FR 2020-29232

The document published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the opportunity for public commentary on a proposed data collection initiative. This initiative pertains to the "Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19." Initially put into effect in September 2020, this order aims to protect tenants who are unable to pay rent as a result of the pandemic. Public input is invited to assess the necessity, utility, and efficiency of this data collection, with feedback required by March 8, 2021.

General Overview

The central focus of the notice is to gather feedback regarding the effectiveness and necessity of this temporary eviction moratorium, put in place to prevent the eviction of residents who are unable to pay rent due to COVID-19-related financial hardship. While the initial order was set to expire on December 31, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 extended it to January 31, 2021. This moratorium is a testament to the government's attempt to mitigate the housing instability during a global crisis that has significantly disrupted livelihoods and economies.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several critical issues emerge upon examining the document:

• Practical Utility Clarification: The document could benefit from a clearer depiction of the practical utility of the information collected from tenants. Detailing how this data contributes to public health goals or informs policy decisions might strengthen the justification for the data collection effort.

• Income Threshold Ambiguity: The $99,000 income threshold for participation in the data collection is mentioned but not elaborated upon. A detailed explanation regarding how this threshold was determined and its implications on eligibility would help in diminishing confusion.

• Estimated Burden Details: The document mentions an estimated annual burden on tenants, equating to 2,916,667 hours. Providing a breakdown of how this figure was calculated would enhance understanding and transparency.

• Respondent Burden: While the document identifies significant time demands placed on respondents, it lacks suggestions on how this burden could be minimized. Including such strategies would demonstrate a commitment to reducing inconvenience for participants.

• Decision-Making Methodology: Finally, the methodology behind the income threshold and its impact on the target audience are not discussed, leaving stakeholders guessing about the rationale and potential implications.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

The proposed information collection has broad public and specific stakeholder implications:

• Broad Public Impact: This initiative is crucial as it aims to secure housing stability for millions during a public health crisis. It reflects public health authorities' commitment to preventing further socioeconomic adversity linked to the pandemic.

• Specific Stakeholder Impact: Tenants who qualify for the moratorium will directly benefit from legal protection against eviction. Nonetheless, the administrative burden of declaring eligibility is notably high, and efforts to streamline this process would be advantageous. Landlords and property owners, conversely, may express concerns about financial losses due to halted payments, necessitating a balanced consideration of diverse interests.

In summary, while the document outlines an essential public health measure during an unprecedented crisis, it leaves room for improvement in explanatory detail and stakeholder considerations. Addressing these areas would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the initiative's intentions and operational mechanics.

The document from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as published in the Federal Register, pertains to a proposed data collection effort titled "Temporary Halt In Residential Evictions To Prevent The Further Spread Of Covid-19." This initiative, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, seeks to delay residential evictions. Financially, the document includes some key references that correlate with the potential burdens on individuals involved.

Estimated Financial Burden

The document specifies that the estimated annual burden for tenants, lessees, or residents is calculated in terms of time. It is estimated to be 2,916,667 hours for individuals who have an annual income up to $99,000. This reference to income threshold appears to demarcate eligibility for participating in the data collection and receiving the protections under the eviction moratorium. However, the lack of detailed information regarding how the $99,000 income threshold was determined could lead to confusion about eligibility requirements. The absence of a specific explanation for selecting this income level as a threshold poses questions about its implications and fairness to affected individuals.

Utility and Clarity Concerns

In the document, while the burden on respondents is specifically articulated in terms of hours, the document does not clarify how this time estimate was calculated. Given that 2,916,667 hours is a substantial allocation, further breakdown or analysis of this figure would aid in understanding how such a burden was estimated across the target group. Without an explanation, it is challenging for readers to comprehend the practical impact and necessity of this data collection.

Additionally, the stated financial references focus on the potential time cost to respondents but fail to address methods for reducing this burden. The document could benefit from suggesting strategies or means to minimize this time commitment, particularly through technology or process improvements, which might alleviate the perceived financial burden related to time expenditure.

Cost Implications

The document indicates there will be no anticipated costs to respondents other than their time. However, not addressing or including suggestions for minimizing this significant time commitment could indirectly contribute to financial stress for respondents, especially those on the lower end of the income scale. A critical examination of how time and effort could be efficiently managed to participate in this initiative might help reduce the implicit financial strain.

In conclusion, clarity surrounding the financial references, specifically the reasoning behind the $99,000 income threshold and detailed breakdowns of the time burden, is essential to fully understand the implications of the proposed data collection. Without this, the document's portrayal of the financial aspects may appear ambiguous, affecting both compliance and satisfaction among the concerned parties.