`[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`