Grantee Research Project Results
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program
CLOSED - FOR REFERENCES PURPOSES ONLY
Air, Climate And Energy (ACE) Centers: Science Supporting Solutions
This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.
Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2014-STAR-J1
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509
Solicitation Opening Date: May 7, 2014
Solicitation Closing Date: September 4, 2014, 11:59:59 pm Eastern Time
Technical Contact: Sherri Hunt (hunt.sherri@epa.gov); phone: 703-347-8042
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-0442
Electronic Submissions: Todd Peterson (peterson.todd@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-7224
Access Standard STAR Forms (Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page)
View research awarded under previous solicitations (Funding Opportunities: Archive Page)
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Synopsis of Program:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, is seeking applications for Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Centers. EPA is interested in supporting research on the development of sound science to systematically inform policy makers at the state and local levels regarding the development of innovative approaches to enable effective implementation of air pollution control strategies to achieve the greatest public health benefits by reducing exposure to harmful air pollution. Priority research areas include:
- enhancing understanding of spatial and temporal differences in individual pollutants and pollutant mixtures within and across different areas (including urban areas, or between urban, suburban, and rural areas) or geographic regions;
- identifying and improving the characterization of the most important factors contributing to regional or city-to-city differences or similarities in air pollution and health effects beyond topography and meteorology;
- improving the ability to understand and project how these contributing factors and differences may change over the next one to several decades; and
- advancing scientific knowledge and tools needed to develop robust strategies for air pollution control to improve public and environmental health under a variety of conditions, including consideration of approaches for addressing climate change preparedness.
Eligible applicants, including Minority Academic Institutions (MAIs) as defined in Section I.A of this solicitation, are strongly encouraged to apply for funding under this competition.
This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects). This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D. Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children. Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D). All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.B.8), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.
Guidance and training for investigators conducting EPA-funded research involving human subjects may be obtained here:
Ethics, Regulations, and Policies
Human Subjects Research at the Environmental Protection Agency: Ethical Standards and Regulatory Requirements
Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Award: Grant or cooperative agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 3 awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $30 million total for all awards
Potential Funding per Award: Up to a total of $10 million, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of 5 years. Cost-sharing is not required. Proposals with budgets exceeding the total award limits will not be considered.
Eligibility Information:
Public nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes public institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private institutions of higher education and hospitals) located in the U.S., state and local governments, Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply. See full announcement for more details.
Application Materials:
To apply under this solicitation, use the application package available at Grants.gov (for further submission information see Section IV.E. “Submission Instructions and other Submission Requirements”). The necessary forms for submitting a STAR application will be found on the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) web site, Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page.
If your organization is not currently registered with Grants.gov, you need to allow approximately one month to complete the registration process. Please note that the registration process also requires that your organization have a DUNS number and a current registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) and the process of obtaining both could take a month or more. Applicants must ensure that all registration requirements are met in order to apply for this opportunity through grants.gov and should ensure that all such requirements have been met well in advance of the submission deadline. This registration, and electronic submission of your application, must be performed by an authorized representative of your organization.
If you do not have the technical capability to utilize the Grants.gov application submission process for this solicitation, send a webmail message at least 15 calendar days before the submission deadline to assure timely receipt of alternate submission instructions. In your message provide the funding opportunity number and title of the program, specify that you are requesting alternate submission instructions, and provide a telephone number, fax number, and an email address, if available. Alternate instructions will be emailed whenever possible. Any applications submitted through alternate submission methods must comply with all the provisions of this Request for Applications (RFA), including Section IV, and be received by the solicitation closing date identified above.
Agency Contacts:
Technical Contact: Sherri Hunt (hunt.sherri@epa.gov); phone: 703-347-8042
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-0442
Electronic Submissions: Todd Peterson (peterson.todd@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-7224
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), in cooperation with the EPA Air, Climate, and Energy (ACE) Research Program, announces an extramural funding competition seeking applications for ACE Centers. EPA is interested in supporting research on the development of sound science to systematically inform policy makers at the state and local levels regarding the development of innovative approaches. Such approaches will enable effective implementation of air pollution control strategies to achieve the greatest public health benefits by reducing exposure to harmful air pollution. Priority research areas include:
- enhancing understanding of spatial and temporal differences in individual pollutants and pollutant mixtures within and across different areas (including urban areas, or between urban, suburban, and rural areas) or geographic regions;
- identifying and improving the characterization of the most important factors contributing to regional or city-to-city differences or similarities in air pollution and health effects beyond topography and meteorology;
- improving the ability to understand and project how these contributing factors and differences may change over the next one to several decades; and
- advancing scientific knowledge and tools needed to develop robust strategies for air pollution control to improve public and environmental health under a variety of conditions. This will include air pollution strategies that address climate change preparedness.
EPA recognizes that scientific, technical, engineering and mathematical (STEM) competence is essential to the Nation’s future well being in terms of national security and competitive economic advantage. For instance, the health and vitality of the economy is predicated, in part, on the availability of an adequate supply of scientists, technicians, engineers and mathematicians, to develop innovative technologies and solutions. In other words, this country must engage all available minds to address the challenges it faces. Minorities, persons with disabilities, and women historically have been under-represented in the STEM fields. For this reason, EPA strongly encourages all eligible applicants, including women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to apply. At the same time, the EPA seeks to expand environmental conversations by including members of communities which have not previously participated in such dialogues; therefore EPA strongly encourages such eligible applicants, including applicants from Minority Academic Institutions, to apply.
For purposes of this solicitation, the following are considered MAIs:
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1061). A list of these schools can be found at White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities;
- Tribal Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1059(c)). A list of these schools can be found at American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities ;
- Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1101a(a)(5). There is no list of HSIs. HSIs are institutions of higher education that, at the time of application submittal, have an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25% Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application for this grant; and
- Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1059g(a)(2)). There is no list of AANAPISIs. AANAPISIs are institutions of higher education that, at the time of application submittal, have an enrollment of undergraduate students that is not less than 10 % students who are Asian American or Native American Pacific Islander.
This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects). This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D. Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children. Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D). All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.B.8), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.
Guidance and training for investigators conducting EPA-funded research involving human subjects may be obtained here:
Ethics, Regulations, and Policies
Human Subjects Research at the Environmental Protection Agency: Ethical Standards and Regulatory Requirements
B. Background
Centers Research Program
STAR-funded, integrated, multidisciplinary research centers have been an important part of the Particulate Matter (PM) and ACE research program. Since its beginning in 1999, the Centers program has been successful in advancing the science in ways that provide valuable information to policy development. This research has resulted in scientific advances in understanding the composition, transformation, and health effects of air pollution. Results have been significant and influential in both the scientific and policy communities.
Evolution of ORD Research Program
The first group of PM Research Centers was funded in 1999 to address the question of biological plausibility of PM health effects in response to National Research Council recommendations (National Research Council, 1998). These PM Centers established a strong link between exposure to PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 microns) air pollution and cardiovascular disease and premature mortality while elucidating the biological mechanisms of these health effects (Lippmann et al, 2003). The second group of PM Centers, funded in 2005, advanced the understanding of how air pollution sources are linked to health effects and led to scientific results supporting the idea that different PM physiochemical components may impact different biological pathways and organ systems and that oxidative reactions are involved in some physiologic responses to PM exposures (Breysse et al, 2012). Research from these Centers also showed that reductions in ambient PM2.5 concentration during the 1980s and 1990s contributed to a 5 to 9 month increase in life expectancy across the U.S. (Pope et al, 2009).
Extensive new scientific evidence, including new data from the PM Centers, has strengthened our understanding of the links between long- and short-term exposure to PM2.5 and premature mortality as well as cardiovascular and respiratory morbidity effects. The scientific evidence developed through the PM Centers, along with additional key policy-relevant science, was recently reviewed, evaluated, and synthesized in the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009). Using a formal framework for evaluating the causal nature of PM2.5-related effects (U.S., EPA, 2009, section1.5), the scientific evidence from the PM Centers contributed to the ISA concluding that a causal relationship exists between both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and premature mortality and cardiovascular effects and a likely causal relationship exists between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects (U.S. EPA, 2009, Table 2-6). Consistent with EPA’s conclusions, the American Heart Association also issued a scientific statement stating the overall scientific evidence “is consistent with a causal relationship between PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality” (Brook et al., 2010).
The vision for the third, ongoing group of Clean Air Research Centers (CLARCs) is to advance air pollution research toward a multipollutant focus such that the work more accurately reflects real world air pollution exposures. While midway through their third year, the CLARCs have already made advances in the development of epidemiologic models necessary for addressing multipollutant questions; in the development of data fusion techniques for creating more accurate exposure assessments; in the identification of previously unrecognized health effects associated with air pollutant exposures (e.g., cardiometabolic syndrome); and in further understanding the public health effects associated with exposure to air pollution from traffic sources.
The emphasis in the next round of ACE Centers will be to continue to address questions surrounding the complex air pollution mixture and resulting health effects, and to also take into consideration the role of a changing climate and other global change factors in these relationships using an integrated and multidisciplinary approach. This type of research may involve evaluation of existing implementation programs to gauge their effectiveness in improving air quality and reducing public health effects, and to inform the development of innovative approaches to improve the ability to estimate expected air quality and health benefits under future scenarios. Some research activities of the current Centers might be expanded and improved. (See Clean Air Research Centers for details.) Examples of this might include further evaluation of the multipollutant nature of air pollution and mixtures that are most detrimental to public health, and work related to improving understanding of the regional heterogeneity observed in epidemiologic studies of air pollution-related health effects, along with how climate-related impacts and responses may alter outcomes of exposure for individuals or communities (e.g. quantification of benefits of climate reduction programs).
New Approaches for Continued Progress
Since 1970, emissions of the six criteria air pollutants (ozone, PM, lead, NO2, CO, and SO2) have decreased by 72% and improvements in air quality have been substantial (USEPA, 2012). Despite great progress in air quality improvement, large, highly populated urban areas continue to violate several different National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Additionally, many of these areas have large at-risk populations who experience higher exposures to criteria pollutants and persistent problems with air toxics. Furthermore, it is not clear that the way in which standards are being met always have the greatest public health benefits. For example, the process most environmental agencies traditionally follow for reducing air pollution rarely considers risk and exposure, since it focuses on controlling costs of regulatory attainment at compliance monitors for individual criteria pollutants and does not aim to deliver a particular health benefit to society. However, as has been demonstrated in several studies, a multipollutant attainment strategy that considers benefits is expected to yield greater net health benefits than a strategy optimized for cost alone, due to the overlapping impacts of control measures and consideration of the different benefits (Chestnut et al., 2006; Wesson et al., 2010). In recognition of this, several local areas and states have expressed interest in addressing the control of multiple pollutants and air related considerations such as land-use, transportation, energy, and climate change through the development of comprehensive Air Quality Management Plans.
Given the common objective to develop sensible strategies to reduce air pollution and to improve public health and welfare, this RFA asks applicants to take an integrated approach and to focus on efforts that will support successful solutions to reduce the public health effect of the complex air pollution mixture. Within this approach, a variety of health or ecosystem impacts should be considered in concert with multiple criteria pollutants and air toxics to the greatest extent possible.
Additionally, new and innovative approaches have been or are being explored to more fully characterize the spatial and temporal aspects of air pollution. New sensor technologies, measurement methods, satellite data, photochemical and exposure modeling, and data fusion techniques may now be used to improve understanding of the spatial and temporal variability in pollutant concentrations and to develop better estimates for multipollutant exposures. These methods may help improve understanding of regional variations in pollutant exposures and impacts from changes resulting from land development, changes in regional climate, or policies. Additionally, these methods need to be robust and applied consistently or on a more refined scale than existing applications.
New approaches should examine the social, economic, technological and other factors that have contributed to regional differences in the mix and magnitude of various emissions sources. In this context, the social and behavioral sciences could provide crucial insights into individual and community level decision-making, which may help to expand understanding of the underlying factors (activity patterns, energy choices, policy factors, etc.) that influence the public health effect of air pollution and how they may change over the next several decades.
Differences in Air Pollution
Every region of the U.S. faces different challenges in either reaching or sustaining good air quality due to differences in pollutant emission source sectors, topography, local climate and meteorology, population demographics, and socioeconomic and cultural patterns. Some regions may be more affected by local emission sources that are strongly impacted by the weather (e.g. woodsmoke), while others may be more affected by regional transport and pollution secondarily formed in the atmosphere (Bell et al. 2007; Bell et al., 2011). In addition, some regions may be more prone to fires (Wotawa and Trainer, 2000) and extreme weather events, such as droughts or floods, and other areas may be strongly affected by topography, such as mountain ranges that trap pollution and prevent its dispersion. In the past, regional differences have been identified in epidemiological studies that could account for the regional heterogeneity in observed health effects including individual- and community level factors (e.g., demographics, air conditioning use, etc) along with the degree of atmospheric processing, source variation, and behavioral and cultural patterns (Zeka et al. 2006; Bell and Dominici, 2008; Bell et al. 2009). In this context, a region is defined broadly to include an area ranging in space from a single urban area to a multi-state region, over which air pollution and its health effects display a degree of heterogeneity.
With respect to understanding the nature and magnitude of air pollution-related risks, epidemiological studies have reported heterogeneity in responses both within and between cities and geographic regions across the U.S. (e.g. Jerrett et al., 2005; Krewski et al., 2009; Peng et al., 2005; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009). Social, biological, and chemical factors may impact the observed health responses and their variations. Previous research has shown that these variations may result from differences in air pollution composition (i.e., the multipollutant mixture) (Bell et al., 2007), temperature (Stafoggia et al., 2008), and meteorology (Smoyer et al., 2000), as well as individual or community-level factors (e.g. other physiological or socioeconomic variables impacting the risk of individuals or populations to air pollutant-induced health effects; Zeka et al., 2006; Franklin et al., 2007; Clougherty and Kubansky, 2009; Young et al., 2012; Minelli et al., 2011; Bell et al., 2012; Baxter et al., 2013; Tian et al., 2012; Madrigano et al., 2012; Gan et al., 2012; MacIntyre et al., 2012; Hankey et al., 2012). Additional research has focused on identifying the most influential factors contributing to the observed heterogeneity of health effects (Mauderly et al., 2010; Kelly and Fussell, 2011; van Erp et al., 2012). Research on how factors interact could provide insights for interpreting the available evidence and reducing remaining uncertainties.
Different Strategies in Different Places
While recognizing that unique factors affect air pollution and health outcomes in different areas or regions, consideration should be given to the distinction between factors which are relatively static, such as topography, and those that are dynamic. Among the dynamic factors, a great range exists in the degree to which aspects can be changed or modified to impact air quality and public health. Modifiable factors affect air pollution on a variety of temporal and spatial scales. For example, long-term climate, the occurrence of extreme weather events, and their impact on air quality may be considered potentially modifiable factors over the long term as they are impacted directly or indirectly by global policies. Other examples include the magnitude and patterns of emissions from some sources that may be controlled with national and local policies and permits. Human activity patterns impacting emissions and exposure, such as transportation choices, activities in the workplace and commercial areas, residential energy use, and the consumption and disposal of goods are factors that may be modified by individuals or at the local level (e.g. avoiding outdoor activities on high-pollution days (Neidell, 2009) or restrictions on open burning that are put in place by localities if they have the knowledge, desire, and ability). Because of these variations in factors controlling air pollution health effects and the ability to modify them, the achievement of the largest public health benefits through air pollution reduction requires both creativity and recognition of the unique characteristics of each particular town, air basin, state, or region of the country. Additionally, potential changes in climate or economic development may mean that the optimal strategy for a particular region or area may change over time as well.
Finally, solid scientific results are essential in order to understand the complex interactions affecting air pollution and public health. These results should address both individual and multipollutant effects, interactions with local, regional, and global climate effects, benefits to both public health and ecosystems, as well as the interaction of air pollution with other physical or psychological stressors. The effectiveness of control strategies should be considered particularly with respect to health benefits because strategies may vary by source types, pollutants and location. Individuals and community groups should also be considered since individuals may be able to affect their exposure and even the emissions contributing to the multipollutant mixture that they breathe. Additionally, some groups could be disproportionally impacted and receive differential health benefits from various strategies depending on the characteristics of the region and the nature of the emission reductions. All of these factors should come into consideration when looking towards the future and the science needed to develop and support options for improving public health by reducing impacts from air pollution in the face of a changing climate and society.
The specific Strategic Goal and Objectives from the EPA’s Strategic Plan that relate to this solicitation are:
Goal 1: Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality, Objective 1.1: Address Climate Change and Objective 1.2: Improve Air Quality
More information can be found in EPA’s FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan
C. Authority and Regulations
The authority for this RFA and resulting awards is contained in the Clean Air Act, Section 103, 42 U.S.C. 7403.
For research with an international aspect, the above statutes are supplemented, as appropriate, by the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102(2)(F).
Note that a project’s focus is to consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA’s financial assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed above. Generally, a project must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of air pollution, water pollution, solid/hazardous waste pollution, toxic substances control, or pesticide control depending on which statute(s) is listed above. These activities should relate to the gathering or transferring of information or advancing the state of knowledge. Proposals should emphasize this “learning” concept, as opposed to “fixing” an environmental problem via a well-established method. Proposals relating to other topics which are sometimes included within the term “environment” such as recreation, conservation, restoration, protection of wildlife habitats, etc., must describe the relationship of these topics to the statutorily required purpose of pollution prevention and/or control.
Applicable regulations include: 40 CFR Part 30 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations), 40 CFR Part 31 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants). Applicable OMB Circulars include: OMB Circular A-21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions) relocated to 2 CFR Part 220, OMB Circular A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments) relocated to 2 CFR Part 225, and OMB Circular A-122 (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 230.
D. Specific Research Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
Note to applicant: The term “output” means an environmental activity or effort, and associated work products, related to a specific environmental goal(s), (e.g., testing a new methodology), that will be produced or developed over a period of time under the agreement. The term “outcome” means the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from the above activit(ies) that is related to an environmental or health-related objective.
The overarching objective of this research is to exploit regional differences in health effects and air quality to help improve understanding of observed health or environmental impacts, which subsequently will better inform the development of implementation strategies. Specifically, using multidisciplinary science, researchers will develop tools and information to explore various approaches to reach state and local air quality and climate protection regulatory goals in ways that maximize improvements in public health.
In the following questions, the phrase “regional differences” is defined broadly to include observed or expected differences in air pollution composition and public health or welfare impacts resulting from differences in a number of factors including: the mixture of air pollution sources contributing to different ambient mixtures; topography, local meteorology and climate; and demographics, baseline health conditions, and socioeconomic and cultural patterns. These differences may be observed in different geographic locations (ranging from a single major metropolitan area to multistate regions) or in different exposure environments (e.g. near ports, near roadway, industrial centers).
Within this context, applicants should address two or more of the following research questions, including questions Question #3 and/or Question #4. Applicants that do not do so may receive a lower peer review score.
- What measurement or analysis approaches can be used to generate or analyze new or existing data to improve characterization of the temporal or spatial differences in individual pollutants and pollutant mixtures within and across regions?
Data of interest includes information on and analysis of multiple components of air pollution composition, characterization of air pollution sources and contributing factors, and changes in air pollution composition or health effects in response to changes in control strategies or policies.
Projects that incorporate a variety of factors and impacts are of the greatest interest, along with projects that relate air pollution mixtures to health. The primary goal is to identify and improve understanding of the differences within and across a geographic area or region. While use of new methods and technology is encouraged, method development should not be the primary focus. Where models or data analysis techniques are considered, these should be applied with scope and resolution consistent or more refined than similar contemporary applications.
- In addition to topography and meteorology, what are the most important factors contributing to regional differences in air pollution and air pollution public health effects?
Understanding the mechanisms of air pollution impacts strengthens the ability to develop solutions to decrease these impacts and improve public and environmental health under a variety of conditions. While the impact of climate and topography on air pollution concentrations is important, the particular focus here should be on identifying and improving the characterization of modifiable factors, which are those factors contributing to air pollution and health or environmental impacts that can be changed (e.g., patterns of energy production and usage, transportation infrastructure and travel activity, land use and urban form), as well as identifying factors that interact with modifiable factors to change their effectiveness (e.g. demographics, regional economic structure, baseline health). The multipollutant mixtures should be considered in a holistic manner with emphasis placed on understanding the factors that are most influential for reducing multiple potential health and environmental impacts.
Two categories of modifiable factors can be considered in this broader context: (a) factors leading to changes in air pollutant emissions and associated ambient mixtures; and (b) factors that change the exposures of individual, communities and those populations at greatest risk of an air pollution-induced health effects. Of particular interest is the identification of individual or community-level factors that contribute to significant regional differences in emissions levels and variations in the mix of sources, as well as to increased risk and exposure.
- How can we improve the ability to understand and project how these regional differences might change over the next one to several decades due to global change, technology evolution, societal choices, and the effectiveness of air pollution control strategies?
While the characterization of the factors contributing to air quality and health and environmental impacts can strengthen the understanding of regional differences in air pollution and public health effects, those factors are likely to change over time. Demographic trends, energy use patterns at the individual and aggregate level, and technological change and adoption will interact to affect both the drivers of emissions as well as the factors affecting differential exposure and risk, and ultimately the health effects. Many contributing factors will follow established historical trends and relatively predictable patterns. Others may be characterized by deep uncertainty and potential discontinuities in terms of how those factors both change individually and also interact with other factors over time. The focus here should be on how these factors will change over time in the regional context. For example, some technological changes, such as technological advancements in light duty vehicles, will be broadly uniform across and within regions, in the sense that similar technologies will be available to all regions. However, the rate of adoption of advanced, more efficient, or cleaner technologies is more uncertain and will depend on other factors such as behavioral choices and socioeconomic trends within a region.
The particular focus here should be on identifying both the modifiable factors that state and local programs and plans can influence in ways that improve public health outcomes, and also understanding the uncertainty of factors which have the potential to affect control strategies in ways that impede the ability to achieve air and climate protection goals. The objective should be leveraging understanding of modifiable and uncertain factors to develop regional strategies that are robust and also work to achieve potential co-benefits.
- How can insights about factors contributing to air pollution and public health effects be used to advance the development of robust integrated strategies for air pollution control to improve public health or environmental quality?
Integrated strategies may include consideration of multiple pollutants or a combination of air pollution and climate preparedness actions. Projects should consider how research results can be used to develop approaches to evaluate opportunities to support more effective and robust implementation plans with respect to generating the greatest public health benefits. The emphasis should be not on developing a plan of action, but on advancing the scientific insight and tools available to enable groups to make choices that will generate public health benefits to the greatest extent possible.
Projects may include comparison of air pollution control strategies that have been used in the past with additional development to provide insight into how programs could be extended to other spatial regions or climatic conditions. Projects investigating the past or potential future effectiveness of specific strategies are of particular interest. Work may also involve connections with local, state, or regional agencies or community groups in order to implement or assess the potential for incorporating new ideas. Identification of impediments and barriers to the effectiveness of alternative strategies (e.g. lack of adoption of technological advances, social patterns impacting the amount of time people spend outdoors in different regions, or the complexities of atmospheric chemistry which mean that reductions in emissions may not result in reductions in all secondary pollutants) and insights into why some strategies are not effective are also of interest as this information could help improve the design of strategies.
General Guidance
For all proposals, research results that can be applied or transferable to a broad range of areas and within the development of a variety of settings to improve public health and environmental quality are of the highest interest. Proposals should address whether and how future climate change may impact research results, and especially the relevance and impact of plans to adapt to climate change. Centers should include multidisciplinary teams involving appropriate expertise to address the selected research questions. Teams may include health scientists and atmospheric scientists, as well as social scientists or other appropriate disciplines.
Expected Outputs and Outcomes
The expected outputs from this research will be scientific data, information, and insights on the human health effects of exposures to air pollutants and the development of innovative approaches and information to enable effective implementation of air pollution control strategies to achieve the greatest public health benefits by reducing exposure to harmful air pollution. These outputs are expected to include articles in peer-reviewed journals, websites, modeling tools, periodic reports, and presentations at scientific conferences. The desired outcomes of this effort include: increased understanding of spatial and temporal differences in individual pollutants and pollutant mixtures within and across different areas or geographic regions; improved characterization of the most important factors contributing to regional or city-to-city differences in air pollution and health effects; improved ability to understand and project how these contributing factors and differences may change over the next one to several decades; and scientific knowledge and tools needed to develop robust strategies for air pollution control to improve public and environmental health under a variety of conditions, including consideration of approaches for addressing climate change preparedness.
To the extent practicable, research proposals must embody innovation and sustainability. Innovation for the purposes of this RFA is defined as the process of making changes; a new method, approach, custom or device. Innovative research can take the form of wholly new applications or applications that build on existing knowledge and approaches for new uses. Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research is innovative (see Section IV.B.6). The concept of sustainability is based on language in the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This definition is reiterated in Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environment, Energy, and Economic Performance, stating that the goal of sustainability is to, “create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research will seek sustainable solutions that protect the environment and strengthen our communities (see Section IV.B.6). ORD will draw from all of the above-mentioned innovation and sustainability definitions in the review/evaluation process of recommending research proposals (see Section V.A).
E. References
Baxter L, Franklin M, Özkaynak H, Schultz B, Neas L. 2013. The use of improved exposure factors in the interpretation of fine particulate matter epidemiological results. Air Qual Atmos Health 6:195-204.
Bell ML, Dominici F, Ebisu K, Zeger SL, Samet JM. 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in PM2.5 chemical composition in the United States for health effects studies. Environ Health Perspect 115:989-995.
Bell ML, Dominici F. 2008. Effect modification by community characteristics on the short-term effects of ozone exposure and mortality in 98 US communities. Am J Epidemiol 167:986-997.
Bell ML, Ebisu K, Peng RD, Dominici F. 2009. Adverse health effects of particulate air pollution: Modification by air conditioning. Epidemiol 20(5):682-686.
Bell ML, Ebisu K, Peng RD. 2011. Community-level spatial heterogeneity of chemical constituent levels of fine particulates and implications for epidemiological research. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 21:372-384.
Bell, M. L., & Ebisu, K. 2012. Environmental Inequality in Exposures to Airborne Particulate Matter Components in the United States. Environ Health Perspect 120(12): 1699.
Brook RD et al. 2010. AHA scientific statement: particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 121:2331-2378.
Breysse PN, Delfino RJ, Dominici F, Elder ACP, Frampton MW, Froines JR, Geyh AS, Godleski JJ, Gold DR, Hopke PK, Koutrakis P, Li N, Oberdordster G, Pinkerton KE, Samet JM, Utell MJ, Wexler AS. 2012. US EPA Particulate Matter Research Centers: Summary of Research Results for 2005 - 2011. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health DOI 10.1007/s11869-012-0181-8.
Chestnut LG, Mills DM, Cohen DS, et al. 2006. Cost-benefit analysis in the selection of efficient multipollutant strategies. J Air & Waste Manage Assoc 56(4):530-536.
Clougherty JE, Kubzansky LD. 2009. A framework for examining social stress and susceptibility to air pollution in respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 117(9):1351-1358.
Franklin M, Zeka A, Schwartz J. 2007. Association between PM2.5 and all-cause and specific-cause mortality in 27 US communities. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 17:279-287.
Gan WQ, Davies HW, Koehoorn M, Brauer M. 2012. Association of long-term exposure to community noise and traffic-related air pollution with coronary heart disease mortality. Am J Epidemiol 175(9):898-906.
Hankey S, Marshall JD, Brauer M. 2012. Health impacts of the built environment: within-urban variability in physical inactivity, air pollution, and ischemic heart disease mortality. Environ Health Perspect 120(2):247-253.
Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Pope CA III, Krewski D, Newbold KB, Thurston G, Shi Y, Finkelstein N, Calle EE, Thun MJ. 2005. Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiol16(6):727-736.
Kelly FJ, Fussell JC. 2011. Air pollution and airway disease. Clinical & Experimental Allergy 41(8):1059-1071.
Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi Y, Turner MC, Pope CA III, Thurston G, Calle EE, Thun MJ, Beckerman B, DeLuca P, Finkelstein N, Ito K, Moore DK, Newbold KB, Ramsay T, Ross Z, Shin H, Tempalski B. 2009. Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. Health Effects Institute Research Report 140.
Lippmann M, Frampton M, Schwartz J, Dockery DW, Schlesinger R, Koutrakis P, Froines J, Nel A, Finkelstein JG, J. , Kaufman J et al. 2013. The US Environmental Protection Agency Particulate Matter Health Effects Research Centers Program: A Midcourse Report of Status, Progress, and Plans. Environmental Health Perspectives 111:1074-1092.
MacIntyre EA, Gehring U, Mölter A, Fuertes E, Klümper C, Krämer U, Heinrich J. 2013. Air pollution and respiratory infections during early childhood: An analysis of 10 European birth cohorts within the ESCAPE project. Environ Health Perspect.
Madrigano J, Baccarelli A, Mittleman MA, Sparrow D, Spiro A, Vokonas PS, Schwartz J. 2012. Air pollution and DNA methylation: Interaction by psychological factors in the va normative aging study. Am J Epidemiol 176(3):224-232.
Mauderly JL, Burnett RT, Castillejos M, Özkaynak H, Samet JM, Stieb DM, Wyzga RE. 2010. Is the air pollution health research community prepared to support a multipollutant air quality management framework? Inhalation Toxicology 22(S1):1-19.
Minelli C, Wei I, Sagoo G, Jarvis D, Shaheen S, Burney P. 2011. Interactive effects of antioxidant genes and air pollution on respiratory function and airway disease: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol 173(6):603-620.
National Research Council. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: I. Immediate Priorities and a Long-Range Research Portfolio. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1998.
Neidell M. 2009. Information, avoidance behavior, and health, the effect of ozone on asthma hospitalizations. J Human Resources 44(2):450-478.
Peng RD, Dominici F, Pastor-Barriuso R, Zeger SL, Samet JM. 2005. Seasonal analyses of air pollution and mortality in 100 U.S. cities. Am J Epidemiol 161(6):585–594.
Pope CA III, Ezzati M, Dockery DW. 2009. Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the United States. New England J of Med 360:376-386.
Smoyer KE, Kalkstein LS, Greene JS, Ye H. 2000. The impacts of weather and pollution on human mortality in Birmingham, Alabama and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Int JClimatology 20(8):881-897.
Stafoggia M, Schwartz J, Forastiere F, Perucci CA, the SG. 2008. Does temperature modify the association between air pollution and mortality? A multicity case-crossover analysis in italy. Am J Epidemiol 167:1476-1485.
Tian N, Xue J, Barzyk TM. 2012. Evaluating socioeconomic and racial differences in traffic-related metrics in the United States using a GIS approach. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 23:215-222.
U.S. EPA. 2009. Integrated science assessment for particulate matter: final report. National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139F. Available at: Particulate Matter (PM) Standards - Documents from Current Review - Integrated Science Assessments.
U.S. EPA. 2012. Our nation’s air – status and trends through 2010. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454/R-12-001. Available at: Our Nation’s Air (PDF) (32 pp, 2.49 MB).
Van Erp AM, Kelly FJ, Demerjian KL, Pope CA III, Cohen AJ. 2012. Progress in research to assess the effectiveness of air quality interventions towards improving public health. Air Qual Atmos & Health 5(2):217-230.
Wesson K, Fann N, Morris M, Fox T, Hubbell B. 2010. A multipollutant, risk-based approach to air quality management: Case study for Detroit. Atmos Poll Res 1:296-304.
Wotawa G, Trainer M. 2000. The influence of Canadian forest fires on pollutant concentrations in the united states. Science 288(5464):324-328.
Young GS, Fox MA, Trush M, Kanarek N, Glass TA, Curriero FC. 2012. Differential exposure to hazardous air pollution in the United States: a multilevel analysis of urbanization and neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation. Int J of Res and Public Health 9(6):2204-2225.
Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. 2009. The effect of fine and coarse particulate air pollution on mortality: a national analysis. Environ Health Perspect 117(6):898-903.
Zeka A, Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. 2006. Individual-level modifiers of the effects of particulate matter on daily mortality. Am J Epidemiol 163:849-859.
F. Special Requirements
Agency policy and ethical considerations prevent EPA technical staff and managers from providing applicants with information that may create an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, EPA employees will not review, comment, advise, and/or provide technical assistance to applicants preparing applications in response to EPA RFAs. EPA employees cannot endorse any particular application.
Multiple Investigator applications may be submitted as: (1) a single Lead Principal Investigator (PI) application with Co-PI(s) or (2) a Multiple PI application (with a single Contact PI). If you choose to submit a Multiple PI application, you must follow the specific instructions provided in Sections IV and V of this RFA. For further information, please see the EPA Implementation Plan for Policy on Multiple Principal Investigators.
This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. There are many scientific and ethical considerations that must be addressed in such studies by the study sponsor and research team, including, but not limited to, those related to recruitment, retention, participant compensation, third-party issues, researcher-participant interactions, researcher-community interactions, communications, interventions, and education. All such research must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 26, and any human observational exposure studies must also adhere to the principles set forth in the Scientific and Ethical Approaches for Observational Exposure Studies (SEAOES) (EPA/600/R-08/062) (PDF) (133 pp, 1.21 MB) document. SEAOES, which was published by researchers in EPA and which discusses the principles for the ethical conduct of human research studies, serves as a resource for applicants interested in applying under this solicitation. References to “SEAOES Principles” in this solicitation refers, in general, to the issues of interest in conducting human subjects research studies that maintain the highest scientific and ethical standards and safety during the conduct of these studies. All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS; described in Section IV.B.8) and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.
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. Partnerships and collaborations are strongly encouraged and will be evaluated as part of the peer review evaluation under Section V. For applicants proposing a subgrant(s) in the application, please see Section IV.B.13 of this solicitation for budget information and refer to Contracts and Subawards.
The application shall include a plan (see “Data Plan” in section IV.B.9) to make available to the NCER project officer all data generated (first produced under the award) from observations, analyses, or model development used under an agreement 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 includes 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, a Geographic Positioning System (GPS), remote sensing, mapping, charting, and surveying technologies, or statistical data.
In conducting its research, the Center must demonstrate a willingness to use, as appropriate, existing or future air quality databases, especially relating to PM, as they become available. In addition, the Centers are encouraged to seek out and participate collaboratively with ongoing/planned intensive air quality monitoring efforts.
Integration Among Centers - According to EPA’s 2002 Science Advisory Board in its review of the PM Centers program, there is a clear need for and benefit from increased inter-Center interaction. The report stated “The Centers program should stimulate and facilitate collaboration within and between the… Centers, with the goal of harmonizing designs, methods of measurement, and analysis.” Experience with the PM Centers and the Clean Air Research Centers underscored the notion that integration among the Centers enhanced scientific understanding and research productivity. Integration among Centers requires significant commitment, time and effort. For additional detail on integration requirements, see Section VI.
Centers are expected to develop and maintain Center web sites, communicate key findings at annual scientific conferences, and participate in annual Centers meetings. The Centers will each produce annual progress reports and a final report at the end of the grant period.
As described more fully in Section IV, each application should address the following items (for content and form of application submission and page limitations, see Section IV.B).
- Center Description (5 page limit): Applications should describe the overall goals, objectives, and approach for the Center, including how the Center will pursue a multidisciplinary and thematic approach to the problems to be investigated.
- Project Descriptions (15 page limit for each project description): Applications may contain a maximum of five projects (in addition to the maximum two Facility Support Units) that address at least two of the research questions described above in Section I.D. Each of the specific individual research projects should be completely described according to the instructions in Section IV below. Individual project descriptions must explain how the project fits into the overall Center program and relates to other projects in the application.
- Administrative Unit Description (15 page limit): The Center should have an Administrative Unit which provides oversight, coordination and integration of the Center’s activities. Describe how the Administrative Unit will coordinate the research activities and how the program will be integrated internally. Center proposals should take a multidisciplinary approach and indicate how programmatic and funding decisions will be made; how project objectives will be successfully achieved in a timely manner in accordance with project schedules and milestones; how investigators from different disciplines within the Center will communicate on a regular basis about the development and progress of Center projects; how progress toward achieving the expected results (outputs and outcomes) will be tracked and measured; who will set priorities and who will ensure the quality of the research. The approach, procedures, and controls for ensuring that awarded grant funds will be expended in a timely and efficient manner should also be described.
- If appropriate and desired, a Center may elect to have up to two Facility Support Units (in addition to the maximum five research projects) that provide a technique, service, or instrumentation that will enhance ongoing research efforts across the Centers specific projects. Examples of such facilities are analytical chemistry laboratories, statistics and computer modeling centers, laboratory animal facilities, etc. The application must provide a compe
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.