Allocating Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes Grant Funding Using a Formula Approach; Request for Information, 75559-75562 [2024-21002]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75559-75562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21002]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-6487-N-01]


Allocating Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes Grant Funding 
Using a Formula Approach; Request for Information

AGENCY: Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: Through this request for information (RFI), HUD seeks public 
input regarding the development of program components for a formula 
grant program to allocate funding for HUD's Lead Hazard Reduction and 
Healthy Homes grant programs. Currently, these grant programs are 
statutorily required to make funding awards on a competitive basis; 
however, HUD has requested Congressional approval to award a portion of 
grant funds to eligible jurisdictions using a formula rather than using 
the competitive, and procedurally more complex, process for these 
jurisdictions to apply for grants. HUD believes that a formula grant 
program may allow more efficient distribution of funding to highest 
need communities, streamline the selection and award of grants, and 
help maximize funding utilization.

DATES: Comment Due Date: November 15, 2024. Late-filed comments will be 
considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments responsive 
to this RFI. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All 
submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
    1. Electronic Submission of Comments. Comments may be submitted 
electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit 
comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the 
commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely 
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make comments immediately available 
to the public. Comments submitted electronically through 
www.regulations.gov can be viewed by other commenters and interested 
members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions 
provided on that website to submit comments electronically.
    2. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by 
mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, 
Washington, DC 20410-0500.
    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted 
comments and communications will be available for public inspection and 
copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time weekdays at the above 
address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, you 
must schedule an appointment in advance to review the public comments 
by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a 
toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from 
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals 
with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to 
make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs. Copies of all 
comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at 
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Han, Office of Lead Hazard 
Control and Healthy Homes, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
451 7th Street SW, Room 8236, Washington, DC 20410-3000, telephone 202-
402-7698 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared 
to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as 
well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn 
more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit 
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The purpose of HUD's Lead Hazard Reduction grant programs is to 
maximize the number of children under the age of six protected from 
lead poisoning by assisting certain States and Tribes,\1\ as well as 
cities, counties/parishes, and other units of local government in 
undertaking comprehensive programs to identify and control lead-based 
paint hazards \2\ in eligible privately-owned rental or owner-occupied 
housing populations. Operating since 1993, these programs award grants 
on a competitive basis as required by statute.\3\ Under the Residential 
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, commonly referred to as 
title X,\4\ States and units of local government are eligible for these 
grant programs if they have an approved comprehensive housing 
affordability strategy. States and Tribes must also be authorized by 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to administer the 
certification program for lead abatement professionals and contractors 
to conduct such work within their jurisdiction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ States and federally recognized Native American Tribes must 
have an Environmental Protection Agency- (EPA-) authorized lead 
abatement certification program to receive funding through HUD's 
Lead Hazard Reduction grant program.
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 4851b, for which ``appropriate Federal agency'' 
is, per 15 U.S.C. 2683, the EPA, which issues its regulation 
operationalizing the statutory definition at 40 CFR 745.65.
    \3\ See 42 U.S.C. 4852.
    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 4822 et seq., 4851 et seq.
    \5\ As noted in fn. 1, EPA allows federally recognized Tribes to 
be authorized to administer lead abatement certification programs. 
For additional information, see the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing 
and Child-Occupied Facilities, section IX.F (Treatment of Tribes as 
a State), 61 FR 45778, 45805 (Aug. 29, 1996). Because title X, sec. 
1011(n) (Relationship to other law) requires that States have lead 
abatement certification program authorization from EPA to be awarded 
a Lead Hazard Reduction grant, HUD also treats Tribes as a State for 
this purpose and requires that they have such authorization to be 
awarded such a grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Lead Hazard Reduction grant programs, HUD makes available 
Healthy Homes Supplemental funding that is intended to enhance the 
lead-based paint hazard control activities by comprehensively 
identifying and addressing other housing-related hazards that affect 
occupants' health in homes where lead hazard reduction work is being 
conducted under the grant programs. The Healthy Homes Supplements are 
authorized under section 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban 
Development Act of 1970.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 and 1701z-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Funding for these Lead Hazard Reduction grant programs is provided 
in annual appropriations to HUD, specifically to its Office of Lead 
Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH). As of the publication of 
this RFI, the two most recent fiscal years' appropriations were:
     The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.\7\ The OLHCHH's 
appropriation is within division L, title II, of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Public Law 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459, 5167-68 (Dec. 29, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024.\8\ The OLHCHH's

[[Page 75560]]

appropriation is within division F, title II, of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Public Law 118-42, 138 Stat. 7, 370-372 (Mar. 29, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As authorized by the cited Appropriations Acts, HUD publishes 
notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs) for the Lead Hazard Reduction 
grant programs and awards grants competitively based on applications 
submitted in response to the NOFOs. HUD publishes its NOFOs on the 
Grants.gov website of the Department of Health and Human Services.\9\ 
HUD posted its fiscal year (FY) 2023 and FY 2024 Lead Hazard Reduction 
NOFOs on June 14, 2023, and June 21, 2024, respectively.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See https://www.grants.gov/. The grants.gov website is 
designed to enable Federal grant-making agencies to create funding 
opportunities and applicants to find and apply for these Federal 
grants.
    \10\ See https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/341222; 
https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/355076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its FY 2025 budget proposal, HUD requested Congressional 
approval to award a portion of allotted Lead Hazard Reduction Grants, 
and all of the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration Grants, by formula 
grants instead of the traditional competitive grants, together with 
proportional Healthy Homes Supplemental funding.\11\ If Congress 
approves HUD's budget request for FY 2025 or in a subsequent year, a 
new formula grant program design would reduce the procedural complexity 
placed on jurisdictions to apply for grants, streamline the process for 
HUD to select jurisdictions to receive these formula grants, allow more 
efficient distribution of funding to communities facing the most 
substantial lead paint hazard problems, and help maximize funding 
utilization when complemented by a portion of the funds being used for 
competitive grants. Federal financial assistance for these grants will 
still be conditioned upon HUD receiving Certifications and Assurances 
of nondiscrimination. The requirements to fulfill this requirement will 
be in the notice announcing funding if this grant change is 
implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Described in HUD's budget Congressional justification, 
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2025_CJ_Program_-_Lead_Hazard_Reduction_v2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Purpose of This Request for Information

    A major HUD operational goal for the Lead Hazard Reduction grant 
programs is to expedite resources into communities to create homes free 
of lead-based paint hazards for at-risk families, especially their 
children, by funding lead hazard reduction activities--whether 
permanent or not.\12\ In addition, the programs' grant awards may be 
accompanied by Healthy Homes Supplements to mitigate other housing-
related health hazards. To accomplish this goal and continue HUD's 
efforts to reduce barriers to access grant funding, improve the 
customer experience for Lead Hazard Reduction grant applicants and 
grantees, and actively solicit input of program grantees and 
beneficiaries, HUD is soliciting comment through this RFI regarding the 
development of a potential new grant program that would make Lead 
Hazard Reduction grant awards using formula grants rather than the 
competitive grants initiated through NOFOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For HUD's general lead-based paint definitions for all 
programs, see 24 CFR 35.110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD invites public input relating to the determination of a 
grantee's funding allocation by a formula and the specific criteria or 
objective measures that HUD should consider using in a formula. This 
determination of an appropriate funding allocation is critical because 
the funding amount for each recipient under a formula grant would be 
calculated based on these specific criteria or objective measures or 
other factors. HUD is aware of several published models that identify 
U.S. lead exposure risk based on lead indices and invites the public to 
provide input where these models should be used in the development of a 
possible, future formula grant program. HUD also invites public input 
related to the appropriate parameters for a possible, future formula 
grant program, including length of period of performance, 
jurisdictional level eligible recipients (e.g., city, county, State, 
Tribe), and frequency of recipient funding.
    HUD emphasizes that it is not currently authorized to offer formula 
grants for the Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes grant programs 
and this RFI does not announce any new grant programs, formula-based or 
otherwise. Instead, HUD is issuing this RFI to seek public feedback 
regarding the potential use of a formula grant program for the Lead 
Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes programs should Congress grant HUD 
the authority to allot a portion of funding through the use of a 
formula grant.

III. Specific Information Requested

    While HUD welcomes all public comments relevant to improving the 
Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes grant programs, HUD is 
particularly interested in receiving input on the questions listed 
below. To assist commenters, HUD provides the following guidance and 
list of specific information requested.
    Please indicate in your written comments the area of interest and 
the topic number(s) you are commenting on and provide specific 
information to illustrate your comments where possible. You do not need 
to address every topic, and you should focus on those topics where you 
have relevant expertise, experience, or data. To the extent possible, 
please cite any public data, peer-reviewed journal articles, and other 
publicly accessible information that relate to and supports your 
responses. If information or data is available but is non-public, 
describe the information or data to the extent permissible, noting that 
it is non-public.
    The Fair Housing Act requires HUD and its recipients to 
affirmatively further fair housing by proactively taking meaningful 
actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing 
choice, eliminate disparities in opportunities, and foster inclusive 
communities free from discrimination. In addition, all HUD programs 
have an obligation to advance racial equity and eliminate racial 
disparities under Executive Orders 13985 and 14091. Please consider 
this in addressing any of the questions below; you may provide feedback 
and evidence on ways that proposed criteria or policies may advance or 
frustrate these requirements.
    HUD thanks submitters in advance for their information and 
comments.

1. Funding Criteria

    a. Using available data, what criteria should be included in a 
formula for funding?
    There are several HUD programs that use a formula allocation 
approach to funding, including the HOME Investment Partnerships Program 
(HOME) and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
    For HOME, HUD determines the funding allocation for each 
participating jurisdiction using several objective measures. These 
measures include vacancy-adjusted rental units where the household head 
is at or below the poverty level; occupied rental units with at least 
one of four problems (overcrowding, incomplete kitchen facilities, 
incomplete plumbing, or high rent costs); rental units built before 
1950 and occupied by poor households; rental units with problems, as 
described above, multiplied by the ratio of the cost of producing 
housing for a jurisdiction divided by the national cost; number of 
families at or below the poverty level;

[[Page 75561]]

and population of a jurisdiction multiplied by a net per capita 
income.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For additional information on the HOME formula allocation, 
see 24 CFR 92.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the CDBG Program, HUD determines the amount of each entitlement 
grantee's funding allocation using several objective measures. These 
measures include demographic values of population; the extent of 
poverty; housing overcrowding; and age of housing (excluding this data 
for any Indian Tribes located within the grantee's 
jurisdiction(s)).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For additional information on the CDBG allocation of funds, 
see 24 CFR 570.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD is not considering using either the HOME or CDBG Program 
formulas for a possible, future formula grant to allocate funding for 
HUD's Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes grant programs. Instead, 
HUD is seeking information from the public on which specific measures 
it should consider in developing a formula grant, such as rates of 
elevated blood lead levels in children; related housing, economic, and 
demographic factors more relevant for making homes lead-safe and 
healthy; and ways in which HUD should consider such measures.
    b. There are available data models that have been used to identify 
well-defined geographic areas with greater risk of exposure to lead 
based paint. Should HUD use any of these models for a funding formula?
    There is no national database that covers each State and local 
jurisdiction for determining and comparing the rates of elevated blood 
lead levels in children under age 6. The Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC) maintains a National Surveillance Data table 
website \15\ with State-level blood lead test data covering 34 States 
plus the District of Columbia (DC) and New York City.\16\ For each of 
these jurisdictions, the data covers some or all years from 2012 
through 2018. CDC also maintains a Childhood Lead State Surveillance 
Data website with county-level data from up to 33 States plus DC.\17\ 
For each of these jurisdictions, the data covers some or all years from 
2013 through 2017. The websites indicate that the data come from States 
(and certain other jurisdictions) funded by CDC for childhood lead 
poisoning prevention and surveillance, plus data provided voluntarily. 
CDC processes and validates data submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Available at https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/php/data/national-surveillance-data.html.
    \16\ For the table with data in spreadsheet format, see https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/media/files/cbls-national-data-table-sheet.xlsx.
    \17\ See https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/php/data/state-surveillance-data.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD is interested in how the CDC-maintained data and data in any 
other sources of nationally scoped, geographically specific blood lead 
data on children under age 6 can be used in a possible future formula 
grant. HUD is particularly interested in public comments on how to 
handle data gaps. For example, the 2023 Lead Hazard Reduction NOFO 
states, in rating applications, that ``[i]f no data are shown for the 
state, use the most recent national percentage (for 2018), 3.0% of 
tested children < six (6) years with BLL >= 3.5 [micro]g/dL.'' For a 
formula grant program, is this an appropriate approach (with, for 
example, possible updating of the percentage if sufficient data from 
year(s) more recent than 2018 are available), or is there an improved 
approach for addressing available State-level or county-level data 
covering most States or most counties?
    In addition, HUD is aware that there have been several risk models 
developed to identify U.S. lead exposure that include measures such as 
housing age and sociodemographic data.\18\ Therefore, HUD is interested 
in whether any of these risk models should be used, whether as is or 
with modification, how such risk models could be used as the basis for 
funding allocation, and whether their use is more advantageous than 
developing a different formula that uses several objective measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Zartarian V, Poulakos A, Helms Garrison V, Spalt 
N, Tornero-Velez R, Xue J, Egan K, and Courtney J, Lead Data Mapping 
to Prioritize US Locations for Whole-of-Government Exposure 
Prevention Efforts: State of the Science, Federal Collaborations, 
and Remaining Challenges, American Journal of Public Health 112, no. 
S7 (September 1, 2022): pp. S658-S669, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307051, and references to models therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Because criteria can be applied to certain States and Tribes, 
and to counties, and cities (and comparable jurisdictions at each 
level), but grants should be non-duplicative, what approaches should be 
used to filter selection recommendations so that lower-rated 
jurisdictions within higher-rated jurisdictions are not also awarded 
grants for the same target area where lead hazard reduction work is to 
be done?
    HUD's Lead Hazard Reduction grants are open to ``[a] State or unit 
of local government that has [a HUD-] approved comprehensive housing 
affordability strategy . . . .'' \19\ The strategy is now part of a 
HUD-approved consolidated plan.\20\ To avoid duplicate grants to a 
particular target area, the target area for a county grant is for the 
areas not covered by the higher-rated cities within it (e.g., the 
target area is the suburbs of any higher-rated cities within), and 
similarly, the target area for a State grant is for areas other than 
the higher rated cities and counties within (somewhat analogous to the 
concept of non-entitlement areas under State Community Development 
Block Grant Programs vs. entitlement communities under Community 
Development Block Grant Programs \21\). HUD is interested in public 
comments regarding approaches for these types of filtering of the 
ratings of the various jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 42 U.S.C. 4852(b).
    \20\ See 42 U.S.C. 12705(g)(1), 24 CFR 570.3 ``Consolidated 
plan'', and, therefrom, sections. 91.5, 91.200, 91.300.
    \21\ For example, compare 24 CFR part 570, subpart I with 24 CFR 
part 570, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. In addition to the criteria included in a formula for funding, 
should there be other considerations for the award of formula grants?

    a. High performing competitively awarded grants.
    HUD has approximately 199 Lead Hazard Reduction grantees holding 
approximately 212 grants. These grants were all awarded based on merit 
through a competitive process, using NOFOs as described above. In the 
past, HUD used a process where high performing Lead Hazard Reduction 
grantees could be ``renewed'' based on their performance; however, 
these subsequent awards were not automatic and were awarded 
competitively based on available funding and other conditions that had 
to be met by the applicant jurisdiction. HUD is interested in comments 
regarding whether a category for formula award should include current 
high performing grantees, whether awarded competitively or by formula, 
and, if so, what considerations should be used for renewing such 
grants.
    b. Sequencing of awards to previously awarded formula-funded 
grants.
    HUD has found that grantees, in the year following their award of a 
renewed Lead Hazard Reduction grant, tended to devote more attention to 
the earlier grant because it had passed the startup phase and was 
producing lead safe and healthy housing units. This added attention to 
earlier grants resulted in renewal grants tending to move more slowly 
through startup than grantees had committed to doing in their 
applications. In addition, some of the earlier grants tended not to 
produce lead safe units at the expected rate because the grantee's 
attention was divided

[[Page 75562]]

between multiple grants. Given this tendency, HUD has been requiring a 
waiting period of 1 to 3 years before a Lead Hazard Reduction grantee 
is eligible for another Lead Hazard Reduction grant. For example, in 
its FY 2021 NOFO, HUD specified that if a jurisdiction received Lead 
Hazard Reduction grant funding in 2019 or 2020, it was not eligible to 
apply under the program; \22\ and HUD specified in the FY 2024 NOFO 
that a jurisdiction that received Lead Hazard Reduction grant funding 
in 2023 was not eligible to apply under the program.\23\ HUD is 
interested in feedback on whether a waiting period of two years is 
appropriate for a potential Lead Hazard Reduction formula grant or 
whether some other waiting period would be appropriate for maximizing 
the production of lead safe and healthy housing units by individual 
formula grantees and the program overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Available at https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/333884.
    \23\ Available at https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/355076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Effect of poor performance under a previous grant on the award 
of a new formula grant.
    HUD grant award requirements incorporate the Office of Management 
and Budget's (OMB) grant regulations, particularly its Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements 
for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200. In particular, OMB's provisions 
relating to the award of grants \24\ state that the pre-Federal award 
requirements and contents of Federal awards \25\ apply to Federal grant 
agreements--such as the Lead Hazard Reduction grants with their Healthy 
Homes Supplements. Among those requirements is the Federal awarding 
agency review of risk posed by applicants. Awarding agencies, including 
HUD, must have a framework for evaluating the risks posed by applicants 
before they receive Federal awards.\26\ HUD may decide that the risks 
posed by a particular jurisdiction are so high that the Department will 
not make an award to the jurisdiction, or HUD may apply special 
conditions to the grant that correspond to the degree of risk assessed. 
Among the factors that may be used in this risk evaluation is the 
jurisdiction's history of performance in managing Federal awards.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See the table in 2 CFR 200.101(b)(2).
    \25\ 2 CFR part 200, subpart C.
    \26\ 2 CFR 200.206.
    \27\ 2 CFR 200.206(b)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under title X, HUD has a national perspective on the effective use 
of Lead Hazard Reduction grant funds to eliminate lead-based paint 
hazards in housing as expeditiously as possible.\28\ HUD is interested 
in learning the public's views on how the poor performance of a prior-
year Lead Hazard Reduction grantee (whether its grant is awarded 
competitively or by formula) should affect HUD's evaluation of the risk 
of awarding that grantee a formula grant. For example, HUD seeks 
suggestions regarding when not to award a grant to a previously poor 
performing grantee and, instead, award the funds to the jurisdiction 
with the next-highest need, and when and what special conditions to 
apply to a previously poor performing grantee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 42 U.S.C. 4851a(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Regarding award amounts, should a Lead Hazard Reduction formula 
grant program have smaller awards to geographically disperse the 
funding, or should larger grant amounts be awarded which would 
concentrate funding in certain highest-risk communities but reduce the 
number of jurisdictions receiving funds?

    Title X identifies several purposes for the Lead Hazard Reduction 
program,\29\ including to develop a national strategy to build the 
infrastructure necessary to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all 
housing as expeditiously as possible and to reorient the national 
approach to the presence of lead-based paint in housing to implement, 
on a priority basis, a broad program to evaluate and reduce lead-based 
paint hazards in the Nation's housing stock. In implementing title X, 
HUD has awarded Lead Hazard Reduction grants across the U.S. to large 
and small jurisdictions, both rural and urban.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 42 U.S.C. 4851a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a formula grant program is authorized, HUD intends to continue 
the approach regarding jurisdictions' size and urbanicity; however, HUD 
is interested in receiving feedback from the public on whether HUD's 
formula grant resources should focus on addressing lead-based paint 
hazards in as many as possible high-risk locations across the U.S or 
focus on areas of highest potential lead exposure risk to have a 
greater effect on communities at highest risk, or in a balance between 
the two (and what the balancing criteria should be).

4. What should be the period of performance duration for a formula 
grant?

    HUD's FY 2023 and FY 2024 Lead Hazard Reduction grant programs each 
have specified 48-month periods of performance. Previous grantee 
periods of performance have been 36 months and 42 months. Historically, 
HUD has varied the periods of performance based predominately on the 
maximum award amount in a particular NOFO, with higher grant amounts 
necessitating longer periods of performance. HUD seeks public input on 
appropriate grant durations for a formula-based Lead Hazard Reduction 
grant.

Matthew Ammon,
Director, Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes.
[FR Doc. 2024-21002 Filed 9-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P