Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Extramural Research

Funding Opportunities

Site Navigation
Research Grant Announcements
NCER Listserv
Grantee Research Project Results

Extramural Research Search

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program


Methodological Advances in Benefit Transfer Methods

This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.

Funding Opportunity Numbers: EPA-G2006-STAR-G-1

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509

Solicitation Opening Date: February 9, 2006
Solicitation Closing Date: May 16, 2006, 4:00 pm Eastern Time

Eligibility Contact: Tom Barnwell: 202-343-9862; email: (barnwell.thomas@epa.gov)
Electronic Submissions: Bronda Harrison: 202-564-1790; email: (harrison.bronda@epa.gov)
Technical Contact: Will Wheeler: Phone: 202-343-9828; email: (wheeler.william@epa.gov)

Table of Contents:
Synopsis of Program
Award Information
Eligibility Information
Application Materials
Contact Person(s)
Authorities and Regulations
Specific Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
Special Requirements
Eligible Applicants
Cost Sharing
Internet Address to Request Application Package
Content and Form of Application Submission
Submission Dates and Times
Funding Restrictions
Other Submission Requirements
Review and Selection Process
Award Notices
Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Access Standard STAR Forms (http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms/)
View research awarded under previous solicitations (http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/archive/grants/)


Synopsis of Program
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, is seeking applications proposing research designed to identify and reduce uncertainties and potential biases associated with benefit transfer methods.

Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Award: Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 5 awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $1 million total for all awards
Potential Funding per Grant: Up to $125,000/year with a duration of 1 or 1.5 years and no more than a total of $200,000 per award, including direct and indirect costs. Cost-sharing is not required. Proposals with budgets exceeding the total award limits will not be considered.

Eligibility Information:
Institutions of higher education and not-for-profit institutions located in the U.S., and tribal, state and local governments, are eligible to apply. See full announcement for more details.

Application Materials:
You may submit either a paper application or an electronic application (but not both) for this announcement. The necessary forms for submitting a STAR application will be found on the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) web site, http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms/. To apply electronically, you must use the application package available at https://apply.grants.gov/forms_apps_idx.html exit EPA (see "Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications" in Section IV). If your organization is not currently registered with grants.gov, you need to allow approximately one week to complete the registration process to apply electronically. This registration, and electronic submission of your application, must be performed by an appropriate representative of your organization.

Contact Persons:
Eligibility Contact: Tom Barnwell: 202-343-9862; email: (barnwell.thomas@epa.gov)
Electronic Submissions: Bronda Harrison: 202-564-1790; email: (harrison.bronda@epa.gov)
Technical Contact: Will Wheeler: Phone: 202-343-9828; email: (wheeler.william@epa.gov)


Public decisions on further environmental protection often depend on benefit-cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, natural resource damage assessment, or related economic assessments. The need for such analyses is growing and applies to agencies at all levels of government and to private entities. As the need for analysis grows, time and cost considerations usually preclude collecting new data and using a primary valuation method to estimate human health and ecological benefits for economic analyses. Policymakers usually rely on benefit transfer methods instead (Smith et al. 2002, Lovell et al. 2004). Benefit transfer methods apply values or functions estimated in previous study cases to new policy cases (see Boyle and Bergstrom 1992, and accompanying papers, for a description of benefit transfer methods). However, many evaluations of the accuracy of benefit transfer methods have been critical (see Bergstrom and DeCivita 1999, Brouwer 2000, and Rosenberger and Loomis for overviews). These evaluations have identified problems with aggregation, differences in goods between the policy and study cases, out-of-sample extrapolation, violations of utility theory, and a lack of values that correspond to the marginal changes of policy interest (e.g., Bergstrom and De Civita 1999, Delavan and Epp 2001, Smith and Pattanayak 2002, Smith et al. 2002, Office of Management and Budget 2003). (Specific evaluations of policy-relevant benefit transfers are contained in EPA Science Advisory Board reports 2000, 2001, and 2005.) Thus, EPA is interested in proposals for research designed to identify and reduce uncertainties and potential biases associated with benefit transfer methods.

The lack of economic values for the human health and ecological benefits influenced by environmental causes hampers the ability of analysts to conduct accurate benefit-cost analysis for environmental policymaking. EPA is interested in economic valuation research that will enhance the ability of public and private stakeholders to evaluate policies and actions using benefit transfer methods. EPA has been supporting valuation-related grants for some time. Information regarding current and completed research can be found on the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ncer/.

Economic valuation is a high priority in EPA's Environmental Economics Research Strategy (EERS) (U.S. EPA 2005). However, the magnitude of the needs for specific health and ecological values covering the breadth of environmental policy analysis is quite large. Because this need must be met primarily with benefit transfer methods, an emphasis in the EERS is the improvement of benefit transfer methods (see also U.S. EPA 2003). EPA's Science Advisory Board (2004) supports this emphasis.

Environmental economists focused on benefit transfer methodologies in the early 1990's culminating in an Association of Environmental and Resource Economists workshop (U.S. EPA 1993) and special issue of Water Resources Research (Boyle and Bergtrom 1992 is part of that issue). However, key research has still not been completed and significant research gaps exist. New research results would fill a critical need for analysts to conduct accurate benefit transfers or at least identify the range of uncertainty associated with transfers. Furthermore, improved benefit transfer methods would allow easier application in economic analyses of existing (and ongoing) valuation studies. Benefit transfer methods are part of economic modeling and may add influential information to environmental decision making in the public and private sector.

The specific Strategic Goal, Objective and Sub-objective from EPA’s Strategic Plan that relate to this solicitation include:

Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship, Objective 5.4: Enhance Science and Research, Sub-objective 5.4.2: Conducting Research

This is the primary goal. This solicitation also supports the Cross-Goal Strategy: Economic and Policy Analysis. The EPA's Strategic Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf.

Authorities and Regulations
The authority for this RFA and resulting awards is contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1, the Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 10, 15 U.S.C. 2609, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Section 20, 7 U.S.C. 136r, the Clean Air Act, Section 103, 42 U.S.C. 7403, the Clean Water Act, Section 104, 33 U.S.C., and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Section 8001, 42 U.S.C. 6901

Specific Research Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
The Agency is soliciting research that proposes to identify and reduce uncertainties and potential biases associated with benefit transfer methods. Proposals can improve existing methods or develop new methods. This RFA solicits proposals that would address one or more of the following three key gaps:

  1. Evaluating benefit transfer methods in cases similar to typical situations faced by policy analysts, who often must transfer average values to a large number of sites using spatially-aggregated data (e.g., Letson et al. 1998 and U.S. EPA 2001). Most evaluations of benefit transfer have transferred functions from one or a few sites to one or a few other sites based on site-specific information (e.g., Delevan and Epp 2001, VandenBerg et al. 2001, Morrison et al. 2002) so the uncertainty and bias of benefit transfer in the "typical" situation is unknown.
  2. Addressing the complexities of applying benefit transfer techniques in policy-relevant contexts where baseline conditions, uncertainty about changes in risk, small marginal risk changes, and/or non-use values are important considerations.
  3. Examining whether it is possible to use information contained in indicators or indices of ecological or human health states as the basis for transferring benefit estimates from one endpoint to another or from one group of individuals to another. (This could include symptoms or functional limitations in the case of human health or ecosystem indicators in the case of ecological benefits.) For example, Johnson et al. (1997) is an initial step in this direction for human health.

The scope of research proposals investigating benefit transfer issues can include any health or ecological benefits associated with environmental policymaking. Furthermore, in recent years economists have added a number of techniques to their study of benefit transfer, including the use of meta-analysis conducted to summarize and synthesize valuation research (e.g. Rosenberger and Loomis 2000, Smith and Pattanayak 2002), Bayesian analysis (e.g. Leon et al. 2002), preference calibration/structural benefit transfer (e.g., Smith et al. 2002), and rough set analysis (e.g., van den Bergh et al. 1997). These techniques (and any others applicable to benefit transfer methods) are within the scope of this solicitation.

The outputs of the proposed projects are descriptions of the benefit transfer methods, their applications, reviews of uncertainty in the applications, and experiences in using the methods. These items should appear in reports, presentations, and peer-reviewed journal publications as well as in publicly-available knowledge-bases accessible through the internet. The desired outcomes of the proposed projects are research results to provide improved methods for benefit transfer and economic valuation that will, in turn, lead to better analysis and decision-making.


Bergstrom, John C., and Paul De Civita. 1999. “Status of Benefits Transfer in the United States and Canada: A Review.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 47: 79-87.

Boyle, Kevin J., and John C. Bergstom. 1992. “Benefit Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism, and Idealism.” Water Resources Research28: 657-663.

Brouwer, Roy. 2000. “Environmental Value Transfer: State of the Art and Future Prospects.” Ecological Economics 32: 137-152.

Delavan, Willard, and Donald J. Epp. 2001. “Benefits Transfer: The Case of Nitrate Contamination in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Maine.” In The Economic Value of Water Quality. John C. Begstrom, Kevin J. Boyle, and Gregory L. Poe (eds.), Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 121-136.

Leon, C.J., F.J. Vazquez-Polo, N. Guerra, and P. Riera. 2002. “A Bayesian Model for Benefit Transfer: Application to National Parks in Spain.” Applied Economics 34: 749-757.

Letson, David, Noel Gollehon, Vincent Breneman, Catherine Kascak, and Carlyle Mose. 1998. “Confined Animal Production and Groundwater Protection.” Review of Agricultural Economics 20: 348-364.

Lovell, Sabrina, Steve Newbold, Nicole Owens, and TJ Wyatt. 2004. “How Academic Economics Can Improve Benefit Transfers at EPA.” AERE Newsletter 24, no. 2 (November): 25-28.

Morrison, Mark, Jeff Bennett, Russell Blamey, and Jordan Louviere. 2002. “Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84: 161-170.

Rosenberger, Randall S. and John B. Loomis. 2000. “Using Meta-Analysis for Benefit Transfer: In-Sample Convergent Validity Tests of an Outdoor Recreation Database.” Water Resources Research 36, no. 4: 1097-1107.

Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4 “Regulatory Analysis.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf)

Smith, V. Kerry, and Subhrendu K. Pattanayak. 2002. “Is Meta-Analysis a Noah’s Ark for Non-Market Valuation?” Environmental and Resource Economics22: 271-296.

Smith, V. Kerry, George Van Houtven, and Subhrendu K. Pattanayak. 2002. ABenefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: “Prudential Algebra’ for Policy.” Land Economics78: 132-152.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Benefit Transfer: Procedures, Problems, and Research Needs. EPA 230-R-93-018. (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwRepNumLookup/EE-0078?OpenDocument)

U.S. EPA. 2003. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. SAB Review Draft. September 30, 2003. (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/SABReview.html)

U.S. EPA. 2005. Environmental Economics Research Strategy. EPA/600/R-04/195. http://www.epa.gov/research/htm/documents/econresearch.pdf)

U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board (SAB). 2000. An SAB Report on EPA’s White Paper Valuing the Beneftis of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction. EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013. (http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/eeacf013.pdf)

U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board (SAB). 2001. Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis: An SAB Review. EPA-SAB-EC-01-008. (http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ec01008.pdf)

U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board (SAB). 2004. Review of the Environmental Economics Research Strategy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-040007. (http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sab_04007.pdf)

U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board (SAB). 2005. Advisory on Superfund Benefits Analysis. Draft. (http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sba_11-28-05_draft_advisory.pdf)

Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., K.J. Button, P. Nijkamp, and G.C. Pepping. 1997. Meta-Analysis in Environmental Economics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

VandenBerg, Timothy P., Gregory L. Poe, and John R. Powell. 2001. “Assessing the Accuracy of Benefits Transfers: Evidence from a Multi-Site Contingent Valuation Study of Ground Water Quality.” In The Economic Value of Water Quality. John C. Begstrom, Kevin J. Boyle, and Gregory L. Poe (eds.), Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 100-120.

Special Requirements
Agency policy prevents EPA scientists and engineers from providing individual applicants with information that would provide them with an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, EPA scientists and engineers will not review, comment, advise, or provide technical assistance to applicants preparing applications in response to EPA RFAs, or discuss in any manner how the Agency will apply the published evaluation criteria for this competition.

Groups of two or more eligible applicants may choose to form a consortium and submit a single application for this assistance agreement. The application must identify which organization will be the recipient of the assistance agreement and which organizations(s) will be subawardees of the recipient.

If an applicant is proposing to conduct a survey, the application must contain a justification for the size of the proposed sample for both the overall project and all subsamples for specific treatments or tests. This justification should be based on appropriate statistical techniques (e.g., an evaluation of statistical power). This information will be used in the review process; see V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION, below.

The application must include a plan (see "Data Plan" in section IV.E.) to make available to the public all data generated from observations, analyses, or model development (primary data) and any secondary (or existing) data used under a grant awarded from this RFA. The data must be available in a format and with documentation such that they may be used by others in the scientific community.

These awards may involve the collection of "Geospatial Information," which include information that identifies the geographic location and characteristics of natural or constructed features or boundaries on the Earth or applications, tools, and hardware associated with the generation, maintenance, or distribution of such information. This information may be derived from, among other things, Geographic Positioning System (GPS), remote sensing, mapping, charting, and surveying technologies, or statistical data.


It is anticipated that a total of approximately $1 million will be awarded under this announcement, depending on the availability of funds. The EPA anticipates funding approximately 5 grants under this RFA. The projected award per grant is $100,000 to $125,000 per year total costs, for up to 1.5 years. Requests for amounts in excess of a total of $200,000, including direct and indirect costs, will not be considered. The total project period for an application submitted in response to this RFA may not exceed 1.5 years. The EPA reserves the right to reject all applications and make no awards under this RFA. The EPA reserves the right to make additional awards under this RFA without further competition if additional funding becomes available. Any additional selections for awards will be made no later than 4 months after the original selection decisions.

EPA will either fund grants or cooperative agreements under this RFA. Agency scientists and engineers will not be substantially involved in grants receiving EPA funding. However, EPA encourages interaction between its own scientists and grant Principal Investigators after the award of an EPA grant for the sole purpose of exchanging information in research areas of common interest that may add value to their respective research activities. This interaction must be incidental to achieving the goals of the research under a grant. Interaction that is "incidental" does not involve resource commitments.

Where appropriate, based on consideration of the nature of the proposed project relative to the EPA's intramural research program and available resources, the EPA will fund cooperative agreements under this announcement. When addressing a research question/problem of common interest, collaborations between scientists and grant principal investigators are permitted under a cooperative agreement. These collaborations may include data and information exchange, providing technical input to experimental design and theoretical development, coordinating extramural research with in-house activities, the refinement of valuation endpoints, and joint authorship of journal articles on these activities. Proposals should not identify EPA cooperators or interactions; specific interactions between EPA's investigators and those of the prospective recipient for cooperative agreements will be negotiated at the time of award.


Eligible Applicants
Institutions of higher education and not-for-profit institutions located in the U.S., and tribal, state and local governments, are eligible to apply. Universities and educational institutions must be subject to OMB Circular A-21. Profit-making firms are not eligible to receive grants from the EPA under this program.

Eligible nonprofit organizations include any organizations that meet the definition of nonprofit in OMB Circular A-122. However, nonprofit organizations described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that lobby are not eligible to apply.

National laboratories funded by Federal Agencies (Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers, "FFRDCs") may not apply. FFRDC employees may cooperate or collaborate with eligible applicants within the limits imposed by applicable legislation and regulations. They may participate in planning, conducting, and analyzing the research directed by the applicant, but may not direct projects on behalf of the applicant organization. The institution, organization, or governance receiving the award may provide funds through its grant from the EPA to an FFRDC for research personnel, supplies, equipment, and other expenses directly related to the research. However, salaries for permanent FFRDC employees may not be provided through this mechanism.

Federal Agencies may not apply. Federal employees are not eligible to serve in a principal leadership role on a grant, and may not receive salaries or augment their Agency's appropriations in other ways through grants made by this program.

The applicant institution may enter into an agreement with a Federal Agency to purchase or utilize unique supplies or services unavailable in the private sector. Examples are purchase of satellite data, census data tapes, chemical reference standards, analyses, or use of instrumentation or other facilities not available elsewhere. A written justification for federal involvement must be included in the application. In addition, an appropriate form of assurance that documents the commitment, such as a letter of intent from the Federal Agency involved, should be included.

Potential applicants who are uncertain of their eligibility should contact Tom Barnwell in NCER, phone 202-343-9862, email: (barnwell.thomas@epa.gov).

Institutional cost-sharing is not required.

Applications must substantially comply with the application submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement or they will be rejected. In addition, where a page limit is expressed in Section IV with respect to parts of the application, pages in excess of the page limitation will not be reviewed. Applications must be received by the EPA or through www.grants.gov on or before the solicitation closing date published in Section IV of this announcement. Applications received after the published closing date will be returned to the sender without further consideration. Also, applications exceeding the funding limits described herein will be returned without review. Applications that fail to demonstrate a public purpose of support or stimulation, e.g., proposing a project which primarily benefits a Federal program or provides a service for a Federal agency, will not be funded.


You may submit either a paper application or an electronic application (but not both) for this announcement. Instructions for both forms of submission follow.

Internet Address to Request Application Package
For paper applications, forms and instructions can be found on the NCER web site: http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms/.

For electronic applications, use the application package available at https://apply.grants.gov/forms_apps_idx.html exit EPA (see “Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications”).

For both paper and electronic applications, an email will be sent by NCER to the Principal Investigator and the Administrative Contact (see below) to acknowledge receipt of the application and transmit other important information. The email will be sent from receipt.application@epa.gov; email to this address will not be accepted. If you do not receive an email acknowledgment within 30 days of the submission closing date, immediately contact the Technical Contact listed under "Agency Contacts" in this solicitation. Failure to do so may result in your application not being reviewed. See “Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications” for additional information regarding acknowledgment of receipt of electronically submitted applications. Please note: Due to often lengthy delays in delivery, it is especially important that you monitor NCER’s confirmation of receipt of your application when using regular mail.

Content and Form of Application Submission
The application is made by submitting the materials described below. It is essential that the application contain all information requested and be submitted in the formats described.

  1. Standard Form 424
  2. The applicant must complete form SF424. This form will be the first page of the application. Instructions for completion of the SF424 are included with the form. The form must contain the original (or electronic) signature of an authorized representative of the applying institution. Please note that both the Principal Investigator and an administrative contact must be identified in Item 5 of the SF424.

    Applicants are required to provide a “Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System” (DUNS) number in Item 5 when applying for federal grants or cooperative agreements. Organizations may receive a DUNS number by calling 1-866-705-5711 or by visiting the web site at http://www.dnb.com exit EPA.

    Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to most EPA programs and assistance agreements, unless the program or assistance agreement supports tribal, training/fellowships (other than Wastewater and Small Water Systems Operator training programs), and research and development (with some exceptions). Item 16 of the SF424 refers to this requirement. Selection of research proposals is limited to those administered by EPA’s Office of Research and Development which: (a) require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); or (b) do not require an EIS but will be newly initiated at a particular site and require unusual measures to limit the possibility of adverse exposure or hazard to the general public; or (c) have a unique geographic focus and are directly relevant to the governmental responsibilities of a State or local government within that geographic area. Otherwise, national research programs are exempt from review. Applicants should consult http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html exit EPA to determine whether their state participates in this process and how to comply.

  3. Key Contacts
  4. The applicant must complete the “Key Contacts” form as the second page of the application; the Key Contacts continuation page is also available http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms. The Key Contacts form should also be completed for major sub-agreements (i.e., contacts at the institutions for primary co-investigators). Please make certain that all contact information is accurate.

  5. Table of Contents
  6. Provide a list of the major subdivisions of the application indicating the page number on which each section begins. (A Table of Contents is not required for electronic submissions.)

  7. Abstract (1 page)
  8. The abstract is a very important document in the review process. Therefore, it is critical that the abstract accurately describes the research being proposed and conveys all the essential elements of the research. Also, the abstracts of applications that receive funding will be posted on the NCER web site.

    The abstract should include the information indicated in the example format and described below (1-8). Examples of abstracts for current grants may be found on the NCER web site.

    1. Research Category and Funding Opportunity Number: The appropriate research areas and associated numbers for this RFA are:
      • EPA-G2006-STAR-G-1
    2. Title: Use the exact title of your project as it appears in the application. The title must be brief yet represent the major thrust of the project. Because the title will be used by those not familiar with the project, strike a balance between highly technical words and phrases and more commonly understood terminology. Do not use general phrases such as “research on”.
    3. Investigators: List the Principal Investigator, then the names and affiliations of each co-investigator who will significantly contribute to the project. Provide a web site URL or an email contact address for additional information.
    4. Institution: In the same order as the list of investigators, list the name, city and state of each participating university or other applicant institution. The institution applying for assistance must be clearly identified.
    5. Project Period: Show the proposed project beginning and ending dates.
    6. Project Cost: Show the total dollars requested from the EPA (include direct and indirect costs for all grant years).
    7. Project Summary: Provide three subsections addressing: (a) the objectives of the study (including any hypotheses that will be tested), (b) the experimental approach to be used (a description of the project proposed), and (c) the expected results of the project and how it addresses the research needs identified in the solicitation, including the estimated improvement in risk assessment or risk management that will result from successful completion of the proposed work.
    8. Supplemental Keywords: Without duplicating terms already used in the text of the abstract, list keywords to assist database searchers in finding your research. A list of suggested keywords can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms.

  9. Research Plan and Quality Assurance Statement
  10. Research Plan (15 pages)

    Applications should focus on a limited number of research objectives that adequately and clearly demonstrate that they meet the RFA requirements. Explicitly state the main hypotheses that you will investigate, the data you will create or use, the analytical tools you will use to investigate these hypotheses or analyze these data, and the results you expect to achieve. Research methods must be clearly stated so that reviewers can evaluate the appropriateness of your approach and the tools you intend to use. A statement such as: “we will evaluate the data using the usual statistical methods” is not specific enough for peer reviewers.

    This description must not exceed fifteen (15) consecutively numbered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins. While these guidelines establish the minimum type size requirements, applicants are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in the proposal.

    The description must provide the following information:

    1. Objectives: List the objectives of the proposed research and the hypotheses being tested during the project, and briefly state why the intended research is important. This section should also include any background or introductory information that would help explain the objectives of the study. If this application is to continue research supported by an existing or former grant awarded under the STAR program, indicate the number of the grant and provide a brief report of progress and results achieved under that grant (one to two pages recommended).
    2. Approach/Activities: Outline the research design, methods, and techniques that you intend to use in meeting the objectives stated above (five to ten pages recommended).
    3. Expected Results, Benefits, Outputs, and Outcomes: Describe the results you expect to achieve during the project (outputs) and the benefits of the results (outcomes). This section should also discuss how the research results will lead to solutions to environmental problems and improve the public's ability to protect the environment and human health. A clear, concise description will help NCER understand the merits of the research (one to two pages recommended).
    4. General Project Information: Discuss other information relevant to the potential success of the project. This should include facilities, personnel expertise/experience, project schedules, proposed management, interactions with other institutions, etc. Applications for multi-investigator projects must identify project management and the functions of each investigator in each team and describe plans to communicate and share data (one to two pages recommended).
    5. Important Attachments: References cited are in addition to the 15-page Research Plan limit. Appendices may be included but must remain within the 15-page limit.

    Quality Assurance Statement (2 pages in addition to the 15-page research plan)

    For any project involving data collection or processing, conducting surveys, environmental measurements, modeling, or the development of environmental technology (whether hardware-based or via new techniques), provide a Statement on processes that will be used to assure that results of the research satisfy the intended project objectives. The EPA is particularly interested in the quality controls for data generation and acquisition, and how data validation and usability will be verified. The statement must describe a system that complies with ANSI/ASQC E4, Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs, and must not exceed two consecutively numbered, 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins.

    For each item below either present the required information, reference the specific location of the information in the Research Plan, or provide a justification of why the item does not apply to the proposed research.

    1. Identify the individual who will be responsible for the quality assurance and quality control aspects of the research. [Quality assurance (QA) is an integrated system of management activities involving planning, implementation, documentation, assessment, and improvement to ensure that a process or item is of the type and quality needed for the project. Quality control (QC) is the system of technical activities that measures the attributes and performance of a process or item against defined standards to verify that they meet the stated requirements.]
    2. Discuss the activities to be performed or the hypothesis to be tested and criteria for determining acceptable data quality. Such criteria may be expressed in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability or in terms of data quality objectives or acceptance and evaluation criteria. These criteria also must be applied to determine the acceptability of existing, or “secondary”, data to be used in the project, and their use discussed. (In this context, secondary data may be defined as data previously collected for other purposes or from other sources.)
    3. Describe the study design. Include sample type(s) and location requirements, all statistical analyses that were or will be used to estimate the types and numbers of physical samples required, or equivalent information for studies using survey and interview techniques, or describe how new technology will be benchmarked to improve existing processes, such as those used by industry.
    4. Explain how the effectiveness of any new technology or process will be measured. Describe the procedures that will be used in the calibration and performance evaluation of all analytical instrumentation and all methods of analysis to be used during the project.
    5. Describe the procedures for the handling and custody of samples, including sample collection, identification, preservation, transportation, and storage, or how the accuracy of test measurements will be verified.
    6. Discuss the procedures for data reduction and reporting, including a description of all statistical methods to make inferences and conclusions, with identification of any statistical software to be used. Discuss any computer models to be designed or utilized and describe the associated verification and validation techniques.
    7. Describe the quantitative and/or qualitative procedures that will be used to evaluate the success of the project, including any plans for peer or other reviews of the study design or analytical methods prior to data collection.

    ANSI/ASQC E4, Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs, is available for purchase from the American Society for Quality, phone 1-800-248-1946, item T55. Only in exceptional circumstances should it be necessary to consult this document. An EPA guidance document, Guidance on Satisfying EPA Quality System Requirements for STAR Grants (EPA QA/G-1STAR) is available for potential applicants and addresses in detail how to comply with ANSI/ASQC E4 for STAR grants. This may be found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncer under “Guidance and FAQs.”

    Page allowances for the following sections are in addition to those allowed for the Research Plan and Quality Assurance Statement.

    Data Plan (2 pages in addition to the 15-page research plan)

    The application must include a plan to make available all data (including primary and secondary/existing data) from observations, analyses, or model development collected or used under an agreement awarded as a result of this RFA in a format and with documentation/metadata such that they may be used by others in the scientific community. Applicants who plan to develop or enhance databases containing proprietary or restricted information must provide a strategy, within the two pages, to make the data widely available, while protecting privacy or property rights.

    Sample Size Justification (1 page in addition to the 15-page research plan)

    If an applicant is proposing to conduct a survey, the research plan must contain a justification for the size of the proposed sample for both the overall project and all subsamples for specific treatments or tests. This justification should be based on appropriate statistical techniques (e.g., an evaluation of statistical power).

  11. Budget and Budget Justification
  12. Budget

    Prepare a budget table using the guidance and format found at http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms/, and select “All required forms”. If a sub-agreement, such as a subcontract, is greater than $25K and is included in the application, provide a separate budget for the sub-agreement. Include the total amount for the sub-agreement under “Contracts” in the master budget. Any project containing sub-agreements that constitute more than 40% of the total direct cost of the grant will be subject to special review. Additional justification for use of such subcontracts must be provided, discussing the need for this agreement to accomplish the objectives of the research project.

    Please note that institutional cost-sharing is not required. However, if cost-sharing is proposed, a brief statement concerning cost-sharing should be added to the budget justification, and estimated dollar amounts must be included in the appropriate categories in the budget table.

    Budget Justification (2 pages in addition to the Section E. page limitations)

    Describe the basis for calculating the personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and other costs identified in the itemized budget. The budget justification should not exceed two consecutively numbered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins.

    Budget information should be supported at the level of detail described below:

    1. Personnel: List all staff positions by title. Give annual salary, percentage of time assigned to the project, and total cost for the budget period.
    2. Fringe Benefits: Identify the percentage used and the basis for its computation.
    3. Travel: Specify the estimated number of trips, locations, and other costs for each type of travel. Explain the need for any travel outside the United States. Include travel funds for annual STAR program progress reviews and a final workshop to report on results.
    4. Equipment: Identify all tangible, non-expendable personal property to be purchased that has an estimated cost of $5,000 or more per unit and a useful life of more than one year. (Personal property items with a unit cost of less than $5,000 are considered supplies.)
    5. Supplies: “Supplies” means tangible property other than “equipment”. Identify categories of supplies to be procured (e.g., laboratory supplies or office supplies) and specifically identify computers to be purchased or upgraded.
    6. Contractual: Identify each proposed sub-agreement (grant or contract) and specify its purpose and estimated cost. Sub-agreements more than $25K should have a separate itemized budget and budget justification, not to exceed one additional page each, included as part of the application.
    7. Other: List each item in sufficient detail for the EPA to determine the reasonableness of its cost relative to the research to be undertaken.
    8. Indirect Costs: If indirect costs are included in the budget, indicate the approved rate and base with an explanation of how indirect costs were calculated.
  13. Resumes and Current and Pending Support
  14. Resumes: Provide resumes for each investigator and important co-worker. The resume for each individual must not exceed two consecutively numbered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins.

    Current and Pending Support: Identify any current and pending financial resources that are intended to support research related to the proposal or that would consume the Principal Investigator’s time. Provide information on current and pending support in the format provided at http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms for each investigator and important co-worker.

  15. Guidelines, Limitations, and Additional Requirements
  16. Confidentiality

    By submitting an application in response to this solicitation, the applicant grants the EPA permission to make limited disclosures of the application to technical reviewers both within and outside the Agency for the express purpose of assisting the Agency with evaluating the application. Information from a pending or unsuccessful application will be kept confidential to the fullest extent allowed under law; information from a successful application may be publicly disclosed to the extent permitted by law.

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.203, applicants may claim all or a portion of the application/proposal as confidential business information (for example, hypotheses or methodologies contained in the research narrative that the applicant wishes to protect from possible public disclosure). EPA will evaluate confidentiality claims in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. Applicants must clearly mark applications/proposals or portions of applications/proposals they claim as confidential. If no claim of confidentiality is made, the EPA is not required to make an inquiry to the applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR 2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure.

    Funding Opportunity Number

    At various places in the application, applicants are asked to identify the funding opportunity number. The number must be placed at the top of the abstract (location is shown in the abstract format, http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms) and in Box 10 of Standard Form 424 for all applications. For paper submissions, the number must also be placed in the address on the package that is sent to the EPA (see below). Each application must be submitted using a single funding opportunity number.

    Letters of Intent/Letters of Support

    Letters of intent to provide resources for the proposed research are limited to one brief paragraph committing the availability of a resource (e.g., use of a person's time or equipment) as described in the Research Plan. Letters of intent are to be included as an addition to the budget justification documents.

    Principal investigators may believe that letters of support from local constituencies contribute to the relevance of their proposal. All letters that do not commit a resource vital to success of the proposal are considered letters of support. Letters of intent that exceed one brief paragraph and letters of support are considered part of the Research Plan and included in the 15-page Research Plan limit.

Submission Dates and Times

For paper copy submissions, the original and two (2) copies of the complete application (3 in all), and one (1) additional copy of the abstract, must be received by NCER no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time on the solicitation closing date. Electronic applications must be transferred to grants.gov no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time on the solicitation closing date. It should be noted that this schedule may be changed without prior notification because of factors that were not anticipated at the time of announcement. In the case of a change in the required application closing date, a new date will be posted on the NCER web site (http://www.epa.gov/ncer/) and a modification posted on www.grants.gov exit EPA. Applications received after the closing date will be returned to the sender without further consideration.

Solicitation Closing Date Date: May 16, 2006, 4:00 pm Eastern Time
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: February 2007

Funding Restrictions
The funding mechanism for all awards issued under STAR solicitations will consist of assistance agreements from the EPA. All award decisions are subject to the availability of funds. In accordance with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, 31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq., the primary purpose of a grant is to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by federal statute, rather than acquisition for the direct benefit or use of the Agency. In issuing a grant agreement, the EPA anticipates that there will be no substantial EPA involvement in the design, implementation, or conduct of the research. However, the EPA will monitor research progress through annual reports provided by grantees and other contacts, including site visits, with the Principal Investigator.

If you wish to submit applications for more than one STAR funding opportunity, you must ensure that the research proposed in each application is significantly different from any other that has been submitted to the EPA or from any other grant you are currently receiving from the EPA or other federal government agency.

Collaborative applications involving more than one institution must be submitted as a single administrative package from one of the institutions involved.

Any contracts for services or products funded with EPA financial assistance must be awarded under the competitive procurement procedures of 40 CFR Part 30. Moreover, naming a specific contractor in the application does not relieve the applicant of its obligations to comply with competitive procurement requirements. Also, the regulations contain limitations on consultant compensation.

Other Submission Requirements
You may submit either a paper application or an electronic application (but not both) for this announcement.

Submission Instructions for Paper Applications

The application and abstract must be prepared in accordance with these instructions. The original, signed copy of the application must not be permanently bound or stapled in any way. The other two (2) required copies of the application should be secured with paper or binder clips or secure staples.

Because of security concerns, paper applications cannot be personally delivered. They must be sent through regular mail, express mail, or a major courier.

The following address must be used for regular mail:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Peer Review Division (8725F)
Funding opportunity number: EPA-G2006-STAR-G-1
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington , DC 20460

The following address must be used for express mail and couriers:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Peer Review Division (8725F)
Funding opportunity number: EPA-G2006-STAR-G-1
1025 F Street, NW (Room 3500)
Washington , DC 20004
Phone: (202) 233-0686

Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications Using Grants.gov

The electronic application package available through the http://www.grants.gov/ exit EPA web site must be used for electronic submissions. In order to view the application package, download the PureEdge viewer (hyperlink available under "Apply for Grants" then "Apply Step 1"). The application package may be quickly accessed from https://apply.grants.gov/forms_apps_idx.html exit EPA using either the CFDA number of 66.509 or the Funding Opportunity Number EPA-G2006-STAR-G-1. Be sure to download the electronic application package for the appropriate funding opportunity number or topic. It is recommended that you “Register to Receive Notification” of announcement updates.

The actual submission of an electronic application must be made by an authorized organizational representative (AOR) of the submitting institution who is registered with grants.gov (most individual investigators will not be eligible to submit the application). See http://www.grants.gov/, exit EPA “Get Started” for further information. The registration process may take a week or longer to complete. Check with your Sponsored Programs or equivalent office to locate your AOR and see if your institution is registered. If your institution is not currently registered, encourage your AOR to begin the process immediately.

The complete application must be transferred to grants.gov no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time on the solicitation closing date (see “Submission Dates and Times”). An e-mail will be sent by NCER to the Principal Investigator and the Administrative Contact to acknowledge receipt of the application and to transmit other important information. The email will be sent from receipt.application@epa.gov; email to this address will not be accepted. If an email acknowledgment from NCER (not support@grants.gov) has not been received within 30 days of the submission closing date, immediately contact the Technical Contact listed under “Agency Contacts” in this solicitation. Failure to do so may result in your application not being reviewed.

Documents must be submitted in Adobe Acrobat PDF format to maintain format integrity. Prior to preparing the electronic application package, view files for any PDF conversion errors. Submit the required documents as described below.

On the electronic Grant Application Package page, enter the Principal Investigator’s name, starting with the last name, in the “Application Filing Name” field.

  1. Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)
  2. Complete the form. There are no attachments.

  3. EPA Key Contacts Form 5700-54
    1. Complete the form.
    2. If additional pages are needed, see “E. Other Attachments Form” below.
  4. Project Narrative Attachment Form
    1. Compile the Research Plan as described above followed by the Quality Assurance Statement into one document labeled ResearchPlanQA and submit it as the “Add Mandatory Project Narrative File”.
    2. Prepare a document with your abstract, label it Abstract, and submit it as an “Add Optional Project Narrative File”.
    3. Prepare one document containing all Resumes followed by Current and Pending Support (see format example located at http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms/), label it Resumes, and submit it as an “Add Optional Project Narrative File”.
    4. Prepare a document containing the Data Plan, label it DataPlan, and submit it as an “Add Optional Narrative File”.
    5. If required, prepare a document containing the Sample Size Justification, label it SampleSizeJustification, and submit it as an "Add Optional Narrative File."
  5. Budget Narrative Attachment Form
    1. Where possible, prepare one document for your Budget and Budget Justification (see format example located at http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/forms/), label this document BudgetAndJustification, and submit it as the “Add Mandatory Budget Narrative”.
    2. If you cannot compile your Budget and Budget Justification into one document, prepare one document for each.
      1. Label your Budget document Budget and submit it as the “Add Mandatory Budget Narrative”.
      2. Label the Budget Justification document BudgetJustification and submit it as an “Add Optional Budget Narrative” document.
    3. When submitting letters of intent, first refer to the “Letters of Intent/Letters of Support” paragraph under Section IV. H. (Guidelines, Limitations and Additional Requirements) for additional information. Letters of intent appropriate for inclusion in the budget justification are to be compiled into one document named LettersofIntent and submitted as an “Add Optional Budget Narrative” document.
  6. Other Attachments Form
    1. If Key Contacts Continuation pages are needed for the Key Contacts Form 5700-54, compile them into one document labeled ContactsContinuation and submit the document.
    2. Other appropriate documents may also be submitted here.

Once the application package has been completed, the “Submit” button will become active. Save your completed application package with two different file names before providing it to your AOR to avoid having to re-create the package should submission problems be experienced. Submission of the application package must be completed by your AOR.

Close all other software before attempting to submit the application package. If you experience submission problems, reboot your computer (turning the power off may be necessary) and re-attempt the submission. If submission problems continue, contact grants.gov for assistance (Phone: 1-800-518-4726, Email: support@grants.gov ). If submission problems are not quickly resolved, contact the NCER electronic submission support person, Bronda Harrison (Phone: 202-564-1790, Email: harrison.bronda@epa.gov).


An external peer review panel considers an application”s merit based on the criteria below. Criteria 1-5 are listed in descending order of importance:

  1. Research Proposal (criteria “1a” through “1f” are essentially equal):
    1. The originality and creativity of the proposed research, the appropriateness and adequacy of the proposed research methods, and the Quality Assurance Statement.
    2. Is the research approach practical and technically defensible, and can the project be performed within the proposed time period?
    3. Will the research contribute to scientific knowledge in the topic area?
    4. What are the projected benefits of the proposed activity to society, such as improving the environment or human health?
    5. Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?
    6. Is the proposal well prepared with supportive information that is self-explanatory or understandable?
  2. Investigators: The qualifications of the Principal Investigator(s) and other key personnel, including research training, demonstrated knowledge of pertinent literature, experience, and publication records. Will all key personnel make a significant time commitment to the project?
  3. Responsiveness: The responsiveness of the proposal to the research needs identified for the topic area. Does the proposal adequately address the objectives and special considerations specified by the EPA for this topic area?
  4. Facilities and equipment: The availability and/or adequacy of the facilities and equipment proposed for the project. Are there any deficiencies that may interfere with the successful completion of the research?
  5. Budget: Although budget information does not reflect on the application’s scientific merit, the reviewers are asked to provide their view on the appropriateness and/or adequacy of the proposed budget and its implications for the potential success of the proposed research. Input on requested equipment is of particular interest.

Review and Selection Process
All grant applications are reviewed by an appropriate external technical peer review panel using the criteria above. In general, each peer review group is composed of non-EPA scientists, engineers, social scientists, and/or economists who are experts in their respective disciplines and proficient in the technical subjects they are reviewing.

Reviewers are asked to assign a summary score of excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor to each application. This review is designed to evaluate each application according to its scientific merit.

Applications receiving scores of excellent or very good as a result of the peer review process will then undergo an internal programmatic review, as described below, conducted by technical experts from the EPA, including individuals from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and program and regional offices involved with the science or engineering proposed. All other applications are automatically declined.

In addition, after the peer review, those applicants who received scores of excellent or very good as a result of the peer review process will be asked to provide additional information pertaining to the proposed Lead Principal Investigator's (PI) "Past Performance and Reporting History."

The applicant must provide the EPA Project Officer with information on the proposed Lead PI's past performance under prior Federal agency assistance agreements in terms of: (i) the level of success in performing each agreement, and (ii) how progress towards achieving the results intended under each agreement was reported. This information is required only for the proposed Lead PI's performance under Federal assistance agreements initiated within the last three years that were similar in size and scope to the proposed project. The specific information that will be required is shown below, and must be provided within three weeks of EPA's request. A maximum of three pages is permitted for the response; pages in excess of three will not be reviewed. Note: If no prior past performance information exists, please state this.

  1. Name of Granting Agency.
  2. Grant/Cooperative agreement number.
  3. Grant/Cooperative agreement title.
  4. Brief description of the grant/cooperative agreement.
  5. A description of how the agreement is similar in size and scope to the proposed project and whether or not it was successfully performed; if not successfully performed, provide an explanation.
  6. Information relating to the proposed Lead PI's past performance in reporting on progress towards achieving the expected results (outputs/outcomes) under the agreement, and if such progress was not made, an explanation of whether, and how, this was reported.
  7. Total (all years) grant/cooperative agreement dollar value.
  8. Project period.
  9. Technical contact (project officer), telephone number, and E-mail address (if available).

The internal programmatic review panel will consider:

  • The relevance of the proposed science to EPA research priorities.
  • The proposed Lead PI's past performance (under Federal agency assistance agreements initiated within the last three years that were similar in size and scope to the proposed project) in two areas: First, in successfully performing these prior Federal assistance projects, including whether there is a satisfactory explanation for any lack of success. Second, in reporting progress towards achieving results under these agreements, including the proposed Lead PI's history of submitting timely progress/final technical reports that adequately describe the progress toward achieving the expected results (outputs/outcomes) under the agreements. Any explanation of why progress towards achieving the results was not made will also be considered. Applicants whose proposed Lead PI has no relevant past performance history, or for whom this information is not available, will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance.
  • The applicant's organizational experience.

In addition, as part of the programmatic review, EPA will give funding priority to studies that have the potential generate high-impact research results in a relatively short time frame (one to two years of research).

The purpose of the programmatic review is to assure an integrated research portfolio for the Agency and help determine which applications to recommend for award. In conducting the programmatic review, the EPA will consider information provided by the applicant and may consider information from other sources, including prior and current grantors and agency files (e.g., to verify and/or supplement the information provided by the applicants).

Final funding decisions are made by the NCER Director based on the results of the peer review and internal programmatic review. In addition, in making the final funding decisions, the NCER Director may also consider program balance, available funds, and the Congressionally-mandated Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCOR) (see http://www.epa.gov/ncer/other/). Applicants selected for funding will be required to provide additional information listed below under "Award Notices." The application will then be forwarded to EPA's grants administration office for award in accordance with the EPA's procedures.


Award Notices
Customarily, applicants are notified about award decisions within six months of the application closing date. A summary statement of the scientific review by the peer panel will be provided to each applicant with an award or declination letter. After selection for award, applicants recommended for funding will be required to submit additional certifications and an electronic version of the revised project abstract. They may also be asked to provide responses to comments or suggestions offered by the peer reviewers, a revised budget, and/or to resubmit their proposal. EPA Project Officers will contact Principal Investigators to obtain these materials.

Nonprofit applicants recommended for funding under this announcement will be subject to a preaward administrative capability review consistent with sections 8.b, 8.c, and 9.d of EPA Order 5700.8, EPA Policy on Assessing Capabilities of Non-Profit Applicants for Managing Assistance Awards (http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/regulations.htm).

The official notification of an award will be made by the Agency’s Grants Administration Division. Applicants are cautioned that only a grants officer can bind the Government to the expenditure of funds; preliminary selection by the NCER Director in the Office of Research and Development does not guarantee an award will be made. Before or after an award, applicants may be required to provide additional quality assurance documentation.

Disputes related to this assistance agreement competition will be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures set forth in 70 FR 3629, 3630 (January 26, 2005) which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/competition/resolution.htm. Questions regarding disputes may be referred to the Eligibility Contact identified below.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Expectations and responsibilities of NCER grantees are summarized in this section. See http://www.epa.gov/ncer/guidance for the full terms and conditions associated with an award, including which activities require prior approval from the EPA.

  1. Meetings: Principal Investigators will be expected to budget for, and participate in, All-Investigators Meetings (also known as progress reviews) approximately once per year with EPA scientists and other grantees to report on research activities and discuss issues of mutual interest.
  2. Approval of Changes after Award: Prior written approval is required from the EPA if there will be significant change from work described in the application. Examples of these changes are contained in 40 C.F.R. 30.25. Note: prior written approval is also required from the EPA for incurring costs more than 90 calendar days prior to award.
  3. Human Subjects: A grant recipient must agree to meet all EPA requirements for studies using human subjects prior to implementing any work with these subjects. These requirements are given in 40 C.F.R. 26, referred to as the “Common Rule”. No work involving human subjects, including recruiting, may be initiated before the EPA has received a copy of the applicant’s Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) approval of the project and the EPA has also provided approval. Where human subjects are involved in the research, the recipient must provide evidence of subsequent IRB reviews, including amendments or minor changes of protocol, as part of annual reports. Until further notice, applications involving intentional dosing of human subjects will not be considered for award by EPA.
  4. Animal Welfare: A grant recipient must agree to comply with the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544), as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2131-2156. The recipient must also agree to abide by the “U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals used in Testing, Research, and Training” (50 Federal Register 20864-20865. May 20,1985).
  5. Data Access and Information Release: After award, all data (including primary and secondary/existing data) must be made available to the NCER Project Officer without restriction and be accompanied by comprehensive metadata documentation adequate for specialists and nonspecialists alike to be able to understand how and where the data were obtained and to evaluate the quality of the data. If requested, the data products and their metadata must be provided to the NCER Project Officer in a standard exchange format no later than the due date of the grant's final report or the publication of the data product's associated results, whichever comes first.
  6. Congress, through OMB, has instructed each federal agency to implement Information Quality Guidelines designed to "provide policy and procedural guidance...for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information, disseminated by Federal agencies." The EPA's implementation may be found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/. These procedures may apply to data generated by grant recipients if those data are disseminated as described in the Guidelines.

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. If such data are requested by the public, the EPA must ask for it, and the grantee must submit it, in accordance with A-110 and the EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. 30.36.

  7. Reporting: A grant recipient must agree to provide annual progress reports, with associated summaries for posting on NCER’s web site, and a final report with an executive summary for web posting.
  8. A grant recipient must agree to provide copies of any peer reviewed journal article(s) resulting from the research during the project period. In addition, the recipient should notify the EPA Project Officer of any papers published after completion of the grant that are based on research supported by the grant. NCER posts references to all publications resulting from a grant on the NCER web site.

  9. Acknowledgement of EPA Support: EPA’s full or partial support must be acknowledged in journal articles, oral or poster presentations, news releases, interviews with reporters and other communications. Any documents developed under the agreement for distribution to the public or inclusion in a scientific, technical, or other journal shall include the following statement:
    This publication [article] was developed under a STAR Research Assistance Agreement No. __________ awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has not been formally reviewed by the EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of [name of recipient] and the EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.
  10. A graphic that can be converted to a slide or used in other ways, such as on a poster, is located at http://www.epa.gov/ncer/guidance/star_images.html. EPA expects recipients to use this graphic in oral and poster presentations.


Further information, if needed, may be obtained from the EPA officials indicated below. Information regarding this RFA obtained from sources other than these Agency Contacts may not be accurate. Email inquiries are preferred.

Eligibility Contact: Tom Barnwell: 202-343-9862; email: (barnwell.thomas@epa.gov)
Electronic Submissions: Bronda Harrison: 202-564-1790; email: (harrison.bronda@epa.gov)
Technical Contact: Will Wheeler: Phone: 202-343-9828; email: (wheeler.william@epa.gov)

Jump to main content.