroit have
operated at or near capacity for years.
A commenter stated that low-income
renters are more severely cost burdened
and are often paying more than 50% of
income towards housing costs, leaving
limited resources for other necessities.
Additionally, a commenter stated that
housing in their community is scarce for
low to moderate income families and
that housing security is important to a
thriving economy. The commenter also
explained that they have witnessed
housing insecurity in their workplace
and how it negatively impacted
employees’ performances and has led to
unemployment.
HUD Response: HUD agrees with the
commenters’ concerns about
homelessness and appreciates the
commenters’ support for the rule. There
is evidence that over the past year,
eviction filings increased in many parts
of the country, as did the incidence of
homelessness. The Eviction Lab tracks
19 See background section of the proposed rule at
88 FR 83877.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101274
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
eviction filings in 32 cities across the
country and found that eviction filings
increased from 2022 to 2023 in 25 of the
32 cities.20 The number of people
experiencing homelessness on a given
night, as documented through local
point-in-time counts, also increased
between 2022 and 2023, by
approximately 12 percent.21
According to HUD’s 2023 Worst Case
Needs Report to Congress, a record 8.53
million renter households were severely
housing cost burdened—meaning they
paid more than half their income on
rent—or lived in substandard housing,
or both. Thus, there is a significant
number of households that may be on
the verge of homelessness due to high
housing costs and an unexpected cost or
loss of income could increase their
likelihood of eviction and ultimately
homelessness. Although the increase in
homelessness largely reflects the
shortage of affordable housing, eviction
can be a contributing factor. Several
studies have found that eviction
substantially increases the likelihood
that a family will subsequently
experience homelessness.22 Most
recently, a major study linking eviction
records to other administrative datasets
in New York and Chicago has found that
an eviction order increases the
probability of using an emergency
shelter by 3.4 percentage points in the
year following the eviction, which
translates to a more than 300 percent
increase compared to those who are not
evicted.23
The Impact on People With Disabilities,
Seniors, and Lower-Income Families
Commenters noted that a 30-day
notice would be beneficial to people
with disabilities. A commenter said that
people with disabilities often have
fewer housing options because they
have additional factors to consider in
finding an apartment, such as proximity
to a bus stop, lower counters, or a rollin shower. The commenter also said that
an eviction on a physically disabled
person’s record could make it nearly
impossible for that person to find
adequate housing and 30 days would
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
20 https://evictionlab.org/ets-report-2023/.
21 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/
files/pdf/2023-AHAR-Part-1.pdf.
22 Collinson, R., & Reed, D. (2018), The effects of
evictions on low-income households, https://
www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_
documents/evictions_collinson_reed.pdf. Richter,
F.G.C., Coulton, C., Urban, A., & Steh, S. (2021). An
integrated data system lens into evictions and their
effects. Housing Policy Debate, 31(3–5), 762–784.
23 Robert Collinson, John Eric Humphries,
Nicholas Mader, Davin Reed, Daniel Tannenbaum,
Winnie van Dijk, Eviction and Poverty in American
Cities, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume
139, Issue 1, February 2024, Pages 57–120, https://
doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad042.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
give the tenant more time to find
adequate housing if they are required to
vacate. The commenter noted that 30
days would allow tenants with mental
or intellectual disabilities time to seek
assistance from an agency or attorney.
Another commenter said that people
with disabilities often rely on
Supplemental Security Insurance or
other public benefits which are not
enough especially with the increase of
rent and cost of living. The commenter
stated that if disabled individuals do
become homeless, they have a harder
time getting rehoused and if they move
constantly, they risk losing their
benefits and risk their health. One
commenter noted that people with
disabilities who face eviction face a
specific danger of landing in an
institution where they are seen as ‘‘less
than’’ and where it can be difficult to
leave. The commenter stated their
support for this measure because it will
reduce the chances of this happening
and is not an undue burden on owners
and managers.
Other commenters noted that the 30day notice is particularly essential for
older adults and people with disabilities
who have limited access to work to
quickly pay off the balance or who are
on a fixed income. Another commenter
noted that the 30-day notice period
would be especially beneficial to older
adults on fixed incomes. The
commenter cited studies stating that
nearly 11.2 million older adults are
spending more than 30% of their
income on rent and that older
households of color are even more at
risk. One commenter noted that the
number of elderly renters is growing
and expected to continue growing,
especially among Black renters, leading
to more potential evictions in the future.
Another commenter noted that adults
aged 55 and older accounted for 35% of
total evictions in the country in 2023
and made up 30% of the homeless
population. One commenter noted that
for these populations, homelessness can
be fatal because of the fragility of older
adults. The commenter gave an example
of an older Black man who secured legal
assistance and avoided eviction by
setting up a payment plan during the
30-day notice period provided by the
CARES Act.
A commenter cited a report that
showed eviction filings during the
COVID–19 pandemic were concentrated
in neighborhoods with predominantly
lower income immigrants and renters of
color, and that statewide eviction filings
are nearly back to pre-pandemic levels.
A commenter noted that the 30-day
notice requirement would offer a
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
potentially life-saving buffer to tenants
escaping domestic violence.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that the
rule is beneficial to individuals with
disabilities and emphasizes that housing
providers are required to provide
reasonable accommodations at any time
during tenancy, not just prior to
eviction. PHAs and owners are required
to provide and pay for reasonable
accommodations unless it would result
in an undue financial and
administrative burden or a fundamental
alteration of the program, service, or
activity. If an undue burden or
fundamental alteration exists, PHAs and
owners are still required to provide
other reasonable accommodations that
would not result in an undue financial
and administrative burden on the
particular recipient and/or a
fundamental alteration of the program,
service, or activity.24 For example, one
such common reasonable
accommodation that has helped families
avoid eviction is to allow persons with
disabilities who receive Social Security
Income or other benefits to pay their
rent after the first of the month to align
with receipt of those payments.
HUD also agrees with commenters
that tenants, such as seniors and people
of color, may be more susceptible to
eviction, especially if they are on a fixed
income. This rule helps to ensure more
housing security for tenants living in the
HUD-assisted housing programs covered
under this rule.
Use of Evictions To Collect Rent
A commenter, who strongly supports
the rule, cited various articles
concerning PHAs and their repeated
eviction filings on the same tenants to
collect rent without evidence that such
behavior is effective.25 A commenter
24 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
is a Federal law, codified at 29 U.S.C. 794; See also
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_
housing_equal_opp/disabilities/sect504faq#_
Reasonable_Accommodation. The Fair Housing
Act’s requirements to provide reasonable
accommodations also apply to PHAs and assisted
owners. The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42
U.S.C. 3601–3619, 3631. PHAs must also adhere to
the requirements of title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, which includes making reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures
when necessary to avoid disability discrimination.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is
codified at 42 U.S.C. 12131–12165.
25 The commenter cites to Garboden, Philip M.E.,
and Eva Rosen. 2019. ‘‘Serial Filing: How Landlords
Use the Threat of Eviction.’’ City & Community
18(2):638–61; Leung, Lillian, Peter Hepburn, and
Matthew Desmond. 2021. ‘‘Serial Eviction Filing:
Civil Courts, Property Management, and the Threat
of Displacement.’’ Social Forces 100(1):316–44;
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Ellie Lochhead, and Katherine
O’Regan. 2022. Eviction Practices across Subsidized
Housing in New York State: A Case Study. New
York; Gromis, Ashley, Ian Fellows, James R.
Hendrickson, Lavar Edmonds, Lillian Leung, Adam
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
said the additional time to gather funds
would benefit tenants and owners who
use eviction filings as a means to collect
rent. Commenters stated that according
to research and their experience,
eviction filings are used as a rent
collection strategy because most
evictions do not result in tenant
removal.
One commenter stated that a PHA in
North Carolina initiated 867 evictions
filings for nonpayment of rent in 2019
and only 63 evictions were actually
completed. The commenter believed
that the evictions were being used as a
rent collection tool and stated that if
tenants were given sufficient time they
were able to cure their nonpayment of
rent, but the eviction filings stayed on
the tenants’ public records for seven
years and negatively impacted
employment, credit, and housing
putting them at risk for homelessness.
The commenter explained that a local
advocacy organization sought to change
the PHA’s eviction policy to send a
notice 14 days after being late for rent
and filing an eviction 21 days after
being late. The local advocacy
organization unsuccessfully requested
that the PHA’s board (1) increase the
days before filing an eviction to 45 days;
(2) review all accounts for inaccuracies;
(3) document three attempts at meeting
and communicating with the tenant
concerning their non-payment; and (4)
encourage tenants to use the grievance
procedure.
HUD Response: HUD thanks the
commenters for their comments. HUD
believes this rule encourages PHAs to
work with families to resolve
nonpayment of rent prior to filing
evictions. HUD also encourages PHAs to
review and evaluate policies,
procedures, or practices to ensure
tenants are informed on how to recertify
their income in a timely manner and
apply for hardship exemptions. HUD
reminds PHAs of their obligation to
include information to tenants in the
termination notice of their right to a
grievance hearing under 24 CFR
966.4(l)(3)(ii), 966.51(a)(1), and
966.53(a).
Tenants Need Time and Resources
Many commenters stated that this rule
would help eliminate fast evictions and
provide tenants, especially low-income
households, with time to gather
resources and to secure funding for their
Porton, and Matthew Desmond. 2022. ‘‘Estimating
Eviction Prevalence across the United States.’’
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
119(21):1–8; and Leung, Lillian, Peter Hepburn,
James Hendrickson, and Matthew Desmond. 2023.
‘‘No Safe Harbor: Eviction Filing in Public
Housing.’’ Social Service Review 97(3):456–97.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
rent through personal means,
community resources, or time to find
alternate housing. A commenter said
that the rule will give tenants time to
arrange for alternative accommodations
or negotiate a repayment plan. One
commenter cited research from the
Eviction Lab that notification
requirements can be an effective tool in
reducing eviction rates and providing
tenants with time and information
needed to address nonpayment
violations.26 A commenter noted that
nonpayment of rent often stems from
unexpected life events and providing
time for renters to recover without
losing their homes is critical. Another
commenter stated that sometimes
tenants who have not paid rent will
have the funds to pay rent within a
couple of weeks.
Additionally, a commenter said that
the combination of available legal
representation, time to work with
lawyers, and time to pay arrears before
trial effectively deters Maryland
landlords from filing eviction cases and
aids housing stability. One commenter
demonstrated the impact of the 30-day
notice by sharing the story of a client
who was facing eviction after losing
affordable childcare and being forced to
spend more of their paycheck on
babysitters. The commenter noted that
with the 30-day notice, the tenant was
able to seek legal assistance, apply for
rental assistance, and avoid eviction.
A commenter stated that getting rental
assistance is a multi-staged process and
succeeds only when renters have time to
see it through. Another commenter
stated that because rent is so high, it
takes multiple agencies within the
community to provide the assistance, a
process that can take several weeks. A
nonprofit organization commented that
the services it provides could not exist
without the additional notice time. The
commenter noted that its work
connecting municipal financial
empowerment services to tenants facing
eviction showed that financial
counseling can help sustain and build
on the initial stabilizing effects of
emergency housing assistance services
and there are opportunities for stronger
coordination across eviction prevention
services. The nonprofit noted that its
clients who engage with one-on-one
financial counselors after receiving
eviction assistance were able to improve
credit scores, reduce consumer debt,
and build savings.
A commenter said that they recently
worked with a single mother living in
26 Lillian
Leung et al., Serial Eviction Filings:
How Landlords Use the Courts to Collect Rent,
2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101275
HUD-subsidized housing who lost her
minimum wage job and fell behind on
rent. Even though she was back to work
less than a month later, her landlord
gave her an eviction notice after three
days, per California law. The
commenter said they were able to work
with the tenant and other community
organizations to inform the landlord of
this 30-day rule, apply for rental
assistance, and set up a payment plan.
Because of the additional time, the
landlord was able to be paid and the
family remained housed. The
commenter also stated that there are
many low-wage workers and elderly in
their county who rely on HUDsupported housing and need more than
the three days allotted under California
law. The commenter noted that the
additional time would alleviate the
burden on rental assistance agencies
that are forced to spend additional time,
effort, and funding on negotiating with
landlords to accept rent payments after
the third day.
Another commenter stated the State
law in Ohio only provides a three-day
notice, making it nearly impossible for
rental offices to process interim
recertification and minimum hardship
exemption requests, work out a
repayment deal with the landlord
through the 10-day meeting or grievance
process, pay back the amount owed,
have time to locate alternate housing, or
seek new employment or
unemployment benefits which will aid
in paying the balance owed.
Several commenters noted that the 30day notice required by the CARES Act
has proven indispensable to local rental
assistance efforts which takes several
weeks to complete. A commenter noted
that it represented a tenant who fell
behind on rent due to a hospitalization
but with the time given to them under
the CARES Act, they were able to find
legal assistance, file a reasonable
accommodation request, and negotiate a
repayment plan with the tenant’s
landlord. The commenter noted that no
financial burden was placed on the
landlord since they received what they
were owed, and the tenant avoided
eviction and potential homelessness, a
consequence that would have been
especially detrimental because the
tenant was being treated for an illness.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the
comments and agrees that providing
tenants with additional time will help to
cure nonpayment of rent violations,
preventing unnecessary eviction filings
and evictions.
Tenant Rights and Judicial Process
Some commenters expressed that
tenants deserve the additional time to
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101276
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
take advantage of rent relief resources
and the time to take advantage of legal
support and their due process rights to
properly defend themselves against
eviction. A commenter expressed that
the 30-day notice would prevent
landlords from using self-help evictions
to put families on the street without due
process. Another commenter stated that
giving tenants more notice of an
eviction due to nonpayment of rent
would help tenants fully access their
due process rights. Other commenters
stated that a 30-day notice would ensure
tenants are treated with dignity and
respect, and that tenants are given a fair
chance to sustain housing. Another
commenter stated that a 30-day notice
will provide support to organizations to
assist with a fair and just judicial
process.
A commenter stated that the
implementation of the rule is imperative
and that it will uphold the principles of
fairness and compassion. The
commenter explained that one of their
program participants had only received
a three-day notice from their housing
provider to vacate due to issues with
rent. This contributed to the individual
being quickly subjected to
homelessness. Additionally, the housing
provider kept the individual’s deposit,
contributing to their financial and
emotional distress. The commenter
stated that if the individual had more
notice, they could have rectified their
rent issues or considered alternative
housing options.
A commenter said that technological
advances have made things more
difficult in housing courts. The
commenter stated that providing 30-day
notice will give tenants time to negotiate
and acquire assistance from a qualified
attorney which might help them avoid
an unnecessary eviction. Another
commenter stated that giving tenants
additional time to respond to an
eviction notice will benefit all parties
involved, including the government.
The commenter cites to a report by the
State legislature of Connecticut, which
launched the right-to-counsel program
and saved the State between $5.8 and
$6.3 million between January and
November of 2022.27
A commenter said the 30-day notice
would help their program more
effectively resolve recertification issues
and uphold tenants’ rights because it
would provide more time for tenants
27 The commenter cites to Rosa DeLauro proposes
wide-scale expansion of right-to-counsel
(ctmirror.org) Evictions Report—CTData; CT right to
counsel program saved state millions, report finds
(ctmirror.org); Report Shows Connecticut’s Right-toCounsel Program to Be Effective at Preventing
Evictions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
and legal aid providers to investigate
facts and prepare defenses for any
eventual trial. The commenter noted
that it is difficult for tenants to figure
out landlords’ licensure status and how
to raise a successful rent escrow claim.
The commenter said that tenants of
subsidized housing face even more
complexity due to frequent procedural
problems in the income recertification
process and the time it takes property
managers to provide tenant files.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the
comments and agrees that providing
tenants with additional time will help to
cure nonpayment of rent violations,
preventing unnecessary eviction filings
and evictions.
Notification Requirements Currently in
Place
Commenters said that public housing
agencies and owners have already
demonstrated their ability to comply
with a 30-day notice requirement.
Commenters also noted that the 30-day
notice is not more onerous for housing
providers than the existing requirements
under the CARES Act which has been
in effect for over three years and covers
similar programs as this rule. A
commenter stated that certain HUD
programs already operate under a 30day notice requirement and when the
notice expires without any resolutions,
a detainer summons is filed which
makes it easier for housing managers
with multiple properties and different
funding.
A commenter noted that various states
and localities have notice periods
ranging from 7 to 30 days and that more
than a quarter of households assisted by
HUD reside in areas where an 8 to 14day notice period is already mandatory.
One commenter reiterated that the vast
majority of tenants in HUD-assisted
households live in states that require
notice 7 days or less before eviction,
while a mere 3% live in states that
require 15–30 days. Another commenter
said they had no issue with the rule as
a 30-day notice requirement is already
implemented in many municipalities.
One commenter said that a 30-day
notice requirement has already been
implemented in Oregon and it is a
wonderful benefit to tenants.
A commenter said that most
Tennessee renters are entitled to no
notice before they are brought to court
for nonpayment because state law
allows landlords to include a waiver of
notice rights in leases. The commenter
noted that they have worked with
tenants who misunderstand the law and
are not aware there is no notice period
until they are already in court.
Furthermore, the commenter said that
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
many of these tenants would have been
able to pay all or most of what they owe,
had they been allowed a few days or
weeks. The commenter also said that
even though the CARES Act has a
similar notice requirement to this rule
and applies to the same public housing
and PBRA properties as this rule, the
CARES Act requirements are not
universally followed or enforced. The
commenter cited to a 2022 National
Housing Law Project poll which stated
that 88% of surveyed attorneys reported
inconsistent or no court enforcement of
the CARES Act 30-day notice
requirement.28
The commenter also noted that in
Middle Tennessee, counsel for most
landlords interpret the 30-day notice
requirement of the CARES Act to have
expired with the 120-day eviction
moratorium which is counter to HUD’s
interpretation of the law. The
commenter stated that making the 30day notice requirement final would
create a clear and easily enforceable
rule, preventing unlawful evictions and
alleviating attorney and judge burden
when presented with conflicting
accounts of interpretation and
application. Another commenter echoed
this statement noting that noncompliance with the CARES Act 30-day
notice requirement is widespread in
Maryland because few property
managers understand the requirement
either per the CARES Act or the October
7, 2021, interim final rule (‘‘Extension of
Time and Required Disclosures for
Notification of Nonpayment of Rent’’).
A commenter said that evictions in
Texas are increasing and even though
some municipalities have passed local
ordinances to confront rising evictions,
a State bill prohibiting local regulation
of evictions threatens those protections.
The commenter stated that this rule
would be life changing for Texas tenants
who would otherwise receive 3-day
notices, no opportunity to cure, and the
potential for being homeless within 21
days after a missed rent payment under
State law.
A commenter stated that a 5-day
notice, 14-day notice, and no notice has
shown to be insufficient. Another
commenter said that many eviction
cases in Maryland are filed after one
missed payment, but the amount of
eviction filings decreased when
Maryland gave tenants facing eviction
the right to counsel and 10-day notice
including information on rental
assistance and legal services. The
28 The commenter cites to National Housing Law
Project, ‘‘Rising Evictions in HUD-Assisted
Housing: Survey of Legal Aid Attorneys’’ at 1 (July
2022), https://www.nhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/
HUD-Housing-Survey-2022.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
commenter noted that even with the 10day notice requirement, many tenants in
Maryland receive notice late or not at
all. One commenter stated that Ohio has
a short notice requirement which does
not afford enough time to obtain rental
assistance funds to avoid homelessness.
Another commenter noted that Florida
law requires 3-day notice, but it takes
several weeks to complete an
application at a local rental assistance
program. The commenter stated that the
30-day notice requirement under the
CARES Act allowed Florida tenants to
apply for rental assistance and negotiate
payment plans allowing tenants to
remain in their homes.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that
PHAs and owners have already
demonstrated their capacity to comply
with a 30-day notice requirement prior
to an eviction filing and that a rule
codifying the requirement would
provide more clarity to housing
providers in order to achieve uniform
application of HUD’s notification
requirements. As demonstrated by
HUD’s interim final rule and the
provisions under the CARES Act, PHAs
and owners were able to provide the
required minimum 30-day notice to
terminate a lease for nonpayment of rent
during and after the COVID–19
pandemic. As commenters have
mentioned, several HUD programs
already require 30-day notice for certain
types of evictions. Properties covered
under Section 8 Project-Based Rental
Assistance require 30-day notice when
the grounds for eviction is ‘‘other good
cause.’’ State law and the lease govern
the length of the notice period for
material noncompliance with the lease,
noncompliance with State law, or
criminal activity/alcohol abuse. Section
202 and section 811 programs require
30-day notice for all eviction grounds.
HUD also acknowledges that states
and local jurisdictions may have
specific timeframes for which a notice
to vacate for nonpayment of rent, or
other violations of the lease, may be
given and that this rule may be
beneficial to tenants and owners in
places that have shorter or no
notification periods. This rule provides
clarity and consistency to tenants and
will assist PHAs and owners to remain
compliant with HUD regulations.
Financial Impacts on Landlords
Commenters noted that evictions are
expensive for landlords and they often
never get back unpaid rent from evicted
tenants. Commenters said this rule
would help mitigate landlords’ eviction
costs which should be taken into
account when weighing the costs and
benefits of the rule. A commenter noted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
that the cost to landlords to evict a
tenant can range between $2,500 and
$12,988, while past due rents may only
range from $600 to $1,200. A
commenter also said that under the
CARES Act notice requirements, there
was a marked decrease in eviction rates
without any substantial financial
burden to housing providers. Another
commenter stated that support would
still be provided to landlords through
programs which would prevent major
negative financial effects.
A commenter stated that they balance
the need to collect rent with the
acknowledgement that tenants struggle
to pay rent and evictions do not align
with their policy of ensuring housing
stability. In 2022, the commenter said
they implemented a policy to provide
its tenants with arrears above a certain
threshold with a 30-day notice of
termination for nonpayment of rent. The
commenter explained that tenants are
offered the option to enter into
reasonable repayment agreements and
are not served a notice of termination
for arrears below the threshold. The
commenter stated that given its
experience with this policy, it is
important that PHAs across the country
be subject to this rule and that HUD
should consider providing technical
assistance and other resources to
support training and oversight of thirdparty owners/management companies
and for PHAs.
A commenter said that the goal
should be to keep people housed and
not to protect landlords’ profits through
quick turnarounds with renting.
Commenters stated that the concerns of
a potential financial and administrative
burden to owners does not outweigh the
importance of providing tenants with
additional time to respond to an
eviction notice. A commenter expressed
that housing is a human right and
should be treated that way. Another
commenter noted that effects of
heightened administrative costs for
landlords are expected to be nominal
when considering the advantages of the
rule.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that
evictions can be costly for both tenants
and landlords; however, HUD believes
that this rule strikes a balance between
potentially increasing some of the
financial impacts on PHAs and owners,
and supporting families who need
additional time to address financial
issues that result in nonpayment of rent.
B. Comments in Opposition to the Rule
Several commenters opposed the rule.
Some commenters stated that a 30-day
notice requirement is unnecessary or
unreasonable, that it does not make
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101277
sense, and that tenants are already
aware that their rent is late. A
commenter said this rule is an example
of something that sounds great in theory
but will not work as intended. Another
commenter said that the rule is a
slippery slope, and that the eviction
process should be quickened instead of
muddled.
HUD Response: HUD disagrees with
the commenters, especially in stating
that the rule is unnecessary and will not
positively impact tenants who seek to
cure their nonpayment of rent
violations, and that the eviction process
should be quickened. As previously
discussed in the proposed rule and the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (available at
regulations.gov in the docket file for this
rule), it is estimated that between 1,600
and 4,900 nonpayment related
moveouts in Public Housing and PBRAassisted housing are prevented each
year because of the 30-day notice
requirements of the CARES Act and
HUD’s interim final rule. Furthermore,
in HUD’s experience, tenants do not
always know that their rent is late,
including when their landlord made an
accounting, recertification, or notice
error.
Financial Burden and Hardships
Commenters stated that the rule will
be a financial burden or create
hardships for landlords, owners,
housing commissions, and PHAs,
especially small PHAs and those already
struggling. Commenters strongly urged
HUD to not implement the rule and
stated that adopting the rule will cause
undue and unnecessary harm to
landlords, especially landlords who rely
on income from rental properties. A
commenter said that the rule will
burden a work field that is already
overworked and underpaid. Another
commenter stated that the rule will
tarnish the relationship between the
PHA and tenant and eliminate any
discretion the PHA has to negotiate. A
commenter stated that they do not
approve of the rule and think it should
only occur when the tenant is being
subsidized. Additionally, the
commenter said that not all tenants in
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
program (LIHTC) or living in HUDsubsidized housing are unable to pay
rent and giving an additional 30 days
will set back owners. Another
commenter said that many HUD and
LIHTC properties are on ‘‘shoestring
budgets’’ and this rule will be
detrimental to their communities.
HUD Response: HUD understands the
fiscal impacts of nonpayment of rent to
a PHA’s or owner’s operating budget.
HUD believes that a 30-day notification
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101278
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
period strikes the appropriate balance
that provides enough time for the tenant
to cure the lease violation and does not
overly burden the PHA and owner.
Additionally, many PHAs and owners
seem to have demonstrated their ability
to comply with the CARES Act and
interim final rule and thus should be
able to establish systems and procedures
to minimize burden.29
PHAs, landlords, owners, and housing
commissions will still have discretion to
file an eviction action for nonpayment
of rent if the tenant does not cure the
rent owed within the 30-day notification
period. The final rule will give both the
landlord and the tenant additional time
to resolve any nonpayment issue in a
constructive manner that will benefit
both parties.
HUD notes that this rule applies to the
public housing, Section 8 Project-Based
Rental Assistance, Section 202/162
Project Assistance Contract, Section 202
Project Rental Assistance Contract
(PRAC), Section 811 PRAC, Section 811
Project Rental Assistance Program (811
PRA), and Senior Preservation Rental
Assistance Contract Projects (SPRAC).
Small Housing Providers
Commenters said that their small
PHAs would be burdened by the rule. A
commenter said that if a tenant does not
pay their rent, the PHA’s rent income
goes down 5%. The commenter said if
the tenant is given 30 days of notice
after missing a payment, the PHA will
be missing two months of rent, which
they might not be able to recover in
court. The commenter further stated that
the 30-day notice would add more of a
burden on an already over-documented
process and that with only two
employees, most of the staff’s time is
spent ‘‘taking care of tenants,
paperwork, banking, payroll, HUD
requirements, and much more.’’
Another commenter said that the rule’s
impact on tenants would exacerbate
poverty and homelessness and pose a
significant threat to small business
owners. The commenter also stated that
the rule seems to carry risks for citizens
and does not have benefits that address
broader issues.
A commenter said that the eviction
process could take months and the
expense will be unbearable especially
for small housing commissions. Another
commenter said that the rule will
cripple small rural PHAs since their
occupancy and rental amounts are so
29 See Exhibit 2 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
which demonstrates that rates of owner-initiated
move-outs due to nonpayment of rent have
remained below pre-CARES Act levels but have also
increased between 2022 and 2023 (when most
eviction moratoria expired).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
low. The commenter said that if they
have one unit vacant, their occupancy
drops to below 95%, so they cannot
wait to evict someone for nonpayment
of rent. Additionally, a commenter
stated that lost rent, tenant charges, staff
time, and attorney fees have become an
increasing financial burden to small and
medium PHAs. A commenter said that
as a small PHA in Mississippi,
prolonged eviction proceedings lead to
months of missed rent payments that are
rarely recovered in full. Additionally,
the commenter said that without
reliable rental income, the PHA would
fall short in providing care for tenants
and fulfilling HUD’s mission.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes that
small PHAs and owners often have
limited staff and resources when
operating rental assistance programs.
HUD is also aware that smaller PHAs
and owners may be more susceptible to
financial variations to their operating
budgets; and that they may experience
a more significant financial impact due
to nonpayment of rent by a tenant
during the notification period. Due to
these reasons, HUD emphasizes the
need for PHAs and owners to attempt to
work with the tenant to correct any
noncompliance with the program
requirements and/or establish
repayment arrangements with the
tenant.
Although limited to programs
regulated by the Office of Multifamily
Housing, owners of Section 8 PBRA,
Section 202 PAC, Section 202 PRAC,
and the Section 811 PRAC can make a
claim to HUD for up to one month’s
rent, less the security deposit collected,
for unpaid rent under the family’s lease
after the family has vacated the unit.
This rule balances the potential for
rental income loss through the
additional time provided to households
to resolve nonpayment of rent with the
operating impact to all PHAs and
owners. It provides families and PHAs
and owners time to work through
potential repayment solutions and help
families come back into compliance
with program requirements to resume
their housing assistance. As stated in
other public comments, eviction
proceedings can be equally—if not
more—costly to smaller PHAs and
owners. For PHAs and owners, the 30day notice can be issued without hiring
an attorney and may lead to the tenant
paying what is owed, extinguishing the
need to hire an attorney to address that
delinquency at all. Thus, HUD believes
that the 30-day notification period will
enable more cost-effective measures for
both the tenant and PHA/owner.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Loss of Rental Income
Commenters said that since the 30day requirement implemented during
the COVID–19 pandemic, there has been
an increase in past due balances causing
lost revenue. A commenter said the
impact of the government-mandated
eviction mortarium is still being felt and
the 30-day notice period is too long.
Another commenter said that due to loss
in income, housing providers were
unable to pay bills such as staff and
maintenance, and were not able to turn
over units to make them habitable to
those on waiting lists. A commenter
said the PHAs are already challenged
with providing decent, safe, and
sanitary housing for those in need in
addition to retaining staff.
Commenters said the rule will
negatively impact underfunded public
housing providers and PBRA operators
who are unable to recover lost revenue
and have few tools to collect rent.
Commenters also said that there will be
90–120 days of nonpayment of rent
before a tenant can be removed causing
PHAs a huge loss in rental income. A
commenter stated that it can take 2–3
months to obtain possession of a unit,
which causes a huge financial burden to
owners. Additionally, commenters said
that PHAs cannot afford delays due to
this rule. Commenters said that for
every dollar in rent, 93 cents is used to
cover the costs of operations, such as
property maintenance, insurance,
staffing, and property taxes.30 The
commenters stated that PBRA funding
ensures that tenants’ housing costs are
consistent, but PHAs continue to see an
increase in their expenses.
Another commenter said that in
Virginia, owners receive six cents for
every dollar they receive in rent, and
under this rule, owners will go without
income for up to 90 days. The
commenter stated that with less income
owners do not have money to maintain
the community and people will not
build low-income housing if they
cannot collect rent. A commenter said
that as a PHA, they have experienced
higher rental loss due to nonpayment in
addition to the cost to repair units.
Additionally, a commenter stated that
apartment communities have been
taking a lot of hits due to eviction
regulations implemented during the
COVID–19 pandemic, and the loss of
rent is draining management
communities’ budgets and frustrating
staff. Another commenter said that if the
rule is implemented many new
landlords who only rent out one
property may go bankrupt and we will
30 https://www.naahq.org/breaking-down-onedollar-rent-2023.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
start to see more investment homes and
multifamily properties go into
foreclosure. A commenter said this
requirement will affect at least two
months of utilities at their PHA which
may be unpaid because of loss of rent.
Commenters said that giving tenants
twice the amount of time they already
have causes more financial loss in writeoffs for PHAs. A commenter also
expressed that collection laws go against
PHAs and that they can barely collect
rent owed. Another commenter stated
that the rule does not include financial
reimbursement for court and legal fees
due to the delay in eviction cases.
Additionally, the commenter stated that
tenants have learned that when they file
an appeal, that adds an additional 45
days to the eviction process. Another
commenter said that it can take up to a
year for an appeal in their state.
Commenters suggested that HUD
consider a new type of special claim so
owners could recover lost rent accrued
during the proposed notice period.
Another commenter said they disagree
with the rule unless HUD will pay rent
while tenants are going through the
eviction process. Another commenter
said owners still need to pay bills and
operate, so HUD should be willing to
pay the full contract rent while tenants
go through the eviction process. A
commenter said that the 30-day notice
is causing PHAs and the Federal
Government to lose money each year.
The commenter stated that if a tenant is
unable to afford their rent for one
month, they likely will not be able to
afford the next month’s rent.
HUD Response: HUD understands
concerns from housing providers that
experienced a loss of income due to
nonpayment of rent and the impact it
has on operating budgets. The Public
Housing Operating Fund, which was
developed through a negotiated
rulemaking, specifically funds agencies
based on rents charged, rather than rents
collected, so HUD is not able to adjust
operating funding for PHAs to account
for nonpayment of rent issues. Further,
HUD program statutes and regulations
only authorize assistance payments for
dwelling units under lease by eligible
families. Therefore, HUD does not have
the authority to make assistance
payments, pay contract rent, or
otherwise reimburse owners after the
termination of tenancy or during
eviction proceedings. However, with
respect to public housing, PHAs
experiencing significant shortfalls in
their operating budgets are encouraged
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
to apply for the Shortfall fund.31 In
applicable Multifamily Housing
programs, an owner can submit a
special claims request only.32 The
owner may then request payment for
unpaid tenant rent or other amounts
owed under the lease (e.g., damages), in
accordance with program regulations.
There is no special claims provision for
lost rent accrued for a tenant who
continues to reside in a unit after
termination of tenancy.
HUD disagrees with the assumption
underlying many of these comments
that a delay in pursuing a tenant for
outstanding rent will necessarily and/or
always lead to the tenant accruing more
outstanding rent due, that will then not
be paid to the landlord. As HUD has
explained above, a delay in pursuing a
tenant for outstanding rent can provide
the tenant the opportunity to pay the
outstanding rent before being evicted,
leading to less outstanding rent, not
more. Similarly, HUD disagrees that if a
tenant is unable to afford their rent for
one month, they will likely not be able
to afford the next month’s rent. Often,
as alluded to above, there is an error or
delay in recertification, which simply
needs time to be corrected, or a one-time
event that causes a tenant to fall behind,
and tenants are able to make up their
arrearage when errors in recertification
are corrected, reasonable
accommodations are enacted, and/or
time is provided to secure outstanding
balances, which sometimes can come
from local nonprofits.
Financial Obligations and Cost of
Operations
Commenters stated that the rule will
hurt landlords and their ability to pay
their bills, and that there is a lack of
understanding of how hard it is to
maintain assets. A commenter said that
the rule will cause more unpaid rent,
attorney fees, and expenses for staff
during the judicial process. Another
commenter said that in today’s inflated
economy, PHAs and owners cannot
afford significant costs and that the
number of nonpayment related
moveouts should be mentioned in the
rule since they cause substantial
additional costs in lost rent and
property damage for the PHAs and
owners. Commenters also said that
PHAs depend on prompt payment in
order to meet financial obligations, and
the rule would cause an undue financial
strain on owners which would
31 Operating Fund (Op-Fund) Shortfall Funding |
HUD.gov/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
32 Special Claims Processing Guide (HSG–06–01)
at https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/
administration/hudclips/guidebooks/HSG-06-01.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101279
jeopardize mortgage payments and put
owners at risk for property loss.
Additionally, commenters said that
during the extended period of 90–120
days to secure a court date for eviction,
tenants fall further behind in rent and
owners bear the burden of sustaining
essential services (i.e., mortgages, taxes,
payroll, and necessary repairs). Another
commenter stated that rent is already
based on the income of a tenant so an
owner should not have to suffer waiting
to evict a tenant for non-payment of
rent. A commenter expressed that
unlike the options that tenants have,
owners are subject to withholding of
future services and hefty late fees when
bills are not paid on time. In response
to the rule stating that it is more cost
efficient for housing providers to assist
tenants to cure nonpayment of rent, a
commenter said that ‘‘cost efficiency
can only be reached if appropriate
options are available to cure such
nonpayment of rent.’’ The commenter
said that HUD does not recognize that
PHAs already provide repayment
agreements and hardship exemptions,
but without additional funding, these
options only temporarily address
tenants that are unable or unwilling to
pay their rent.
A commenter stated that the rule will
cause PHAs to go bankrupt as their
property’s insurance has tripled in the
last three years and the cost of materials
has increased. Additionally, a
commenter said labor and healthcare are
also more expensive. A commenter
stated that it usually takes 30 days to
prepare a unit (clean, repaint, etc.) to get
it ready for a new tenant and now PHAs
will be missing rent for three months.
Another commenter said that their PHA
is already under-staffed and overburdened and if the rule is implemented
it will cause the PHA to be less effective
and projects to be poorly maintained.
Commenters stated that higher rent
balances burden community resources
that offer emergency rental assistance.
One commenter said that chronic
underfunding of public housing is the
culprit and HUD’s $25 million
allocation is short of what is necessary
to bridge the disparity gap.
Additionally, the commenter said that
insurance premiums, which have gone
up 110% in some States, are furthering
the fiscal strain and leave PHAs trying
to make ends meet. The commenter
stated that HUD has taken steps to
decrease COVID–19 funds rather than
using those funds for PHAs to address
operating issues. A commenter said they
hope that HUD gets rid of the 30-day
notice requirement since rental
assistance is no longer readily available
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101280
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
and everyone in public housing is
working or receiving social security.
HUD Response: HUD understands the
financial obligations of PHAs and
owners, and how uncollected rent
significantly impacts their operating
budgets. In addition to other elevated
costs, HUD acknowledges the growing
cost of operating housing. HUD reminds
PHAs of the ability to receive shortfall
funding if they are experiencing
financial challenges.33 HUD also
reminds PHAs and owners that the more
PHAs and owners improve their
compliance with recertification
requirements, the less likely tenants will
be improperly overcharged their portion
of the rent. These requirements include
ensuring that PHA and owner staff are
not transferring burdens of
recertification onto tenants that are
properly the responsibility of the staff,
not failing to properly and timely
inform tenants of the different
verification options that the tenant may
provide for their income, not requiring
more verification than necessary from
the tenant, and/or not requiring tenants
to seek verifications that staff should
and/or can be seeking themselves.
HUD believes that the 30-day
notification period strikes an
appropriate balance that considers the
financial obligations of PHAs and
owners, as well as provides enough time
for tenants to rectify a lease violation
stemming from nonpayment of rent.
Additionally, as explained above, HUD
believes there are often options
available for tenants to cure, which
avoids unnecessary legal costs incurred
to PHAs and owners, and balances
increased costs where there are not
options to cure. HUD encourages PHAs
and owners to review and assess their
policies and practices to ensure tenants
are informed on how to recertify their
income or apply for a hardship
exemption in a timely manner.
Tenant Awareness and Responsibility
Commenters said that tenants know to
contact the PHA when there is a change
to their income and the PHA processes
interim recertifications, so extending the
notice requirement will increase the
financial burden when funds could be
used for other means. A commenter said
that nonpayment of rent is a result of
tenants not telling the PHA about loss
of income. Commenters stated that
tenants are made aware on multiple
occasions that they have an opportunity
to recertify due to their income or
hardship, and it is not feasible for a
33 Operating Fund (Op-Fund) Shortfall Funding |
HUD.gov/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
landlord to give 30 days’ notice when
the tenant is already aware. The
commenters further stated that by the
time a court date is set, tenants are
further behind in rent, and landlords are
losing out on income in addition to
having to justify write offs.
A commenter said that the rule would
be a burden on housing authorities,
creating more work and expenses when
housing authorities must try to collect
rent that has not been paid. A
commenter stated that an additional 30day notice should not be given since
tenants already receive multiple notices
that they have not paid rent. Prolonging
the process will put more of a burden
on staff. Another commenter said that
unless there is an extreme circumstance
such as death or severe illness, most
tenants know that their rent will be late.
Another commenter said it is obvious to
tenants that they are late and must pay
their rent, and once they are late ‘‘their
presence is unhealthy, toxic, and
perhaps dangerous to other residents.’’
Commenters said that it does not take
long to get assistance for a tenant who
is truly struggling if a tenant
communicates with the PHA in a timely
manner. A commenter stated that
tenants are 2–3 months behind in rent
by the time 30 days has passed, and
when tenants try to reach out to
organizations for rental assistance it
creates a snowball effect because many
of the organizations, including
churches, are already limited in the
resources they can provide. One
commenter included an example of
variations in a tenant’s subsidized rent
due to income fluctuations and asked
HUD to review before finalizing a rule
‘‘that is unnecessary to protect tenants,
a financial and administrative burden to
owners, and costly to the taxpayers who
support the programs.’’
HUD Response: HUD believes there is
a mutual responsibility between the
tenant and the PHA or owner to ensure
that recertification requirements are
followed by both parties. HUD would
like to underscore the importance of
PHAs and owners working with their
tenants to identify the opportunities to
improve practices and procedures that
facilitate on-time recertifications, rental
payments or timely re-payment plans.
Additionally, the notice requirements in
this rule will help those tenants who are
unaware or remind tenants who are
aware of ways that they can cure their
nonpayment of rent.
Housing Providers’ Efforts To Keep
Tenants Housed
A commenter stated that the rule
wrongfully assumes that management
and staff do not attempt to assist tenants
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
before filing evictions and that the rule
does not adequately address tenants’
noncommunication. Commenters stated
that housing providers already work
with tenants and provide every effort to
avoid eviction. Additionally,
commenters said that tenants are aware
of their legal obligations in their signed
leases, and they can speak with the PHA
if there are any issues or hardships.
Tenants have options that include
‘‘payment agreements, referrals to
several agencies such as United Way,
Action Pact and churches that can assist
with rent and other resources.’’ A
commenter said that PHAs are working
with tenants to prevent evictions and
ensuring that tenants have access to
available tools and information to
mitigate rent arrears. Another
commenter stated that they strive to
work with tenants with payment issues
through counseling and repayment
agreements before moving to the
eviction process, but if an eviction is
filed, then the tenants have displayed a
pattern of not being able to pay rent.
A commenter said that when a tenant
has an unexpected financial crisis, they
offer the tenant a grievance hearing and
a payment plan to get caught up on rent
to avoid eviction. The commenter
expressed that it is in everyone’s best
interest to keep tenants housed rather
than displacing a tenant and suffering
vacancy loss. Another commenter said
that PHAs do not want to evict tenants
and are very good at working with
tenants that get behind by offering
repayment agreements and allowing
more time to pay. Other commenters
stated that tenants know or should
know that they can report loss of
income to have their rent adjusted and
interim recertifications are processed
quickly. Another commenter stated that
their PHA is currently under a
corrective action plan due to low
waiting lists and extreme vacancies. The
commenter said they must make every
effort to work with tenants who have a
valid reason to not pay rent and only
use eviction as a last resort.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes and
appreciates the efforts of housing
providers that keep tenants housed and
those that use eviction as a last resort.
Unfortunately, not every housing
provider focuses on keeping tenants
housed, and some file evictions that
could have been prevented. HUD
maintains that providing tenants with
additional time to cure nonpayment of
rent violations will limit preventable
and unnecessary eviction filings and
evictions.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Administrative Burden
Commenters said that the rule would
be an administrative burden to housing
providers and that HUD ignores the
negative impacts that can result from
modifying formal policies and
amending every lease. Some
commenters said that the notice
requirement would cause more
paperwork for staff and management. A
commenter said that it will take more
time administratively and give tenants
an excuse to not pay rent and
consistently stay a month behind.
Commenters also stated that because of
limited staff and funding, and many
regulatory and compliance demands,
there are limited resources for their PHA
to have ‘‘more substantial eviction
prevention interventions with tenants.’’
The commenters said requiring a
revision to every lease to include the
required information is not easy and
creates a substantial administrative
burden and cost, especially on small
PHAs, that diverts time and resources
from other priorities. Another
commenter mentioned that it would
divert time and resources away from the
‘‘challenging HOTMA implementation.’’
Additionally, a commenter said that
there are more cost-effective measures to
notify tenants of available resources
such as ‘‘additional content in standard
notices, resident newsletters, etc., issues
by Public Housing Agencies.’’
A commenter said the additional
notices should not be required since
tenants are already informed, and it
would be a moot point. Another
commenter stated that adding further
instructions to a notice will cause
confusion and complicate an already
well functioning process that results in
little to no evictions for tenants not
acting in bad faith. Additionally, a
commenter asked HUD (1) whether the
requirements for a repayment agreement
will change; (2) if a notice will be
invalid if a component of the required
language from the rule is missing; (3)
will this language be included in the
new HOTMA lease and if so, should
housing providers wait until the new
HOTMA lease to implement the rule;
and (4) if a housing provider decides to
implement the rule via a lease
addendum prior to the new lease being
issued by HUD, should the lease
addendum be approved by HUD?
Commenters also said that HUD fails to
consider the additional time needed to
revise notices to place into employee
and tenant trainings, computerized
systems, and to obtain signatures on
amended leases for every household in
a 14-to-18-month period. Additionally,
HUD does not include the costs to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
modify formal policy documents, which
requires public notice and comment as
well as action by the governing board of
the agency.
A commenter said that employee
paperwork and case management time
increase when tenant accounts are
higher, creating a negative impact on
ledgers and financial reporting scores.
Another commenter said the rule creates
an administrative burden on staff that
are tasked with collecting rent and
dealing with disgruntled tenants. A
commenter said that for PHAs who have
comparable policies in place, the rule
creates additional administrative
burdens and liabilities for PHAs for
technical violations. For example, the
commenter said, the rule ‘‘requires the
PHAs ‘amend all current and future
leases to properly incorporate the 30day notice requirement,’ and provide
notice to tenants of these amendments.
These procedural requirements apply
regardless of whether PHAs currently
have comparable policies in place.’’ The
commenter said that it is concerning
that the rule focuses on form instead of
substance.
One commenter said that their PHA
letters already include information
required by HUD such as how tenants
can avoid eviction by obtaining a
repayment agreement and/or by
receiving a rent adjustment, the total
amount due, and the date the tenant
must pay to avoid eviction. This
information is provided during move-in,
recertification appointments, and when
tenants receive a rent statement or
account breakdown. Additionally, the
commenter said that tenants see these
letters and ignore them causing the PHA
to move forward with the eviction
process. This will result in staff having
to complete multiple delinquent letters
since the State law requires a 14-day
letter for delinquent rent and a 30-day
letter for charges past due.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes the
immense and varied efforts that housing
providers have taken to help tenants
remain stably housed. HUD agrees that
it is important to consider burdens
created by new requirements, and the
rule has been carefully designed to
minimize the impact on housing
providers. Therefore, HUD is not
requiring PHAs and owners to update
leases at once, but to do so within 18
months of the effective date of the rule
for PHAs, and for PBRAs, 14 months
from the date HUD publishes a final
model lease incorporating the new
requirements. HUD will produce model
leases for PBRA programs that will
incorporate HOTMA regulations and the
changes implemented by this rule.
Additionally, HUD may implement
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101281
additional guidance in the future to
assist PHAs and owners with the
implementation of this rule.
HUD also reiterates that in order to be
considered in compliance with the rule,
the notice must include instructions on
how tenants can cure lease violations
for nonpayment of rent; the alleged
amount of rent owed by the tenant, and
any other arrearages allowed by HUD
and included in the lease; the date by
which the tenant must pay rent to avoid
the filing of an eviction; information on
how tenants can recertify their income;
how tenants can request a minimum
rent hardship exemption, if applicable,
or request to switch from flat rent to
income-based rent; and in the event of
a Presidential declaration of a national
emergency, such information as
required by the Secretary. With regard
to the comments on repayment
agreements, HUD strongly encourages
but will not require the use of
repayment plans and reiterates that
PHAs and owners have flexibility to
design them to be reasonable.
Repayment plans are just one way for
tenants to cure their nonpayment of rent
and this rule is focusing particularly on
notification requirements.
Tenant Accounts Receivable (TAR)
Many commenters stated that the rule
would negatively impact TARs and
threaten PHAs’ ability to function and
provide adequate low-income housing.
Commenters said that by the time an
eviction goes through the legal process,
tenants could owe an additional two or
more months of rent. A commenter said
that even if the tenant can address their
rent arrears, the payments do not cover
the current month and do not address
the TARS and negative scoring issues.
Another commenter said that the
COVID–19 pandemic and the CARES
Act increased their accounts receivable
from tenants, and in some courts,
evictions are backed up for a year.
Additionally, a commenter said that it
can take approximately three months
before a tenant is evicted for
nonpayment of rent which increases
TARs and creates more issues on the
books for PHAs.
Commenters said that the rule will
increase the amount of unpaid rent
incurred by PHAs and have a negative
impact on mandatory scoring
requirements in regard to the collection
of rent and vacancy rates. Commenters
said the rule does not address the
conflicting priorities the rule imposes
on PHAs to collect rent and then be
scored by HUD on their effectiveness to
collect rent. Additionally, a commenter
said that HUD has not provided longterm relief on this requirement and
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101282
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
housing providers cannot effectively
collect rent without sufficient tools and
the eviction process. A commenter said
this rule is contradictory to how HUD
scores and advises. Commenters stated
that there should be relief on the PHA
scoring side of the rule. Another
commenter asked how HUD will offset
the scoring due to high balances on the
agency TARs.
A commenter said that tenants are
graded on the size of their accounts
receivable balances and the 30-day
requirement has not done anything to
help PHAs. The commenter said that
HUD has punished PHAs for having
large account receivable balances, but
the rule would continue to grow these
balances. Similarly, commenters said
that HUD grades PHAs on their ability
to collect rent, rewarding those with
higher rent collections and punishing
those with lower rent collections. The
commenters stated that limiting the
tools that PHAs can use to collect rent
under governing State and local law
causes confusion and limits the PHAs’
ability to meet the rent collection
requirements. A commenter stated that
the rule would interfere with grading as
they are graded on the management and
occupancy reviews (MOR), which is
partially their ability to collect rent.
Another commenter stated that no
consideration had been given to the 5%
of PHA scores attributed to higher TARs
because of the rule. The commenter said
that their PHA currently has a low 90
score and that is with all possible points
in the indicators with exception of Real
Estate Assessment Center inspections.
The commenter said that a ‘‘bump to
‘standard’ HUD rating would absolutely
diminish staff moral [sic].’’
Additionally, a commenter said that
the rule prolongs wait times for other
tenants which affects a PHA’s Capital
Fund Program score since this category
focuses on occupancy rates. The
commenter said that lower scores
subject PHAs to remedial actions,
oversight, and monitoring by HUD.
Additionally, commenters pointed to
HUD’s example of a nonprofit affordable
housing provider in Boston 34 and said
that the provider is not a PHA and not
subject to negative scoring which would
result if a PHA pursued the same
options, also the provider has the
resources being one of the largest
affordable housing providers in the
country. Commenters said that smaller
housing providers do not have the same
privileges to delay collecting rent as the
34 King, S. (2021). How One of Boston’s Top
Evictors Changed Its Ways. Shelterforce. https://
shelterforce.org/2021/12/03/how-one-of-bostonstop-evictors-changed-its-ways/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
study mentions, and even after the
amount of work mentioned in the study,
50% of tenants did not respond to
efforts to avoid eviction.
Some commenters said that the 30day notice requirement would mean
that tenants would be at least 60 days
behind in rent by the time an eviction
filing is filed in court and a court date
is set, and if a tenant refuses to move
out, ‘‘PHAs are now looking at 90–120
days of a receivable being on the books
that then leads to even higher write offs
each year.’’. A commenter stated that
the 30-day notice requirement has
increased their receivables and writeoffs each year, which affects their
bottom line. The commenter explained
that their write-offs for 2022 were over
$130,000, and for 2023 they were
already at $218,000 by October. The
commenter further explains that they
are working with tenants and a lot of
local agencies to pay some of the
balances but must rely on Federal
assistance as well.
Another commenter said that in 2019,
prior to the 30-day requirement, their
end of year write off amount was
$2,700, but each year their collection
losses has grown significantly. The
commenter mentions a correlation
between not being able to evict for
nonpayment of rent in a timely manner
and their growing TARs as why they
wrote off $16,300 in 2023. Additionally,
one commenter said their PHA normally
sends a list of tenants who owe rent to
collections, but only 15% of the time do
they recover rent. The commenter
further said that if HUD requires a 30day notice for nonpayment of rent, then
HUD should increase its level of
operating subsidies. Last year, the
commenter said their write-offs totaled
$200,000 and HUD has decreased
funding. A commenter said $234,000 in
write offs for 2023 was the largest they
have seen in 10 years working at their
PHA.
Commenters urged HUD to leave the
notice requirement at 14 days. A
commenter stated that when they issue
an eviction for nonpayment of rent, the
tenant does not pay and does not leave
the unit within the 14 days allowed;
therefore, when the eviction is filed in
court, tenants owe approximately 1–2
additional months of rent. The
commenter further said that they cannot
imagine their write offs given the
proposed 30-day notice. Another
commenter stated that it is not fair that
HUD continues to grade PHAs on their
ability to collect debt owed while not
allowing PHAs to use a fair 14-day
notice. Commenters noted that the 30day requirement has been in practice
since the COVID–19 pandemic and is
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
burdensome to PHAs especially in the
timely collection of TARs. Commenters
also said that during COVID–19, many
tenants did not pay rent because they
were not required and now PHAs are
suffering from outstanding TARs which
negatively affect their Public Housing
Assessment System (PHAS) scores and
operating income.
A commenter said that their PHA
currently has $2 million in TARs from
tenants that have decided to not pay
their rent, which does not include $1.3
million that has already been written off
as bad debt from tenants that moved out
with unpaid balances in 2023. Another
commenter said their average TARs was
under $30,000 a month and now they
are over $90,000. A commenter stated
that ‘‘HUD has reported that up to 50
percent of PHAs increased levels of
TARs in 2023 compared to prepandemic levels.’’ The commenter also
said that a longer notice period will
assuredly cause higher rent arrears and
will undermine the PHAs efforts to
collect rent and reduce TARs.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that
PHAs should not be penalized as a
result of compliance with this rule. The
requirement to extend the notification of
lease termination for nonpayment of
rent may affect PHAs’ financial
assessment scores if TARs rates rise.
HUD has been monitoring trends in
TARs and the most recent data suggests
that TARs are beginning to stabilize to
pre-COVID–19 pandemic levels. There
remain outliers that are keeping TARs
elevated, but HUD believes that the
majority of PHAs throughout the
country are starting to experience lower
TARs. HUD understands the impact of
TARs on a PHA’s finances and ability to
operate. HUD believes the 30-day
notification period to be the right
balance for tenants to cure a violation of
the lease for nonpayment of rent and
have minimal impact for a PHAs’
financials.
Additionally, HUD has provided relief
to PHAs for PHAS scoring of TARS for
2022 and 2023 PHAs scores and is
evaluating further extensions at this
time based on available data. Further,
HUD is developing a proposed rule on
the Public Housing Assessment Systems
that HUD anticipates will be published
later in 2024.35 HUD encourages
commenters to also provide public
comments on that rule.
Legal Rights of Landlords
Commenters said that landlords have
rights. One commenter said that
35 See HUD’s Regulatory Agenda at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?
pubId=202310&RIN=2577-AD17.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
landlords have the right to run their
business as they see fit. Another
commenter stated that landlords have
inalienable rights, one being ‘‘as
property owner who rents by the
collection of financial rental
compensation in exchange of the tenant
using property.’’ A commenter stated
that property rights are guaranteed by
the U.S. Constitution, and if the
government interferes with ‘‘owner’s
rights to manage their properties by
restricting their contractual rights, then
the government becomes the tyrant.’’
Additionally, a commenter said that
Texas allows tenants to be evicted after
a four-day notice and by allowing a 30day notification, it would be a violation
of constitutional rights to give special
treatment to one group of people.
HUD Response: The Secretary has
explicit statutory and regulatory
authority to require that certain terms
and conditions be included within
leases for HUD-assisted housing,36
including that PHAs and owners
provide certain specified notice periods
and other procedural protections before
different types of eviction
proceedings.37 The statutory authority
provides that during the lease term, the
owner must not ‘‘terminate the tenancy
except for serious or repeated violation
of the terms and conditions of the lease,
for violation of applicable Federal,
State, or local law, or for other good
cause[.]’’ 38 The Secretary is also
authorized to provide additional terms
and conditions that must be
incorporated into the tenant’s lease.39
The Secretary has exercised this
authority on previous occasions such as
in the interim final rule,40 Instituting
Smoke-Free Public Housing final rule,41
and in HUD’s grievance procedures at
24 CFR 966.52.42 This final rule is
consistent with the statutory and
regulatory restrictions placed on
36 42
U.S.C. 1437d(a).
U.S.C. 1437d(l); 42 U.S.C. 8013(i)(2)(B)
(section 811); 24 CFR part 891 (section 202, 202/
8, and 202/162).
38 42 U.S.C. 1437f(d)(1)(B)(ii). See also 42 U.S.C.
8013(i)(2)(B) (section 811).
39 42 U.S.C. 1437f(d)(1)(B)(i). See also 42 U.S.C.
8013(i)(2)(A).
40 86 FR 55693.
41 81 FR 87430 (this final rule required PHAs
administering public housing to implement a
smoke-free policy and to update the lease, without
a statutory mandate, to incorporate the new smokefree policy at § 966.4(f)(12)(ii)(B)).
42 See 24 CFR 966.52(b) and 966.4(n) (HUD
requires PHA leases to stipulate that the tenant has
an opportunity for a hearing on a grievance of any
proposed adverse action against the tenant). See
also the rulemaking of part 866 (Lease and
Grievance Procedures), which requires the
grievance procedure be incorporated into the lease
at 40 FR 33406.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
37 42
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
program participants under this
authority.
Additionally, owners are not required
to participate in HUD’s federally
subsidized housing programs. However,
when an owner enters into an agreement
to participate, the owner receives
incentives and conversely subject
themselves to certain obligations. Those
obligations do not interfere with an
owner’s constitutional rights.
Furthermore, courts have consistently
upheld HUD’s ability to ensure due
process in the eviction process when it
concerns participants in federally
subsidized housing.
Participation in HUD Programs
Commenters said the 30-day notice
would create a hardship for owners/
landlords and will make them not want
to participate in affordable housing. A
commenter said that further restrictions
on their business as a landlord will
cause them to walk away and put their
money in a market fund which would
in turn lower the supply of rental
housing and increase rent. One
commenter stated that the private sector
is responsible for the majority of
affordable housing in the United
States,43 and rather than increasing
burdens, HUD should incentivize the
private sector to continue to invest in
affordable housing.
Additionally, a commenter stated that
rent is critical to ensuring housing
providers are able to produce affordable
housing in their communities. One
commenter said the 30-day notice
requirement ‘‘has proven to disrupt the
rental market by reducing housing
availability.’’ Another commenter stated
that the rule will have a negative impact
on the public perception of HUD,
housing providers, and low-income
tenants. The commenter said the rule
gives a false perception of tenants
receiving public and assisted housing as
irresponsible and taking advantage of
taxpayers which can increase
resentment and distrust of Federal
housing programs, housing providers,
and tenants.
HUD Response: HUD believes that the
limited scope of the rule does not curb
participation in HUD programs. Owners
that participate in HUD programs
governed by the Office of Multifamily
Housing understand why providing
affordable housing is important and
tend to be mission-aligned entities. HUD
seeks to achieve the appropriate balance
43 See Lance Freeman & Yining Lei, An Overview
of Affordable Housing in the United States, Penn
IUR Policy Brief, at 2 (August 2023), available at
https://penniur.upenn.edu/uploads/media/An_
Overview_of_Affordable_Housing_in_the_United_
States_Updated.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101283
that does not overly burden PHAs and
owners, and also benefits tenants. Thus,
HUD believes the 30-day notification
period for a specific set of HUD
programs is appropriate.
Delay in Eviction Cases
Many commenters stated that there is
a delay in eviction court cases and
offered varying times for when a court
date is set after filing for eviction in
their jurisdiction. Some commenters did
not understand and questioned the
necessity for an additional 30-day notice
when it already takes several months to
get into housing court or have a court
date set. Commenters also said that
many locations are having issues with
timely court dates, and it is taking
several months to evict, which is
burdening housing providers and
costing thousands of dollars in lost rent
and legal fees. Additionally, a
commenter said that asking PHAs to
wait an additional 30 days to file in
court is damaging to the PHA.
Commenters stated that a backlog in
eviction cases creates a significant
financial burden for landlords that
impact community resources to cover
debt service, taxes, insurance, and
property repair costs. Commenters also
mentioned that housing providers are
still feeling the impact of court backlogs
from the pandemic. For example,
housing providers in Atlanta reported in
2023 that they were still waiting for
court dates after filing evictions six to
eight months prior.
A commenter said that they have been
involved in many eviction cases and it
can take weeks to file with an attorney
and have a court date set, and then there
is the possibility of a continuance.
Essentially, it can take 3–4 months to
evict a tenant for nonpayment of rent,
meaning the landlord is missing 3–4
months of rent. The commenter also
said if the tenant is evicted after a fourmonth period, the landlord will likely
not see the money for back rent and may
have to deal with any damages that the
tenant may have left. Commenters stated
that it is taking 90–120 days to evict due
to backlog and delay in the court
system. Another commenter stated that
the eviction court process is incredibly
lengthy and can take around 90 days
after an eviction notice for a tenant to
be evicted for good cause. Commenters
also stated that in Michigan, it takes 90–
120 days to get a court date despite a 7day notice period.
Another commenter explained that a
week after rent is due, notice is sent to
the tenant, and then after another week,
a notice of intent to file for
dispossessory is sent to the tenant. A
week or so after that, the dispossessory
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101284
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
will be filed and by this time three
weeks have passed. When the court gets
the dispossessory, it typically takes two
weeks to process and then a letter is
mailed to the tenant giving them
another week to answer the court. If the
tenant answers the court, it takes two
weeks to process and then the court
moves forward with setting a court date
but must look at their already
backlogged calendar which can be 4–6
weeks out. A hearing is then set, and if
the PHA prevails, the tenant is given at
least two weeks to vacate. If the court
requires the tenant to pay the rent, the
PHA does not receive late fees, or they
receive around 10%. Many of the
tenants do not pay and the PHA must
get a writ of possession, adding more
time to the process. However, one
commenter said many of their PHA’s
nonpayment eviction cases result in
non-final stay agreements which
provide the tenant the ability to repay
over time and make a legal agreement to
secure arrearages.
A commenter stated a backlog in the
magistrate courts could increase PHA
eviction timelines and delinquent
account amounts, and potentially affect
households that have been on waiting
lists for months or years. Another
commenter said that appeals, attorney’s
fees, and writs of possession must be
factored into the filing of evictions,
making it unlikely to have a court date
within the same month. Similarly,
another commenter stated that it could
take weeks to get on the docket for court
and the judges would like the parties to
mediate the move out. If the parties
cannot come to an agreement, the judge
decides when the tenants will move out.
However, if the tenants do not vacate
the property, the owners must pay court
costs to obtain a writ to have them
removed, and if that does not work, the
sheriff’s department must be paid for
possession of the property via lockout.
Additionally, a commenter said that
tenants should not be given 30-day
notice because most evictions cases can
take 3–4 weeks. Commenters said that
courts need time to schedule cases and
even after a case, it takes even more
time to schedule a writ of possession if
necessary. One commenter said that
even when an eviction is granted by the
court, judges allow tenants 30–60 days
before the eviction can be enforced, and
if a tenant refuses to leave, it takes more
time to file additional paperwork and
schedule an eviction with the Sheriff’s
department, causing the PHA to house
non-paying tenants for 4–6 months
before they are evicted. One commenter
said that in New York, the Sheriff’s
department must allow 14 days before
executing a writ. Additionally, a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
commenter said that New York has
extended the time a tenant can be
brought to court from 5–12 days to 10–
17 days and the tenant is entitled to an
immediate adjournment of at least two
weeks to obtain legal counsel.
Another commenter said their county
takes 10–14 days to get a court date and
by that time the tenant could be two
months behind in rent which causes
even more loss of income for the small
PHA. The commenter also said the
small PHA had an increase of $4,000 in
write-offs due to a delay in the courts.
Another commenter said that in the
best-case scenario, it takes 32 days to go
through the eviction process, but under
this rule, it would take 52–60 days of
waiting for court to deliver the
dispossessory notice.
Commenters said that an initial filing
may be the only way to convince a
tenant to pay their rent, especially when
the PHA has already provided tenants
with information and resources to cure
their nonpayment. The urgency pushes
tenants to reach out to external
resources, and in some states, rental
assistance is not available until an
eviction is filed. A commenter that has
been in property management for LIHTC
for 20+ years said some tenants need
encouragement from the court to pay
their rent. Another commenter stated
that tenants often will not reach out for
assistance until they receive written
notice from the landlord, and they must
prove they are in danger of losing their
home when seeking emergency rental
assistance.
HUD Response: HUD does not dictate
the timelines of local courts and their
processes. HUD disagrees that the
increased notification period merely
delays evictions. As previously
discussed, it is estimated that between
1,600 and 4,900 nonpayment related
moveouts in Public Housing and PBRAassisted housing are prevented each
year because of the 30-day notice
requirement. Additionally, HUD
emphasizes that the cost of eviction
filings, including the court delays
mentioned in the public comments, are
a strong reason for why it is more costeffective to work with tenants on a
repayment plan. Tenants who can
obtain additional assistance to pay rent
can avoid unnecessary eviction filings
and evictions, which will benefit
housing providers as well. For similar
reasons, HUD disagrees with comments
that the costs to housing providers due
to delays in the court system outweigh
the benefits to tenants.
Negative Impact on Tenants
Many commenters stated that the rule
will have a negative impact on tenants.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Commenters stated that the rule will
cause higher rent arrears for tenants
which would be harder to cure, have a
negative impact on their credit record,
and cause issues with future housing.
Commenters also said that a 30 day wait
to file for eviction for nonpayment of
rent would in turn compound other
delays, causing tenants to get further
behind on their rent and only increasing
tenants’ financial difficulties.
Additionally, commenters said that the
rule would cause delays in a tenant’s
access to some local emergency rental
assistance programs. A commenter
stated that there are few agencies in
their area with funding programs that
provide rental assistance to tenants
living in subsidized housing. A
commenter explained that when tenants
fall behind in rent and are still evicted,
they face overwhelming past due
balances that the tenant cannot pay to
satisfy judgment for years.
Some commenters said they do not
support the rule because it hurts the
community and other tenants who are
paying their rent on time and other
tenants will be affected because
resources are limited. Commenters
stated that PHAs are working diligently
to keep tenants current on their rent, but
because of low funds, the 30-day notice
will put tenants and the PHA even
further in a financial hole. Additionally,
a commenter said that even an existing
7-day notice requirement increases the
hardship on tenants and owners,
causing owners having to allocate more
resources per tenant due to the delays
which in turn reduces their capacity to
support other households. Another
commenter said that the longer a
nonpaying tenant remains in a unit, the
more compliant tenants will be
impacted, interfering with their peace
and enjoyment.
Some commenters specifically
emphasized that tenants will struggle to
cure their nonpayment of rent. A
commenter said that the rule will
increase nonpayment amounts and
contribute to a ‘‘never-ending debt
situation’’ for tenants. A commenter
said that a tenant who pays $200–$300
in rent and falls behind one month will
struggle to get back on track and the 30day notice will only push the balance
into a second month. The commenter
said that at this point, most PHAs and
rental assistance programs cannot assist
tenants in bringing their balances up to
date. Commenters stated that the rule
would create confusion for tenants since
they will owe more in rent by the time
the parties go to court. Another
commenter stated the rule has caused
the most vulnerable citizens in their
community to get further behind in rent.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Commenters also said that the rule is
counterproductive and would increase
evictions. A commenter said that prior
to the COVID–19 pandemic, evictions
for nonpayment of rent were low in
most places, and now, due to reliance
on rental assistance and decreased
prioritization of timely rent payments,
evictions have increased significantly.
Another commenter said they have seen
an increase in late rent due to the 30day notice requirement and the courts’
handling of eviction cases, creating
greater hardship for tenants.
Additionally, a commenter stated that a
PHA cannot accept partial payments
when an eviction is filed, so when HUD
allows additional time for tenants to pay
their rent, it is harder for tenants
because they are now stuck with two
months of rent and eviction costs. The
commenter said that if the tenants had
received an eviction notice on the first
month of nonpayment, they might have
been able to receive assistance before
getting further behind.
Additionally, a commenter stated that
the rule will require rent increases to
compensate for housing providers’
additional expenses, causing the rental
market to become more expensive.
Another commenter said that under this
rule, housing providers may have no
choice but to have zero-tolerance
policies for nonpayment issues instead
of providing leniency since tenants can
fall further behind. A commenter stated
that landlords in the Housing Choice
Voucher (HCV) program are not
required to give 30-day notice, and since
they already have so many restrictions,
landlords will be less willing to rent to
HCV holders. A commenter stated that
tenants’ unpaid balances when they
vacate a unit could keep other landlords
from renting to those tenants. Another
commenter said operating subsidies are
decreasing, causing PHAs to suffer and
hurting low-income tenants.
Commenters stated that for certain
properties an increased delinquency
rate will negatively impact an owner’s
ability to properly maintain a property
which impacts all tenants. Commenters
also said that ‘‘owners are facing high
inflationary costs that exceed the costof-living rental increases.’’ One
commenter stated that housing
providers may become stricter in their
lease enforcement practices and
applicant screenings as a result of this
rule. Additionally, many commenters
said that the rule will increase unpaid
rent and result in lost revenue not
covered by HUD, which would ‘‘lead to
reduced administrative and
maintenance services for all tenants and
may threaten agency solvency.’’ Some
commenters stated that the rule will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
cause more confusion for tenants
because there will be different
requirements for different HUD
programs because the rule would not
apply to vouchers and other rental units
in the market. Another commenter
asked HUD to immediately rescind the
30-day notice requirement and stated
that PHAs ‘‘must be allowed to manage
their own lease termination procedures
as has been past practice.’’
HUD Response: Experience from
HUD’s Eviction Protection Grant
Program suggests that some residents of
HUD-assisted housing facing eviction
were able to avoid eviction by securing
or maintaining rental assistance (with
the assistance of legal service providers)
but that this process took an average of
150 days. Most residents receiving
housing assistance cannot afford legal
assistance, and no-cost legal services
may not be available to them.
HUD’s analysis of the program data
suggests that as case duration increases,
so does the likelihood of securing rental
assistance and achieving a rent
reduction, though the effects are
modest. Extra time provides an
opportunity for the tenant to engage
with legal providers and to achieve
positive outcomes when they are
available. As previously mentioned,
HUD has been monitoring trends in
TARs and the most recent data suggests
that TARs are beginning to stabilize to
pre-COVID–19 pandemic levels. HUD
believes that the majority of PHAs
throughout the country are starting to
experience lower TARs.
Additionally, HUD agrees that some
owners may experience revenue loss
during the 30-day notification period,
but a portion of this income may be
recouped from HUD through the special
claims process for Multifamily Housing
programs, including payments for debt
service and unpaid rents. HUD also
recognizes that operating costs have
increased and continue to increase,
irrespective of tenants accounts
receivable, and HUD has since
appropriately adjusted the methodology
for determining the annual rent
operating costs adjustment factor
(OCAF) to reflect this fact. HUD believes
that the rule and its requirements to
provide tenants time to locate the
necessary resources to pay their rental
arrears will result in fewer tenant
delinquencies over time, and therefore,
a decrease in applicant rejections when
screening for patterns of nonpayment of
rent. HUD urges owners to not adopt a
zero-tolerance screening policy and to
instead adopt a policy of tolerance for
tenants who are otherwise good renters
and are motivated to work with their
owners to pay their back rents.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101285
In response to the comment regarding
the Housing Choice Voucher program,
this rule does not apply to that program.
For the same reason expressed in other
responses to public comment, HUD
believes this rule strikes the appropriate
balance of not being overly burdensome
to PHAs and Owners while also
benefiting tenants.
Impedes Necessary Skills for Tenants
Commenters said that the rule will set
up tenants for failure and set a
precedent for tenants of not being
responsible for their bills and not
adhering to contractual agreements.
Some commenters said that their PHA
promotes self-sufficiency and financial
literacy to tenants, but the 30-day notice
will not promote self-sufficiency. A
commenter asked how this rule helps
tenants become self-sufficient if the
standard is being lowered, and how will
it help tenants transition to tenant-based
voucher programs and non-subsidized
housing where they will be given a 14day notice.
Another commenter stated that
tenants who are no longer in the
program due to an increase in income
will not have the financial literacy to
budget appropriately and they will face
eviction in the private market. For
example, Ohio’s State law gives tenants
a 3-day notice for nonpayment of rent.
Similarly, a commenter said that HUD
should prepare tenants for the next step
after public housing by supporting ‘‘law
abiding and lease compliant residents
who deserve the quiet and peaceful
enjoyment of their apartment.’’ A
commenter stated that families should
be given the necessary skills to further
their financial situations, but this rule
does not accomplish this and instead
creates lower expectations for tenants.
Another commenter stated that
individuals in public housing
understand they must pay their rent and
allowing them more time will enable
tenants to avoid looking for solutions to
pay their rent. Another commenter said
that the rule enables tenants to ignore
management for a longer period instead
of enabling tenants to learn money
management. Additionally, a
commenter stated that there is no reason
tenants cannot pay their affordable rent,
and tenants are being enabled to do the
bare minimum.
HUD Response: The intent of this rule
is to assist tenants in curing
nonpayment of rent violations by
requiring 30-day notice before an
eviction filing, and to ensure they are
aware of resources that can help them
pay past due rent. This rule does not
intend to provide self-sufficiency or
financial literacy. Nevertheless, HUD
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101286
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
does not agree that tenants will lack
self-sufficiency and responsibility due
to the 30-day notice requirement.
Residents of HUD-assisted housing have
demonstrated an ability to abide by the
lease terms and have successful
tenancies. HUD understands that this is
not always the case, however, providing
a 30-day notification period and
information to help cure non-payment
will help tenants get the assistance they
need to remain housed.
Wait Lists
Many commenters expressed that the
rule would cause longer wait times for
individuals and families on waiting
lists. A commenter stated that there are
very long wait lists to enter certain
housing programs and properties.
Commenters said that allowing
nonpaying tenants, and tenants not
willing to comply with a lease
agreement to remain in units is unfair to
individuals and families in need of
housing. Another commenter stated that
the rule will further delay other
applicants on waiting lists from getting
assistance due to the shortage of
available units in public housing.
Additionally, a commenter stated that
longer wait times could lead to an
increase in homelessness.
Commenters said that additional days
could instead be used to ensure housing
for individuals on a waiting list who
will pay their subsidized rent. The
commenter expressed that it does not
make sense for people to live rent free
due to irresponsibility with no
repercussions while people on waiting
lists suffer. A commenter stated that
their small PHA, with only 20
apartments, is full and there is a long
waiting list already. The commenter
said that people call the office daily
looking for housing and if the process
were quicker, a unit could be open for
a rent paying tenant. A commenter
stated the rule is like a punishment to
those waiting and willing to pay for a
stable home.
Commenters also said that the rule
puts PHAs and owners at a disadvantage
because it limits their ability to turn
over units and find new tenants. A
commenter said that it is unfair for
tenants not paying rent on time to
remain while there is a waiting list of
over 75 families who await affordable
housing. Additionally, the commenter
said their 185-unit PHA receives 15–30
calls per day about availability and they
have not been able to take new
applicants in over four years. One
commenter said that their PHA has 10
people on the waiting lists and if a
tenant chooses not to pay, they have
qualified people on the waiting lists that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
are unhoused, disabled, and elderly that
can and will pay.
HUD Response: HUD acknowledges
the concerns of waitlists; however, long
waitlists throughout the country are a
testament to the need for greater
resources, and not an opportunity to
forgo taking steps to protect the tenure
of current residents.
Unfairness and Abuse of the 30-Day
Notification Requirement
Some commenters described the rule
as being unfair. A commenter stated that
the rule will give undue protection to
tenants who are already protected by
local laws that were effective prior to
the COVID–19 pandemic. A commenter
said that tenants sign leases that offer
many protections, but tenants do not
respect the binding contracts because of
court rulings and rules, such as the one
proposed, where ‘‘the tenant’s
responsibility is never really their
responsibility.’’
Commenters said that tenants’ rent is
based on 30% of their income. A
commenter said that if tenants lose their
job, their rent would be adjusted so
there is no reason for tenants to fall
behind in their rent. Similarly, a
commenter said that if tenants lose their
job or their family increases, they must
let the landlord know so they can
recertify their income, and in their
public housing program, they offer an
electric allowance to the tenant. A
commenter stated that tenants are well
informed when they move in that they
can report changes in their income or
financial difficulties, and receive
reminders on procedures to report
changes during annual recertification.
Another commenter stated that if HUD
provides tenants with unfair advantages
when tenants already have many
protections, investors will not want to
provide affordable housing.
Some commenters said that rent for
tenants is already low and affordable
and there is no reason to give them more
time to pay rent, especially since their
rent can be adjusted due to a change in
income. Additionally, some commenters
said that tenants’ rent is based on their
income, and they can always adjust
their rent by requesting a hardship
exemption if their income changes. A
commenter said if a tenant fails to report
the change the consequences should fall
on the tenant and not the PHA.
One commenter said that it is not
right to give a certain group of people
special privileges. The commenter said
that tenants in public housing already
receive special treatment through
governmental assistance and their
payment of rent is extremely low
compared to what other people are
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
paying. Another commenter stated that
tenants that are paying rent based on
their income have a privilege that most
people do not enjoy and now the rule
will make it more difficult to address
the willful failure to pay rent. A
commenter asked why tenants already
receiving discounted rent should
receive additional time to pay rent when
other tenants are not afforded the same
rights.
Additionally, a commenter said that
tenants have received an excessive
amount of funds for rent through rental
assistance programs without providing
proof that it was due to COVID–19 and
took advantage of the rental assistance
funds at taxpayers’ expense. Another
commenter said that PHAs have an
obligation to protect U.S. taxpayer’s
investment in the Federal funded
housing program. Additionally, a
commenter stated that organizations
will send a notification that they are
paying a tenant’s rent so the property
does not file for initial delinquency, but
most times the rent continues to not be
paid for months.
A commenter said that the rule is
allowing abuse of the system because a
tenant is already receiving assistance to
pay their rent and tenants should not be
given more assistance when they decide
not to pay. The commenter stated that
the notice gives the tenant enough time
to find housing, but tenants without
assistance and landlords do not have
support. Another commenter stated that
there is a way to help tenants struggling
to pay their rent without helping those
who abuse the judicial system or
hurting landlords who must hire extra
staff to handle appeals and additional
notices. A commenter said providing
additional time to tenants who have
chosen not to pay their rent and to
ignore the lease terms ‘‘goes against
HUD’s goal to improve lives and
strengthen communities to deliver on
America’s dreams.’’ Additionally, a
commenter said that tenants have
grievance rights, legal rights, collection
rights, and can adjust their rent based
on changes to income. The commenter
asked, ‘‘how much easier can we make
it?’’
A commenter said giving tenants
more time to pay will only make tenants
more irresponsible and reckless. Some
commenters said that tenants need to be
held accountable to timely pay their
rent. Another commenter stated that
tenants should be held accountable to
the terms of their lease, but they
currently abuse the 30-day period due to
the CARES Act by waiting to the last
minute to pay rent. The commenter
stated that it is a recurring cycle each
month and asked when tenants are held
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
responsible if the terms keep changing.
A commenter stated that HUD’s ‘‘One
Strike Policy’’ allowed PHAs to clean up
properties and create thriving
communities, but now there are some
people with low-income that will not
follow rules and should be held
accountable for not paying their rent.
One commenter said the rule enables
poor decision making by tenants.
Another commenter said that there are
tenants who do not follow the rules of
the lease and tenants are being enabled
by allowing them to bend the rules and
giving them additional time to pay rent.
HUD Response: HUD understands and
acknowledges that tenants receiving
assistance are entitled to recertify their
income at least once annually and
request a hardship exemption if they are
experiencing eligible circumstances so
that their rent is affordable. HUD also
understands, however, that a small
minority of PHAs and owners may not
always properly or timely process
tenants’ reports of income and
household changes. In these situations,
tenants’ rental payments may be
improperly calculated and incorrectly
applied. In these instances, extra time to
identify and work out these issues
provides the opportunity for PHAs and
owners to identify the error that resulted
in the incorrect calculation of rent, and
work with the household to reconcile
the issue. In furtherance of this, HUD
has published extensive guidance to
provide support to PHAs and owners on
strategies to work with families that are
behind on rent to avoid evictions as
much as possible. The final rule does
not relieve tenants of their statutory rent
obligations, nor does it seek to shield
tenants from their lease requirements;
rather, the rule provides consistency for
tenants and owners without posing an
undue burden to PHAs and owners.
Additionally, HUD does not believe
that the 30-day notification period will
discourage investors. There are other
HUD programs that have similar
protections for tenants that have
investor participation. HUD believes
this is a measure that reduces housing
loss and undue vacancies. Furthermore,
localities often report decreasing levels
of emergency rental assistance programs
and oversubscription. The final rule
provides additional time for tenants to
identify and obtain resources to resolve
nonpayment.
Increase in Delinquency
A few commenters opposing the rule
stated that the rule will increase
monthly delinquency in payment of rent
causing tenants to fall further behind. A
commenter expressed that as a housing
authority they do all that they can to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
provide a safe and stable home for
tenants; however, tenants are falling
further behind in rent because they have
learned that they have 30 additional
days to not pay rent. One commenter
said landlords/owners should not allow
tenants to live rent free for 1–2 months.
Similarly, a commenter said that tenants
already receive rental assistance to
ensure that they can afford their rent,
and tenants who fail to pay make a
conscious decision to be late. A
commenter said that repayment
agreements do not address rent
delinquency, especially since HUD is
not providing additional rental
assistance funding to tenants.
Additionally, a commenter provided
an example of rent collections in
December of 2019–2023 from a property
in Tampa that used a 30-day notice
period for all tenants due to the CARES
Act. The commenter said that the data
showed delinquencies rose every year
since 2019 and remained high unlike
when the state statutory notice was
used. The commenter stated that many
tenants end up owing rent for multiple
months.
HUD Response: HUD disagrees with
commenters that the rule will cause rent
delinquency. Preliminary findings from
HUD Eviction Protection Grant Program
indicate that tenants who have
additional time are more likely to come
to an agreement with their landlord to
pay some or all their delinquent rent
over time. Though it may indeed be true
that such agreements do not necessarily
recoup all unpaid rent, it is likely that
they increase the amount that the
landlord comes away with relative to
cases where the tenant is evicted
without any such agreement. HUD
believes that the 30-day notification
period is an appropriate timeframe that
helps tenants stay in their homes and
minimizes burden for owners.
Misuse of Additional Time
Commenters stated that tenants may
exploit a 30-day notice requirement by
taking advantage of the additional time,
leading to prolonged nonpayment of
rent or other lease violations that create
hardships for landlords and disrupt
housing stability. A commenter said it
has been so bad for their PHA that they
had to put a limit on the number of
delinquency letters they sent to some
tenants. Commenters also said that since
the implementation of the 30-day notice
and after rental assistance has run out,
tenants are waiting to pay rent until the
last day of the previous month. A
commenter said that tenants in Illinois
are taking advantage of the 30-day
notice requirement to avoid paying their
rent on time. Another commenter stated
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101287
that many tenants obtain repayment
agreements to avoid rent even with the
amounts set to below 40% of the
monthly amount.
One commenter stated they do not
agree with the rule because it already
takes a long time to evict a tenant for not
paying their rent, and the nonpaying
tenant will usually stay in the unit until
their court day, giving them three or
more months to live there for free. A
commenter said that tenants will use the
30-day notice to their advantage and use
the rent money for a deposit elsewhere
leaving the PHA with unpaid rent and
costs to fix the unit. Commenters said
that tenants who refuse to pay rent
abandon their units. A commenter
questioned why the rule would be made
permanent stating the rule would allow
tenants more time to live for free when
grace is not extended to those with
mortgage payments.
A commenter said that if tenants
obtain a financial hardship exemption,
more tenants will use the requests and
there will be less tenants paying rent or
working. The commenter said this will
result in HUD having to pay more, word
spreading that the government will
help, and perpetuating a cycle of
poverty. One commenter expressed that
after the implementation of the 30-day
notice during COVID–19, a tenant with
higher income refused to pay their rent
despite the PHAs best efforts to
communicate with the tenant and three
years later, following the sunset of
eviction prohibitions, the tenant was
evicted with a balance of over $60,000
in unpaid rent. A commenter expressed
that the rule is misguided in bringing
about equality and said that the rule
essentially removes the requirement for
tenants to timely pay their rent and
creates a system that can be
manipulated. Another commenter said
that some tenants move into a unit with
no intention of paying and stall for as
long as possible, stealing housing.
HUD Response: The vast majority of
PHAs and owners participating in HUD
programs have demonstrated an ability
to implement the 30-day notification
period under the CARES Act and HUD’s
interim rule. HUD encourages tenants
and owners to work together to identify
any improvements to recertification
policies or practices.
Damage and Destruction to Property
Some commenters expressed that
there has been destruction to properties
due to nonpayment of rent and the
prolonged eviction process and the rule
will further the damage and abuse done
to properties. One commenter explained
that a property could not generate
income for three months and when the
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101288
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
property is finally vacated it is trashed.
Tenants leave behind what they do not
want, forcing the property to post an
abandoned goods notice, have items put
in storage for a cost, or leave them in the
unit until the end of the notice period.
A commenter said that many tenants
who have outstanding balances damage
the units and most times the damage is
done on purpose. Another commenter
said that tenants who are evicted for
nonpayment of rent also have other
lease violations, but when evicting, they
choose nonpayment of rent because it is
‘‘more cut and dry and has a lower
burden of proof.’’ These tenants have
caused disturbances to other tenants
and/or have damaged the property.
One commenter stated that landlords
experience repair and trash removal
costs when tenants finally vacate. A
commenter said that tenants who do not
care enough to pay their rent also do not
care about what condition they leave a
unit. A commenter said that tenants
who are getting ready to leave a unit
will ignore all the rules such as quiet
hours, drugs, partying and respect for
others. Commenters also said that an
initial filing does not result in
immediate eviction, in fact eviction is
normally the last resort. A commenter
said that in some cases tenants have
other lease violations such as criminal
activity or activity that threatens the
health and safety of others and adding
a longer notice period of nonpayment of
rent creates further obstacles.
HUD Response: The final rule only
requires owners to provide a 30-day
notification period for nonpayment of
rent. Other lease violations are not
subject to this rule. HUD believes that
owners and tenants will be able to use
the 30-day notification period to rectify
any nonpayment issues and avoid
potential damage to a unit. The 30-day
notification period can serve as a cost
saving measure since tenants are likely
to pay any rent that is owed to the
property owner with significant notice.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
State Law and Other Notices
Commenters urged HUD to allow
states to govern eviction proceedings
that are already in place to protect
tenants in the judicial process. The
commenters said that this will ensure
that all parties have access to local
courts to resolve landlord-tenant
disputes. Commenters also stated that
the current system for notification in
their state has been in place for years
and is working well. Other commenters
stated that notice requirements should
return to what they were prior to the
COVID–19 pandemic. Commenters said
that returning to pre-pandemic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
requirements would provide clarity for
all parties.
A commenter suggested tailoring the
notice periods to existing statutes as a
compromise. Another commenter said
that many states have already
implemented changes that delay the
eviction process and increase the cost to
the properties. For example, Delaware
guarantees legal counsel for all eviction
proceedings. However, these rules
further increase the loss of revenue for
properties. A commenter said their
current system has many protections to
prevent tenants from being homeless,
since evictions can take months to
conclude, there is enough time for
tenants to pay their unpaid rent.
One commenter asked whether
leaving out ‘‘combined’’ was intentional
as the rule states that state and local law
may run concurrently. The commenter
said they want to ensure this is clarified
to avoid confusion since the language in
§ 966.4(l)(3)(iii) indicates that the notice
required under state or local may be
‘‘combined’’ or run ‘‘concurrently.’’ One
commenter urged HUD to provide
guidance to states so they can make
their own changes instead of HUD
implementing a rule.
A commenter said that the 30-day
notice does not align with California’s
existing laws and could cause
complications for housing providers and
tenants. Another commenter said that a
majority of owners give tenants a fiveday notice and after five days, the tenant
is served with an unlawful detainer
which is not an eviction notice. The
commenter also said that an owner is
lucky if they can get a court date within
30 days of filing the unlawful detainer.
Another commenter said that the 30-day
notice ignores that state laws have
‘‘evolved differently over time to protect
tenants and housing providers
throughout the eviction process.’’
HUD Response: The 30-day
notification requirement provides
consistency and clarity across the
country on what owners participating in
the specific HUD programs need to
provide to tenants. PHAs and owners
will need to modify their leases and
notices to include the required
information specific to the applicable
HUD programs. As previously noted, the
requirements under this rule, including
the requirement that the 30-day notice
may run consecutive to any additional
state or local notice requirements if
required by state or local law, does not
preempt any state or local law that
provides greater or equal protection for
tenants.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Grace Periods
A commenter stated that 16 states and
some localities mandate a grace period
for tenants to pay rent without a late fee,
and most states have developed notice
procedures that housing providers are
required to follow before filing for
eviction. The notice requirements vary
from 0–30 days, the average being six
days, so the 30-day notice requirement
would be five times higher.
Another commenter stated that
tenants already receive a 10-day grace
period before they receive a 10-day
notice, which means the landlord
cannot file for eviction until the 21st of
the month. If 30-day notice is required,
the tenant would be 2–3 months behind
in rent before a court date is set.
Another commenter said that their PHA
provides a five-day grace period and
then another 14 days before they file for
termination, but giving a 30-day notice
means the process goes into the next
month, causing more of a burden on
tenants and organizations. Similarly, a
commenter stated that in Ohio there is
a five-day grace period followed by a 10day notice requirement that essentially
gives tenants a 16-day grace period. The
commenter said almost four to five
months can go by without a landlord
receiving rent especially if a landlord
must wait for a sheriff and do
renovations. One commenter asked for
HUD to consider the effects on PHAs
that already offer a grace period to
tenants.
HUD Response: HUD has considered
the appropriate timing for the
notification requirement and believes
that a 30-day notification period strikes
a reasonable balance that benefits
tenants and limits the burden on
owners.
7, 10, and 14-Day Notice Requirements
A commenter advocating for a sevenday notice requirement stated that a
seven-day notice would push tenants to
pay on time and lessen the financial
burden on landlords, versus a 30-day
notice that would essentially give a
grace period where the only penalty is
late fees. A commenter said that in
Nebraska they follow a seven-day notice
requirement, and due to lengthy wait
times for a court date, the tenant is
usually two months behind in rent
before a decision is made. A commenter
urged HUD to bring back the three-day
notice to vacate because this rule would
allow tenants to live in a unit without
paying rent for almost two months
before a court date is set.
Commenters said that properties
should go back to the 10-day notice
requirement for nonpayment of rent to
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
avoid a financial detriment to
properties. A commenter living in a
HUD subsidized property, said the 30day notice requirement was good during
the COVID–19 pandemic, but it is time
to return to the 10-day notice in Illinois.
Additionally, a commenter urged HUD
to bring back the three-day notice to
vacate because this rule would allow
tenants to live in a unit without paying
rent for almost two months before a
court date is set.
A commenter stated that tenants are
notified when they sign their lease that
rent is due on the 1st of the month, and
when rent is not paid, they are sent a
notice 10 days after. The commenter
further stated that it takes three months
to evict a tenant. The tenants receive
courtesy calls and in-person visits to ask
when they can pay their rent. A
commenter stated that it was already
difficult with a 72-hour notice to vacate,
and some states have extended it to a
10-day notice. The commenter also said
that tenants try to extend their stay with
an initial past due notice and judges
allow it; therefore, the process has to
start over again.
Many commenters said that a 14-day
notice requirement is a sufficient
amount of time or that it would cause
less hardship. A commenter stated that
14 days is enough time for tenants to
pay their rent, request a repayment
agreement, or move before an eviction is
filed. The commenter also said that
requiring 30 days instead of 14 days will
cause their small PHA significant
income loss and further limit their
ability to provide low-income housing
to those in need. Another commenter
said the 30-day notice requirement has
brought a lot of debt to public housing.
Commenters said longer notice periods
would delay formal and nonformal
payment agreements to cure
nonpayment of rent and confuse tenants
with more changes.
A commenter said that nonpayment
issues can be addressed within 14 days
if a tenant follows the rules. The
commenter said a 14-day notice gives
them enough time to cure their
nonpayment of rent, but if they have to
file for eviction in court, it could take
60–90 days. The commenter asked if
they give this extra time will HUD allow
PHAs a waiver when their TARs cause
conflict with other rules and
regulations? Another commenter urging
HUD to leave the 14-day notice, stated
that it is a good incentive for tenants to
pay past due rent, waiting 30 days will
put tenants behind in rent another
month making it overwhelming for
tenants. A commenter also in favor of a
14-day notice, suggested that HUD stress
to PHAs the importance of interim
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
recertifications and repayment
agreements.
Additionally, a commenter said that
30 days is an overstretch of time needed
for a tenant to rectify nonpayment
issues. The commenter further stated
that tenants do not need an additional
14-days since their rent is based on their
income and it is the tenant’s
responsibility to report loss of income or
need for an interim recertification. The
commenter explained that if rent is due
on the 1st of the month and there is a
10-day grace-period, notice will not be
sent until the 10th day, which means
the termination process will go into
another month. However, a ‘‘no short
payments’’ clause means tenants cannot
give one month’s rent in a different
month without providing payment for
the current month. This gives tenants
more time to pay, but it also leaves more
time for tenants to fall behind.
Additionally, the commenter said that
when the 30-day notice requirement
was implemented during the COVID–19
pandemic it was acceptable, but now
everything is opening back up and
people are still behind.
Another commenter said that it is not
true that tenants need more time to cure
nonpayment of rent. The commenter
stated that tenants receive a 14-day
notice in their state on the 2nd month
on which they have not paid rent and
the court date is usually scheduled
between 10–14 days out. If the
requirement is changed to 30 days, it is
highly likely that a tenant would have
60 to 90 days before a court date is set.
Additionally, a commenter advocating
for state guidelines for evictions, said
that there is a 14-day notice requirement
in Massachusetts which allows an
owner to get on the court docket in the
same month that rent is due. A
commenter said the initial
implementation of the 30-day notice
requirement during the COVID–19
pandemic negatively impacted their
PHA. The commenter stated that the
requirement in Illinois was 14 days and
now every month they have 50 to 75
tenants that are past due on rent because
they are using the notice as an
extension. The commenter said that
almost all of the tenants served the 30day notice will pay right at the end of
the 30 days, but they are still always one
month behind.
HUD Response: HUD considered
several alternatives to the 30-day time
period and ultimately decided that the
30-day period best balances both
tenants’ interests and PHAs’ and
multifamily owners’ reliance in
administering their programs.
Additionally, the final rule is consistent
with provisions in the CARES Act and
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101289
other actions taken by other Federal
agencies.
Overreach of the Federal Government
Some commenters stated that the rule
is an overreach of the Federal
Government. A commenter stated that
the CARES Act provision was supposed
to provide temporary relief during the
pandemic, and now that the pandemic
is over, keeping the 30-day notice
requirement ‘‘amounts to nothing more
than unnecessary federal overreach into
a state-level matter.’’ Additionally, the
commenter said the 30-day notice
during the pandemic proved to be
harmful to owners and there is no need
to continue the 30-day notice
requirement now that the problem it
was supposed to address initially is
over. Another commenter said that the
rule is an overreach because landlords
are struggling financially due to
nonpayment of rent and property
damage before evictions. Additionally, a
commenter disagreed that the rule is not
a violation of anti-federalism since
‘‘landlord tenant and eviction law is the
sole purview of the states, so this
attempt to circumvent these laws is the
very definition of federalism.’’ The
commenter further stated that the
discretion of those who work with
tenants and make decisions will be
heavily impacted.
Commenters stated that the rule
interferes with the eviction process that
is governed by states that already
protect tenants and ensure that all
parties have access to local courts to
resolve disputes. Additionally, the
commenters said the rule complicates
the local eviction process and delays
resolutions while housing providers
remain unpaid putting ‘‘the viability of
PBRA-funded communities more at
risk.’’ A commenter stated that state
laws should be followed for termination
of leases for nonpayment of rent.
Another commenter stated the proposed
rule circumvents the established legal
process for eviction and denies housing
providers due process rights.
Commenters referred to the rule as a
‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach that is not
effective. A commenter urged HUD to
consider operational impacts when
adding 30 additional days to state-level
evictions. The commenter said that
‘‘such one-size-fits-all mandates rarely
account for regional and judicial
complexities.’’ Another commenter said
a ‘‘one-size-fits-all federal approach is
not practical.’’ Additionally, a
commenter stated that the ability to
make local decisions is critical and
issuing a blanket policy across all
jurisdictions removes local control. The
commenter said that the current notice
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101290
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
requirement in their jurisdiction is
sufficient and if PHAs want to extend
the notice period, they have the
flexibility to do so. Another commenter
stated that the Federal Government
should not get involved in individual
contract enforcement by favoring one
side or another.
One commenter stated that HUD does
not have legal authority to preempt state
landlord-tenant laws without the
express authorization from Congress, as
Supreme Court precedent established
that the Federal Government can
preempt state laws in limited
circumstances. The commenter cited to
Alabama Association of Realtors v. U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services, 594 U.S. 758 (2021) and said
that landlord-tenant law is traditionally
considered a matter of state law. The
commenter also said that the Supreme
Court addressed the harm to landlords
who were ‘‘at risk of irreparable harm’’
under the eviction moratorium. The
commenter also stated that statutory
language does not specify notice period
requirements for PBRA, therefore
leaving eviction proceedings to states.
‘‘There is also no language giving the
Secretary explicit authority to require
certain terms and conditions be
included in these leases. In fact, the
section covering required contract
provisions for assistance payments
states that ‘the agency and the owner
shall carry out other appropriate terms
and conditions as may be mutually
agreed to by them.’ ’’
Furthermore, a commenter stated that
HUD’s claim that the rule reduces the
patchwork and inconsistencies in notice
requirements is inaccurate and HUD
should ‘‘defer all requirements to State
and local law until such time as federal
jurisdiction over landlord-tenant law is
established and such rules can apply to
all rental housing.’’
HUD Response: As discussed in the
statutory authority section of the
proposed rule, HUD has general
rulemaking authority under 42 U.S.C.
3535 to implement its statutory mission,
which is to provide assistance for
housing to promote ‘‘the general welfare
and security of the Nation and the
health and living standards of [its]
people.’’ 44 Additionally, HUD has
specific statutory authority under the
U.S. Housing Act of 1937 to prescribe
procedures and requirements for PHAs
to follow to ensure sound management
practices and efficient operations.45
HUD also has statutory authority to
establish requirements for project-based
44 42
45 42
U.S.C. 3531.
U.S.C. 1437d(c)(4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
rental assistance.46 The Supreme
Court’s decision in Alabama
Association of Realtors is not applicable
here. That decision addressed the
exercise of authority under the Public
Health Service Act by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This HUD action relies on an entirely
different set of authorities. Further,
unlike the eviction moratorium
addressed by the Supreme Court, this
action does not ‘‘exercise powers of vast
economic and political significance.’’
Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 594 U.S.
758, 764 (2021) (internal quotations
omitted). The CDC’s eviction
moratorium applied to ‘‘properties that
participated in federal assistance
programs or were subject to federally
backed loans.’’ Id. at 760. In contrast,
this rule is narrower in scope and only
applicable to the specified HUD
programs and owners that choose to
participate.
PHAs and owners participating in
HUD programs have the discretion to
work with tenants on a re-payment plan
and therefore does not constitute a onesize-fits-all approach. In addition,
establishing a baseline notification
period is intended to provide uniform
clarity for everyone participating in
HUD programs.
Evidence and Research
Commenters stated that HUD does not
provide any evidence that longer notice
periods reduce evictions. Instead, one
commenter said, HUD overstates a study
and relies on unreliable evidence to
justify the rule. Commenters further
stated that HUD assumes housing
providers are bad actors and their first
step is to file an eviction without
considering the impact on tenants, also
HUD assumes they are not already
working with tenants to keep tenants
housed. A commenter stated that the
rule provides limited evidence that a
notice requirement would have minimal
financial impact on owners, especially
without emergency rental assistance and
other financial resources to prevent
evictions. Additionally, a commenter
asked HUD to specify the eviction rate
numbers for subsidized housing.
A commenter said that the rule
includes selective background
information which does not focus on the
negative impacts that landlords and
tenants will face. The commenter
further stated that the rule relies heavily
on short-term positive outcomes of
emergency COVID provisions (when the
46 See 42 U.S.C. 1437f(g) (section 8 low-income
housing assistance); 12 U.S.C. 1701q (section 202
supportive housing for the elderly); 42 U.S.C. 8013
(section 811 supportive housing for persons with
disabilities).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Emergency Rental Assistance Program
(ERAP) was available) and is not
informed by eviction prevention
programs. The commenter also said that
HUD does not consider alternative
approaches to repayment agreements,
hardship exemptions, and state and
local law programs. Commenters stated
that it is challenging to strike a fair and
effective balance between preventing
unjust evictions and ensuring landlords
receive timely payment, but it is
essential to consider the differing
viewpoints.
Another commenter stated that HUD’s
findings and certifications lacked
support. The commenter said that HUD
certifies that the benefits justify the
costs of the rule but fails to consider all
the necessary costs. Additionally, the
commenter said HUD overstates within
its Improving Regulations and
Regulatory review, however,
‘‘mandating extended notice periods for
a subset of federal assisted housing
programs does not reduce
administrative burdens, maintain
flexibility for covered entities, nor
increase freedom of choice for the
public.’’
A commenter said that HUD
mentioned in the proposed rule that it
cannot identify public data on the
number of people in subsidized housing
who experience eviction; however, HUD
is proposing a rule to solve the problem.
The commenter stated, ‘‘this would
seem to be the perfect example of a
solution in search of a problem.’’
Another commenter said the rule will
have a significant impact on HUD’s
estimate of over 2,000 PHAs and
unknown number of PBRA owners. The
commenter stated that ‘‘the Evidence
Act creates requirements and goals for
federal agencies to use data-driven,
evidence-based decision making. This
proposed rule is not based on sound,
directly relevant data and evidence.’’
The commenter further stated that the
rule has unsupported conclusions, for
example, HUD indicates that the extend
notice period ‘‘may’’ assist PHAs and
owners to resolve arrears, that there is
a causal relationship between longer
notice period and eviction filings, and
HUD overestimates the impact of the 30day notice under the CARES Act since
it included ERAP which provided
significant resources to prevent
evictions.
Additionally, a commenter stated that
the premise of the rule is misguided
because it implies that PHAs and
section 8 properties are bias against
people of color, women, and families
with children, but the rule does not
state why tenants were evicted nor the
number of opportunities tenants were
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
given before being evicted. The
commenter said that the study cited 47
in the proposed rule would probably
show that more people of color, women,
and families with children live in public
housing and so the results are skewed.
The commenter also said the ‘‘biased
evictions are not the case in well-run
federally funded housing organizations
that have federal oversight and an
obligation to be fair and unbiased.’’
HUD Response: HUD recognizes that
the impacts of evictions have been
closely analyzed by researchers and
studies have shown different results
based on the data used and research
methods. HUD also acknowledges that
collecting complete and comprehensive
data on evictions can be extremely
difficult.48 Thus, studies and research
may not provide the complete picture of
what is occurring in communities across
the country.
According to data from the Census’
Household Pulse Survey from March
2024, nearly 5 million renter
households in the United States are
behind on their rent and nearly 2
million fear eviction in the next 2
months.49 Preliminary analysis of
HUD’s Eviction Protection Grant
Program suggests that HUD-assisted
tenants that ‘‘secured or maintained
rental assistance’’ through legal
assistance had an average case length of
150 days. HUD believes that it is
reasonable to surmise that some portion
of these clients received assistance in
recertifying or obtaining their Federal
assistance, and that the process of doing
so took at least 30 days.
HUD appreciates the commenters for
encouraging HUD to use research and
data for evidence-based policy. Based
on the existing research, HUD believes
the 30-day notification requirement will
benefit tenants and owners.
C. Suggested Changes and Clarifications
to the Rule
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Housing Cooperatives
Many commenters urged HUD to
exempt housing cooperatives from the
rule. Some commenters urged HUD to
reconsider implementing the rule
because of the negative effects it could
have on housing cooperatives.
47 Hepburn, P., Louis, R., & Desmond, M., Racial
and Gender Disparities among Evicted Americans.
Sociological Science 7, 657 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.15195/v7.a27.
48 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Report to Congress on the Feasibility
of Creating a National Evictions Database. HUD
USER (2021). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/
publications/Eviction-Database-Feasibility-Reportto-Congress-2021.html.
49 HUD analysis of data collected between March
5, 2024 and April 1, 2024 through the Census
Household Pulse Survey.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
Commenters asked HUD to exempt
housing cooperatives because the rule
would negatively impact operations and
have unintended consequences for
housing cooperatives. A commenter
stated that implementing the rule is not
a financially sound decision. Another
commenter stated that many
cooperatives who have mortgages with
HUD would be negatively impacted
financially causing late payments and
fees, which would then cause credit
issues for having a late payment history.
Some commenters stated that the rule
would be devastating to cooperative
agreements and many rental properties
by restricting cash flow and threatening
financial stability. Additionally, many
cooperatives with HUD-backed
mortgages will be threatened by late
payments due to tenants knowing they
have 30 days before legal action is
initiated. A commenter said that
cooperatives already suffer from
restrictions that support the bad habits
of members, and implementing this rule
would impose another hardship
restriction.
A commenter stated that the rule
would not help the Black and Brown
community, but instead have a negative
ripple effect. The commenter stated that
cooperative housing allows for the Black
community to have affordable housing
that is clean, safe, and beautiful,
however, finalizing the rule ‘‘punishes
affordable housing and has a disparate
impact on Black groups.’’ The
commenter said that the rule will either
cause more land grab and gentrification
or vacant land that will go to waste.
Another commenter asked HUD to not
include housing cooperatives because
cooperatives have stated payment terms
that are different from those being
proposed. One commenter residing in a
housing cooperative in Pennsylvania
said that their rentals provide valuable
revenue which they need to pay bills,
and having a 30-day notice requirement
would negatively impact their ability to
pay their housing cooperative bills.
Many commenters stated that housing
cooperatives are unique or different
from other types of housing including
homeowner associations and
community developments. A
commenter stated that housing
cooperatives have shareholders of the
corporation and follow certain laws and
documents that are different from other
housing types. One commenter stated
that housing cooperatives should be
able to continue their practice under the
Occupancy Agreement and their bylaws. Commenters also stated that
owners/members in a housing
cooperative are different from the
relationship between tenants and for-
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101291
profit corporations. Similarly,
commenters stated that housing
cooperative corporations are different
from conventional apartments or rental
properties, they are non-profit and do
not use model leases.
A commenter requested HUD to
exclude housing cooperatives
explaining that they are unique since
they are corporations owned by
residents and the rule could
compromise adequate enforcement. The
commenter stated that when a resident
does not meet their financial obligations
to the corporation, the burden falls on
the other residents and therefore it is
important that boards of these
corporations are able to adequately
enforce collections of various fees. A
commenter stated that non-paying
members cause confusion and criminal
activity in the community. Additionally,
the commenter said that non-paying
members manipulate courts and
programs designed to assist those who
have fallen on hard times. One
commenter said the rule would be a
burden on low-income housing
properties explaining that once
members are behind 30-days, they will
be 60 days behind when receiving the
30-day notice. Another commenter
explained that the funds housing
cooperatives receive are important for
healthy financial cash flow in order to
protect member equity and provide
appropriate capital reserve funding. The
commenter stated that during the
COVID pandemic there was abuse of the
rent abatement program which caused
legal proceedings to be prolonged and
placed several below market interest
rate cooperatives in tough financial
positions and they are still trying to
recover from.
One commenter stated that one of the
reasons housing cooperatives should be
exempt is because they have
successfully paid off four HUD
mortgages between 1965–1968.
Additionally, the commenter stated that
the rule would conflict with the
cooperative’s Articles of Incorporation
which states that the corporation
operates on a non-profit basis, that the
monthly assessment only covers the
actual operating costs, and that the
Board makes financial decisions for the
property and has the same interest in
monthly low assessments.
Many commenters stated that the
cooperative housing model should be
exempt since the terms of the
Occupancy Agreement provided by
HUD states that collection procedures
can be initiated after 5 to 10 days;
however, legal proceedings normally
begin around the 7th or 12th of the
month and ‘‘if legal processing cannot
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101292
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
start until the end of the month, the
non-profit cash flow and delinquencies
will jeopardize HUD insured mortgages,
or other blanket lending requirements.’’
One commenter stated that payment
requirements are setup so that
cooperatives and landlords are able to
pay their bills, employees, and vendors
and these things still need to be paid
when members or renters do not pay.
HUD Response: HUD clarifies in this
rule that only housing cooperatives
receiving Section 8 PBRA assistance are
subject to this rule. HUD recognizes that
housing cooperatives that receive
Section 8 PBRA assistance have an
unusual ownership structure that
provides many benefits; however, that
does not relieve them of the basic
obligations that landlords hold,
including the requirements from this
rule. Additionally, in implementing this
rule, HUD has taken a balanced
approach to ensure housing providers
are not overly burdened and tenants are
given enough time to cure their
nonpayment of rent.
Changes to the Lease, Notice, and Rule
A commenter asked HUD to provide
a model notice with both English and
Spanish and to provide clarification
about ‘‘the date by which a tenant must
pay to avoid the filing of an eviction.’’
The commenter said that asking for a
specific expiration date is concerning
since some states like California
calculate a cure date based on state laws
which must be interpreted and therefore
may be asking for legal advice.
Additionally, the commenter asked
HUD to clarify in the model lease that
the model documents, sample language,
and best practices are permissive and
not mandatory. A commenter asked how
to require leases to include information
about how to contact HUD for disputes
with PHAs to clarify rent calculations.
A commenter asked for HUD to not
leave room for misinterpretation by
stating in the rule ‘‘before an eviction
can be filed.’’ Another commenter said
due diligence should be required ‘‘so
that actual cost to this regulatory change
would cost PHA’s in terms of their
operating losses at a national level.’’
Additionally, a commenter said that the
rule is very vague and suggested a 30day restriction from the date which the
rent was due instead of the date of
initial filing.
A commenter also asked HUD to
proactively oversee implementation of
the rule and create a mechanism for
tenants to report instances of noncompliance. The commenter noted that
HUD could strengthen implementation
of the rule by amending the model PHA
lease, and the multifamily standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
lease, to expressly state that a landlord’s
receipt of Federal financial assistance
waives the landlord’s ability to utilize a
rent deposit requirement under state
law, to prevent a tenant from being
heard on the defense that they did not
receive the required notice pursuant to
Federal law.
HUD Response: HUD acknowledges
the commenters’ request for more
specificity in the final rule and
associated documents (i.e., model lease,
notice), including providing model
notices in English and in Spanish. HUD
will draft and provide model notices
and language (in English and Spanish)
that PHAs and owners can include in
their leases; however, HUD has
determined that the term ‘‘model’’ is
sufficient for PHAs and owners to
understand that it is not mandatory.
Based on the public comments
regarding the clarification of dates, HUD
is revising the rule to clarify that PHAs
and owners must not provide tenants
with a termination notice prior to the
day after the rent is due according to the
lease. The rule also clarifies that PHAs
and owners must not proceed with
filing a formal judicial eviction if the
household pays the alleged amount of
rent owed within the 30-day notification
period. HUD also agrees to include
recommended language: ‘‘before an
eviction for nonpayment of rent can be
filed’’ in 24 CFR 247.4, 880.606,
880.607, 884.215, 884.216, 886.127,
886.327, 891.425, and 966.4.
Content Within the 30-Day Notices
Commenters supported the
requirement that the notice include
information on tenants’ right to recertify
income, apply for a minimum rent
hardship exemption, request a change
from flat rent to an income-based rent,
tenants’ right to request reasonable
accommodations and a grievance or
appeals hearing. Several commenters
also stated that the notice should be
required to include additional
information and instructions on how to
cure nonpayment of rent violations and
avoid commencement of a formal
judicial eviction proceeding. One
commenter urged HUD to require that
the notice include contact information
for each of the areas. Another
commenter suggested that the notice
include information on how to
restructure rent payments.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the
comments. The rule requires that the 30day notice include instructions on how
tenants can cure lease violations for
nonpayment of rent; specifically,
information on how much back rent and
arrearages the tenant owes, information
on how to pay that rent and any
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
arrearages, and information specific to
HUD programs on how to adjust rent
owed if a tenant’s situation has changed.
The rule also requires that the 30-day
notice include information on how
tenants can recertify their income, and
how tenants can request a minimum
rent hardship exemption or request to
switch from flat rent to income-based
rent. In practice, a tenant cures a lease
violation for non-payment by paying the
back rent owed. These instructions will
allow tenants to clearly understand how
to take steps to avoid the termination of
their lease—which in most cases allow
tenants and housing providers to avoid
an eviction. HUD believes that this is
sufficient to ensure that tenants have the
necessary information to cure any
nonpayment issues and/or request
hardship exemptions.
Notice Content: Reasonable
Accommodations
Commenters urged HUD to require,
rather than suggest, the notice include
information on tenants’ right to request
reasonable accommodations and
information of how to make that request
including a point of contact. A
commenter noted that providing
information on reasonable
accommodation procedures in the
notice would help facilitate the
accommodations and advance the
proposed rule’s goal of curtailing
preventable and unnecessary evictions.
Another commenter stated that
reasonable accommodations should be
provided for those who receive public
benefits because some recipients receive
their money after the first of the month
and may not be able to afford late fees.
Additionally, a commenter urged HUD
to include an additional provision in
amended 24 CFR 247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6),
884.216(d), and 966.4(l)(3)(ii) that
mandates that owners and PHAs
provide a clear reminder in the required
30-day notice to individuals with
disabilities about their right to request
reasonable accommodations under law.
One commenter cited a 2022 HUD
report by the Office of Inspector General
recommending that HUD take additional
steps to ensure tenants and PHAs are
aware of their rights and responsibilities
with regard to reasonable
accommodation requests.50 The
commenter provided language to adopt
in each relevant regulation. A
50 HUD Office of Inspector General, ‘‘HUD Did
Not Have Adequate Policies and Procedures for
Ensuring That Public Housing Agencies Properly
Processed Requests for Reasonable
Accommodation’’ (February 2022), available at
https://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/
report/hud-did-not-have-adequate-policies-andprocedures-ensuring-public.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
commenter stated that HUD should
provide housing providers with
required—not just sample—notice
language about reasonable
accommodations similar to
implementation of HUD Form 5380,
Notice of Occupancy Rights under
VAWA.
HUD Response: This final rule does
not require that the 30-day notice
include information on tenants’ right to
request a reasonable accommodation;
however, HUD plans to provide
guidance on reasonable
accommodations that PHAs and owners
can use to assist tenants. Additionally,
HUD will not replace sample notice
language with a required notice
language similar to HUD Form 5380.
Informing tenants of their right to
reasonable accommodation is already an
existing requirement and tenants are
notified of their right at admission and
annually. HUD will provide guidance
and continue to encourage PHAs and
owners to advise individuals of their
right to request reasonable
accommodations, include information
on how individuals with disabilities can
request reasonable accommodation, and
include a point of contact for reasonable
accommodation requests. As mentioned
in the proposed rule, there are instances
in which a tenant may be entitled to a
reasonable accommodation in cases of
non-payment of rent. For example, if a
housing provider usually requires rent
be paid on the 1st of the month, but a
tenant receives disability-related
government assistance later in the
month, the housing provider may be
required to accept a tenant’s request to
pay rent on this later date as a
reasonable accommodation.51
51 See Fair Housing for Individuals with Mental
Health, Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities:
A Guide for Housing Providers (‘‘What are
reasonable accommodations and modifications?
. . . Asking to change the due date for rent until
after receipt of a social security disability heck or
a short- or long-term disability payment . . .’’),
available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/
FHEO/images/MD%20Fact%20Sheet%20%20HP.pdf. See also Initial Decision and Consent
Order, HUD v. Park Regency LLC et al. (October 29,
2020), available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/
FHEO/images/20HUDOHA_InitDecisionConsent.
pdf (providing the reasonable accommodation of a
fee-free rent payment grace period until the 6th of
each month and paying $27,000 to complainant);
Fair Hous. Rts. Ctr. in Se. Pennsylvania v. Morgan
Properties Mgmt. Co., LLC, 2017 WL 1326240, at *4
(E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2017) (Denying defendants’
motion for judgement and allowing a civil rights
suit to proceed where defendant, the owner of three
apartment buildings, refused to agree to accept
monthly rent payments on a later date each month
where the later monthly payment timing was due
to the plaintiffs’ disability and receipt of financial
disability benefits.); Charge of Discrimination, HUD
v. Morbach et al. (March 20, 2006), available at
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_
14412.PDF.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
Notice Content: Balance Information
A commenter stated that the notice
should be required to include an
itemized description of the delinquent
amount. Another commenter urged
HUD to require the notice to specify the
particular period for which the arrears
are due, broken down specifically by
month. The commenter noted that
tenants’ rent liability is not static and
can vary significantly from month to
month and therefore a monthly
breakdown would allow tenants the
opportunity to remedy any nonpayment
by challenging or disputing their
calculated rent share for a specific
period.
One commenter noted that only 24
CFR 247.4 requires that the notice state
the balance amount but that the other
regulations listed in the proposed rule
do not require specific information
about the rental amount due and when
it was calculated. The commenter
recommended amending 24 CFR
880.607, 884.216, and 966.4, and any
other relevant regulations, to include a
similar specificity requirement for the
other programs.
Several commenters stated that the
final rule should state that ‘‘rent’’ owed
does not include arrearages charges
such as fines for late payments nor fees
such as processing and attorney’s fees,
pet fees, insurance fees, and high-risk
fees. A commenter noted that many
landlords apply a tenant’s monthly
rental payment first to past late fees
rather than the current rent due, thus
increasing a tenant’s rental arrearage
and causing the total amount due to
balloon rapidly. Commenters suggested
that HUD clarify that the right to cure
during the 30-day notice period only
requires payment of rent excluding
other fees or charges.
HUD Response: HUD agrees to have
more specificity in the rule by amending
24 CFR 880.607, 884.216, and 966.4,
and any other relevant regulations, to
require an itemized breakdown by
month of the alleged rent owned by the
tenant, along with any other arrearages
allowed by HUD and included in the
lease, and the date by which the tenant
must pay the amount of rent owed
before a formal judicial eviction can be
filed.
Notice Content: Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA)
A few commenters stated that the rule
should require the notice to include
information on tenants’ rights under the
VAWA. A commenter stated that there
is a clear connection between domestic
violence and nonpayment of rent and it
is imperative for tenants and landlords
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101293
to understand VAWA’s protections. The
commenter also stated that the notice
and rule should make it clear that
covered landlords will not evict if the
nonpayment is the result of genderbased violence.
HUD Response: This rule does not
change any notification requirements
related to VAWA. HUD’s regulations
already require covered housing
providers to provide the VAWA notice
of rights and a self-certification form
when tenants are admitted to programs,
when there is an eviction and/or
termination notice, and when there’s a
denial of assistance. Some providers
include the notice at other junctures,
such as with recertifications.
Notice Content: Interim Recertification
and Hardship Exemption
A few commenters also stated that
each program’s regulations should
require PHAs and PBRA owners to use
HUD-created plain language templates
that inform tenants of their rights to an
interim income recertification and
hardship exemption. A commenter
noted that general information on the
annual recertification process may not
be enough to appraise the tenant of their
right to an immediate or retroactive rent
reduction. One commenter noted that
minimum rent hardship exemptions are
severely underutilized and urged HUD
to clarify how and when tenants should
be informed of minimum rent hardship
exemptions. The commenter urged HUD
to require information on PHAs’
hardship policies during admissions, at
any recertification, in all termination
notices and grievance documents, and
in the PHA’s planning documents. The
commenter also urged HUD to require
PHA planning documents to report on
the number of minimum rent
households, the number of hardship
exemption requests, and the outcomes
of those requests. Additionally, the
commenter asked HUD to require
owners and PHAs to explicitly state
what may qualify a family for a
hardship exemption in the notice.
Another commenter stated that hardship
exemption should allow for unexpected
or serious medical issues and for those
who experience a reduction in their
benefits or employment.
Some commenters stated that any
subsequent rent adjustment resulting
from an interim recertification should
be applied retroactively. A commenter
stated that the notice should also be
required to include information stating
that PHAs and owners may not evict a
household for non-payment during the
90-day period starting when the
household requested the hardship
exemption.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101294
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
HUD Response: In implementing the
rule, HUD seeks to strike the
appropriate balance that benefits tenants
and minimizes burden for PHAs and
owners as much as possible. The rule
requires that the 30-day notice include
instructions on how tenants can cure
lease violations for nonpayment of rent.
In practice, a tenant cures a lease
violation for non-payment by paying the
back rent owed. These instructions
would allow tenants to clearly
understand how to take steps to avoid
the termination of their lease—which in
most cases would then allow tenants
and housing providers to avoid an
eviction for nonpayment of rent. The
rule also requires that the 30-day notice
include information on how tenants can
recertify their income, if applicable, and
how tenants can request a minimum
rent hardship exemption if applicable.
HUD will determine what additional
guidance may be helpful to further
explain the recertification and hardship
exemption processes.
Notice Content: Legal and Rental
Assistance
Other commenters urged HUD to
require the notice to include local
nonprofit resources, agencies and
organizations that can assist with
finding new housing, financial
assistance and low-cost law firms. The
commenter stated that several major
cities have already integrated nonprofits
into their eviction proceedings with
positive results and said Philadelphia is
an example, which offers counseling
and mediation to tenants and landlords
during its eviction process.
Commenters stated that the notice
should also be required to include
information on local right to counsel
laws, fair housing rights, and tenant
rights. One commenter stated that this
would be impactful for tenants and not
an administrative burden to PHAs. A
commenter noted that even though
Maryland tenants have a right to
counsel in these cases, there is no
mechanism to ensure that termination
notices apprise public housing or
subsidized tenants of that right. Another
commenter stated that HUD should
provide sample language on this
requirement for PHAs to include in their
PHA plans.
A commenter asked HUD to include
an additional provision in amended 24
CFR 247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6), 884.216(d),
and 966.4(l)(3)(ii) that requires PHAs to
provide a current list of local
information that offers emergency
financial assistance for back rent.
HUD Response: This final rule does
not require that the 30-day notice
contain information on other, non-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
Federal, legal and rental assistance
resources. There are numerous
organizations and programs that may be
available to tenants, and it is impractical
for HUD or housing providers to provide
an exhaustive list of these resources.
However, HUD encourages PHAs and
owners, and sees it as beneficial to both
parties, to share with tenants their
knowledge of any rental assistance
resources.
Accessibility
Commenters stated that the
information in the notice, lease
amendments, and notification of lease
changes should be provided in plain
language. Commenters also suggested
that each program regulation require the
notice to be provided in an accessible
format for individuals with disabilities
and/or translated formats that provide
meaningful access for people with
limited English proficiency. A few
commenters stated that the notice must
be translated into the language spoken
by the tenants of a given assisted unit,
and one commenter stated that backup
oral interpretation should also be
provided. Additionally, a commenter
noted that some PHAs require
translation of eviction notices and that
eviction notices, and accompanying
materials, largely consist of form
documents that may be translated a
single time for the benefit of entire
language groups.
A commenter commended HUD for
seeking to ensure that notice is issued
by means interpretable by people with
disabilities or LEP, such as
electronically through screen readers,
tactually through Braille, and in
languages other than English. Another
commenter urged HUD to not just
include information in the preamble
about language access, but to also
include appropriate language in the
regulations to ensure that vital
documents are translated, and that
backup oral interpretation is available.
One commenter stated that the
regulatory text must refer to the
nondiscrimination requirements in title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.
A commenter recommended HUD
review how the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services seeks to
achieve effective communication for
people with disabilities, as outlined in
‘‘NPPM Part 92, Nondiscrimination in
Health Programs and Activities.’’ The
commenter recommended a list of
additional ways housing providers can
ensure their communications are
accessible.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
HUD Response: Under section 504
and HUD’s section 504 regulations, and
title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and
implementing regulations, PHAs and
owners have an obligation to take
appropriate steps to ensure effective
communication with individuals with
disabilities. PHAs and owners are
required to take appropriate steps that
may be necessary to ensure that
communications with individuals with
disabilities are as effective as
communications with individuals
without disabilities. This includes the
provision of appropriate auxiliary aids
and services where necessary to afford
an individual with a disability an equal
opportunity to participate in, and enjoy
the benefits of, a program, service, or
activity. This requirement applies to all
materials, notices, and communications
to tenants. PHAs and owners must give
primary consideration to the auxiliary
aids and services preferred by the
individual with a disability.
Additionally, PHAs, owners and
managers must also continue to take
reasonable steps to ensure meaningful
access to their programs, services, and
activities to individuals with LEP. The
regulations at 24 CFR part 5, including
the applicable civil rights requirements
for language access and effective
communication, apply even without a
specific cross-reference to those
protections in these regulations.
Repayment Agreements
Several commenters stated that the
final rule should require, rather than
recommend, PHA and PBRA owners to
enter into or include an offer to
negotiate a reasonable rental repayment
agreement. A commenter stated its
concern that owners and PHAs may not
universally comply with recommended
best practices and urged HUD to require
repayment plans. Another commenter
stated that by giving landlords sole
discretion to accept or reject repayment
plans, HUD invites the risk that
landlords will exercise this option in
biased or even discriminatory ways
against tenants. A commenter noted that
under the proposed rule, owners may
require the tenant to pay a lump sum to
cure the back rent, which presents a
significant cost burden to the lowest
income households.
A commenter stated that 30 days is
not sufficient for extremely low-income
households to cure the amount of back
rent owed. The commenter stated that
requiring reasonable rental repayment
agreements is in line with HUD’s stated
goal of reducing preventable evictions
for non-payment of rent. A commenter
noted that requiring repayment plans is
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
more cost-effective for housing
providers because it will allow tenants
to cure back rent rather than executing
an eviction through the judicial system.
One commenter pointed to the proposed
rule’s preamble as justification for
required reasonable rental agreements.
One commenter specifically requested
HUD to amend the language in 24 CFR
247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6), 884.216(d), and
966.4(l)(3)(ii) to specify that owners may
not require a lump sum payment alone,
but rather enter a repayment plan or a
combination of the two.
Several commenters urged HUD to
create a model repayment plan
document to provide to covered
landlords. Commenters pointed to
HUD’s model repayment agreement for
PHA-owned units and public housing
found in PIH Notice 2018–28 as a model
for what commenters stated should be
included in this rule. Commenters
stated that the repayment plan should
be affordable meaning monthly
repayment plus current rent does not
exceed 40% of household income. The
commenters stated that the model
repayment plan document should
include the amount of rent owed
(excluding arrearages charges, fines, and
fees), the date the back rent is
calculated, the amount to be paid each
month broken down by back rent and
current rent and which must not exceed
40% of the household’s adjusted
income, the period of the repayment
plan, and a rent ledger. The commenters
stated that the suggested model
repayment plan must be renegotiated
and restructured if the household’s
adjusted income decreases by 10% or
more and the repayment plan must not
require lump sum repayments.
Commenters stated that the
repayment agreements must not require
lump sum repayments. Another
commenter stated that when a
household demonstrates insufficient
income the repayment plan should be
free of additional arrearages, such a late
fees, attorney’s fees, or administrative
fees and a PHA or owner should
suspend the agreement for a set period
of time in the household encounters
difficulty making a payment and should
establish quarterly check-ins during the
suspension period. Additionally, a
commenter provided language to
include in the regulatory text. Another
commenter stated that the model
repayment plan should be in accordance
with Federal civil rights law to ensure
meaningful access so that those with
limited English proficiency may enter
into repayment agreements.
HUD Response: While this rule will
not require repayment plans, HUD
strongly encourages the use of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
repayment plans and reiterates that
PHAs and owners have flexibility to
design them to be reasonable.
Repayment plans are just one way for
tenants to cure their nonpayment of rent
and this rule is focusing particularly on
notification requirements. HUD plans to
issue updated repayment agreement
guidance in the future, and HUD plans
for such guidance to incorporate the
requirements of Federal civil rights
laws, including outlining obligations to
ensure meaningful access to those with
LEP.
Interaction With State Law
A commenter representing legal
service providers in Florida said that
Florida residents will not enjoy the
protections of this rule. Florida State
law requires tenants to pay past due rent
into a court registry before the court will
hear any defense other than payment.
The commenter explained that a court
will proceed with an eviction case even
if the landlord’s notice is defective if the
tenant has not paid all past due rent into
the registry. The commenter pointed to
a case that arose while the CARES Act
30-day notice requirement was in place.
In that case, the landlord gave a 10-day
eviction notice to a Section 8 PBRA
tenant. The tenant claimed the case
should be dismissed for ineffective
notice because the CARES Act should
preempt Florida law, but the court
disagreed and the tenant was evicted.
The commenter attached a HUD
determination which stated that the
Florida eviction process deprives
tenants of due process.
The commenter urged HUD to clarify
and strengthen the rule to ensure
landlords cannot subvert it by using
state eviction laws by adding language
stating that landlords can take no action
to evict a tenant before the 30-day notice
expires. The commenter stated that the
additional language should state that a
landlord cannot take any action which
would prevent a tenant from being
heard on the defense that they did not
receive the 30-day notice, or that the
tenant must have the ability to be heard
by a court and have the court adjudicate
the merits of this defense. The
commenter also urged HUD to include
in the regulations that covered landlords
are prohibited from using state eviction
procedures to keep tenants from
challenging the landlord’s
noncompliance with the regulations.
Commenters stated that the rule
should clarify that tenants have the right
to cure a nonpayment lease violation
within 30 days of the termination
notice. A commenter urged HUD to
include language in the final rule (to 24
CFR parts 247 (§ 247.4), 884 (§ 886.127),
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101295
891 (§ 891.425), and 966 (§ 966.4))
clarifying that tenants have 30 days to
cure the nonpayment of rent before a
landlord may terminate the lease and
that the right to cure preempts any State
law that provides less protection to
tenants. The commenter stated that in
Delaware there is no right of redemption
nor a minimum arrears before landlords
may seek possession, meaning tenants
may still be evicted if they owe $1 or if
they pay their full arrears after the 5-day
statutory period, as long as landlords
wait 30 days to file the eviction case.
The commenter noted that the CARES
Act language does not allow for 30 days
to cure but only for 30 days to vacate
and that some PHAs and landlord
attorneys maintain that tenants only
have the 5-day statutory period to pay
the full arrears. The commenter noted
that 5 days is insufficient time for
tenants to seek rent assistance or
negotiate a repayment plan. The
commenter also stated that adding
language to clarify that tenants have 30
days to cure and not just 30 days for
notice of termination will avoid leaving
it to state courts to determine HUD’s
intent and avoid different
interpretations in different states.
Additionally, a commenter stated that
Ohio does not have a right to
redemption and landlords can pursue
eviction even if tenants pay the full
amount they owe. The commenter
stated that landlords use this rule to
pursue evictions against tenants they
deem problematic and pointed to
research stating that owners use this
method to evade bans on discriminatory
and retaliatory evictions.52 The
commenter also urged HUD to clarify
that landlords must accept payments for
rental arrears.
Another commenter stated that the
final rule should clarify that in nonpayment cases, tenants have the full 30
days to cure the violation. The
commenter noted that the rule does not
clarify whether tenants have 30 days to
vacate or cure. The commenter noted
that the right to cure is especially
important because not all state landlordtenant schemes include a right to cure.
HUD Response: HUD has revised the
rule to specify that a PHA or owner
must not provide tenants with a
termination notice before the day after
the rent is due according to the lease.
Also, a PHA or owner must not proceed
with filing an eviction if the tenant pays
52 The commenter cites to University of
Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs,
‘‘The Illusion of Choice: Evictions and Profit in
North Minneapolis’’ (June 2019), available at
https://evictions.cura.umn.edu/sites/
evictions.cura.umn.edu/files/2023-04/Illusion-ofChoice-full-report-web-v2.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101296
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
the alleged amount of rent owed within
the 30-day notification period.
Additionally, HUD revised the rule to
specifically state that a 30-day notice
must be given before a formal judicial
eviction is filed.
The final rule is applicable to the
specified HUD programs regardless of
state or local law. HUD believes that the
language in the rule clearly prohibits
PHAs and owners from filing an
eviction or taking other actions to
remove the tenant participating in
specified HUD programs without
providing 30-day notice. If a PHA or
owner prevents a tenant from receiving
30-day notice, the PHA and owner
would not be in compliance with HUD
regulations and would be subject to
corrective action.
Evictions Based on Reasons Other Than
Nonpayment
Commenters urged HUD to require 30day notice for lease violations beyond
nonpayment of rent. A commenter
urged HUD to include in this rule
causes of eviction that affect elderly
adults beyond nonpayment of rent.
Another commenter urged HUD to
require 30-day notice for ‘‘material
noncompliance with the lease or
material failure to carry out
obligations’’. The commenter said that
older tenants may face eviction because
disability or infirmity prevents them
from meeting lease obligations such as
maintaining their unit in a clean
condition. In such cases, tenants may be
entitled to reasonable accommodation
but need sufficient notice to seek
assistance or cure potential lease
violations.
Another commenter stated that the
30-day notice requirement should apply
in all cases, especially where a tenant’s
breach does not involve criminal
conduct or harm to others, such as
failure to timely certify eligibility or
report income changes, failure to pass
household cleanliness inspection,
possession of unauthorized pets,
smoking on premises, and permitting
unauthorized occupants to reside in the
household. The commenter stated that
giving tenants opportunities to correct
these types of breaches would help
tenants retain stable and affordable
housing and save money for landlords
by avoiding eviction costs. The
commenter noted that some sources
such as the Congressional Research
Service and certain courts have
interpreted the CARES Act to require
30-day notice for noncompliance as well
as nonpayment. A commenter said that
evictions premised on alleged lease
violations often involve alleged program
violations, including failure to recertify
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
and the additional notice period can
give tenants time to correct those
violations and avoid an eviction filing.
A commenter said that the rule
conflicts with the plain language of the
CARES Act because it only focuses on
nonpayment of rent. The commenter
referred to 15 U.S.C. 9058(c) and said it
prohibited covered dwellings from
requiring tenants to ‘‘vacate the covered
dwelling unit before the date on which
the lessor provides the tenant with
notice to vacate.’’ The commenter cited
Arvada Village Gardens LP v. Garate,
529 P.3d 105, 108 (Colo. 2023) and said
that unlike the 120-moratorium, the
provision did not expire in June of 2020.
The commenter stated that the rule did
not address the conflict in scope
between the rule and the CARES Act,
and the final rule should apply 15
U.S.C. 9058(c) to all evictions for all
covered properties. If not, the
commenter said the rule could cause
improper and unpredictable evictions.
Additionally, a commenter stated that
many HUD programs already require a
30-day notice to initiate ‘‘other good
cause’’ evictions and that it is confusing
for tenant and property managers that
different types of eviction require
different notice lengths. Another
commenter, in opposition to the rule,
suggested that the rule address
situations where eviction is necessary
due to violence or lease violations an
urged HUD to state that lease violations
that endanger tenants and staff are not
protected by nonpayment status.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates
these comments. Comments that go
beyond evictions for nonpayment of
rent are outside of the scope of this
rulemaking, but HUD will consider
these suggestions for the future.
Longer Notice Period
Some commenters noted their support
for a longer notice period of 60 or 90
days to provide more time for tenants to
apply for assistance, resolve tenancy
issues, earn additional funds, or find
alternative housing. A commenter noted
that the notices period would ideally be
45–60 days because those with
disabilities and seniors need more time
to find affordable housing. Another
commenter said a longer notice period
is critical for older adults who need
more time to manage and navigate
issues.
A commenter stated that the rule
should be extended to 60 days because
uniform, longer notice periods support
housing stability and reduce
preventable evictions and would
guarantee that tenants have time to rally
additional resources to prevent an
eviction filing. Another commenter
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
noted that since a tenant’s rent in HUDsubsidized housing depends on their
income, the amount should, by
definition, never be unaffordable for the
tenant and tenants often just need time
to meet with their property manager to
file an Interim Recertification which
addresses new life circumstances such
as job loss, increase in medical
expenses, sudden disability, or a
reduction in household size. The
commenter said that the interim
recertification process can be time
intensive because tenants need to gather
and transmit documentation which
requires access to technology,
coordination with family, caregivers,
and advocates, and many in-person trips
to employment, benefits, or property
management officers all of which may
be more difficult for tenants who are
elderly, disabled, or have limited
English proficiency.
The commenter also stated that
property managers are responsible for
overseeing hundreds of recertifications
and require several weeks to finalize
paperwork, return it to the tenant for
signature, formally adjust the rent
internally, and provide the tenant with
an updated and corrected rent
breakdown. The commenter noted that
it is similarly time consuming to apply
for grant and loan programs that cover
arrears, and it may take weeks for funds
to be approved and disbursed. The
commenter said the 60-day period is
critical for tenants to request and obtain
rent adjustments and apply for and
obtain rent arrears assistance.
Additionally, the commenter stated
that 60-day notice is vital for tenants to
navigate the eviction process including
seeking legal advice or representation,
preparing to take time off work for court
appearances, arranging childcare,
mobilizing family members accompany
them to court, filing accommodation
requests with the court, or requesting
court translators.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the
commenters’ feedback to have a longer
notice period; however, HUD maintains
that 30 days is a sufficient amount of
time for tenants to cure their
nonpayment of rent violations while
ensuring PHAs and owners can operate
effectively. HUD considered several
alternatives to the 30-day time period
and ultimately decided that a 30-day
notice period best balances both tenants’
interests and PHAs’ and owners’
reliance in administering their
programs.
Emergencies
A commenter noted the rule’s
provision instructing the Secretary to
tailor requirements and guidance in
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
response to presidentially declared
national emergencies and stated that the
provision should also apply to
presidentially declared disasters. One
commenter provided model language to
include in the regulation and urged
HUD to track the language in the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (‘‘Stafford
Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 5121, which provides
language for natural and environmental
disasters which are more likely to
impact HUD tenants.
Another commenter asked HUD to
remove the language in amended 24
CFR 247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6), 884.216(d),
and 966.4(l)(3)(ii) that only allows
information to be listed by the Secretary
in the event of a Presidential declaration
of a national emergency and asked that
the Secretary’s power not be limited to
the specific circumstances of a
Presidential declaration of a national
emergency. Commenters also noted that
the tenant eviction protections should
go into effect when a governor issues a
disaster declaration. A commenter noted
that the time between when a governor
requests the President to declare a
Presidentially Declared Disaster and
when the disaster occurs can vary
widely.
A commenter noted that the proposed
rule gives the Secretary discretion to
determine whether PHAs would be
required to notify tenants of Federal
rental assistance. The commenter stated
that many local communities also have
rental assistance. Several commenters
stated that the final rule should require
the notice to include information on any
available state, local, or charitable rental
assistance programs, anti-eviction
resources, and local legal services.
One commenter said the proposed
rule removed a requirement that was in
the interim final rule that PHAs and
owners notify tenants of available
Federal emergency rental assistance
funds. The commenter asked that the
final rule include a provision in
amended 24 CFR 247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6),
884.216(d), and 966.4(l)(3)(ii) that
requires PHAs to provide a current list
of local information that offers
emergency financial assistance to the
tenant to cure the back rent in addition
to any additional information deemed
necessary by the Secretary. The
commenter noted that this would give
tenants time to seek rental assistance
and would promote coordination and
resource sharing between PHAs and
local social service agencies which
would benefit renters in PHA programs
outside the scope of this rule.
HUD Response: Unlike the interim
final rule, this rule provides critical
protections to tenants irrespective of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
existence of a national emergency. This
provides more predictability for tenants
to receive adequate notice to address
rents they owe and less confusion for
PHAs and owners when implementing
the rule. In crafting this rule, HUD
sought to create greater flexibility to
require PHAs and owners to provide
information to tenants, as determined by
the Secretary, that is both relevant and
tailored to the circumstances of a
national emergency. At this time HUD
will not require PHAs and owners to
provide specific information to tenants
in the event of a presidentially declared
emergency, but provides flexibility in
this rule for HUD to require information
that can meet the needs of a specific
national emergency.
Implementation
A few commenters stated their
support for incorporating this rule into
the model lease. A commenter noted
that the process of amending leases will
take almost 18 months and
recommended that HUD specify the
final rule’s notice requirements becomes
binding on PHAs and owners on the
effective date of the rule, not when
leases are finally amended. The
commenter stated that this approach
will avoid confusion and address
tenants’ urgent need for the additional
notice time.
A commenter stated that the
implementation timeline is longer than
necessary considering that owners and
PHAs have already had to comply with
the 30-day notice requirement in the
interim final rule. The commenter asked
that HUD shorten the time period for
compliance to maximize protections
under the rule and asked that the 30-day
notice go into effect immediately
regardless of explicit changes in leases.
Another commenter noted its concern
for the preventable evictions that might
take place before this final rule is
finalized, and during the 18 months
provided for PHA compliance and 26
months for PBRA compliance. The
commenter urged HUD to expedite the
implementation of the final rule and
questioned the necessity of so much
time for PHAs to revise leases or for
HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing
Programs to devise a model lease for
PBRA programs. A commenter noted
that HUD’s proposal to provide PHA’s
with 18 months to comply with the rule
makes the rule far more feasible.
Additionally, a commenter
recommended that HUD clarify its
process for ensuring compliance with
the final rule and the actions HUD will
take in the event of noncompliance. The
commenter recommended HUD update
its existing oversight systems or
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101297
assessing compliance through a random
pull of tenant files, similar to what HUD
will undertake for assessing VAWA
compliance. Another commenter asked
HUD to proactively oversee
implementation of the rule and create a
mechanism for tenants to report
instances of non-compliance. The
commenter noted that HUD could
strengthen implementation of the rule
by amending the model PHA lease and
the multifamily standard lease to
expressly state that a landlord’s receipt
of Federal financial assistance waives
the landlord’s ability to utilize a rent
deposit requirement under state law to
prevent a tenant from being heard on
the defense that they did not receive the
required notice pursuant to Federal law.
One commenter urged HUD to add
language to the rule noting that the HUD
Occupancy Handbook 4350.3 and PHA
Admissions and Continued Occupancy
(ACOP) Policies will be updated to
reflect this rule. The commenter stated
that the Franklin County Municipal
Court routinely looks to the HUD
Handbook as the proper interpretation
of HUD regulations and if it is not
updated to reflect the rule, the court
could be misled as to the notice
requirements on any given eviction
case. The commenter also noted that
public housing authorities are governed
by their ACOPs which should be
updated to ensure clarity and
consistency by all PHAs and that PHA
employees are informed as to their
obligations when pursuing allegations
related to nonpayment by a tenant.
Additionally, a commenter urged
HUD to collect data on evictions and
race, ethnicity, age, income, and other
factors and urged HUD to amend the
proposed rule to require reporting to
HUD of the non-payment evictions that
are initiated among participants of the
housing programs covered by the rule.
A commenter urged HUD to specify the
delivery method for the 30-day notice to
be through an accessible means to the
tenants and through certified mail with
a receipt, hand delivered to a household
member above the age of 16 with tenant
acknowledgement of the delivery.
Another commenter recommended HUD
provide guidance and technical
assistance to PHAs and owners by
providing model language which will be
especially important given that there
may be concurrent changes due to the
HOTMA regulations and PBRA model
lease changes.
HUD Response: HUD understands
that it will take time for PHAs and
owners to incorporate the 30-day notice
requirement into leases and to provide
notification that the leases will be
modified. Accordingly, HUD believes
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101298
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
that providing PHAs with an additional
18 months after the rule becomes
effective to comply with the
requirement that the lease contain a
provision or addendum incorporating
the 30-day notice requirement is an
appropriate timeframe. Since HUD will
issue model leases for PBRA programs,
this rule will provide PBRA owners
with 14 months from the date that HUD
publishes a final model lease that
complies with the rule to comply with
the requirement to update the lease.
HUD plans to issue model leases within
a year of the effective date of this rule.
HUD will also issue a Federal Register
document to advise the public once the
new model leases are available.
Requiring immediate compliance with
the final rule’s provisions to update the
lease will potentially result in
incomplete, or otherwise unsuccessful
implementation since PHAs and PBRA
owners will not have adequate time to
modify their policies or systems. Thus,
the final rule allows PHAs 18 months
from the effective date of the rule and
PBRA owners 14 months from the issue
of model leases to comply. Additionally,
as previously mentioned, 24 CFR part 5
and the applicable civil rights
requirements for language access and
effective communication apply even
without a specific cross-reference to
those protections in these regulations.
Inclusion of Other HUD Programs
Many commenters urged HUD to
include additional HUD programs in the
final rule. Commenters also stated their
support for including additional HUD
programs because it would create a
more uniform and consistent policy. A
commenter stated that the lack of
uniformity in the interim final rule has
shown the need for consistency in all
HUD housing programs. One commenter
noted that HUD has conflicting policies
given its emphasis on converting from
public housing to Project Based
Vouchers (PBVs) via Rental Assistance
Demonstration (RAD) and section 18
demolition/disposition while
highlighting protections in the public
housing sphere. The commenter noted
that this conflict signals competing
priorities to PHAs and owners.
A few commenters noted the
confusion that tenants, courts,
advocates, and property managers face
in determining which subsidy a tenant
holds and which notice rules apply, and
that a uniform requirement would be
easier for everyone to understand. One
commenter noted that making the 30day notice requirement applicable to all
HUD programs will allow tenants to
easily understand the notice they are
entitled to and whether the notice of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
termination they received is proper. A
commenter noted that it is not
uncommon for the tenants it works with
to not know what type of HUD subsidy
they receive and thus what type of
notice they are entitled to. The
commenter noted that courts and
advocates are slowed during the
eviction process because they need to
review recertification paperwork to
determine if the eviction was properly
brought. One commenter noted that
advocates will be able to broadly
advertise tenants’ right to the thirty-day
notice period.
The commenter also noted that
property managers oversee multiple
properties, each with a different subsidy
type, and are likely to make mistakes if
different subsidies have different notice
requirements. Another commenter
noted that inclusion of additional
programs will benefit landlords because
the 30-day notice will make it more
likely that a household will pay their
arrears and less likely that the landlord
will resort to costly eviction
proceedings. The commenter stated that
in Illinois, landlords pay filing fees,
service fees, and attorney fees as well as
costs associated with preparing the unit
for another tenant. The commenter also
noted that landlords continue to receive
their Housing Assistance Payment from
HUD even when tenants fall behind on
their portion of the rent.
Commenters stated that the same
factors cited by HUD as driving the need
for the proposed rule for PBRA and
public housing properties apply to other
HUD-governed subsidy types, including
HCV, PBV, and RAD. Commenters also
noted that tenants would benefit from
30-day notice regardless of their subsidy
type. One commenter gave examples of
RAD tenants being able to submit
interim recertifications and section 8
HCV tenants being able to submit a
change in income to recalculate their
rent or apply for a hardship exemption.
The commenter also stated that any
tenant can negotiate a repayment plan
and the 30-day notice will give tenants
time to do that, regardless of their HUD
subsidy. Additionally, a commenter said
that the negative impacts of eviction
affect households with HCVs and PBVs
in the same way evictions affect
households in public housing. The
commenter stated that whether this rule
protects a family may be the difference
between stability with their voucher or
eviction and subsequent loss of their
subsidy.
Several commenters stated that the
CARES Act’s 30-day notice provision
applies to all HUD-governed subsidy
types so including those same programs
in this rule will place zero or minimal
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
additional burden on housing providers.
A commenter said that the CARES Act
applies to voucher programs, and for
LIHTC properties or properties with a
federally-backed mortgage and that a 30day notice is also required where there
is housing assistance through the HOME
Investment Partnership Program.
Another commenter stated that any
additional requirements are not onerous
especially in light of the potential
benefits.
Inclusion of Other HUD Programs:
Vouchers
Some commenters said that 30 days is
not enough time and that the rule
should be extended to the Housing
Choice Voucher program. Another
commenter said that the rule should be
comprehensive and cover private
properties, and all notices should allow
for at least 60–90 days for full process.
Many commenters urged HUD to
include HCVs and PBVs in the final
rule. One commenter stated that
excluding certain HUD subsidies sets a
dangerous precedent that voucher
holders deserve a lower standard of
protection. One commenter noted that
excluding HCV programs from this rule
creates the very regulatory
inconsistencies that the rule seeks to
address and inappropriately sets a lower
standard of protection for HCV renters.
One commenter stated that not
including HCVs in this rule subverts
tenants’ rights to request a
reexamination to adjust their subsidy
because the newly calculated rent share
is not effective until 30 days after the
date of reported change and in Texas the
notice period is only 3 days. The
commenter noted that in Delaware and
nationally there are substantially more
voucher holders than public housing or
PBRA units and the impact of excluding
vouchers would be substantial. One
commenter stated that if HCV and PBRA
tenants are not included in this rule’s
protections, families with the lowest
income will face homelessness at much
higher rates, especially in Illinois where
the eviction docket is rapid and tenants
have very little time before an eviction
trial, leading to preventable evictions.
One commenter noted that landlords
cannot file an eviction against voucher
tenants while a PHA is considering a
rent adjustment request, and a 30-day
notice would help tenants maximize
their opportunity to pay the rent they
owe.
Commenters noted that HUD has
authority to include HCV and PBV
programs in the rule and one
commenter pointed HUD’s general
rulemaking authority and Secretary’s
authority to regulation good cause for
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
eviction and lease terms as support.
Another commenter said that the rule
should be comprehensive and cover
private properties, and all notices
should allow for at least 60–90 days for
full process. One commenter noted that
voucher landlords should be familiar
with the practice of satisfying notice
requirements that may not otherwise
obligate private landlords because they
have demonstrated this before as with
the VAWA requirements which voucher
landlords have had to comply with for
longer than private landlords.
A commenter stated that HUD should
consider a separate rulemaking process
to require a 30-day notice for HCVs and
PBVs because it would similarly curtail
preventable and unnecessary evictions.
One commenter stated that if HUD does
not include the voucher programs in the
final rule, it should undertake
aggressive outreach to voucher
landlords educating them about their
obligation to provide tenants with a 30day notice under the CARES Act.
HUD Response: HUD is responding to
the two sections above. This rule
focuses on public housing and projectbased rental assistance. Expanding the
rule beyond this could harm landlord
recruitment or participation for the
Housing Choice Voucher Program, and
it will be difficult to disseminate and
enforce due to established state and
local laws governing private market
tenant-landlord lease agreements. HUD
recognizes the unique challenges of the
Housing Choice Voucher program with
landlord participation decreasing over
the years due to various reasons. HUD
notes that there is no requirement in the
proposed rule that PHAs and owners
must include notification of available
emergency rental assistance funds.
Rather this final rule would provide the
flexibility to the Secretary to require this
information, or other information,
depending on the circumstances of a
given national emergency.
At this time, HUD is not considering
future rulemaking regarding a 30-day
notice requirement for other HUD
programs, including HCVs and PBVs,
but will issue rulemaking for public
comment if HUD decides to include
these programs in the future. In regard
to outreach for the 30-day notice CARES
Act requirement, HUD has previously
issued guidance for CARES Act
implementation for PHAs.53
Additionally, unlike section 202/811
owners, PBV owners do not recertify
tenant income, nor would they
necessarily know or have information
53 See CARES Act Public Housing Agencies at
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_
indian_housing/cares_act_phas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
on how a tenant can apply for a
hardship exemption pursuant to 24 CFR
5.630(b), which is required to be
explained in the notice. PHAs, not
owners, are responsible for ensuring
PBV families understand when and how
to request interim income
recertifications.
Inclusion of Other HUD Programs: RAD
and LIHTC
Several commenters stated that RAD
should be included in this rule. A
commenter stated that excluding RAD
from this rule is particularly
problematic because it gives former
public housing tenants different
protections depending on whether their
public housing is converted to PBRA or
PBVs. The commenter also said that
giving different protections based on the
property’s subsidy type is arbitrary,
fundamentally unfair, and contrary to
the RAD statutory mandate that all
former public housing tenants shall, at
a minimum, maintain the same rights
that they had prior to the RAD
conversion. One commenter stated that
excluding RAD programs contradicts
HUD’s commitment to provide uniform,
fair and equitable due process treatment
of persons displaced from federally
assisted or funded projects.
One commenter noted that if HUD
chooses not to broadly include voucher
tenants, HUD should take steps to
ensure that all former public housing
tenants get the benefit of the 30-day
notice requirement and that future RADconverted public housing tenants, at
minimum retain all their prior existing
rights applicable to public housing,
including the 30-day notice.
LIHTC
Another commenter noted that this
rule does not include housing built
under the LIHTC, private properties
being rented by section 8 HCV holders
or HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive
Housing (HUD–VASH) recipients,
housing financed with federally back
mortgage loans, or a number of other
recognized forms of federally subsidized
housing. The commenter noted that
LIHTC is one of the fastest-growing
forms of subsidized housing, and often
lacks the protections afforded to public
housing or section 8 properties. The
commenter cited a report that 58% of
extremely low-income renters in LIHTC
properties who do not receive other
rental assistance are severely costburdened and spend more than half
their income on rent. The commenter
said that for those families, an eviction
makes it nearly impossible to find
housing and all but ensures an extended
period of homelessness.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101299
HUD Response: The requirements for
properties converting under RAD are
established in the RAD Implementation
Notice (see PIH 2019–23/H2019–09 as
revised by H–2023–08/PIH 2023–19).
Since its inception, RAD sought to
continue and in some cases expand on
the fundamental public housing rights
that residents received under sections 6
and 9 of the U.S. Housing Act and 24
CFR part 964. To this end, public
housing properties converted under
RAD to either PBV or PBRA have always
been required under the RAD Notice to
provide residents not less than 14 days’
notice in the case of non-payment of
rent, reflecting the requirement under
the public housing program. Following
the publication of this rule, HUD will
amend the RAD Notice to reflect the
change that this rule is making for all
PBRA properties and to address the
requirements related to RAD PBV
conversions. HUD does not have
jurisdiction to establish rules governing
properties supported under Treasury’s
Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Program.
Additional Support and Remedies
Commenters stated that the rule
would inflict harm on tenants and PHAs
‘‘without addressing the underfunding
crisis, rising insurance costs, and
persistent rent arrears.’’ Commenters
encouraged HUD to provide additional
resources to PHAs and tenants to
address these issues by (1) allowing
PHAs to request a general waiver for the
30-day notice requirement for good
cause; (2) providing an automatic
waiver for compliance with the rule to
PHAs that already have robust tenant
protections and comparable notice
requirements already in place; (3)
creating waivers or carve-outs for PHAs
from all metrics and scoring that are
negatively affected by arrears and unit
turnovers, including PHA scores; (4)
amending TARs scoring metrics so rent
arrears with repayment agreements or
settlement agreements under negotiation
will not be counted against PHAs
accounts receivable total, and settlement
agreements for rent arrears are credited
to the PHA’s accounts receivable for the
full amount due, regardless of whether
the settlement was for a less amount; (5)
providing PHAs with additional funding
to address the administrative burden
created by the rule, and provide ERAP
funds to assist tenants in repaying
accrued rent arrears; (6) supporting the
training and oversight of third-party
owners and management companies by
providing technical assistance and other
resources and; (7) granting PHAs the
authority to forgive rent arrears or use
Federal funds to address rent shortfalls;
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101300
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
(8) providing more resources to support
legal aid.54
Additionally, a commenter said
further changes should be considered to
either raise or eliminate the threshold
for grading based on the amount of
tenant accounts receivable. A
commenter recommended that HUD
incorporate local nonprofit resources
into the rule because there is not great
awareness of these social programs
which can best protect tenants from
losing housing. Another commenter said
HUD should require housing providers
to offer options for repayment and
information on where tenants can get
financial assistance.
Several commenters stated that the
rule should prominently and clearly
state that the CARES Act 30-day notice
is still in effect for covered programs
such as vouchers, LIHTC, Housing
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS,
Housing Trust Fund, McKinney-Vento
homeless programs. A few commenters
stated that clarifying the CARES Act
requirement is crucial because there are
many owners and judges that are not
aware the requirement is still in effect
or do not enforce the rule.
A few commenters stated that HUD
should limit the housing provider’s
ability to file an eviction while the
tenant is engaged in a process to resolve
the nonpayment such as an emergency
rental assistance application or an
interim recertification. One commenter
pointed to HUD Handbook 4350.3 as
precedent for this type of action which
prevents owners from evicting tenants
where the owner decides to delay
processing a tenant’s interim
recertification request.
A commenter stated that when a
resident has a rent assistance
application pending or a change in
income or housing composition pending
then the 30-day notice period should be
tolled until the determination of
eligibility for assistance has been
completed or only sent when the rent
adjustment determination is complete
and provided to the resident. The
commenter stated that PHAs and PBRA
owners should be required to cooperate
with rent assistance programs in the
application process and to accept rent
assistance funds. One commenter stated
that a landlord should not be able to file
an eviction action while an application
54 Commenter cites to an article in the Dallas
Morning News (January 10, 2024) reporting on a
study that covered eviction filings in Dallas County,
Texas, from 2021 to 2023. During this time 18,485
evictions were filed in Dallas County, an average of
109 evictions per day. The study discovered that
when tenants have legal representation, landlords
win eviction 7% of the time, versus 69% when the
tenant appears without representation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
for rental assistance, interim
recertification, or hardship exemption is
processing.
One commenter urged HUD to
incorporate language from the preamble
about civil rights law into the
regulations. The commenter noted PHAs
and owner’s compliance with civil
rights law is irregular and stated that
incorporating the laws’ requirements
into the regulations will aid compliance.
The commenter noted that landlords
can avoid tenants’ civil rights assertions
by filing or threatening an eviction case.
The commenter also urged HUD to
provide strong guidance to help housing
providers understand the connection
between nonpayment cases and
potential abuse and to evaluate
nonpayment cases for potential abuse of
civil rights.
Another commenter urged HUD to
clarify in the final rule that all Movingto-Work agencies and the housing they
own, operate, manage, and administer
are subject to the final rule. The
commenter also urged HUD to include
preamble language such as reminders,
suggestions, and recommendations into
the regulatory language of the rule.
Additionally, a commenter
recommended that HUD ensure that
only signatories of the lease are named
in the lease termination notice and
subsequent court papers.
HUD Response: It is not feasible for
HUD to provide a list of all additional
resources that could be included for
tenants, PHAs, and PBRA owners. In
addition, HUD believes that this would
be inappropriate and may cause
unintended consequences. For example,
if HUD were to provide a list that was
not comprehensive, some may limit
their search to what HUD has provided
and might miss other resources that
would be helpful to them. In regard to
waivers and arrearages, PHAs and
owners may request waivers of
regulations pursuant to 24 CFR 5.110,
but PHAs do have the authority to
forgive rent arrears, and this final rule
does not limit PHAs discretion in that
regard. Additionally, HUD notes that
civil rights protections for tenants apply
when an eviction case is filed or
threatened, and HUD’s Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity
investigates cases where eviction
proceedings due to nonpayment of rent
are filed in a way that violates a tenants’
fair housing rights. Further, HUD
acknowledges the commenter’s
suggestion regarding guidance for
nonpayment cases and potential abuse
and will consider issuing such guidance
in the future.
For similar reasons stated above, this
rule does not require PHAs or owners to
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provide tenants with specific notice or
information about local nonprofit
resources, but HUD encourages PHAs
and owners to provide tenants facing
eviction for nonpayment of rent with
information regarding rental assistance
resources. HUD also encourages
interested legal aid organizations to
work with tenants, PHAs, and owners to
inform them of local resources. HUD
declines to extend the notification
period as this rulemaking strikes an
appropriate balance between
establishing a 30-day period to provide
tenants time to actively apply for rental
assistance and not overly burdening the
PHA and owner. HUD emphasizes that
any attempt to apply or obtain other
financial assistance should be
incorporated into a repayment plan
agreed upon by the tenant and the PHA
or landlord. Additionally, HUD expects
PHAs and owners to be aware of
pending recertifications or hardship
exemptions.
As discussed in the proposed rule, the
CARES Act 30-day notice to vacate
requirement for nonpayment of rent, in
section 4024(c)(1), is still in effect for all
CARES Act covered properties.
However, this final rule has no
implication on the CARES Act.
Similarly, this rule differs from the
CARES Act in applicability and
requirements. Furthermore, in response
to commenters on Moving-to-Work
agencies, HUD emphasizes that all
Moving-to-Work agencies are subject to
this rule. Additionally, all PHAs and
owners must ensure that only the
signatories of the lease are named in the
30-day notification, any lease
termination notices, and subsequent
court documents.
D. Alternative Solutions and Issues To
Address
Commenters suggested that HUD
explore alternative solutions to address
issues without creating burdens for
tenants and housing providers. A
commenter stated that instead of a 30day notice requirement there should be
a collaborative effort to explore
alternative solutions that address the
significant delays in obtaining court
dates and judgments. The commenter
encourages HUD to address the root
cause of the delays by streamlining and
expediting the legal process to ensure
more timely resolutions for tenants,
alleviate financial strain on owners and
agencies, and support the community
during challenging times.
Commenters stated that there has
been a significant increase in tenants
burdened by rent which leads to a
greater risk of eviction, but HUD should
revisit rent policies ‘‘such as the level of
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
tenant rent contributions which these
programs now require. A commenter in
support of the rule, said there are other
issues that should be addressed such as
the rising cost of rent, housing
shortages, and the ‘‘history of
disinvestment in rental assistance
programs that would alleviate the
number of households and landlords
who are impacted by this rule change.’’
Additionally, a commenter urged
HUD to allow housing providers to
charge tenants who vacate the property
without a 30-day notice. A commenter
stated, ‘‘this is a very intricate area that
needs further investigations with details
that should be honest with input from
all levels of rentals (i.e. seniors over 80
plus and federal department of labor
compensation injured seniors living on
income below the poverty level).’’
Another commenter said that landlords
should receive assistance to pay
mortgages when a tenant fails to pay
rent. Additionally, a commenter said
that HUD should recommend, not
require, that housing providers issue a
30-day notice when a requirement
would exceed state or local law.
A commenter stated that HUD should
work with other Federal agencies and
state and local leaders to (1) align
eviction proceedings and improve
consistency across all rental housing; (2)
improve data collection and ‘‘advance
respect for tenant and landlord rights
and responsibilities across the laws,
rules, and practices of the many
overlapping applicable jurisdictions;’’
(3) provide information on best
practices taken from eviction prevention
initiatives and policies; (4) provide
more operational resources and
financial flexibilities to housing
providers; and (5) use existing civil
rights laws to address any disparate
impacts in eviction practices.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the
comments and has explored other
alternatives; however, HUD has found
that a 30-day notice best balances the
interests of tenants, PHAs, and owners.
HUD has considered the perspectives of
stakeholders and subject matter experts
in drafting this rule. HUD also routinely
hears from and carefully considers the
perspectives of PHAs and owners, and
the multiple associations that represent
those PHAs and owners. Additionally,
HUD has solicited the perspectives of
tenants in HUD-subsidized housing and
the perspectives of people who provide
support and legal representation to
those tenants. HUD has conducted
listening sessions with tenants who
reside in HUD-subsidized housing and
also consulted with non-profit legal
service providers who represent
subsidized tenants in eviction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
proceedings and other eviction
prevention actions. In addition, HUD
has considered the perspectives of
scholars and legal experts who study
eviction prevention and has reviewed
key decisions related to evictions made
by state courts. HUD understands that
there are other issues that may affect
tenants, but this rule focuses on
preventing unnecessary eviction filings
and evictions for nonpayment of rent
violations.
Furthermore, recommending instead
of requiring PHAs and owners to
provide a 30-day notice would go
against HUD’s intent to remain
consistent with the longest of the
standard periods to which PHAs and
owners are already accustomed to for
many evictions. HUD also disagrees that
tenants should be charged for vacating
a property without 30-day notice.
Charging tenants could lead to further
issues for tenants and housing providers
and further frustrate HUD’s
programmatic efficiency. Additionally,
HUD does not have control over the
judicial system in order to streamline
the judicial process, but giving tenants
additional time to cure a nonpayment of
rent violation will help to reduce
eviction filings and evictions for
nonpayment of rent.
V. Findings and Certifications
Regulatory Review—Executive Orders
12866, 13563, and 14094
Under Executive Order 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review), a
determination must be made whether a
regulatory action is significant and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) in
accordance with the requirements of the
order. Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulations and Regulatory
Review) directs executive agencies to
analyze regulations that are ‘‘outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome, and to modify, streamline,
expand, or repeal them in accordance
with what has been learned.’’ Executive
Order 13563 also directs that, where
relevant, feasible, and consistent with
regulatory objectives, and to the extent
permitted by law, agencies are to
identify and consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public. Executive Order
14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review)
amends section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), among other things.
The rule revises 24 CFR parts 247,
880, 884, 886, 891, and 966 to update
HUD’s regulation to curtail preventable
and unnecessary eviction filings and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
101301
evictions by providing tenants time and
information to help cure nonpayment
violations. This rule also improves
HUD’s programmatic efficiency by
ensuring resources are not diverted to
cover the costs of unnecessary evictions
and by preventing homelessness. This
rule was determined to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of the order. HUD has prepared a
regulatory impact analysis and has
assessed the potential costs and
benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action and
has determined that the benefits will
justify the costs. The analysis is
available at regulations.gov and is part
of the docket file for this rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4;
approved March 22, 1995) (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.
Environmental Review
A Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) with respect to the
environment was made for the proposed
rule in accordance with HUD
regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which
implement section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The
previous FONSI remains applicable to
the final rule.
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 does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. HUD
anticipates that there will be minimal
costs for this rule since PHAs and
owners are already required to comply
with the CARES Act 30-day notice to
vacate requirement for nonpayment of
rent in section 4024(c)(1). Additionally,
the paperwork burden and compliance
costs for PHAs and owners will be
minimal since HUD already requires
written notice for nonpayment of rent
and will provide the information that
PHAs and owners need to meet
requirements (see burden costs
estimates below for more information).
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101302
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
HUD estimates the number of small
entities for PHAs as 2,099. At this time,
HUD is unable to provide an accurate
estimate of small PBRA owners because
we do not always know whether there
is a corporate structure behind an
individual owner. As noted in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final
rule, the added cost of sharing
information as required by this rule is
minimal since PHAs and owners
already have to provide written notice
before taking adverse action for
nonpayment of rent. The burden of
developing the content of the notice will
be minimal since HUD will supply the
information that providers will have to
give to tenants. The PRA burden for
small entities to update notices and
leases will be the same as for larger ones
or approximately, $152.70 for each
PHA, and $186.96 for each PBRA owner
(see Exhibit 4 in this rule’s Regulatory
Impact Analysis for more details). As
noted above, we do not have an accurate
number of small PBRA owners, and we
estimate the number of small PHAs as
2,099.
Therefore, the undersigned certifies
that the rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5
U.S.C. 801–808), also known as the
Congressional Review Act or CRA, the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined that this rule
does not meet the criteria set forth in 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
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 or is not
required by statute, or the rule preempts
state law, unless the agency meets the
consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive order. This
rule does not have federalism
implications and will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments or preempt
state law within the meaning of the
Executive order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520), an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless the collection displays a valid
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
control number. The information
collection requirements contained in
this rule have been submitted to OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) and
assigned OMB control numbers 2577–
0006 and 2502–0178.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 247
24 CFR Part 880
Accounting, Administrative practice
and procedure, Government contracts,
Grant programs-housing and community
development, Home improvement,
Housing, Housing standards, Low and
moderate income housing,
Manufactured homes, Public assistance
programs, Rent subsidies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 884
Accounting, Administrative practice
and procedure, Grant programs-housing
and community development, Home
improvement, Housing, Low and
moderate income housing, Public
assistance programs, Public housing,
Rent subsidies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rural
areas, Utilities.
24 CFR Part 886
Accounting, Administrative practice
and procedure, Government contracts,
Grant programs-housing and community
development, Home improvement,
Housing, Lead poisoning, Low and
moderate income housing, Mortgages,
Public assistance programs, Rent
subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Utilities, Wages.
24 CFR Part 891
Aged, Grant programs—housing and
community development, Individuals
with disabilities, Loan programs—
housing and community development,
Low and moderate income housing,
Public assistance programs, Rent
subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
24 CFR Part 966
Grant programs—housing and
community development, Public
housing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR parts
247, 880, 884, 886, 891, and 966 as
follows:
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
1. The authority citation for part 247
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q, 1701s, 1715b,
1715l, and 1715z–1; 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c,
1437f, and 3535(d).
2. In § 247.4, revise paragraphs (c) and
(e) to read as follows:
■
Grant programs—housing and
community development, Loan
programs—housing and community
development, Low and moderate
income housing, Rent subsidies.
PO 00000
PART 247—EVICTIONS FROM
CERTAIN SUBSIDIZED AND HUDOWNED PROJECTS
Sfmt 4700
§ 247.4
Termination notice.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Time of service. When the
termination of the tenancy is based on
other good cause pursuant to
§ 247.3(a)(4), the termination notice
shall be effective, and the termination
notice shall so state, at the end of a term
and in accordance with the termination
provisions of the rental agreement, but
in no case earlier than 30 days after
receipt of the tenant of the notice.
Where the termination notice is based
on material noncompliance with the
rental agreement or material failure to
carry out obligations under a state
landlord and tenant act pursuant to
§ 247.3(a)(1) or (2), the time of service
shall be in accord with the rental
agreement and state law. In cases of
nonpayment of rent, the termination
notice shall be effective no earlier than
30 days after receipt by the tenant of the
termination notice. The landlord must
not provide tenants with a termination
notice prior to the day after the rent is
due according to the lease. The landlord
also must not proceed with filing an
eviction if the tenant pays the alleged
amount of rent owed within the 30-day
notification period.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Notice requirements in rent
nonpayment cases. In any case in which
termination of tenancy is initiated
because of the tenant’s failure to pay
rent, a notice stating the dollar amount
of the balance due on the rent account
and the date of such computation shall
satisfy the requirement of specificity set
forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
All termination notices in cases of
nonpayment of rent must also include
the following:
(1) Instructions on how the tenant can
cure the nonpayment of rent violation,
including an itemized amount separated
by month of alleged rent owed by the
tenant, any other arrearages allowed by
HUD and included in the lease
separated by month, and the date by
which the tenant must pay the amount
of rent owed before an eviction for
nonpayment of rent can be filed;
(2) Information on how the tenant can
recertify their income and, for tenants
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
residing in projects assisted pursuant to
a housing assistance payments contract
for project-based assistance under
section 8 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C.
1437f), information on how the tenant
can apply for a hardship exemption
pursuant to 24 CFR 5.630(b); and
(3) In the event of a Presidential
declaration of a national emergency,
such information to tenants as required
by the Secretary.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 880—SECTION 8 HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f,
3535(d), 12701, and 13611–13619.
4. In § 880.606:
a. Redesignate paragraph (b) as
paragraph (c); and
■ b. Add new paragraph (b).
The addition reads as follows:
■
■
Lease requirements.
*
*
*
*
(b) Notification for nonpayment of
rent. The lease must also contain a
provision or addendum that tenants will
receive notification at least 30 days
before a formal judicial eviction is filed.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 880.607, revise paragraph (c)(6)
and add paragraph (c)(7) to read as
follows:
§ 880.607 Termination of tenancy and
modification of lease.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(6) In the case of failure to pay rent,
the termination notice shall be effective
no earlier than 30 days after receipt by
the tenant. All termination notices in
cases of failure to pay rent must include
the following:
(i) Instructions on how the tenant can
cure the nonpayment of rent violation,
including an itemized amount separated
by month of alleged rent owed by the
tenant, any other arrearages allowed by
HUD and included in the lease
separated by month, and the date by
which the tenant must pay the amount
of rent owed before an eviction for
nonpayment of rent can be filed;
(ii) Information on how the tenant can
recertify their income and apply for a
hardship exemption pursuant to 24 CFR
5.630(b); and
(iii) In the event of a Presidential
declaration of a national emergency,
such information as required by the
Secretary.
(7) An owner must not provide
tenants with a termination notice prior
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
6. The authority citation for part 884
continues to read as follows:
■
7. In § 884.215, add a second sentence
to the introductory text to read as
follows:
■
§ 884.215
*
*
PART 884—SECTION 8 HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM,
NEW CONSTRUCTION SET-ASIDE FOR
SECTION 515 RURAL RENTAL
HOUSING PROJECTS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f,
3535(d), and 13611–13619.
3. The authority citation for part 880
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 880.606
to the day after the rent is due according
to the lease. An owner must not proceed
with filing a formal judicial eviction if
the tenant pays the alleged amount of
rent owed within the 30-day notification
period.
*
*
*
*
*
Termination of tenancy.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) In the case of failure to pay rent,
the owner must provide the tenant with
a termination notice at least 30 days
before a formal judicial eviction is filed.
All termination notices in cases of
failure to pay rent must include the
following:
(1) Instructions on how the tenant can
cure the nonpayment of rent, including
an itemized amount separated by month
of alleged rent owed by the tenant, any
other arrearages allowed by HUD and
included in the lease separated by
month, and the date by which the tenant
must pay the amount of rent owed
before an eviction for nonpayment of
rent can be filed;
(2) Information on how the tenant can
recertify their income and apply for a
hardship exemption pursuant to 24 CFR
5.630(b); and
(3) In the event of a Presidential
declaration of a national emergency,
such information as required by the
Secretary.
(e) An owner must not provide
tenants with a termination notice prior
to the day after the rent is due according
to the lease. An owner must not proceed
with filing an eviction if the tenant pays
the alleged amount of rent owed within
the 30-day notification period.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PART 886—SECTION 8 HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
PROGRAM—SPECIAL ALLOCATIONS
9. The authority citation for part 886
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f,
3535(d), and 13611–13619.
10. In § 886.127, add paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
■
§ 886.127
Lease requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Notification for nonpayment of
rent. The lease must contain a provision
or addendum that tenants will receive
notification at least 30 days before a
formal judicial eviction is filed.
■ 11. In § 886.327, add paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
§ 886.327
Lease requirements.
*
Lease requirements.
* * * In addition to the provisions
specified in paragraph (b), the lease
shall also contain a provision or
addendum that tenants will receive
notification at least 30 days before an
eviction for nonpayment of rent is filed.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. In § 884.216, revise paragraph (d)
and add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 884.216
101303
*
*
*
*
(c) Notification for nonpayment of
rent. The lease must contain a provision
or addendum that tenants will receive
notification at least 30 days before a
formal judicial eviction is filed.
PART 891—SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES
12. The authority citation for part 891
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C.
1437f, 3535(d), and 8013.
13. In § 891.425, add paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
■
§ 891.425
Lease requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Notification for nonpayment of
rent. The lease must contain a provision
or addendum that tenants will receive
notification at least 30 days before a
formal judicial eviction is filed.
PART 966—PUBLIC HOUSING LEASE
AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
14. The authority citation for part 966
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d).
15. In § 966.4, revise paragraphs
(l)(3)(i)(A) and (1)(3)(ii) and add
paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as follows:
■
§ 966.4
Lease requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) At least 30 days in the case of
failure to pay rent;
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) The notice of lease termination to
the tenant shall state specific grounds
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
101304
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
for termination, and shall inform the
tenant of the tenant’s right to make such
reply as the tenant may wish. The notice
shall also inform the tenant of the right
(pursuant to paragraph (m) of this
section) to examine PHA documents
directly relevant to the termination or
eviction. When the PHA is required to
afford the tenant the opportunity for a
grievance hearing, the notice shall also
inform the tenant of the tenant’s right to
request a hearing in accordance with the
PHA’s grievance procedure. All notices
of lease termination required by
paragraph (1)(3)(i)(A) of this section due
to a tenant’s failure to pay rent must
also include the following:
(A) Instructions on how the tenant
can cure the nonpayment of rent
violation, including an itemized amount
separated by month of alleged rent owed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
by the tenant, any other arrearages
allowed by HUD and included in the
lease separated by month, and the date
by which the tenant must pay the
amount of rent owed before an eviction
for nonpayment of rent can be filed;
(B) Information on how the tenant can
recertify their income pursuant to 24
CFR 960.257(b), request a hardship
exemption pursuant to 24 CFR 5.630(b),
or request to switch from flat rent to
income-based rent pursuant to 24 CFR
960.253(g); and
(C) In the event of a Presidential
declaration of a national emergency,
such information as required by the
Secretary.
*
*
*
*
*
(q) Notification for nonpayment of
rent. The lease shall contain a provision
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
or addendum that tenants will receive
notification at least 30 days before an
eviction for nonpayment of rent is filed.
(r) Time of service. The PHA must not
provide tenants with a termination
notice prior to the day after the rent is
due according to the lease. The PHA
must not proceed with filing an eviction
if the tenant pays the alleged amount of
rent owed within the 30-day notification
period.
§ 966.8
■
[Removed]
16. Remove § 966.8.
Damon Smith,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024–28861 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
E:\FR\FM\13DER3.SGM
13DER3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 101270-101304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28861]
[[Page 101269]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 240
December 13, 2024
Part IV
Department of Housing and Urban Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
24 CFR Parts 247, 880, 884, et al.
30-Day Notification Requirement Prior To Termination of Lease for
Nonpayment of Rent; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 101270]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 247, 880, 884, 886, 891, and 966
[Docket No. FR-6387-F-02]
RIN 2501-AE09
30-Day Notification Requirement Prior To Termination of Lease for
Nonpayment of Rent
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule provides that public housing agencies (PHAs)
and owners of properties receiving project-based rental assistance
(PBRA) must provide written notification to tenants facing eviction for
nonpayment of rent 30 days prior to filing a formal judicial eviction
procedure. For purposes of this rule, PBRA and other forms of project
rental assistance includes projects in the following programs: Section
8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, Section 202/162 Project Assistance
Contract (PAC), Section 202 Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC),
Section 811 PRAC, Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program (811
PRA), and Senior Preservation Rental Assistance Contract Projects
(SPRAC). This final rule largely adopts the proposed rule and, in
response to public comments, has been revised to include additional
requirements in the 30-day notice and to clarify the timing of the
notice.
DATES:
Effective date: January 13, 2025.
Compliance dates: Compliance with this rule is required no later
than January 13, 2025, except PHA compliance with 24 CFR 966.4(q) is
required no later than June 15, 2026. PBRA owner compliance with
certain requirements in new 24 CFR 880.606(b), 884.215, 886.127(c),
886.327(c), and 891.425(d), is required no later than 14 months from
the date that HUD publishes final model leases that incorporates these
requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Public and Indian Housing:
Danielle Bastarache, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing and
Voucher Programs, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4204, Washington, DC 20410,
telephone number 202-402-1380 (this is not a toll-free number). For a
quicker response, email [email protected].
For Multifamily: Ethan Handelman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, 451 7th Street SW, Room
6106, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-2495 (this is not
a toll-free number). For a quicker response, email
[email protected]. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls
from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as
individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more
about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 7, 2021, HUD published an interim final rule titled
``Extension of Time and Required Disclosures for Notification of
Nonpayment of Rent'' (the ``interim final rule''), to assist with the
response to the national COVID-19 pandemic and future national
emergencies (86 FR 55693, October 7, 2021). HUD, along with other
Federal agencies, responded to the national emergency declaration
during the COVID-19 pandemic with efforts to support families impacted
financially by the COVID-19 pandemic and at risk of losing their
housing. Pursuant to the interim final rule, HUD also issued a joint
Public and Indian Housing (PIH) and Housing notice on October 7, 2021
(Notice PIH 2021-29 and H 2021-06). On December 1, 2023, HUD published
for public comment the ``30-Day Notification Requirement Prior to
Termination of Lease for Nonpayment of Rent'' proposed rule (the
``proposed rule'') (88 FR 83877, December 1, 2023). The proposed rule
sought to make the interim final rule generally applicable and no
longer contingent on the existence of a national emergency or the
availability of emergency rental assistance funds by revising HUD's
regulations to provide for a 30-day notification requirement prior to
initiating an eviction proceeding against a tenant for nonpayment of
rent.
Prior to 2021 when the interim final rule was implemented, certain
HUD programs had requirements for non-payment of rent evictions and
timing of eviction notices.\1\ For example, PBRA programs require 30
days' notice for a termination of tenancy for ``other good cause.''
Public Housing and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program require a
14-day, or 5 business day, notice respectively before initiating a
termination of tenancy action for nonpayment of rent. However, absent a
Federal rule, tenants in HUD-subsidized housing are subject to varying
State and local notice requirements. PHAs and owners have had to comply
with State and local tenant laws and only the District of Columbia
requires 30 days' notice prior to the initiation of eviction
proceedings for the nonpayment of rent, while two States require 30
days' notice in certain cases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 88 FR 83880.
\2\ Estimate based on HUD's cross-reference on distribution of
subsidized households across states with external analysis of legal
requirements per state for non-payment of rent notice (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-laws-on-termination-for-nonpayment-of-rent.html). The following States require 30 days'
notice: Wisconsin (only if the lease term is longer than one year)
and Minnesota (only if the lease term is longer than twenty years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD seeks to remove the variable patchwork of notice requirements
and reduce the number of preventable evictions filed against HUD-
assisted tenants. Most households in HUD-subsidized housing are low-
income, with annual household incomes in public housing and project-
based Section 8 PBRA both under $16,000.\3\ Studies have shown that
evictions cause housing instability, an increased risk of homelessness,
loss of employment, physical and mental health issues, and long-term
negative consequences to families, especially children.\4\ Studies have
also shown that evictions are unequally distributed as people of color,
women, and families with children are more likely to be evicted.\5\
Yet, evictions
[[Page 101271]]
for HUD-assisted housing could be prevented with more time and notice
which might help all parties work together to pay the rent owed or
attain a rent hardship exemption, rent recalculation, and/or other
financial rental assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Data available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html.
\4\ Sandel, Megan, et al. (2018). Unstable housing and caregiver
and child health in renter families. Pediatrics 141(2); Cutts, Diana
B., et al. (2022). Eviction and household health and hardships in
families with very young children. Pediatrics 150(4); Treglia,
Daniel, Thomas Byrne, and Vijaya Tamla Rai. 2023. ``Quantifying the
Impact of Evictions and Eviction Filings on Homelessness Rates in
the United States.'' Housing Policy Debate; Desmond, Matthew and
Carl Gershenson. 2016. ``Housing and Employment Insecurity among the
Working Poor.'' Social Problems. 63(1): 46-67; Desmond, M.,
Gershenson, C., & Kiviat, B., Forced Relocation and Residential
Instability Among Urban Renters, Journal of Urban Health, 92(2),
254-267 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9932-2; and
Desmond, M., & Shollenberger, T., Forced Displacement from Rental
Housing: Prevalence and Neighborhood Consequences, Demography,
52(5), 1751-1772 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0424-y;
Cutts, D.B., Darby, M.L., & Billings, J., The Role of Housing
Assistance in Achieving Educational Goals for Low-Income Children,
American Journal of Public Health, 100(S1), S84-S90 (2010), https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.170910; Desmond, M., & Kimbro, R.T.,
Eviction's Fallout: Housing, Hardship, and Health, Social Forces,
94(1), 295-324 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou065; HUD
(2021), Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health, Evidence Matters,
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html. See also Desmond, Matthew, Unaffordable America:
Poverty, housing, and eviction, Fast Focus, 22-2015, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty, 4.
\5\ Hepburn, P., Louis, R., & Desmond, M., Racial and Gender
Disparities among Evicted Americans. Sociological Science 7, 657
(2020), https://doi.org/10.15195/v7.a27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are other tools to employ before reaching an eviction. For
example, when a tenant or household's income is reduced, they can
request an interim reexamination to determine whether the current
amount that they pay in rent can be changed, and the PHA or owner must
process this request within a reasonable time.\6\ Tenants can also
request a rent hardship exemption which is an exemption from paying the
minimum rent that the PHA or owner normally charges if the household
experiences a qualifying financial hardship.\7\ A rent recalculation
may be granted based on the household's income reduction.\8\ Even if a
tenant or household does not qualify for a rent hardship exemption,
repayment agreements are another option to prevent evictions at the
PHA's and owner's discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 24 CFR 960.257(b); see also https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PHOG_Reexaminations_FINAL.pdf and https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/43503c5HSGH.PDF.
\7\ 24 CFR 5.630, see also Public Housing Minimum Rent and
Hardship Exemption Requirements Toolkit, HUD Exchange, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/public-housing/public-housing-minimum-rent-and-hardship-exemption-requirements-toolkit/ and the specific
additional circumstances that qualify as qualifying financial
hardships in the PHA's or Multifamily housing (MFH) owner's ACOPs
(Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy), Administrative Plans,
or Tenant Selection Plans, as applicable; Circumstances that always
constitute a qualifying financial hardship are detailed in 24 CFR
5.630(b)(1)(i) through (iv); additional circumstances are provided
by the housing provider in the PHA's or MFH owner's ACOPs,
Administrative Plans, or Tenant Selection Plans, as applicable.
\8\ Section 3(a) United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended
by section 102 of the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act
of 2016 (HOTMA), Public Law 114-201, 130 Stat. 782. Also see, HUD's
implementing regulations at 24 CFR 5.657(c)(2); 882.515(b)(2);
891.410; 960.257(b)(2); and 982.516(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule included a requirement that the 30-day notice
include instructions on how tenants can cure lease violations for
nonpayment of rent; the alleged amount of rent owed by the tenant and
any other arrearages allowed by HUD; the date by which the tenant must
pay rent and arrearages to avoid the filing of an eviction; information
on how tenants can recertify their income; how tenants can request a
minimum rent hardship exemption, if applicable; and in the event of a
Presidential declaration of a national emergency, such information as
required by the Secretary. HUD also recommended that PHAs and owners
provide rental repayment agreements to tenants as an alternative to
requesting lump-sum payments for past due amounts and required PHAs to
include information about how to switch from flat rent to income-based
rent. Additionally, the proposed rule reminded PHAs and owners that the
30-day notice must be provided in accessible formats to ensure
effective communication with individuals with disabilities and in a
form to allow meaningful access for individuals with limited English
proficiency (LEP).
The proposed rule explained that the 30-day notice requirement sets
a minimum requirement so that PHAs and owners can provide a longer
notice period at their discretion. HUD stated that it will issue sample
language PHAs and owners may use, but PHAs and owners are also
permitted to draft their own notices as long as they include the
required contents. HUD further noted that the requirements under this
rule, including the requirement that the 30-day notice may run
consecutive to any additional State or local notice requirements if
required by State or local law, do not preempt any State or local law
that provides greater or equal protection for tenants. Lastly, the
proposed rule emphasized that PHAs and owners must amend all current
and future leases to incorporate the 30-day notice requirement for
nonpayment of rent and therefore need to provide tenants with
notification of changes to the lease under existing requirements in 24
CFR 880.607(d) and 966.3.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Section 880.607(d) requires that an owner, when modifying a
lease, serve appropriate notice to tenants at least 30 days prior to
the last date on which a tenant has the right to terminate tenancy.
This provision applies to PBRA projects under 24 CFR parts 880, 881,
and 883 (the New Construction, Substantial Rehab and Housing Finance
Agency (HFA) programs). Section 966.3 requires a PHA to provide at
least 30 days' notice to tenants of proposed changes to the lease,
and an opportunity for tenants to present written comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. This Final Rule
This final rule adopts the proposed rule with the following
revisions based on public comments.
First, to clarify the timing of the 30-day notice, HUD is revising
24 CFR 247.4(c) and adding new Sec. Sec. 880.607(c)(7), 884.216(e),
and 966.4(r). The revised and added language states that a PHA or owner
must not provide tenants with a termination notice before the day after
the rent is due according to the lease. Also, a PHA or owner must not
proceed with filing an eviction if the tenant pays the alleged amount
of rent owed within the 30-day notification period.\10\ Second, HUD
uses clarifying language to explain that notification must be provided
before a formal judicial eviction can be filed in 24 CFR 247.4(e)(1),
880.606(b), 880.607(c)(6)(i), 884.215, 886.216(d)(1), 886.127(c),
886.327(c), 891.425(d), and 966.4(l)(3)(ii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 24 CFR 886.128 and 891.430 applies the provisions in 24 CFR
part 247 for termination of tenancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, this final rule revises 24 CFR 247.4(e)(1),
880.607(c)(6)(i), 884.216(d)(1), and 966.4(1)(3)(ii)(A) to require the
30-day notice include an itemized amount, which is separated by month,
of alleged rent owed by the tenant, along with any other arrearages
allowed by HUD and included in the lease which must also be separated
by month, and the date by which the tenant must pay the amount of rent
owed before a formal judicial eviction can be filed for nonpayment of
rent. The arrearages, which might include late fees or other fees, must
also be itemized separately from the alleged rent amount owed by the
tenant.\11\ If the tenant pays the full amount of the alleged rent owed
but not the arrearages, the nonpayment will still be considered cured,
and an eviction for nonpayment of rent cannot be filed. This will
alleviate confusion among tenants, PHAs, and owners about when and how
much is due to avoid an eviction filing for nonpayment of rent.
However, HUD emphasizes that the protections in this rule do not apply
to other types of evictions that result from non-rent lease violations,
such as nonpayment of arrearages if allowed under the applicable HUD
program and specified in the lease.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Non-Rent Fees for Subsidized Multifamily Housing
Programs and Non-Rent Fees for Public Housing https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/documents/Existing_Policy_on_Non-Rent_Fees_for_Subsidized_Multifamily_Housing_Programs.pdf; https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PH%20Non-Rent%20Fees%20Chart_Final.pdf.
\12\ Evictions for certain arrearages are not permissible under
certain HUD programs. See, e.g., HUD Handbook 4350.3: Occupancy
Requirements of Subsidized Programs (Change 4--November 2013), p. 6-
39, ``An owner must not evict a tenant for failure to pay late
charges.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD also reiterates in this final rule that HUD strongly recommends
the best practice of entering into a rental repayment agreement as an
alternative to a lump-sum payment for past due amounts. PHAs must also
include information in the 30-day notification about how to switch from
flat rent to income-based rent. Additionally, HUD reminds PHAs and
owners that the 30-day notice must be provided in accessible formats to
ensure effective communication for individuals with
[[Page 101272]]
disabilities, and the notice must provide meaningful access for persons
with LEP.
PHAs and owners must also comply with the nondiscrimination
requirements contained in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 504) along with
HUD's regulations implementing those laws. Title VI's requirements with
respect to national origin discrimination including meaningful access
for people with limited English proficiency are explained in HUD's
``Final Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting
Limited English Proficient Persons'' issued on January 22, 2007, and
available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/FINALLEP2007.PDF. HUD
also suggests the 30-day notice advise individuals of their right to
request reasonable accommodations, include information on how
individuals with disabilities can request a reasonable accommodation,
and include a point of contact for reasonable accommodation requests.
III. Severability
It is HUD's intention that the provisions of this rule operate
independently of each other. The purpose of this rule is to require
that PHAs and owners provide written notification to tenants facing
eviction for nonpayment of rent 30 days prior to filing a formal
judicial eviction procedure. In the event that this rule or any portion
of this rule is ultimately declared invalid or stayed as to a
particular program, it is HUD's intent that the rule nonetheless be
severable and remain valid with respect to those programs not at issue.
Additionally, it is HUD's intention that any provision(s) of the rule
not affected by a declaration of invalidity or stayed shall be
severable and remain valid. HUD concludes it will separately adopt all
of the provisions contained in this rule.
IV. The Public Comments
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on January
30, 2024. HUD received 316 comments. These comments were received from
individuals, landlords, tenants, property owners (``owners''), housing
authorities, housing cooperatives, non-profit housing organizations,
non-profit organizations representing seniors or individuals with
disabilities, housing associations, case managers for individuals
experiencing homelessness, churches, law firms, etc. The public
comments are discussed in four categories: comments in support of the
rule, comments in opposition to the rule, suggested changes and
clarifications to the rule, and alternative solutions and issues.
A. Comments in Support of the Rule
General Support
Several commenters generally supported the proposed rule. Many
commenters said the rule is a step in the right direction. One
commenter stated that this rule is consistent with the history of
tenant-landlord law which balances the landlord's right to reclaim a
property over nonpayment of rent with the right for the tenant to pay
the arrears to save their housing.
Many commenters noted their support for this rule, stating that
families are struggling financially and housing instability is
increasing. A commenter stated that those who live in government
assisted homes are already seeking help and struggling to get by. The
commenter stated that average income has not kept up with recent
financial hardships such as the pandemic and rising cost of living and
therefore tenants' housing options are very limited if they are
evicted.
A commenter noted that this rule will add important protections for
America's most vulnerable populations including children, families of
color, and victims of domestic abuse. Another commenter stated the 30-
day notification period is helpful to avoid evictions for those with
low housing security. One commenter said that the rule is a great idea
especially since people with children are struggling financially.
Additionally, a commenter stated that the rule comes during a time of
record homelessness and unaffordable housing, and that we must tackle
these issues from a moral and just standpoint. Another commenter stated
that the rule honors the challenges that Americans face such as
unemployment, disabilities, low income, and the healthcare crisis. One
commenter cited a survey that found that HUD evictions are returning to
pre-pandemic levels or higher, underscoring the need to formalize the
proposed rule.\13\ Another commenter cited an article noting that
eviction filings are up an estimated 50% compared to pre-pandemic
averages.\14\ The commenter pointed to the large number of evictions by
PHAs in Omaha, New York City, Baltimore, and Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ National Law Housing Project, ``Rising Evictions in HUD-
Assisted Housing'' (2022).
\14\ Michael Casey and R.J. Rico, Eviction filings are 50%
higher than they were pre-pandemic in some cities as rents rise,
Associated Press (Jun. 16, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/evictions-homelessness-affordable-housing-landlords-rental-assistance-dc4a03864011334538f82d2f404d2afb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter in Connecticut stated that rent and other costs of
living continue to rise in the State with inflation making it harder
for tenants to maintain housing stability. The commenter also stated
that rent has increased 33% since 2017 and 53% of tenants are already
cost-burdened and spending 30% of their income on rent. The commenter
expressed that more families in Connecticut are facing eviction than
prior to the pandemic.\15\ The commenter also stated that advancing
policies to keep people housed will benefit children and reduce stress
for caregivers. The commenter cited the Connecticut Department of
Education which reported that 2,516 students experienced homelessness
in the 2022-2023 school year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The commenter cited to https://www.ctdata.org/evictions-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter pointed to data showing that 32% of adults in
Colorado are living in households where the likelihood of eviction or
foreclosure within the next two months is distressingly high, and
nearly 56,000 households are behind on rent, impacting 45,000 children.
A few commenters noted the struggle for families to find affordable
housing and that many Americans are cost burdened, spending more than
30% of their income on rent. A commenter noted that high-cost burdens
were most prevalent among very low-income tenants and households of
color and that families with young children are disproportionately
impacted by eviction.
Commenters noted that this rule would align non-payment
requirements across HUD programs. A commenter said that a uniform 30-
day notice standard will provide clarity and consistency for landlords,
potentially reducing wrongful eviction claims. Commenters also stated
that the rule will help individuals and families remain in their
current homes and provide protection from homelessness. A commenter
stated that the rule will reduce housing instability for tenants of
public housing and PBRA properties. Additionally, commenters noted that
this rule will reduce evictions and its consequences related to finding
subsequent housing, maintaining employment, accessing education and
medical care.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the comments and recognizes the
trends in the rental market that may be increasing people's housing
cost burdens and its downstream effects that may result in
[[Page 101273]]
homelessness. Data from the Census' Household Pulse Survey from March
2024 suggests that nearly five million renter households in the United
States are behind on their rent and nearly two million fear eviction in
the next two months.\16\ Renters living in HUD-assisted housing have
some protections from evictions, such as the ability to recertify their
income. However, it has been reported to HUD that it can take a
significant amount of time to work through the administrative process
and to resolve issues that routinely come up for assisted households,
such as problems meeting annual recertification deadlines, supplying
the required paperwork, or insufficient information about how to obtain
a hardship exemption. Providing assisted households with information
about accessing additional rental assistance, or other emergency
funding, and additional time to take advantage of these programs
enhances the protections already in place and gives households a better
chance to resolve their nonpayment of rent with the housing provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ HUD analysis of data collected between March 5, 2024, and
April 1, 2024, through the Census Household Pulse Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eviction Harms
Many commenters wrote about the detrimental effects of evictions.
One commenter cited an article stating that eviction is associated with
loss of income, onset of depression, aggravation of mental illness,
increased substance abuse, domestic violence, marital breakdown,
accidents and disease, decreased school performance, and
homelessness.\17\ Another commenter also cited to an article explaining
that evictions can have a detrimental effect on housing stability and a
tenant's health and well-being.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The commenter cited to Collinson and Reed, ``The Effects of
Evictions on Low-Income Households,'' New York University School of
Law (2018).
\18\ The commenter cited to Collinson, Robert, John Eric
Humphries, Nicholas Mader, Davin Reed, Daniel I. Tannenbaum, and
Winnie van Dijk. 2023. ``Eviction and Poverty in American Cities''.
30382; Desmond, Matthew. 2016. ``Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the
American City.'' New York: Broadway Books; Graetz, Nick, Carl
Gershenson, Sonya R. Porter, Danielle H. Sandler, Emily Lemmerman,
and Matthew Desmond. 2023. ``The Impacts of Rent Burden and Eviction
on Mortality in the United States, 2000-2019.'' Social Science &
Medicine 340(October 2023):116398; and So, Wonyoung. 2023. ``Which
Information Matters? Measuring Landlord Assessment of Tenant
Screening Reports.'' Housing Policy Debate 33(6):1484-1510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters stated that eviction records will make it more difficult
to keep and find housing. Some commenters stated that those who live in
government assisted homes are already seeking help and struggling to
get by and eviction often means the loss of the only housing the tenant
can afford. A commenter said that an eviction filing, no matter how the
case is resolved, will show up on tenant screening reports every time
the tenant applies for rental housing in the future and can prevent
tenants from finding housing. A few commenters stated that tenant
applications may be rejected following an eviction from a PBRA property
for three years, or more if the amount is still owed. Commenters also
noted that eviction filings can negatively impact credit scores, which
broadly impact tenants' lives.
A commenter noted the loss of connections to community support that
comes with evictions. One commenter noted that this rule will help
protect the vital human-animal bond that tenants share with pets and
companion animals. A commenter noted that pets are also impacted by
evictions because pets are more likely to be surrendered to shelters
when a family faces unstable housing. The commenter noted that pets may
be locked inside rental units because of legal lockouts and property
managers may release pets or tie them up alone next to tenants'
personal possessions on the street.
One commenter explained that many tenants living in Durham, North
Carolina, only require one emergency to create a financial hardship,
and many of them are women of color with nontraditional jobs. The
commenter stated that when these tenants have to go through the
eviction process their income is further reduced due to court costs and
taking time off of work for any judicial proceedings.
Many commenters noted that evictions can disrupt a positive
relationship with public housing staff. Commenters also noted the
strain that evictions have on landlords, including court costs and
fees, the costs of turning over units, and that landlords are often
unable to collect the unpaid rent. One commenter stated that evictions
are costly in time and money for public housing agencies. Additionally,
many commenters noted the strain evictions have on government and
social service providers such as health care systems and shelter
systems. One commenter quoted the Delaware Legislature stating that
eviction proceedings create significant costs for State and local
governments related to shelters, education, health care,
transportation, and foster care.
HUD Response: HUD agrees with commenters that evictions can cause
detrimental harm. Research has shown that evictions can cause an
increased risk of homelessness, job loss, and long-term negative
consequences, especially for children.\19\ Through this rule, HUD seeks
to reduce the harms that evictions cause by curtailing preventable and
unnecessary eviction filings and evictions for nonpayment of rent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See background section of the proposed rule at 88 FR 83877.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homelessness and Housing Insecurity
Commenters also stated that the rule will help individuals and
families remain in their current homes and provide protection from
homelessness. Another commenter explained that giving tenants time to
get their affairs in order is the difference between an individual
remaining stable, employed, and housed, and losing everything due to
homelessness. Another commenter stated that homelessness has been on an
upward trend since 2017 and the number of people experiencing
homelessness on a single night increased by 12% between 2022 and 2023.
One commenter pointed to articles and reports stating that because
those who rely on public housing have very low income, they are more
likely to become unhoused when evicted. The commenter noted the harms
of evictions and homelessness, including the risk to unhoused lives
from extreme heat and cold. Further, the commenter stated that in
Detroit, the systems that unhoused people rely on are dysfunctional and
can be traumatizing. The commenter also stated that the lack of
affordable housing in Detroit means that unhoused people spend longer
times in shelters and temporary housing, and shelters and emergency
services in Detroit have operated at or near capacity for years.
A commenter stated that low-income renters are more severely cost
burdened and are often paying more than 50% of income towards housing
costs, leaving limited resources for other necessities. Additionally, a
commenter stated that housing in their community is scarce for low to
moderate income families and that housing security is important to a
thriving economy. The commenter also explained that they have witnessed
housing insecurity in their workplace and how it negatively impacted
employees' performances and has led to unemployment.
HUD Response: HUD agrees with the commenters' concerns about
homelessness and appreciates the commenters' support for the rule.
There is evidence that over the past year, eviction filings increased
in many parts of the country, as did the incidence of homelessness. The
Eviction Lab tracks
[[Page 101274]]
eviction filings in 32 cities across the country and found that
eviction filings increased from 2022 to 2023 in 25 of the 32
cities.\20\ The number of people experiencing homelessness on a given
night, as documented through local point-in-time counts, also increased
between 2022 and 2023, by approximately 12 percent.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://evictionlab.org/ets-report-2023/.
\21\ https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-AHAR-Part-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to HUD's 2023 Worst Case Needs Report to Congress, a
record 8.53 million renter households were severely housing cost
burdened--meaning they paid more than half their income on rent--or
lived in substandard housing, or both. Thus, there is a significant
number of households that may be on the verge of homelessness due to
high housing costs and an unexpected cost or loss of income could
increase their likelihood of eviction and ultimately homelessness.
Although the increase in homelessness largely reflects the shortage of
affordable housing, eviction can be a contributing factor. Several
studies have found that eviction substantially increases the likelihood
that a family will subsequently experience homelessness.\22\ Most
recently, a major study linking eviction records to other
administrative datasets in New York and Chicago has found that an
eviction order increases the probability of using an emergency shelter
by 3.4 percentage points in the year following the eviction, which
translates to a more than 300 percent increase compared to those who
are not evicted.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Collinson, R., & Reed, D. (2018), The effects of evictions
on low-income households, https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/evictions_collinson_reed.pdf. Richter,
F.G.C., Coulton, C., Urban, A., & Steh, S. (2021). An integrated
data system lens into evictions and their effects. Housing Policy
Debate, 31(3-5), 762-784.
\23\ Robert Collinson, John Eric Humphries, Nicholas Mader,
Davin Reed, Daniel Tannenbaum, Winnie van Dijk, Eviction and Poverty
in American Cities, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 139,
Issue 1, February 2024, Pages 57-120, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Impact on People With Disabilities, Seniors, and Lower-Income
Families
Commenters noted that a 30-day notice would be beneficial to people
with disabilities. A commenter said that people with disabilities often
have fewer housing options because they have additional factors to
consider in finding an apartment, such as proximity to a bus stop,
lower counters, or a roll-in shower. The commenter also said that an
eviction on a physically disabled person's record could make it nearly
impossible for that person to find adequate housing and 30 days would
give the tenant more time to find adequate housing if they are required
to vacate. The commenter noted that 30 days would allow tenants with
mental or intellectual disabilities time to seek assistance from an
agency or attorney.
Another commenter said that people with disabilities often rely on
Supplemental Security Insurance or other public benefits which are not
enough especially with the increase of rent and cost of living. The
commenter stated that if disabled individuals do become homeless, they
have a harder time getting rehoused and if they move constantly, they
risk losing their benefits and risk their health. One commenter noted
that people with disabilities who face eviction face a specific danger
of landing in an institution where they are seen as ``less than'' and
where it can be difficult to leave. The commenter stated their support
for this measure because it will reduce the chances of this happening
and is not an undue burden on owners and managers.
Other commenters noted that the 30-day notice is particularly
essential for older adults and people with disabilities who have
limited access to work to quickly pay off the balance or who are on a
fixed income. Another commenter noted that the 30-day notice period
would be especially beneficial to older adults on fixed incomes. The
commenter cited studies stating that nearly 11.2 million older adults
are spending more than 30% of their income on rent and that older
households of color are even more at risk. One commenter noted that the
number of elderly renters is growing and expected to continue growing,
especially among Black renters, leading to more potential evictions in
the future. Another commenter noted that adults aged 55 and older
accounted for 35% of total evictions in the country in 2023 and made up
30% of the homeless population. One commenter noted that for these
populations, homelessness can be fatal because of the fragility of
older adults. The commenter gave an example of an older Black man who
secured legal assistance and avoided eviction by setting up a payment
plan during the 30-day notice period provided by the CARES Act.
A commenter cited a report that showed eviction filings during the
COVID-19 pandemic were concentrated in neighborhoods with predominantly
lower income immigrants and renters of color, and that statewide
eviction filings are nearly back to pre-pandemic levels. A commenter
noted that the 30-day notice requirement would offer a potentially
life-saving buffer to tenants escaping domestic violence.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that the rule is beneficial to individuals
with disabilities and emphasizes that housing providers are required to
provide reasonable accommodations at any time during tenancy, not just
prior to eviction. PHAs and owners are required to provide and pay for
reasonable accommodations unless it would result in an undue financial
and administrative burden or a fundamental alteration of the program,
service, or activity. If an undue burden or fundamental alteration
exists, PHAs and owners are still required to provide other reasonable
accommodations that would not result in an undue financial and
administrative burden on the particular recipient and/or a fundamental
alteration of the program, service, or activity.\24\ For example, one
such common reasonable accommodation that has helped families avoid
eviction is to allow persons with disabilities who receive Social
Security Income or other benefits to pay their rent after the first of
the month to align with receipt of those payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a Federal
law, codified at 29 U.S.C. 794; See also https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/sect504faq#_Reasonable_Accommodation. The Fair Housing Act's
requirements to provide reasonable accommodations also apply to PHAs
and assisted owners. The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42 U.S.C.
3601-3619, 3631. PHAs must also adhere to the requirements of title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which includes making
reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when
necessary to avoid disability discrimination. Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. 12131-
12165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD also agrees with commenters that tenants, such as seniors and
people of color, may be more susceptible to eviction, especially if
they are on a fixed income. This rule helps to ensure more housing
security for tenants living in the HUD-assisted housing programs
covered under this rule.
Use of Evictions To Collect Rent
A commenter, who strongly supports the rule, cited various articles
concerning PHAs and their repeated eviction filings on the same tenants
to collect rent without evidence that such behavior is effective.\25\ A
commenter
[[Page 101275]]
said the additional time to gather funds would benefit tenants and
owners who use eviction filings as a means to collect rent. Commenters
stated that according to research and their experience, eviction
filings are used as a rent collection strategy because most evictions
do not result in tenant removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The commenter cites to Garboden, Philip M.E., and Eva
Rosen. 2019. ``Serial Filing: How Landlords Use the Threat of
Eviction.'' City & Community 18(2):638-61; Leung, Lillian, Peter
Hepburn, and Matthew Desmond. 2021. ``Serial Eviction Filing: Civil
Courts, Property Management, and the Threat of Displacement.''
Social Forces 100(1):316-44; Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Ellie Lochhead,
and Katherine O'Regan. 2022. Eviction Practices across Subsidized
Housing in New York State: A Case Study. New York; Gromis, Ashley,
Ian Fellows, James R. Hendrickson, Lavar Edmonds, Lillian Leung,
Adam Porton, and Matthew Desmond. 2022. ``Estimating Eviction
Prevalence across the United States.'' Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 119(21):1-8; and Leung, Lillian, Peter Hepburn,
James Hendrickson, and Matthew Desmond. 2023. ``No Safe Harbor:
Eviction Filing in Public Housing.'' Social Service Review
97(3):456-97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter stated that a PHA in North Carolina initiated 867
evictions filings for nonpayment of rent in 2019 and only 63 evictions
were actually completed. The commenter believed that the evictions were
being used as a rent collection tool and stated that if tenants were
given sufficient time they were able to cure their nonpayment of rent,
but the eviction filings stayed on the tenants' public records for
seven years and negatively impacted employment, credit, and housing
putting them at risk for homelessness. The commenter explained that a
local advocacy organization sought to change the PHA's eviction policy
to send a notice 14 days after being late for rent and filing an
eviction 21 days after being late. The local advocacy organization
unsuccessfully requested that the PHA's board (1) increase the days
before filing an eviction to 45 days; (2) review all accounts for
inaccuracies; (3) document three attempts at meeting and communicating
with the tenant concerning their non-payment; and (4) encourage tenants
to use the grievance procedure.
HUD Response: HUD thanks the commenters for their comments. HUD
believes this rule encourages PHAs to work with families to resolve
nonpayment of rent prior to filing evictions. HUD also encourages PHAs
to review and evaluate policies, procedures, or practices to ensure
tenants are informed on how to recertify their income in a timely
manner and apply for hardship exemptions. HUD reminds PHAs of their
obligation to include information to tenants in the termination notice
of their right to a grievance hearing under 24 CFR 966.4(l)(3)(ii),
966.51(a)(1), and 966.53(a).
Tenants Need Time and Resources
Many commenters stated that this rule would help eliminate fast
evictions and provide tenants, especially low-income households, with
time to gather resources and to secure funding for their rent through
personal means, community resources, or time to find alternate housing.
A commenter said that the rule will give tenants time to arrange for
alternative accommodations or negotiate a repayment plan. One commenter
cited research from the Eviction Lab that notification requirements can
be an effective tool in reducing eviction rates and providing tenants
with time and information needed to address nonpayment violations.\26\
A commenter noted that nonpayment of rent often stems from unexpected
life events and providing time for renters to recover without losing
their homes is critical. Another commenter stated that sometimes
tenants who have not paid rent will have the funds to pay rent within a
couple of weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Lillian Leung et al., Serial Eviction Filings: How
Landlords Use the Courts to Collect Rent, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, a commenter said that the combination of available
legal representation, time to work with lawyers, and time to pay
arrears before trial effectively deters Maryland landlords from filing
eviction cases and aids housing stability. One commenter demonstrated
the impact of the 30-day notice by sharing the story of a client who
was facing eviction after losing affordable childcare and being forced
to spend more of their paycheck on babysitters. The commenter noted
that with the 30-day notice, the tenant was able to seek legal
assistance, apply for rental assistance, and avoid eviction.
A commenter stated that getting rental assistance is a multi-staged
process and succeeds only when renters have time to see it through.
Another commenter stated that because rent is so high, it takes
multiple agencies within the community to provide the assistance, a
process that can take several weeks. A nonprofit organization commented
that the services it provides could not exist without the additional
notice time. The commenter noted that its work connecting municipal
financial empowerment services to tenants facing eviction showed that
financial counseling can help sustain and build on the initial
stabilizing effects of emergency housing assistance services and there
are opportunities for stronger coordination across eviction prevention
services. The nonprofit noted that its clients who engage with one-on-
one financial counselors after receiving eviction assistance were able
to improve credit scores, reduce consumer debt, and build savings.
A commenter said that they recently worked with a single mother
living in HUD-subsidized housing who lost her minimum wage job and fell
behind on rent. Even though she was back to work less than a month
later, her landlord gave her an eviction notice after three days, per
California law. The commenter said they were able to work with the
tenant and other community organizations to inform the landlord of this
30-day rule, apply for rental assistance, and set up a payment plan.
Because of the additional time, the landlord was able to be paid and
the family remained housed. The commenter also stated that there are
many low-wage workers and elderly in their county who rely on HUD-
supported housing and need more than the three days allotted under
California law. The commenter noted that the additional time would
alleviate the burden on rental assistance agencies that are forced to
spend additional time, effort, and funding on negotiating with
landlords to accept rent payments after the third day.
Another commenter stated the State law in Ohio only provides a
three-day notice, making it nearly impossible for rental offices to
process interim recertification and minimum hardship exemption
requests, work out a repayment deal with the landlord through the 10-
day meeting or grievance process, pay back the amount owed, have time
to locate alternate housing, or seek new employment or unemployment
benefits which will aid in paying the balance owed.
Several commenters noted that the 30-day notice required by the
CARES Act has proven indispensable to local rental assistance efforts
which takes several weeks to complete. A commenter noted that it
represented a tenant who fell behind on rent due to a hospitalization
but with the time given to them under the CARES Act, they were able to
find legal assistance, file a reasonable accommodation request, and
negotiate a repayment plan with the tenant's landlord. The commenter
noted that no financial burden was placed on the landlord since they
received what they were owed, and the tenant avoided eviction and
potential homelessness, a consequence that would have been especially
detrimental because the tenant was being treated for an illness.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the comments and agrees that
providing tenants with additional time will help to cure nonpayment of
rent violations, preventing unnecessary eviction filings and evictions.
Tenant Rights and Judicial Process
Some commenters expressed that tenants deserve the additional time
to
[[Page 101276]]
take advantage of rent relief resources and the time to take advantage
of legal support and their due process rights to properly defend
themselves against eviction. A commenter expressed that the 30-day
notice would prevent landlords from using self-help evictions to put
families on the street without due process. Another commenter stated
that giving tenants more notice of an eviction due to nonpayment of
rent would help tenants fully access their due process rights. Other
commenters stated that a 30-day notice would ensure tenants are treated
with dignity and respect, and that tenants are given a fair chance to
sustain housing. Another commenter stated that a 30-day notice will
provide support to organizations to assist with a fair and just
judicial process.
A commenter stated that the implementation of the rule is
imperative and that it will uphold the principles of fairness and
compassion. The commenter explained that one of their program
participants had only received a three-day notice from their housing
provider to vacate due to issues with rent. This contributed to the
individual being quickly subjected to homelessness. Additionally, the
housing provider kept the individual's deposit, contributing to their
financial and emotional distress. The commenter stated that if the
individual had more notice, they could have rectified their rent issues
or considered alternative housing options.
A commenter said that technological advances have made things more
difficult in housing courts. The commenter stated that providing 30-day
notice will give tenants time to negotiate and acquire assistance from
a qualified attorney which might help them avoid an unnecessary
eviction. Another commenter stated that giving tenants additional time
to respond to an eviction notice will benefit all parties involved,
including the government. The commenter cites to a report by the State
legislature of Connecticut, which launched the right-to-counsel program
and saved the State between $5.8 and $6.3 million between January and
November of 2022.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The commenter cites to Rosa DeLauro proposes wide-scale
expansion of right-to-counsel (ctmirror.org) Evictions Report--
CTData; CT right to counsel program saved state millions, report
finds (ctmirror.org); Report Shows Connecticut's Right-to-Counsel
Program to Be Effective at Preventing Evictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter said the 30-day notice would help their program more
effectively resolve recertification issues and uphold tenants' rights
because it would provide more time for tenants and legal aid providers
to investigate facts and prepare defenses for any eventual trial. The
commenter noted that it is difficult for tenants to figure out
landlords' licensure status and how to raise a successful rent escrow
claim. The commenter said that tenants of subsidized housing face even
more complexity due to frequent procedural problems in the income
recertification process and the time it takes property managers to
provide tenant files.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the comments and agrees that
providing tenants with additional time will help to cure nonpayment of
rent violations, preventing unnecessary eviction filings and evictions.
Notification Requirements Currently in Place
Commenters said that public housing agencies and owners have
already demonstrated their ability to comply with a 30-day notice
requirement. Commenters also noted that the 30-day notice is not more
onerous for housing providers than the existing requirements under the
CARES Act which has been in effect for over three years and covers
similar programs as this rule. A commenter stated that certain HUD
programs already operate under a 30-day notice requirement and when the
notice expires without any resolutions, a detainer summons is filed
which makes it easier for housing managers with multiple properties and
different funding.
A commenter noted that various states and localities have notice
periods ranging from 7 to 30 days and that more than a quarter of
households assisted by HUD reside in areas where an 8 to 14-day notice
period is already mandatory. One commenter reiterated that the vast
majority of tenants in HUD-assisted households live in states that
require notice 7 days or less before eviction, while a mere 3% live in
states that require 15-30 days. Another commenter said they had no
issue with the rule as a 30-day notice requirement is already
implemented in many municipalities. One commenter said that a 30-day
notice requirement has already been implemented in Oregon and it is a
wonderful benefit to tenants.
A commenter said that most Tennessee renters are entitled to no
notice before they are brought to court for nonpayment because state
law allows landlords to include a waiver of notice rights in leases.
The commenter noted that they have worked with tenants who
misunderstand the law and are not aware there is no notice period until
they are already in court. Furthermore, the commenter said that many of
these tenants would have been able to pay all or most of what they owe,
had they been allowed a few days or weeks. The commenter also said that
even though the CARES Act has a similar notice requirement to this rule
and applies to the same public housing and PBRA properties as this
rule, the CARES Act requirements are not universally followed or
enforced. The commenter cited to a 2022 National Housing Law Project
poll which stated that 88% of surveyed attorneys reported inconsistent
or no court enforcement of the CARES Act 30-day notice requirement.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The commenter cites to National Housing Law Project,
``Rising Evictions in HUD-Assisted Housing: Survey of Legal Aid
Attorneys'' at 1 (July 2022), https://www.nhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/HUD-Housing-Survey-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also noted that in Middle Tennessee, counsel for most
landlords interpret the 30-day notice requirement of the CARES Act to
have expired with the 120-day eviction moratorium which is counter to
HUD's interpretation of the law. The commenter stated that making the
30-day notice requirement final would create a clear and easily
enforceable rule, preventing unlawful evictions and alleviating
attorney and judge burden when presented with conflicting accounts of
interpretation and application. Another commenter echoed this statement
noting that non-compliance with the CARES Act 30-day notice requirement
is widespread in Maryland because few property managers understand the
requirement either per the CARES Act or the October 7, 2021, interim
final rule (``Extension of Time and Required Disclosures for
Notification of Nonpayment of Rent'').
A commenter said that evictions in Texas are increasing and even
though some municipalities have passed local ordinances to confront
rising evictions, a State bill prohibiting local regulation of
evictions threatens those protections. The commenter stated that this
rule would be life changing for Texas tenants who would otherwise
receive 3-day notices, no opportunity to cure, and the potential for
being homeless within 21 days after a missed rent payment under State
law.
A commenter stated that a 5-day notice, 14-day notice, and no
notice has shown to be insufficient. Another commenter said that many
eviction cases in Maryland are filed after one missed payment, but the
amount of eviction filings decreased when Maryland gave tenants facing
eviction the right to counsel and 10-day notice including information
on rental assistance and legal services. The
[[Page 101277]]
commenter noted that even with the 10-day notice requirement, many
tenants in Maryland receive notice late or not at all. One commenter
stated that Ohio has a short notice requirement which does not afford
enough time to obtain rental assistance funds to avoid homelessness.
Another commenter noted that Florida law requires 3-day notice, but it
takes several weeks to complete an application at a local rental
assistance program. The commenter stated that the 30-day notice
requirement under the CARES Act allowed Florida tenants to apply for
rental assistance and negotiate payment plans allowing tenants to
remain in their homes.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that PHAs and owners have already
demonstrated their capacity to comply with a 30-day notice requirement
prior to an eviction filing and that a rule codifying the requirement
would provide more clarity to housing providers in order to achieve
uniform application of HUD's notification requirements. As demonstrated
by HUD's interim final rule and the provisions under the CARES Act,
PHAs and owners were able to provide the required minimum 30-day notice
to terminate a lease for nonpayment of rent during and after the COVID-
19 pandemic. As commenters have mentioned, several HUD programs already
require 30-day notice for certain types of evictions. Properties
covered under Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance require 30-day
notice when the grounds for eviction is ``other good cause.'' State law
and the lease govern the length of the notice period for material
noncompliance with the lease, noncompliance with State law, or criminal
activity/alcohol abuse. Section 202 and section 811 programs require
30-day notice for all eviction grounds.
HUD also acknowledges that states and local jurisdictions may have
specific timeframes for which a notice to vacate for nonpayment of
rent, or other violations of the lease, may be given and that this rule
may be beneficial to tenants and owners in places that have shorter or
no notification periods. This rule provides clarity and consistency to
tenants and will assist PHAs and owners to remain compliant with HUD
regulations.
Financial Impacts on Landlords
Commenters noted that evictions are expensive for landlords and
they often never get back unpaid rent from evicted tenants. Commenters
said this rule would help mitigate landlords' eviction costs which
should be taken into account when weighing the costs and benefits of
the rule. A commenter noted that the cost to landlords to evict a
tenant can range between $2,500 and $12,988, while past due rents may
only range from $600 to $1,200. A commenter also said that under the
CARES Act notice requirements, there was a marked decrease in eviction
rates without any substantial financial burden to housing providers.
Another commenter stated that support would still be provided to
landlords through programs which would prevent major negative financial
effects.
A commenter stated that they balance the need to collect rent with
the acknowledgement that tenants struggle to pay rent and evictions do
not align with their policy of ensuring housing stability. In 2022, the
commenter said they implemented a policy to provide its tenants with
arrears above a certain threshold with a 30-day notice of termination
for nonpayment of rent. The commenter explained that tenants are
offered the option to enter into reasonable repayment agreements and
are not served a notice of termination for arrears below the threshold.
The commenter stated that given its experience with this policy, it is
important that PHAs across the country be subject to this rule and that
HUD should consider providing technical assistance and other resources
to support training and oversight of third-party owners/management
companies and for PHAs.
A commenter said that the goal should be to keep people housed and
not to protect landlords' profits through quick turnarounds with
renting. Commenters stated that the concerns of a potential financial
and administrative burden to owners does not outweigh the importance of
providing tenants with additional time to respond to an eviction
notice. A commenter expressed that housing is a human right and should
be treated that way. Another commenter noted that effects of heightened
administrative costs for landlords are expected to be nominal when
considering the advantages of the rule.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that evictions can be costly for both
tenants and landlords; however, HUD believes that this rule strikes a
balance between potentially increasing some of the financial impacts on
PHAs and owners, and supporting families who need additional time to
address financial issues that result in nonpayment of rent.
B. Comments in Opposition to the Rule
Several commenters opposed the rule. Some commenters stated that a
30-day notice requirement is unnecessary or unreasonable, that it does
not make sense, and that tenants are already aware that their rent is
late. A commenter said this rule is an example of something that sounds
great in theory but will not work as intended. Another commenter said
that the rule is a slippery slope, and that the eviction process should
be quickened instead of muddled.
HUD Response: HUD disagrees with the commenters, especially in
stating that the rule is unnecessary and will not positively impact
tenants who seek to cure their nonpayment of rent violations, and that
the eviction process should be quickened. As previously discussed in
the proposed rule and the Regulatory Impact Analysis (available at
regulations.gov in the docket file for this rule), it is estimated that
between 1,600 and 4,900 nonpayment related moveouts in Public Housing
and PBRA-assisted housing are prevented each year because of the 30-day
notice requirements of the CARES Act and HUD's interim final rule.
Furthermore, in HUD's experience, tenants do not always know that their
rent is late, including when their landlord made an accounting,
recertification, or notice error.
Financial Burden and Hardships
Commenters stated that the rule will be a financial burden or
create hardships for landlords, owners, housing commissions, and PHAs,
especially small PHAs and those already struggling. Commenters strongly
urged HUD to not implement the rule and stated that adopting the rule
will cause undue and unnecessary harm to landlords, especially
landlords who rely on income from rental properties. A commenter said
that the rule will burden a work field that is already overworked and
underpaid. Another commenter stated that the rule will tarnish the
relationship between the PHA and tenant and eliminate any discretion
the PHA has to negotiate. A commenter stated that they do not approve
of the rule and think it should only occur when the tenant is being
subsidized. Additionally, the commenter said that not all tenants in
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC) or living in HUD-
subsidized housing are unable to pay rent and giving an additional 30
days will set back owners. Another commenter said that many HUD and
LIHTC properties are on ``shoestring budgets'' and this rule will be
detrimental to their communities.
HUD Response: HUD understands the fiscal impacts of nonpayment of
rent to a PHA's or owner's operating budget. HUD believes that a 30-day
notification
[[Page 101278]]
period strikes the appropriate balance that provides enough time for
the tenant to cure the lease violation and does not overly burden the
PHA and owner. Additionally, many PHAs and owners seem to have
demonstrated their ability to comply with the CARES Act and interim
final rule and thus should be able to establish systems and procedures
to minimize burden.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Exhibit 2 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis which
demonstrates that rates of owner-initiated move-outs due to
nonpayment of rent have remained below pre-CARES Act levels but have
also increased between 2022 and 2023 (when most eviction moratoria
expired).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHAs, landlords, owners, and housing commissions will still have
discretion to file an eviction action for nonpayment of rent if the
tenant does not cure the rent owed within the 30-day notification
period. The final rule will give both the landlord and the tenant
additional time to resolve any nonpayment issue in a constructive
manner that will benefit both parties.
HUD notes that this rule applies to the public housing, Section 8
Project-Based Rental Assistance, Section 202/162 Project Assistance
Contract, Section 202 Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC),
Section 811 PRAC, Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program (811
PRA), and Senior Preservation Rental Assistance Contract Projects
(SPRAC).
Small Housing Providers
Commenters said that their small PHAs would be burdened by the
rule. A commenter said that if a tenant does not pay their rent, the
PHA's rent income goes down 5%. The commenter said if the tenant is
given 30 days of notice after missing a payment, the PHA will be
missing two months of rent, which they might not be able to recover in
court. The commenter further stated that the 30-day notice would add
more of a burden on an already over-documented process and that with
only two employees, most of the staff's time is spent ``taking care of
tenants, paperwork, banking, payroll, HUD requirements, and much
more.'' Another commenter said that the rule's impact on tenants would
exacerbate poverty and homelessness and pose a significant threat to
small business owners. The commenter also stated that the rule seems to
carry risks for citizens and does not have benefits that address
broader issues.
A commenter said that the eviction process could take months and
the expense will be unbearable especially for small housing
commissions. Another commenter said that the rule will cripple small
rural PHAs since their occupancy and rental amounts are so low. The
commenter said that if they have one unit vacant, their occupancy drops
to below 95%, so they cannot wait to evict someone for nonpayment of
rent. Additionally, a commenter stated that lost rent, tenant charges,
staff time, and attorney fees have become an increasing financial
burden to small and medium PHAs. A commenter said that as a small PHA
in Mississippi, prolonged eviction proceedings lead to months of missed
rent payments that are rarely recovered in full. Additionally, the
commenter said that without reliable rental income, the PHA would fall
short in providing care for tenants and fulfilling HUD's mission.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes that small PHAs and owners often have
limited staff and resources when operating rental assistance programs.
HUD is also aware that smaller PHAs and owners may be more susceptible
to financial variations to their operating budgets; and that they may
experience a more significant financial impact due to nonpayment of
rent by a tenant during the notification period. Due to these reasons,
HUD emphasizes the need for PHAs and owners to attempt to work with the
tenant to correct any noncompliance with the program requirements and/
or establish repayment arrangements with the tenant.
Although limited to programs regulated by the Office of Multifamily
Housing, owners of Section 8 PBRA, Section 202 PAC, Section 202 PRAC,
and the Section 811 PRAC can make a claim to HUD for up to one month's
rent, less the security deposit collected, for unpaid rent under the
family's lease after the family has vacated the unit.
This rule balances the potential for rental income loss through the
additional time provided to households to resolve nonpayment of rent
with the operating impact to all PHAs and owners. It provides families
and PHAs and owners time to work through potential repayment solutions
and help families come back into compliance with program requirements
to resume their housing assistance. As stated in other public comments,
eviction proceedings can be equally--if not more--costly to smaller
PHAs and owners. For PHAs and owners, the 30-day notice can be issued
without hiring an attorney and may lead to the tenant paying what is
owed, extinguishing the need to hire an attorney to address that
delinquency at all. Thus, HUD believes that the 30-day notification
period will enable more cost-effective measures for both the tenant and
PHA/owner.
Loss of Rental Income
Commenters said that since the 30-day requirement implemented
during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in past due
balances causing lost revenue. A commenter said the impact of the
government-mandated eviction mortarium is still being felt and the 30-
day notice period is too long. Another commenter said that due to loss
in income, housing providers were unable to pay bills such as staff and
maintenance, and were not able to turn over units to make them
habitable to those on waiting lists. A commenter said the PHAs are
already challenged with providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing
for those in need in addition to retaining staff.
Commenters said the rule will negatively impact underfunded public
housing providers and PBRA operators who are unable to recover lost
revenue and have few tools to collect rent. Commenters also said that
there will be 90-120 days of nonpayment of rent before a tenant can be
removed causing PHAs a huge loss in rental income. A commenter stated
that it can take 2-3 months to obtain possession of a unit, which
causes a huge financial burden to owners. Additionally, commenters said
that PHAs cannot afford delays due to this rule. Commenters said that
for every dollar in rent, 93 cents is used to cover the costs of
operations, such as property maintenance, insurance, staffing, and
property taxes.\30\ The commenters stated that PBRA funding ensures
that tenants' housing costs are consistent, but PHAs continue to see an
increase in their expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www.naahq.org/breaking-down-one-dollar-rent-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter said that in Virginia, owners receive six cents
for every dollar they receive in rent, and under this rule, owners will
go without income for up to 90 days. The commenter stated that with
less income owners do not have money to maintain the community and
people will not build low-income housing if they cannot collect rent. A
commenter said that as a PHA, they have experienced higher rental loss
due to nonpayment in addition to the cost to repair units.
Additionally, a commenter stated that apartment communities have
been taking a lot of hits due to eviction regulations implemented
during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the loss of rent is draining
management communities' budgets and frustrating staff. Another
commenter said that if the rule is implemented many new landlords who
only rent out one property may go bankrupt and we will
[[Page 101279]]
start to see more investment homes and multifamily properties go into
foreclosure. A commenter said this requirement will affect at least two
months of utilities at their PHA which may be unpaid because of loss of
rent.
Commenters said that giving tenants twice the amount of time they
already have causes more financial loss in write-offs for PHAs. A
commenter also expressed that collection laws go against PHAs and that
they can barely collect rent owed. Another commenter stated that the
rule does not include financial reimbursement for court and legal fees
due to the delay in eviction cases. Additionally, the commenter stated
that tenants have learned that when they file an appeal, that adds an
additional 45 days to the eviction process. Another commenter said that
it can take up to a year for an appeal in their state.
Commenters suggested that HUD consider a new type of special claim
so owners could recover lost rent accrued during the proposed notice
period. Another commenter said they disagree with the rule unless HUD
will pay rent while tenants are going through the eviction process.
Another commenter said owners still need to pay bills and operate, so
HUD should be willing to pay the full contract rent while tenants go
through the eviction process. A commenter said that the 30-day notice
is causing PHAs and the Federal Government to lose money each year. The
commenter stated that if a tenant is unable to afford their rent for
one month, they likely will not be able to afford the next month's
rent.
HUD Response: HUD understands concerns from housing providers that
experienced a loss of income due to nonpayment of rent and the impact
it has on operating budgets. The Public Housing Operating Fund, which
was developed through a negotiated rulemaking, specifically funds
agencies based on rents charged, rather than rents collected, so HUD is
not able to adjust operating funding for PHAs to account for nonpayment
of rent issues. Further, HUD program statutes and regulations only
authorize assistance payments for dwelling units under lease by
eligible families. Therefore, HUD does not have the authority to make
assistance payments, pay contract rent, or otherwise reimburse owners
after the termination of tenancy or during eviction proceedings.
However, with respect to public housing, PHAs experiencing significant
shortfalls in their operating budgets are encouraged to apply for the
Shortfall fund.\31\ In applicable Multifamily Housing programs, an
owner can submit a special claims request only.\32\ The owner may then
request payment for unpaid tenant rent or other amounts owed under the
lease (e.g., damages), in accordance with program regulations. There is
no special claims provision for lost rent accrued for a tenant who
continues to reside in a unit after termination of tenancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Operating Fund (Op-Fund) Shortfall Funding [verbar]
HUD.gov/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
\32\ Special Claims Processing Guide (HSG-06-01) at https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/administration/hudclips/guidebooks/HSG-06-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD disagrees with the assumption underlying many of these comments
that a delay in pursuing a tenant for outstanding rent will necessarily
and/or always lead to the tenant accruing more outstanding rent due,
that will then not be paid to the landlord. As HUD has explained above,
a delay in pursuing a tenant for outstanding rent can provide the
tenant the opportunity to pay the outstanding rent before being
evicted, leading to less outstanding rent, not more. Similarly, HUD
disagrees that if a tenant is unable to afford their rent for one
month, they will likely not be able to afford the next month's rent.
Often, as alluded to above, there is an error or delay in
recertification, which simply needs time to be corrected, or a one-time
event that causes a tenant to fall behind, and tenants are able to make
up their arrearage when errors in recertification are corrected,
reasonable accommodations are enacted, and/or time is provided to
secure outstanding balances, which sometimes can come from local
nonprofits.
Financial Obligations and Cost of Operations
Commenters stated that the rule will hurt landlords and their
ability to pay their bills, and that there is a lack of understanding
of how hard it is to maintain assets. A commenter said that the rule
will cause more unpaid rent, attorney fees, and expenses for staff
during the judicial process. Another commenter said that in today's
inflated economy, PHAs and owners cannot afford significant costs and
that the number of nonpayment related moveouts should be mentioned in
the rule since they cause substantial additional costs in lost rent and
property damage for the PHAs and owners. Commenters also said that PHAs
depend on prompt payment in order to meet financial obligations, and
the rule would cause an undue financial strain on owners which would
jeopardize mortgage payments and put owners at risk for property loss.
Additionally, commenters said that during the extended period of
90-120 days to secure a court date for eviction, tenants fall further
behind in rent and owners bear the burden of sustaining essential
services (i.e., mortgages, taxes, payroll, and necessary repairs).
Another commenter stated that rent is already based on the income of a
tenant so an owner should not have to suffer waiting to evict a tenant
for non-payment of rent. A commenter expressed that unlike the options
that tenants have, owners are subject to withholding of future services
and hefty late fees when bills are not paid on time. In response to the
rule stating that it is more cost efficient for housing providers to
assist tenants to cure nonpayment of rent, a commenter said that ``cost
efficiency can only be reached if appropriate options are available to
cure such nonpayment of rent.'' The commenter said that HUD does not
recognize that PHAs already provide repayment agreements and hardship
exemptions, but without additional funding, these options only
temporarily address tenants that are unable or unwilling to pay their
rent.
A commenter stated that the rule will cause PHAs to go bankrupt as
their property's insurance has tripled in the last three years and the
cost of materials has increased. Additionally, a commenter said labor
and healthcare are also more expensive. A commenter stated that it
usually takes 30 days to prepare a unit (clean, repaint, etc.) to get
it ready for a new tenant and now PHAs will be missing rent for three
months. Another commenter said that their PHA is already under-staffed
and over-burdened and if the rule is implemented it will cause the PHA
to be less effective and projects to be poorly maintained.
Commenters stated that higher rent balances burden community
resources that offer emergency rental assistance. One commenter said
that chronic underfunding of public housing is the culprit and HUD's
$25 million allocation is short of what is necessary to bridge the
disparity gap. Additionally, the commenter said that insurance
premiums, which have gone up 110% in some States, are furthering the
fiscal strain and leave PHAs trying to make ends meet. The commenter
stated that HUD has taken steps to decrease COVID-19 funds rather than
using those funds for PHAs to address operating issues. A commenter
said they hope that HUD gets rid of the 30-day notice requirement since
rental assistance is no longer readily available
[[Page 101280]]
and everyone in public housing is working or receiving social security.
HUD Response: HUD understands the financial obligations of PHAs and
owners, and how uncollected rent significantly impacts their operating
budgets. In addition to other elevated costs, HUD acknowledges the
growing cost of operating housing. HUD reminds PHAs of the ability to
receive shortfall funding if they are experiencing financial
challenges.\33\ HUD also reminds PHAs and owners that the more PHAs and
owners improve their compliance with recertification requirements, the
less likely tenants will be improperly overcharged their portion of the
rent. These requirements include ensuring that PHA and owner staff are
not transferring burdens of recertification onto tenants that are
properly the responsibility of the staff, not failing to properly and
timely inform tenants of the different verification options that the
tenant may provide for their income, not requiring more verification
than necessary from the tenant, and/or not requiring tenants to seek
verifications that staff should and/or can be seeking themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Operating Fund (Op-Fund) Shortfall Funding [verbar]
HUD.gov/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD believes that the 30-day notification period strikes an
appropriate balance that considers the financial obligations of PHAs
and owners, as well as provides enough time for tenants to rectify a
lease violation stemming from nonpayment of rent. Additionally, as
explained above, HUD believes there are often options available for
tenants to cure, which avoids unnecessary legal costs incurred to PHAs
and owners, and balances increased costs where there are not options to
cure. HUD encourages PHAs and owners to review and assess their
policies and practices to ensure tenants are informed on how to
recertify their income or apply for a hardship exemption in a timely
manner.
Tenant Awareness and Responsibility
Commenters said that tenants know to contact the PHA when there is
a change to their income and the PHA processes interim
recertifications, so extending the notice requirement will increase the
financial burden when funds could be used for other means. A commenter
said that nonpayment of rent is a result of tenants not telling the PHA
about loss of income. Commenters stated that tenants are made aware on
multiple occasions that they have an opportunity to recertify due to
their income or hardship, and it is not feasible for a landlord to give
30 days' notice when the tenant is already aware. The commenters
further stated that by the time a court date is set, tenants are
further behind in rent, and landlords are losing out on income in
addition to having to justify write offs.
A commenter said that the rule would be a burden on housing
authorities, creating more work and expenses when housing authorities
must try to collect rent that has not been paid. A commenter stated
that an additional 30-day notice should not be given since tenants
already receive multiple notices that they have not paid rent.
Prolonging the process will put more of a burden on staff. Another
commenter said that unless there is an extreme circumstance such as
death or severe illness, most tenants know that their rent will be
late. Another commenter said it is obvious to tenants that they are
late and must pay their rent, and once they are late ``their presence
is unhealthy, toxic, and perhaps dangerous to other residents.''
Commenters said that it does not take long to get assistance for a
tenant who is truly struggling if a tenant communicates with the PHA in
a timely manner. A commenter stated that tenants are 2-3 months behind
in rent by the time 30 days has passed, and when tenants try to reach
out to organizations for rental assistance it creates a snowball effect
because many of the organizations, including churches, are already
limited in the resources they can provide. One commenter included an
example of variations in a tenant's subsidized rent due to income
fluctuations and asked HUD to review before finalizing a rule ``that is
unnecessary to protect tenants, a financial and administrative burden
to owners, and costly to the taxpayers who support the programs.''
HUD Response: HUD believes there is a mutual responsibility between
the tenant and the PHA or owner to ensure that recertification
requirements are followed by both parties. HUD would like to underscore
the importance of PHAs and owners working with their tenants to
identify the opportunities to improve practices and procedures that
facilitate on-time recertifications, rental payments or timely re-
payment plans. Additionally, the notice requirements in this rule will
help those tenants who are unaware or remind tenants who are aware of
ways that they can cure their nonpayment of rent.
Housing Providers' Efforts To Keep Tenants Housed
A commenter stated that the rule wrongfully assumes that management
and staff do not attempt to assist tenants before filing evictions and
that the rule does not adequately address tenants' noncommunication.
Commenters stated that housing providers already work with tenants and
provide every effort to avoid eviction. Additionally, commenters said
that tenants are aware of their legal obligations in their signed
leases, and they can speak with the PHA if there are any issues or
hardships. Tenants have options that include ``payment agreements,
referrals to several agencies such as United Way, Action Pact and
churches that can assist with rent and other resources.'' A commenter
said that PHAs are working with tenants to prevent evictions and
ensuring that tenants have access to available tools and information to
mitigate rent arrears. Another commenter stated that they strive to
work with tenants with payment issues through counseling and repayment
agreements before moving to the eviction process, but if an eviction is
filed, then the tenants have displayed a pattern of not being able to
pay rent.
A commenter said that when a tenant has an unexpected financial
crisis, they offer the tenant a grievance hearing and a payment plan to
get caught up on rent to avoid eviction. The commenter expressed that
it is in everyone's best interest to keep tenants housed rather than
displacing a tenant and suffering vacancy loss. Another commenter said
that PHAs do not want to evict tenants and are very good at working
with tenants that get behind by offering repayment agreements and
allowing more time to pay. Other commenters stated that tenants know or
should know that they can report loss of income to have their rent
adjusted and interim recertifications are processed quickly. Another
commenter stated that their PHA is currently under a corrective action
plan due to low waiting lists and extreme vacancies. The commenter said
they must make every effort to work with tenants who have a valid
reason to not pay rent and only use eviction as a last resort.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes and appreciates the efforts of housing
providers that keep tenants housed and those that use eviction as a
last resort. Unfortunately, not every housing provider focuses on
keeping tenants housed, and some file evictions that could have been
prevented. HUD maintains that providing tenants with additional time to
cure nonpayment of rent violations will limit preventable and
unnecessary eviction filings and evictions.
[[Page 101281]]
Administrative Burden
Commenters said that the rule would be an administrative burden to
housing providers and that HUD ignores the negative impacts that can
result from modifying formal policies and amending every lease. Some
commenters said that the notice requirement would cause more paperwork
for staff and management. A commenter said that it will take more time
administratively and give tenants an excuse to not pay rent and
consistently stay a month behind. Commenters also stated that because
of limited staff and funding, and many regulatory and compliance
demands, there are limited resources for their PHA to have ``more
substantial eviction prevention interventions with tenants.''
The commenters said requiring a revision to every lease to include
the required information is not easy and creates a substantial
administrative burden and cost, especially on small PHAs, that diverts
time and resources from other priorities. Another commenter mentioned
that it would divert time and resources away from the ``challenging
HOTMA implementation.'' Additionally, a commenter said that there are
more cost-effective measures to notify tenants of available resources
such as ``additional content in standard notices, resident newsletters,
etc., issues by Public Housing Agencies.''
A commenter said the additional notices should not be required
since tenants are already informed, and it would be a moot point.
Another commenter stated that adding further instructions to a notice
will cause confusion and complicate an already well functioning process
that results in little to no evictions for tenants not acting in bad
faith. Additionally, a commenter asked HUD (1) whether the requirements
for a repayment agreement will change; (2) if a notice will be invalid
if a component of the required language from the rule is missing; (3)
will this language be included in the new HOTMA lease and if so, should
housing providers wait until the new HOTMA lease to implement the rule;
and (4) if a housing provider decides to implement the rule via a lease
addendum prior to the new lease being issued by HUD, should the lease
addendum be approved by HUD? Commenters also said that HUD fails to
consider the additional time needed to revise notices to place into
employee and tenant trainings, computerized systems, and to obtain
signatures on amended leases for every household in a 14-to-18-month
period. Additionally, HUD does not include the costs to modify formal
policy documents, which requires public notice and comment as well as
action by the governing board of the agency.
A commenter said that employee paperwork and case management time
increase when tenant accounts are higher, creating a negative impact on
ledgers and financial reporting scores. Another commenter said the rule
creates an administrative burden on staff that are tasked with
collecting rent and dealing with disgruntled tenants. A commenter said
that for PHAs who have comparable policies in place, the rule creates
additional administrative burdens and liabilities for PHAs for
technical violations. For example, the commenter said, the rule
``requires the PHAs `amend all current and future leases to properly
incorporate the 30-day notice requirement,' and provide notice to
tenants of these amendments. These procedural requirements apply
regardless of whether PHAs currently have comparable policies in
place.'' The commenter said that it is concerning that the rule focuses
on form instead of substance.
One commenter said that their PHA letters already include
information required by HUD such as how tenants can avoid eviction by
obtaining a repayment agreement and/or by receiving a rent adjustment,
the total amount due, and the date the tenant must pay to avoid
eviction. This information is provided during move-in, recertification
appointments, and when tenants receive a rent statement or account
breakdown. Additionally, the commenter said that tenants see these
letters and ignore them causing the PHA to move forward with the
eviction process. This will result in staff having to complete multiple
delinquent letters since the State law requires a 14-day letter for
delinquent rent and a 30-day letter for charges past due.
HUD Response: HUD recognizes the immense and varied efforts that
housing providers have taken to help tenants remain stably housed. HUD
agrees that it is important to consider burdens created by new
requirements, and the rule has been carefully designed to minimize the
impact on housing providers. Therefore, HUD is not requiring PHAs and
owners to update leases at once, but to do so within 18 months of the
effective date of the rule for PHAs, and for PBRAs, 14 months from the
date HUD publishes a final model lease incorporating the new
requirements. HUD will produce model leases for PBRA programs that will
incorporate HOTMA regulations and the changes implemented by this rule.
Additionally, HUD may implement additional guidance in the future to
assist PHAs and owners with the implementation of this rule.
HUD also reiterates that in order to be considered in compliance
with the rule, the notice must include instructions on how tenants can
cure lease violations for nonpayment of rent; the alleged amount of
rent owed by the tenant, and any other arrearages allowed by HUD and
included in the lease; the date by which the tenant must pay rent to
avoid the filing of an eviction; information on how tenants can
recertify their income; how tenants can request a minimum rent hardship
exemption, if applicable, or request to switch from flat rent to
income-based rent; and in the event of a Presidential declaration of a
national emergency, such information as required by the Secretary. With
regard to the comments on repayment agreements, HUD strongly encourages
but will not require the use of repayment plans and reiterates that
PHAs and owners have flexibility to design them to be reasonable.
Repayment plans are just one way for tenants to cure their nonpayment
of rent and this rule is focusing particularly on notification
requirements.
Tenant Accounts Receivable (TAR)
Many commenters stated that the rule would negatively impact TARs
and threaten PHAs' ability to function and provide adequate low-income
housing. Commenters said that by the time an eviction goes through the
legal process, tenants could owe an additional two or more months of
rent. A commenter said that even if the tenant can address their rent
arrears, the payments do not cover the current month and do not address
the TARS and negative scoring issues. Another commenter said that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the CARES Act increased their accounts receivable
from tenants, and in some courts, evictions are backed up for a year.
Additionally, a commenter said that it can take approximately three
months before a tenant is evicted for nonpayment of rent which
increases TARs and creates more issues on the books for PHAs.
Commenters said that the rule will increase the amount of unpaid
rent incurred by PHAs and have a negative impact on mandatory scoring
requirements in regard to the collection of rent and vacancy rates.
Commenters said the rule does not address the conflicting priorities
the rule imposes on PHAs to collect rent and then be scored by HUD on
their effectiveness to collect rent. Additionally, a commenter said
that HUD has not provided long-term relief on this requirement and
[[Page 101282]]
housing providers cannot effectively collect rent without sufficient
tools and the eviction process. A commenter said this rule is
contradictory to how HUD scores and advises. Commenters stated that
there should be relief on the PHA scoring side of the rule. Another
commenter asked how HUD will offset the scoring due to high balances on
the agency TARs.
A commenter said that tenants are graded on the size of their
accounts receivable balances and the 30-day requirement has not done
anything to help PHAs. The commenter said that HUD has punished PHAs
for having large account receivable balances, but the rule would
continue to grow these balances. Similarly, commenters said that HUD
grades PHAs on their ability to collect rent, rewarding those with
higher rent collections and punishing those with lower rent
collections. The commenters stated that limiting the tools that PHAs
can use to collect rent under governing State and local law causes
confusion and limits the PHAs' ability to meet the rent collection
requirements. A commenter stated that the rule would interfere with
grading as they are graded on the management and occupancy reviews
(MOR), which is partially their ability to collect rent. Another
commenter stated that no consideration had been given to the 5% of PHA
scores attributed to higher TARs because of the rule. The commenter
said that their PHA currently has a low 90 score and that is with all
possible points in the indicators with exception of Real Estate
Assessment Center inspections. The commenter said that a ``bump to
`standard' HUD rating would absolutely diminish staff moral [sic].''
Additionally, a commenter said that the rule prolongs wait times
for other tenants which affects a PHA's Capital Fund Program score
since this category focuses on occupancy rates. The commenter said that
lower scores subject PHAs to remedial actions, oversight, and
monitoring by HUD. Additionally, commenters pointed to HUD's example of
a nonprofit affordable housing provider in Boston \34\ and said that
the provider is not a PHA and not subject to negative scoring which
would result if a PHA pursued the same options, also the provider has
the resources being one of the largest affordable housing providers in
the country. Commenters said that smaller housing providers do not have
the same privileges to delay collecting rent as the study mentions, and
even after the amount of work mentioned in the study, 50% of tenants
did not respond to efforts to avoid eviction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ King, S. (2021). How One of Boston's Top Evictors Changed
Its Ways. Shelterforce. https://shelterforce.org/2021/12/03/how-one-of-bostons-top-evictors-changed-its-ways/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters said that the 30-day notice requirement would mean
that tenants would be at least 60 days behind in rent by the time an
eviction filing is filed in court and a court date is set, and if a
tenant refuses to move out, ``PHAs are now looking at 90-120 days of a
receivable being on the books that then leads to even higher write offs
each year.''. A commenter stated that the 30-day notice requirement has
increased their receivables and write-offs each year, which affects
their bottom line. The commenter explained that their write-offs for
2022 were over $130,000, and for 2023 they were already at $218,000 by
October. The commenter further explains that they are working with
tenants and a lot of local agencies to pay some of the balances but
must rely on Federal assistance as well.
Another commenter said that in 2019, prior to the 30-day
requirement, their end of year write off amount was $2,700, but each
year their collection losses has grown significantly. The commenter
mentions a correlation between not being able to evict for nonpayment
of rent in a timely manner and their growing TARs as why they wrote off
$16,300 in 2023. Additionally, one commenter said their PHA normally
sends a list of tenants who owe rent to collections, but only 15% of
the time do they recover rent. The commenter further said that if HUD
requires a 30-day notice for nonpayment of rent, then HUD should
increase its level of operating subsidies. Last year, the commenter
said their write-offs totaled $200,000 and HUD has decreased funding. A
commenter said $234,000 in write offs for 2023 was the largest they
have seen in 10 years working at their PHA.
Commenters urged HUD to leave the notice requirement at 14 days. A
commenter stated that when they issue an eviction for nonpayment of
rent, the tenant does not pay and does not leave the unit within the 14
days allowed; therefore, when the eviction is filed in court, tenants
owe approximately 1-2 additional months of rent. The commenter further
said that they cannot imagine their write offs given the proposed 30-
day notice. Another commenter stated that it is not fair that HUD
continues to grade PHAs on their ability to collect debt owed while not
allowing PHAs to use a fair 14-day notice. Commenters noted that the
30-day requirement has been in practice since the COVID-19 pandemic and
is burdensome to PHAs especially in the timely collection of TARs.
Commenters also said that during COVID-19, many tenants did not pay
rent because they were not required and now PHAs are suffering from
outstanding TARs which negatively affect their Public Housing
Assessment System (PHAS) scores and operating income.
A commenter said that their PHA currently has $2 million in TARs
from tenants that have decided to not pay their rent, which does not
include $1.3 million that has already been written off as bad debt from
tenants that moved out with unpaid balances in 2023. Another commenter
said their average TARs was under $30,000 a month and now they are over
$90,000. A commenter stated that ``HUD has reported that up to 50
percent of PHAs increased levels of TARs in 2023 compared to pre-
pandemic levels.'' The commenter also said that a longer notice period
will assuredly cause higher rent arrears and will undermine the PHAs
efforts to collect rent and reduce TARs.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that PHAs should not be penalized as a
result of compliance with this rule. The requirement to extend the
notification of lease termination for nonpayment of rent may affect
PHAs' financial assessment scores if TARs rates rise. HUD has been
monitoring trends in TARs and the most recent data suggests that TARs
are beginning to stabilize to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. There
remain outliers that are keeping TARs elevated, but HUD believes that
the majority of PHAs throughout the country are starting to experience
lower TARs. HUD understands the impact of TARs on a PHA's finances and
ability to operate. HUD believes the 30-day notification period to be
the right balance for tenants to cure a violation of the lease for
nonpayment of rent and have minimal impact for a PHAs' financials.
Additionally, HUD has provided relief to PHAs for PHAS scoring of
TARS for 2022 and 2023 PHAs scores and is evaluating further extensions
at this time based on available data. Further, HUD is developing a
proposed rule on the Public Housing Assessment Systems that HUD
anticipates will be published later in 2024.\35\ HUD encourages
commenters to also provide public comments on that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See HUD's Regulatory Agenda at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2577-AD17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Rights of Landlords
Commenters said that landlords have rights. One commenter said that
[[Page 101283]]
landlords have the right to run their business as they see fit. Another
commenter stated that landlords have inalienable rights, one being ``as
property owner who rents by the collection of financial rental
compensation in exchange of the tenant using property.'' A commenter
stated that property rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,
and if the government interferes with ``owner's rights to manage their
properties by restricting their contractual rights, then the government
becomes the tyrant.'' Additionally, a commenter said that Texas allows
tenants to be evicted after a four-day notice and by allowing a 30-day
notification, it would be a violation of constitutional rights to give
special treatment to one group of people.
HUD Response: The Secretary has explicit statutory and regulatory
authority to require that certain terms and conditions be included
within leases for HUD-assisted housing,\36\ including that PHAs and
owners provide certain specified notice periods and other procedural
protections before different types of eviction proceedings.\37\ The
statutory authority provides that during the lease term, the owner must
not ``terminate the tenancy except for serious or repeated violation of
the terms and conditions of the lease, for violation of applicable
Federal, State, or local law, or for other good cause[.]'' \38\ The
Secretary is also authorized to provide additional terms and conditions
that must be incorporated into the tenant's lease.\39\ The Secretary
has exercised this authority on previous occasions such as in the
interim final rule,\40\ Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing final
rule,\41\ and in HUD's grievance procedures at 24 CFR 966.52.\42\ This
final rule is consistent with the statutory and regulatory restrictions
placed on program participants under this authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 42 U.S.C. 1437d(a).
\37\ 42 U.S.C. 1437d(l); 42 U.S.C. 8013(i)(2)(B) (section 811);
24 CFR part 891 (section 202, 202/8, and 202/162).
\38\ 42 U.S.C. 1437f(d)(1)(B)(ii). See also 42 U.S.C.
8013(i)(2)(B) (section 811).
\39\ 42 U.S.C. 1437f(d)(1)(B)(i). See also 42 U.S.C.
8013(i)(2)(A).
\40\ 86 FR 55693.
\41\ 81 FR 87430 (this final rule required PHAs administering
public housing to implement a smoke-free policy and to update the
lease, without a statutory mandate, to incorporate the new smoke-
free policy at Sec. 966.4(f)(12)(ii)(B)).
\42\ See 24 CFR 966.52(b) and 966.4(n) (HUD requires PHA leases
to stipulate that the tenant has an opportunity for a hearing on a
grievance of any proposed adverse action against the tenant). See
also the rulemaking of part 866 (Lease and Grievance Procedures),
which requires the grievance procedure be incorporated into the
lease at 40 FR 33406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, owners are not required to participate in HUD's
federally subsidized housing programs. However, when an owner enters
into an agreement to participate, the owner receives incentives and
conversely subject themselves to certain obligations. Those obligations
do not interfere with an owner's constitutional rights. Furthermore,
courts have consistently upheld HUD's ability to ensure due process in
the eviction process when it concerns participants in federally
subsidized housing.
Participation in HUD Programs
Commenters said the 30-day notice would create a hardship for
owners/landlords and will make them not want to participate in
affordable housing. A commenter said that further restrictions on their
business as a landlord will cause them to walk away and put their money
in a market fund which would in turn lower the supply of rental housing
and increase rent. One commenter stated that the private sector is
responsible for the majority of affordable housing in the United
States,\43\ and rather than increasing burdens, HUD should incentivize
the private sector to continue to invest in affordable housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Lance Freeman & Yining Lei, An Overview of Affordable
Housing in the United States, Penn IUR Policy Brief, at 2 (August
2023), available at https://penniur.upenn.edu/uploads/media/An_Overview_of_Affordable_Housing_in_the_United_States_Updated.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, a commenter stated that rent is critical to ensuring
housing providers are able to produce affordable housing in their
communities. One commenter said the 30-day notice requirement ``has
proven to disrupt the rental market by reducing housing availability.''
Another commenter stated that the rule will have a negative impact on
the public perception of HUD, housing providers, and low-income
tenants. The commenter said the rule gives a false perception of
tenants receiving public and assisted housing as irresponsible and
taking advantage of taxpayers which can increase resentment and
distrust of Federal housing programs, housing providers, and tenants.
HUD Response: HUD believes that the limited scope of the rule does
not curb participation in HUD programs. Owners that participate in HUD
programs governed by the Office of Multifamily Housing understand why
providing affordable housing is important and tend to be mission-
aligned entities. HUD seeks to achieve the appropriate balance that
does not overly burden PHAs and owners, and also benefits tenants.
Thus, HUD believes the 30-day notification period for a specific set of
HUD programs is appropriate.
Delay in Eviction Cases
Many commenters stated that there is a delay in eviction court
cases and offered varying times for when a court date is set after
filing for eviction in their jurisdiction. Some commenters did not
understand and questioned the necessity for an additional 30-day notice
when it already takes several months to get into housing court or have
a court date set. Commenters also said that many locations are having
issues with timely court dates, and it is taking several months to
evict, which is burdening housing providers and costing thousands of
dollars in lost rent and legal fees. Additionally, a commenter said
that asking PHAs to wait an additional 30 days to file in court is
damaging to the PHA. Commenters stated that a backlog in eviction cases
creates a significant financial burden for landlords that impact
community resources to cover debt service, taxes, insurance, and
property repair costs. Commenters also mentioned that housing providers
are still feeling the impact of court backlogs from the pandemic. For
example, housing providers in Atlanta reported in 2023 that they were
still waiting for court dates after filing evictions six to eight
months prior.
A commenter said that they have been involved in many eviction
cases and it can take weeks to file with an attorney and have a court
date set, and then there is the possibility of a continuance.
Essentially, it can take 3-4 months to evict a tenant for nonpayment of
rent, meaning the landlord is missing 3-4 months of rent. The commenter
also said if the tenant is evicted after a four-month period, the
landlord will likely not see the money for back rent and may have to
deal with any damages that the tenant may have left. Commenters stated
that it is taking 90-120 days to evict due to backlog and delay in the
court system. Another commenter stated that the eviction court process
is incredibly lengthy and can take around 90 days after an eviction
notice for a tenant to be evicted for good cause. Commenters also
stated that in Michigan, it takes 90-120 days to get a court date
despite a 7-day notice period.
Another commenter explained that a week after rent is due, notice
is sent to the tenant, and then after another week, a notice of intent
to file for dispossessory is sent to the tenant. A week or so after
that, the dispossessory
[[Page 101284]]
will be filed and by this time three weeks have passed. When the court
gets the dispossessory, it typically takes two weeks to process and
then a letter is mailed to the tenant giving them another week to
answer the court. If the tenant answers the court, it takes two weeks
to process and then the court moves forward with setting a court date
but must look at their already backlogged calendar which can be 4-6
weeks out. A hearing is then set, and if the PHA prevails, the tenant
is given at least two weeks to vacate. If the court requires the tenant
to pay the rent, the PHA does not receive late fees, or they receive
around 10%. Many of the tenants do not pay and the PHA must get a writ
of possession, adding more time to the process. However, one commenter
said many of their PHA's nonpayment eviction cases result in non-final
stay agreements which provide the tenant the ability to repay over time
and make a legal agreement to secure arrearages.
A commenter stated a backlog in the magistrate courts could
increase PHA eviction timelines and delinquent account amounts, and
potentially affect households that have been on waiting lists for
months or years. Another commenter said that appeals, attorney's fees,
and writs of possession must be factored into the filing of evictions,
making it unlikely to have a court date within the same month.
Similarly, another commenter stated that it could take weeks to get on
the docket for court and the judges would like the parties to mediate
the move out. If the parties cannot come to an agreement, the judge
decides when the tenants will move out. However, if the tenants do not
vacate the property, the owners must pay court costs to obtain a writ
to have them removed, and if that does not work, the sheriff's
department must be paid for possession of the property via lockout.
Additionally, a commenter said that tenants should not be given 30-
day notice because most evictions cases can take 3-4 weeks. Commenters
said that courts need time to schedule cases and even after a case, it
takes even more time to schedule a writ of possession if necessary. One
commenter said that even when an eviction is granted by the court,
judges allow tenants 30-60 days before the eviction can be enforced,
and if a tenant refuses to leave, it takes more time to file additional
paperwork and schedule an eviction with the Sheriff's department,
causing the PHA to house non-paying tenants for 4-6 months before they
are evicted. One commenter said that in New York, the Sheriff's
department must allow 14 days before executing a writ. Additionally, a
commenter said that New York has extended the time a tenant can be
brought to court from 5-12 days to 10-17 days and the tenant is
entitled to an immediate adjournment of at least two weeks to obtain
legal counsel.
Another commenter said their county takes 10-14 days to get a court
date and by that time the tenant could be two months behind in rent
which causes even more loss of income for the small PHA. The commenter
also said the small PHA had an increase of $4,000 in write-offs due to
a delay in the courts. Another commenter said that in the best-case
scenario, it takes 32 days to go through the eviction process, but
under this rule, it would take 52-60 days of waiting for court to
deliver the dispossessory notice.
Commenters said that an initial filing may be the only way to
convince a tenant to pay their rent, especially when the PHA has
already provided tenants with information and resources to cure their
nonpayment. The urgency pushes tenants to reach out to external
resources, and in some states, rental assistance is not available until
an eviction is filed. A commenter that has been in property management
for LIHTC for 20+ years said some tenants need encouragement from the
court to pay their rent. Another commenter stated that tenants often
will not reach out for assistance until they receive written notice
from the landlord, and they must prove they are in danger of losing
their home when seeking emergency rental assistance.
HUD Response: HUD does not dictate the timelines of local courts
and their processes. HUD disagrees that the increased notification
period merely delays evictions. As previously discussed, it is
estimated that between 1,600 and 4,900 nonpayment related moveouts in
Public Housing and PBRA-assisted housing are prevented each year
because of the 30-day notice requirement. Additionally, HUD emphasizes
that the cost of eviction filings, including the court delays mentioned
in the public comments, are a strong reason for why it is more cost-
effective to work with tenants on a repayment plan. Tenants who can
obtain additional assistance to pay rent can avoid unnecessary eviction
filings and evictions, which will benefit housing providers as well.
For similar reasons, HUD disagrees with comments that the costs to
housing providers due to delays in the court system outweigh the
benefits to tenants.
Negative Impact on Tenants
Many commenters stated that the rule will have a negative impact on
tenants. Commenters stated that the rule will cause higher rent arrears
for tenants which would be harder to cure, have a negative impact on
their credit record, and cause issues with future housing. Commenters
also said that a 30 day wait to file for eviction for nonpayment of
rent would in turn compound other delays, causing tenants to get
further behind on their rent and only increasing tenants' financial
difficulties. Additionally, commenters said that the rule would cause
delays in a tenant's access to some local emergency rental assistance
programs. A commenter stated that there are few agencies in their area
with funding programs that provide rental assistance to tenants living
in subsidized housing. A commenter explained that when tenants fall
behind in rent and are still evicted, they face overwhelming past due
balances that the tenant cannot pay to satisfy judgment for years.
Some commenters said they do not support the rule because it hurts
the community and other tenants who are paying their rent on time and
other tenants will be affected because resources are limited.
Commenters stated that PHAs are working diligently to keep tenants
current on their rent, but because of low funds, the 30-day notice will
put tenants and the PHA even further in a financial hole. Additionally,
a commenter said that even an existing 7-day notice requirement
increases the hardship on tenants and owners, causing owners having to
allocate more resources per tenant due to the delays which in turn
reduces their capacity to support other households. Another commenter
said that the longer a nonpaying tenant remains in a unit, the more
compliant tenants will be impacted, interfering with their peace and
enjoyment.
Some commenters specifically emphasized that tenants will struggle
to cure their nonpayment of rent. A commenter said that the rule will
increase nonpayment amounts and contribute to a ``never-ending debt
situation'' for tenants. A commenter said that a tenant who pays $200-
$300 in rent and falls behind one month will struggle to get back on
track and the 30-day notice will only push the balance into a second
month. The commenter said that at this point, most PHAs and rental
assistance programs cannot assist tenants in bringing their balances up
to date. Commenters stated that the rule would create confusion for
tenants since they will owe more in rent by the time the parties go to
court. Another commenter stated the rule has caused the most vulnerable
citizens in their community to get further behind in rent.
[[Page 101285]]
Commenters also said that the rule is counterproductive and would
increase evictions. A commenter said that prior to the COVID-19
pandemic, evictions for nonpayment of rent were low in most places, and
now, due to reliance on rental assistance and decreased prioritization
of timely rent payments, evictions have increased significantly.
Another commenter said they have seen an increase in late rent due to
the 30-day notice requirement and the courts' handling of eviction
cases, creating greater hardship for tenants. Additionally, a commenter
stated that a PHA cannot accept partial payments when an eviction is
filed, so when HUD allows additional time for tenants to pay their
rent, it is harder for tenants because they are now stuck with two
months of rent and eviction costs. The commenter said that if the
tenants had received an eviction notice on the first month of
nonpayment, they might have been able to receive assistance before
getting further behind.
Additionally, a commenter stated that the rule will require rent
increases to compensate for housing providers' additional expenses,
causing the rental market to become more expensive. Another commenter
said that under this rule, housing providers may have no choice but to
have zero-tolerance policies for nonpayment issues instead of providing
leniency since tenants can fall further behind. A commenter stated that
landlords in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program are not required
to give 30-day notice, and since they already have so many
restrictions, landlords will be less willing to rent to HCV holders. A
commenter stated that tenants' unpaid balances when they vacate a unit
could keep other landlords from renting to those tenants. Another
commenter said operating subsidies are decreasing, causing PHAs to
suffer and hurting low-income tenants.
Commenters stated that for certain properties an increased
delinquency rate will negatively impact an owner's ability to properly
maintain a property which impacts all tenants. Commenters also said
that ``owners are facing high inflationary costs that exceed the cost-
of-living rental increases.'' One commenter stated that housing
providers may become stricter in their lease enforcement practices and
applicant screenings as a result of this rule. Additionally, many
commenters said that the rule will increase unpaid rent and result in
lost revenue not covered by HUD, which would ``lead to reduced
administrative and maintenance services for all tenants and may
threaten agency solvency.'' Some commenters stated that the rule will
cause more confusion for tenants because there will be different
requirements for different HUD programs because the rule would not
apply to vouchers and other rental units in the market. Another
commenter asked HUD to immediately rescind the 30-day notice
requirement and stated that PHAs ``must be allowed to manage their own
lease termination procedures as has been past practice.''
HUD Response: Experience from HUD's Eviction Protection Grant
Program suggests that some residents of HUD-assisted housing facing
eviction were able to avoid eviction by securing or maintaining rental
assistance (with the assistance of legal service providers) but that
this process took an average of 150 days. Most residents receiving
housing assistance cannot afford legal assistance, and no-cost legal
services may not be available to them.
HUD's analysis of the program data suggests that as case duration
increases, so does the likelihood of securing rental assistance and
achieving a rent reduction, though the effects are modest. Extra time
provides an opportunity for the tenant to engage with legal providers
and to achieve positive outcomes when they are available. As previously
mentioned, HUD has been monitoring trends in TARs and the most recent
data suggests that TARs are beginning to stabilize to pre-COVID-19
pandemic levels. HUD believes that the majority of PHAs throughout the
country are starting to experience lower TARs.
Additionally, HUD agrees that some owners may experience revenue
loss during the 30-day notification period, but a portion of this
income may be recouped from HUD through the special claims process for
Multifamily Housing programs, including payments for debt service and
unpaid rents. HUD also recognizes that operating costs have increased
and continue to increase, irrespective of tenants accounts receivable,
and HUD has since appropriately adjusted the methodology for
determining the annual rent operating costs adjustment factor (OCAF) to
reflect this fact. HUD believes that the rule and its requirements to
provide tenants time to locate the necessary resources to pay their
rental arrears will result in fewer tenant delinquencies over time, and
therefore, a decrease in applicant rejections when screening for
patterns of nonpayment of rent. HUD urges owners to not adopt a zero-
tolerance screening policy and to instead adopt a policy of tolerance
for tenants who are otherwise good renters and are motivated to work
with their owners to pay their back rents.
In response to the comment regarding the Housing Choice Voucher
program, this rule does not apply to that program. For the same reason
expressed in other responses to public comment, HUD believes this rule
strikes the appropriate balance of not being overly burdensome to PHAs
and Owners while also benefiting tenants.
Impedes Necessary Skills for Tenants
Commenters said that the rule will set up tenants for failure and
set a precedent for tenants of not being responsible for their bills
and not adhering to contractual agreements. Some commenters said that
their PHA promotes self-sufficiency and financial literacy to tenants,
but the 30-day notice will not promote self-sufficiency. A commenter
asked how this rule helps tenants become self-sufficient if the
standard is being lowered, and how will it help tenants transition to
tenant-based voucher programs and non-subsidized housing where they
will be given a 14-day notice.
Another commenter stated that tenants who are no longer in the
program due to an increase in income will not have the financial
literacy to budget appropriately and they will face eviction in the
private market. For example, Ohio's State law gives tenants a 3-day
notice for nonpayment of rent. Similarly, a commenter said that HUD
should prepare tenants for the next step after public housing by
supporting ``law abiding and lease compliant residents who deserve the
quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their apartment.'' A commenter stated
that families should be given the necessary skills to further their
financial situations, but this rule does not accomplish this and
instead creates lower expectations for tenants. Another commenter
stated that individuals in public housing understand they must pay
their rent and allowing them more time will enable tenants to avoid
looking for solutions to pay their rent. Another commenter said that
the rule enables tenants to ignore management for a longer period
instead of enabling tenants to learn money management. Additionally, a
commenter stated that there is no reason tenants cannot pay their
affordable rent, and tenants are being enabled to do the bare minimum.
HUD Response: The intent of this rule is to assist tenants in
curing nonpayment of rent violations by requiring 30-day notice before
an eviction filing, and to ensure they are aware of resources that can
help them pay past due rent. This rule does not intend to provide self-
sufficiency or financial literacy. Nevertheless, HUD
[[Page 101286]]
does not agree that tenants will lack self-sufficiency and
responsibility due to the 30-day notice requirement. Residents of HUD-
assisted housing have demonstrated an ability to abide by the lease
terms and have successful tenancies. HUD understands that this is not
always the case, however, providing a 30-day notification period and
information to help cure non-payment will help tenants get the
assistance they need to remain housed.
Wait Lists
Many commenters expressed that the rule would cause longer wait
times for individuals and families on waiting lists. A commenter stated
that there are very long wait lists to enter certain housing programs
and properties. Commenters said that allowing nonpaying tenants, and
tenants not willing to comply with a lease agreement to remain in units
is unfair to individuals and families in need of housing. Another
commenter stated that the rule will further delay other applicants on
waiting lists from getting assistance due to the shortage of available
units in public housing. Additionally, a commenter stated that longer
wait times could lead to an increase in homelessness.
Commenters said that additional days could instead be used to
ensure housing for individuals on a waiting list who will pay their
subsidized rent. The commenter expressed that it does not make sense
for people to live rent free due to irresponsibility with no
repercussions while people on waiting lists suffer. A commenter stated
that their small PHA, with only 20 apartments, is full and there is a
long waiting list already. The commenter said that people call the
office daily looking for housing and if the process were quicker, a
unit could be open for a rent paying tenant. A commenter stated the
rule is like a punishment to those waiting and willing to pay for a
stable home.
Commenters also said that the rule puts PHAs and owners at a
disadvantage because it limits their ability to turn over units and
find new tenants. A commenter said that it is unfair for tenants not
paying rent on time to remain while there is a waiting list of over 75
families who await affordable housing. Additionally, the commenter said
their 185-unit PHA receives 15-30 calls per day about availability and
they have not been able to take new applicants in over four years. One
commenter said that their PHA has 10 people on the waiting lists and if
a tenant chooses not to pay, they have qualified people on the waiting
lists that are unhoused, disabled, and elderly that can and will pay.
HUD Response: HUD acknowledges the concerns of waitlists; however,
long waitlists throughout the country are a testament to the need for
greater resources, and not an opportunity to forgo taking steps to
protect the tenure of current residents.
Unfairness and Abuse of the 30-Day Notification Requirement
Some commenters described the rule as being unfair. A commenter
stated that the rule will give undue protection to tenants who are
already protected by local laws that were effective prior to the COVID-
19 pandemic. A commenter said that tenants sign leases that offer many
protections, but tenants do not respect the binding contracts because
of court rulings and rules, such as the one proposed, where ``the
tenant's responsibility is never really their responsibility.''
Commenters said that tenants' rent is based on 30% of their income.
A commenter said that if tenants lose their job, their rent would be
adjusted so there is no reason for tenants to fall behind in their
rent. Similarly, a commenter said that if tenants lose their job or
their family increases, they must let the landlord know so they can
recertify their income, and in their public housing program, they offer
an electric allowance to the tenant. A commenter stated that tenants
are well informed when they move in that they can report changes in
their income or financial difficulties, and receive reminders on
procedures to report changes during annual recertification. Another
commenter stated that if HUD provides tenants with unfair advantages
when tenants already have many protections, investors will not want to
provide affordable housing.
Some commenters said that rent for tenants is already low and
affordable and there is no reason to give them more time to pay rent,
especially since their rent can be adjusted due to a change in income.
Additionally, some commenters said that tenants' rent is based on their
income, and they can always adjust their rent by requesting a hardship
exemption if their income changes. A commenter said if a tenant fails
to report the change the consequences should fall on the tenant and not
the PHA.
One commenter said that it is not right to give a certain group of
people special privileges. The commenter said that tenants in public
housing already receive special treatment through governmental
assistance and their payment of rent is extremely low compared to what
other people are paying. Another commenter stated that tenants that are
paying rent based on their income have a privilege that most people do
not enjoy and now the rule will make it more difficult to address the
willful failure to pay rent. A commenter asked why tenants already
receiving discounted rent should receive additional time to pay rent
when other tenants are not afforded the same rights.
Additionally, a commenter said that tenants have received an
excessive amount of funds for rent through rental assistance programs
without providing proof that it was due to COVID-19 and took advantage
of the rental assistance funds at taxpayers' expense. Another commenter
said that PHAs have an obligation to protect U.S. taxpayer's investment
in the Federal funded housing program. Additionally, a commenter stated
that organizations will send a notification that they are paying a
tenant's rent so the property does not file for initial delinquency,
but most times the rent continues to not be paid for months.
A commenter said that the rule is allowing abuse of the system
because a tenant is already receiving assistance to pay their rent and
tenants should not be given more assistance when they decide not to
pay. The commenter stated that the notice gives the tenant enough time
to find housing, but tenants without assistance and landlords do not
have support. Another commenter stated that there is a way to help
tenants struggling to pay their rent without helping those who abuse
the judicial system or hurting landlords who must hire extra staff to
handle appeals and additional notices. A commenter said providing
additional time to tenants who have chosen not to pay their rent and to
ignore the lease terms ``goes against HUD's goal to improve lives and
strengthen communities to deliver on America's dreams.'' Additionally,
a commenter said that tenants have grievance rights, legal rights,
collection rights, and can adjust their rent based on changes to
income. The commenter asked, ``how much easier can we make it?''
A commenter said giving tenants more time to pay will only make
tenants more irresponsible and reckless. Some commenters said that
tenants need to be held accountable to timely pay their rent. Another
commenter stated that tenants should be held accountable to the terms
of their lease, but they currently abuse the 30-day period due to the
CARES Act by waiting to the last minute to pay rent. The commenter
stated that it is a recurring cycle each month and asked when tenants
are held
[[Page 101287]]
responsible if the terms keep changing. A commenter stated that HUD's
``One Strike Policy'' allowed PHAs to clean up properties and create
thriving communities, but now there are some people with low-income
that will not follow rules and should be held accountable for not
paying their rent. One commenter said the rule enables poor decision
making by tenants. Another commenter said that there are tenants who do
not follow the rules of the lease and tenants are being enabled by
allowing them to bend the rules and giving them additional time to pay
rent.
HUD Response: HUD understands and acknowledges that tenants
receiving assistance are entitled to recertify their income at least
once annually and request a hardship exemption if they are experiencing
eligible circumstances so that their rent is affordable. HUD also
understands, however, that a small minority of PHAs and owners may not
always properly or timely process tenants' reports of income and
household changes. In these situations, tenants' rental payments may be
improperly calculated and incorrectly applied. In these instances,
extra time to identify and work out these issues provides the
opportunity for PHAs and owners to identify the error that resulted in
the incorrect calculation of rent, and work with the household to
reconcile the issue. In furtherance of this, HUD has published
extensive guidance to provide support to PHAs and owners on strategies
to work with families that are behind on rent to avoid evictions as
much as possible. The final rule does not relieve tenants of their
statutory rent obligations, nor does it seek to shield tenants from
their lease requirements; rather, the rule provides consistency for
tenants and owners without posing an undue burden to PHAs and owners.
Additionally, HUD does not believe that the 30-day notification
period will discourage investors. There are other HUD programs that
have similar protections for tenants that have investor participation.
HUD believes this is a measure that reduces housing loss and undue
vacancies. Furthermore, localities often report decreasing levels of
emergency rental assistance programs and oversubscription. The final
rule provides additional time for tenants to identify and obtain
resources to resolve nonpayment.
Increase in Delinquency
A few commenters opposing the rule stated that the rule will
increase monthly delinquency in payment of rent causing tenants to fall
further behind. A commenter expressed that as a housing authority they
do all that they can to provide a safe and stable home for tenants;
however, tenants are falling further behind in rent because they have
learned that they have 30 additional days to not pay rent. One
commenter said landlords/owners should not allow tenants to live rent
free for 1-2 months. Similarly, a commenter said that tenants already
receive rental assistance to ensure that they can afford their rent,
and tenants who fail to pay make a conscious decision to be late. A
commenter said that repayment agreements do not address rent
delinquency, especially since HUD is not providing additional rental
assistance funding to tenants.
Additionally, a commenter provided an example of rent collections
in December of 2019-2023 from a property in Tampa that used a 30-day
notice period for all tenants due to the CARES Act. The commenter said
that the data showed delinquencies rose every year since 2019 and
remained high unlike when the state statutory notice was used. The
commenter stated that many tenants end up owing rent for multiple
months.
HUD Response: HUD disagrees with commenters that the rule will
cause rent delinquency. Preliminary findings from HUD Eviction
Protection Grant Program indicate that tenants who have additional time
are more likely to come to an agreement with their landlord to pay some
or all their delinquent rent over time. Though it may indeed be true
that such agreements do not necessarily recoup all unpaid rent, it is
likely that they increase the amount that the landlord comes away with
relative to cases where the tenant is evicted without any such
agreement. HUD believes that the 30-day notification period is an
appropriate timeframe that helps tenants stay in their homes and
minimizes burden for owners.
Misuse of Additional Time
Commenters stated that tenants may exploit a 30-day notice
requirement by taking advantage of the additional time, leading to
prolonged nonpayment of rent or other lease violations that create
hardships for landlords and disrupt housing stability. A commenter said
it has been so bad for their PHA that they had to put a limit on the
number of delinquency letters they sent to some tenants. Commenters
also said that since the implementation of the 30-day notice and after
rental assistance has run out, tenants are waiting to pay rent until
the last day of the previous month. A commenter said that tenants in
Illinois are taking advantage of the 30-day notice requirement to avoid
paying their rent on time. Another commenter stated that many tenants
obtain repayment agreements to avoid rent even with the amounts set to
below 40% of the monthly amount.
One commenter stated they do not agree with the rule because it
already takes a long time to evict a tenant for not paying their rent,
and the nonpaying tenant will usually stay in the unit until their
court day, giving them three or more months to live there for free. A
commenter said that tenants will use the 30-day notice to their
advantage and use the rent money for a deposit elsewhere leaving the
PHA with unpaid rent and costs to fix the unit. Commenters said that
tenants who refuse to pay rent abandon their units. A commenter
questioned why the rule would be made permanent stating the rule would
allow tenants more time to live for free when grace is not extended to
those with mortgage payments.
A commenter said that if tenants obtain a financial hardship
exemption, more tenants will use the requests and there will be less
tenants paying rent or working. The commenter said this will result in
HUD having to pay more, word spreading that the government will help,
and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. One commenter expressed that after
the implementation of the 30-day notice during COVID-19, a tenant with
higher income refused to pay their rent despite the PHAs best efforts
to communicate with the tenant and three years later, following the
sunset of eviction prohibitions, the tenant was evicted with a balance
of over $60,000 in unpaid rent. A commenter expressed that the rule is
misguided in bringing about equality and said that the rule essentially
removes the requirement for tenants to timely pay their rent and
creates a system that can be manipulated. Another commenter said that
some tenants move into a unit with no intention of paying and stall for
as long as possible, stealing housing.
HUD Response: The vast majority of PHAs and owners participating in
HUD programs have demonstrated an ability to implement the 30-day
notification period under the CARES Act and HUD's interim rule. HUD
encourages tenants and owners to work together to identify any
improvements to recertification policies or practices.
Damage and Destruction to Property
Some commenters expressed that there has been destruction to
properties due to nonpayment of rent and the prolonged eviction process
and the rule will further the damage and abuse done to properties. One
commenter explained that a property could not generate income for three
months and when the
[[Page 101288]]
property is finally vacated it is trashed. Tenants leave behind what
they do not want, forcing the property to post an abandoned goods
notice, have items put in storage for a cost, or leave them in the unit
until the end of the notice period. A commenter said that many tenants
who have outstanding balances damage the units and most times the
damage is done on purpose. Another commenter said that tenants who are
evicted for nonpayment of rent also have other lease violations, but
when evicting, they choose nonpayment of rent because it is ``more cut
and dry and has a lower burden of proof.'' These tenants have caused
disturbances to other tenants and/or have damaged the property.
One commenter stated that landlords experience repair and trash
removal costs when tenants finally vacate. A commenter said that
tenants who do not care enough to pay their rent also do not care about
what condition they leave a unit. A commenter said that tenants who are
getting ready to leave a unit will ignore all the rules such as quiet
hours, drugs, partying and respect for others. Commenters also said
that an initial filing does not result in immediate eviction, in fact
eviction is normally the last resort. A commenter said that in some
cases tenants have other lease violations such as criminal activity or
activity that threatens the health and safety of others and adding a
longer notice period of nonpayment of rent creates further obstacles.
HUD Response: The final rule only requires owners to provide a 30-
day notification period for nonpayment of rent. Other lease violations
are not subject to this rule. HUD believes that owners and tenants will
be able to use the 30-day notification period to rectify any nonpayment
issues and avoid potential damage to a unit. The 30-day notification
period can serve as a cost saving measure since tenants are likely to
pay any rent that is owed to the property owner with significant
notice.
State Law and Other Notices
Commenters urged HUD to allow states to govern eviction proceedings
that are already in place to protect tenants in the judicial process.
The commenters said that this will ensure that all parties have access
to local courts to resolve landlord-tenant disputes. Commenters also
stated that the current system for notification in their state has been
in place for years and is working well. Other commenters stated that
notice requirements should return to what they were prior to the COVID-
19 pandemic. Commenters said that returning to pre-pandemic
requirements would provide clarity for all parties.
A commenter suggested tailoring the notice periods to existing
statutes as a compromise. Another commenter said that many states have
already implemented changes that delay the eviction process and
increase the cost to the properties. For example, Delaware guarantees
legal counsel for all eviction proceedings. However, these rules
further increase the loss of revenue for properties. A commenter said
their current system has many protections to prevent tenants from being
homeless, since evictions can take months to conclude, there is enough
time for tenants to pay their unpaid rent.
One commenter asked whether leaving out ``combined'' was
intentional as the rule states that state and local law may run
concurrently. The commenter said they want to ensure this is clarified
to avoid confusion since the language in Sec. 966.4(l)(3)(iii)
indicates that the notice required under state or local may be
``combined'' or run ``concurrently.'' One commenter urged HUD to
provide guidance to states so they can make their own changes instead
of HUD implementing a rule.
A commenter said that the 30-day notice does not align with
California's existing laws and could cause complications for housing
providers and tenants. Another commenter said that a majority of owners
give tenants a five-day notice and after five days, the tenant is
served with an unlawful detainer which is not an eviction notice. The
commenter also said that an owner is lucky if they can get a court date
within 30 days of filing the unlawful detainer. Another commenter said
that the 30-day notice ignores that state laws have ``evolved
differently over time to protect tenants and housing providers
throughout the eviction process.''
HUD Response: The 30-day notification requirement provides
consistency and clarity across the country on what owners participating
in the specific HUD programs need to provide to tenants. PHAs and
owners will need to modify their leases and notices to include the
required information specific to the applicable HUD programs. As
previously noted, the requirements under this rule, including the
requirement that the 30-day notice may run consecutive to any
additional state or local notice requirements if required by state or
local law, does not preempt any state or local law that provides
greater or equal protection for tenants.
Grace Periods
A commenter stated that 16 states and some localities mandate a
grace period for tenants to pay rent without a late fee, and most
states have developed notice procedures that housing providers are
required to follow before filing for eviction. The notice requirements
vary from 0-30 days, the average being six days, so the 30-day notice
requirement would be five times higher.
Another commenter stated that tenants already receive a 10-day
grace period before they receive a 10-day notice, which means the
landlord cannot file for eviction until the 21st of the month. If 30-
day notice is required, the tenant would be 2-3 months behind in rent
before a court date is set. Another commenter said that their PHA
provides a five-day grace period and then another 14 days before they
file for termination, but giving a 30-day notice means the process goes
into the next month, causing more of a burden on tenants and
organizations. Similarly, a commenter stated that in Ohio there is a
five-day grace period followed by a 10-day notice requirement that
essentially gives tenants a 16-day grace period. The commenter said
almost four to five months can go by without a landlord receiving rent
especially if a landlord must wait for a sheriff and do renovations.
One commenter asked for HUD to consider the effects on PHAs that
already offer a grace period to tenants.
HUD Response: HUD has considered the appropriate timing for the
notification requirement and believes that a 30-day notification period
strikes a reasonable balance that benefits tenants and limits the
burden on owners.
7, 10, and 14-Day Notice Requirements
A commenter advocating for a seven-day notice requirement stated
that a seven-day notice would push tenants to pay on time and lessen
the financial burden on landlords, versus a 30-day notice that would
essentially give a grace period where the only penalty is late fees. A
commenter said that in Nebraska they follow a seven-day notice
requirement, and due to lengthy wait times for a court date, the tenant
is usually two months behind in rent before a decision is made. A
commenter urged HUD to bring back the three-day notice to vacate
because this rule would allow tenants to live in a unit without paying
rent for almost two months before a court date is set.
Commenters said that properties should go back to the 10-day notice
requirement for nonpayment of rent to
[[Page 101289]]
avoid a financial detriment to properties. A commenter living in a HUD
subsidized property, said the 30-day notice requirement was good during
the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is time to return to the 10-day notice in
Illinois. Additionally, a commenter urged HUD to bring back the three-
day notice to vacate because this rule would allow tenants to live in a
unit without paying rent for almost two months before a court date is
set.
A commenter stated that tenants are notified when they sign their
lease that rent is due on the 1st of the month, and when rent is not
paid, they are sent a notice 10 days after. The commenter further
stated that it takes three months to evict a tenant. The tenants
receive courtesy calls and in-person visits to ask when they can pay
their rent. A commenter stated that it was already difficult with a 72-
hour notice to vacate, and some states have extended it to a 10-day
notice. The commenter also said that tenants try to extend their stay
with an initial past due notice and judges allow it; therefore, the
process has to start over again.
Many commenters said that a 14-day notice requirement is a
sufficient amount of time or that it would cause less hardship. A
commenter stated that 14 days is enough time for tenants to pay their
rent, request a repayment agreement, or move before an eviction is
filed. The commenter also said that requiring 30 days instead of 14
days will cause their small PHA significant income loss and further
limit their ability to provide low-income housing to those in need.
Another commenter said the 30-day notice requirement has brought a lot
of debt to public housing. Commenters said longer notice periods would
delay formal and nonformal payment agreements to cure nonpayment of
rent and confuse tenants with more changes.
A commenter said that nonpayment issues can be addressed within 14
days if a tenant follows the rules. The commenter said a 14-day notice
gives them enough time to cure their nonpayment of rent, but if they
have to file for eviction in court, it could take 60-90 days. The
commenter asked if they give this extra time will HUD allow PHAs a
waiver when their TARs cause conflict with other rules and regulations?
Another commenter urging HUD to leave the 14-day notice, stated that it
is a good incentive for tenants to pay past due rent, waiting 30 days
will put tenants behind in rent another month making it overwhelming
for tenants. A commenter also in favor of a 14-day notice, suggested
that HUD stress to PHAs the importance of interim recertifications and
repayment agreements.
Additionally, a commenter said that 30 days is an overstretch of
time needed for a tenant to rectify nonpayment issues. The commenter
further stated that tenants do not need an additional 14-days since
their rent is based on their income and it is the tenant's
responsibility to report loss of income or need for an interim
recertification. The commenter explained that if rent is due on the 1st
of the month and there is a 10-day grace-period, notice will not be
sent until the 10th day, which means the termination process will go
into another month. However, a ``no short payments'' clause means
tenants cannot give one month's rent in a different month without
providing payment for the current month. This gives tenants more time
to pay, but it also leaves more time for tenants to fall behind.
Additionally, the commenter said that when the 30-day notice
requirement was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic it was
acceptable, but now everything is opening back up and people are still
behind.
Another commenter said that it is not true that tenants need more
time to cure nonpayment of rent. The commenter stated that tenants
receive a 14-day notice in their state on the 2nd month on which they
have not paid rent and the court date is usually scheduled between 10-
14 days out. If the requirement is changed to 30 days, it is highly
likely that a tenant would have 60 to 90 days before a court date is
set. Additionally, a commenter advocating for state guidelines for
evictions, said that there is a 14-day notice requirement in
Massachusetts which allows an owner to get on the court docket in the
same month that rent is due. A commenter said the initial
implementation of the 30-day notice requirement during the COVID-19
pandemic negatively impacted their PHA. The commenter stated that the
requirement in Illinois was 14 days and now every month they have 50 to
75 tenants that are past due on rent because they are using the notice
as an extension. The commenter said that almost all of the tenants
served the 30-day notice will pay right at the end of the 30 days, but
they are still always one month behind.
HUD Response: HUD considered several alternatives to the 30-day
time period and ultimately decided that the 30-day period best balances
both tenants' interests and PHAs' and multifamily owners' reliance in
administering their programs. Additionally, the final rule is
consistent with provisions in the CARES Act and other actions taken by
other Federal agencies.
Overreach of the Federal Government
Some commenters stated that the rule is an overreach of the Federal
Government. A commenter stated that the CARES Act provision was
supposed to provide temporary relief during the pandemic, and now that
the pandemic is over, keeping the 30-day notice requirement ``amounts
to nothing more than unnecessary federal overreach into a state-level
matter.'' Additionally, the commenter said the 30-day notice during the
pandemic proved to be harmful to owners and there is no need to
continue the 30-day notice requirement now that the problem it was
supposed to address initially is over. Another commenter said that the
rule is an overreach because landlords are struggling financially due
to nonpayment of rent and property damage before evictions.
Additionally, a commenter disagreed that the rule is not a violation of
anti-federalism since ``landlord tenant and eviction law is the sole
purview of the states, so this attempt to circumvent these laws is the
very definition of federalism.'' The commenter further stated that the
discretion of those who work with tenants and make decisions will be
heavily impacted.
Commenters stated that the rule interferes with the eviction
process that is governed by states that already protect tenants and
ensure that all parties have access to local courts to resolve
disputes. Additionally, the commenters said the rule complicates the
local eviction process and delays resolutions while housing providers
remain unpaid putting ``the viability of PBRA-funded communities more
at risk.'' A commenter stated that state laws should be followed for
termination of leases for nonpayment of rent. Another commenter stated
the proposed rule circumvents the established legal process for
eviction and denies housing providers due process rights.
Commenters referred to the rule as a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach
that is not effective. A commenter urged HUD to consider operational
impacts when adding 30 additional days to state-level evictions. The
commenter said that ``such one-size-fits-all mandates rarely account
for regional and judicial complexities.'' Another commenter said a
``one-size-fits-all federal approach is not practical.'' Additionally,
a commenter stated that the ability to make local decisions is critical
and issuing a blanket policy across all jurisdictions removes local
control. The commenter said that the current notice
[[Page 101290]]
requirement in their jurisdiction is sufficient and if PHAs want to
extend the notice period, they have the flexibility to do so. Another
commenter stated that the Federal Government should not get involved in
individual contract enforcement by favoring one side or another.
One commenter stated that HUD does not have legal authority to
preempt state landlord-tenant laws without the express authorization
from Congress, as Supreme Court precedent established that the Federal
Government can preempt state laws in limited circumstances. The
commenter cited to Alabama Association of Realtors v. U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 594 U.S. 758 (2021) and said that
landlord-tenant law is traditionally considered a matter of state law.
The commenter also said that the Supreme Court addressed the harm to
landlords who were ``at risk of irreparable harm'' under the eviction
moratorium. The commenter also stated that statutory language does not
specify notice period requirements for PBRA, therefore leaving eviction
proceedings to states. ``There is also no language giving the Secretary
explicit authority to require certain terms and conditions be included
in these leases. In fact, the section covering required contract
provisions for assistance payments states that `the agency and the
owner shall carry out other appropriate terms and conditions as may be
mutually agreed to by them.' ''
Furthermore, a commenter stated that HUD's claim that the rule
reduces the patchwork and inconsistencies in notice requirements is
inaccurate and HUD should ``defer all requirements to State and local
law until such time as federal jurisdiction over landlord-tenant law is
established and such rules can apply to all rental housing.''
HUD Response: As discussed in the statutory authority section of
the proposed rule, HUD has general rulemaking authority under 42 U.S.C.
3535 to implement its statutory mission, which is to provide assistance
for housing to promote ``the general welfare and security of the Nation
and the health and living standards of [its] people.'' \44\
Additionally, HUD has specific statutory authority under the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937 to prescribe procedures and requirements for PHAs
to follow to ensure sound management practices and efficient
operations.\45\ HUD also has statutory authority to establish
requirements for project-based rental assistance.\46\ The Supreme
Court's decision in Alabama Association of Realtors is not applicable
here. That decision addressed the exercise of authority under the
Public Health Service Act by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). This HUD action relies on an entirely different set
of authorities. Further, unlike the eviction moratorium addressed by
the Supreme Court, this action does not ``exercise powers of vast
economic and political significance.'' Ala. Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS,
594 U.S. 758, 764 (2021) (internal quotations omitted). The CDC's
eviction moratorium applied to ``properties that participated in
federal assistance programs or were subject to federally backed
loans.'' Id. at 760. In contrast, this rule is narrower in scope and
only applicable to the specified HUD programs and owners that choose to
participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 42 U.S.C. 3531.
\45\ 42 U.S.C. 1437d(c)(4).
\46\ See 42 U.S.C. 1437f(g) (section 8 low-income housing
assistance); 12 U.S.C. 1701q (section 202 supportive housing for the
elderly); 42 U.S.C. 8013 (section 811 supportive housing for persons
with disabilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHAs and owners participating in HUD programs have the discretion
to work with tenants on a re-payment plan and therefore does not
constitute a one-size-fits-all approach. In addition, establishing a
baseline notification period is intended to provide uniform clarity for
everyone participating in HUD programs.
Evidence and Research
Commenters stated that HUD does not provide any evidence that
longer notice periods reduce evictions. Instead, one commenter said,
HUD overstates a study and relies on unreliable evidence to justify the
rule. Commenters further stated that HUD assumes housing providers are
bad actors and their first step is to file an eviction without
considering the impact on tenants, also HUD assumes they are not
already working with tenants to keep tenants housed. A commenter stated
that the rule provides limited evidence that a notice requirement would
have minimal financial impact on owners, especially without emergency
rental assistance and other financial resources to prevent evictions.
Additionally, a commenter asked HUD to specify the eviction rate
numbers for subsidized housing.
A commenter said that the rule includes selective background
information which does not focus on the negative impacts that landlords
and tenants will face. The commenter further stated that the rule
relies heavily on short-term positive outcomes of emergency COVID
provisions (when the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was
available) and is not informed by eviction prevention programs. The
commenter also said that HUD does not consider alternative approaches
to repayment agreements, hardship exemptions, and state and local law
programs. Commenters stated that it is challenging to strike a fair and
effective balance between preventing unjust evictions and ensuring
landlords receive timely payment, but it is essential to consider the
differing viewpoints.
Another commenter stated that HUD's findings and certifications
lacked support. The commenter said that HUD certifies that the benefits
justify the costs of the rule but fails to consider all the necessary
costs. Additionally, the commenter said HUD overstates within its
Improving Regulations and Regulatory review, however, ``mandating
extended notice periods for a subset of federal assisted housing
programs does not reduce administrative burdens, maintain flexibility
for covered entities, nor increase freedom of choice for the public.''
A commenter said that HUD mentioned in the proposed rule that it
cannot identify public data on the number of people in subsidized
housing who experience eviction; however, HUD is proposing a rule to
solve the problem. The commenter stated, ``this would seem to be the
perfect example of a solution in search of a problem.'' Another
commenter said the rule will have a significant impact on HUD's
estimate of over 2,000 PHAs and unknown number of PBRA owners. The
commenter stated that ``the Evidence Act creates requirements and goals
for federal agencies to use data-driven, evidence-based decision
making. This proposed rule is not based on sound, directly relevant
data and evidence.'' The commenter further stated that the rule has
unsupported conclusions, for example, HUD indicates that the extend
notice period ``may'' assist PHAs and owners to resolve arrears, that
there is a causal relationship between longer notice period and
eviction filings, and HUD overestimates the impact of the 30-day notice
under the CARES Act since it included ERAP which provided significant
resources to prevent evictions.
Additionally, a commenter stated that the premise of the rule is
misguided because it implies that PHAs and section 8 properties are
bias against people of color, women, and families with children, but
the rule does not state why tenants were evicted nor the number of
opportunities tenants were
[[Page 101291]]
given before being evicted. The commenter said that the study cited
\47\ in the proposed rule would probably show that more people of
color, women, and families with children live in public housing and so
the results are skewed. The commenter also said the ``biased evictions
are not the case in well-run federally funded housing organizations
that have federal oversight and an obligation to be fair and
unbiased.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Hepburn, P., Louis, R., & Desmond, M., Racial and Gender
Disparities among Evicted Americans. Sociological Science 7, 657
(2020), https://doi.org/10.15195/v7.a27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD Response: HUD recognizes that the impacts of evictions have
been closely analyzed by researchers and studies have shown different
results based on the data used and research methods. HUD also
acknowledges that collecting complete and comprehensive data on
evictions can be extremely difficult.\48\ Thus, studies and research
may not provide the complete picture of what is occurring in
communities across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Report to
Congress on the Feasibility of Creating a National Evictions
Database. HUD USER (2021). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Eviction-Database-Feasibility-Report-to-Congress-2021.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to data from the Census' Household Pulse Survey from
March 2024, nearly 5 million renter households in the United States are
behind on their rent and nearly 2 million fear eviction in the next 2
months.\49\ Preliminary analysis of HUD's Eviction Protection Grant
Program suggests that HUD-assisted tenants that ``secured or maintained
rental assistance'' through legal assistance had an average case length
of 150 days. HUD believes that it is reasonable to surmise that some
portion of these clients received assistance in recertifying or
obtaining their Federal assistance, and that the process of doing so
took at least 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ HUD analysis of data collected between March 5, 2024 and
April 1, 2024 through the Census Household Pulse Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD appreciates the commenters for encouraging HUD to use research
and data for evidence-based policy. Based on the existing research, HUD
believes the 30-day notification requirement will benefit tenants and
owners.
C. Suggested Changes and Clarifications to the Rule
Housing Cooperatives
Many commenters urged HUD to exempt housing cooperatives from the
rule. Some commenters urged HUD to reconsider implementing the rule
because of the negative effects it could have on housing cooperatives.
Commenters asked HUD to exempt housing cooperatives because the rule
would negatively impact operations and have unintended consequences for
housing cooperatives. A commenter stated that implementing the rule is
not a financially sound decision. Another commenter stated that many
cooperatives who have mortgages with HUD would be negatively impacted
financially causing late payments and fees, which would then cause
credit issues for having a late payment history. Some commenters stated
that the rule would be devastating to cooperative agreements and many
rental properties by restricting cash flow and threatening financial
stability. Additionally, many cooperatives with HUD-backed mortgages
will be threatened by late payments due to tenants knowing they have 30
days before legal action is initiated. A commenter said that
cooperatives already suffer from restrictions that support the bad
habits of members, and implementing this rule would impose another
hardship restriction.
A commenter stated that the rule would not help the Black and Brown
community, but instead have a negative ripple effect. The commenter
stated that cooperative housing allows for the Black community to have
affordable housing that is clean, safe, and beautiful, however,
finalizing the rule ``punishes affordable housing and has a disparate
impact on Black groups.'' The commenter said that the rule will either
cause more land grab and gentrification or vacant land that will go to
waste. Another commenter asked HUD to not include housing cooperatives
because cooperatives have stated payment terms that are different from
those being proposed. One commenter residing in a housing cooperative
in Pennsylvania said that their rentals provide valuable revenue which
they need to pay bills, and having a 30-day notice requirement would
negatively impact their ability to pay their housing cooperative bills.
Many commenters stated that housing cooperatives are unique or
different from other types of housing including homeowner associations
and community developments. A commenter stated that housing
cooperatives have shareholders of the corporation and follow certain
laws and documents that are different from other housing types. One
commenter stated that housing cooperatives should be able to continue
their practice under the Occupancy Agreement and their by-laws.
Commenters also stated that owners/members in a housing cooperative are
different from the relationship between tenants and for-profit
corporations. Similarly, commenters stated that housing cooperative
corporations are different from conventional apartments or rental
properties, they are non-profit and do not use model leases.
A commenter requested HUD to exclude housing cooperatives
explaining that they are unique since they are corporations owned by
residents and the rule could compromise adequate enforcement. The
commenter stated that when a resident does not meet their financial
obligations to the corporation, the burden falls on the other residents
and therefore it is important that boards of these corporations are
able to adequately enforce collections of various fees. A commenter
stated that non-paying members cause confusion and criminal activity in
the community. Additionally, the commenter said that non-paying members
manipulate courts and programs designed to assist those who have fallen
on hard times. One commenter said the rule would be a burden on low-
income housing properties explaining that once members are behind 30-
days, they will be 60 days behind when receiving the 30-day notice.
Another commenter explained that the funds housing cooperatives receive
are important for healthy financial cash flow in order to protect
member equity and provide appropriate capital reserve funding. The
commenter stated that during the COVID pandemic there was abuse of the
rent abatement program which caused legal proceedings to be prolonged
and placed several below market interest rate cooperatives in tough
financial positions and they are still trying to recover from.
One commenter stated that one of the reasons housing cooperatives
should be exempt is because they have successfully paid off four HUD
mortgages between 1965-1968. Additionally, the commenter stated that
the rule would conflict with the cooperative's Articles of
Incorporation which states that the corporation operates on a non-
profit basis, that the monthly assessment only covers the actual
operating costs, and that the Board makes financial decisions for the
property and has the same interest in monthly low assessments.
Many commenters stated that the cooperative housing model should be
exempt since the terms of the Occupancy Agreement provided by HUD
states that collection procedures can be initiated after 5 to 10 days;
however, legal proceedings normally begin around the 7th or 12th of the
month and ``if legal processing cannot
[[Page 101292]]
start until the end of the month, the non-profit cash flow and
delinquencies will jeopardize HUD insured mortgages, or other blanket
lending requirements.'' One commenter stated that payment requirements
are setup so that cooperatives and landlords are able to pay their
bills, employees, and vendors and these things still need to be paid
when members or renters do not pay.
HUD Response: HUD clarifies in this rule that only housing
cooperatives receiving Section 8 PBRA assistance are subject to this
rule. HUD recognizes that housing cooperatives that receive Section 8
PBRA assistance have an unusual ownership structure that provides many
benefits; however, that does not relieve them of the basic obligations
that landlords hold, including the requirements from this rule.
Additionally, in implementing this rule, HUD has taken a balanced
approach to ensure housing providers are not overly burdened and
tenants are given enough time to cure their nonpayment of rent.
Changes to the Lease, Notice, and Rule
A commenter asked HUD to provide a model notice with both English
and Spanish and to provide clarification about ``the date by which a
tenant must pay to avoid the filing of an eviction.'' The commenter
said that asking for a specific expiration date is concerning since
some states like California calculate a cure date based on state laws
which must be interpreted and therefore may be asking for legal advice.
Additionally, the commenter asked HUD to clarify in the model lease
that the model documents, sample language, and best practices are
permissive and not mandatory. A commenter asked how to require leases
to include information about how to contact HUD for disputes with PHAs
to clarify rent calculations.
A commenter asked for HUD to not leave room for misinterpretation
by stating in the rule ``before an eviction can be filed.'' Another
commenter said due diligence should be required ``so that actual cost
to this regulatory change would cost PHA's in terms of their operating
losses at a national level.'' Additionally, a commenter said that the
rule is very vague and suggested a 30-day restriction from the date
which the rent was due instead of the date of initial filing.
A commenter also asked HUD to proactively oversee implementation of
the rule and create a mechanism for tenants to report instances of non-
compliance. The commenter noted that HUD could strengthen
implementation of the rule by amending the model PHA lease, and the
multifamily standard lease, to expressly state that a landlord's
receipt of Federal financial assistance waives the landlord's ability
to utilize a rent deposit requirement under state law, to prevent a
tenant from being heard on the defense that they did not receive the
required notice pursuant to Federal law.
HUD Response: HUD acknowledges the commenters' request for more
specificity in the final rule and associated documents (i.e., model
lease, notice), including providing model notices in English and in
Spanish. HUD will draft and provide model notices and language (in
English and Spanish) that PHAs and owners can include in their leases;
however, HUD has determined that the term ``model'' is sufficient for
PHAs and owners to understand that it is not mandatory. Based on the
public comments regarding the clarification of dates, HUD is revising
the rule to clarify that PHAs and owners must not provide tenants with
a termination notice prior to the day after the rent is due according
to the lease. The rule also clarifies that PHAs and owners must not
proceed with filing a formal judicial eviction if the household pays
the alleged amount of rent owed within the 30-day notification period.
HUD also agrees to include recommended language: ``before an eviction
for nonpayment of rent can be filed'' in 24 CFR 247.4, 880.606,
880.607, 884.215, 884.216, 886.127, 886.327, 891.425, and 966.4.
Content Within the 30-Day Notices
Commenters supported the requirement that the notice include
information on tenants' right to recertify income, apply for a minimum
rent hardship exemption, request a change from flat rent to an income-
based rent, tenants' right to request reasonable accommodations and a
grievance or appeals hearing. Several commenters also stated that the
notice should be required to include additional information and
instructions on how to cure nonpayment of rent violations and avoid
commencement of a formal judicial eviction proceeding. One commenter
urged HUD to require that the notice include contact information for
each of the areas. Another commenter suggested that the notice include
information on how to restructure rent payments.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the comments. The rule requires that
the 30-day notice include instructions on how tenants can cure lease
violations for nonpayment of rent; specifically, information on how
much back rent and arrearages the tenant owes, information on how to
pay that rent and any arrearages, and information specific to HUD
programs on how to adjust rent owed if a tenant's situation has
changed. The rule also requires that the 30-day notice include
information on how tenants can recertify their income, and how tenants
can request a minimum rent hardship exemption or request to switch from
flat rent to income-based rent. In practice, a tenant cures a lease
violation for non-payment by paying the back rent owed. These
instructions will allow tenants to clearly understand how to take steps
to avoid the termination of their lease--which in most cases allow
tenants and housing providers to avoid an eviction. HUD believes that
this is sufficient to ensure that tenants have the necessary
information to cure any nonpayment issues and/or request hardship
exemptions.
Notice Content: Reasonable Accommodations
Commenters urged HUD to require, rather than suggest, the notice
include information on tenants' right to request reasonable
accommodations and information of how to make that request including a
point of contact. A commenter noted that providing information on
reasonable accommodation procedures in the notice would help facilitate
the accommodations and advance the proposed rule's goal of curtailing
preventable and unnecessary evictions. Another commenter stated that
reasonable accommodations should be provided for those who receive
public benefits because some recipients receive their money after the
first of the month and may not be able to afford late fees.
Additionally, a commenter urged HUD to include an additional provision
in amended 24 CFR 247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6), 884.216(d), and
966.4(l)(3)(ii) that mandates that owners and PHAs provide a clear
reminder in the required 30-day notice to individuals with disabilities
about their right to request reasonable accommodations under law. One
commenter cited a 2022 HUD report by the Office of Inspector General
recommending that HUD take additional steps to ensure tenants and PHAs
are aware of their rights and responsibilities with regard to
reasonable accommodation requests.\50\ The commenter provided language
to adopt in each relevant regulation. A
[[Page 101293]]
commenter stated that HUD should provide housing providers with
required--not just sample--notice language about reasonable
accommodations similar to implementation of HUD Form 5380, Notice of
Occupancy Rights under VAWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ HUD Office of Inspector General, ``HUD Did Not Have
Adequate Policies and Procedures for Ensuring That Public Housing
Agencies Properly Processed Requests for Reasonable Accommodation''
(February 2022), available at https://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/report/hud-did-not-have-adequate-policies-and-procedures-ensuring-public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD Response: This final rule does not require that the 30-day
notice include information on tenants' right to request a reasonable
accommodation; however, HUD plans to provide guidance on reasonable
accommodations that PHAs and owners can use to assist tenants.
Additionally, HUD will not replace sample notice language with a
required notice language similar to HUD Form 5380. Informing tenants of
their right to reasonable accommodation is already an existing
requirement and tenants are notified of their right at admission and
annually. HUD will provide guidance and continue to encourage PHAs and
owners to advise individuals of their right to request reasonable
accommodations, include information on how individuals with
disabilities can request reasonable accommodation, and include a point
of contact for reasonable accommodation requests. As mentioned in the
proposed rule, there are instances in which a tenant may be entitled to
a reasonable accommodation in cases of non-payment of rent. For
example, if a housing provider usually requires rent be paid on the 1st
of the month, but a tenant receives disability-related government
assistance later in the month, the housing provider may be required to
accept a tenant's request to pay rent on this later date as a
reasonable accommodation.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Fair Housing for Individuals with Mental Health,
Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities: A Guide for Housing
Providers (``What are reasonable accommodations and modifications? .
. . Asking to change the due date for rent until after receipt of a
social security disability heck or a short- or long-term disability
payment . . .''), available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/images/MD%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20HP.pdf. See also Initial
Decision and Consent Order, HUD v. Park Regency LLC et al. (October
29, 2020), available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/images/20HUDOHA_InitDecisionConsent.pdf (providing the reasonable
accommodation of a fee-free rent payment grace period until the 6th
of each month and paying $27,000 to complainant); Fair Hous. Rts.
Ctr. in Se. Pennsylvania v. Morgan Properties Mgmt. Co., LLC, 2017
WL 1326240, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2017) (Denying defendants'
motion for judgement and allowing a civil rights suit to proceed
where defendant, the owner of three apartment buildings, refused to
agree to accept monthly rent payments on a later date each month
where the later monthly payment timing was due to the plaintiffs'
disability and receipt of financial disability benefits.); Charge of
Discrimination, HUD v. Morbach et al. (March 20, 2006), available at
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_14412.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice Content: Balance Information
A commenter stated that the notice should be required to include an
itemized description of the delinquent amount. Another commenter urged
HUD to require the notice to specify the particular period for which
the arrears are due, broken down specifically by month. The commenter
noted that tenants' rent liability is not static and can vary
significantly from month to month and therefore a monthly breakdown
would allow tenants the opportunity to remedy any nonpayment by
challenging or disputing their calculated rent share for a specific
period.
One commenter noted that only 24 CFR 247.4 requires that the notice
state the balance amount but that the other regulations listed in the
proposed rule do not require specific information about the rental
amount due and when it was calculated. The commenter recommended
amending 24 CFR 880.607, 884.216, and 966.4, and any other relevant
regulations, to include a similar specificity requirement for the other
programs.
Several commenters stated that the final rule should state that
``rent'' owed does not include arrearages charges such as fines for
late payments nor fees such as processing and attorney's fees, pet
fees, insurance fees, and high-risk fees. A commenter noted that many
landlords apply a tenant's monthly rental payment first to past late
fees rather than the current rent due, thus increasing a tenant's
rental arrearage and causing the total amount due to balloon rapidly.
Commenters suggested that HUD clarify that the right to cure during the
30-day notice period only requires payment of rent excluding other fees
or charges.
HUD Response: HUD agrees to have more specificity in the rule by
amending 24 CFR 880.607, 884.216, and 966.4, and any other relevant
regulations, to require an itemized breakdown by month of the alleged
rent owned by the tenant, along with any other arrearages allowed by
HUD and included in the lease, and the date by which the tenant must
pay the amount of rent owed before a formal judicial eviction can be
filed.
Notice Content: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
A few commenters stated that the rule should require the notice to
include information on tenants' rights under the VAWA. A commenter
stated that there is a clear connection between domestic violence and
nonpayment of rent and it is imperative for tenants and landlords to
understand VAWA's protections. The commenter also stated that the
notice and rule should make it clear that covered landlords will not
evict if the nonpayment is the result of gender-based violence.
HUD Response: This rule does not change any notification
requirements related to VAWA. HUD's regulations already require covered
housing providers to provide the VAWA notice of rights and a self-
certification form when tenants are admitted to programs, when there is
an eviction and/or termination notice, and when there's a denial of
assistance. Some providers include the notice at other junctures, such
as with recertifications.
Notice Content: Interim Recertification and Hardship Exemption
A few commenters also stated that each program's regulations should
require PHAs and PBRA owners to use HUD-created plain language
templates that inform tenants of their rights to an interim income
recertification and hardship exemption. A commenter noted that general
information on the annual recertification process may not be enough to
appraise the tenant of their right to an immediate or retroactive rent
reduction. One commenter noted that minimum rent hardship exemptions
are severely underutilized and urged HUD to clarify how and when
tenants should be informed of minimum rent hardship exemptions. The
commenter urged HUD to require information on PHAs' hardship policies
during admissions, at any recertification, in all termination notices
and grievance documents, and in the PHA's planning documents. The
commenter also urged HUD to require PHA planning documents to report on
the number of minimum rent households, the number of hardship exemption
requests, and the outcomes of those requests. Additionally, the
commenter asked HUD to require owners and PHAs to explicitly state what
may qualify a family for a hardship exemption in the notice. Another
commenter stated that hardship exemption should allow for unexpected or
serious medical issues and for those who experience a reduction in
their benefits or employment.
Some commenters stated that any subsequent rent adjustment
resulting from an interim recertification should be applied
retroactively. A commenter stated that the notice should also be
required to include information stating that PHAs and owners may not
evict a household for non-payment during the 90-day period starting
when the household requested the hardship exemption.
[[Page 101294]]
HUD Response: In implementing the rule, HUD seeks to strike the
appropriate balance that benefits tenants and minimizes burden for PHAs
and owners as much as possible. The rule requires that the 30-day
notice include instructions on how tenants can cure lease violations
for nonpayment of rent. In practice, a tenant cures a lease violation
for non-payment by paying the back rent owed. These instructions would
allow tenants to clearly understand how to take steps to avoid the
termination of their lease--which in most cases would then allow
tenants and housing providers to avoid an eviction for nonpayment of
rent. The rule also requires that the 30-day notice include information
on how tenants can recertify their income, if applicable, and how
tenants can request a minimum rent hardship exemption if applicable.
HUD will determine what additional guidance may be helpful to further
explain the recertification and hardship exemption processes.
Notice Content: Legal and Rental Assistance
Other commenters urged HUD to require the notice to include local
nonprofit resources, agencies and organizations that can assist with
finding new housing, financial assistance and low-cost law firms. The
commenter stated that several major cities have already integrated
nonprofits into their eviction proceedings with positive results and
said Philadelphia is an example, which offers counseling and mediation
to tenants and landlords during its eviction process.
Commenters stated that the notice should also be required to
include information on local right to counsel laws, fair housing
rights, and tenant rights. One commenter stated that this would be
impactful for tenants and not an administrative burden to PHAs. A
commenter noted that even though Maryland tenants have a right to
counsel in these cases, there is no mechanism to ensure that
termination notices apprise public housing or subsidized tenants of
that right. Another commenter stated that HUD should provide sample
language on this requirement for PHAs to include in their PHA plans.
A commenter asked HUD to include an additional provision in amended
24 CFR 247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6), 884.216(d), and 966.4(l)(3)(ii) that
requires PHAs to provide a current list of local information that
offers emergency financial assistance for back rent.
HUD Response: This final rule does not require that the 30-day
notice contain information on other, non-Federal, legal and rental
assistance resources. There are numerous organizations and programs
that may be available to tenants, and it is impractical for HUD or
housing providers to provide an exhaustive list of these resources.
However, HUD encourages PHAs and owners, and sees it as beneficial to
both parties, to share with tenants their knowledge of any rental
assistance resources.
Accessibility
Commenters stated that the information in the notice, lease
amendments, and notification of lease changes should be provided in
plain language. Commenters also suggested that each program regulation
require the notice to be provided in an accessible format for
individuals with disabilities and/or translated formats that provide
meaningful access for people with limited English proficiency. A few
commenters stated that the notice must be translated into the language
spoken by the tenants of a given assisted unit, and one commenter
stated that backup oral interpretation should also be provided.
Additionally, a commenter noted that some PHAs require translation of
eviction notices and that eviction notices, and accompanying materials,
largely consist of form documents that may be translated a single time
for the benefit of entire language groups.
A commenter commended HUD for seeking to ensure that notice is
issued by means interpretable by people with disabilities or LEP, such
as electronically through screen readers, tactually through Braille,
and in languages other than English. Another commenter urged HUD to not
just include information in the preamble about language access, but to
also include appropriate language in the regulations to ensure that
vital documents are translated, and that backup oral interpretation is
available. One commenter stated that the regulatory text must refer to
the nondiscrimination requirements in title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
A commenter recommended HUD review how the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services seeks to achieve effective communication for
people with disabilities, as outlined in ``NPPM Part 92,
Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities.'' The commenter
recommended a list of additional ways housing providers can ensure
their communications are accessible.
HUD Response: Under section 504 and HUD's section 504 regulations,
and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
implementing regulations, PHAs and owners have an obligation to take
appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with individuals
with disabilities. PHAs and owners are required to take appropriate
steps that may be necessary to ensure that communications with
individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with
individuals without disabilities. This includes the provision of
appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an
individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in,
and enjoy the benefits of, a program, service, or activity. This
requirement applies to all materials, notices, and communications to
tenants. PHAs and owners must give primary consideration to the
auxiliary aids and services preferred by the individual with a
disability. Additionally, PHAs, owners and managers must also continue
to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs,
services, and activities to individuals with LEP. The regulations at 24
CFR part 5, including the applicable civil rights requirements for
language access and effective communication, apply even without a
specific cross-reference to those protections in these regulations.
Repayment Agreements
Several commenters stated that the final rule should require,
rather than recommend, PHA and PBRA owners to enter into or include an
offer to negotiate a reasonable rental repayment agreement. A commenter
stated its concern that owners and PHAs may not universally comply with
recommended best practices and urged HUD to require repayment plans.
Another commenter stated that by giving landlords sole discretion to
accept or reject repayment plans, HUD invites the risk that landlords
will exercise this option in biased or even discriminatory ways against
tenants. A commenter noted that under the proposed rule, owners may
require the tenant to pay a lump sum to cure the back rent, which
presents a significant cost burden to the lowest income households.
A commenter stated that 30 days is not sufficient for extremely
low-income households to cure the amount of back rent owed. The
commenter stated that requiring reasonable rental repayment agreements
is in line with HUD's stated goal of reducing preventable evictions for
non-payment of rent. A commenter noted that requiring repayment plans
is
[[Page 101295]]
more cost-effective for housing providers because it will allow tenants
to cure back rent rather than executing an eviction through the
judicial system. One commenter pointed to the proposed rule's preamble
as justification for required reasonable rental agreements. One
commenter specifically requested HUD to amend the language in 24 CFR
247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6), 884.216(d), and 966.4(l)(3)(ii) to specify
that owners may not require a lump sum payment alone, but rather enter
a repayment plan or a combination of the two.
Several commenters urged HUD to create a model repayment plan
document to provide to covered landlords. Commenters pointed to HUD's
model repayment agreement for PHA-owned units and public housing found
in PIH Notice 2018-28 as a model for what commenters stated should be
included in this rule. Commenters stated that the repayment plan should
be affordable meaning monthly repayment plus current rent does not
exceed 40% of household income. The commenters stated that the model
repayment plan document should include the amount of rent owed
(excluding arrearages charges, fines, and fees), the date the back rent
is calculated, the amount to be paid each month broken down by back
rent and current rent and which must not exceed 40% of the household's
adjusted income, the period of the repayment plan, and a rent ledger.
The commenters stated that the suggested model repayment plan must be
renegotiated and restructured if the household's adjusted income
decreases by 10% or more and the repayment plan must not require lump
sum repayments.
Commenters stated that the repayment agreements must not require
lump sum repayments. Another commenter stated that when a household
demonstrates insufficient income the repayment plan should be free of
additional arrearages, such a late fees, attorney's fees, or
administrative fees and a PHA or owner should suspend the agreement for
a set period of time in the household encounters difficulty making a
payment and should establish quarterly check-ins during the suspension
period. Additionally, a commenter provided language to include in the
regulatory text. Another commenter stated that the model repayment plan
should be in accordance with Federal civil rights law to ensure
meaningful access so that those with limited English proficiency may
enter into repayment agreements.
HUD Response: While this rule will not require repayment plans, HUD
strongly encourages the use of repayment plans and reiterates that PHAs
and owners have flexibility to design them to be reasonable. Repayment
plans are just one way for tenants to cure their nonpayment of rent and
this rule is focusing particularly on notification requirements. HUD
plans to issue updated repayment agreement guidance in the future, and
HUD plans for such guidance to incorporate the requirements of Federal
civil rights laws, including outlining obligations to ensure meaningful
access to those with LEP.
Interaction With State Law
A commenter representing legal service providers in Florida said
that Florida residents will not enjoy the protections of this rule.
Florida State law requires tenants to pay past due rent into a court
registry before the court will hear any defense other than payment. The
commenter explained that a court will proceed with an eviction case
even if the landlord's notice is defective if the tenant has not paid
all past due rent into the registry. The commenter pointed to a case
that arose while the CARES Act 30-day notice requirement was in place.
In that case, the landlord gave a 10-day eviction notice to a Section 8
PBRA tenant. The tenant claimed the case should be dismissed for
ineffective notice because the CARES Act should preempt Florida law,
but the court disagreed and the tenant was evicted. The commenter
attached a HUD determination which stated that the Florida eviction
process deprives tenants of due process.
The commenter urged HUD to clarify and strengthen the rule to
ensure landlords cannot subvert it by using state eviction laws by
adding language stating that landlords can take no action to evict a
tenant before the 30-day notice expires. The commenter stated that the
additional language should state that a landlord cannot take any action
which would prevent a tenant from being heard on the defense that they
did not receive the 30-day notice, or that the tenant must have the
ability to be heard by a court and have the court adjudicate the merits
of this defense. The commenter also urged HUD to include in the
regulations that covered landlords are prohibited from using state
eviction procedures to keep tenants from challenging the landlord's
noncompliance with the regulations.
Commenters stated that the rule should clarify that tenants have
the right to cure a nonpayment lease violation within 30 days of the
termination notice. A commenter urged HUD to include language in the
final rule (to 24 CFR parts 247 (Sec. 247.4), 884 (Sec. 886.127), 891
(Sec. 891.425), and 966 (Sec. 966.4)) clarifying that tenants have 30
days to cure the nonpayment of rent before a landlord may terminate the
lease and that the right to cure preempts any State law that provides
less protection to tenants. The commenter stated that in Delaware there
is no right of redemption nor a minimum arrears before landlords may
seek possession, meaning tenants may still be evicted if they owe $1 or
if they pay their full arrears after the 5-day statutory period, as
long as landlords wait 30 days to file the eviction case. The commenter
noted that the CARES Act language does not allow for 30 days to cure
but only for 30 days to vacate and that some PHAs and landlord
attorneys maintain that tenants only have the 5-day statutory period to
pay the full arrears. The commenter noted that 5 days is insufficient
time for tenants to seek rent assistance or negotiate a repayment plan.
The commenter also stated that adding language to clarify that tenants
have 30 days to cure and not just 30 days for notice of termination
will avoid leaving it to state courts to determine HUD's intent and
avoid different interpretations in different states.
Additionally, a commenter stated that Ohio does not have a right to
redemption and landlords can pursue eviction even if tenants pay the
full amount they owe. The commenter stated that landlords use this rule
to pursue evictions against tenants they deem problematic and pointed
to research stating that owners use this method to evade bans on
discriminatory and retaliatory evictions.\52\ The commenter also urged
HUD to clarify that landlords must accept payments for rental arrears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The commenter cites to University of Minnesota Center for
Urban and Regional Affairs, ``The Illusion of Choice: Evictions and
Profit in North Minneapolis'' (June 2019), available at https://evictions.cura.umn.edu/sites/evictions.cura.umn.edu/files/2023-04/Illusion-of-Choice-full-report-web-v2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter stated that the final rule should clarify that in
non-payment cases, tenants have the full 30 days to cure the violation.
The commenter noted that the rule does not clarify whether tenants have
30 days to vacate or cure. The commenter noted that the right to cure
is especially important because not all state landlord-tenant schemes
include a right to cure.
HUD Response: HUD has revised the rule to specify that a PHA or
owner must not provide tenants with a termination notice before the day
after the rent is due according to the lease. Also, a PHA or owner must
not proceed with filing an eviction if the tenant pays
[[Page 101296]]
the alleged amount of rent owed within the 30-day notification period.
Additionally, HUD revised the rule to specifically state that a 30-day
notice must be given before a formal judicial eviction is filed.
The final rule is applicable to the specified HUD programs
regardless of state or local law. HUD believes that the language in the
rule clearly prohibits PHAs and owners from filing an eviction or
taking other actions to remove the tenant participating in specified
HUD programs without providing 30-day notice. If a PHA or owner
prevents a tenant from receiving 30-day notice, the PHA and owner would
not be in compliance with HUD regulations and would be subject to
corrective action.
Evictions Based on Reasons Other Than Nonpayment
Commenters urged HUD to require 30-day notice for lease violations
beyond nonpayment of rent. A commenter urged HUD to include in this
rule causes of eviction that affect elderly adults beyond nonpayment of
rent. Another commenter urged HUD to require 30-day notice for
``material noncompliance with the lease or material failure to carry
out obligations''. The commenter said that older tenants may face
eviction because disability or infirmity prevents them from meeting
lease obligations such as maintaining their unit in a clean condition.
In such cases, tenants may be entitled to reasonable accommodation but
need sufficient notice to seek assistance or cure potential lease
violations.
Another commenter stated that the 30-day notice requirement should
apply in all cases, especially where a tenant's breach does not involve
criminal conduct or harm to others, such as failure to timely certify
eligibility or report income changes, failure to pass household
cleanliness inspection, possession of unauthorized pets, smoking on
premises, and permitting unauthorized occupants to reside in the
household. The commenter stated that giving tenants opportunities to
correct these types of breaches would help tenants retain stable and
affordable housing and save money for landlords by avoiding eviction
costs. The commenter noted that some sources such as the Congressional
Research Service and certain courts have interpreted the CARES Act to
require 30-day notice for noncompliance as well as nonpayment. A
commenter said that evictions premised on alleged lease violations
often involve alleged program violations, including failure to
recertify and the additional notice period can give tenants time to
correct those violations and avoid an eviction filing.
A commenter said that the rule conflicts with the plain language of
the CARES Act because it only focuses on nonpayment of rent. The
commenter referred to 15 U.S.C. 9058(c) and said it prohibited covered
dwellings from requiring tenants to ``vacate the covered dwelling unit
before the date on which the lessor provides the tenant with notice to
vacate.'' The commenter cited Arvada Village Gardens LP v. Garate, 529
P.3d 105, 108 (Colo. 2023) and said that unlike the 120-moratorium, the
provision did not expire in June of 2020. The commenter stated that the
rule did not address the conflict in scope between the rule and the
CARES Act, and the final rule should apply 15 U.S.C. 9058(c) to all
evictions for all covered properties. If not, the commenter said the
rule could cause improper and unpredictable evictions.
Additionally, a commenter stated that many HUD programs already
require a 30-day notice to initiate ``other good cause'' evictions and
that it is confusing for tenant and property managers that different
types of eviction require different notice lengths. Another commenter,
in opposition to the rule, suggested that the rule address situations
where eviction is necessary due to violence or lease violations an
urged HUD to state that lease violations that endanger tenants and
staff are not protected by nonpayment status.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates these comments. Comments that go
beyond evictions for nonpayment of rent are outside of the scope of
this rulemaking, but HUD will consider these suggestions for the
future.
Longer Notice Period
Some commenters noted their support for a longer notice period of
60 or 90 days to provide more time for tenants to apply for assistance,
resolve tenancy issues, earn additional funds, or find alternative
housing. A commenter noted that the notices period would ideally be 45-
60 days because those with disabilities and seniors need more time to
find affordable housing. Another commenter said a longer notice period
is critical for older adults who need more time to manage and navigate
issues.
A commenter stated that the rule should be extended to 60 days
because uniform, longer notice periods support housing stability and
reduce preventable evictions and would guarantee that tenants have time
to rally additional resources to prevent an eviction filing. Another
commenter noted that since a tenant's rent in HUD-subsidized housing
depends on their income, the amount should, by definition, never be
unaffordable for the tenant and tenants often just need time to meet
with their property manager to file an Interim Recertification which
addresses new life circumstances such as job loss, increase in medical
expenses, sudden disability, or a reduction in household size. The
commenter said that the interim recertification process can be time
intensive because tenants need to gather and transmit documentation
which requires access to technology, coordination with family,
caregivers, and advocates, and many in-person trips to employment,
benefits, or property management officers all of which may be more
difficult for tenants who are elderly, disabled, or have limited
English proficiency.
The commenter also stated that property managers are responsible
for overseeing hundreds of recertifications and require several weeks
to finalize paperwork, return it to the tenant for signature, formally
adjust the rent internally, and provide the tenant with an updated and
corrected rent breakdown. The commenter noted that it is similarly time
consuming to apply for grant and loan programs that cover arrears, and
it may take weeks for funds to be approved and disbursed. The commenter
said the 60-day period is critical for tenants to request and obtain
rent adjustments and apply for and obtain rent arrears assistance.
Additionally, the commenter stated that 60-day notice is vital for
tenants to navigate the eviction process including seeking legal advice
or representation, preparing to take time off work for court
appearances, arranging childcare, mobilizing family members accompany
them to court, filing accommodation requests with the court, or
requesting court translators.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the commenters' feedback to have a
longer notice period; however, HUD maintains that 30 days is a
sufficient amount of time for tenants to cure their nonpayment of rent
violations while ensuring PHAs and owners can operate effectively. HUD
considered several alternatives to the 30-day time period and
ultimately decided that a 30-day notice period best balances both
tenants' interests and PHAs' and owners' reliance in administering
their programs.
Emergencies
A commenter noted the rule's provision instructing the Secretary to
tailor requirements and guidance in
[[Page 101297]]
response to presidentially declared national emergencies and stated
that the provision should also apply to presidentially declared
disasters. One commenter provided model language to include in the
regulation and urged HUD to track the language in the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (``Stafford
Act''), 42 U.S.C. 5121, which provides language for natural and
environmental disasters which are more likely to impact HUD tenants.
Another commenter asked HUD to remove the language in amended 24
CFR 247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6), 884.216(d), and 966.4(l)(3)(ii) that only
allows information to be listed by the Secretary in the event of a
Presidential declaration of a national emergency and asked that the
Secretary's power not be limited to the specific circumstances of a
Presidential declaration of a national emergency. Commenters also noted
that the tenant eviction protections should go into effect when a
governor issues a disaster declaration. A commenter noted that the time
between when a governor requests the President to declare a
Presidentially Declared Disaster and when the disaster occurs can vary
widely.
A commenter noted that the proposed rule gives the Secretary
discretion to determine whether PHAs would be required to notify
tenants of Federal rental assistance. The commenter stated that many
local communities also have rental assistance. Several commenters
stated that the final rule should require the notice to include
information on any available state, local, or charitable rental
assistance programs, anti-eviction resources, and local legal services.
One commenter said the proposed rule removed a requirement that was
in the interim final rule that PHAs and owners notify tenants of
available Federal emergency rental assistance funds. The commenter
asked that the final rule include a provision in amended 24 CFR
247.4(e), 880.607(c)(6), 884.216(d), and 966.4(l)(3)(ii) that requires
PHAs to provide a current list of local information that offers
emergency financial assistance to the tenant to cure the back rent in
addition to any additional information deemed necessary by the
Secretary. The commenter noted that this would give tenants time to
seek rental assistance and would promote coordination and resource
sharing between PHAs and local social service agencies which would
benefit renters in PHA programs outside the scope of this rule.
HUD Response: Unlike the interim final rule, this rule provides
critical protections to tenants irrespective of the existence of a
national emergency. This provides more predictability for tenants to
receive adequate notice to address rents they owe and less confusion
for PHAs and owners when implementing the rule. In crafting this rule,
HUD sought to create greater flexibility to require PHAs and owners to
provide information to tenants, as determined by the Secretary, that is
both relevant and tailored to the circumstances of a national
emergency. At this time HUD will not require PHAs and owners to provide
specific information to tenants in the event of a presidentially
declared emergency, but provides flexibility in this rule for HUD to
require information that can meet the needs of a specific national
emergency.
Implementation
A few commenters stated their support for incorporating this rule
into the model lease. A commenter noted that the process of amending
leases will take almost 18 months and recommended that HUD specify the
final rule's notice requirements becomes binding on PHAs and owners on
the effective date of the rule, not when leases are finally amended.
The commenter stated that this approach will avoid confusion and
address tenants' urgent need for the additional notice time.
A commenter stated that the implementation timeline is longer than
necessary considering that owners and PHAs have already had to comply
with the 30-day notice requirement in the interim final rule. The
commenter asked that HUD shorten the time period for compliance to
maximize protections under the rule and asked that the 30-day notice go
into effect immediately regardless of explicit changes in leases.
Another commenter noted its concern for the preventable evictions that
might take place before this final rule is finalized, and during the 18
months provided for PHA compliance and 26 months for PBRA compliance.
The commenter urged HUD to expedite the implementation of the final
rule and questioned the necessity of so much time for PHAs to revise
leases or for HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing Programs to devise a
model lease for PBRA programs. A commenter noted that HUD's proposal to
provide PHA's with 18 months to comply with the rule makes the rule far
more feasible.
Additionally, a commenter recommended that HUD clarify its process
for ensuring compliance with the final rule and the actions HUD will
take in the event of noncompliance. The commenter recommended HUD
update its existing oversight systems or assessing compliance through a
random pull of tenant files, similar to what HUD will undertake for
assessing VAWA compliance. Another commenter asked HUD to proactively
oversee implementation of the rule and create a mechanism for tenants
to report instances of non-compliance. The commenter noted that HUD
could strengthen implementation of the rule by amending the model PHA
lease and the multifamily standard lease to expressly state that a
landlord's receipt of Federal financial assistance waives the
landlord's ability to utilize a rent deposit requirement under state
law to prevent a tenant from being heard on the defense that they did
not receive the required notice pursuant to Federal law.
One commenter urged HUD to add language to the rule noting that the
HUD Occupancy Handbook 4350.3 and PHA Admissions and Continued
Occupancy (ACOP) Policies will be updated to reflect this rule. The
commenter stated that the Franklin County Municipal Court routinely
looks to the HUD Handbook as the proper interpretation of HUD
regulations and if it is not updated to reflect the rule, the court
could be misled as to the notice requirements on any given eviction
case. The commenter also noted that public housing authorities are
governed by their ACOPs which should be updated to ensure clarity and
consistency by all PHAs and that PHA employees are informed as to their
obligations when pursuing allegations related to nonpayment by a
tenant.
Additionally, a commenter urged HUD to collect data on evictions
and race, ethnicity, age, income, and other factors and urged HUD to
amend the proposed rule to require reporting to HUD of the non-payment
evictions that are initiated among participants of the housing programs
covered by the rule. A commenter urged HUD to specify the delivery
method for the 30-day notice to be through an accessible means to the
tenants and through certified mail with a receipt, hand delivered to a
household member above the age of 16 with tenant acknowledgement of the
delivery. Another commenter recommended HUD provide guidance and
technical assistance to PHAs and owners by providing model language
which will be especially important given that there may be concurrent
changes due to the HOTMA regulations and PBRA model lease changes.
HUD Response: HUD understands that it will take time for PHAs and
owners to incorporate the 30-day notice requirement into leases and to
provide notification that the leases will be modified. Accordingly, HUD
believes
[[Page 101298]]
that providing PHAs with an additional 18 months after the rule becomes
effective to comply with the requirement that the lease contain a
provision or addendum incorporating the 30-day notice requirement is an
appropriate timeframe. Since HUD will issue model leases for PBRA
programs, this rule will provide PBRA owners with 14 months from the
date that HUD publishes a final model lease that complies with the rule
to comply with the requirement to update the lease. HUD plans to issue
model leases within a year of the effective date of this rule. HUD will
also issue a Federal Register document to advise the public once the
new model leases are available.
Requiring immediate compliance with the final rule's provisions to
update the lease will potentially result in incomplete, or otherwise
unsuccessful implementation since PHAs and PBRA owners will not have
adequate time to modify their policies or systems. Thus, the final rule
allows PHAs 18 months from the effective date of the rule and PBRA
owners 14 months from the issue of model leases to comply.
Additionally, as previously mentioned, 24 CFR part 5 and the applicable
civil rights requirements for language access and effective
communication apply even without a specific cross-reference to those
protections in these regulations.
Inclusion of Other HUD Programs
Many commenters urged HUD to include additional HUD programs in the
final rule. Commenters also stated their support for including
additional HUD programs because it would create a more uniform and
consistent policy. A commenter stated that the lack of uniformity in
the interim final rule has shown the need for consistency in all HUD
housing programs. One commenter noted that HUD has conflicting policies
given its emphasis on converting from public housing to Project Based
Vouchers (PBVs) via Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) and section
18 demolition/disposition while highlighting protections in the public
housing sphere. The commenter noted that this conflict signals
competing priorities to PHAs and owners.
A few commenters noted the confusion that tenants, courts,
advocates, and property managers face in determining which subsidy a
tenant holds and which notice rules apply, and that a uniform
requirement would be easier for everyone to understand. One commenter
noted that making the 30-day notice requirement applicable to all HUD
programs will allow tenants to easily understand the notice they are
entitled to and whether the notice of termination they received is
proper. A commenter noted that it is not uncommon for the tenants it
works with to not know what type of HUD subsidy they receive and thus
what type of notice they are entitled to. The commenter noted that
courts and advocates are slowed during the eviction process because
they need to review recertification paperwork to determine if the
eviction was properly brought. One commenter noted that advocates will
be able to broadly advertise tenants' right to the thirty-day notice
period.
The commenter also noted that property managers oversee multiple
properties, each with a different subsidy type, and are likely to make
mistakes if different subsidies have different notice requirements.
Another commenter noted that inclusion of additional programs will
benefit landlords because the 30-day notice will make it more likely
that a household will pay their arrears and less likely that the
landlord will resort to costly eviction proceedings. The commenter
stated that in Illinois, landlords pay filing fees, service fees, and
attorney fees as well as costs associated with preparing the unit for
another tenant. The commenter also noted that landlords continue to
receive their Housing Assistance Payment from HUD even when tenants
fall behind on their portion of the rent.
Commenters stated that the same factors cited by HUD as driving the
need for the proposed rule for PBRA and public housing properties apply
to other HUD-governed subsidy types, including HCV, PBV, and RAD.
Commenters also noted that tenants would benefit from 30-day notice
regardless of their subsidy type. One commenter gave examples of RAD
tenants being able to submit interim recertifications and section 8 HCV
tenants being able to submit a change in income to recalculate their
rent or apply for a hardship exemption. The commenter also stated that
any tenant can negotiate a repayment plan and the 30-day notice will
give tenants time to do that, regardless of their HUD subsidy.
Additionally, a commenter said that the negative impacts of eviction
affect households with HCVs and PBVs in the same way evictions affect
households in public housing. The commenter stated that whether this
rule protects a family may be the difference between stability with
their voucher or eviction and subsequent loss of their subsidy.
Several commenters stated that the CARES Act's 30-day notice
provision applies to all HUD-governed subsidy types so including those
same programs in this rule will place zero or minimal additional burden
on housing providers. A commenter said that the CARES Act applies to
voucher programs, and for LIHTC properties or properties with a
federally-backed mortgage and that a 30-day notice is also required
where there is housing assistance through the HOME Investment
Partnership Program. Another commenter stated that any additional
requirements are not onerous especially in light of the potential
benefits.
Inclusion of Other HUD Programs: Vouchers
Some commenters said that 30 days is not enough time and that the
rule should be extended to the Housing Choice Voucher program. Another
commenter said that the rule should be comprehensive and cover private
properties, and all notices should allow for at least 60-90 days for
full process.
Many commenters urged HUD to include HCVs and PBVs in the final
rule. One commenter stated that excluding certain HUD subsidies sets a
dangerous precedent that voucher holders deserve a lower standard of
protection. One commenter noted that excluding HCV programs from this
rule creates the very regulatory inconsistencies that the rule seeks to
address and inappropriately sets a lower standard of protection for HCV
renters. One commenter stated that not including HCVs in this rule
subverts tenants' rights to request a reexamination to adjust their
subsidy because the newly calculated rent share is not effective until
30 days after the date of reported change and in Texas the notice
period is only 3 days. The commenter noted that in Delaware and
nationally there are substantially more voucher holders than public
housing or PBRA units and the impact of excluding vouchers would be
substantial. One commenter stated that if HCV and PBRA tenants are not
included in this rule's protections, families with the lowest income
will face homelessness at much higher rates, especially in Illinois
where the eviction docket is rapid and tenants have very little time
before an eviction trial, leading to preventable evictions. One
commenter noted that landlords cannot file an eviction against voucher
tenants while a PHA is considering a rent adjustment request, and a 30-
day notice would help tenants maximize their opportunity to pay the
rent they owe.
Commenters noted that HUD has authority to include HCV and PBV
programs in the rule and one commenter pointed HUD's general rulemaking
authority and Secretary's authority to regulation good cause for
[[Page 101299]]
eviction and lease terms as support. Another commenter said that the
rule should be comprehensive and cover private properties, and all
notices should allow for at least 60-90 days for full process. One
commenter noted that voucher landlords should be familiar with the
practice of satisfying notice requirements that may not otherwise
obligate private landlords because they have demonstrated this before
as with the VAWA requirements which voucher landlords have had to
comply with for longer than private landlords.
A commenter stated that HUD should consider a separate rulemaking
process to require a 30-day notice for HCVs and PBVs because it would
similarly curtail preventable and unnecessary evictions. One commenter
stated that if HUD does not include the voucher programs in the final
rule, it should undertake aggressive outreach to voucher landlords
educating them about their obligation to provide tenants with a 30-day
notice under the CARES Act.
HUD Response: HUD is responding to the two sections above. This
rule focuses on public housing and project-based rental assistance.
Expanding the rule beyond this could harm landlord recruitment or
participation for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, and it will be
difficult to disseminate and enforce due to established state and local
laws governing private market tenant-landlord lease agreements. HUD
recognizes the unique challenges of the Housing Choice Voucher program
with landlord participation decreasing over the years due to various
reasons. HUD notes that there is no requirement in the proposed rule
that PHAs and owners must include notification of available emergency
rental assistance funds. Rather this final rule would provide the
flexibility to the Secretary to require this information, or other
information, depending on the circumstances of a given national
emergency.
At this time, HUD is not considering future rulemaking regarding a
30-day notice requirement for other HUD programs, including HCVs and
PBVs, but will issue rulemaking for public comment if HUD decides to
include these programs in the future. In regard to outreach for the 30-
day notice CARES Act requirement, HUD has previously issued guidance
for CARES Act implementation for PHAs.\53\ Additionally, unlike section
202/811 owners, PBV owners do not recertify tenant income, nor would
they necessarily know or have information on how a tenant can apply for
a hardship exemption pursuant to 24 CFR 5.630(b), which is required to
be explained in the notice. PHAs, not owners, are responsible for
ensuring PBV families understand when and how to request interim income
recertifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See CARES Act Public Housing Agencies at https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/cares_act_phas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inclusion of Other HUD Programs: RAD and LIHTC
Several commenters stated that RAD should be included in this rule.
A commenter stated that excluding RAD from this rule is particularly
problematic because it gives former public housing tenants different
protections depending on whether their public housing is converted to
PBRA or PBVs. The commenter also said that giving different protections
based on the property's subsidy type is arbitrary, fundamentally
unfair, and contrary to the RAD statutory mandate that all former
public housing tenants shall, at a minimum, maintain the same rights
that they had prior to the RAD conversion. One commenter stated that
excluding RAD programs contradicts HUD's commitment to provide uniform,
fair and equitable due process treatment of persons displaced from
federally assisted or funded projects.
One commenter noted that if HUD chooses not to broadly include
voucher tenants, HUD should take steps to ensure that all former public
housing tenants get the benefit of the 30-day notice requirement and
that future RAD-converted public housing tenants, at minimum retain all
their prior existing rights applicable to public housing, including the
30-day notice.
LIHTC
Another commenter noted that this rule does not include housing
built under the LIHTC, private properties being rented by section 8 HCV
holders or HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH)
recipients, housing financed with federally back mortgage loans, or a
number of other recognized forms of federally subsidized housing. The
commenter noted that LIHTC is one of the fastest-growing forms of
subsidized housing, and often lacks the protections afforded to public
housing or section 8 properties. The commenter cited a report that 58%
of extremely low-income renters in LIHTC properties who do not receive
other rental assistance are severely cost-burdened and spend more than
half their income on rent. The commenter said that for those families,
an eviction makes it nearly impossible to find housing and all but
ensures an extended period of homelessness.
HUD Response: The requirements for properties converting under RAD
are established in the RAD Implementation Notice (see PIH 2019-23/
H2019-09 as revised by H-2023-08/PIH 2023-19). Since its inception, RAD
sought to continue and in some cases expand on the fundamental public
housing rights that residents received under sections 6 and 9 of the
U.S. Housing Act and 24 CFR part 964. To this end, public housing
properties converted under RAD to either PBV or PBRA have always been
required under the RAD Notice to provide residents not less than 14
days' notice in the case of non-payment of rent, reflecting the
requirement under the public housing program. Following the publication
of this rule, HUD will amend the RAD Notice to reflect the change that
this rule is making for all PBRA properties and to address the
requirements related to RAD PBV conversions. HUD does not have
jurisdiction to establish rules governing properties supported under
Treasury's Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.
Additional Support and Remedies
Commenters stated that the rule would inflict harm on tenants and
PHAs ``without addressing the underfunding crisis, rising insurance
costs, and persistent rent arrears.'' Commenters encouraged HUD to
provide additional resources to PHAs and tenants to address these
issues by (1) allowing PHAs to request a general waiver for the 30-day
notice requirement for good cause; (2) providing an automatic waiver
for compliance with the rule to PHAs that already have robust tenant
protections and comparable notice requirements already in place; (3)
creating waivers or carve-outs for PHAs from all metrics and scoring
that are negatively affected by arrears and unit turnovers, including
PHA scores; (4) amending TARs scoring metrics so rent arrears with
repayment agreements or settlement agreements under negotiation will
not be counted against PHAs accounts receivable total, and settlement
agreements for rent arrears are credited to the PHA's accounts
receivable for the full amount due, regardless of whether the
settlement was for a less amount; (5) providing PHAs with additional
funding to address the administrative burden created by the rule, and
provide ERAP funds to assist tenants in repaying accrued rent arrears;
(6) supporting the training and oversight of third-party owners and
management companies by providing technical assistance and other
resources and; (7) granting PHAs the authority to forgive rent arrears
or use Federal funds to address rent shortfalls;
[[Page 101300]]
(8) providing more resources to support legal aid.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Commenter cites to an article in the Dallas Morning News
(January 10, 2024) reporting on a study that covered eviction
filings in Dallas County, Texas, from 2021 to 2023. During this time
18,485 evictions were filed in Dallas County, an average of 109
evictions per day. The study discovered that when tenants have legal
representation, landlords win eviction 7% of the time, versus 69%
when the tenant appears without representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, a commenter said further changes should be considered
to either raise or eliminate the threshold for grading based on the
amount of tenant accounts receivable. A commenter recommended that HUD
incorporate local nonprofit resources into the rule because there is
not great awareness of these social programs which can best protect
tenants from losing housing. Another commenter said HUD should require
housing providers to offer options for repayment and information on
where tenants can get financial assistance.
Several commenters stated that the rule should prominently and
clearly state that the CARES Act 30-day notice is still in effect for
covered programs such as vouchers, LIHTC, Housing Opportunities for
Persons With AIDS, Housing Trust Fund, McKinney-Vento homeless
programs. A few commenters stated that clarifying the CARES Act
requirement is crucial because there are many owners and judges that
are not aware the requirement is still in effect or do not enforce the
rule.
A few commenters stated that HUD should limit the housing
provider's ability to file an eviction while the tenant is engaged in a
process to resolve the nonpayment such as an emergency rental
assistance application or an interim recertification. One commenter
pointed to HUD Handbook 4350.3 as precedent for this type of action
which prevents owners from evicting tenants where the owner decides to
delay processing a tenant's interim recertification request.
A commenter stated that when a resident has a rent assistance
application pending or a change in income or housing composition
pending then the 30-day notice period should be tolled until the
determination of eligibility for assistance has been completed or only
sent when the rent adjustment determination is complete and provided to
the resident. The commenter stated that PHAs and PBRA owners should be
required to cooperate with rent assistance programs in the application
process and to accept rent assistance funds. One commenter stated that
a landlord should not be able to file an eviction action while an
application for rental assistance, interim recertification, or hardship
exemption is processing.
One commenter urged HUD to incorporate language from the preamble
about civil rights law into the regulations. The commenter noted PHAs
and owner's compliance with civil rights law is irregular and stated
that incorporating the laws' requirements into the regulations will aid
compliance. The commenter noted that landlords can avoid tenants' civil
rights assertions by filing or threatening an eviction case. The
commenter also urged HUD to provide strong guidance to help housing
providers understand the connection between nonpayment cases and
potential abuse and to evaluate nonpayment cases for potential abuse of
civil rights.
Another commenter urged HUD to clarify in the final rule that all
Moving-to-Work agencies and the housing they own, operate, manage, and
administer are subject to the final rule. The commenter also urged HUD
to include preamble language such as reminders, suggestions, and
recommendations into the regulatory language of the rule. Additionally,
a commenter recommended that HUD ensure that only signatories of the
lease are named in the lease termination notice and subsequent court
papers.
HUD Response: It is not feasible for HUD to provide a list of all
additional resources that could be included for tenants, PHAs, and PBRA
owners. In addition, HUD believes that this would be inappropriate and
may cause unintended consequences. For example, if HUD were to provide
a list that was not comprehensive, some may limit their search to what
HUD has provided and might miss other resources that would be helpful
to them. In regard to waivers and arrearages, PHAs and owners may
request waivers of regulations pursuant to 24 CFR 5.110, but PHAs do
have the authority to forgive rent arrears, and this final rule does
not limit PHAs discretion in that regard. Additionally, HUD notes that
civil rights protections for tenants apply when an eviction case is
filed or threatened, and HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity investigates cases where eviction proceedings due to
nonpayment of rent are filed in a way that violates a tenants' fair
housing rights. Further, HUD acknowledges the commenter's suggestion
regarding guidance for nonpayment cases and potential abuse and will
consider issuing such guidance in the future.
For similar reasons stated above, this rule does not require PHAs
or owners to provide tenants with specific notice or information about
local nonprofit resources, but HUD encourages PHAs and owners to
provide tenants facing eviction for nonpayment of rent with information
regarding rental assistance resources. HUD also encourages interested
legal aid organizations to work with tenants, PHAs, and owners to
inform them of local resources. HUD declines to extend the notification
period as this rulemaking strikes an appropriate balance between
establishing a 30-day period to provide tenants time to actively apply
for rental assistance and not overly burdening the PHA and owner. HUD
emphasizes that any attempt to apply or obtain other financial
assistance should be incorporated into a repayment plan agreed upon by
the tenant and the PHA or landlord. Additionally, HUD expects PHAs and
owners to be aware of pending recertifications or hardship exemptions.
As discussed in the proposed rule, the CARES Act 30-day notice to
vacate requirement for nonpayment of rent, in section 4024(c)(1), is
still in effect for all CARES Act covered properties. However, this
final rule has no implication on the CARES Act. Similarly, this rule
differs from the CARES Act in applicability and requirements.
Furthermore, in response to commenters on Moving-to-Work agencies, HUD
emphasizes that all Moving-to-Work agencies are subject to this rule.
Additionally, all PHAs and owners must ensure that only the signatories
of the lease are named in the 30-day notification, any lease
termination notices, and subsequent court documents.
D. Alternative Solutions and Issues To Address
Commenters suggested that HUD explore alternative solutions to
address issues without creating burdens for tenants and housing
providers. A commenter stated that instead of a 30-day notice
requirement there should be a collaborative effort to explore
alternative solutions that address the significant delays in obtaining
court dates and judgments. The commenter encourages HUD to address the
root cause of the delays by streamlining and expediting the legal
process to ensure more timely resolutions for tenants, alleviate
financial strain on owners and agencies, and support the community
during challenging times.
Commenters stated that there has been a significant increase in
tenants burdened by rent which leads to a greater risk of eviction, but
HUD should revisit rent policies ``such as the level of
[[Page 101301]]
tenant rent contributions which these programs now require. A commenter
in support of the rule, said there are other issues that should be
addressed such as the rising cost of rent, housing shortages, and the
``history of disinvestment in rental assistance programs that would
alleviate the number of households and landlords who are impacted by
this rule change.''
Additionally, a commenter urged HUD to allow housing providers to
charge tenants who vacate the property without a 30-day notice. A
commenter stated, ``this is a very intricate area that needs further
investigations with details that should be honest with input from all
levels of rentals (i.e. seniors over 80 plus and federal department of
labor compensation injured seniors living on income below the poverty
level).'' Another commenter said that landlords should receive
assistance to pay mortgages when a tenant fails to pay rent.
Additionally, a commenter said that HUD should recommend, not require,
that housing providers issue a 30-day notice when a requirement would
exceed state or local law.
A commenter stated that HUD should work with other Federal agencies
and state and local leaders to (1) align eviction proceedings and
improve consistency across all rental housing; (2) improve data
collection and ``advance respect for tenant and landlord rights and
responsibilities across the laws, rules, and practices of the many
overlapping applicable jurisdictions;'' (3) provide information on best
practices taken from eviction prevention initiatives and policies; (4)
provide more operational resources and financial flexibilities to
housing providers; and (5) use existing civil rights laws to address
any disparate impacts in eviction practices.
HUD Response: HUD appreciates the comments and has explored other
alternatives; however, HUD has found that a 30-day notice best balances
the interests of tenants, PHAs, and owners. HUD has considered the
perspectives of stakeholders and subject matter experts in drafting
this rule. HUD also routinely hears from and carefully considers the
perspectives of PHAs and owners, and the multiple associations that
represent those PHAs and owners. Additionally, HUD has solicited the
perspectives of tenants in HUD-subsidized housing and the perspectives
of people who provide support and legal representation to those
tenants. HUD has conducted listening sessions with tenants who reside
in HUD-subsidized housing and also consulted with non-profit legal
service providers who represent subsidized tenants in eviction
proceedings and other eviction prevention actions. In addition, HUD has
considered the perspectives of scholars and legal experts who study
eviction prevention and has reviewed key decisions related to evictions
made by state courts. HUD understands that there are other issues that
may affect tenants, but this rule focuses on preventing unnecessary
eviction filings and evictions for nonpayment of rent violations.
Furthermore, recommending instead of requiring PHAs and owners to
provide a 30-day notice would go against HUD's intent to remain
consistent with the longest of the standard periods to which PHAs and
owners are already accustomed to for many evictions. HUD also disagrees
that tenants should be charged for vacating a property without 30-day
notice. Charging tenants could lead to further issues for tenants and
housing providers and further frustrate HUD's programmatic efficiency.
Additionally, HUD does not have control over the judicial system in
order to streamline the judicial process, but giving tenants additional
time to cure a nonpayment of rent violation will help to reduce
eviction filings and evictions for nonpayment of rent.
V. Findings and Certifications
Regulatory Review--Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a
determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant
and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order.
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review)
directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are ``outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been
learned.'' Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent
permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public. Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory
Review) amends section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), among other things.
The rule revises 24 CFR parts 247, 880, 884, 886, 891, and 966 to
update HUD's regulation to curtail preventable and unnecessary eviction
filings and evictions by providing tenants time and information to help
cure nonpayment violations. This rule also improves HUD's programmatic
efficiency by ensuring resources are not diverted to cover the costs of
unnecessary evictions and by preventing homelessness. This rule was
determined to be a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of the order. HUD has prepared a regulatory impact
analysis and has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action and has
determined that the benefits will justify the costs. The analysis is
available at regulations.gov and is part of the docket file for this
rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4; approved March 22, 1995) (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.
Environmental Review
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the
environment was made for the proposed rule in accordance with HUD
regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The
previous FONSI remains applicable to the final rule.
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 does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
HUD anticipates that there will be minimal costs for this rule since
PHAs and owners are already required to comply with the CARES Act 30-
day notice to vacate requirement for nonpayment of rent in section
4024(c)(1). Additionally, the paperwork burden and compliance costs for
PHAs and owners will be minimal since HUD already requires written
notice for nonpayment of rent and will provide the information that
PHAs and owners need to meet requirements (see burden costs estimates
below for more information).
[[Page 101302]]
HUD estimates the number of small entities for PHAs as 2,099. At
this time, HUD is unable to provide an accurate estimate of small PBRA
owners because we do not always know whether there is a corporate
structure behind an individual owner. As noted in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for this final rule, the added cost of sharing information as
required by this rule is minimal since PHAs and owners already have to
provide written notice before taking adverse action for nonpayment of
rent. The burden of developing the content of the notice will be
minimal since HUD will supply the information that providers will have
to give to tenants. The PRA burden for small entities to update notices
and leases will be the same as for larger ones or approximately,
$152.70 for each PHA, and $186.96 for each PBRA owner (see Exhibit 4 in
this rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis for more details). As noted
above, we do not have an accurate number of small PBRA owners, and we
estimate the number of small PHAs as 2,099.
Therefore, the undersigned certifies that the rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808), also known as the
Congressional Review Act or CRA, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule does not meet the
criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 or is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive order. This rule does not have federalism
implications and will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of
the Executive order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless the
collection displays a valid control number. The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have been submitted to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned
OMB control numbers 2577-0006 and 2502-0178.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 247
Grant programs--housing and community development, Loan programs--
housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing,
Rent subsidies.
24 CFR Part 880
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Government
contracts, Grant programs-housing and community development, Home
improvement, Housing, Housing standards, Low and moderate income
housing, Manufactured homes, Public assistance programs, Rent
subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 884
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-
housing and community development, Home improvement, Housing, Low and
moderate income housing, Public assistance programs, Public housing,
Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas,
Utilities.
24 CFR Part 886
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Government
contracts, Grant programs-housing and community development, Home
improvement, Housing, Lead poisoning, Low and moderate income housing,
Mortgages, Public assistance programs, Rent subsidies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Utilities, Wages.
24 CFR Part 891
Aged, Grant programs--housing and community development,
Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs--housing and community
development, Low and moderate income housing, Public assistance
programs, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 966
Grant programs--housing and community development, Public housing,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR parts
247, 880, 884, 886, 891, and 966 as follows:
PART 247--EVICTIONS FROM CERTAIN SUBSIDIZED AND HUD-OWNED PROJECTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 247 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q, 1701s, 1715b, 1715l, and 1715z-1;
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, and 3535(d).
0
2. In Sec. 247.4, revise paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 247.4 Termination notice.
* * * * *
(c) Time of service. When the termination of the tenancy is based
on other good cause pursuant to Sec. 247.3(a)(4), the termination
notice shall be effective, and the termination notice shall so state,
at the end of a term and in accordance with the termination provisions
of the rental agreement, but in no case earlier than 30 days after
receipt of the tenant of the notice. Where the termination notice is
based on material noncompliance with the rental agreement or material
failure to carry out obligations under a state landlord and tenant act
pursuant to Sec. 247.3(a)(1) or (2), the time of service shall be in
accord with the rental agreement and state law. In cases of nonpayment
of rent, the termination notice shall be effective no earlier than 30
days after receipt by the tenant of the termination notice. The
landlord must not provide tenants with a termination notice prior to
the day after the rent is due according to the lease. The landlord also
must not proceed with filing an eviction if the tenant pays the alleged
amount of rent owed within the 30-day notification period.
* * * * *
(e) Notice requirements in rent nonpayment cases. In any case in
which termination of tenancy is initiated because of the tenant's
failure to pay rent, a notice stating the dollar amount of the balance
due on the rent account and the date of such computation shall satisfy
the requirement of specificity set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section. All termination notices in cases of nonpayment of rent must
also include the following:
(1) Instructions on how the tenant can cure the nonpayment of rent
violation, including an itemized amount separated by month of alleged
rent owed by the tenant, any other arrearages allowed by HUD and
included in the lease separated by month, and the date by which the
tenant must pay the amount of rent owed before an eviction for
nonpayment of rent can be filed;
(2) Information on how the tenant can recertify their income and,
for tenants
[[Page 101303]]
residing in projects assisted pursuant to a housing assistance payments
contract for project-based assistance under section 8 of the 1937 Act
(42 U.S.C. 1437f), information on how the tenant can apply for a
hardship exemption pursuant to 24 CFR 5.630(b); and
(3) In the event of a Presidential declaration of a national
emergency, such information to tenants as required by the Secretary.
* * * * *
PART 880--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION
0
3. The authority citation for part 880 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and
13611-13619.
0
4. In Sec. 880.606:
0
a. Redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (c); and
0
b. Add new paragraph (b).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 880.606 Lease requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Notification for nonpayment of rent. The lease must also
contain a provision or addendum that tenants will receive notification
at least 30 days before a formal judicial eviction is filed.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 880.607, revise paragraph (c)(6) and add paragraph (c)(7)
to read as follows:
Sec. 880.607 Termination of tenancy and modification of lease.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) In the case of failure to pay rent, the termination notice
shall be effective no earlier than 30 days after receipt by the tenant.
All termination notices in cases of failure to pay rent must include
the following:
(i) Instructions on how the tenant can cure the nonpayment of rent
violation, including an itemized amount separated by month of alleged
rent owed by the tenant, any other arrearages allowed by HUD and
included in the lease separated by month, and the date by which the
tenant must pay the amount of rent owed before an eviction for
nonpayment of rent can be filed;
(ii) Information on how the tenant can recertify their income and
apply for a hardship exemption pursuant to 24 CFR 5.630(b); and
(iii) In the event of a Presidential declaration of a national
emergency, such information as required by the Secretary.
(7) An owner must not provide tenants with a termination notice
prior to the day after the rent is due according to the lease. An owner
must not proceed with filing a formal judicial eviction if the tenant
pays the alleged amount of rent owed within the 30-day notification
period.
* * * * *
PART 884--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM, NEW
CONSTRUCTION SET-ASIDE FOR SECTION 515 RURAL RENTAL HOUSING
PROJECTS
0
6. The authority citation for part 884 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-
13619.
0
7. In Sec. 884.215, add a second sentence to the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 884.215 Lease requirements.
* * * In addition to the provisions specified in paragraph (b), the
lease shall also contain a provision or addendum that tenants will
receive notification at least 30 days before an eviction for nonpayment
of rent is filed.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 884.216, revise paragraph (d) and add paragraph (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 884.216 Termination of tenancy.
* * * * *
(d) In the case of failure to pay rent, the owner must provide the
tenant with a termination notice at least 30 days before a formal
judicial eviction is filed. All termination notices in cases of failure
to pay rent must include the following:
(1) Instructions on how the tenant can cure the nonpayment of rent,
including an itemized amount separated by month of alleged rent owed by
the tenant, any other arrearages allowed by HUD and included in the
lease separated by month, and the date by which the tenant must pay the
amount of rent owed before an eviction for nonpayment of rent can be
filed;
(2) Information on how the tenant can recertify their income and
apply for a hardship exemption pursuant to 24 CFR 5.630(b); and
(3) In the event of a Presidential declaration of a national
emergency, such information as required by the Secretary.
(e) An owner must not provide tenants with a termination notice
prior to the day after the rent is due according to the lease. An owner
must not proceed with filing an eviction if the tenant pays the alleged
amount of rent owed within the 30-day notification period.
PART 886--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM--SPECIAL
ALLOCATIONS
0
9. The authority citation for part 886 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-
13619.
0
10. In Sec. 886.127, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 886.127 Lease requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Notification for nonpayment of rent. The lease must contain a
provision or addendum that tenants will receive notification at least
30 days before a formal judicial eviction is filed.
0
11. In Sec. 886.327, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 886.327 Lease requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Notification for nonpayment of rent. The lease must contain a
provision or addendum that tenants will receive notification at least
30 days before a formal judicial eviction is filed.
PART 891--SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
0
12. The authority citation for part 891 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535(d), and 8013.
0
13. In Sec. 891.425, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 891.425 Lease requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Notification for nonpayment of rent. The lease must contain a
provision or addendum that tenants will receive notification at least
30 days before a formal judicial eviction is filed.
PART 966--PUBLIC HOUSING LEASE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
0
14. The authority citation for part 966 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d).
0
15. In Sec. 966.4, revise paragraphs (l)(3)(i)(A) and (1)(3)(ii) and
add paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as follows:
Sec. 966.4 Lease requirements.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) At least 30 days in the case of failure to pay rent;
* * * * *
(ii) The notice of lease termination to the tenant shall state
specific grounds
[[Page 101304]]
for termination, and shall inform the tenant of the tenant's right to
make such reply as the tenant may wish. The notice shall also inform
the tenant of the right (pursuant to paragraph (m) of this section) to
examine PHA documents directly relevant to the termination or eviction.
When the PHA is required to afford the tenant the opportunity for a
grievance hearing, the notice shall also inform the tenant of the
tenant's right to request a hearing in accordance with the PHA's
grievance procedure. All notices of lease termination required by
paragraph (1)(3)(i)(A) of this section due to a tenant's failure to pay
rent must also include the following:
(A) Instructions on how the tenant can cure the nonpayment of rent
violation, including an itemized amount separated by month of alleged
rent owed by the tenant, any other arrearages allowed by HUD and
included in the lease separated by month, and the date by which the
tenant must pay the amount of rent owed before an eviction for
nonpayment of rent can be filed;
(B) Information on how the tenant can recertify their income
pursuant to 24 CFR 960.257(b), request a hardship exemption pursuant to
24 CFR 5.630(b), or request to switch from flat rent to income-based
rent pursuant to 24 CFR 960.253(g); and
(C) In the event of a Presidential declaration of a national
emergency, such information as required by the Secretary.
* * * * *
(q) Notification for nonpayment of rent. The lease shall contain a
provision or addendum that tenants will receive notification at least
30 days before an eviction for nonpayment of rent is filed.
(r) Time of service. The PHA must not provide tenants with a
termination notice prior to the day after the rent is due according to
the lease. The PHA must not proceed with filing an eviction if the
tenant pays the alleged amount of rent owed within the 30-day
notification period.
Sec. 966.8 [Removed]
0
16. Remove Sec. 966.8.
Damon Smith,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-28861 Filed 12-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
