Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75559 

1States and federally recognized Native American 

Tribes must have an Environmental Protection 

Agency- (EPA-) authorized lead abatement 

certification program to receive funding through 

HUD’s Lead Hazard Reduction grant program. 

2 42 U.S.C. 4851b, for which ‘‘appropriate Federal 

agency’’ is, per 15 U.S.C. 2683, the EPA, which 

issues its regulation operationalizing the statutory 

definition at 40 CFR 745.65. 

3See 42 U.S.C. 4852. 

4 42 U.S.C. 4822 et seq., 4851 et seq. 

5As noted in fn. 1, EPA allows federally 

recognized Tribes to be authorized to administer 

lead abatement certification programs. For 

additional information, see the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Lead; Requirements for LeadBased Paint Activities in Target Housing and ChildOccupied Facilities, section IX.F (Treatment of 

Tribes as a State), 61 FR 45778, 45805 (Aug. 29, 

1996). Because title X, sec. 1011(n) (Relationship to 

other law) requires that States have lead abatement 

certification program authorization from EPA to be 

awarded a Lead Hazard Reduction grant, HUD also 

treats Tribes as a State for this purpose and requires 

that they have such authorization to be awarded 

such a grant. 

6 12 U.S.C. 1701z–1 and 1701z–2. 

7Public Law 117–328, 136 Stat. 4459, 5167–68 

(Dec. 29, 2022). 

8Public Law 118–42, 138 Stat. 7, 370–372 (Mar. 

29, 2024). 

[FR Doc. 2024–20966 Filed 9–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–6487–N–01] 

Allocating Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes Grant Funding Using a 

Formula Approach; Request for 

Information 

AGENCY: Office of Lead Hazard Control 

and Healthy Homes, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: Through this request for 

information (RFI), HUD seeks public 

input regarding the development of 

program components for a formula grant 

program to allocate funding for HUD’s 

Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy 

Homes grant programs. Currently, these 

grant programs are statutorily required 

to make funding awards on a 

competitive basis; however, HUD has 

requested Congressional approval to 

award a portion of grant funds to 

eligible jurisdictions using a formula 

rather than using the competitive, and 

procedurally more complex, process for 

these jurisdictions to apply for grants. 

HUD believes that a formula grant 

program may allow more efficient 

distribution of funding to highest need 

communities, streamline the selection 

and award of grants, and help maximize 

funding utilization. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: November 

15, 2024. Late-filed comments will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments responsive 

to this RFI. There are two methods for 

submitting public comments. All 

submissions must refer to the above 

docket number and title. 

1. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Comments may be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make comments immediately available 

to the public. Comments submitted 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov can be viewed by 

other commenters and interested 

members of the public. Commenters 

should follow the instructions provided 

on that website to submit comments 

electronically. 

2. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW, Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 

comments and communications will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

eastern time weekdays at the above 

address. Due to security measures at the 

HUD Headquarters building, you must 

schedule an appointment in advance to 

review the public comments by calling 

the Regulations Division at 202–708– 

3055 (this is not a toll-free number). 

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. 

Copies of all comments submitted are 

available for inspection and 

downloading at www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Han, Office of Lead Hazard 

Control and Healthy Homes, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 

8236, Washington, DC 20410–3000, 

telephone 202–402–7698 (this is not a 

toll-free number). 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 

The purpose of HUD’s Lead Hazard 

Reduction grant programs is to 

maximize the number of children under 

the age of six protected from lead 

poisoning by assisting certain States and 

Tribes,1 as well as cities, counties/ 

parishes, and other units of local 

government in undertaking 

comprehensive programs to identify and 

control lead-based paint hazards 2 in 

eligible privately-owned rental or 

owner-occupied housing populations. 

Operating since 1993, these programs 

award grants on a competitive basis as 

required by statute.3 Under the 

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992, commonly 

referred to as title X,4 States and units 

of local government are eligible for these 

grant programs if they have an approved 

comprehensive housing affordability 

strategy. States and Tribes must also be 

authorized by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to administer 

the certification program for lead 

abatement professionals and contractors 

to conduct such work within their 

jurisdiction.5

Under the Lead Hazard Reduction 

grant programs, HUD makes available 

Healthy Homes Supplemental funding 

that is intended to enhance the leadbased paint hazard control activities by 

comprehensively identifying and 

addressing other housing-related 

hazards that affect occupants’ health in 

homes where lead hazard reduction 

work is being conducted under the grant 

programs. The Healthy Homes 

Supplements are authorized under 

section 501 and 502 of the Housing and 

Urban Development Act of 1970.6

Funding for these Lead Hazard 

Reduction grant programs is provided in 

annual appropriations to HUD, 

specifically to its Office of Lead Hazard 

Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH). 

As of the publication of this RFI, the 

two most recent fiscal years’ 

appropriations were: 

• The Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2023.7 The OLHCHH’s 

appropriation is within division L, title 

II, of the Act. 

• The Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2024.8 The OLHCHH’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
75560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

9See https://www.grants.gov/. The grants.gov 

website is designed to enable Federal grant-making 

agencies to create funding opportunities and 

applicants to find and apply for these Federal 

grants. 

10See https://www.grants.gov/search-resultsdetail/341222; https://www.grants.gov/searchresults-detail/355076. 

11 Described in HUD’s budget Congressional 

justification, https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/ 

documents/2025_CJ_Program_-_Lead_Hazard_

Reduction_v2.pdf. 

12For HUD’s general lead-based paint definitions 

for all programs, see 24 CFR 35.110. 

appropriation is within division F, title 

II, of the Act. 

As authorized by the cited 

Appropriations Acts, HUD publishes 

notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs) 

for the Lead Hazard Reduction grant 

programs and awards grants 

competitively based on applications 

submitted in response to the NOFOs. 

HUD publishes its NOFOs on the 

Grants.gov website of the Department of 

Health and Human Services.9 HUD 

posted its fiscal year (FY) 2023 and FY 

2024 Lead Hazard Reduction NOFOs on 

June 14, 2023, and June 21, 2024, 

respectively.10

In its FY 2025 budget proposal, HUD 

requested Congressional approval to 

award a portion of allotted Lead Hazard 

Reduction Grants, and all of the Lead 

Hazard Reduction Demonstration 

Grants, by formula grants instead of the 

traditional competitive grants, together 

with proportional Healthy Homes 

Supplemental funding.11 If Congress 

approves HUD’s budget request for FY 

2025 or in a subsequent year, a new 

formula grant program design would 

reduce the procedural complexity 

placed on jurisdictions to apply for 

grants, streamline the process for HUD 

to select jurisdictions to receive these 

formula grants, allow more efficient 

distribution of funding to communities 

facing the most substantial lead paint 

hazard problems, and help maximize 

funding utilization when complemented 

by a portion of the funds being used for 

competitive grants. Federal financial 

assistance for these grants will still be 

conditioned upon HUD receiving 

Certifications and Assurances of 

nondiscrimination. The requirements to 

fulfill this requirement will be in the 

notice announcing funding if this grant 

change is implemented. 

II. Purpose of This Request for 

Information 

A major HUD operational goal for the 

Lead Hazard Reduction grant programs 

is to expedite resources into 

communities to create homes free of 

lead-based paint hazards for at-risk 

families, especially their children, by 

funding lead hazard reduction 

activities—whether permanent or not.12

In addition, the programs’ grant awards 

may be accompanied by Healthy Homes 

Supplements to mitigate other housingrelated health hazards. To accomplish 

this goal and continue HUD’s efforts to 

reduce barriers to access grant funding, 

improve the customer experience for 

Lead Hazard Reduction grant applicants 

and grantees, and actively solicit input 

of program grantees and beneficiaries, 

HUD is soliciting comment through this 

RFI regarding the development of a 

potential new grant program that would 

make Lead Hazard Reduction grant 

awards using formula grants rather than 

the competitive grants initiated through 

NOFOs. 

HUD invites public input relating to 

the determination of a grantee’s funding 

allocation by a formula and the specific 

criteria or objective measures that HUD 

should consider using in a formula. This 

determination of an appropriate funding 

allocation is critical because the funding 

amount for each recipient under a 

formula grant would be calculated based 

on these specific criteria or objective 

measures or other factors. HUD is aware 

of several published models that 

identify U.S. lead exposure risk based 

on lead indices and invites the public to 

provide input where these models 

should be used in the development of a 

possible, future formula grant program. 

HUD also invites public input related to 

the appropriate parameters for a 

possible, future formula grant program, 

including length of period of 

performance, jurisdictional level eligible 

recipients (e.g., city, county, State, 

Tribe), and frequency of recipient 

funding. 

HUD emphasizes that it is not 

currently authorized to offer formula 

grants for the Lead Hazard Reduction 

and Healthy Homes grant programs and 

this RFI does not announce any new 

grant programs, formula-based or 

otherwise. Instead, HUD is issuing this 

RFI to seek public feedback regarding 

the potential use of a formula grant 

program for the Lead Hazard Reduction 

and Healthy Homes programs should 

Congress grant HUD the authority to 

allot a portion of funding through the 

use of a formula grant. 

III. Specific Information Requested 

While HUD welcomes all public 

comments relevant to improving the 

Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy 

Homes grant programs, HUD is 

particularly interested in receiving 

input on the questions listed below. To 

assist commenters, HUD provides the 

following guidance and list of specific 

information requested. 

Please indicate in your written 

comments the area of interest and the 

topic number(s) you are commenting on 

and provide specific information to 

illustrate your comments where 

possible. You do not need to address 

every topic, and you should focus on 

those topics where you have relevant 

expertise, experience, or data. To the 

extent possible, please cite any public 

data, peer-reviewed journal articles, and 

other publicly accessible information 

that relate to and supports your 

responses. If information or data is 

available but is non-public, describe the 

information or data to the extent 

permissible, noting that it is non-public. 

The Fair Housing Act requires HUD 

and its recipients to affirmatively 

further fair housing by proactively 

taking meaningful actions to overcome 

patterns of segregation, promote fair 

housing choice, eliminate disparities in 

opportunities, and foster inclusive 

communities free from discrimination. 

In addition, all HUD programs have an 

obligation to advance racial equity and 

eliminate racial disparities under 

Executive Orders 13985 and 14091. 

Please consider this in addressing any of 

the questions below; you may provide 

feedback and evidence on ways that 

proposed criteria or policies may 

advance or frustrate these requirements. 

HUD thanks submitters in advance for 

their information and comments. 

1. Funding Criteria 

a. Using available data, what criteria 

should be included in a formula for 

funding? 

There are several HUD programs that 

use a formula allocation approach to 

funding, including the HOME 

Investment Partnerships Program 

(HOME) and the Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

Program. 

For HOME, HUD determines the 

funding allocation for each participating 

jurisdiction using several objective 

measures. These measures include 

vacancy-adjusted rental units where the 

household head is at or below the 

poverty level; occupied rental units 

with at least one of four problems 

(overcrowding, incomplete kitchen 

facilities, incomplete plumbing, or high 

rent costs); rental units built before 1950 

and occupied by poor households; 

rental units with problems, as described 

above, multiplied by the ratio of the cost 

of producing housing for a jurisdiction 

divided by the national cost; number of 

families at or below the poverty level; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 75561 

13For additional information on the HOME 

formula allocation, see 24 CFR 92.50. 

14For additional information on the CDBG 

allocation of funds, see 24 CFR 570.4. 

15Available at https://www.cdc.gov/leadprevention/php/data/national-surveillancedata.html. 

16For the table with data in spreadsheet format, 

see https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/media/ 

files/cbls-national-data-table-sheet.xlsx. 

17See https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/php/

data/state-surveillance-data.html. 

18See, e.g., Zartarian V, Poulakos A, Helms 

Garrison V, Spalt N, Tornero-Velez R, Xue J, Egan 

K, and Courtney J, Lead Data Mapping to Prioritize 

US Locations for Whole-of-Government Exposure 

Prevention Efforts: State of the Science, Federal 

Collaborations, and Remaining Challenges, 

American Journal of Public Health 112, no. S7 

(September 1, 2022): pp. S658–S669, https://

doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307051, and references 

to models therein. 

19See 42 U.S.C. 4852(b). 

20See 42 U.S.C. 12705(g)(1), 24 CFR 570.3 

‘‘Consolidated plan’’, and, therefrom, sections. 91.5, 

91.200, 91.300. 

21For example, compare 24 CFR part 570, subpart 

I with 24 CFR part 570, subpart D. 

and population of a jurisdiction 

multiplied by a net per capita income.13

For the CDBG Program, HUD 

determines the amount of each 

entitlement grantee’s funding allocation 

using several objective measures. These 

measures include demographic values 

of population; the extent of poverty; 

housing overcrowding; and age of 

housing (excluding this data for any 

Indian Tribes located within the 

grantee’s jurisdiction(s)).14

HUD is not considering using either 

the HOME or CDBG Program formulas 

for a possible, future formula grant to 

allocate funding for HUD’s Lead Hazard 

Reduction and Healthy Homes grant 

programs. Instead, HUD is seeking 

information from the public on which 

specific measures it should consider in 

developing a formula grant, such as 

rates of elevated blood lead levels in 

children; related housing, economic, 

and demographic factors more relevant 

for making homes lead-safe and healthy; 

and ways in which HUD should 

consider such measures. 

b. There are available data models 

that have been used to identify welldefined geographic areas with greater 

risk of exposure to lead based paint. 

Should HUD use any of these models for 

a funding formula? 

There is no national database that 

covers each State and local jurisdiction 

for determining and comparing the rates 

of elevated blood lead levels in children 

under age 6. The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains 

a National Surveillance Data table 

website 15 with State-level blood lead 

test data covering 34 States plus the 

District of Columbia (DC) and New York 

City.16 For each of these jurisdictions, 

the data covers some or all years from 

2012 through 2018. CDC also maintains 

a Childhood Lead State Surveillance 

Data website with county-level data 

from up to 33 States plus DC.17 For each 

of these jurisdictions, the data covers 

some or all years from 2013 through 

2017. The websites indicate that the 

data come from States (and certain other 

jurisdictions) funded by CDC for 

childhood lead poisoning prevention 

and surveillance, plus data provided 

voluntarily. CDC processes and 

validates data submissions. 

HUD is interested in how the CDCmaintained data and data in any other 

sources of nationally scoped, 

geographically specific blood lead data 

on children under age 6 can be used in 

a possible future formula grant. HUD is 

particularly interested in public 

comments on how to handle data gaps. 

For example, the 2023 Lead Hazard 

Reduction NOFO states, in rating 

applications, that ‘‘[i]f no data are 

shown for the state, use the most recent 

national percentage (for 2018), 3.0% of 

tested children < six (6) years with BLL 

>= 3.5 mg/dL.’’ For a formula grant 

program, is this an appropriate 

approach (with, for example, possible 

updating of the percentage if sufficient 

data from year(s) more recent than 2018 

are available), or is there an improved 

approach for addressing available Statelevel or county-level data covering most 

States or most counties? 

In addition, HUD is aware that there 

have been several risk models 

developed to identify U.S. lead 

exposure that include measures such as 

housing age and sociodemographic 

data.18 Therefore, HUD is interested in 

whether any of these risk models should 

be used, whether as is or with 

modification, how such risk models 

could be used as the basis for funding 

allocation, and whether their use is 

more advantageous than developing a 

different formula that uses several 

objective measures. 

c. Because criteria can be applied to 

certain States and Tribes, and to 

counties, and cities (and comparable 

jurisdictions at each level), but grants 

should be non-duplicative, what 

approaches should be used to filter 

selection recommendations so that 

lower-rated jurisdictions within higherrated jurisdictions are not also awarded 

grants for the same target area where 

lead hazard reduction work is to be 

done? 

HUD’s Lead Hazard Reduction grants 

are open to ‘‘[a] State or unit of local 

government that has [a HUD-] approved 

comprehensive housing affordability 

strategy . . . .’’ 19 The strategy is now 

part of a HUD-approved consolidated 

plan.20 To avoid duplicate grants to a 

particular target area, the target area for 

a county grant is for the areas not 

covered by the higher-rated cities within 

it (e.g., the target area is the suburbs of 

any higher-rated cities within), and 

similarly, the target area for a State grant 

is for areas other than the higher rated 

cities and counties within (somewhat 

analogous to the concept of nonentitlement areas under State 

Community Development Block Grant 

Programs vs. entitlement communities 

under Community Development Block 

Grant Programs 21). HUD is interested in 

public comments regarding approaches 

for these types of filtering of the ratings 

of the various jurisdictions. 

2. In addition to the criteria included in 

a formula for funding, should there be 

other considerations for the award of 

formula grants? 

a. High performing competitively 

awarded grants. 

HUD has approximately 199 Lead 

Hazard Reduction grantees holding 

approximately 212 grants. These grants 

were all awarded based on merit 

through a competitive process, using 

NOFOs as described above. In the past, 

HUD used a process where high 

performing Lead Hazard Reduction 

grantees could be ‘‘renewed’’ based on 

their performance; however, these 

subsequent awards were not automatic 

and were awarded competitively based 

on available funding and other 

conditions that had to be met by the 

applicant jurisdiction. HUD is interested 

in comments regarding whether a 

category for formula award should 

include current high performing 

grantees, whether awarded 

competitively or by formula, and, if so, 

what considerations should be used for 

renewing such grants. 

b. Sequencing of awards to previously 

awarded formula-funded grants. 

HUD has found that grantees, in the 

year following their award of a renewed 

Lead Hazard Reduction grant, tended to 

devote more attention to the earlier 

grant because it had passed the startup 

phase and was producing lead safe and 

healthy housing units. This added 

attention to earlier grants resulted in 

renewal grants tending to move more 

slowly through startup than grantees 

had committed to doing in their 

applications. In addition, some of the 

earlier grants tended not to produce lead 

safe units at the expected rate because 

the grantee’s attention was divided 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
75562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2024 / Notices 

22Available at https://www.grants.gov/searchresults-detail/333884. 

23Available at https://www.grants.gov/searchresults-detail/355076. 

24See the table in 2 CFR 200.101(b)(2). 

25 2 CFR part 200, subpart C. 

26 2 CFR 200.206. 

27 2 CFR 200.206(b)(2)(iii). 

28 42 U.S.C. 4851a(1). 

29 42 U.S.C. 4851a. 

between multiple grants. Given this 

tendency, HUD has been requiring a 

waiting period of 1 to 3 years before a 

Lead Hazard Reduction grantee is 

eligible for another Lead Hazard 

Reduction grant. For example, in its FY 

2021 NOFO, HUD specified that if a 

jurisdiction received Lead Hazard 

Reduction grant funding in 2019 or 

2020, it was not eligible to apply under 

the program; 22 and HUD specified in 

the FY 2024 NOFO that a jurisdiction 

that received Lead Hazard Reduction 

grant funding in 2023 was not eligible 

to apply under the program.23 HUD is 

interested in feedback on whether a 

waiting period of two years is 

appropriate for a potential Lead Hazard 

Reduction formula grant or whether 

some other waiting period would be 

appropriate for maximizing the 

production of lead safe and healthy 

housing units by individual formula 

grantees and the program overall. 

c. Effect of poor performance under a 

previous grant on the award of a new 

formula grant. 

HUD grant award requirements 

incorporate the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) grant regulations, 

particularly its Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 

at 2 CFR part 200. In particular, OMB’s 

provisions relating to the award of 

grants 24 state that the pre-Federal award 

requirements and contents of Federal 

awards 25 apply to Federal grant 

agreements—such as the Lead Hazard 

Reduction grants with their Healthy 

Homes Supplements. Among those 

requirements is the Federal awarding 

agency review of risk posed by 

applicants. Awarding agencies, 

including HUD, must have a framework 

for evaluating the risks posed by 

applicants before they receive Federal 

awards.26 HUD may decide that the 

risks posed by a particular jurisdiction 

are so high that the Department will not 

make an award to the jurisdiction, or 

HUD may apply special conditions to 

the grant that correspond to the degree 

of risk assessed. Among the factors that 

may be used in this risk evaluation is 

the jurisdiction’s history of performance 

in managing Federal awards.27

Under title X, HUD has a national 

perspective on the effective use of Lead 

Hazard Reduction grant funds to 

eliminate lead-based paint hazards in 

housing as expeditiously as possible.28

HUD is interested in learning the 

public’s views on how the poor 

performance of a prior-year Lead Hazard 

Reduction grantee (whether its grant is 

awarded competitively or by formula) 

should affect HUD’s evaluation of the 

risk of awarding that grantee a formula 

grant. For example, HUD seeks 

suggestions regarding when not to 

award a grant to a previously poor 

performing grantee and, instead, award 

the funds to the jurisdiction with the 

next-highest need, and when and what 

special conditions to apply to a 

previously poor performing grantee. 

3. Regarding award amounts, should a 

Lead Hazard Reduction formula grant 

program have smaller awards to 

geographically disperse the funding, or 

should larger grant amounts be awarded 

which would concentrate funding in 

certain highest-risk communities but 

reduce the number of jurisdictions 

receiving funds? 

Title X identifies several purposes for 

the Lead Hazard Reduction program,29

including to develop a national strategy 

to build the infrastructure necessary to 

eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all 

housing as expeditiously as possible 

and to reorient the national approach to 

the presence of lead-based paint in 

housing to implement, on a priority 

basis, a broad program to evaluate and 

reduce lead-based paint hazards in the 

Nation’s housing stock. In implementing 

title X, HUD has awarded Lead Hazard 

Reduction grants across the U.S. to large 

and small jurisdictions, both rural and 

urban. 

If a formula grant program is 

authorized, HUD intends to continue 

the approach regarding jurisdictions’ 

size and urbanicity; however, HUD is 

interested in receiving feedback from 

the public on whether HUD’s formula 

grant resources should focus on 

addressing lead-based paint hazards in 

as many as possible high-risk locations 

across the U.S or focus on areas of 

highest potential lead exposure risk to 

have a greater effect on communities at 

highest risk, or in a balance between the 

two (and what the balancing criteria 

should be). 

4. What should be the period of 

performance duration for a formula 

grant? 

HUD’s FY 2023 and FY 2024 Lead 

Hazard Reduction grant programs each 

have specified 48-month periods of 

performance. Previous grantee periods 

of performance have been 36 months 

and 42 months. Historically, HUD has 

varied the periods of performance based 

predominately on the maximum award 

amount in a particular NOFO, with 

higher grant amounts necessitating 

longer periods of performance. HUD 

seeks public input on appropriate grant 

durations for a formula-based Lead 

Hazard Reduction grant. 

Matthew Ammon, 

Director, Office of Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21002 Filed 9–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM_NV_FRN; MO# 04500179291] 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision for Libra Solar in Lyon and 

Mineral Counties, NV 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) announces the 

availability of the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Libra Solar 

Project located in Lyon and Mineral 

Counties, Nevada. The ROD was signed 

on September 10, 2024, which 

constitutes the decision of the BLM, as 

approved by the Department of the 

Interior. 

DATES: The ROD was signed on 

September 10, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The ROD is available online 

at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanningui/project/2022592/510. Printed copies 

of the ROD are available for the public 

at the Carson City District Office, 5665 

Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, Nevada 

or can be provided upon request by 

Carson City District Public Room at: 

775–885–6000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Ross, Public Affairs Specialist, 

telephone (775) 885–6107; address 5665 

Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 

89701; email blm_nv_ccdo_libra_solar@

blm.gov. Individuals in the United 

States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 

hearing, or have a speech disability may 

dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to 

access telecommunications relay 

services for contacting Ms. Ross 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1