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

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[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. 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 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 g/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 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 and interim EPA guidance 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 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