[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