101270 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 88 FR 83880. 

2Estimate based on HUD’s cross-reference on 

distribution of subsidized households across states 

with external analysis of legal requirements per 

state for non-payment of rent notice (https://

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-laws-ontermination-for-nonpayment-of-rent.html). The 

following States require 30 days’ notice: Wisconsin 

(only if the lease term is longer than one year) and 

Minnesota (only if the lease term is longer than 

twenty years). 

3 Data available at https://www.huduser.gov/ 

portal/datasets/assthsg.html. 

4Sandel, 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. 

5Hepburn, P., Louis, R., & Desmond, M., Racial 

and Gender Disparities among Evicted Americans. 

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 projectbased rental assistance (PBRA) must 

provide written notification to tenants 

facing eviction for nonpayment of rent 

30 days prior to filing a formal judicial 

eviction procedure. For purposes of this 

rule, PBRA and other forms of project 

rental assistance includes projects in the 

following programs: Section 8 ProjectBased Rental Assistance, Section 202/ 

162 Project Assistance Contract (PAC), 

Section 202 Project Rental Assistance 

Contract (PRAC), Section 811 PRAC, 

Section 811 Project Rental Assistance 

Program (811 PRA), and Senior 

Preservation Rental Assistance Contract 

Projects (SPRAC). This final rule largely 

adopts the proposed rule and, in 

response to public comments, has been 

revised to include additional 

requirements in the 30-day notice and to 

clarify the timing of the notice. 

DATES: 

Effective date: January 13, 2025. 

Compliance dates: Compliance with 

this rule is required no later than 

January 13, 2025, except PHA 

compliance with 24 CFR 966.4(q) is 

required no later than June 15, 2026. 

PBRA owner compliance with certain 

requirements in new 24 CFR 880.606(b), 

884.215, 886.127(c), 886.327(c), and 

891.425(d), is required no later than 14 

months from the date that HUD 

publishes final model leases that 

incorporates these requirements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Public and Indian Housing: Danielle 

Bastarache, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Public Housing and Voucher 

Programs, 451 7th Street SW, Room 

4204, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 

number 202–402–1380 (this is not a tollfree number). For a quicker response, 

email publichousingpolicyquestions@

hud.gov. 

For Multifamily: Ethan Handelman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for the 

Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, 

451 7th Street SW, Room 6106, 

Washington, DC 20410, telephone 

number 202–708–2495 (this is not a tollfree number). For a quicker response, 

email mfcommunications@hud.gov. 

HUD welcomes and is prepared to 

receive calls from individuals who are 

deaf or hard of hearing, as well as 

individuals with speech or 

communication disabilities. To learn 

more about how to make an accessible 

telephone call, please visit https://

www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/ 

telecommunications-relay-service-trs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 7, 2021, HUD published 

an interim final rule titled ‘‘Extension of 

Time and Required Disclosures for 

Notification of Nonpayment of Rent’’ 

(the ‘‘interim final rule’’), to assist with 

the response to the national COVID–19 

pandemic and future national 

emergencies (86 FR 55693, October 7, 

2021). HUD, along with other Federal 

agencies, responded to the national 

emergency declaration during the 

COVID–19 pandemic with efforts to 

support families impacted financially by 

the COVID–19 pandemic and at risk of 

losing their housing. Pursuant to the 

interim final rule, HUD also issued a 

joint Public and Indian Housing (PIH) 

and Housing notice on October 7, 2021 

(Notice PIH 2021–29 and H 2021–06). 

On December 1, 2023, HUD published 

for public comment the ‘‘30-Day 

Notification Requirement Prior to 

Termination of Lease for Nonpayment of 

Rent’’ proposed rule (the ‘‘proposed 

rule’’) (88 FR 83877, December 1, 2023). 

The proposed rule sought to make the 

interim final rule generally applicable 

and no longer contingent on the 

existence of a national emergency or the 

availability of emergency rental 

assistance funds by revising HUD’s 

regulations to provide for a 30-day 

notification requirement prior to 

initiating an eviction proceeding against 

a tenant for nonpayment of rent. 

Prior to 2021 when the interim final 

rule was implemented, certain HUD 

programs had requirements for nonpayment of rent evictions and timing of 

eviction notices.1 For example, PBRA 

programs require 30 days’ notice for a 

termination of tenancy for ‘‘other good 

cause.’’ Public Housing and Section 8 

Moderate Rehabilitation Program 

require a 14-day, or 5 business day, 

notice respectively before initiating a 

termination of tenancy action for 

nonpayment of rent. However, absent a 

Federal rule, tenants in HUD-subsidized 

housing are subject to varying State and 

local notice requirements. PHAs and 

owners have had to comply with State 

and local tenant laws and only the 

District of Columbia requires 30 days’ 

notice prior to the initiation of eviction 

proceedings for the nonpayment of rent, 

while two States require 30 days’ notice 

in certain cases.2

HUD seeks to remove the variable 

patchwork of notice requirements and 

reduce the number of preventable 

evictions filed against HUD-assisted 

tenants. Most households in HUDsubsidized housing are low-income, 

with annual household incomes in 

public housing and project-based 

Section 8 PBRA both under $16,000.3

Studies have shown that evictions cause 

housing instability, an increased risk of 

homelessness, loss of employment, 

physical and mental health issues, and 

long-term negative consequences to 

families, especially children.4 Studies 

have also shown that evictions are 

unequally distributed as people of color, 

women, and families with children are 

more likely to be evicted.5 Yet, evictions 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101271 

Sociological Science 7, 657 (2020), https://doi.org/ 

10.15195/v7.a27. 

6 24 CFR 960.257(b); see also https://

www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PHOG_

Reexaminations_FINAL.pdf and https://

www.hud.gov/sites/documents/43503c5HSGH.PDF. 

7 24 CFR 5.630, see also Public Housing 

Minimum Rent and Hardship Exemption 

Requirements Toolkit, HUD Exchange, https://

www.hudexchange.info/programs/public-housing/ 

public-housing-minimum-rent-and-hardshipexemption-requirements-toolkit/ and the specific 

additional circumstances that qualify as qualifying 

financial hardships in the PHA’s or Multifamily 

housing (MFH) owner’s ACOPs (Admissions and 

Continued Occupancy Policy), Administrative 

Plans, or Tenant Selection Plans, as applicable; 

Circumstances that always constitute a qualifying 

financial hardship are detailed in 24 CFR 

5.630(b)(1)(i) through (iv); additional circumstances 

are provided by the housing provider in the PHA’s 

or MFH owner’s ACOPs, Administrative Plans, or 

Tenant Selection Plans, as applicable. 

8Section 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). 

9Section 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. 

10 24 CFR 886.128 and 891.430 applies the 

provisions in 24 CFR part 247 for termination of 

tenancy. 

11See 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. 

12Evictions 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.’’ 

for HUD-assisted housing could be 

prevented with more time and notice 

which might help all parties work 

together to pay the rent owed or attain 

a rent hardship exemption, rent 

recalculation, and/or other financial 

rental assistance. 

There are other tools to employ before 

reaching an eviction. For example, 

when a tenant or household’s income is 

reduced, they can request an interim 

reexamination to determine whether the 

current amount that they pay in rent can 

be changed, and the PHA or owner must 

process this request within a reasonable 

time.6 Tenants can also request a rent 

hardship exemption which is an 

exemption from paying the minimum 

rent that the PHA or owner normally 

charges if the household experiences a 

qualifying financial hardship.7 A rent 

recalculation may be granted based on 

the household’s income reduction.8

Even if a tenant or household does not 

qualify for a rent hardship exemption, 

repayment agreements are another 

option to prevent evictions at the PHA’s 

and owner’s discretion. 

The proposed rule included a 

requirement that the 30-day notice 

include instructions on how tenants can 

cure lease violations for nonpayment of 

rent; the alleged amount of rent owed by 

the tenant and any other arrearages 

allowed by HUD; the date by which the 

tenant must pay rent and arrearages to 

avoid the filing of an eviction; 

information on how tenants can 

recertify their income; how tenants can 

request a minimum rent hardship 

exemption, if applicable; and in the 

event of a Presidential declaration of a 

national emergency, such information as 

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

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 

§§ 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). 

Lastly, this final rule revises 24 CFR 

247.4(e)(1), 880.607(c)(6)(i), 

884.216(d)(1), and 966.4(1)(3)(ii)(A) to 

require the 30-day notice include an 

itemized amount, which is separated by 

month, of alleged rent owed by the 

tenant, along with any other arrearages 

allowed by HUD and included in the 

lease which must also be separated by 

month, and the date by which the tenant 

must pay the amount of rent owed 

before a formal judicial eviction can be 

filed for nonpayment of rent. The 

arrearages, which might include late 

fees or other fees, must also be itemized 

separately from the alleged rent amount 

owed by the tenant.11 If the tenant pays 

the full amount of the alleged rent owed 

but not the arrearages, the nonpayment 

will still be considered cured, and an 

eviction for nonpayment of rent cannot 

be filed. This will alleviate confusion 

among tenants, PHAs, and owners about 

when and how much is due to avoid an 

eviction filing for nonpayment of rent. 

However, HUD emphasizes that the 

protections in this rule do not apply to 

other types of evictions that result from 

non-rent lease violations, such as 

nonpayment of arrearages if allowed 

under the applicable HUD program and 

specified in the lease.12

HUD also reiterates in this final rule 

that HUD strongly recommends the best 

practice of entering into a rental 

repayment agreement as an alternative 

to a lump-sum payment for past due 

amounts. PHAs must also include 

information in the 30-day notification 

about how to switch from flat rent to 

income-based rent. Additionally, HUD 

reminds PHAs and owners that the 30- 

day notice must be provided in 

accessible formats to ensure effective 

communication for individuals with 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101272 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

13National Law Housing Project, ‘‘Rising 

Evictions in HUD-Assisted Housing’’ (2022). 

14Michael Casey and R.J. Rico, Eviction filings 

are 50% higher than they were pre-pandemic in 

some cities as rents rise, Associated Press (Jun. 16, 

2023), https://apnews.com/article/evictionshomelessness-affordable-housing-landlords-rentalassistance-dc4a03864011334538f82d2f404d2afb. 

15The commenter cited to https://

www.ctdata.org/evictions-report. 

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 prepandemic levels or higher, underscoring 

the need to formalize the proposed 

rule.13 Another commenter cited an 

article noting that eviction filings are up 

an estimated 50% compared to prepandemic averages.14 The commenter 

pointed to the large number of evictions 

by PHAs in Omaha, New York City, 

Baltimore, and Massachusetts. 

A commenter in Connecticut stated 

that rent and other costs of living 

continue to rise in the State with 

inflation making it harder for tenants to 

maintain housing stability. The 

commenter also stated that rent has 

increased 33% since 2017 and 53% of 

tenants are already cost-burdened and 

spending 30% of their income on rent. 

The commenter expressed that more 

families in Connecticut are facing 

eviction than prior to the pandemic.15

The commenter also stated that 

advancing policies to keep people 

housed will benefit children and reduce 

stress for caregivers. The commenter 

cited the Connecticut Department of 

Education which reported that 2,516 

students experienced homelessness in 

the 2022–2023 school year. 

Another commenter pointed to data 

showing that 32% of adults in Colorado 

are living in households where the 

likelihood of eviction or foreclosure 

within the next two months is 

distressingly high, and nearly 56,000 

households are behind on rent, 

impacting 45,000 children. A few 

commenters noted the struggle for 

families to find affordable housing and 

that many Americans are cost burdened, 

spending more than 30% of their 

income on rent. A commenter noted that 

high-cost burdens were most prevalent 

among very low-income tenants and 

households of color and that families 

with young children are 

disproportionately impacted by 

eviction. 

Commenters noted that this rule 

would align non-payment requirements 

across HUD programs. A commenter 

said that a uniform 30-day notice 

standard will provide clarity and 

consistency for landlords, potentially 

reducing wrongful eviction claims. 

Commenters also stated that the rule 

will help individuals and families 

remain in their current homes and 

provide protection from homelessness. 

A commenter stated that the rule will 

reduce housing instability for tenants of 

public housing and PBRA properties. 

Additionally, commenters noted that 

this rule will reduce evictions and its 

consequences related to finding 

subsequent housing, maintaining 

employment, accessing education and 

medical care. 

HUD Response: HUD appreciates the 

comments and recognizes the trends in 

the rental market that may be increasing 

people’s housing cost burdens and its 

downstream effects that may result in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101273 

16HUD analysis of data collected between March 

5, 2024, and April 1, 2024, through the Census 

Household Pulse Survey. 

17The commenter cited to Collinson and Reed, 

‘‘The Effects of Evictions on Low-Income 

Households,’’ New York University School of Law 

(2018). 

18The 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. 

19See background section of the proposed rule at 

88 FR 83877. 

homelessness. Data from the Census’ 

Household Pulse Survey from March 

2024 suggests that nearly five million 

renter households in the United States 

are behind on their rent and nearly two 

million fear eviction in the next two 

months.16 Renters living in HUDassisted housing have some protections 

from evictions, such as the ability to 

recertify their income. However, it has 

been reported to HUD that it can take a 

significant amount of time to work 

through the administrative process and 

to resolve issues that routinely come up 

for assisted households, such as 

problems meeting annual recertification 

deadlines, supplying the required 

paperwork, or insufficient information 

about how to obtain a hardship 

exemption. Providing assisted 

households with information about 

accessing additional rental assistance, or 

other emergency funding, and 

additional time to take advantage of 

these programs enhances the protections 

already in place and gives households a 

better chance to resolve their 

nonpayment of rent with the housing 

provider. 

Eviction Harms 

Many commenters wrote about the 

detrimental effects of evictions. One 

commenter cited an article stating that 

eviction is associated with loss of 

income, onset of depression, aggravation 

of mental illness, increased substance 

abuse, domestic violence, marital 

breakdown, accidents and disease, 

decreased school performance, and 

homelessness.17 Another commenter 

also cited to an article explaining that 

evictions can have a detrimental effect 

on housing stability and a tenant’s 

health and well-being.18

Commenters stated that eviction 

records will make it more difficult to 

keep and find housing. Some 

commenters stated that those who live 

in government assisted homes are 

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 longterm negative consequences, especially 

for children.19 Through this rule, HUD 

seeks to reduce the harms that evictions 

cause by curtailing preventable and 

unnecessary eviction filings and 

evictions for nonpayment of rent. 

Homelessness and Housing Insecurity 

Commenters also stated that the rule 

will help individuals and families 

remain in their current homes and 

provide protection from homelessness. 

Another commenter explained that 

giving tenants time to get their affairs in 

order is the difference between an 

individual remaining stable, employed, 

and housed, and losing everything due 

to homelessness. Another commenter 

stated that homelessness has been on an 

upward trend since 2017 and the 

number of people experiencing 

homelessness on a single night 

increased by 12% between 2022 and 

2023. 

One commenter pointed to articles 

and reports stating that because those 

who rely on public housing have very 

low income, they are more likely to 

become unhoused when evicted. The 

commenter noted the harms of evictions 

and homelessness, including the risk to 

unhoused lives from extreme heat and 

cold. Further, the commenter stated that 

in Detroit, the systems that unhoused 

people rely on are dysfunctional and 

can be traumatizing. The commenter 

also stated that the lack of affordable 

housing in Detroit means that unhoused 

people spend longer times in shelters 

and temporary housing, and shelters 

and emergency services in Detroit have 

operated at or near capacity for years. 

A commenter stated that low-income 

renters are more severely cost burdened 

and are often paying more than 50% of 

income towards housing costs, leaving 

limited resources for other necessities. 

Additionally, a commenter stated that 

housing in their community is scarce for 

low to moderate income families and 

that housing security is important to a 

thriving economy. The commenter also 

explained that they have witnessed 

housing insecurity in their workplace 

and how it negatively impacted 

employees’ performances and has led to 

unemployment. 

HUD Response: HUD agrees with the 

commenters’ concerns about 

homelessness and appreciates the 

commenters’ support for the rule. There 

is evidence that over the past year, 

eviction filings increased in many parts 

of the country, as did the incidence of 

homelessness. The Eviction Lab tracks 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101274 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

20https://evictionlab.org/ets-report-2023/. 21https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/ 

files/pdf/2023-AHAR-Part-1.pdf. 22Collinson, 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. 23Robert 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. 

24Section 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. 

25The 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 

eviction filings in 32 cities across the 

country and found that eviction filings 

increased from 2022 to 2023 in 25 of the 

32 cities.20 The number of people 

experiencing homelessness on a given 

night, as documented through local 

point-in-time counts, also increased 

between 2022 and 2023, by 

approximately 12 percent.21

According to HUD’s 2023 Worst Case 

Needs Report to Congress, a record 8.53 

million renter households were severely 

housing cost burdened—meaning they 

paid more than half their income on 

rent—or lived in substandard housing, 

or both. Thus, there is a significant 

number of households that may be on 

the verge of homelessness due to high 

housing costs and an unexpected cost or 

loss of income could increase their 

likelihood of eviction and ultimately 

homelessness. Although the increase in 

homelessness largely reflects the 

shortage of affordable housing, eviction 

can be a contributing factor. Several 

studies have found that eviction 

substantially increases the likelihood 

that a family will subsequently 

experience homelessness.22 Most 

recently, a major study linking eviction 

records to other administrative datasets 

in New York and Chicago has found that 

an eviction order increases the 

probability of using an emergency 

shelter by 3.4 percentage points in the 

year following the eviction, which 

translates to a more than 300 percent 

increase compared to those who are not 

evicted.23

The Impact on People With Disabilities, 

Seniors, and Lower-Income Families 

Commenters noted that a 30-day 

notice would be beneficial to people 

with disabilities. A commenter said that 

people with disabilities often have 

fewer housing options because they 

have additional factors to consider in 

finding an apartment, such as proximity 

to a bus stop, lower counters, or a rollin shower. The commenter also said that 

an eviction on a physically disabled 

person’s record could make it nearly 

impossible for that person to find 

adequate housing and 30 days would 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101275 

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. 

26Lillian Leung et al., Serial Eviction Filings: 

How Landlords Use the Courts to Collect Rent, 

2020. 

said the additional time to gather funds 

would benefit tenants and owners who 

use eviction filings as a means to collect 

rent. Commenters stated that according 

to research and their experience, 

eviction filings are used as a rent 

collection strategy because most 

evictions do not result in tenant 

removal. 

One commenter stated that a PHA in 

North Carolina initiated 867 evictions 

filings for nonpayment of rent in 2019 

and only 63 evictions were actually 

completed. The commenter believed 

that the evictions were being used as a 

rent collection tool and stated that if 

tenants were given sufficient time they 

were able to cure their nonpayment of 

rent, but the eviction filings stayed on 

the tenants’ public records for seven 

years and negatively impacted 

employment, credit, and housing 

putting them at risk for homelessness. 

The commenter explained that a local 

advocacy organization sought to change 

the PHA’s eviction policy to send a 

notice 14 days after being late for rent 

and filing an eviction 21 days after 

being late. The local advocacy 

organization unsuccessfully requested 

that the PHA’s board (1) increase the 

days before filing an eviction to 45 days; 

(2) review all accounts for inaccuracies; 

(3) document three attempts at meeting 

and communicating with the tenant 

concerning their non-payment; and (4) 

encourage tenants to use the grievance 

procedure. 

HUD Response: HUD thanks the 

commenters for their comments. HUD 

believes this rule encourages PHAs to 

work with families to resolve 

nonpayment of rent prior to filing 

evictions. HUD also encourages PHAs to 

review and evaluate policies, 

procedures, or practices to ensure 

tenants are informed on how to recertify 

their income in a timely manner and 

apply for hardship exemptions. HUD 

reminds PHAs of their obligation to 

include information to tenants in the 

termination notice of their right to a 

grievance hearing under 24 CFR 

966.4(l)(3)(ii), 966.51(a)(1), and 

966.53(a). 

Tenants Need Time and Resources 

Many commenters stated that this rule 

would help eliminate fast evictions and 

provide tenants, especially low-income 

households, with time to gather 

resources and to secure funding for their 

rent through personal means, 

community resources, or time to find 

alternate housing. A commenter said 

that the rule will give tenants time to 

arrange for alternative accommodations 

or negotiate a repayment plan. One 

commenter cited research from the 

Eviction Lab that notification 

requirements can be an effective tool in 

reducing eviction rates and providing 

tenants with time and information 

needed to address nonpayment 

violations.26 A commenter noted that 

nonpayment of rent often stems from 

unexpected life events and providing 

time for renters to recover without 

losing their homes is critical. Another 

commenter stated that sometimes 

tenants who have not paid rent will 

have the funds to pay rent within a 

couple of weeks. 

Additionally, a commenter said that 

the combination of available legal 

representation, time to work with 

lawyers, and time to pay arrears before 

trial effectively deters Maryland 

landlords from filing eviction cases and 

aids housing stability. One commenter 

demonstrated the impact of the 30-day 

notice by sharing the story of a client 

who was facing eviction after losing 

affordable childcare and being forced to 

spend more of their paycheck on 

babysitters. The commenter noted that 

with the 30-day notice, the tenant was 

able to seek legal assistance, apply for 

rental assistance, and avoid eviction. 

A commenter stated that getting rental 

assistance is a multi-staged process and 

succeeds only when renters have time to 

see it through. Another commenter 

stated that because rent is so high, it 

takes multiple agencies within the 

community to provide the assistance, a 

process that can take several weeks. A 

nonprofit organization commented that 

the services it provides could not exist 

without the additional notice time. The 

commenter noted that its work 

connecting municipal financial 

empowerment services to tenants facing 

eviction showed that financial 

counseling can help sustain and build 

on the initial stabilizing effects of 

emergency housing assistance services 

and there are opportunities for stronger 

coordination across eviction prevention 

services. The nonprofit noted that its 

clients who engage with one-on-one 

financial counselors after receiving 

eviction assistance were able to improve 

credit scores, reduce consumer debt, 

and build savings. 

A commenter said that they recently 

worked with a single mother living in 

HUD-subsidized housing who lost her 

minimum wage job and fell behind on 

rent. Even though she was back to work 

less than a month later, her landlord 

gave her an eviction notice after three 

days, per California law. The 

commenter said they were able to work 

with the tenant and other community 

organizations to inform the landlord of 

this 30-day rule, apply for rental 

assistance, and set up a payment plan. 

Because of the additional time, the 

landlord was able to be paid and the 

family remained housed. The 

commenter also stated that there are 

many low-wage workers and elderly in 

their county who rely on HUDsupported housing and need more than 

the three days allotted under California 

law. The commenter noted that the 

additional time would alleviate the 

burden on rental assistance agencies 

that are forced to spend additional time, 

effort, and funding on negotiating with 

landlords to accept rent payments after 

the third day. 

Another commenter stated the State 

law in Ohio only provides a three-day 

notice, making it nearly impossible for 

rental offices to process interim 

recertification and minimum hardship 

exemption requests, work out a 

repayment deal with the landlord 

through the 10-day meeting or grievance 

process, pay back the amount owed, 

have time to locate alternate housing, or 

seek new employment or 

unemployment benefits which will aid 

in paying the balance owed. 

Several commenters noted that the 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101276 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

27The commenter cites to Rosa DeLauro proposes 

wide-scale expansion of right-to-counsel 

(ctmirror.org) Evictions Report—CTData; CT right to 

counsel program saved state millions, report finds 

(ctmirror.org); Report Shows Connecticut’s Right-toCounsel Program to Be Effective at Preventing 

Evictions. 

28The 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. 

take advantage of rent relief resources 

and the time to take advantage of legal 

support and their due process rights to 

properly defend themselves against 

eviction. A commenter expressed that 

the 30-day notice would prevent 

landlords from using self-help evictions 

to put families on the street without due 

process. Another commenter stated that 

giving tenants more notice of an 

eviction due to nonpayment of rent 

would help tenants fully access their 

due process rights. Other commenters 

stated that a 30-day notice would ensure 

tenants are treated with dignity and 

respect, and that tenants are given a fair 

chance to sustain housing. Another 

commenter stated that a 30-day notice 

will provide support to organizations to 

assist with a fair and just judicial 

process. 

A commenter stated that the 

implementation of the rule is imperative 

and that it will uphold the principles of 

fairness and compassion. The 

commenter explained that one of their 

program participants had only received 

a three-day notice from their housing 

provider to vacate due to issues with 

rent. This contributed to the individual 

being quickly subjected to 

homelessness. Additionally, the housing 

provider kept the individual’s deposit, 

contributing to their financial and 

emotional distress. The commenter 

stated that if the individual had more 

notice, they could have rectified their 

rent issues or considered alternative 

housing options. 

A commenter said that technological 

advances have made things more 

difficult in housing courts. The 

commenter stated that providing 30-day 

notice will give tenants time to negotiate 

and acquire assistance from a qualified 

attorney which might help them avoid 

an unnecessary eviction. Another 

commenter stated that giving tenants 

additional time to respond to an 

eviction notice will benefit all parties 

involved, including the government. 

The commenter cites to a report by the 

State legislature of Connecticut, which 

launched the right-to-counsel program 

and saved the State between $5.8 and 

$6.3 million between January and 

November of 2022.27

A commenter said the 30-day notice 

would help their program more 

effectively resolve recertification issues 

and uphold tenants’ rights because it 

would provide more time for tenants 

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

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 noncompliance with the CARES Act 30-day 

notice requirement is widespread in 

Maryland because few property 

managers understand the requirement 

either per the CARES Act or the October 

7, 2021, interim final rule (‘‘Extension of 

Time and Required Disclosures for 

Notification of Nonpayment of Rent’’). 

A commenter said that evictions in 

Texas are increasing and even though 

some municipalities have passed local 

ordinances to confront rising evictions, 

a State bill prohibiting local regulation 

of evictions threatens those protections. 

The commenter stated that this rule 

would be life changing for Texas tenants 

who would otherwise receive 3-day 

notices, no opportunity to cure, and the 

potential for being homeless within 21 

days after a missed rent payment under 

State law. 

A commenter stated that a 5-day 

notice, 14-day notice, and no notice has 

shown to be insufficient. Another 

commenter said that many eviction 

cases in Maryland are filed after one 

missed payment, but the amount of 

eviction filings decreased when 

Maryland gave tenants facing eviction 

the right to counsel and 10-day notice 

including information on rental 

assistance and legal services. The 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 thirdparty owners/management companies 

and for PHAs. 

A commenter said that the goal 

should be to keep people housed and 

not to protect landlords’ profits through 

quick turnarounds with renting. 

Commenters stated that the concerns of 

a potential financial and administrative 

burden to owners does not outweigh the 

importance of providing tenants with 

additional time to respond to an 

eviction notice. A commenter expressed 

that housing is a human right and 

should be treated that way. Another 

commenter noted that effects of 

heightened administrative costs for 

landlords are expected to be nominal 

when considering the advantages of the 

rule. 

HUD Response: HUD agrees that 

evictions can be costly for both tenants 

and landlords; however, HUD believes 

that this rule strikes a balance between 

potentially increasing some of the 

financial impacts on PHAs and owners, 

and supporting families who need 

additional time to address financial 

issues that result in nonpayment of rent. 

B. Comments in Opposition to the Rule 

Several commenters opposed the rule. 

Some commenters stated that a 30-day 

notice requirement is unnecessary or 

unreasonable, that it does not make 

sense, and that tenants are already 

aware that their rent is late. A 

commenter said this rule is an example 

of something that sounds great in theory 

but will not work as intended. Another 

commenter said that the rule is a 

slippery slope, and that the eviction 

process should be quickened instead of 

muddled. 

HUD Response: HUD disagrees with 

the commenters, especially in stating 

that the rule is unnecessary and will not 

positively impact tenants who seek to 

cure their nonpayment of rent 

violations, and that the eviction process 

should be quickened. As previously 

discussed in the proposed rule and the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (available at 

regulations.gov in the docket file for this 

rule), it is estimated that between 1,600 

and 4,900 nonpayment related 

moveouts in Public Housing and PBRAassisted housing are prevented each 

year because of the 30-day notice 

requirements of the CARES Act and 

HUD’s interim final rule. Furthermore, 

in HUD’s experience, tenants do not 

always know that their rent is late, 

including when their landlord made an 

accounting, recertification, or notice 

error. 

Financial Burden and Hardships 

Commenters stated that the rule will 

be a financial burden or create 

hardships for landlords, owners, 

housing commissions, and PHAs, 

especially small PHAs and those already 

struggling. Commenters strongly urged 

HUD to not implement the rule and 

stated that adopting the rule will cause 

undue and unnecessary harm to 

landlords, especially landlords who rely 

on income from rental properties. A 

commenter said that the rule will 

burden a work field that is already 

overworked and underpaid. Another 

commenter stated that the rule will 

tarnish the relationship between the 

PHA and tenant and eliminate any 

discretion the PHA has to negotiate. A 

commenter stated that they do not 

approve of the rule and think it should 

only occur when the tenant is being 

subsidized. Additionally, the 

commenter said that not all tenants in 

the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

program (LIHTC) or living in HUDsubsidized housing are unable to pay 

rent and giving an additional 30 days 

will set back owners. Another 

commenter said that many HUD and 

LIHTC properties are on ‘‘shoestring 

budgets’’ and this rule will be 

detrimental to their communities. 

HUD Response: HUD understands the 

fiscal impacts of nonpayment of rent to 

a PHA’s or owner’s operating budget. 

HUD believes that a 30-day notification 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101278 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

29See 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). 

30https://www.naahq.org/breaking-down-onedollar-rent-2023. 

period strikes the appropriate balance 

that provides enough time for the tenant 

to cure the lease violation and does not 

overly burden the PHA and owner. 

Additionally, many PHAs and owners 

seem to have demonstrated their ability 

to comply with the CARES Act and 

interim final rule and thus should be 

able to establish systems and procedures 

to minimize burden.29

PHAs, landlords, owners, and housing 

commissions will still have discretion to 

file an eviction action for nonpayment 

of rent if the tenant does not cure the 

rent owed within the 30-day notification 

period. The final rule will give both the 

landlord and the tenant additional time 

to resolve any nonpayment issue in a 

constructive manner that will benefit 

both parties. 

HUD notes that this rule applies to the 

public housing, Section 8 Project-Based 

Rental Assistance, Section 202/162 

Project Assistance Contract, Section 202 

Project Rental Assistance Contract 

(PRAC), Section 811 PRAC, Section 811 

Project Rental Assistance Program (811 

PRA), and Senior Preservation Rental 

Assistance Contract Projects (SPRAC). 

Small Housing Providers 

Commenters said that their small 

PHAs would be burdened by the rule. A 

commenter said that if a tenant does not 

pay their rent, the PHA’s rent income 

goes down 5%. The commenter said if 

the tenant is given 30 days of notice 

after missing a payment, the PHA will 

be missing two months of rent, which 

they might not be able to recover in 

court. The commenter further stated that 

the 30-day notice would add more of a 

burden on an already over-documented 

process and that with only two 

employees, most of the staff’s time is 

spent ‘‘taking care of tenants, 

paperwork, banking, payroll, HUD 

requirements, and much more.’’ 

Another commenter said that the rule’s 

impact on tenants would exacerbate 

poverty and homelessness and pose a 

significant threat to small business 

owners. The commenter also stated that 

the rule seems to carry risks for citizens 

and does not have benefits that address 

broader issues. 

A commenter said that the eviction 

process could take months and the 

expense will be unbearable especially 

for small housing commissions. Another 

commenter said that the rule will 

cripple small rural PHAs since their 

occupancy and rental amounts are so 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101279 

31Operating Fund (Op-Fund) Shortfall Funding | 

HUD.gov/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). 

32Special Claims Processing Guide (HSG–06–01) 

at https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/ 

administration/hudclips/guidebooks/HSG-06-01. 

start to see more investment homes and 

multifamily properties go into 

foreclosure. A commenter said this 

requirement will affect at least two 

months of utilities at their PHA which 

may be unpaid because of loss of rent. 

Commenters said that giving tenants 

twice the amount of time they already 

have causes more financial loss in writeoffs for PHAs. A commenter also 

expressed that collection laws go against 

PHAs and that they can barely collect 

rent owed. Another commenter stated 

that the rule does not include financial 

reimbursement for court and legal fees 

due to the delay in eviction cases. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

tenants have learned that when they file 

an appeal, that adds an additional 45 

days to the eviction process. Another 

commenter said that it can take up to a 

year for an appeal in their state. 

Commenters suggested that HUD 

consider a new type of special claim so 

owners could recover lost rent accrued 

during the proposed notice period. 

Another commenter said they disagree 

with the rule unless HUD will pay rent 

while tenants are going through the 

eviction process. Another commenter 

said owners still need to pay bills and 

operate, so HUD should be willing to 

pay the full contract rent while tenants 

go through the eviction process. A 

commenter said that the 30-day notice 

is causing PHAs and the Federal 

Government to lose money each year. 

The commenter stated that if a tenant is 

unable to afford their rent for one 

month, they likely will not be able to 

afford the next month’s rent. 

HUD Response: HUD understands 

concerns from housing providers that 

experienced a loss of income due to 

nonpayment of rent and the impact it 

has on operating budgets. The Public 

Housing Operating Fund, which was 

developed through a negotiated 

rulemaking, specifically funds agencies 

based on rents charged, rather than rents 

collected, so HUD is not able to adjust 

operating funding for PHAs to account 

for nonpayment of rent issues. Further, 

HUD program statutes and regulations 

only authorize assistance payments for 

dwelling units under lease by eligible 

families. Therefore, HUD does not have 

the authority to make assistance 

payments, pay contract rent, or 

otherwise reimburse owners after the 

termination of tenancy or during 

eviction proceedings. However, with 

respect to public housing, PHAs 

experiencing significant shortfalls in 

their operating budgets are encouraged 

to apply for the Shortfall fund.31 In 

applicable Multifamily Housing 

programs, an owner can submit a 

special claims request only.32 The 

owner may then request payment for 

unpaid tenant rent or other amounts 

owed under the lease (e.g., damages), in 

accordance with program regulations. 

There is no special claims provision for 

lost rent accrued for a tenant who 

continues to reside in a unit after 

termination of tenancy. 

HUD disagrees with the assumption 

underlying many of these comments 

that a delay in pursuing a tenant for 

outstanding rent will necessarily and/or 

always lead to the tenant accruing more 

outstanding rent due, that will then not 

be paid to the landlord. As HUD has 

explained above, a delay in pursuing a 

tenant for outstanding rent can provide 

the tenant the opportunity to pay the 

outstanding rent before being evicted, 

leading to less outstanding rent, not 

more. Similarly, HUD disagrees that if a 

tenant is unable to afford their rent for 

one month, they will likely not be able 

to afford the next month’s rent. Often, 

as alluded to above, there is an error or 

delay in recertification, which simply 

needs time to be corrected, or a one-time 

event that causes a tenant to fall behind, 

and tenants are able to make up their 

arrearage when errors in recertification 

are corrected, reasonable 

accommodations are enacted, and/or 

time is provided to secure outstanding 

balances, which sometimes can come 

from local nonprofits. 

Financial Obligations and Cost of 

Operations 

Commenters stated that the rule will 

hurt landlords and their ability to pay 

their bills, and that there is a lack of 

understanding of how hard it is to 

maintain assets. A commenter said that 

the rule will cause more unpaid rent, 

attorney fees, and expenses for staff 

during the judicial process. Another 

commenter said that in today’s inflated 

economy, PHAs and owners cannot 

afford significant costs and that the 

number of nonpayment related 

moveouts should be mentioned in the 

rule since they cause substantial 

additional costs in lost rent and 

property damage for the PHAs and 

owners. Commenters also said that 

PHAs depend on prompt payment in 

order to meet financial obligations, and 

the rule would cause an undue financial 

strain on owners which would 

jeopardize mortgage payments and put 

owners at risk for property loss. 

Additionally, commenters said that 

during the extended period of 90–120 

days to secure a court date for eviction, 

tenants fall further behind in rent and 

owners bear the burden of sustaining 

essential services (i.e., mortgages, taxes, 

payroll, and necessary repairs). Another 

commenter stated that rent is already 

based on the income of a tenant so an 

owner should not have to suffer waiting 

to evict a tenant for non-payment of 

rent. A commenter expressed that 

unlike the options that tenants have, 

owners are subject to withholding of 

future services and hefty late fees when 

bills are not paid on time. In response 

to the rule stating that it is more cost 

efficient for housing providers to assist 

tenants to cure nonpayment of rent, a 

commenter said that ‘‘cost efficiency 

can only be reached if appropriate 

options are available to cure such 

nonpayment of rent.’’ The commenter 

said that HUD does not recognize that 

PHAs already provide repayment 

agreements and hardship exemptions, 

but without additional funding, these 

options only temporarily address 

tenants that are unable or unwilling to 

pay their rent. 

A commenter stated that the rule will 

cause PHAs to go bankrupt as their 

property’s insurance has tripled in the 

last three years and the cost of materials 

has increased. Additionally, a 

commenter said labor and healthcare are 

also more expensive. A commenter 

stated that it usually takes 30 days to 

prepare a unit (clean, repaint, etc.) to get 

it ready for a new tenant and now PHAs 

will be missing rent for three months. 

Another commenter said that their PHA 

is already under-staffed and overburdened and if the rule is implemented 

it will cause the PHA to be less effective 

and projects to be poorly maintained. 

Commenters stated that higher rent 

balances burden community resources 

that offer emergency rental assistance. 

One commenter said that chronic 

underfunding of public housing is the 

culprit and HUD’s $25 million 

allocation is short of what is necessary 

to bridge the disparity gap. 

Additionally, the commenter said that 

insurance premiums, which have gone 

up 110% in some States, are furthering 

the fiscal strain and leave PHAs trying 

to make ends meet. The commenter 

stated that HUD has taken steps to 

decrease COVID–19 funds rather than 

using those funds for PHAs to address 

operating issues. A commenter said they 

hope that HUD gets rid of the 30-day 

notice requirement since rental 

assistance is no longer readily available 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101280 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

33Operating Fund (Op-Fund) Shortfall Funding | 

HUD.gov/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). 

and everyone in public housing is 

working or receiving social security. 

HUD Response: HUD understands the 

financial obligations of PHAs and 

owners, and how uncollected rent 

significantly impacts their operating 

budgets. In addition to other elevated 

costs, HUD acknowledges the growing 

cost of operating housing. HUD reminds 

PHAs of the ability to receive shortfall 

funding if they are experiencing 

financial challenges.33 HUD also 

reminds PHAs and owners that the more 

PHAs and owners improve their 

compliance with recertification 

requirements, the less likely tenants will 

be improperly overcharged their portion 

of the rent. These requirements include 

ensuring that PHA and owner staff are 

not transferring burdens of 

recertification onto tenants that are 

properly the responsibility of the staff, 

not failing to properly and timely 

inform tenants of the different 

verification options that the tenant may 

provide for their income, not requiring 

more verification than necessary from 

the tenant, and/or not requiring tenants 

to seek verifications that staff should 

and/or can be seeking themselves. 

HUD believes that the 30-day 

notification period strikes an 

appropriate balance that considers the 

financial obligations of PHAs and 

owners, as well as provides enough time 

for tenants to rectify a lease violation 

stemming from nonpayment of rent. 

Additionally, as explained above, HUD 

believes there are often options 

available for tenants to cure, which 

avoids unnecessary legal costs incurred 

to PHAs and owners, and balances 

increased costs where there are not 

options to cure. HUD encourages PHAs 

and owners to review and assess their 

policies and practices to ensure tenants 

are informed on how to recertify their 

income or apply for a hardship 

exemption in a timely manner. 

Tenant Awareness and Responsibility 

Commenters said that tenants know to 

contact the PHA when there is a change 

to their income and the PHA processes 

interim recertifications, so extending the 

notice requirement will increase the 

financial burden when funds could be 

used for other means. A commenter said 

that nonpayment of rent is a result of 

tenants not telling the PHA about loss 

of income. Commenters stated that 

tenants are made aware on multiple 

occasions that they have an opportunity 

to recertify due to their income or 

hardship, and it is not feasible for a 

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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 longterm relief on this requirement and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101282 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

34 King, S. (2021). How One of Boston’s Top 

Evictors Changed Its Ways. Shelterforce. https://

shelterforce.org/2021/12/03/how-one-of-bostonstop-evictors-changed-its-ways/. 

35See HUD’s Regulatory Agenda at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?

pubId=202310&RIN=2577-AD17. 

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. 

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 writeoffs each year, which affects their 

bottom line. The commenter explained 

that their write-offs for 2022 were over 

$130,000, and for 2023 they were 

already at $218,000 by October. The 

commenter further explains that they 

are working with tenants and a lot of 

local agencies to pay some of the 

balances but must rely on Federal 

assistance as well. 

Another commenter said that in 2019, 

prior to the 30-day requirement, their 

end of year write off amount was 

$2,700, but each year their collection 

losses has grown significantly. The 

commenter mentions a correlation 

between not being able to evict for 

nonpayment of rent in a timely manner 

and their growing TARs as why they 

wrote off $16,300 in 2023. Additionally, 

one commenter said their PHA normally 

sends a list of tenants who owe rent to 

collections, but only 15% of the time do 

they recover rent. The commenter 

further said that if HUD requires a 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 prepandemic levels.’’ The commenter also 

said that a longer notice period will 

assuredly cause higher rent arrears and 

will undermine the PHAs efforts to 

collect rent and reduce TARs. 

HUD Response: HUD agrees that 

PHAs should not be penalized as a 

result of compliance with this rule. The 

requirement to extend the notification of 

lease termination for nonpayment of 

rent may affect PHAs’ financial 

assessment scores if TARs rates rise. 

HUD has been monitoring trends in 

TARs and the most recent data suggests 

that TARs are beginning to stabilize to 

pre-COVID–19 pandemic levels. There 

remain outliers that are keeping TARs 

elevated, but HUD believes that the 

majority of PHAs throughout the 

country are starting to experience lower 

TARs. HUD understands the impact of 

TARs on a PHA’s finances and ability to 

operate. HUD believes the 30-day 

notification period to be the right 

balance for tenants to cure a violation of 

the lease for nonpayment of rent and 

have minimal impact for a PHAs’ 

financials. 

Additionally, HUD has provided relief 

to PHAs for PHAS scoring of TARS for 

2022 and 2023 PHAs scores and is 

evaluating further extensions at this 

time based on available data. Further, 

HUD is developing a proposed rule on 

the Public Housing Assessment Systems 

that HUD anticipates will be published 

later in 2024.35 HUD encourages 

commenters to also provide public 

comments on that rule. 

Legal Rights of Landlords 

Commenters said that landlords have 

rights. One commenter said that 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101283 

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 smokefree policy at § 966.4(f)(12)(ii)(B)). 

42See 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. 

43See 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. 

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. 

Additionally, owners are not required 

to participate in HUD’s federally 

subsidized housing programs. However, 

when an owner enters into an agreement 

to participate, the owner receives 

incentives and conversely subject 

themselves to certain obligations. Those 

obligations do not interfere with an 

owner’s constitutional rights. 

Furthermore, courts have consistently 

upheld HUD’s ability to ensure due 

process in the eviction process when it 

concerns participants in federally 

subsidized housing. 

Participation in HUD Programs 

Commenters said the 30-day notice 

would create a hardship for owners/ 

landlords and will make them not want 

to participate in affordable housing. A 

commenter said that further restrictions 

on their business as a landlord will 

cause them to walk away and put their 

money in a market fund which would 

in turn lower the supply of rental 

housing and increase rent. One 

commenter stated that the private sector 

is responsible for the majority of 

affordable housing in the United 

States,43 and rather than increasing 

burdens, HUD should incentivize the 

private sector to continue to invest in 

affordable housing. 

Additionally, a commenter stated that 

rent is critical to ensuring housing 

providers are able to produce affordable 

housing in their communities. One 

commenter said the 30-day notice 

requirement ‘‘has proven to disrupt the 

rental market by reducing housing 

availability.’’ Another commenter stated 

that the rule will have a negative impact 

on the public perception of HUD, 

housing providers, and low-income 

tenants. The commenter said the rule 

gives a false perception of tenants 

receiving public and assisted housing as 

irresponsible and taking advantage of 

taxpayers which can increase 

resentment and distrust of Federal 

housing programs, housing providers, 

and tenants. 

HUD Response: HUD believes that the 

limited scope of the rule does not curb 

participation in HUD programs. Owners 

that participate in HUD programs 

governed by the Office of Multifamily 

Housing understand why providing 

affordable housing is important and 

tend to be mission-aligned entities. HUD 

seeks to achieve the appropriate balance 

that does not overly burden PHAs and 

owners, and also benefits tenants. Thus, 

HUD believes the 30-day notification 

period for a specific set of HUD 

programs is appropriate. 

Delay in Eviction Cases 

Many commenters stated that there is 

a delay in eviction court cases and 

offered varying times for when a court 

date is set after filing for eviction in 

their jurisdiction. Some commenters did 

not understand and questioned the 

necessity for an additional 30-day notice 

when it already takes several months to 

get into housing court or have a court 

date set. Commenters also said that 

many locations are having issues with 

timely court dates, and it is taking 

several months to evict, which is 

burdening housing providers and 

costing thousands of dollars in lost rent 

and legal fees. Additionally, a 

commenter said that asking PHAs to 

wait an additional 30 days to file in 

court is damaging to the PHA. 

Commenters stated that a backlog in 

eviction cases creates a significant 

financial burden for landlords that 

impact community resources to cover 

debt service, taxes, insurance, and 

property repair costs. Commenters also 

mentioned that housing providers are 

still feeling the impact of court backlogs 

from the pandemic. For example, 

housing providers in Atlanta reported in 

2023 that they were still waiting for 

court dates after filing evictions six to 

eight months prior. 

A commenter said that they have been 

involved in many eviction cases and it 

can take weeks to file with an attorney 

and have a court date set, and then there 

is the possibility of a continuance. 

Essentially, it can take 3–4 months to 

evict a tenant for nonpayment of rent, 

meaning the landlord is missing 3–4 

months of rent. The commenter also 

said if the tenant is evicted after a fourmonth period, the landlord will likely 

not see the money for back rent and may 

have to deal with any damages that the 

tenant may have left. Commenters stated 

that it is taking 90–120 days to evict due 

to backlog and delay in the court 

system. Another commenter stated that 

the eviction court process is incredibly 

lengthy and can take around 90 days 

after an eviction notice for a tenant to 

be evicted for good cause. Commenters 

also stated that in Michigan, it takes 90– 

120 days to get a court date despite a 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101284 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

will be filed and by this time three 

weeks have passed. When the court gets 

the dispossessory, it typically takes two 

weeks to process and then a letter is 

mailed to the tenant giving them 

another week to answer the court. If the 

tenant answers the court, it takes two 

weeks to process and then the court 

moves forward with setting a court date 

but must look at their already 

backlogged calendar which can be 4–6 

weeks out. A hearing is then set, and if 

the PHA prevails, the tenant is given at 

least two weeks to vacate. If the court 

requires the tenant to pay the rent, the 

PHA does not receive late fees, or they 

receive around 10%. Many of the 

tenants do not pay and the PHA must 

get a writ of possession, adding more 

time to the process. However, one 

commenter said many of their PHA’s 

nonpayment eviction cases result in 

non-final stay agreements which 

provide the tenant the ability to repay 

over time and make a legal agreement to 

secure arrearages. 

A commenter stated a backlog in the 

magistrate courts could increase PHA 

eviction timelines and delinquent 

account amounts, and potentially affect 

households that have been on waiting 

lists for months or years. Another 

commenter said that appeals, attorney’s 

fees, and writs of possession must be 

factored into the filing of evictions, 

making it unlikely to have a court date 

within the same month. Similarly, 

another commenter stated that it could 

take weeks to get on the docket for court 

and the judges would like the parties to 

mediate the move out. If the parties 

cannot come to an agreement, the judge 

decides when the tenants will move out. 

However, if the tenants do not vacate 

the property, the owners must pay court 

costs to obtain a writ to have them 

removed, and if that does not work, the 

sheriff’s department must be paid for 

possession of the property via lockout. 

Additionally, a commenter said that 

tenants should not be given 30-day 

notice because most evictions cases can 

take 3–4 weeks. Commenters said that 

courts need time to schedule cases and 

even after a case, it takes even more 

time to schedule a writ of possession if 

necessary. One commenter said that 

even when an eviction is granted by the 

court, judges allow tenants 30–60 days 

before the eviction can be enforced, and 

if a tenant refuses to leave, it takes more 

time to file additional paperwork and 

schedule an eviction with the Sheriff’s 

department, causing the PHA to house 

non-paying tenants for 4–6 months 

before they are evicted. One commenter 

said that in New York, the Sheriff’s 

department must allow 14 days before 

executing a writ. Additionally, a 

commenter said that New York has 

extended the time a tenant can be 

brought to court from 5–12 days to 10– 

17 days and the tenant is entitled to an 

immediate adjournment of at least two 

weeks to obtain legal counsel. 

Another commenter said their county 

takes 10–14 days to get a court date and 

by that time the tenant could be two 

months behind in rent which causes 

even more loss of income for the small 

PHA. The commenter also said the 

small PHA had an increase of $4,000 in 

write-offs due to a delay in the courts. 

Another commenter said that in the 

best-case scenario, it takes 32 days to go 

through the eviction process, but under 

this rule, it would take 52–60 days of 

waiting for court to deliver the 

dispossessory notice. 

Commenters said that an initial filing 

may be the only way to convince a 

tenant to pay their rent, especially when 

the PHA has already provided tenants 

with information and resources to cure 

their nonpayment. The urgency pushes 

tenants to reach out to external 

resources, and in some states, rental 

assistance is not available until an 

eviction is filed. A commenter that has 

been in property management for LIHTC 

for 20+ years said some tenants need 

encouragement from the court to pay 

their rent. Another commenter stated 

that tenants often will not reach out for 

assistance until they receive written 

notice from the landlord, and they must 

prove they are in danger of losing their 

home when seeking emergency rental 

assistance. 

HUD Response: HUD does not dictate 

the timelines of local courts and their 

processes. HUD disagrees that the 

increased notification period merely 

delays evictions. As previously 

discussed, it is estimated that between 

1,600 and 4,900 nonpayment related 

moveouts in Public Housing and PBRAassisted housing are prevented each 

year because of the 30-day notice 

requirement. Additionally, HUD 

emphasizes that the cost of eviction 

filings, including the court delays 

mentioned in the public comments, are 

a strong reason for why it is more costeffective to work with tenants on a 

repayment plan. Tenants who can 

obtain additional assistance to pay rent 

can avoid unnecessary eviction filings 

and evictions, which will benefit 

housing providers as well. For similar 

reasons, HUD disagrees with comments 

that the costs to housing providers due 

to delays in the court system outweigh 

the benefits to tenants. 

Negative Impact on Tenants 

Many commenters stated that the rule 

will have a negative impact on tenants. 

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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 costof-living rental increases.’’ One 

commenter stated that housing 

providers may become stricter in their 

lease enforcement practices and 

applicant screenings as a result of this 

rule. Additionally, many commenters 

said that the rule will increase unpaid 

rent and result in lost revenue not 

covered by HUD, which would ‘‘lead to 

reduced administrative and 

maintenance services for all tenants and 

may threaten agency solvency.’’ Some 

commenters stated that the rule will 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101286 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101288 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

property is finally vacated it is trashed. 

Tenants leave behind what they do not 

want, forcing the property to post an 

abandoned goods notice, have items put 

in storage for a cost, or leave them in the 

unit until the end of the notice period. 

A commenter said that many tenants 

who have outstanding balances damage 

the units and most times the damage is 

done on purpose. Another commenter 

said that tenants who are evicted for 

nonpayment of rent also have other 

lease violations, but when evicting, they 

choose nonpayment of rent because it is 

‘‘more cut and dry and has a lower 

burden of proof.’’ These tenants have 

caused disturbances to other tenants 

and/or have damaged the property. 

One commenter stated that landlords 

experience repair and trash removal 

costs when tenants finally vacate. A 

commenter said that tenants who do not 

care enough to pay their rent also do not 

care about what condition they leave a 

unit. A commenter said that tenants 

who are getting ready to leave a unit 

will ignore all the rules such as quiet 

hours, drugs, partying and respect for 

others. Commenters also said that an 

initial filing does not result in 

immediate eviction, in fact eviction is 

normally the last resort. A commenter 

said that in some cases tenants have 

other lease violations such as criminal 

activity or activity that threatens the 

health and safety of others and adding 

a longer notice period of nonpayment of 

rent creates further obstacles. 

HUD Response: The final rule only 

requires owners to provide a 30-day 

notification period for nonpayment of 

rent. Other lease violations are not 

subject to this rule. HUD believes that 

owners and tenants will be able to use 

the 30-day notification period to rectify 

any nonpayment issues and avoid 

potential damage to a unit. The 30-day 

notification period can serve as a cost 

saving measure since tenants are likely 

to pay any rent that is owed to the 

property owner with significant notice. 

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 

§ 966.4(l)(3)(iii) indicates that the notice 

required under state or local may be 

‘‘combined’’ or run ‘‘concurrently.’’ One 

commenter urged HUD to provide 

guidance to states so they can make 

their own changes instead of HUD 

implementing a rule. 

A commenter said that the 30-day 

notice does not align with California’s 

existing laws and could cause 

complications for housing providers and 

tenants. Another commenter said that a 

majority of owners give tenants a fiveday notice and after five days, the tenant 

is served with an unlawful detainer 

which is not an eviction notice. The 

commenter also said that an owner is 

lucky if they can get a court date within 

30 days of filing the unlawful detainer. 

Another commenter said that the 30-day 

notice ignores that state laws have 

‘‘evolved differently over time to protect 

tenants and housing providers 

throughout the eviction process.’’ 

HUD Response: The 30-day 

notification requirement provides 

consistency and clarity across the 

country on what owners participating in 

the specific HUD programs need to 

provide to tenants. PHAs and owners 

will need to modify their leases and 

notices to include the required 

information specific to the applicable 

HUD programs. As previously noted, the 

requirements under this rule, including 

the requirement that the 30-day notice 

may run consecutive to any additional 

state or local notice requirements if 

required by state or local law, does not 

preempt any state or local law that 

provides greater or equal protection for 

tenants. 

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 sevenday notice requirement stated that a 

seven-day notice would push tenants to 

pay on time and lessen the financial 

burden on landlords, versus a 30-day 

notice that would essentially give a 

grace period where the only penalty is 

late fees. A commenter said that in 

Nebraska they follow a seven-day notice 

requirement, and due to lengthy wait 

times for a court date, the tenant is 

usually two months behind in rent 

before a decision is made. A commenter 

urged HUD to bring back the three-day 

notice to vacate because this rule would 

allow tenants to live in a unit without 

paying rent for almost two months 

before a court date is set. 

Commenters said that properties 

should go back to the 10-day notice 

requirement for nonpayment of rent to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101290 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

44 42 U.S.C. 3531. 

45 42 U.S.C. 1437d(c)(4). 

46See 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). 

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. 

PHAs and owners participating in 

HUD programs have the discretion to 

work with tenants on a re-payment plan 

and therefore does not constitute a onesize-fits-all approach. In addition, 

establishing a baseline notification 

period is intended to provide uniform 

clarity for everyone participating in 

HUD programs. 

Evidence and Research 

Commenters stated that HUD does not 

provide any evidence that longer notice 

periods reduce evictions. Instead, one 

commenter said, HUD overstates a study 

and relies on unreliable evidence to 

justify the rule. Commenters further 

stated that HUD assumes housing 

providers are bad actors and their first 

step is to file an eviction without 

considering the impact on tenants, also 

HUD assumes they are not already 

working with tenants to keep tenants 

housed. A commenter stated that the 

rule provides limited evidence that a 

notice requirement would have minimal 

financial impact on owners, especially 

without emergency rental assistance and 

other financial resources to prevent 

evictions. Additionally, a commenter 

asked HUD to specify the eviction rate 

numbers for subsidized housing. 

A commenter said that the rule 

includes selective background 

information which does not focus on the 

negative impacts that landlords and 

tenants will face. The commenter 

further stated that the rule relies heavily 

on short-term positive outcomes of 

emergency COVID provisions (when the 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101291 

47Hepburn, P., Louis, R., & Desmond, M., Racial 

and Gender Disparities among Evicted Americans. 

Sociological Science 7, 657 (2020), https://doi.org/ 

10.15195/v7.a27. 

48U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. Report to Congress on the Feasibility 

of Creating a National Evictions Database. HUD 

USER (2021). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ 

publications/Eviction-Database-Feasibility-Reportto-Congress-2021.html. 

49HUD analysis of data collected between March 

5, 2024 and April 1, 2024 through the Census 

Household Pulse Survey. 

given before being evicted. The 

commenter said that the study cited 47

in the proposed rule would probably 

show that more people of color, women, 

and families with children live in public 

housing and so the results are skewed. 

The commenter also said the ‘‘biased 

evictions are not the case in well-run 

federally funded housing organizations 

that have federal oversight and an 

obligation to be fair and unbiased.’’ 

HUD Response: HUD recognizes that 

the impacts of evictions have been 

closely analyzed by researchers and 

studies have shown different results 

based on the data used and research 

methods. HUD also acknowledges that 

collecting complete and comprehensive 

data on evictions can be extremely 

difficult.48 Thus, studies and research 

may not provide the complete picture of 

what is occurring in communities across 

the country. 

According to data from the Census’ 

Household Pulse Survey from March 

2024, nearly 5 million renter 

households in the United States are 

behind on their rent and nearly 2 

million fear eviction in the next 2 

months.49 Preliminary analysis of 

HUD’s Eviction Protection Grant 

Program suggests that HUD-assisted 

tenants that ‘‘secured or maintained 

rental assistance’’ through legal 

assistance had an average case length of 

150 days. HUD believes that it is 

reasonable to surmise that some portion 

of these clients received assistance in 

recertifying or obtaining their Federal 

assistance, and that the process of doing 

so took at least 30 days. 

HUD appreciates the commenters for 

encouraging HUD to use research and 

data for evidence-based policy. Based 

on the existing research, HUD believes 

the 30-day notification requirement will 

benefit tenants and owners. 

C. Suggested Changes and Clarifications 

to the Rule 

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 bylaws. Commenters also stated that 

owners/members in a housing 

cooperative are different from the 

relationship between tenants and forprofit 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101292 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

50HUD Office of Inspector General, ‘‘HUD Did 

Not Have Adequate Policies and Procedures for 

Ensuring That Public Housing Agencies Properly 

Processed Requests for Reasonable 

Accommodation’’ (February 2022), available at 

https://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/ 

report/hud-did-not-have-adequate-policies-andprocedures-ensuring-public. 

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 noncompliance. 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101293 

51See 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. 

commenter stated that HUD should 

provide housing providers with 

required—not just sample—notice 

language about reasonable 

accommodations similar to 

implementation of HUD Form 5380, 

Notice of Occupancy Rights under 

VAWA. 

HUD Response: This final rule does 

not require that the 30-day notice 

include information on tenants’ right to 

request a reasonable accommodation; 

however, HUD plans to provide 

guidance on reasonable 

accommodations that PHAs and owners 

can use to assist tenants. Additionally, 

HUD will not replace sample notice 

language with a required notice 

language similar to HUD Form 5380. 

Informing tenants of their right to 

reasonable accommodation is already an 

existing requirement and tenants are 

notified of their right at admission and 

annually. HUD will provide guidance 

and continue to encourage PHAs and 

owners to advise individuals of their 

right to request reasonable 

accommodations, include information 

on how individuals with disabilities can 

request reasonable accommodation, and 

include a point of contact for reasonable 

accommodation requests. As mentioned 

in the proposed rule, there are instances 

in which a tenant may be entitled to a 

reasonable accommodation in cases of 

non-payment of rent. For example, if a 

housing provider usually requires rent 

be paid on the 1st of the month, but a 

tenant receives disability-related 

government assistance later in the 

month, the housing provider may be 

required to accept a tenant’s request to 

pay rent on this later date as a 

reasonable accommodation.51

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 genderbased violence. 

HUD Response: This rule does not 

change any notification requirements 

related to VAWA. HUD’s regulations 

already require covered housing 

providers to provide the VAWA notice 

of rights and a self-certification form 

when tenants are admitted to programs, 

when there is an eviction and/or 

termination notice, and when there’s a 

denial of assistance. Some providers 

include the notice at other junctures, 

such as with recertifications. 

Notice Content: Interim Recertification 

and Hardship Exemption 

A few commenters also stated that 

each program’s regulations should 

require PHAs and PBRA owners to use 

HUD-created plain language templates 

that inform tenants of their rights to an 

interim income recertification and 

hardship exemption. A commenter 

noted that general information on the 

annual recertification process may not 

be enough to appraise the tenant of their 

right to an immediate or retroactive rent 

reduction. One commenter noted that 

minimum rent hardship exemptions are 

severely underutilized and urged HUD 

to clarify how and when tenants should 

be informed of minimum rent hardship 

exemptions. The commenter urged HUD 

to require information on PHAs’ 

hardship policies during admissions, at 

any recertification, in all termination 

notices and grievance documents, and 

in the PHA’s planning documents. The 

commenter also urged HUD to require 

PHA planning documents to report on 

the number of minimum rent 

households, the number of hardship 

exemption requests, and the outcomes 

of those requests. Additionally, the 

commenter asked HUD to require 

owners and PHAs to explicitly state 

what may qualify a family for a 

hardship exemption in the notice. 

Another commenter stated that hardship 

exemption should allow for unexpected 

or serious medical issues and for those 

who experience a reduction in their 

benefits or employment. 

Some commenters stated that any 

subsequent rent adjustment resulting 

from an interim recertification should 

be applied retroactively. A commenter 

stated that the notice should also be 

required to include information stating 

that PHAs and owners may not evict a 

household for non-payment during the 

90-day period starting when the 

household requested the hardship 

exemption. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101294 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, nonFederal, 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101295 

52The commenter cites to University of 

Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, 

‘‘The Illusion of Choice: Evictions and Profit in 

North Minneapolis’’ (June 2019), available at 

https://evictions.cura.umn.edu/sites/ 

evictions.cura.umn.edu/files/2023-04/Illusion-ofChoice-full-report-web-v2.pdf. 

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 (§ 247.4), 884 (§ 886.127), 

891 (§ 891.425), and 966 (§ 966.4)) 

clarifying that tenants have 30 days to 

cure the nonpayment of rent before a 

landlord may terminate the lease and 

that the right to cure preempts any State 

law that provides less protection to 

tenants. The commenter stated that in 

Delaware there is no right of redemption 

nor a minimum arrears before landlords 

may seek possession, meaning tenants 

may still be evicted if they owe $1 or if 

they pay their full arrears after the 5-day 

statutory period, as long as landlords 

wait 30 days to file the eviction case. 

The commenter noted that the CARES 

Act language does not allow for 30 days 

to cure but only for 30 days to vacate 

and that some PHAs and landlord 

attorneys maintain that tenants only 

have the 5-day statutory period to pay 

the full arrears. The commenter noted 

that 5 days is insufficient time for 

tenants to seek rent assistance or 

negotiate a repayment plan. The 

commenter also stated that adding 

language to clarify that tenants have 30 

days to cure and not just 30 days for 

notice of termination will avoid leaving 

it to state courts to determine HUD’s 

intent and avoid different 

interpretations in different states. 

Additionally, a commenter stated that 

Ohio does not have a right to 

redemption and landlords can pursue 

eviction even if tenants pay the full 

amount they owe. The commenter 

stated that landlords use this rule to 

pursue evictions against tenants they 

deem problematic and pointed to 

research stating that owners use this 

method to evade bans on discriminatory 

and retaliatory evictions.52 The 

commenter also urged HUD to clarify 

that landlords must accept payments for 

rental arrears. 

Another commenter stated that the 

final rule should clarify that in nonpayment cases, tenants have the full 30 

days to cure the violation. The 

commenter noted that the rule does not 

clarify whether tenants have 30 days to 

vacate or cure. The commenter noted 

that the right to cure is especially 

important because not all state landlordtenant schemes include a right to cure. 

HUD Response: HUD has revised the 

rule to specify that a PHA or owner 

must not provide tenants with a 

termination notice before the day after 

the rent is due according to the lease. 

Also, a PHA or owner must not proceed 

with filing an eviction if the tenant pays 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101296 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 HUDsubsidized housing depends on their 

income, the amount should, by 

definition, never be unaffordable for the 

tenant and tenants often just need time 

to meet with their property manager to 

file an Interim Recertification which 

addresses new life circumstances such 

as job loss, increase in medical 

expenses, sudden disability, or a 

reduction in household size. The 

commenter said that the interim 

recertification process can be time 

intensive because tenants need to gather 

and transmit documentation which 

requires access to technology, 

coordination with family, caregivers, 

and advocates, and many in-person trips 

to employment, benefits, or property 

management officers all of which may 

be more difficult for tenants who are 

elderly, disabled, or have limited 

English proficiency. 

The commenter also stated that 

property managers are responsible for 

overseeing hundreds of recertifications 

and require several weeks to finalize 

paperwork, return it to the tenant for 

signature, formally adjust the rent 

internally, and provide the tenant with 

an updated and corrected rent 

breakdown. The commenter noted that 

it is similarly time consuming to apply 

for grant and loan programs that cover 

arrears, and it may take weeks for funds 

to be approved and disbursed. The 

commenter said the 60-day period is 

critical for tenants to request and obtain 

rent adjustments and apply for and 

obtain rent arrears assistance. 

Additionally, the commenter stated 

that 60-day notice is vital for tenants to 

navigate the eviction process including 

seeking legal advice or representation, 

preparing to take time off work for court 

appearances, arranging childcare, 

mobilizing family members accompany 

them to court, filing accommodation 

requests with the court, or requesting 

court translators. 

HUD Response: HUD appreciates the 

commenters’ feedback to have a longer 

notice period; however, HUD maintains 

that 30 days is a sufficient amount of 

time for tenants to cure their 

nonpayment of rent violations while 

ensuring PHAs and owners can operate 

effectively. HUD considered several 

alternatives to the 30-day time period 

and ultimately decided that a 30-day 

notice period best balances both tenants’ 

interests and PHAs’ and owners’ 

reliance in administering their 

programs. 

Emergencies 

A commenter noted the rule’s 

provision instructing the Secretary to 

tailor requirements and guidance in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101298 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101299 

53See CARES Act Public Housing Agencies at 

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_

indian_housing/cares_act_phas. 

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 projectbased rental assistance. Expanding the 

rule beyond this could harm landlord 

recruitment or participation for the 

Housing Choice Voucher Program, and 

it will be difficult to disseminate and 

enforce due to established state and 

local laws governing private market 

tenant-landlord lease agreements. HUD 

recognizes the unique challenges of the 

Housing Choice Voucher program with 

landlord participation decreasing over 

the years due to various reasons. HUD 

notes that there is no requirement in the 

proposed rule that PHAs and owners 

must include notification of available 

emergency rental assistance funds. 

Rather this final rule would provide the 

flexibility to the Secretary to require this 

information, or other information, 

depending on the circumstances of a 

given national emergency. 

At this time, HUD is not considering 

future rulemaking regarding a 30-day 

notice requirement for other HUD 

programs, including HCVs and PBVs, 

but will issue rulemaking for public 

comment if HUD decides to include 

these programs in the future. In regard 

to outreach for the 30-day notice CARES 

Act requirement, HUD has previously 

issued guidance for CARES Act 

implementation for PHAs.53

Additionally, unlike section 202/811 

owners, PBV owners do not recertify 

tenant income, nor would they 

necessarily know or have information 

on how a tenant can apply for a 

hardship exemption pursuant to 24 CFR 

5.630(b), which is required to be 

explained in the notice. PHAs, not 

owners, are responsible for ensuring 

PBV families understand when and how 

to request interim income 

recertifications. 

Inclusion of Other HUD Programs: RAD 

and LIHTC 

Several commenters stated that RAD 

should be included in this rule. A 

commenter stated that excluding RAD 

from this rule is particularly 

problematic because it gives former 

public housing tenants different 

protections depending on whether their 

public housing is converted to PBRA or 

PBVs. The commenter also said that 

giving different protections based on the 

property’s subsidy type is arbitrary, 

fundamentally unfair, and contrary to 

the RAD statutory mandate that all 

former public housing tenants shall, at 

a minimum, maintain the same rights 

that they had prior to the RAD 

conversion. One commenter stated that 

excluding RAD programs contradicts 

HUD’s commitment to provide uniform, 

fair and equitable due process treatment 

of persons displaced from federally 

assisted or funded projects. 

One commenter noted that if HUD 

chooses not to broadly include voucher 

tenants, HUD should take steps to 

ensure that all former public housing 

tenants get the benefit of the 30-day 

notice requirement and that future RADconverted public housing tenants, at 

minimum retain all their prior existing 

rights applicable to public housing, 

including the 30-day notice. 

LIHTC 

Another commenter noted that this 

rule does not include housing built 

under the LIHTC, private properties 

being rented by section 8 HCV holders 

or HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive 

Housing (HUD–VASH) recipients, 

housing financed with federally back 

mortgage loans, or a number of other 

recognized forms of federally subsidized 

housing. The commenter noted that 

LIHTC is one of the fastest-growing 

forms of subsidized housing, and often 

lacks the protections afforded to public 

housing or section 8 properties. The 

commenter cited a report that 58% of 

extremely low-income renters in LIHTC 

properties who do not receive other 

rental assistance are severely costburdened and spend more than half 

their income on rent. The commenter 

said that for those families, an eviction 

makes it nearly impossible to find 

housing and all but ensures an extended 

period of homelessness. 

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; 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101300 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

54Commenter 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. 

(8) providing more resources to support 

legal aid.54

Additionally, a commenter said 

further changes should be considered to 

either raise or eliminate the threshold 

for grading based on the amount of 

tenant accounts receivable. A 

commenter recommended that HUD 

incorporate local nonprofit resources 

into the rule because there is not great 

awareness of these social programs 

which can best protect tenants from 

losing housing. Another commenter said 

HUD should require housing providers 

to offer options for repayment and 

information on where tenants can get 

financial assistance. 

Several commenters stated that the 

rule should prominently and clearly 

state that the CARES Act 30-day notice 

is still in effect for covered programs 

such as vouchers, LIHTC, Housing 

Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, 

Housing Trust Fund, McKinney-Vento 

homeless programs. A few commenters 

stated that clarifying the CARES Act 

requirement is crucial because there are 

many owners and judges that are not 

aware the requirement is still in effect 

or do not enforce the rule. 

A few commenters stated that HUD 

should limit the housing provider’s 

ability to file an eviction while the 

tenant is engaged in a process to resolve 

the nonpayment such as an emergency 

rental assistance application or an 

interim recertification. One commenter 

pointed to HUD Handbook 4350.3 as 

precedent for this type of action which 

prevents owners from evicting tenants 

where the owner decides to delay 

processing a tenant’s interim 

recertification request. 

A commenter stated that when a 

resident has a rent assistance 

application pending or a change in 

income or housing composition pending 

then the 30-day notice period should be 

tolled until the determination of 

eligibility for assistance has been 

completed or only sent when the rent 

adjustment determination is complete 

and provided to the resident. The 

commenter stated that PHAs and PBRA 

owners should be required to cooperate 

with rent assistance programs in the 

application process and to accept rent 

assistance funds. One commenter stated 

that a landlord should not be able to file 

an eviction action while an application 

for rental assistance, interim 

recertification, or hardship exemption is 

processing. 

One commenter urged HUD to 

incorporate language from the preamble 

about civil rights law into the 

regulations. The commenter noted PHAs 

and owner’s compliance with civil 

rights law is irregular and stated that 

incorporating the laws’ requirements 

into the regulations will aid compliance. 

The commenter noted that landlords 

can avoid tenants’ civil rights assertions 

by filing or threatening an eviction case. 

The commenter also urged HUD to 

provide strong guidance to help housing 

providers understand the connection 

between nonpayment cases and 

potential abuse and to evaluate 

nonpayment cases for potential abuse of 

civil rights. 

Another commenter urged HUD to 

clarify in the final rule that all Movingto-Work agencies and the housing they 

own, operate, manage, and administer 

are subject to the final rule. The 

commenter also urged HUD to include 

preamble language such as reminders, 

suggestions, and recommendations into 

the regulatory language of the rule. 

Additionally, a commenter 

recommended that HUD ensure that 

only signatories of the lease are named 

in the lease termination notice and 

subsequent court papers. 

HUD Response: It is not feasible for 

HUD to provide a list of all additional 

resources that could be included for 

tenants, PHAs, and PBRA owners. In 

addition, HUD believes that this would 

be inappropriate and may cause 

unintended consequences. For example, 

if HUD were to provide a list that was 

not comprehensive, some may limit 

their search to what HUD has provided 

and might miss other resources that 

would be helpful to them. In regard to 

waivers and arrearages, PHAs and 

owners may request waivers of 

regulations pursuant to 24 CFR 5.110, 

but PHAs do have the authority to 

forgive rent arrears, and this final rule 

does not limit PHAs discretion in that 

regard. Additionally, HUD notes that 

civil rights protections for tenants apply 

when an eviction case is filed or 

threatened, and HUD’s Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity 

investigates cases where eviction 

proceedings due to nonpayment of rent 

are filed in a way that violates a tenants’ 

fair housing rights. Further, HUD 

acknowledges the commenter’s 

suggestion regarding guidance for 

nonpayment cases and potential abuse 

and will consider issuing such guidance 

in the future. 

For similar reasons stated above, this 

rule does not require PHAs or owners to 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101302 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

HUD estimates the number of small 

entities for PHAs as 2,099. At this time, 

HUD is unable to provide an accurate 

estimate of small PBRA owners because 

we do not always know whether there 

is a corporate structure behind an 

individual owner. As noted in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final 

rule, the added cost of sharing 

information as required by this rule is 

minimal since PHAs and owners 

already have to provide written notice 

before taking adverse action for 

nonpayment of rent. The burden of 

developing the content of the notice will 

be minimal since HUD will supply the 

information that providers will have to 

give to tenants. The PRA burden for 

small entities to update notices and 

leases will be the same as for larger ones 

or approximately, $152.70 for each 

PHA, and $186.96 for each PBRA owner 

(see Exhibit 4 in this rule’s Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for more details). As 

noted above, we do not have an accurate 

number of small PBRA owners, and we 

estimate the number of small PHAs as 

2,099. 

Therefore, the undersigned certifies 

that the rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

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 HUDOWNED PROJECTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 247 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q, 1701s, 1715b, 

1715l, and 1715z–1; 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 

1437f, and 3535(d). 

■ 2. In § 247.4, revise paragraphs (c) and 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 247.4 Termination notice. 

* * * * * 

(c) Time of service. When the 

termination of the tenancy is based on 

other good cause pursuant to 

§ 247.3(a)(4), the termination notice 

shall be effective, and the termination 

notice shall so state, at the end of a term 

and in accordance with the termination 

provisions of the rental agreement, but 

in no case earlier than 30 days after 

receipt of the tenant of the notice. 

Where the termination notice is based 

on material noncompliance with the 

rental agreement or material failure to 

carry out obligations under a state 

landlord and tenant act pursuant to 

§ 247.3(a)(1) or (2), the time of service 

shall be in accord with the rental 

agreement and state law. In cases of 

nonpayment of rent, the termination 

notice shall be effective no earlier than 

30 days after receipt by the tenant of the 

termination notice. The landlord must 

not provide tenants with a termination 

notice prior to the day after the rent is 

due according to the lease. The landlord 

also must not proceed with filing an 

eviction if the tenant pays the alleged 

amount of rent owed within the 30-day 

notification period. 

* * * * * 

(e) Notice requirements in rent 

nonpayment cases. In any case in which 

termination of tenancy is initiated 

because of the tenant’s failure to pay 

rent, a notice stating the dollar amount 

of the balance due on the rent account 

and the date of such computation shall 

satisfy the requirement of specificity set 

forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

All termination notices in cases of 

nonpayment of rent must also include 

the following: 

(1) Instructions on how the tenant can 

cure the nonpayment of rent violation, 

including an itemized amount separated 

by month of alleged rent owed by the 

tenant, any other arrearages allowed by 

HUD and included in the lease 

separated by month, and the date by 

which the tenant must pay the amount 

of rent owed before an eviction for 

nonpayment of rent can be filed; 

(2) Information on how the tenant can 

recertify their income and, for tenants 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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. 

■ 4. In § 880.606: 

■ a. Redesignate paragraph (b) as 

paragraph (c); and 

■ b. Add new paragraph (b). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 880.607, revise paragraph (c)(6) 

and add paragraph (c)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 880.607 Termination of tenancy and 

modification of lease. 

* * * * * 

(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 

■ 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. 

■ 7. In § 884.215, add a second sentence 

to the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 884.216, revise paragraph (d) 

and add paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 886 

continues to read as follows: 

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

3535(d), and 13611–13619. 

■ 10. In § 886.127, add paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 886.127 Lease requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Notification for nonpayment of 

rent. The lease must contain a provision 

or addendum that tenants will receive 

notification at least 30 days before a 

formal judicial eviction is filed. 

■ 11. In § 886.327, add paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 886.327 Lease requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Notification for nonpayment of 

rent. The lease must contain a provision 

or addendum that tenants will receive 

notification at least 30 days before a 

formal judicial eviction is filed. 

PART 891—SUPPORTIVE HOUSING 

FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSONS 

WITH DISABILITIES 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 891 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 

1437f, 3535(d), and 8013. 

■ 13. In § 891.425, add paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 891.425 Lease requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Notification for nonpayment of 

rent. The lease must contain a provision 

or addendum that tenants will receive 

notification at least 30 days before a 

formal judicial eviction is filed. 

PART 966—PUBLIC HOUSING LEASE 

AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 966 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d). 

■ 15. In § 966.4, revise paragraphs 

(l)(3)(i)(A) and (1)(3)(ii) and add 

paragraphs (q) and (r) to read as follows: 

§ 966.4 Lease requirements. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) At least 30 days in the case of 

failure to pay rent; 

* * * * * 

(ii) The notice of lease termination to 

the tenant shall state specific grounds 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3
101304 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

§ 966.8 [Removed] 

■ 16. Remove § 966.8. 

Damon Smith, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28861 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES3