[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60500-60508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30296]



[[Page 60499]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part X





Department of Housing and Urban Development





_______________________________________________________________________



Fiscal Year 1996 NOFA for Research to Improve the Evaluation and 
Control of Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazards; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 27, 1996 / 
Notices  

[[Page 60500]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4118-N-01]


Fiscal Year 1996 NOFA for Research To Improve the Evaluation and 
Control of Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazards

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary--Office of Lead Hazard Control, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of funding availability (NOFA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 
1996.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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