[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 132 (Monday, July 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42518-42523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17023]



[[Page 42517]]

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

Part VI





Department of Housing and Urban Development





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



24 CFR Part 960



Pet Ownership in Public Housing; Final Rule

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

[[Page 42518]]


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

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: Sec. 960.701 
(captioned ``Purpose''), stating that the purpose of subpart G is to 
permit pets in public housing; Sec. 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); Sec. 960.705 
(captioned ``Animals that assist, support, or provide service to 
persons with disabilities''), exempting service animals for people with 
disabilities; and Sec. 960.707 (captioned ``Pet ownership''), 
implementing the primary requirements of section 31 of the Act.
    The main substantive regulatory section in the proposed rule, 
Sec. 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 
anti-cruelty 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 non-refundable 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, Sec. 960.701, to more fully express Congress' 
intent that PHAs permit pet ownership subject to reasonable rules.
    HUD has made editorial changes to Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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 State-
Aided 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 Secs. 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.

[[Page 42520]]

    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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 960.707(b)(1). Another commenter stated that the rule 
should clarify what the word ``reasonable'' means in Sec. 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 non-
refundable 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 
climate-related 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.

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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

[[Page 42522]]

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


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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.


Sec. 960.707  Pet ownership.

    (a) Ownership Conditions. A resident of a dwelling unit in public 
housing, as that term is used in Sec. 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 non-refundable 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;

[[Page 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 Sec. 903.11 of this 
chapter, Annual Plans are required to contain information regarding the 
PHA's pet policies, as described in Sec. 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