29882 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4368–N–01]

Notice of Funding Availability for

Research to Improve the Evaluation

and Control of Residential Lead-Based

Paint Hazards

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary—Office

of Lead Hazard Control, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of funding availability

(NOFA) for research to improve the

evaluation and control of residential

lead-based paint hazards for fiscal year

1998.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of funding of up to

approximately $2 million for grants or

cooperative agreements for research on

specified topics related to the evaluation

and control of residential lead-based

paint hazards. Approximately 5 to 10

grants or cooperative agreements of

approximately $100,000 to $600,000

each will be awarded on a competitive

basis. The application kit developed for

this NOFA provides details to guide and

assist applicants. In the body of this

NOFA is information concerning: the

purpose and background of the NOFA

and the available amounts; eligible

applicants; specific topics on which

research grant applications will be

accepted; selection criteria; and the

application requirements and steps

involved in the application process. An

appendix to the NOFA identifies

documents referenced in the NOFA.

APPLICATION DUE DATES: Completed

applications must be submitted no later

than 6:00 pm, local time, on July 21,

1998 to the addresses shown below. See

below for specific procedures governing

the form of application submissions

(e.g., mailed applications, express mail,

overnight delivery, or hand carried).

Mailed applications. Mailed

applications will be considered timely

filed if postmarked on or before 12:00

midnight on the application due date

and received by the Office of Lead

Hazard Control on or within ten (10)

days of July 21, 1998.

Applications Sent by Overnight/

Express Mail Delivery. Applications sent

by overnight delivery or express mail

will be considered timely filed if

received before or on the application

due date, or upon submission of

documentary evidence that they were

placed in transit with the overnight

delivery service by no later than the

specified application due date.

Hand carried applications. Hand

carried applications will be accepted at

the specified location and room number

during normal business hours on or

before the application due date. On the

application due date, business hours

will be extended to 6:00 PM.

All applications must include an

original and two copies of the

completed application. Section III.(A) of

this NOFA provides further information

on what constitutes proper submission

of an application.

ADDRESSES AND APPLICATION SUBMISSION

PROCEDURES: Address-Mailed

applications. The address for mailed

applications is: Office of Lead Hazard

Control (LS), Department of Housing

and Urban Development, Room B–133,

451 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20410. Address—Overnight/Express

Mail or Hand carried applications.

Hand carried applications should be

delivered to Suite 3206, 490 L’Enfant

Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20024.

FOR APPLICATION KITS, FURTHER

INFORMATION, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:

For Application Kits: Application kits

may be obtained from the Office of Lead

Hazard Control, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 451 7th Street,

SW, Room B–133, Washington, DC

20410, or by calling Ms. Gail Ward at

202–755–1785, extension 111 (this is

not a toll-free number), or by making an

e-mail request to:

GaillN.lWard@hud.gov (use

underscore characters). The Department

is also planning to make the NOFA and

application kit accessible via the

Internet World Wide Web (http://

www.hud.gov/lea/leahome.html).

Completed applications, however, must

be submitted in paper copy to the

mailing address; faxed or electronically

transmitted applications will not be

accepted. Hearing- and speech-impaired

persons may access the above telephone

number via TTY by calling the toll-free

Federal Information Relay Service at 1–

800–877–8339.

For Further Information: Dr. Peter

Ashley, Office of Lead Hazard Control,

at the address above; telephone (202)

755–1785, extension 115, or Ms. Karen

Williams, Grants Officer, extension 118

(these are not toll-free numbers).

Hearing- and speech-impaired persons

may access the above telephone

numbers via TTY by calling the toll-free

Federal Information Relay Service at 1–

800–877–8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority; Purpose; Amounts

Allocated; Background; Eligible

Applicants and Eligible Activities

(A) Authority

These grants are authorized under

sections 1051 and 1052 of the

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act of 1992, which is Title X

of the Housing and Community

Development Act of 1992.

(B) Purpose

Research grants or cooperative

agreements will be awarded, at HUD’s

discretion, to selected applicants in

order to fund research activities that

address critical gaps in our knowledge

of residential lead hazard identification

and control. The purposes of this

program include:

(1) Funding research on topics

identified in sections 1051 and 1052 of

Title X.

(2) Funding research that will be used

to update the HUD Guidelines for the

Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based

Paint Hazards in Housing (Guidelines)

and which is anticipated to:

(a) Increase the accuracy and costeffectiveness of lead hazard evaluation,

and

(b) Increase the efficacy and costeffectiveness of lead hazard reduction.

(C) Amounts Allocated

Up to approximately $2 million will

be available to fund research proposals

in FY 1998. Grants or cooperative

agreements will be awarded on a

competitive basis following evaluation

of all proposals according to the Rating

Factors described in section III.(B). HUD

anticipates that individual awards will

range from approximately $100,000 to

approximately $600,000. HUD reserves

the right to grant one or more awards,

or no awards, for research in a given

topic area, depending on the quality of

applications received.

(D) Background

Lead is a potent toxicant that targets

the central nervous system and is

particularly damaging to the

neurological development of young

children and the developing fetus.

Pregnant women can transfer lead

through the placenta to the developing

fetus. Lead-based paint is the most

widespread and dangerous source of

lead in the residential environment.

Children can be exposed directly to this

source of lead by ingesting paint chips

or indirectly through exposure to paintlead that has entered house dust and

soil from the deterioration of interior

and/or exterior lead-based paint.

Studies have shown that the primary

source of lead exposure for most young

children is through the contact and

subsequent incidental ingestion of

house dust (i.e., through hand-to-mouth

activity). The amount of lead found in

the ambient air, food and public

drinking water has decreased
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29883

significantly over the last two decades

as a result of regulatory action and

voluntary process changes.

Of all occupied housing units built

before the ban of lead-based paint in

1978, approximately 83 percent, or 64

million housing units, are estimated to

have lead-based paint somewhere on the

exterior or interior of the building.

Although intact lead-based paint poses

little immediate risk to occupants, nonintact paint which is chipping, peeling,

or otherwise deteriorating may present

an immediate risk. Therefore, of

particular concern are the housing units

that contain deteriorated lead-based

paint and/or lead-contaminated dust

and are occupied by young children.

HUD has been actively engaged in a

number of activities relating to leadbased paint as a result of the Lead-Based

Paint Poisoning Prevention Act

(LBPPPA) of 1971, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 4801–4846. Sections 1051 and

1052 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4854 and

4854a) call for the Secretary of HUD, in

cooperation with other Federal agencies,

to conduct research on specific topics

related to the evaluation and subsequent

mitigation of residential lead hazards.

This research program also implements,

in part, HUD’s Departmental Strategy for

Achieving Environmental Justice

pursuant to Executive Order 12898

(Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations).

On November 27, 1996 (61 FR 60500),

HUD published a NOFA announcing the

availability of funds to support research

to improve the evaluation and control of

lead-based paint hazards. The

Department made a total of 10 research

grant awards to applicants to that

NOFA, for a total of approximately $3.5

million. Research topic areas that were

funded included: Cleaning leaded dust

from smooth surfaces and carpets using

low phosphate detergents and

household vacuums; sampling leaded

dust in carpets and upholstery; field

validation of the approach to lead risk

assessment suggested in the HUD

Guidelines; the distribution of and

exposure to dust in carpets; factors

affecting the cleanability of carpets;

comparison of composite and single

dust-wipe sampling for clearance and

risk assessment; analysis of lead-based

paint inspection data for multifamily

housing to develop a statistically based

sampling scheme; penetration of fine

particulate through household vacuum

cleaner collection bags; development of

a protocol to assess the use of portable

XRF analyzers to test for lead in dustwipe samples; development of a

protocol for evaluating the performance

of chemical spot-test-kits for detecting

lead-based paint; and, the

reaccumulation of leaded dust following

professional dust cleaning.

In June 1995, HUD published

Guidelines for the Evaluation and

Control of Lead-Based Paint in Housing

(Guidelines) (see Appendix A of this

NOFA). The Guidelines are a report on

state-of-the-art procedures for all aspects

of lead-based paint hazard evaluation

and control. The Guidelines reflect the

Title X framework for lead hazard

control, which distinguishes three types

of control measures: Interim controls,

abatement of lead-based paint hazards,

and complete abatement of all leadbased paint. Interim controls are

designed to address hazards quickly,

inexpensively, and temporarily, while

abatement is intended to produce a

permanent solution. While the

Guidelines recommend procedures that

are effective in identifying and

controlling lead hazards while

protecting the health of abatement

workers and occupants, HUD recognizes

that targeted research and field

experience will result in future changes

to the Guidelines that will improve the

accuracy of lead hazard evaluation and

increase the effectiveness, while

possibly reducing costs, of lead hazard

control measures. HUD anticipates that

increasing the cost-effectiveness of

procedures for lead hazard evaluation

and control will reduce barriers to the

widespread adoption of these measures.

In July 1995, the Task Force on LeadBased Paint Hazard Reduction and

Financing, which was established

pursuant to section 1015 of Title X,

presented its final report to HUD and

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). The Task Force Report, entitled

‘‘Putting the Pieces Together:

Controlling Lead Hazards in the

Nation’s Housing’’ (see Appendix A of

this NOFA), recommended that research

be conducted on a number of key topics

in order to address significant gaps in

our knowledge of lead exposure and

hazard control.

(E) Eligible Applicants

Academic and not-for-profit

institutions located in the U.S., and

State and local governments are eligible

under all existing authorizations. Nonprofits must submit proof of their

nonprofit status. For-profit firms also

are eligible; however, they are not

allowed to earn a fee (i.e., no profit can

be made from the project). Federal

agencies and Federal employees are not

eligible to submit applications. All

applicants must comply with all civil

rights laws, statutes, regulations, and

executive orders. If an applicant has: (1)

An outstanding finding of civil rights

violations by any Federal, state, or local

agency; or (2) is the defendant in a civil

rights lawsuit filed by the Department of

Justice, the applicant is not eligible to

apply for funding under this NOFA

until the applicant resolves such charge,

lawsuit, or letter of findings to the

satisfaction of the oversight Agency.

(F) Eligible Activities.

The following types of research are

eligible activities under this NOFA:

(1) General Goals and Objectives

The overall goal of this research is to

gain knowledge that will lead to

improvements in the efficacy and costeffectiveness of methods used for leadbased paint hazard evaluation and

control. It is anticipated that this will

eventually result in a reduction in the

magnitude of childhood lead exposure

nationwide by reducing barriers to the

implementation of widespread leadbased paint hazard reduction

interventions and improving the

effectiveness of such interventions.

Specific objectives for the individual

research topics listed in section I.(F)(1)

are provided separately in the expanded

discussion of these individual topic

areas that follows in section I.(F)(2).

Although HUD is soliciting proposals

for research on these specific topics, the

Department will also consider funding

applications for research on topics

which, although not specifically listed

in section I.(F)(2), are relevant under the

overall goals and objectives of this

research, as described above. In such

instances, the applicant should describe

how the proposed research activity

addresses these overall goals and

objectives. Key research topics that are

to be addressed through this NOFA

include the following (each of these

topics is discussed in more detail in

section I.(F)(2) of this NOFA):

(a) Treatment of lead-contaminated

residential soils;

(b) Friction surfaces as a lead-based

paint hazard;

(c) Effectiveness of State and local

laws requiring periodic interventions to

reduce lead hazards in rental housing;

(d) Efficacy of the current guidance on

conducting risk assessments of

multifamily housing; and,

(e) Other areas of research that are

consistent with the overall goals of this

NOFA.

(2) Background and Objectives for

Specific Research Topic Areas

(a) Treatment of Lead-Contaminated

Soils.

(i) General. Soils can become lead

contaminated as a result of the shedding
29884 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

of leaded paint from the exterior of

structures and by the deposition of

airborne particulate lead. Before the

removal of lead from gasoline, vehicular

emissions were a significant source of

airborne lead, especially in urban areas.

Children can be exposed to lead in soil

and exterior dust through direct contact

and incidental ingestion, and indirectly

as a result of soil or dust being tracked

or blown into the home and becoming

incorporated into house dust. The

degree to which soil-lead is a hazard

depends upon the potential for contact

and the lead concentration of the soil.

The HUD Guidelines (Chapter 5)

indicate that bare soils should be

considered hazardous if they exceed 400

ppm Pb in ‘‘high contact’’ areas (e.g.,

play areas) and if they exceed 2,000

ppm Pb in other areas of the yard. The

Guidelines further indicate that outside

of high contact areas, hazard control

measures are not required unless the

surface area for bare soils exceeds 9 ft2.

The Guidelines are generally consistent

with interim standards for lead in soil

that have been published by the U.S.

EPA (Guidance on the Identification of

Lead-Based Paint Hazards, 60 FR 47247;

September 11, 1995). The EPA is

expected to publish proposed health

based standards for lead in residential

soil in 1998, as required by section 403

of Title X. These standards may differ

from the current HUD and EPA

guidance on lead-contaminated soils.

Soil-lead hazards can be mitigated

using approaches that can be described

as either temporary, interim controls, or

long term abatement measures (i.e.,

interventions that remain effective for at

least 20 years). Interim controls include

various means of covering bare soil,

such as with grass, gravel, or mulch.

Land use controls can also be employed

and include measures such as fencing

and changing the location of play

equipment. Interim controls are

generally low cost and relatively easy to

employ; however, they require frequent

monitoring following implementation to

ensure that they remain effective.

Current EPA and HUD guidance calls

for residential soils to be abated if soillead levels exceed 5,000 ppm. Soil

abatement includes such measures as

covering soil with impervious materials

like concrete or asphalt, or removing

contaminated soils for off-site disposal.

Another, more experimental approach,

includes removing soil for on-site

treatment that removes lead, followed

by replacing the ‘‘cleaned’’ soil. Because

of the high cost of soil abatement

methods, in conjunction with other

barriers to their implementation (e.g.,

disposing of lead-contaminated soils),

these methods are impractical for

widespread adoption.

Other approaches to reducing soillead hazards cannot be readily

characterized as either interim controls

or soil abatement. An example of such

an approach, that has not been

evaluated scientifically, is tilling the

soil to reduce the lead concentration at

the soil surface. Another example is the

untested concept of treating soil with a

substance (e.g., ground phosphate rock)

that would reduce the biological

availability (i.e., the degree to which the

lead is absorbed into the bloodstream

following ingestion) of the soil-lead to

humans.

Relatively little research has been

reported on the effectiveness of

residential soil treatments in reducing

children’s lead exposures. There is at

least one report of a study in which the

use of interim soil hazard reduction

measures combined with interior dust

controls resulted in statistically

significant reductions in the blood-lead

(PbB) of children in the intervention

group as compared to those in the

control group (Mielke et al. 1992). The

EPA-funded ‘‘Three City Study’’

assessed the impact of residential or

neighborhood soil and dust abatement

on children’s blood lead levels (USEPA

1996). A small effect (a decline) on the

mean blood lead of children was

observed following soil abatement at

one study site. The lack of an observed

intervention-related effect at the other

two study sites could have been related

to a number of factors associated with

the specific locations and study designs,

and should not be considered

conclusive regarding the relative

importance of exterior dust and soil as

lead exposure sources.

The major goals of this research are to

improve methods for assessing potential

risks from soil-lead exposure, to

determine the long-term effectiveness of

various methods of reducing residential

soil-lead hazards, and to identify novel,

cost-effective approaches to reducing or

eliminating residential soil-lead

hazards.

(ii) Specific Research Objectives.

Specific research objectives include the

following:

(1) Assess selected existing methods,

and identify and assess novel, costeffective methods for reducing or

eliminating residential soil-lead

hazards;

(2) Assess the adequacy of the current

EPA (1994 interim guidelines and 1998

proposed rule) and HUD (1995)

guidelines for estimating residential

soil-lead hazards (e.g., area of bare soil

for a hazardous condition, soil sampling

guidelines); and

(3) Improve knowledge regarding the

relative importance of exterior dust and

soil as lead exposure sources for

children in various residential

environments.

(b) Friction Surfaces as a Lead-Based

Paint Hazard.

(i) General. Friction surfaces are those

surfaces covered with lead-based paint

that are subject to abrasion, which may

result in the generation of leaded dust.

Because of this, friction surfaces are

included in the definition of lead-based

paint hazard in the Residential LeadBased Paint Hazard Reduction Act of

1992 (Title X). The portions of a

window that rub together when the

window is operated are generally

considered the most critical of the

friction surfaces within a residence, in

terms of their ability to generate leaded

dust. Other common residential friction

surfaces include tight-fitting doors,

cabinet doors and drawers, stairway

treads, and floors painted with leadbased paint.

Addressing the hazard caused by

windows and doors that generate leaded

dust can represent the highest costs

associated with a residential lead hazard

control intervention. Because of this, it

is important that we improve our

understanding of the circumstances

under which these friction surfaces pose

an actual hazard because of leaded dust

generation. It may generally be the case

that windows and doors in good

working condition and with intact leadbased paint, create relatively little

leaded dust and thus can be managed in

place with limited intervention.

Because there are often a number of

different potential lead hazards in and

around a dwelling (e.g., lead in exterior

dust and soil, interior and exterior

surfaces with deteriorated lead-based

paint), it is often not possible to

attribute dust-lead on a particular

surface to the presence of a nearby

friction surface painted with lead-based

paint. For example, it has been reported

by some researchers and lead hazard

control practitioners that the lead

loadings on window troughs are

occasionally found to exceed the HUD/

EPA standard of 800 μg Pb/ft2 when

sampled at various intervals following

window treatment (e.g., wet-scraping

and repainting surfaces, installing a

trough liner). In such situations it is

often difficult to determine the primary

source (e.g., friction between window

surfaces, exterior dust accumulation) of

the reaccumulated dust-lead with

reasonable certainty.

Research is needed to help improve

our understanding of the situations in

which friction surfaces are significant

sources of the leaded dust that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29885

accumulates on accessible surfaces

within a dwelling. This knowledge is

needed to improve existing guidance for

evaluating and controlling lead-based

paint hazards associated with friction

surfaces, which would help to ensure

the most cost effective use of scarce lead

hazard control resources.

(ii) Specific Research Objectives. The

primary goal of this research is improve

our understanding of the situations in

which friction between painted

components is a significant source of

dust-lead on accessible surfaces within

a residence. Specific research objectives

include:

(1) Identify circumstances under

which painted friction surfaces (e.g.,

windows and doors) generate significant

amounts of leaded dust within

dwellings;

(2) Develop a cost effective method for

identifying the likely source(s) of dustlead on surfaces within a dwelling; and

(3) Identify and characterize

situations in which it is preferable to

replace friction-generating components,

such as windows, because of the

continued generation of leaded dust,

and those situations in which it is

preferable to manage these components

in place.

(c) The Effectiveness of Laws

Requiring Periodic Interventions to

Reduce Lead Hazards in Rental Housing

(i) General. The Task Force on LeadBased Paint Hazard Reduction and

Financing was mandated by Title X for

the purpose of providing consensus

recommendations on methods to deal

with the multifaceted problem of lead

hazards in housing. One suggestion for

preventing lead hazards in rental

housing was that property owners

perform ‘‘essential maintenance

practices’’ on pre-1978 properties at

regular intervals. Essential maintenance

practices (EMPs) are relatively

inexpensive actions intended to reduce

the chance that lead hazards will

develop and to prevent the inadvertent

creation of lead hazards. EMPs can be

completed by trained maintenance

workers during the performance of

standard maintenance. EMPs that were

identified by the Task Force include the

use of ‘‘safe work practices’’ when

disturbing LBP, periodic inspection for

and safe repair of deteriorated paint,

providing LBP hazard information to

tenants, and training maintenance staff.

The Task Force also identified

‘‘standard treatments’’ that can be

implemented by property owners for the

purpose of controlling lead hazards in

high priority (e.g., pre-1950) housing.

Standard treatments are routine

interventions that can be performed by

a trained maintenance crew, and

include such practices as repair of

deteriorated paint, creating smooth and

cleanable horizontal surfaces, treating

friction surfaces, preventing exposure to

bare lead-contaminated soil, and

conducting specialized cleaning upon

completion of treatments.

Several states have passed, or are

considering, legislation requiring the

owners of rental property of a given age

to perform specific actions (i.e.,

combinations of EMPs and/or standard

treatments) on their properties at unit

turnover or at a specified frequency.

Vermont passed a law in 1996 (Act 165)

that covers rental properties built before

1978. The law requires property owners

to adopt a number of practices,

including many of the EMPs identified

by the Title X Task Force, such as

periodic inspection and repair of

painted surfaces and the periodic

cleaning of window troughs and sills

using specialized cleaning methods.

Rental property owners or their

representatives are also required to be

trained in the proper application of

EMPs.

In 1994, Maryland passed a law

(House Bill 760) that applies to all

privately owned rental housing built

before 1950, and at the owner’s option,

to rental housing built after 1949. The

law requires risk reduction treatments

or lead dust tests in affected properties

at change of occupancy. The required

treatments include, but are not limited

to, visual review and repair of painted

surfaces, making floors and window

wells smooth and cleanable, and

conducting specialized dust cleaning of

interior surfaces. Instead of conducting

risk reduction treatments, property

owners can opt to show that a lead

hazard does not exist in a property by

subjecting the unit to dust wipe testing.

Property owners who comply with all

aspects of the Maryland law are

shielded from tort liability resulting

from the lead poisoning of a tenant.

The Vermont and Maryland laws do

not require dust-lead testing

immediately following treatment of

units or during the intervening period

between treatments. Research is needed

to assess the degree to which these or

similar laws (e.g., requiring the

implementation of EMPs and/or

standard treatments) succeed in creating

and maintaining lead-safe environments

in the large variety of applicable rental

housing units to which they apply. Any

research on the effectiveness of these or

similar (e.g., local) laws should also

examine important programmatic

factors such as the degree of compliance

with the laws, costs and benefits of the

legislation, public attitudes towards the

laws, etc. The results of this research

will be important in the identification of

specific aspects of the laws (and

implementing programs) that are

effective in reducing the prevalence and

severity of lead hazards in rental

housing, as well as identifying those

aspects that may require modification.

(ii) Specific Research Objectives. The

primary goal of this research is to assess

the effectiveness of current state or local

laws requiring periodic implementation

of essential maintenance practices and/

or standard treatments in achieving and

maintaining lead safe environments in

targeted rental property, such as those

implemented in Maryland and Vermont.

Specific research objectives include:

(1) Identify the variables (e.g., housing

characteristics) that are significant

predictors of the success/failure of the

required treatments in creating lead safe

environments;

(2) Estimate the costs and benefits of

the programs to various stakeholders

(e.g., property owners, tenants, general

public); and

(3) Identify both effective aspects of

the evaluated programs as well as

aspects where modifications are

suggested.

(d) Lead Hazard Risk Assessment of

Multifamily Housing.

(i) General. A lead-based paint hazard

risk assessment is an on-site

investigation of a dwelling for the

purpose of identifying any lead-based

paint hazards. Risk assessments include,

but are not limited to, a visual

assessment and limited environmental

sampling, and creation of a written

report with results and

recommendations. It is also suggested

that a risk assessor, to the extent

feasible, conduct an investigation of the

history and management of a dwelling

and the age of the residents. Chapter 5

of the HUD Guidelines provides

guidance on conducting risk

assessments in single and multifamily

housing. The described approaches for

conducting lead hazard risk assessments

in multifamily housing include methods

that are based on targeted, worst case,

and random sampling.

Targeted sampling involves the

selection of dwellings deemed most

likely to contain LBP hazards. These

units are identified primarily through

information that is supplied by the

owner (i.e., verbally and/or through

written records). Examples of criteria for

selecting units to be sampled include

condition (e.g., select if ‘‘poor’’), the

presence of children under age 6, and

recent preparation for reoccupancy. A

limitation of condition-based targeting

is that most owners have little

knowledge of lead risk assessment, and

may unintentionally fail to identify the
29886 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

units most likely to have LBP hazards.

The Guidelines also provide a minimum

number of units to be sampled in

conducting risk assessments of similar

multifamily units in developments of

various sizes. The values provided were

in part derived from a public housing

risk assessment/insurance program.

The other approaches discussed in the

Guidelines for choosing units to be

assessed, worst case and random

sampling, are suggested for use when

there is not adequate information on

which to select a target sample. They

would be more costly than the targeted

approach in most cases. The worst-case

sampling approach requires an initial

visual inspection of all units with

subsequent selection of those in poorest

condition, while the random sampling

method requires the random selection of

a statistically based sample, as is

required for conducting lead-based

paint inspections. The statistically

based random sample generally requires

the selection of many more units than

targeted sampling.

A focused research effort is needed to

assess the adequacy of the current HUD

guidance for conducting risk

assessments of multifamily

developments. Research efforts could

include the analysis of existing data

from past risk assessments of

multifamily developments (e.g., public

housing) and/or the generation and

analysis of new data generated from the

assessment of a limited number of

multifamily developments. As part of an

evaluation of multifamily risk

assessment guidance, consideration

should be given as to how an assessor

should characterize the results of a

multifamily risk assessment in a manner

that would maximize its utility to the

client. If no lead hazards are identified,

or if a clear pattern in the occurrence of

lead hazards emerges, the reporting of

results is straightforward. Other

findings, however, are more difficult to

characterize, such as the situation in

which some lead hazards are detected

with no apparent pattern of occurrence.

(ii) Specific Research Objectives. The

major objective is to assess the utility of

the current HUD guidance on

conducting lead-based paint hazard risk

assessments in multifamily

developments and to identify changes

that could be made to improve this

guidance. Specific research objectives

include:

(1) Assess the utility of a ‘‘targeted

sampling’’ approach in identifying lead

hazards in multifamily housing in

contrast to other approaches (e.g.,

random sampling); and

(2) Evaluate the current guidance on

the minimum number of units to be

assessed in targeted risk assessments of

multifamily housing.

(e) Other Relevant Research. HUD

will also consider funding applications

for research on topics which, although

not specifically identified in this NOFA,

are relevant under the overall objective

of improving the efficacy and costeffectiveness of methods for the

evaluation and control of lead-based

paint hazards. At this time, the

Department does not have an interest,

however, in funding research on the

development or evaluation of analytical

methods (i.e., standard methods for

processing and analyzing environmental

lead samples) or the development of

commercial products for lead hazard

evaluation and control. All applications

must comply with all requirements,

including sections II. and IV., of this

NOFA.

Other research topics that are of

interest to HUD include, but are not

limited to:

(i) Assessment of the level of worker

protection required for typical lead

hazard abatement and control activities

(i.e., as determined by personal

exposure monitoring) with respect to

evaluations of the type of work,

properties of the work surfaces, training

and experience of workers and

supervisors, etc.

(ii) The degree to which it is

necessary to follow the approach

recommended in the HUD Guidelines

(Chapter 14) for clean-up (e.g., washing

walls and ceilings, use of a HEPA

vacuum and high phosphate detergents)

following the completion of various lead

hazard control interventions.

(3) Future Research Solicitations. If

funding for research to improve the

evaluation and control of residential

lead-based paint hazards is available to

HUD in future fiscal years, HUD will

republish this NOFA and additional

applications will be solicited under a

new competition and applications will

be due 45 days from the publishing

date. Topic areas will include one or

more of the following:

(a) Research on lead exposure from

other sources. This research will focus

on strategies to reduce the risk of lead

exposure from other sources, including:

(i) Exterior soil as a source of lead

contamination;

(ii) Interior lead dust as a source of

lead contamination;

(iii) Lead contamination in carpets;

(iv) Lead contamination in furniture;

and

(v) Lead contamination in forced air

ducts.

(b) Research on lead testing

technologies. This research will focus

on improving evaluation and control

methods and their application,

including:

(i) Developing improved methods for

evaluating lead-based paint hazards in

housing.

(ii) Developing improved methods for

reducing lead-based paint hazards in

housing.

(iii) Developing improved methods for

measuring lead in paint films, dust, and

soil samples.

(iv) Establishing performance

standards for various detection

methods, including spot test kits.

(v) Establishing performance

standards for lead-based paint hazard

reduction methods, including the use of

encapsulants.

(c) Establishing appropriate cleanup

standards.

(d) Evaluating the efficacy of interim

controls in various hazard situations.

(e) Evaluating the relative

performance of various abatement

techniques.

(f) Evaluating the long-term costeffectiveness of interim control and

abatement strategies.

(g) Assessing the effectiveness of

hazard evaluation and reduction

activities funded by Title X.

II. Program Requirements

(A) Threshold Requirements.

(1) Compliance With Fair Housing and

Civil Rights Laws

All applicants must comply with all

applicable Fair Housing and civil rights

laws, statutes, regulations and executive

orders as enumerated in 24 CFR

5.105(a). If an applicant (1) has been

charged with a violation of the Fair

Housing Act by the Secretary; (2) is the

defendant in a Fair Housing Act lawsuit

filed by the Department of Justice; or (3)

has received a letter of noncompliance

findings under Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act, Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act, or Section 109 of the

Housing and Community Development

Act, the applicant is not eligible to

apply for funding under this NOFA

until the applicant resolves such charge,

lawsuit, or letter of findings to the

satisfaction of the Department.

(2) Additional Nondiscrimination

Requirements

Applicants must comply with the

Americans with Disabilities Act, and

Title IX of the Education Amendments

Act of 1972.

(B) Definitions

The following definitions apply to

this grant program:

Abatement—Any set of measures

designed to permanently eliminate lead-
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29887

based paint or lead-based paint hazards.

For the purposes of this definition,

‘‘permanent’’ means at least 20 years

effective life. Abatement includes:

(1) The removal of lead-based paint

and lead-contaminated dust, the

permanent enclosure or encapsulation

of lead-based paint, the replacement of

components or fixtures painted with

lead-based paint, and the removal or

permanent covering of soil; and

(2) All preparation, cleanup, disposal,

and post-abatement clearance testing

activities associated with such

measures.

Cleaning—The process of using a

HEPA vacuum and/or wet cleaning

agents to remove leaded dust; the

process includes the removing of bulk

debris from work area.

Clearance examination—The visual

examination and collection of

environmental samples by an inspector

or risk assessor upon completion of an

abatement project or an interim control

intervention. The clearance examination

is conducted to ensure that lead

exposure levels do not exceed HUDrecommended clearance standards.

These recommended standards will be

superseded by standards that are in the

process of being established by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Administrator pursuant to Title IV of

the Toxic Substances Control Act, or

other appropriate standards.

Encapsulation—The application of

any covering or coating that acts as a

barrier between the lead-based paint

and the environment and that relies for

its durability on adhesion between the

encapsulant and the painted surface,

and on the integrity of the existing

bonds between paint layers, and

between the paint and the substrate.

Friction surface—Any painted interior

or exterior surface, such as a window or

stair tread, subject to abrasion or

friction.

Guidelines for the Evaluation and

Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in

Housing (June 1995)—HUD’s manual of

lead hazard control practices

(commonly referred to as the

Guidelines) which provide detailed,

comprehensive, technical information

on how to identify lead-based paint

hazards in housing and how to control

such hazards safely and efficiently. (The

Guidelines replace the HUD ‘‘LeadBased Paint: Interim Guidelines for

Hazard Identification and Abatement in

Public and Indian Housing.’’)

HEPA Vacuum—(High Efficiency

Particulate Air)—A vacuum cleaner

fitted with a filter capable of removing

particles of 0.3 microns or larger at

99.97 percent or greater efficiency from

the exhaust air stream.

Impact surface—An interior or

exterior surface (such as surfaces on

doors) subject to damage by repeated

impact or contact.

Interim Controls—A set of measures

designed to temporarily reduce human

exposure or possible exposure to leadbased paint hazards. Such measures

include specialized cleaning, repairs,

maintenance, painting, temporary

containment, and management and

resident education programs. Interim

controls include dust removal; paint

film stabilization; treatment of friction

and impact surfaces; installation of soil

coverings, such as grass or sod; and

restricting access to lead-contaminated

soil.

Lead-Based Paint—Any paint,

varnish, shellac, or other coating that

contains lead equal to or greater than 1.0

μg/cm2 as measured by XRF or

laboratory analysis, or 0.5 percent by

weight (5,000 μg/g, 5,000 ppm, or 5,000

mg/kg) as measured by laboratory

analysis. (Local definitions may vary.)

Lead-Based Paint Hazard—Any

condition which causes exposure to

lead from lead-contaminated dust, leadcontaminated soil, lead-based paint that

is deteriorated or present in accessible

surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact

surfaces that would result in adverse

human health effects (as established by

the EPA Administrator under Title IV of

the Toxic Substances Control Act).

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control—

Activities to control and eliminate leadbased hazards, including interim

controls and abatement of lead-based

paint hazards or lead-based paint.

Lead-Contaminated Dust—Surface

dust in residences that contains an area

or mass concentration of lead in excess

of the standard to be established by the

EPA Administrator, pursuant to Title IV

of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Until the EPA standards are established,

the HUD-recommended clearance and

risk assessment standards for leaded

dust are 100 μg/ft2 on floors, 500 μg/ft2

on interior window sills, and 800 μg/ft2

on window troughs (wells), exterior

concrete or other rough surfaces.

Lead-Contaminated Soil—Bare soil on

residential property that contains lead

in excess of the standard established by

the EPA Administrator, pursuant to

Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control

Act. The HUD-recommended standard

and interim EPA guidance is 400 μg/g

for high-contact play areas and 2,000 μg/

g in other bare areas of the yard. Soil

contaminated with lead at levels greater

than or equal to 5,000 μg/g should be

abated by removal or paving.

Lead hazard screen—A means of

determining whether a residence in

relatively good condition should have a

full risk assessment.

Replacement—A strategy of

abatement that entails the removal of

building components coated with leadbased paint (such as windows, doors,

and trim) and the installation of new

components free of lead-based paint.

Residential Dwelling—This term

means either:

(1) A single-family dwelling,

including attached structures, such as

porches and stoops; or

(2) A single-family dwelling unit in a

structure that contains more than one

separate residential dwelling unit and in

which each unit is, or is intended to be

used or occupied, in whole or in part,

as the home or residence of one or more

persons.

Risk Assessment—An on-site

investigation of a residential dwelling to

discover any lead-based paint hazards.

Risk assessments include an

investigation of the age, history,

management, maintenance of the

dwelling, and the number of children

under age 6 and women of child-bearing

age who are residents; a visual

assessment; limited environmental

sampling (i.e., collection of dust wipe

samples, soil samples, and deteriorated

paint samples); and preparation of a

report identifying acceptable abatement

and interim control strategies based on

specific conditions.

Substrate—A surface on which paint,

varnish, or other coating has been

applied or may be applied. Examples of

substrates include wood, plaster, metal,

and drywall.

Title X—The Residential Lead-Based

Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X

of the Housing and Community

Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102–

550).

Window trough—For a typical doublehung window, the portion of the

exterior window sill between the

interior window sill (or stool) and the

frame of the storm window. If there is

no storm window, the window trough is

the area that receives both the upper

and lower window sashes when they are

both lowered. Sometimes (incorrectly)

called the window ‘‘well’’.

Wipe Sampling for Settled LeadContaminated Dust—The collection of

settled dust samples from surfaces to

measure for the presence of lead.

Samples must be analyzed by a

laboratory recognized by the EPA’s

National Lead Laboratory Accreditation

Program (NLLAP).

III. Application Selection Process

(A) Submitting Applications for Grants

To be considered for a research grant

award, an original and two copies of the
29888 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

application must be postmarked on or

before the due date specified at the front

of this NOFA. Electronic (fax or

Internet) transmittal of the application is

not an acceptable transmittal mode.

Applications must conform to the

formatting guidelines specified in the

application kit. The kit specifies the

sections to be included in the

application and provides related

formatting and content guidelines.

The above-stated application deadline

is firm. In the interest of fairness to all

competing applicants, the Department

will treat as ineligible for consideration

any application that is received after the

deadline. Applicants should take this

factor into account and make early

submission of their materials to avoid

any risk of loss of eligibility brought

about by unanticipated delays.

HUD will review each application to

determine whether it meets the

threshold criteria provided in section

II.(A) of this NOFA. Applications that

meet all of the threshold criteria will be

eligible to be scored and ranked, based

on the total number of points allocated

for each of the rating factors described

below in section III.(B). For an

application to remain in consideration

for funding, it must receive a total score

of at least 65 points (out of a total of

100).

HUD intends to make awards to

qualifying applications in the following

order:

STEP 1 An award will be made to

the highest ranked application in each

of the four topic areas listed at sections

I.(F)(1)(a) through (d) of this NOFA,

within the limits of funding availability.

If there are insufficient funds to award

in all topic areas, HUD will make

awards in topics (a) through (d) in rank

order;

STEP 2 If funding remains available,

an award will be made to the highest

rank application in the ‘‘other’’ topic

category listed at section I.(F)(1)(e) of

this NOFA;

STEP 3 If funding remains available,

an award will be made to the second

highest ranked application in each of

the four topic areas listed at sections

I.(F)(1) (a) through (e) of this NOFA in

rank order, within the limits of funding

availability;

STEP 4 If funding remains available,

awards will be made in rank order

regardless of topic area.

Applicants may address more than

one of the research topic areas within

their proposal; however, each topic area

will be rated and ranked separately.

Also, projects need not address all of the

objectives within a given topic area.

While applicants will not be penalized

for not addressing all of the specific

objectives for a given topic area, if two

applications for research in a given

topic have equal scores, HUD will select

the applicant whose project addresses

the most objectives.

HUD encourages applicants to plan

projects that can be completed over a

relatively short time period (e.g., 12 to

18 months from the date of award) so

that any useful information that is

generated from the research can be

available for policy or program

decisions and be disseminated to the

public as quickly as possible.

(B) Rating Factors

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of the

Applicant and Relevant Organizational

Experience (35 Points)

This factor addresses the extent to

which the applicant has the ability and

organizational resources necessary to

successfully implement the proposed

activities in a timely manner. The rating

of the ‘‘applicant’’ will include any subgrantees, consultants, sub-recipients,

and members of consortia which are

firmly committed to the project

(generally, ‘‘subordinate

organizations’’). In rating this factor

HUD will consider the extent to which

the application demonstrates:

(1) The capability and qualifications

of the principal investigator and key

personnel (20 points). Qualifications to

carry out the proposed study as

evidenced by academic background,

relevant publications, and recent

(within the past 10 years), relevant

research experience. Publications and

research experience are considered

relevant if they required the acquisition

and use of knowledge and skills that can

be applied in the planning and

execution of the research that is

proposed under this NOFA.

(2) Past performance of the research

team in managing similar research (15

points). Demonstrated ability to

successfully manage the various aspects

of a complex research study in such

areas as logistics, research personnel

management, data management, quality

control, community research

involvement (if applicable), and report

writing, as well as overall success in

project completion (i.e., on time and

within budget). Applicants should also

demonstrate that the project would have

adequate administrative support,

including clerical and specialized

support in areas such as accounting and

equipment maintenance.

Rating Factor 2: Need/Extent of the

Problem (10 Points)

(1) The applicant must demonstrate

responsiveness to solicitation objectives.

The applicant should explain in detail

the likelihood that the research would

make a significant contribution towards

achieving some or all of HUD’s stated

goals and objectives for one or more of

the topic areas described in sections

I.(F)(2)(a)-(d) of this NOFA.

(b) If the applicant is seeking funding

for ‘‘other’’ research, as is described in

section I.(F)(2)(e), the applicant must

provide an explanation which

demonstrates the importance and need

for the research with respect to

addressing the overall goal of this NOFA

(see section I.(F)(1)).

Rating Factor 3: Soundness of Approach

(45 Points)

This factor addresses the quality of

the applicant’s proposed research plan.

Specific components include the

following:

(1) Soundness of the study design (24

points). The study design must be

thorough and feasible, and reflect the

applicant’s knowledge of the relevant

scientific literature. Applicants should

include a plan for analyzing and

archiving data.

(2) Project management plan (7

points). The proposal should include a

management plan that provides a

schedule for the completion of major

tasks and deliverables, with an

indication that there will be adequate

resources (e.g., personnel, financial) to

successfully meet the proposed

schedule.

(3) Quality assurance mechanisms (10

points). The applicant must describe the

quality assurance mechanisms which

will be integrated into the research

design to ensure the validity and quality

of the results. Areas to be addressed

include acceptance criteria for data

quality, procedures for selection of

samples/sample sites, sample handling,

measurement and analysis, and any

standard/nonstandard quality

assurance/control procedures to be

followed. Refereed documents (e.g.,

government reports, peer-reviewed

academic literature) which provide the

basis for the quality assurance

mechanisms should be cited.

(d) Budget Proposal (4 Points). The

budget proposal should be thorough in

the estimation of all applicable direct

and indirect costs, and should be

presented in a clear and coherent format

(see application kit for required budget

components).

The application will not be rated on

the proposed cost; however, if two

applications for a given topic area have

equal scores, HUD will select the lowest

cost application.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29889

Rating Factor 4: Leveraging Resources (5

Points)

The extent to which the applicant can

demonstrate that the effectiveness of the

HUD research grant funds is being

increased by securing other public and/

or private resources or by structuring

the research in a cost-effective manner,

such as integrating the project into an

existing research effort. Resources may

include funding or in-kind

contributions (such as services, facilities

or equipment) allocated to the

purpose(s) of the research. Staff in-kind

contributions should be given a

monetary value.

Applicants must provide evidence of

leveraging/partnerships by including in

the application letters of firm

commitment, memoranda of

understanding, or agreements to

participate from those entities identified

as partners in the application. Each

letter of commitment, memorandum of

understanding, or agreement to

participate should include the

organization’s name, proposed level of

commitment and responsibilities as they

relate to the proposed program. The

commitment must also be signed by an

official of the organization legally able

to make commitments on behalf of the

organization.

Rating Factor 5: Comprehensiveness and

Coordination (5 Points)

The applicant should describe how

the results of the proposed research

efforts can be applied by HUD or other

programs to support planning, policy

development, and/or public education

in the area of residential lead hazard

control.

(C) Court-Ordered Consideration

Due to an order of the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of Texas,

Dallas Division, with respect to any

application by the City of Dallas, Texas,

for HUD funds, HUD shall consider the

extent to which the strategies or plans

in an application or applications

submitted by the City of Dallas will be

used to eradicate the vestiges of racial

segregation in the Dallas Housing

Authority’s low income housing

programs. The City of Dallas should

address the effect, if any, that vestiges

of racial segregation in Dallas Housing

Authority’s low income housing

programs have on potential participants

in the program covered by this NOFA,

and identify proposed actions for

remedying those vestiges. HUD may add

up to 2 points to the score for any

program based on this consideration.

(This requirement is limited to

applications submitted by the City of

Dallas).

IV. Application Submission

Requirements

(A) Applicant Data

Applications must be submitted in

accordance with the format and

instructions contained in the

application kit. Informal, incomplete, or

unsigned applications will not be

considered. The following is a checklist

of the application contents that will be

included in the application kit:

(1) Completed Forms HUD–2880,

Applicant/Recipient Disclosure/Update

Report; Certification Regarding

Lobbying; and SF–LLL, Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities, where applicable.

(2) Standard Forms SF–424, 424A,

424B, and other certifications and

assurances listed in this NOFA.

(3) A detailed total budget with

supporting cost justification for all

budget categories of the Federal grant

request (see application kit for details).

(4) An abstract containing the

following information: The project title,

the names and affiliations of all

investigators, and a summary of the

objectives, expected results, and study

design described in the proposal. (See

application kit for formatting

instructions.)

(5) A description of the project. This

description must not exceed fifteen (15)

pages for each research topic area,

including visual materials such as

charts and graphs. A completed HUD

Form 441.1 should also be submitted.

(See application kit for format and

required elements.)

(6) Any important attachments,

appendices, references, or other relevant

information may accompany the project

description, but must not exceed ten

(10) pages for the entire application.

(7) The resumes of the principal

investigator and other key personnel.

Resumes should be concise (i.e., no

more than three pages) and limited to

information that is relevant in assessing

the qualifications of key personnel to

conduct and/or manage the proposed

research.

(8) Copy of State Clearing House

Approval Notification (see application

kit to determine if applicable).

(B) Certifications and Assurances

The following certifications and

assurances are to be included in all

applications:

(1) Compliance with all relevant State

and Federal regulations regarding

exposure to and proper disposal of

hazardous materials .

(2) Compliance with relevant Federal

civil rights laws and requirements (24

CFR 5.105(a)).

(3) Compliance with the Age

Discrimination Act of 1975 and section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

(4) Assurance that financial

management system meets the standards

for fund control and accountability (24

CFR 84.21 or 24 CFR 85.20, as

applicable);

(5) Assurance, to the extent possible

and applicable, that any blood lead

testing, blood lead level test results, and

medical referral and follow-up will be

conducted for children under six years

of age according to the

recommendations of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(See Appendix A of this NOFA—

Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young

Children);

(6) Assurance that HUD research grant

funds will not replace existing resources

dedicated to any ongoing project; and

(7) Certification of compliance with

the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 in

accordance with the requirements set

forth at 24 CFR part 24.

(8) Assurance that laboratory analysis

is conducted by a laboratory accredited

through the National Lead Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NLLAP).

(9) Assurance that human research

subjects will be protected from research

risks in conformance with the Common

Rule (Federal Policy for the Protection

of Human Subjects, codified by HUD at

24 CFR part 60).

V. Corrections to Deficient Applications

After the application due date, HUD

may not, consistent with 24 CFR part 4,

subpart B, consider unsolicited

information from an applicant. HUD

may contact an applicant, however, to

clarify an item in the application or to

correct technical deficiencies.

Applicants should note, however, that

HUD may not seek clarification of items

or responses that improve the

substantive quality of the applicant’s

response to any eligibility or selection

criterion. Examples of curable technical

deficiencies include failure to submit

the proper certifications or failure to

submit an application containing an

original signature by an authorized

official. In each case, HUD will notify

the applicant in writing by describing

the clarification or technical deficiency.

HUD will notify applicants by facsimile

or by return receipt requested.

Applicants must submit clarifications or

corrections of technical deficiencies in

accordance with the information

provided by HUD within 14 calendar

days of the date of receipt of the HUD

notification. If the deficiency is not
29890 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

corrected within this time period, HUD

will reject the application as

incomplete.

VI. Findings and Certifications

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

The information collection

requirements contained in this NOFA

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) and assigned

OMB control number 2539–0011. 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.

Environmental Review

This NOFA does not direct, provide

for assistance or loan and mortgage

insurance for, or otherwise govern or

regulate, real property acquisition,

disposition, leasing, rehabilitation,

alteration, demolition, or new

construction, or establish, revise or

provide for standards for construction or

construction materials, manufactured

housing, or occupancy. Accordingly,

under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this NOFA is

excluded from environmental review

under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Federalism Executive Order

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under section 8(a) of

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has

determined that the policies and

procedures contained in this NOFA will

not have substantial direct effects on

States or their political subdivisions, or

the relationship between the Federal

government and the States, or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Under this NOFA,

grants or cooperative agreements will be

made to support research activities

which are anticipated to result in

improvements in methods used to

assess and mitigate residential lead

hazards. Although the Department

encourages States and local

governments to conduct research in

these areas, any such action by a State

or local government is voluntary.

Because action is not mandatory, the

NOFA does not impinge upon the

relationships between the Federal

government and State and local

governments, and the notice is not

subject to review under the Order.

Section 102 of the HUD Reform Act;

Documentation and Public Access

Requirements

Section 102 of the Department of

Housing and Urban Development

Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545)

(HUD Reform Act) and the regulations

codified in 24 CFR part 4, subpart A,

contain a number of provisions that are

designed to ensure greater

accountability and integrity in the

provision of certain types of assistance

administered by HUD. On January 14,

1992 (57 FR 1942), HUD published a

notice that also provides information on

the implementation of section 102. The

documentation, public access, and

disclosure requirements of section 102

apply to assistance awarded under this

NOFA as follows:

(1) Documentation and public access

requirements. HUD will ensure that

documentation and other information

regarding each application submitted

pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to

indicate the basis upon which

assistance was provided or denied. This

material, including any letters of

support, will be made available for

public inspection for a 5-year period

beginning not less than 30 days after the

award of the assistance. Material will be

made available in accordance with the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.

552) and HUD’s implementing

regulations in 24 CFR part 15.

(2) Disclosures. HUD will make

available to the public for 5 years all

applicant disclosure reports (HUD Form

2880) submitted in connection with this

NOFA. Update reports (also Form 2880)

will be made available along with the

applicant disclosure reports, but in no

case for a period less than 3 years. All

reports—both applicant disclosures and

updates—will be made available in

accordance with the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and

HUD’s implementing regulations at 24

CFR part 15.

(3) Publication of Recipients of HUD

Funding. HUD’s regulations at 24 CFR

4.7 provide that HUD will publish a

notice in the Federal Register on at least

a quarterly basis to notify the public of

all decisions made by the Department to

provide:

(i) Assistance subject to section 102(a)

of the HUD Reform Act; or

(ii) Assistance that is provided

through grants or cooperative

agreements on a discretionary (nonformula, non-demand) basis, but that is

not provided on the basis of a

competition.

Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities

Applicants for funding under this

NOFA are subject to the provisions of

section 319 of the Department of Interior

and Related Agencies Appropriation Act

for Fiscal Year 1991, 31 U.S.C. 1352 (the

Byrd Amendment), which prohibits

recipients of Federal contracts, grants,

or loans from using appropriated funds

for lobbying the executive or legislative

branches of the Federal Government in

connection with a specific contract,

grant, or loan. Applicants are required

to certify, using the certification found

at appendix A to 24 CFR part 87, that

they will not, and have not, used

appropriated funds for any prohibited

lobbying activities. In addition,

applicants must disclose, using

Standard Form LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities,’’ any funds, other

than Federally appropriated funds, that

will be or have been used to influence

Federal employees, members of

Congress, and congressional staff

regarding specific grants or contracts.

Tribes and tribally designated housing

entities (TDHEs) established by an

Indian tribe as a result of the exercise of

the tribe’s sovereign power are excluded

from coverage of the Byrd Amendment,

but tribes and TDHEs established under

State law are not excluded from the

statute’s coverage.

Procurement Standards

State and local government grantees

are governed by and should consult 24

CFR 85.36 and 85.37, which implement

OMB Circular A–102 and detail the

procedures for subcontracts and subgrants by States and local governments.

Non-profit organizations are governed

by 24 CFR 84.40–84.48, which

implement OMB Circular A–110. Under

OMB A–102 and A–110, small purchase

procedures can be used for subcontracts

up to $100,000, and require price or rate

quotations from several sources (three is

acceptable); above that threshold, more

formal procedures are required. If States

or local governments have more

restrictive standards for contracts and

grants, the State or local government

standards can be applied. All grantees

should consult and become familiar

with either OMB A–102 or A–110, as

appropriate, before issuing subcontracts

or sub-grants.

Davis-Bacon Act

The Davis-Bacon Act does not apply

to this program. However, if grant funds

are used in conjunction with other

Federal programs in which Davis-Bacon

prevailing wage rates apply, then DavisBacon provisions would apply to the

extent required under the other Federal

programs.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29891

Prohibition Against Advance

Information on Funding Decisions—

Section 103 of the Reform Act

HUD’s regulations implementing

section 103 of the Department of

Housing and Urban Development

Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3537a),

codified in 24 CFR part 4, apply to this

funding competition. The regulations

continue to apply until the

announcement of the selection of

successful applicants. HUD employees

involved in the review of applications

and in the making of funding decisions

are limited by the regulations from

providing advance information to any

person (other than an authorized

employee of HUD) concerning funding

decisions, or from otherwise giving any

applicant an unfair competitive

advantage. Persons who apply for

assistance in this competition should

confine their inquiries to the subject

areas permitted under 24 CFR part 4.

Applicants or employees who have

ethics related questions should contact

the HUD Ethics Law Division at (202)

708–3815. (This is not a toll-free

number.) For HUD employees who have

specific program questions, the

employee should contact the

appropriate field office counsel, or

Headquarters counsel for the program to

which the question pertains.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance number for this program is

14.900.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4854 and 4854a.

Dated: May 20, 1998.

David E. Jacobs,

Director, Office of Lead Hazard Control.

Appendix A—Relevant Publications

and Guidelines

To Secure Any Of The Documents Listed,

Call The Listed Telephone Number (generally

not toll-free).

Regulations

1. Worker Protection: OSHA publication—

Telephone: 1–202–219–4667 (OSHA

Regulations) (available for a charge)—

Government Printing Office—Telephone:

202–512–1800 (not a toll-free number).

—General Industry Lead Standard, 29 CFR

1910.1025; (Document Number

869022001124)

—Lead Exposure in Construction, 29 CFR

1926.62, and appendices A, B, C, and D;

(Document Number 869022001141)

2. Waste Disposal: 40 CFR parts 260–268

(EPA regulations) (available for a charge)—

Telephone 1–800–424–9346, or, from the

Washington, DC, metropolitan area, 1–703–

412–9810 (not a toll-free number).

3. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint

Activities in Target Housing and ChildOccupied Facilities; Final Rule: 40 CFR part

745, subparts L and Q (EPA) (State

Certification and Accreditation Program for

those engaged in lead-based paint

activities)—Telephone: 1–202–554–1404

(Toxic Substances Control Act Hotline) (not

a toll-free number).

4. Requirements for Notification,

Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based

Paint Hazards in Federally Owned

Residential Property and Housing Receiving

Federal Assistance; Proposed Rule: 24 CFR

parts 35, 36 and 37 (HUD)—Telephone: 1–

202–755–1785 (Office of Lead Hazard

Control) (not a toll-free number).

Guidelines

1. Guidelines for the Evaluation and

Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in

Housing; HUD, June 1995 (available for a

charge)—Telephone: 1–800–245–2691:

Post-lead hazard control clearance, no

more than:

100 Micrograms/sq.ft. (Bare and carpeted

floors)

500 Micrograms/sq.ft. (Window sills)

800 Micrograms/sq.ft. (Window troughs

(wells), exterior concrete and other rough

surfaces)

2. Preventing Lead Poisoning In Young

Children; Centers for Disease Control,

October 1991: Telephone: 1–770–488–7330

(not a toll-free number).

3. Screening Young Children for Lead

Poisoning: Guidance for State and Local

Public Health Officials, November 1997;

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC): Telephone: 1–770–488–7330 (not a

toll-free number).

Reports

1. Putting the Pieces Together: Controlling

Lead Hazards in the Nation’s Housing,

(Summary and Full Report); HUD, July 1995

(available for a charge)—Telephone 1–800–

245–2691.

2. Comprehensive and Workable Plan for

the Abatement of Lead-Based Paint in

Privately Owned Housing: Report to

Congress; HUD, December 7, 1990 (available

for a charge)—Telephone 1–800–245–2691.

3. A Field Test of Lead-Based Paint Testing

Technologies: Summary Report (Summary

also available); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, May 1995. EPA 747–R–

95–002a (available at no charge)—Telephone

1–800–424–5323.

4. Urban Soil Lead Abatement

Demonstration Project. EPA Integrated

Report, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, April, 1996. EPA/600/P–93–001AF

(available from National Technical

Information Service (NTIS) for a charge)—

Telephone 1–800–553–6847.

[FR Doc. 98–14364 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–01–P