42518 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 960

[Docket No. FR–4437–F–02]

RIN 2577–AB94

Pet Ownership in Public Housing

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this rule is to

permit public housing residents to own

pets, subject to reasonable requirements

that the public housing agency may

establish in consultation with the

residents. This rule implements pet

ownership policies and general

requirements for residents of public

housing other than public housing

developments for the elderly or persons

with disabilities. HUD published a

proposed rule on June 23, 1999, and this

final rule takes into consideration the

public comments received on the

proposed rule. This rule does not affect

the pre-existing regulations covering pet

ownership requirements for residents of

public housing developments for the

elderly or persons with disabilities.

DATES: Effective Date: August 9, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia S. Arnaudo, Senior Program

Manager, Office of Public and Assisted

Housing Delivery, Room 4222, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC, 20410–5000; telephone

(202) 708–0744 (this is not a toll-free

number). Hearing- or speech-impaired

individuals may access this number via

TTY by calling the toll-free Federal

Information Relay Service at (800) 877–

8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The June 23, 1999 Proposed Rule

The June 23, 1999 rule proposed to

implement section 526 of the Quality

Housing and Work Responsibility Act of

1998 (Pub.L. 105–276, approved

October 21, 1998) (referred to as the

‘‘Public Housing Reform Act’’), which

added new section 31 (captioned ‘‘Pet

Ownership in Public Housing’’) to the

United States Housing Act of 1937 (see

42 U.S.C. 1437z–3) (the Act). Section 31

establishes pet ownership requirements

for residents of public housing other

than public housing developments for

the elderly or persons with disabilities.

The proposed rule can be found at 64

FR 33640 (June 23, 1999).

The June 23, 1999 rule proposed to

amend 24 CFR part 960 by adding a new

subpart G, consisting of the following

new sections: § 960.701 (captioned

‘‘Purpose’’), stating that the purpose of

subpart G is to permit pets in public

housing; § 960.703 (captioned

‘‘Applicability’’), limiting the

applicability of the subpart G

regulations to public housing other than

public housing developments for the

elderly or persons with disabilities (pet

ownership in such housing is covered in

24 CFR part 5, subpart C); § 960.705

(captioned ‘‘Animals that assist,

support, or provide service to persons

with disabilities’’), exempting service

animals for people with disabilities; and

§ 960.707 (captioned ‘‘Pet ownership’’),

implementing the primary requirements

of section 31 of the Act.

The main substantive regulatory

section in the proposed rule, § 960.707,

consisted of four paragraphs. Paragraph

(a) provided that a public housing

resident may own one or more common

household pets if the resident maintains

each pet responsibly, in accordance

with applicable State and local public

health, animal control and animal anticruelty laws and regulations, and in

accordance with the policies established

in the Public Housing Agency (PHA)

Plan. Paragraph (b) provided examples

of reasonable requirements that PHAs

may impose on pet owners, such as

limits on the number of animals in a

unit and certain fees, specifically nonrefundable nominal fees to cover costs

to the development and refundable pet

deposits. The non-refundable nominal

fee is intended to cover the reasonable

operating costs to the development

relating to the presence of pets, and the

refundable pet deposit is intended to

cover additional costs not otherwise

covered, such as damage to the unit, for

example, attributable to a resident’s pet.

Paragraph (c), as proposed, provided for

placing pet deposits into an escrow

account from which the unused portion

would be refunded. Finally, paragraph

(d) provided that a PHA’s pet policies

under this rule must be included in the

agency’s Annual Plan under 24 CFR part

903.

II. This Final Rule

This final rule adopts most of the core

provisions of the proposed rule, but

makes some changes to the proposal in

response to public comments received.

Specifically, in response to comments

stating that the rule did not fully

implement Congressional intent, HUD

has revised the purpose section,

§ 960.701, to more fully express

Congress’ intent that PHAs permit pet

ownership subject to reasonable rules.

HUD has made editorial changes to

§ 960.703 to more properly distinguish

this rule from the existing rule that is

found in 24 CFR part 5, subpart C, that

pertains to pet ownership by the elderly

and persons with disabilities. Because

of these changes, a cross-reference has

been removed.

Additionally, in response to

comments that applicable State or local

law should govern pet deposits, HUD

has modified the proposed refundable

escrow requirement in § 960.707(d), to

provide that State or local laws

applicable to pet deposits or, if

applicable, rental security deposits

apply.

Section 960.705 has been recaptioned

and slightly revised to conform to fair

housing requirements regarding animals

that assist, support, or provide service to

persons with disabilities. As before, the

section generally states that this section

does not apply to such animals, and

does not affect either a PHAs right to

require residents to comply with other

existing requirements regarding such

animals, or existing protections for such

assistive animals. The primary

difference from the proposed rule is that

different language is used to define such

animals, including the idea that these

animals are necessary as a reasonable

accommodation to persons with

disabilities.

Section 960.707(b), which lists

examples of reasonable requirements

that PHAs may impose on pet owners,

has been revised to add a provision

specifying that PHAs may require pet

owners to register their pets, and have

them spayed or neutered. Also, a slight

modification was made to paragraph

(b)(3) of § 960.707 to clarify the

applicability of State and local law to

the issue of classifying certain animals

as dangerous. A new paragraph (c) has

been added to prohibit PHAs from

requiring that pet owners remove their

pet’s vocal chords, in response to

comments on that issue.

In § 960.707(b)(1), the distinction

between nonrefundable nominal pet

fees and refundable pet deposits has

been clarified. Specifically, the

nonrefundable fee is for general costs to

the development associated with pet

ownership, and the deposit is for costs

attributable to particular pets that are

not otherwise covered. This distinction

is further explained in responses to

comments.

Finally, further specificity has been

added regarding the Annual Plan

process in what is now § 960.707(e) to

specify that, unless otherwise provided

by 24 CFR 903.11, Annual Plans are

required to contain information

regarding the PHA’s pet policies, as

described in 24 CFR 903.7(n), beginning

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 42519

with PHA fiscal years that commence on

or after January 1, 2001.

III. Discussion of the Public Comments

The comment period for this rule

closed on August 23, 1999. HUD

received 3,777 comments. The

commenters included public housing

residents, resident organizations, public

housing authorities, legal aid

organizations, public interest animal

advocacy groups, and individuals

interested in issues involving animal

welfare. HUD received approximately

3,000 additional comments after the

close of the comment period. To the

extent possible, HUD reviewed these

comments to determine if any raised

issues not already covered by the almost

4,000 timely comments.

HUD received a number of comments

from commenters opposed to this

rulemaking as a whole and to the idea

of allowing pet ownership in public

housing. This rulemaking is required by

section 31 of the Act and because the

issue of whether to allow pet ownership

in public housing is not within HUD’s

discretion to change, there is no further

discussion of this issue in the preamble.

A summary of the remaining comments

follows.

General Comments

Comment: The regulation is so

general that it fails to implement

Congressional intent. While the

proposed rule allowing PHAs broad

discretion comports with the 1998

public housing reform, the rule may be

so general that it does not implement

Congress’ intent that PHAs permit pet

ownership. The rule should do more

than merely restate the general guidance

given by Congress, and therefore HUD

should publish another proposed rule.

Response: In order to more clearly

state the intent of the rule to allow

public housing residents to own pets,

HUD has modified the purpose section

to state that PHAs must allow pet

ownership, subject to reasonable

requirements. Insofar as portions of the

rule mirror the statutory language, the

rule therefore reflects Congressional

intent that PHAs must permit pet

ownership subject to reasonable

requirements. HUD acknowledges that

the rule leaves important aspects to

local decision-making. This, however, is

also consistent with Congressional

intent, as the statute provides that

applicable State and local public health,

animal control and animal anti-cruelty

laws and regulations, as well as policies

established by the PHA, govern pet

ownership in public housing. The fact

that the rule requires information

regarding pet policies to be included in

the agency’s Annual Plan as provided in

24 CFR 903.7 and thus subject to public

hearing, Resident Advisory Board

consultation and HUD review

requirements applicable to the plan

insures that the intent of the provision

will be implemented with substantial

community input, to provide guidance.

Furthermore, HUD believes that the

proposed rule gave adequate public

notice of the issues involved, by

providing examples of the types of

guidelines PHAs could institute and

specifying that PHAs and residents

could also make local decisions on pet

policy as part of the Annual Plan

process under 24 CFR part 903. This

approach is similar to the discretion

PHAs have in administering pet policies

in public housing developments for the

elderly or persons with disabilities. At

this time, HUD does not plan to publish

another proposed rule.

Comment: HUD’s pet rules should be

combined. HUD should integrate the

proposed public housing pet rules (24

CFR part 960) with the pet rules for pet

ownership for the elderly or persons

with disabilities (24 CFR part 5).

Response: The pet rules for the

elderly or persons with disabilities are

placed in part 5 because they apply both

to HUD’s public housing and assisted

housing programs. Rather than repeating

them in a number of different CFR

sections, HUD places such cross-cutting

rules in part 5. This rule, however,

belongs in part 960 because it only

applies to public housing.

Comment: HUD should use the

Massachusetts Guidelines for StateAided Elderly Housing to develop its pet

regulations. These guidelines provide a

good basis to develop pet regulations.

Response: While elements of the

Massachusetts Guidelines may be

appropriate for certain PHAs, other

PHAs, in consultation with their

residents through the Annual Plan

process under 24 CFR part 903, may

wish to institute different or varying

guidelines as locally appropriate.

Indeed, section 31 of the Act requires

that pet policies comport with local law

and with the policies established in the

Plan for each PHA, and these local laws

and plans may vary. Therefore, rather

than requiring each PHA to implement

the specific Massachusetts Guidelines,

HUD has determined that it is important

and in accordance with Congressional

intent to preserve local options. At a

later date HUD may provide to PHAs, as

technical assistance, examples of pet

policies for PHAs to consider in

developing their pet rules.

Comment: Clarify formal procedures

for adopting pet rules. This rule should

state formal procedures for adopting and

changing pet rules as do §§ 5.350 and

5.353 of HUD’s pet regulations for

developments for the elderly and

persons with disabilities.

Response: Because information

regarding PHA’s requirements relating

to pet ownership are to be included in

the PHA’s Annual Plan under 24 CFR

part 903, which covers HUD review and

approval requirements, additional

formal requirements are not necessary,

except that HUD has revised the rule to

specify that PHAs must start including

information regarding their pet policies

in their PHA Plans beginning on January

1, 2001.

Comment: The rule should impose

requirements on assistance animals for

persons with disabilities. The final rule

should impose requirements on

assistance animals for persons with

disabilities in public housing complexes

that are not complexes designated for

the elderly or persons with disabilities,

such as certification that the household

contains a person with disabilities that

would benefit from the assistance of the

animal, that the animal has been

appropriately trained, and that the

animal actually provides assistance to

the person with disabilities.

Response: The statute, legislative

history and the proposed rule all

indicate that section 31 intends to

regulate only ‘‘common household

pets.’’ Therefore, regulation of animals

that provide assistance, support, or

service to persons with disabilities is

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In

this regard, HUD believes that animals

that provide assistance, service or

support to persons with disabilities, and

are needed as a reasonable

accommodation to such individuals, are

not ‘‘common household pets.’’ Rather,

they are assistive animals, necessary to

provide the individual with an

opportunity to use and enjoy the

dwelling to the same extent as residents

without disabilities. Section 960.705 of

the final rule clarifies that the

provisions of subpart G and any PHA

pet policies established under subpart G

do not apply to such animals.

Comment: Because pet ownership

policies will be approved by HUD staff

through the PHA Plan approval process,

HUD should conduct a ‘‘minimalist’’

review of PHA pet policies. This rule

should provide that HUD will conduct

this minimalist review of PHA pet

policies.

Response: The only review of PHA

pet policies contemplated by this

regulation is through the PHA Annual

Plan process under 24 CFR part 903.

Therefore, no change to the regulation is

necessary as a result of this comment.

42520 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Certain terms should be

defined in the rule. Some commenters

requested that the rule define the term

‘‘common household pet.’’ One

commenter asked that the term

‘‘responsibly’’ (used in § 960.707(a)(1))

be defined to ensure a common

understanding among PHAs. Another

commenter stated that the term should

not be defined since it is not defined in

section 31 of the Act. Other commenters

stated that the final rule should define

the concept of ‘‘nominal fee’’ as used in

§ 960.707(b)(1). Another commenter

stated that the rule should clarify what

the word ‘‘reasonable’’ means in

§ 960.707(b).

Response: Because of variations

among local communities, HUD agrees

that the regulation should not define

these terms. Each PHA should define

‘‘allowable household pets,’’ the

elements of ‘‘responsible pet

ownership,’’ the concept of ‘‘nominal

fee,’’ and what regulations are

‘‘reasonable’’ as part of its pet policies

that will be part of the PHA Plan and

hence developed in consultation with

the Resident Advisory Board. Permitting

PHAs to define terms is consistent with

the administration of pet rules in public

housing developments for the elderly

and persons with disabilities.

Comment: Banning of dangerous

animals. HUD should neither encourage

nor permit PHAs to ban specific breeds

of dogs. The final rule should require

that an animal behaviorist make any

final decision that an animal is

dangerous. The final rule should either

define the term ‘‘dangerous animal’’ or

provide a list of dangerous animals.

Response: Section 31 of the Act

provides that a PHA’s reasonable

requirements may include prohibitions

on types of animals that are classified as

dangerous. Thus, the rule contains a

provision implementing that statutory

provision. In some cases, State or local

law may govern the classification and

treatment of ‘‘dangerous animals’’ and

whether to ban specific breeds; in those

cases, the PHA’s pet policy must be

consistent with State or local law.

Pet Deposits

Comment: State and local law should

govern pet deposits. A number of

commenters stated that PHAs should be

allowed to hold pet deposits in

accordance with State and local laws.

Another commenter opposed the

proposed rule on the basis that HUD’s

proposed regulation could have the

effect of preempting local laws that give

pet owners greater protection.

Response: Because most States

already have laws regulating such

deposits, HUD agrees that State or local

laws relating to pet deposits or security

deposits (if applicable) should apply,

and has revised the rule accordingly.

Comment: Pet deposits should not

have to be placed in escrow accounts.

The rule should not require escrow

accounts or interest because the

administrative burden outweighs the

small amounts of funds involved. The

pet rule for housing for the elderly and

persons with disabilities does not

require them, and payment of interest is

not required by the statute.

Response: Section 31 of the Act

permits PHAs to charge a nonrefundable nominal fee to cover the

reasonable operating costs to the

development related to the presence of

pets, a refundable pet deposit to cover

additional costs not otherwise covered,

or both. Thus, PHAs have the discretion

to establish fees, deposits, or both. With

respect to deposits, legislative history

indicates that Congress expects such

accounts to be interest-bearing.

However, rather than trying to impose a

new scheme in an area where States

generally already have laws and

regulations governing either pet

deposits, security deposits, or both,

HUD has revised the proposed rule to

state that local legal requirements will

govern any such escrow accounts as to

interest and other matters.

Comment: Pet deposits should be

used for specified purposes. One

commenter stated that accrued interest

on pet deposits should be placed in the

PHA’s resident services and activities

fund. Another comment stated that the

final rule should authorize PHAs to use

all pet deposits and nominal fees for

costs of maintenance related to pet

ownership.

Response: Section 31 specifies the

uses of pet fees and deposits. The

statute indicates that the purpose of fees

is to cover the ‘‘reasonable operating

costs to the project relating to the

presence of pets,’’ and deposits are for

additional costs not otherwise covered.

HUD believes that, in accordance with

the overall purpose of this section,

‘‘additional costs not otherwise

covered’’ refers to pet-related costs not

covered by the nominal fee, not overall

maintenance or operating costs of the

development, which are covered by

other HUD funding. PHAs may use pet

deposits and interest for items not

covered by the fee, which HUD

interprets to refer to costs for damage

attributable to a particular pet and not

covered by the fee, and may use

nominal pet ownership fees for

purposes of maintenance of the

development related to pet ownership.

PHA Requirements for Pet Ownership

Comment: Certain requirements

should be included or mandated in the

rule. A number of commenters sought to

have various specific requirements

added to the rule. These include the

following described in this comment.

The following recommendations

should be added to the rule to provide

sufficient guidance: Mandate the

spaying and neutering of dogs and cats;

establish pet committees in all housing

complexes that will be responsible for

enforcement of the pet rules; ensure that

pet rules protect the safety, health and

well-being of pets as well as people in

the community; and prohibit PHAs from

requiring inhumane procedures, such as

debarking or declawing.

A Pet Ombudsman should be

appointed to oversee Federal pet

policies; pets found roaming at large

should be ‘‘microchipped’’ for future

identification; residents should be

allowed to temporarily keep foster pets

received from an animal welfare agency

or rescue group for companion animals.

Additional comments were as follows:

Outside pets should have adequate

fencing and shelter;

The rule should prohibit outdoor pets;

The rule should prohibit or allow

PHAs to prohibit pets based on climaterelated factors;

There should be a limit on the

number of different species of pet in a

unit;

The rule should prohibit specific pets,

such as certain kinds of dogs, birds,

non-human primates and pot-bellied

pigs;

The rule should require that dogs and

cats be on leashes when outside;

The rule should prohibit the tethering

or chaining of any animals;

PHA should have the right to take

certain actions if there is evidence of an

animal in distress, including entry into

the unit, impoundment of the animal,

and alerting authorities;

The rule should impose a limitation

on the number of pets allowed per unit;

The rule should require that pets wear

identification at all times;

The rule should prohibit tail and ear

docking;

The rule should require that a PHA’s

pet regulations along with a telephone

number to report violations should be

posted;

The rule should require that all pets

be spayed and neutered;

The rule should not allow

requirements that pets be spayed and

neutered; and

The rule should include specific

requirements for ensuring the health of

pets.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 42521

Response: Under the rule, PHAs can

institute reasonable requirements

addressing any or all of these issues.

Because many commenters on the

specific issue of spaying and neutering

requirements made strong arguments

that such requirements are desirable as

policy, the final rule specifies that PHAs

have the discretion to adopt such

requirements.

HUD also agrees with a number of

comments regarding ‘‘debarking’’ pets,

and so has added a provision in the

final rule to prohibit a PHA from

requiring that any pet’s vocal chords be

removed. This matches a provision of

the current regulations regarding pets in

public housing developments for the

elderly and persons with disabilities.

As to the concept of an ombudsman,

to the extent disputes occur, HUD

expects PHAs to settle disputes with

their residents reasonably and in

accordance with the law and

regulations. HUD field staff can assist by

answering questions.

In addition, the statute and rule

require residents to maintain pets in

accordance with State and local public

health, animal control, and anti-cruelty

laws and regulations, most of which

address health and safety concerns.

Comment: Rule should make clear

that public housing residents must

obtain PHA approval before owning a

pet. The final rule should clarify this

point.

Response: As one of its ‘‘reasonable

requirements,’’ a PHA may now require

that pet owners register their pets. Such

registration may include such matters

as, for example, the certification of a

licensed veterinarian or a State or local

authority (or agent of such authority)

empowered to inoculate animals, that

the pet has received all inoculations

required by applicable State and local

law; information sufficient to identify

the pet and to demonstrate that it is a

common household pet; and the name,

address and telephone number of one or

more responsible parties who will care

for the pet if the owner is unable to do

so for any reason.

Comment: Eliminate certain language

from the rule. Section 960.707(b)(4) of

the proposed rule reads ‘‘[Reasonable

requirements may include] * * * (4)

Restrictions or prohibitions based on

size and type of building or project or

other relevant conditions.’’ One

commenter states that the phrase ‘‘or

prohibitions’’ is overly broad and could

be used to negate the intent of section

31. Another commenter states that the

phrase ‘‘or other relevant conditions’’ is

too vague.

Response: The referenced language is

statutory and so is retained in the final

rule (see section 31(b)(4) of the Act).

Since the overall intent of the statute is

to permit pet ownership in public

housing, this language should not be

used to negate the intent of the rule, and

PHAs should apply this section

consistently with that intent.

Comment: The final rule should

provide that PHAs may demand proof of

liability insurance or evidence of

financial responsibility as a condition of

pet ownership. The final rule should

include this as a reasonable requirement

in § 960.707(b).

Response: The lower-income

population served by PHAs is not likely

to have access to liability insurance. At

best, such insurance would pose a

further financial hardship on PHA

residents. When section 31 refers to

‘‘reasonable requirements,’’ it means

reasonable requirements relating to pet

ownership. Reasonable requirements

include, for example, limiting the

number of pets per unit and prohibiting

dangerous animals (see sections 31(b)(2)

and (3) of the Act). However, a

requirement to have liability insurance

could well make it impossible for most

PHA residents to have pets, thus

frustrating the intent of the statute.

Liability insurance, therefore, is not a

‘‘reasonable requirement’’ within the

intent of section 31. Thus, the PHA may

not require evidence of liability

insurance.

Comment: PHAs should be able to

follow the pet rules for private

multifamily housing. PHAs should not

be required to allow pets where private

housing of a similar density would not.

PHAs must not be forced to accept

conditions that go beyond that which is

standard in the private market. The final

rule must give PHA’s the authority to

designate areas for pets and areas where

pets are not allowed.

Response: Section 31(d) of the Act

requires HUD to promulgate regulations

requiring PHAs to permit pet

ownership, and this fact distinguishes

PHAs from private housing in respect to

pet ownership. The statute and

§ 960.707(b)(4) of the regulations permit

‘‘restrictions or prohibitions based on

the size and type of building * * * or

other relevant conditions.’’ Where

appropriate to local conditions, and in

consultation with the Resident Advisory

Board as part of the PHA’s Plan, an

individual PHA could institute some

pet-free areas. However, HUD expects

PHAs, consistent with statutory intent,

to generally allow pet ownership.

Comment: Rule needs to address

adequate care of pets. In the final rule,

HUD should provide guidance regarding

adequate care of pets.

Response: The rule refers to

applicable State and local animal

control and anti-cruelty laws. Such laws

provide guidance relevant in each

jurisdiction regarding animal welfare.

Also, PHAs and pet owners may obtain

information from organizations, such as

local humane societies.

Comment: The rule should allow

individual developments to vote on

whether or not to allow pets. Allowing

residents to vote on whether to allow

pets could be considered a ‘‘reasonable

requirement’’ under § 960.707(b).

Response: The purpose of section 31

of the Act is to permit pet ownership by

those residents who wish to own pets

and comply with reasonable

requirements. Reasonable requirements

include, for example, limiting the

number of pets per unit and prohibiting

dangerous animals (see sections 31(b)(2)

and (3) of the Act). Legislative history

indicates that pet-free areas could be

instituted, for example, to accommodate

residents who are allergic to pets (see

H.R. Report No. 105–76, at 132). In other

words, the reasonable requirements

contemplated by the statute impose

conditions under which pets may be

owned, and have some relation to the

proper care of the pet or the welfare of

the community. Allowing those

residents who prefer not to have pets to

prohibit all residents from having pets

on the basis of a vote would go beyond

imposing reasonable conditions on pet

ownership and would amount to a

contravention of the statutory intent to

allow pet ownership. Of course,

residents of particular housing could

argue to their PHA that there are

characteristics of that housing which

make various limitations on pet

ownership appropriate.

Comment: The rule should provide

guidance regarding unit size. Section

960.707(b)(2) provides for limitations on

the number of animals in a unit, based

on unit size. The commenters state that

PHAs could effectively prohibit all pet

ownership by characterizing all of their

units as too small to accommodate pets.

Thus, guidelines from HUD regarding

unit size and number of pets are needed.

Response: Information regarding the

PHA’s pet policy must be part of the

PHA’s Plan under 24 CFR part 903,

which is subject to public hearing,

Resident Advisory Board consultation,

and HUD review. As a result, HUD

believes that PHAs will promulgate

reasonable pet rules.

Comment: Only certain animals

should be allowed as pets. One

comment stated that farm animals,

exotic pets, breeding animals, wild or

feral animals, and dangerous animals

should not be allowed. Another

42522 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

comment stated that only cats and dogs

should be allowed.

Response: As to the keeping of farm,

exotic, and dangerous animals, many

States and localities have laws regarding

such animals, with which PHAs will

have to comply. Also, as to types of

animals not covered by such laws, PHAs

and Resident Advisory Boards will

decide which animals are appropriate as

pets as part of the PHA Plan process.

IV. Findings and Certifications

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary, in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), has reviewed and approved this

rule, and in so doing certifies that this

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The rule

provides for pet ownership in public

housing, and allows PHAs to collect pet

deposits to defray the costs to the

development of pet ownership.

Environmental Impact

A Finding of No Significant Impact

with respect to the environment was

made in accordance with HUD

regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which

implements Section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 at the proposed rule stage. That

Finding remains applicable to this rule

and is available for public inspection

between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.

weekdays in the Office of the Rules

Docket Clerk, Office of the General

Counsel, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Room 10276, 451

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20410.

Federalism Impact

Executive Order 13132 (entitled

‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits, to the extent

practicable and permitted by law, an

agency from promulgating a regulation

that has federalism implications and

either imposes substantial direct

compliance costs on State and local

governments and is not required by

statute, or preempts State law, unless

the relevant requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order are met. This rule

does not have federalism implications

and does not impose substantial direct

compliance costs on State and local

governments or preempt State law

within the meaning of the Executive

Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (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 proposed 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.

Regulatory Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has reviewed this rule under

Executive Order 12866 (captioned

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’) and

determined that this rule is a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as

defined in section 3(f) of the Order

(although not an economically

significant regulatory action under the

Order). Any changes made to this rule

as a result of that review are identified

in the docket file, which is available for

public inspection during regular

business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)

at the Office of the General Counsel,

Rules Docket Clerk, Room 10276, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20410–0500.

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 960

Aged, Grant programs—housing and

community development, Individuals

with disabilities, Pets, Public housing.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 960

as follows:

PART 960—ADMISSION TO, AND

OCCUPANCY OF, PUBLIC HOUSING

1. The authority citation for 24 CFR

part 960 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d,

1437n, 1437z–3, and 3535(d).

2. Add subpart G to read as follows:

Subpart G—Pet Ownership in Public

Housing

Sec.

960.701 Purpose.

960.703 Applicability.

960.705 Animals that assist, support, or

provide service to persons with

disabilities.

960.707 Pet ownership.

Subpart G—Pet Ownership in Public

Housing

§ 960.701 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is, in

accordance with section 31 of the

United States Housing Act of 1937 (42

U.S.C. 1437z–3), to permit pet

ownership by residents of public

housing, subject to compliance with

reasonable requirements established by

the public housing agency (PHA) for pet

ownership.

§ 960.703 Applicability.

This subpart applies to public

housing as that term is defined in

section 3(b) of the United States

Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.

1437a(b)), except that such term does

not include public housing

developments for the elderly or persons

with disabilities. Regulations that apply

to pet ownership in such developments

are located in part 5, subpart C, of this

title.

§ 960.705 Animals that assist, support, or

provide service to persons with disabilities.

(a) This subpart G does not apply to

animals that assist, support or provide

service to persons with disabilities.

PHAs may not apply or enforce any

policies established under this subpart

against animals that are necessary as a

reasonable accommodation to assist,

support or provide service to persons

with disabilities. This exclusion applies

to such animals that reside in public

housing, as that term is used in

§ 960.703, and such animals that visit

these developments.

(b) Nothing in this subpart G:

(1) Limits or impairs the rights of

persons with disabilities;

(2) Authorizes PHAs to limit or impair

the rights of persons with disabilities; or

(3) Affects any authority that PHAs

may have to regulate service animals

that assist, support or provide service to

persons with disabilities, under Federal,

State, or local law.

§ 960.707 Pet ownership.

(a) Ownership Conditions. A resident

of a dwelling unit in public housing, as

that term is used in § 960.703, may own

one or more common household pets or

have one or more common household

pets present in the dwelling unit of such

resident, subject to the reasonable

requirements of the PHA, if the resident

maintains each pet:

(1) Responsibly;

(2) In accordance with applicable

State and local public health, animal

control, and animal anti-cruelty laws

and regulations; and

(3) In accordance with the policies

established in the PHA Annual Plan for

the agency as provided in part 903 of

this chapter.

(b) Reasonable requirements.

Reasonable requirements may include

but are not limited to:

(1) Requiring payment of a nonrefundable nominal fee to cover the

reasonable operating costs to the

development relating to the presence of

pets, a refundable pet deposit to cover

additional costs attributable to the pet

and not otherwise covered, or both;

(2) Limitations on the number of

animals in a unit, based on unit size;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 42523

(3) Prohibitions on types of animals

that the PHA classifies as dangerous,

provided that such classifications are

consistent with applicable State and

local law, and prohibitions on

individual animals, based on certain

factors, including the size and weight of

animals;

(4) Restrictions or prohibitions based

on size and type of building or project,

or other relevant conditions;

(5) Registration of the pet with the

PHA; and

(6) Requiring pet owners to have their

pets spayed or neutered.

(c) Restriction. A PHA may not

require pet owners to have any pet’s

vocal chords removed.

(d) Pet deposit. A PHA that requires

a resident to pay a pet deposit must

place the deposit in an account of the

type required under applicable State or

local law for pet deposits or, if State or

local law has no requirements regarding

pet deposits, for rental security deposits,

if applicable. The PHA shall comply

with such applicable law as to retention

of the deposit, interest, and return of the

deposit or portion thereof to the

resident, and any other applicable

requirements.

(e) PHA Plan. Unless otherwise

provided by § 903.11 of this chapter,

Annual Plans are required to contain

information regarding the PHA’s pet

policies, as described in § 903.7(n) of

this chapter, beginning with PHA fiscal

years that commence on or after January

1, 2001.

Dated: June 30, 2000.

Harold Lucas,

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing.

[FR Doc. 00–17023 Filed 7–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P