[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29882-29891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14364]



[[Page 29881]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part XI





Department of Housing and Urban Development





_______________________________________________________________________



Notice of Funding Availability for Research to Improve the Evaluation 
and Control of Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazards; Notice

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

[[Page 29882]]



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: Gail__N.__W<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb8a998fab839e8fc58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afceddcbefc7dacb81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a> (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 cost-effectiveness of lead hazard 
evaluation, and
    (b) Increase the efficacy and cost-effectiveness 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 paint-lead 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

[[Page 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, non-intact 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 
lead-based 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 dust-wipe 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 
lead-based 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 Lead-Based 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. Non-profits 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 cost-effectiveness of methods 
used for lead-based 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 lead-based 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

[[Page 29884]]

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 soil-lead 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 soil-lead 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, cost-effective 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 Lead-Based 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 
lead-based 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 lead-based 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 <greek-m>g 
Pb/ft\2\ 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

[[Page 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 dust-lead 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 Lead-Based 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

[[Page 29886]]

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 cost-effectiveness 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 cost-effectiveness 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-

[[Page 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 HUD-recommended 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 ``Lead-Based 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 lead-based 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 <greek-m>g/cm\2\ as 
measured by XRF or laboratory analysis, or 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 
<greek-m>g/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, lead-contaminated 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 lead-based 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 <greek-m>g/ft\2\ on floors, 500 <greek-m>g/ft\2\ on interior 
window sills, and 800 <greek-m>g/ft\2\ 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 
<greek-m>g/g for high-contact play areas and 2,000 <greek-m>g/g in 
other bare areas of the yard. Soil contaminated with lead at levels 
greater than or equal to 5,000 <greek-m>g/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 lead-based 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 double-hung 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 Lead-Contaminated 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

[[Page 29888]]

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 sub-grantees, 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 29890]]

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 (non-formula, 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 sub-grants 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 Davis-Bacon 
provisions would apply to the extent required under the other Federal 
programs.

[[Page 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 Child-Occupied 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>