Fiscal Year 1996 NOFA for Research To Improve the Evaluation and Control of Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazards
Federal RegisterNov 27, 1996
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: This NOFA announces the availability of approximately $2.5
million for grants or cooperative agreements for research on specified
topics related to the evaluation and control of residential lead-based
paint hazards. Approximately 5-10 grants or cooperative agreements of
approximately $100,000 to $750,000 each will be awarded on a
competitive basis. The application kit developed for this NOFA provides
details to guide and assist applicants. This NOFA includes information
concerning the following: (1) The purpose of the NOFA, eligible
applicants, available amounts, and selection criteria; (2) Specified
topics on which research grant applications will be accepted; (3)
Application processing, including how to apply and how selections will
be made; and (4) A checklist of steps and exhibits involved in the
application process. An appendix to the NOFA identifies documents
referenced in the NOFA.
DATES: An original and five copies of the completed application must be
received by HUD no later than 3:00 P.M. (Eastern Time) on February 5,
1997. The application deadline is firm as to date and hour. In the
interest of fairness to all competing applicants, the Department will
treat as ineligible for consideration any application that is received
after this deadline. Applicants should take this factor into account
and make early submission of their materials to avoid loss of
eligibility brought about by unanticipated delays or other delivery-
related problems. Sections 4 and 5 of this NOFA provide further
information on what constitutes proper submission of an application.
ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained from the Office of Lead
Hazard Control (LS), 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, ext. 111 (this is not a toll-free number),
or by making an e-mail request to: Gail__N.__W[email protected] (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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Peter Ashley, Office of Lead
Hazard Control (LS), Room B-133, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20410; telephone (202) 755-1785, ext. 115 (this is not a toll-free
number). For hearing- or speech-impaired persons, the telephone number
may be accessed via TTY (text telephone) by calling the toll-free
Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
Section 1. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
Section 2. Definitions.
Section 3. Purpose and Description.
3.1. Purpose and Authority.
3.2. Background.
3.3. Allocation Amounts.
3.4. Eligible Applicants.
3.5. Goals, Objectives and Specific Research Topics.
3.5.1. Background and Objectives for Specific Research Topic
Areas.
Section 4. Grant Application Process.
4.1. Submitting Applications for Grants.
4.2. Rating Factors.
Section 5. Checklist of Application Submission Requirements.
5.1. Applicant Data.
5.2. Certifications and Assurances.
Section 6. Corrections to Deficient Applications.
Section 7. Findings and Certifications.
Appendix A. Relevant Publications and Guidelines
Section 1. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The information collection requirements contained in this notice
have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520). The OMB control number, when assigned, will be
announced by separate notice in the Federal Register. 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.
Section 2. Definitions
The following definitions apply to this grant program:
Abatement--Any set of measures designed to permanently eliminate
lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. For the purposes of this
definition, permanent means at least 20 years effective life. Abatement
includes:
(a) 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
(b) All preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-abatement
clearance testing activities associated with such measures.
Cleaning--The process of using a High Efficiency Particulate Air
(HEPA) vacuum and/or wet cleaning agents to remove leaded dust. The
process includes the removing of bulk debris from a 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 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 (The Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995))--HUD's manual of lead
hazard control practices which provides 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
[[Page 60501]]
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 mg/cm\2\ as measured by
XRF or laboratory analysis, or 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 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 paint 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 g/ft\2\ on floors, 500 g/ft\2\ on interior
window sills, and 800 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 is 400 g/g for high-contact
play areas and 2,000 g/g in other bare areas of the yard. Soil
contaminated with lead at levels greater than or equal to 5,000
g/g should be abated by removal or paving.
Lead Hazard Screen--A means of determining whether residences in
relatively good condition should have a full risk assessment.
Microgram (g)--The prefix micro- means one-millionth. A
microgram is one millionth of a gram.
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 to determine and report
the existence, nature, severity and location of lead-based paint
hazards in residential dwellings. Risk assessments include: information
gathering regarding the age and history of the housing and occupancy by
children under age 6, visual inspection, limited dust wipe sampling or
other environmental sampling techniques, other activity as may be
appropriate, and provision of a report explaining the results of the
investigation.
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 Paint Hazard Reduction Act of
1992 (Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992,
Pub. L. 102-550, approved October 28, 1992).
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 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 an accredited laboratory.
Section 3. Purpose and Description
Section 3.1. Purpose and Authority
HUD will award, at its discretion, research grants or cooperative
agreements to selected applicants in order to fund research activities
that address critical gaps in the knowledge of residential lead hazard
identification and control. Approximately $2.5 million will be awarded
to fund grants or cooperative agreements of approximately $100,000 to
$750,000 each. These grants are authorized under sections 1051 and 1052
of Title X.
The purposes of this program include:
(a) Funding research on topics identified in sections 1051 and 1052
of Title X.
(b) Funding research that will be used to update the Guidelines and
which is anticipated to:
(1) Increase the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of lead hazard
evaluation; and
(2) Increase the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of lead hazard
reduction.
Section 3.2. Background
Lead is a potent toxicant that targets the central nervous system
and is particularly damaging to the neurological development of young
children. 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 with 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 significantly over the last two decades as a result of
regulatory action and voluntary process changes.
Of all occupied housing units built before Congress banned the use
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. 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 call for the Secretary of
[[Page 60502]]
HUD, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, to conduct research on
specific topics related to the evaluation and subsequent mitigation of
residential lead hazards.
In June 1995, HUD published the Guidelines, which describe state-
of-the-art procedures for all aspects of lead-based paint hazard
evaluation and control (see Appendix A of this NOFA). 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. 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 for a complete citation), 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.
Key research topics which are to be addressed through this NOFA include
the following (each of these topics is discussed in more detail in
section 3.5.1 of this NOFA):
(a) The effectiveness of specialized cleaning methods for lead-
contaminated dust, with an emphasis on the possible identification of
less extensive, but comparably effective, alternatives to procedures
recommended in the Guidelines.
(b) The most appropriate clearance methods to use following various
hazard interventions; efficacy and cost-effectiveness of various
protocols.
(c) The hazard posed by lead-contaminated dust in carpets and rugs,
and cost-effective hazard control interventions.
(d) The hazard posed by lead-contaminated dust in upholstered
furniture, and cost-effective hazard control interventions.
(e) The utility of the lead risk assessment and screening protocols
recommended in the Guidelines.
(f) Significance of lead-contaminated dust in forced air ducts in
childhood lead exposure; appropriate methods for hazard evaluation and
control.
Section 3.3. Allocation Amounts
Approximately $2.5 million will be available to fund research
proposals in FY 1996. Grants or cooperative agreements will be awarded
on a competitive basis following evaluation of all proposals according
to the criteria described in section 4.3 of this NOFA. HUD anticipates
that individual awards will range from approximately $100,000 to
approximately $750,000. 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.
Section 3.4. Eligible Applicants
Academic and not-for-profit institutions located in the U.S., and
State and local governments are eligible to apply for funding under
this NOFA. For-profit firms are also 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.
Section 3.5. Goals, Objectives, and Specific Research Topics
(a) 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.
(b) Specific objectives for the individual research topics listed
in section 3.2 of this NOFA are provided separately in the expanded
discussion of these individual topic areas in section 3.5.1 of this
NOFA. Although HUD is soliciting proposals for research on these
specific topics, HUD will also consider funding applications for
research on topics which, although not specifically listed in section
3.5.1 of this NOFA, 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.
Section 3.5.1. Background and Objectives for Specific Research Topic
Areas
(a) Cleaning of Hard Surfaces. (1) Background. (i) Lead in house
dust has been shown to be a major source of lead exposure for young
children. Based on the understanding that lead-contaminated dust may
not be visible to the naked eye and can be difficult to clean up,
specialized cleaning to remove dust from noncarpeted surfaces is
recognized as an essential element of all lead hazard control projects
(the topics of leaded dust in carpets and upholstery are addressed
separately in this section). The Guidelines recommend a cleaning
procedure that includes a combination of HEPA vacuuming and wet
cleaning with trisodium phosphate (TSP) or another cleaning agent
designed for lead removal, or equivalent. Alternative methods are
considered acceptable provided that they achieve at least the desired
level of cleaning.
(ii) Chapter 14 of the Guidelines describes the specialized
cleaning procedures recommended as a final pre-clearance step following
completion of a lead hazard control project. Chapter 11 of the
Guidelines presents the recommended specialized cleaning procedure to
be employed as an interim control measure to remove lead-contaminated
dust from a dwelling. When lead dust removal is used as an interim
control measure, the Guidelines recommend that horizontal surfaces
(e.g., floors, window sills and window troughs) and dust traps (e.g.,
radiators, registers/vents) be HEPA-vacuumed followed by wet washing
with TSP or another specialized lead cleaner. Following lead hazard
control activities that involve the disturbance of lead-based paint,
the Guidelines recommend a more extensive cleaning process in which all
ceilings, walls, noncarpeted floors and other horizontal surfaces be
cleaned using a three-pass system (HEPA vacuuming, a wet wash, a final
HEPA vacuum).
(iii) The specialized cleaning procedures recommended in the
Guidelines are labor intensive and can contribute significantly to the
total cost of a lead hazard intervention. Because relatively little
research has been conducted on this topic, the recommended procedures
are based primarily on the experience of researchers, the public
housing lead abatement program, and the
[[Page 60503]]
recommendation of the peer review panel assembled for the Guidelines.
The identification of comparably effective but less extensive and
costly cleaning procedures could result in considerable cost savings,
thus removing barriers to the widespread adoption of lead-dust control
measures.
(iv) Anecdotal evidence from lead abatement contractors suggests
that labor costs can be reduced (while still maintaining cleaning
effectiveness) through modifications of the cleaning procedure
recommended by the Guidelines. For example, some contractors have
reported that they do not currently clean ceilings and walls using the
three-pass system (HEPA vacuum/wet wash/HEPA vacuum), yet consistently
meet HUD dust clearance levels. Contractors have also reported that
they meet dust clearance levels by a considerable margin using a two-
pass system of HEPA vacuum followed by a wet wash/rinse.
(v) The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recently reported
the results of a small-scale study which examined the effectiveness of
four different cleaning procedures on hard floors following the
creation of lead paint dust. The results from this limited
investigation showed adequate floor cleaning following a two-pass
procedure consisting of vacuuming with a shop vacuum followed by wet
cleaning and rinsing using a specialized lead cleaner. Success was
affected by the condition of the surface, however. HUD and the EPA
recently sponsored a laboratory study which examined the effectiveness
of various cleaning agents in removing leaded dust from different
surface types. Although peer review of the study was not yet complete
during the writing of this NOFA, preliminary results indicate that
observed differences in post-cleaning dust lead loading among
substrates and surface types did not depend on which cleaner was used.
Common, low phosphate cleaners were equally as effective as TSP in
cleaning efficiency. Low surface tension cleaners were associated with
slightly better cleaning; however, differences among cleaning agents
was small. The study results also suggest that the level of physical
effort may have a greater impact on cleaning effectiveness than does
choice of cleaner. A study of similar design needs to be conducted
under field conditions.
(vi) Another issue that needs to be systematically examined through
controlled studies is the necessity of using a HEPA vacuum to achieve
effective dust removal. In some situations, such as when cleaning is
used as an interim control measure, it may be possible to achieve
adequate dust removal using more readily available vacuum cleaners such
as shop vacuums that are fitted with collection bags that have a higher
capture efficiency than standard bags, thus controlling the emission of
lead particles in the exhaust stream. This could lead to additional
cost savings and further reduce barriers to the widespread adoption of
lead hazard reduction measures.
(vii) It is important to note that cleaning associated with
commercial lead hazard reduction interventions beyond the level of
custodial activities is covered by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA's) lead standard for the construction industry,
which requires that vacuums used in conjunction with construction
activities be equipped with a HEPA filter (see 29 CFR 1926.62(h)(4)).
For activities that do not fall within OSHA's definition of
``construction,'' other vacuums may be used if workers do not
experience elevated exposures and, for work conducted in accordance
with the Guidelines, if compliance with clearance standards is
achieved.
(viii) Factors that need to be specifically addressed in the design
of any research in this topic area include but are not limited to:
The appropriateness for use of a given protocol in
occupied vs. unoccupied dwellings;
The effect of surface type, condition and porosity on
achieving the desired level of cleanup;
The cost and availability of cleaning supplies;
The availability of electrical power in unoccupied homes;
The size of the area to be cleaned;
The presence or absence of adjacent areas that could cause
recontamination; and
Worker exposure to airborne lead particulate.
(2) Research Goals and Objectives. The overall goal is to identify
the procedures for clean up of leaded dust appropriate for use in
various situations (e.g., varying surface types and levels of hazard
reduction intervention, degrees of adhesion of dust, particle size)
that will result in effective dust removal while minimizing time and/or
costs.
Specific research objectives for this topic area include the
following:
(i) Determine whether the current recommendations in the Guidelines
regarding the specific surfaces to be cleaned following lead hazard
reduction interventions are necessary in order to reduce lead exposure
risk to acceptable levels (e.g., as determined by lead dust loading on
accessible surfaces). Of particular interest are data that will clarify
whether, and, if so, when, it is necessary to clean ceiling and/or wall
surfaces following lead-based paint hazard reduction interventions.
(ii) Assess whether the rate of recontamination of ``cleaned
surfaces'' is affected when a room receives only partial cleaning
following a lead hazard reduction intervention.
(iii) Determine when the current recommendations in the Guidelines
regarding the protocols for surface cleaning (i.e., the three-pass
system following hazard reduction interventions, and the two-pass
system for interim dust control) are necessary in order to consistently
achieve desired reductions in lead surface loadings (e.g., as indicated
by comparison with appropriate dust-lead clearance standards). When the
currently recommended protocols are not necessary, determine what
protocols provide sufficient surface cleaning under the various
conditions examined.
(iv) Examine the effectiveness of different cleaning agents,
including TSP and common low phosphate cleaners, when used in the field
on different surface types.
(v) Obtain data on the effectiveness of different vacuum methods in
cleaning dust from various surfaces and in controlling worker exposures
to airborne lead. Of particular interest are the effectiveness and
durability of vacuums that are less expensive and more readily
available than HEPA vacuums, such as household or ``shop vacuums''
fitted with collection bags that have a greater particle capture
efficiency than standard bags.
(b) Clearance Testing. (1) Background. (i) Clearance testing (see
Chapter 15 of the Guidelines) refers to the various environmental
evaluation procedures used to determine if lead hazard control work was
completed as specified and the area is safe for entry by unprotected
workers or reoccupancy by residents.
(ii) The suggested protocol for clearance involves both a visual
inspection to ensure that all work has been completed and that no
visible dust or paint chips remain on cleaned surfaces, and the
collection of environmental samples to ensure that potentially
hazardous levels of lead do not remain in dust and soil. The Guidelines
recommend that wipe samples of settled dust be collected from interior
surfaces (hard floors, window sills, window troughs) and that soil
samples be collected if exterior lead hazard control work was
conducted. They recommend that clearance dust sampling be performed no
sooner than one hour following completion of the
[[Page 60504]]
final cleanup to permit the settling of airborne dust.
(iii) Research is needed to address the question of which surfaces
are the most appropriate to test for dust-lead loading following the
completion of lead hazard reduction activities of varying intensity.
The currently recommended protocol of collecting wipe samples from
floors, window sills, and window troughs may not be the best approach
for all situations. Other issues of interest with respect to clearance
protocols include:
The proper use of visual clearance procedures (e.g., Under
what circumstances would visual clearance alone be sufficient? What
visual clearance inspection procedures and criteria should be used?);
The most cost-effective use of composite sampling during
clearance testing; and
Field validation of the minimum post-cleanup settling time
of one hour that is recommended in the Guidelines.
(iv) Because clearance testing closely follows completion of final
surface cleaning, applicants are encouraged to consider designing a
project that addresses some of the objectives listed below for
clearance testing as well as some of the objectives listed in section
3.5.1(a) of this NOFA (``Cleaning of Hard Surfaces'').
(2) Research Goals and Objectives. The primary goal is to identify
the most cost-effective protocols for clearance testing following the
completion of lead hazard reduction interventions of varying
intensities.
Specific research objectives include the following:
(i) Identify the most appropriate surfaces to test for dust-lead
loading following completion of lead hazard reduction activities of
varying intensities (and subsequent cleanup);
(ii) Determine under what circumstances (e.g., intervention
intensity, project stage) the use of a visual clearance protocol alone
would be sufficient;
(iii) Determine the most cost-effective use of composite sampling
when conducting clearance testing; and
(iv) Conduct field validation of the minimum post-cleanup settling
time of one hour (before clearance samples can be collected) that is
currently recommended in the Guidelines, as well as alternative
settling times.
(c) Lead Hazard Identification and Control for Rugs and Carpets.
(1) Background. (i) Most of the research on the exposure hazard of
lead-contaminated floor dust has involved the sampling of floor dust
from hard surfaces. Studies have shown that rugs and carpets can act as
traps for lead-contaminated dust. However, there is relatively little
information on their significance as sources of lead exposure.
(ii) More information is needed on the impact of leaded dust in
rugs and carpets on the blood-lead (PbB) levels of children. It is also
important that standardized methods be developed to sample dust from
carpets and rugs; ideally, such methods should be relatively easy,
inexpensive, and predictive of lead exposure hazard (i.e., blood lead
level). Finally, more research is also needed on the development of
practical and effective measures for reducing the levels of leaded dust
in rugs and carpeting.
(iii) In the absence of sufficient quantitative data on the hazards
posed by lead in carpets and area rugs, Chapter 5 of the Guidelines
recommends that the lead clearance standard for hard floors (100
g/ft2 with wipe sampling) also be applied to carpeted
floors. Chapter 11 of the Guidelines provides a recommended protocol
for HEPA vacuuming area rugs, carpets, and upholstered furniture as an
interim hazard control measure. The Guidelines further recommend that,
because of the difficulty and cost of cleaning, highly contaminated or
badly worn items be discarded.
(iv) Research is needed to identify cost-effective means of
reducing the amount of leaded dust in rugs and carpets that would be
available to young children. Published studies have reported that
vacuum methods can reduce the amount of total dust in carpets and rugs,
but it is not known whether vacuuming of these surfaces is effective in
reducing the lead exposure of children living in treated homes. Some
research has actually shown that limited vacuuming can result in an
increase in lead loading levels on the carpet surface.
(v) It is likely that the most effective methods for reducing the
amount of leaded dust in rugs and carpets will differ depending on
factors such as the type of carpet material and its physical
characteristics (e.g., carpet pile type and depth), the degree of
contamination, the location of dust within the carpet pile, and degree
of wear.
(vi) The results of several published studies have shown a
statistically significant correlation between surface dust-lead loading
in carpets (as measured by wipe or certain types of vacuum sampling)
and the blood-lead levels of children. Vacuum dust samples from
carpeted and noncarpeted floors within the same home have shown that
carpet dust-lead loadings are generally one to three orders of
magnitude greater than those for hard floors. There are limited data
from wipe sampling, however, indicating lower amounts of available lead
on carpeted vs. noncarpeted surfaces.
(vii) The determination of surface dust-lead loading from carpets/
upholstery, as measured by wipe sampling (or some vacuum protocols),
may be a better estimate of exposure than total dust-lead loading as
determined by vacuum methods which sample dust from below the carpet
surface. This deeply embedded dust may be less available for contact by
a child, but may be an important factor in determining surface dust-
lead loading or rates of surface recontamination following cleaning.
(2) Research Objectives.
Specific research objectives include the following:
(i) Assess the lead exposure risk to children posed by leaded dust
in rugs and carpets and identify important modifying factors (e.g.,
type of material, type and depth of pile, location of dust within the
pile, condition);
(ii) Identify and evaluate a standard protocol for sampling leaded
dust in rugs and carpets, which is practical, relatively inexpensive,
and predictive of actual hazard; and
(iii) Identify the most cost-effective methods for cleaning wall-
to-wall or area rugs and carpets under various conditions. Relevant
factors include, but are not limited to, type of material, depth and
characteristics of pile, location of dust within the pile, and
condition.
(d) Lead Hazard Identification and Control for Upholstery. (1)
Background. (i) As is true for rugs and carpets, upholstered furniture
can also act as a trap for lead-contaminated dust. No significant
published research has been identified on the exposure hazard posed by
leaded dust in upholstered furniture or on the effectiveness of various
hazard reduction interventions.
(ii) Chapter 11 of the Guidelines notes that it may be preferable
to dispose of upholstered furnishings that are known to be highly
contaminated with lead. As an interim dust control measure for
upholstered surfaces, the Guidelines recommend that the surfaces be
HEPA vacuumed with three to five passes over each surface at a total
rate of approximately 5 square feet per minute. Upon completion of
vacuuming, the Guidelines recommend that furniture be covered with a
material that can be easily removed and washed.
(iii) Research is needed to determine the level of exposure to lead
in upholstered furniture and, when necessary, appropriate and effective
means for controlling this hazard. Because of similarities between
research
[[Page 60505]]
on leaded dust in upholstery and in rugs and carpets (See section
3.5.1(c) of this NOFA), applicants are encouraged to consider research
designs that would efficiently address the Department's research goals
and objectives for both topic areas.
(2) Research Objectives.
Specific research objectives for this topic area include the
following:
(i) Assess the lead exposure risk posed by lead-contaminated dust
in upholstery and identify important modifying factors (e.g., type of
furniture, type of upholstery material, condition).
(ii) Identify a standard protocol for sampling leaded dust in
upholstery which is practical, relatively inexpensive, and predictive
of actual exposure.
(iii) Identify the most cost-effective methods for cleaning
upholstery under various conditions. Relevant factors include, but are
not limited to:
Type and construction of furniture;
Type of upholstery material;
Type and depth of pile;
Surface characteristics;
Condition; and
Degree of contamination.
(iv) Evaluate the effectiveness of the protocol for cleaning
upholstered furniture (i.e., HEPA vacuum followed by covering)
recommended in the Guidelines.
(v) Assess the rate of recontamination of upholstery with leaded
dust following cleaning and identify key factors affecting this.
(e) Utility of Lead Risk Assessment and Screening Protocols. (1)
Background. The Guidelines provide suggested protocols for conducting
both risk assessments and lead hazard screens in both single and
multifamily housing. A risk assessment is conducted in order to
determine the presence or absence of lead-based paint hazards and
suggest appropriate hazard control measures. A lead hazard screen
employs a more limited sampling protocol and is intended for dwellings
that are in relatively good condition. These protocols incorporate
expert judgment and the best information available at the time the
Guidelines were written. However, research is needed to validate and
possibly improve upon the suggested protocols.
(2) Research Goals and Objectives. The major goals are to assess
under what conditions HUD's risk assessment and lead hazard screening
protocols are accurate predictors of children's lead exposure and
identify ways to improve the accuracy and increase the cost-
effectiveness of these protocols.
Specific objectives for this research include the following:
(i) Determine whether or not the risk assessment approach outlined
in the Guidelines is actually predictive of children's lead exposure.
If the protocol is a valid assessment of lead exposure risk, it would
be expected that, after accounting for other factors, children living
in ``high risk'' dwellings would, on average, have higher blood-lead
levels than those living in ``low risk'' dwellings.
(ii) Assess the utility of the ``lead hazard screen protocol'' set
forth in the Guidelines. Determine under what conditions the suggested
protocol, when used for both single and multifamily housing, is cost-
effective and adequate in identifying dwellings that need a more
thorough assessment without prompting an excessive number of
unnecessary risk assessments.
(iii) Determine whether or not the number and type (e.g., dust
sample locations) of environmental samples called for in the protocols
under study is appropriate and cost-effective for both single and
multifamily housing. Determine whether and, if so, under what
conditions, the number and/or type of environmental samples can be
reduced. Identify the most appropriate uses of ``sample compositing''
in order to maximize the amount and value of information obtained while
minimizing costs.
(iv) Validate the ``paint film quality'' classification system
presented in Chapter 5 (Risk Assessment) of the Guidelines. Specific
points of interest include a determination of whether or not lead
surface loadings are highest in dwellings containing paint classified
as being in ``poor'' condition, and an evaluation of the
appropriateness of the guidance regarding the extent (surface area) of
deteriorated lead-based paint that determines the assignment of a
surface or dwelling to a paint condition category (i.e., intact, fair,
poor).
(v) Obtain and evaluate data on the contribution of leaded dust
from friction and impact surfaces (particularly window and door
components) to childhood lead exposure. These surfaces are defined as
``lead based paint hazards'' by Title X. However, relatively little
research has been conducted on the significance of these surfaces as
contributors to the overall dust lead loading of a dwelling or to
childhood lead exposure.
(f) Lead-Contaminated Dust in Forced Air Ducts. (1) Background.
(i) Although some investigators have reported relatively high lead
concentrations and loadings on the interior surfaces of forced air
ducts, little is known regarding the significance of this dust in
contributing to childhood lead exposure. The degree to which this dust
is mobile, and thus able to migrate into the living area of a
residence, is likely the major factor in determining its significance
as a lead exposure source. The mobility of dust in air ducts may be
determined by a number of factors, including but not limited to:
Particle size distribution;
Chemical composition of the dust;
The degree of dust-to-surface adhesion;
Surface characteristics of the duct material; and
The velocity of air movement within the duct.
(ii) Further research is needed to identify the most cost-effective
protocol for cleaning dust from forced air ducts, and whether or not
such cleaning and routine sampling are needed. Specific factors of
interest include the rate of recontamination of duct surfaces following
cleaning and precautions to prevent the contamination of living space
during air duct cleaning.
(2) Research Goals and Objectives. The major goal is to determine
the significance of leaded dust in forced air ducts with respect to
childhood lead exposure and, if applicable, identify safe, effective
protocols for cleaning leaded dust from surfaces of forced air ducts.
Section 4. Grant Application Process
Section 4.1 Submitting Applications for Grants
(a) Information on NOFA application submission requirements,
including deadline dates, is provided in the DATES section of the
preamble to this NOFA. Information on where application kits may be
obtained is provided in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble to this
NOFA.
(b) 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.
(c) HUD will review each application to determine whether the
applicant is eligible in accordance with section 3.4 of this NOFA
(Eligible Applicants). 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 in
section 4.2 of this NOFA.
(d) HUD intends to fund the highest ranked applications within
topic areas and within the limits of funding availability. However, HUD
may grant one or more awards, or no awards, for
[[Page 60506]]
research in a given topic area, depending on the quality of
applications received. Applicants may address more than one of the
research topic areas within their proposal. Also, projects need not
address all of the objectives within a given topic area.
(e) HUD encourages applicants to plan projects that can be
completed over a relatively short time period (e.g., 12 to 24 months
from the date of award) so that any useful information that is
generated from the research can be disseminated to the public as
quickly as possible.
Section 4.2 Rating Factors
Applicants will be scored according to the following factors:
(a) Competence of the Research Team (40 points). Major subfactors
include the following:
(1) The capability and qualifications of the principal investigator
and key personnel (20 Points). Qualifications to design and carry out
the proposed study as evidenced by academic background, relevant
publications, and recent, relevant research experience that has
produced useful results or findings.
(2) Past performance of the research team in managing similar
research (20 Points). Applicants should demonstrate that the project
would have adequate administrative support, including clerical and
specialized support in areas such as bookkeeping, accounting and
equipment maintenance. Applicants must also demonstrate ability to
successfully manage the various aspects of a complex research study in
the following areas: logistics, research personnel management, data
management, quality control, community research involvement (if
applicable), report writing, and overall success in completing projects
on time and within budget.
(c) Quality of the Research Proposal (60 points). Major subfactors
include the following:
(1) Soundness of the study design (30 Points). The extent to which
the study design is thorough and feasible, and displays a thorough
knowledge of the relevant scientific literature. Applicants should
include an appropriate plan for managing, analyzing, and archiving
data.
(2) Adequacy of the Project Management Plan (10 Points). The
proposal should include an adequate management plan that provides a
reasonable 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) Adequacy of quality assurance mechanisms (10 Points). Quality
assurance mechanisms must be well integrated into the study design in
order to ensure the validity and quality of the results. Areas to be
addressed include:
(i) Acceptance criteria for data quality;
(ii) Procedures for selection of samples/sample sites;
(iii) Sample handling;
(iv) Measurement and analysis; and
(v) Any standard/nonstandard quality assurance/control procedures
to be followed.
(4) Responsiveness to solicitation objectives (10 Points). 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 section 3.5.1 of this NOFA.
(c) Cost (No Points). The cost of the proposed project, while
secondary, will be considered in addition to the factors stated above
to determine the proposal most advantageous to the Government. Cost
will be the deciding factor when proposals ranked under the above
factors are considered acceptable and are substantially equal.
Section 5. Checklist of Application Submission Requirements
Section 5.1 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 specified in the
application kit:
(a) Completed Forms HUD-2880, Applicant/Recipient Disclosure/Update
Report, and SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, where applicable
(See section 7, Findings and Certifications, of this NOFA).
(b) Standard Forms SF-424, 424A, 424B, and other certifications and
assurances listed in section 5.2 of this NOFA.
(c) A detailed total budget with supporting cost justification for
all budget categories of the Federal grant request (see application kit
for details).
(d) An abstract containing the following information (See
application kit for formatting instructions):
(1) The project title;
(2) The names and affiliations of all investigators; and
(3) A summary of the study objectives, study design, total
estimated cost, and the significance of the expected results.
(e) A description of the project. This description must not exceed
fifteen (15) pages per topic area (see section 3.5 of this NOFA) (e.g.,
an applicant whose project addresses two topic areas is limited to a 30
page description), including visual materials such as charts and
graphs. (See application kit for format and required elements.)
(f) Any important attachments, appendices, references, or other
relevant information may accompany the project description, but must
not exceed fifteen (15) pages.
(g) The biographical sketches of the principal investigator and
other key personnel. These should be concise and limited to information
that is relevant in assessing the qualifications of key personnel to
conduct and/or manage the proposed research.
(h) Copy of State Clearing House Approval Notification (see
application kit to determine if applicable).
Section 5.2 Certifications and Assurances
The following certifications and assurances are to be included in
all applications:
(a) Compliance with all relevant State and Federal regulations
regarding exposure to and proper disposal of hazardous materials.
(b) Compliance with relevant Federal civil rights laws and
requirements (24 CFR 5.105(a)).
(c) Assurance that the financial management system meets the
standards for fund control and accountability (24 CFR 84.21 or 24 CFR
85.20, as applicable).
(d) Assurance, to the extent possible and applicable, that any
blood lead testing, blood lead level test results, and medical referral
and updating 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, October, 1991.)
(e) Assurance that HUD research grant funds will not replace
existing resources dedicated to any ongoing project.
(f) The application shall contain any other assurances that HUD
includes in the application kit under this NOFA, including
certification of compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 in
accordance with the requirements set forth at 24 CFR part 24.
Section 6. Corrections to Deficient Applications
(a) Shortly after the expiration of the NOFA submission deadline
date, HUD will notify applicants in writing of any technical
deficiencies in the applications. A technical deficiency is
[[Page 60507]]
an item that is not necessary for HUD to evaluate for the purpose of
scoring an application. Examples include omitted certifications or
illegible signatures.
(b) The applicant may submit corrections, which must be received at
the Office of Lead Hazard Control within 21 calendar days from the date
of HUD's letter notifying the applicant of any minor deficiencies.
Electronic or fax transmittal is not an acceptable transmittal mode.
(c) Corrections to technical deficiencies will be accepted within
the 21-day time limit. Applicants who do not make timely response to a
request for deficiency corrections shall be removed from further
consideration for an award.
(d) Applicants shall be permitted to correct only technical
deficiencies. Deficiencies determined by HUD to be substantive (i.e.,
those that would affect the scoring of an application) may not be
corrected.
Section 7. Findings and Certifications
Environmental Review. A Finding of No Significant Impact with
respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD
regulations in 24 CFR part 50, which implements section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The
Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection
during regular business hours in the Office of the General Counsel,
Rules Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410.
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, this 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.
Family Executive Order. The General Counsel, as the Designated
Official under Executive Order 12606, The Family, has determined that
this document will likely have a beneficial impact on family formation,
maintenance and general well-being. This NOFA, insofar as it funds
research on improved methods for the evaluation and control of
residential lead hazards, will assist in preserving decent housing
stock for low-income resident families. Accordingly, since the impact
on the family is beneficial, no further review is considered necessary.
Section 102 of the HUD Reform Act--Documentation and Public Access
Requirements--Applicant/Recipient Disclosures
(a) 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 five-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 at 24 CFR part 15. In addition, HUD will include the
recipients of assistance pursuant to this NOFA in its Federal Register
notice of all recipients of HUD assistance awarded on a competitive
basis. (See 24 CFR part 4 for further information on these
documentation and public access requirements.)
(b) Disclosures. HUD will make available to the public for five
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 three 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. (See 24 CFR part 4 for further
information on these disclosure requirements.)
Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities. The use of funds awarded
under this NOFA is subject to the disclosure requirements and
prohibitions of section 319 of the Department of Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) (The
``Byrd Amendment'') and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 87.
These authorities prohibit 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. The prohibition also covers the
awarding of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or loans unless
the recipient has made an acceptable certification regarding lobbying.
Under 24 CFR part 87, applicants, recipients, and subrecipients of
assistance exceeding $100,000 must certify that no Federal funds have
been or will be spent on lobbying activities in connection with the
assistance. Indian Housing Authorities established by an Indian Tribe
as a result of the exercise of their sovereign power are excluded from
coverage, but IHAs established under state law are not excluded from
coverage.
Procurement Standards. State and local government grantees are
governed by and should consult 24 CFR part 85, which implements OMB
Circular A-102 and details the procedures for subcontracts and sub-
grants by States and local governments. Non-profit organizations are
governed by 24 CFR part 84, which implements 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.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Number. The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Number for this program is 14.900.
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.
Section 103 of the HUD Reform Act. HUD's regulation implementing
section 103 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform
Act of 1989, codified as 24 CFR part 4, applies to the funding
competition announced today. The requirements of the rule continue to
[[Page 60508]]
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 part 4 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 Office of Ethics (202) 708-3815. (This is not a toll-
free number.) For HUD employees who have specific program questions,
such as whether particular subject matter can be discussed with persons
outside HUD, the employee should contact the appropriate Field Office
Counsel, or Headquarters counsel for the program to which the question
pertains.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4854 and 4854a.
Dated: October 18, 1996.
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: 202-219-4667
OSHA Regulations (available for a charge)--Government Printing
Office--Telephone: 202-512-1800
--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; published 58 FR 26590 (May 4, 1993). (Document Number
869022001141)
2. Waste Disposal: 40 CFR parts 260-268 (EPA regulations)--
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; Proposed
Rule: 40 CFR Part 745 (EPA) (State Certification and Accreditation
Program for those engaged in lead-based paint activities), published
on August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45778). Also available on the Internet
World Wide Web (http://www.hud.gov/lea/leahome.html).
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), published on June 7, 1996 (61 FR 29170). Also
available on the Internet World Wide Web (http://www.hud.gov/lea/
leahome.html).
Guidelines
1. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint
Hazards in Housing; HUD, June 1995 (available for a charge)--
Telephone: 800-245-2691, or on the Internet World Wide Web (http://
www.hud.gov/lea/leahome.html).
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: 770-488-7330.
Reports
1. Putting the Pieces Together: Controlling Lead Hazards in the
Nation's Housing, HUD, (Summary and Full Report), July 1995,
(available for a charge)--Telephone 800-245-2691, or on the Internet
World Wide Web (http://www.hud.gov/lea/leahome.html).
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 800-245-2691.
3. A Field Test of Lead-Based Paint Testing Technologies:
Technical Report (Summary also available). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 1995, EPA 747-R-95-002b. (available at no
charge)--Telephone 800-424-5323.
[FR Doc. 96-30296 Filed 11-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.