**Announcement Title:** Research on the Design of Policies for Pollution
Control Using Market Mechanisms, and Data Gathering for Dissertation and
Early Career Research on the Pollution Control Aspects of Environmental
Economics

**Action:** Request for Proposals (RFP)

**Announcement Number:** EPA-OPEI-NCEE-08-02

**Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)**: 66.611 Environmental
Policy and Innovation Grants

**Due Date**: The closing date and time for receipt of proposals,
regardless of mode of submission, is December 5th, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time. Electronic submission through Grants.gov is encouraged
(see Section IV for instructions for Grants.gov and alternative
submission instructions if necessary).

**OVERVIEW**

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Center for
Environmental Economics (NCEE) is soliciting proposals for Federal
assistance for (1) conducting research on the "Design of Policies for
Pollution Control Using Market Mechanisms" and for (2) research support
for "Data Gathering for Dissertation and Early Career Research on the
Pollution Control Aspects of Environmental Economics".

Assistance under this program is generally available to States and local
governments, territories and possessions, foreign governments,
international organizations, Indian Tribes, interstate organizations,
intrastate organizations, and possessions of the U.S., including the
District of Columbia, public and private universities and colleges,
hospitals, laboratories, other public or private nonprofit institutions,
and individuals. Nonprofit organizations described in Section 501(c)(4)
of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in lobbying activities as
defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 are not
eligible to apply.

The total amount anticipated to be awarded under this RFP is
approximately \$1,200,000. Proposals for area (1) must be for less than
\$300,000 of EPA funds to be considered and proposals for area (2) must
be less than \$75,000 of EPA funds to be considered. Assistance
agreements may be awarded for project periods of up to 5 years where
appropriate. While proposals must be for one area only, eligible
applicants may submit more than one proposal for each area , or
proposals for both areas, so long as each proposal is separately
submitted and different. Individual assistance agreements may be fully
or incrementally funded. Cost sharing is not required. EPA anticipates
awarding 5 to 7 assistance agreements under this announcement as either
grants or cooperative agreements.

A complete copy of this announcement, including discussion of proposal
materials and requirements, is posted at:
[[http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/GrantSolicitations.html]{.underline}.](http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/GrantSolicitations.html)

**[Contents by Section]{.underline}**

I.  Funding Opportunity Description

> A. Introduction
>
> B. Background
>
> C. Authority and Regulations

D. Specific Areas of Interest/Objectives and Outcomes

> E. References
>
> F. Special Requirements

II. Award Information

III. Eligibility Information

> A. Eligible Applicants
>
> B. Cost Sharing or Match
>
> C. Other Criteria

IV. Application and Submission Information

> A. Internet Address to Request Application
>
> B. Content and Form of Application Submission
>
> 1\. Standard Form SF424 -- Application for Federal Assistance
>
> 2\. Key Contacts
>
> 3\. Narrative Proposal
>
> 4\. Budget
>
> 5\. Documentation of Qualifications
>
> 6\. Guidelines Limitations and Additional Requirements
>
> C. Submission Dates and Times
>
> D. Funding Restrictions
>
> E. Grants.gov Instructions
>
> 1\. Proposal/Application Materials
>
> 2\. Application Preparation and Submission Instructions
>
> F. Intergovernmental Review
>
> G. Management Fees

V.  Application Review Information

> A. Specific Evaluation Criteria
>
> B. Selection Process

VI. Award Administration Information

> A. Award Notices
>
> B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
>
> C. Reporting
>
> D. Disputes
>
> E. Nonprofit Administrative Capability Clause
>
> F. Human Subjects
>
> G. Public Access and Information Release

VII. Agency Contacts

VIII. Other Information

      **Section I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION**

**[A. Introduction]{.underline}**

The EPA\'s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) supports
leading-edge research to stimulate the sound use of economics that
fulfills EPA\'s mission to protect human health and safeguard the
natural environment. NCEE and its predecessors have long sponsored
research to improve the data and methods available to determine the
economic value of improved pollution control and other aspects of
environmental economics. Much of the resulting research can be found on
the NCEE Website at
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/EnvironmentalEconomicsReports.html>.

Prior to 2008, EPA's National Center for Environmental Research (NCER)
ran the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program in Economics and
Decision Sciences (EDS). NCEE and NCER worked very closely on all
aspects of running the EDS program. With the 2008 budget year, the EDS
program has moved to NCEE and this RFP is a continuation of that
program. Information regarding research funded under previous EDS
Requests for Applications (RFAs) can be found on NCER's web site at
[http://www.epa.gov/ncer/grants/](http://es.epa.gov/ncer/grants/).

Both NCER and NCEE have funded research on the use of economic
incentives for pollution control. In particular, the STAR program funded
a series of RFAs on "Market Mechanisms and Incentives." NCEE has also
funded research in this area and has, in addition, targeted research
funds to support dissertation research in environmental economics.

This RFP addresses two aspects of environmental economics research:

\(1\) [Design of Policies for Pollution Control Using Market
Mechanisms]{.underline}. NCEE is interested in supporting research in
the design of policies for pollution control using market mechanisms,
particularly when multiple, hybrid, or adaptive policies are being used
to control one or more externalities.

\(2\) [Data Gathering for Dissertation and Early Career Research on the
Pollution Control Aspects of Environmental Economics]{.underline}. NCEE
has long believed that there is a serious shortage of empirical data to
determine the economic benefits, costs and impacts of measures taken to
control pollutants**.** Although there are substantial academic
incentives to write theoretical dissertations and other papers, it is
often difficult for graduate students and investigators early in their
career to find financial support for empirically-based work in this
area. NCEE believes that the provision of such financial support may
remedy some of this imbalance.

**[B. Background]{.underline}**

The agreements resulting from this RFP are expected to support the
Enabling Support Program objective and Regulatory/Economic Management
and Analysis program project within the EPA's strategic planning
architecture. The EPA's 2006 Strategic Plan may be found at
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf
(PDF)](http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf) (184 pp,
11.56 MB) These projects will also support one or more of the efforts
undertaken under Goal 1 (Clean Air and Global Climate Change), Goal 2
(Clean and Safe Water), Goal 3 (Land Preservation and Restoration) and
Goal 4 (Healthy Communities and Ecosystems) with reference to the
Enhance Science and Research objectives for each (1.6, 2.3, 3.3 and 4.4,
respectively). The overall goal of the projects is to elevate the state
of knowledge of practitioners of environmental economics, confirm the
adequacy and robustness of methods used to conduct economic analyses,
and apply those methods to solve relevant and important problems.

***Outcomes.*** The term "outcomes" refer to the result, effect, or
consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program
or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or
objective. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related or
programmatic in nature, must be quantitative, and may not necessarily be
achievable during the project period

***Outputs.*** The term "outputs" refer to an environmental activity,
effort, and/or associated work products related to an environmental goal
or objective, that will be produced or provided over a period of time or
by a specified date. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but must
be measurable during the project period.

Through the awards under this RFP, EPA expects the following outcomes:
(a) improve research and presentation skills; (b) improve the
capabilities of environmental economists and survey researchers to
measure quantitative benefits to human health, the environment, and
communities; (c) support partnerships between environmental economists,
EPA, other federal, state, and local agencies, survey researchers, and
other interested parties, (d) encourage more empirical studies on
environmental economics, and an increased capacity to evaluate the
economic benefits, costs, and impacts of environmental programs, and (e)
provide additional information on opportunity costs, the measurement of
benefits, costs and impacts, and advancing our knowledge on a wider
array of environmental economic principles and tools.

The expected outputs of the proposed projects for area (1) are: research
results increasing scientific knowledge about the use of market
mechanisms for environmental policy and for area (2) are: research
results in environmental economics generally. These research results
(for both areas) should appear in reports, presentations, Ph.D.
dissertations, and peer-reviewed journal publications, as well as in
publicly-available knowledge-bases accessible through the internet.

**[C. Authority and Regulations]{.underline}**\
Projects supported by this RFP could include improving air quality and
water quality, as well as addressing disposal of solid wastes. The
statutory authority for funding this assistance agreement is found in:

*Clean Air Act, as amended, Section 103, 42 U.S.C. 7403*

*Clean Water Act, as amended, Section 104, 33 U.S.C. 1254*

*Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, Section 1442, 42 U.S.C. 300 j-1*

*Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, Section 8001, 42 U.S.C. 6981*

*Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 10, 15 U.S.C. 2609*

*Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Section 20, 7
U.S.C. 136r*

*Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,
Section 311, 42 U.S.C. 9660*

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, OMB Circular
A-102 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements With State and Local
Governments), OMB Circular A-110 (Uniform Administrative Requirements
for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education,
Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part
215, and OMB Circular A-122, (Cost Principles for Non-Profit
Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 230.

**[D. Specific Areas of Interest/Objectives and Outcomes]{.underline}**

Applicants must submit proposals for one of the two areas listed below.
Proposals that do not address either area will be rejected. In addition,
applicants may submit multiple proposals so long as each one is for one
of the areas listed below, is separately submitted, and is different
from the other. Proposals that combine both areas will not be accepted.

\(1\) [Design of Policies for Pollution Control Using Market
Mechanisms]{.underline}. Market mechanisms (or incentive-based
instruments for pollution control) have the potential (and have been
shown in practice) to achieve environmental policy goals with lower
overall costs than other approaches. However, new policy initiatives may
interact with existing regulatory frameworks, possibly resulting in
unintended consequences. This necessitates careful evaluation of
interactions of new and pre-existing environmental policies, as well as
consideration of second-best and piecemeal approaches to regulation.
Likewise, the use of multiple, hybrid, or adaptive mechanisms may be
necessary to address large-scale environmental challenges, as
policymakers have begun to examine environmental problems (such as
climate change) that exhibit multiple externalities or other features
linked with an externality that may require multiple and linked
regulatory instruments. NCEE is therefore interested in supporting
either normative or positive research in the design of policies for
pollution control using market mechanisms, particularly second-best and
piecemeal approaches to regulation as well as multiple, hybrid, or
adaptive policies to control one or more externalities or other
problems. These studies can be theoretical or empirical. Example of
projects that proposals could address include, but are not limited to:

-   an investigation of a market mechanisms (such as a carbon tax or
    cap-and-trade program) coupled with one or more of the following: a
    revenue recycling mechanism; a distributional mechanism; an R&D
    policy; a technology-forcing policy; a "green" subsidy; an existing
    standard, tax or fiscal policy; another regulatory policy (such as a
    utility that faces environmental and rate regulation); an offset
    policy; or a cost-containment measure,

-   the relationship between voluntary environmental compliance efforts
    and regulatory approaches,

-   the use of a market mechanism to control environmental quality and
    another policy to control quantity (such as for water,

-   the use of market mechanisms under second-best conditions,

-   hybrid policies that combine a market mechanism with a
    command-and-control regulation, or

-   an adaptive policy.

There is an extensive literature on these subjects (see, for example,
Goulder and Parry 2008 and Harrington et al. 2004 for recent reviews).

[(2) Data Gathering for Dissertation and Early Career Research on the
Pollution Control Aspects of Environmental Economics]{.underline}. NCEE
is also seeking proposals for gathering data for use in doctoral
dissertations and other early career research in those areas of
environmental economics involving pollution control. The data to be
gathered should be relevant to the area of responsibility of EPA and/or
state and local pollution control agencies. That is, the research to be
funded must be relevant to one of the statutory authorities applicable
to this RFP (see Section III.C.3). For example, data gathering related
to the non-pollution control aspects of the management of National Parks
would not be eligible. However, data should not be gathered primarily
for the use of EPA or other federal government agencies; data should be
gathered primarily for research purposes. Examples include data needed
to model the behavior of pollution sources in response to policies,
unintended consequences of policies, and the costs, benefits, and
impacts of policies. Proposals in this area should be directed at short-
or long-term priority research issues discussed in the Agency's
*Environmental Economics Research Strategy* (see U.S. EPA 2005),
although this is not a requirement.

The applicant's principal investigator or at least one major
co-investigator for proposals under area (2) must be either a Ph.D.
student or have received their Ph.D. no earlier than January 1, 2005.
The proposals should involve data primarily intended for use in a
research project being prepared by this investigator. This investigator
may request minimal EPA funds for their time spent on the project. Other
researchers, such as Ph.D. advisors and committee members, senior
faculty, and other colleagues are encouraged to collaborate in the
research proposal, however, no EPA funds should be allocated for time
spent by these other researchers. The bulk of funds in the proposed
budget should cover the data gathering involved.

**[E. References]{.underline}**

Lawrence H. Goulder and Ian W. H. Parry. 2008. "Instrument Choice in
Environmental Policy." *Review of Environmental Economics and Policy*
forthcoming

Winston Harrington, Richard D. Morgenstern, and Thomas Sterner (eds.)
2004. *Choosing Environmental Policy: Comparing Instruments and Outcomes
in the United States and Europe*. Washington, DC: RFF Press.

Number range CHAPTERU.S. EPA. 2005. [Environmental Economics Research
Strategy]{.underline}. EPA/600/R-04/195.
(http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/econresearch.pdf)

U.S. EPA. 2006. 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan,
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf
(PDF)](http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf) (184 pp,
11.56 MB)

**[F. Special Requirements]{.underline}**\
Groups of two or more eligible applicants may choose to form a
consortium and submit a single proposal for this assistance agreement.
The proposal must identify which organization will be the recipient of
the assistance agreement and which organizations(s) will be sub-awardees
of the recipient.

See Section IV of the solicitation which addresses the evaluation of an
applicant's proposed contractors and subawardees. These instruments must
be in compliance with the competitive Procurement Standards in 40 CFR
Part 30 or 40 CFR 31.36 as appropriate.

**Section II. AWARD INFORMATION**

The total amount expected to be awarded under this RFP is approximately
\$1,200,000. Proposals for area (1) as described in Section I.D must be
for less than \$300,000 of EPA funds to be considered; proposals for
area (2) must be for less than \$75,000 of EPA funds to be considered.
Assistance agreements may be awarded for project periods of up to 5
years where appropriate Individual assistance agreements may be fully or
incrementally funded. Cost sharing is not required. If incrementally
funded in FY2009, future funding is not guaranteed. EPA anticipates
awarding 5 to 7 assistance agreements---three to five under area (1) and
two under area (2)---under this announcement, as either grants or
cooperative agreements.

EPA reserves the right to award fewer than 7 agreements or to make no
awards under this solicitation.

EPA may award both grants and cooperative agreements under this
announcement. Under a *grant,* EPA employees are not permitted to be
substantially involved in the planning and execution of the research.

Where appropriate, EPA may award *cooperative agreements* when
substantial involvement between EPA employees and grant recipients is
anticipated. Assistance recipients that are awarded cooperative
agreements rather than grants are required to work closely with the EPA
Project Officer and other EPA personnel, as determined by EPA, during
the performance of the project. These collaborations may include data
and information exchange, providing technical input to experimental
design and theoretical development, coordinating extramural research
with in-house activities, and joint authorship of journal articles on
these activities. **To ensure that all proposals receive fair
consideration, applicants may 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.**

In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to partially fund
proposals/applications by funding discrete portions or phases of
proposed projects. If EPA decides to partially fund a
proposal/application, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice
any applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal/application,
or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore
maintains the integrity of the competition and selection process.

NCEE is not likely to authorize any pre-award costs, but applicants may
request funds to cover pre-award costs that are incurred 90 days or less
before the award date. If EPA determines that the requested pre-award
costs comply with the relevant OMB Circular (A-87 for public entities
and A-122 for nonprofit organizations), and that the costs are justified
as allocable to the project, then these costs may be included as
allowable expenditures at the time that the assistance award document is
prepared. However, if for any reason, EPA does not fund the proposal or
the amount of the award is less than the applicant anticipated, then EPA
is under no obligation to reimburse the applicant for these costs. Thus,
applicants incur pre-award costs at their own risk.

**Section III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION**

**[A. Eligible Applicants]{.underline}**

Eligible applicants include States, territories, the District of
Columbia, Indian Tribes, interstate organizations, intrastate
organizations, and possessions of the U.S. Eligible applicants also
include public and private universities and colleges, hospitals,
laboratories, and other public or private nonprofit institutions and
international organizations. Nonprofit organizations described in
Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in lobbying
activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 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 contract with or provide subawards to FFRDC's with funds
through its grant from the EPA to an FFRDC for research personnel,
supplies, equipment, and other expenses directly related to the
research. (See Section IV.) 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 an assistance agreement, and may
not receive salaries or augment their Agency's appropriations in other
ways (e.g., travel funds) through grants made by this program.

**[B. Cost Sharing or Match]{.underline}**

There are no cost-sharing or matching funds requirements under this RFP.
However the degree to which the project budget effectively uses EPA
funds and/or leverages internal or external matching funds will be
considered as part of the cost-effectiveness evaluation criteria (see
V.A). Allowable costs for nonprofit organizations are defined in OMB
circular A-122; allowable costs for public entities are defined in OMB
circular A-87. Leveraged funding or other resources need not be for
eligible and allowable costs under the EPA assistance agreement unless
the applicant proposes to provide a voluntary cost share or match.

If EPA accepts an offer for a voluntary cost share/match, applicants
must meet their matching/sharing commitment as a condition of receiving
EPA funding. Applicants may use their own funds or other resources for a
voluntary match or cost share if the standards at 40 CFR 30.23 or 40 CFR
31.24, as applicable, are met. Only eligible and allowable costs may be
used for voluntary matches or cost shares. Other Federal grants may not
be used as matches or cost shares without specific statutory authority
(e.g., Housing and Urban Development\'s Community Development Block
Grants). Voluntary cost shares or matches must be included in the budget
as a planned cost.

Applicants who will seek funding from other sources but do not intend to
include these funds as a voluntary match or cost share in the budget
must explain how these other funds will be used. Applicants relying on
additional funding from other sources should support their expectations
(e.g., based on past successes in obtaining multiple funding sources).
Fund-raising costs are not allowable costs under EPA grants.

**[C. Other Eligibility Criteria]{.underline}**

All of the following threshold criteria must be met by the time of
proposal submission in order for a proposal to receive funding
consideration. Only those proposals that meet all of these criteria will
be evaluated against the ranking criteria in Section V of this
solicitation. Applicants deemed ineligible for funding consideration
will be notified within 15 calendar days of the ineligibility
determination.

1.  The applicant must demonstrate that it is eligible to apply for
    financial assistance under this solicitation.

2.  Proposals that fail to demonstrate a public purpose of support or
    stimulation will not be funded. For example, proposals that request
    funding for a research project which primarily benefits a Federal
    program or provides a service for a Federal agency are not eligible.

3.  To be eligible for funding consideration, a proposal's focus must
    consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA's financial
    assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed in
    Section I.C. 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 in I.C. 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.

4.  The applicant's proposal, or the component of it to which the
    proposal for EPA funding applies, must focus on EPA mission-related
    issues connected to protecting human health and safeguarding the
    natural environment as specified in Section I.B. which addresses the
    relationship to EPA's Strategic Plan.

5.  Proposals for area (1) as described in Section I.D must be for more
    than \$20,000 and less than \$300,000 of EPA funds to be considered;
    proposals for area (2) must be for more than \$20,000 and less than
    \$75,000 of EPA funds to be considered.

6.  For proposals under area (2), the applicant's principal investigator
    or at least one major co-investigator must be a Ph.D. student or
    have received their Ph.D. no earlier than January 1, 2005.

7\. a.   Proposals must substantially comply with the proposal
submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this
announcement or else they will be rejected.  However, where a page limit
is expressed in Section IV with respect to the proposal or parts of the
proposal, pages in excess of the page limitation will not be reviewed.

b.  In addition, proposals must be received by the EPA or received
through [www.grants.gov,](http://www.grants.gov/)  as specified in
Section IV of this announcement, on or before the proposal submission
deadline published in Section IV of this announcement.  Applicants are
responsible for ensuring that their proposal reaches the designated
person/office specified in Section IV of the announcement by the
submission deadline.

c.  Proposals received after the submission deadline will be considered
late and returned to the sender without further consideration unless the
applicant can clearly demonstrate that  it was late due to EPA
mishandling.  Applicants should confirm receipt of their proposal with
Will Wheeler (wheeler.william@epa.gov) as soon as possible after the
submission deadline---failure to do so may result in your proposal not
being reviewed.

**Section IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION**

**[A. Internet Address to Request Application Package]{.underline}**

Electronic proposals submitted thru grants.gov are encouraged and
recommended. Applicants who do not submit through grants.gov should
download required forms at <http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm>.

See Section IV. E. Submission Instructions and Other Submission
Requirements for instructions for Grants.gov. Applicants who are unable
to submit electronically through Grants.gov must contact Will Wheeler
(wheeler.william@epa.gov, phone: 202-566-2264) for alternative proposal
submission instructions. The proposal deadlines and other requirements
of this solicitation still apply to applicants that use alternative
submission methods.

An email will be sent to the Lead/Contact PI and the Administrative
Contact (see below) to acknowledge receipt of the proposal and transmit
other important information. *If you do not receive an email
acknowledgment within 30 days of the submission closing date,
immediately inform the* Will Wheeler (wheeler.william@epa.gov*). Failure
to do so may result in your proposal not being reviewed.*

[**B. Content and Form of Proposal Submission**]{.underline}

The proposal is made by submitting the materials described below. **It
is essential that the proposal package contain all information requested
and be submitted in the described formats.**

**1.** **Standard Form 424 -- Application for Federal Assistance**
--Applicants should fill in this form as appropriate and include it as
an attachment to their application.

**2. Key Contacts** - The applicant must complete the "Key Contacts"
form as the second page of the application: a Key Contacts continuation
page is also available at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm. The
Key Contacts form should also be completed for major sub-agreements
(i.e., primary co-investigators). Please make certain that all contact
information is accurate.

**3. Narrative Proposal** -- Contains the project description, budget
justification and evaluation criteria discussion, and must provide:

> \(a\) a concise description or abstract of the project and discussion
> of which subject area as identified in Section I.D. that it
> addresses(including literature citations),
>
> \(b\) a justification for the proposed budget
>
> \(c\) a discussion of how the proposal addresses each of the specific
> evaluation criteria that apply to the area that the proposal addresses
> (see *Section V (A) Specific Evaluation Criteria*---applicants should
> note that proposals under area (1) must respond to both peer review
> and programmatic review criteria while proposals under area (2) must
> only respond to programmatic review criteria), and
>
> \(d\) a Data Plan to make available all data from observations,
> analyses, or model development collected under an agreement awarded as
> a result of this RFP in a format and with documentation/metadata such
> that they may be used by others in the scientific community to the
> extent feasible to protect confidentiality and within a reasonable
> time period.

The narrative proposal must be no longer than 15 single spaced pages for
area (1) (as described in Section I.D) and 5 single spaced pages for
area (2) (as described in Section I.D). It should be provided on 8 ½ x
11" pages, single-line spaced, using no smaller than 12-point type and
1" page margins. In reviewing the narrative proposal, reviewers will not
consider any pages beyond the page limit.

**4. Budget/SF 424-A Form**

> [Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs
> (SF-424A)]{.underline} -- Complete the SF-424A to indicate how you
> plan to expend the funds provided by EPA. There are no attachments. At
> a minimum, complete Section B- Budget Information and Section F-Other
> Budget Information. The total amount of EPA funding requested for the
> project period should be shown on line 5(e) and on line 6(k) of
> SF-424A. If indirect costs are included, the amount of indirect costs
> should be entered on line 6(j). The indirect cost rate (i.e., a
> percentage), the base (e.g., personnel costs and fringe benefits), and
> the amount should also be indicated on line 22.
>
> If a subaward, such as a subgrant with an educational institution, is
> included in the proposal, provide a separate budget and budget
> justification for the subaward. Include the total amount for the
> subaward under "Other" in the master budget. Any project containing
> sub awards or procurement contracts that constitute more than 40% of
> the total direct cost of the proposal will be subject to special
> review. Additional justification for use of these must be provided,
> discussing the need for the sub award/procurement contract 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.
>
> [Management Fees]{.underline} - When formulating a budget, applicants
> must not include management fees or similar charges in excess of the
> direct costs and indirect costs at the rate approved by the
> applicant's cognizant audit agency, or at the rate provided for by the
> terms of the agreement negotiated with EPA. The term \"management fees
> or similar charges\" refers to expenses added to the direct costs in
> order to accumulate and reserve funds for ongoing business expenses,
> unforeseen liabilities, or for other similar costs that are not
> allowable under EPA assistance agreements. Management fees or similar
> charges may not be used to improve or expand the project funded under
> this agreement, except to the extent authorized as a direct cost of
> carrying out the scope of work.

**5. Attachment for Documentation of Qualifications and Letters of
Intent** (no page limit) - The applicant must include in this attachment
resumes of all principal staff who will have a major role in the
project. This should also include letters of intent to provide resources
for the proposed research or to document intended interactions. These
are limited to one brief paragraph committing the availability of a
resource (e.g., use of a person\'s time or equipment) or intended
interaction (e.g., sharing of data, as-needed consultation) that is
described in the Narrative Proposal

If your RFP is submitted electronically through Grants.gov, use the
"Other Attachments Form" in the "Optional Documents" box to attach this.

**6. Guidelines, Limitations, and Additional Requirements**

a.  [Confidentiality]{.underline}

> By submitting a proposal/application in response to this solicitation,
> the applicant grants the EPA permission to make limited disclosures of
> the proposal/application to technical reviewers both within and
> outside the Agency for the express purpose of assisting the Agency
> with evaluating the proposal/application. Information from a pending
> or unsuccessful proposal/application will be kept confidential to the
> fullest extent allowed under law; information from a successful
> proposal/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 proposal/application as confidential business information
> (e.g., intellectual property). EPA will evaluate confidentiality
> claims in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. Applicants must clearly mark
> proposals/applications or portions thereof that 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.

[**C. Submission Dates and Times**\
]{.underline}This solicitation closes at **11:59 pm., EST on December 5,
2008. Proposals received** after 11:59 pm., EST on December 5, 2008 will
be rejected without review.

It should be noted that this schedule may be changed without prior
notification because of factors not anticipated at the time of
announcement. In the case of a change in the solicitation closing date,
a new date will be posted on the NCEE web site
(<http://www.epa.gov/economics>) and a modification posted on
[www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/).

**[D. Funding Restrictions]{.underline}**\
The funding mechanism for all awards issued under this solicitation 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 an assistance agreement 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.

Agency policy prevents EPA staff from providing individual applicants
with any information that may create an unfair competitive advantage.
Consequently, EPA employees will not review, comment, advise, and/or
provide technical assistance to applicants preparing proposals or
applications in response to this solicitation, nor will they endorse a
proposal or discuss in any manner how the Agency will apply the
published evaluation criteria for this competition. Applicants having
questions about this solicitation should e-mail their questions to
<NCEE@epa.gov>, using "Grant Solicitation Question" as the subject.
Questions and answers will be posted on an NCEE website supporting the
solicitation,
[[http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/GrantsFAQ.html]{.underline}](http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/GrantsFAQ.html).

EPA may use cooperative agreements and not grants for some projects. The
EPA will monitor research progress through reports provided by grantees
and other contacts, including site visits, with the Principal
Investigator.

Collaborative proposals involving more than one institution must be
submitted as a single administrative package from one of the
institutions involved. Each proposed project must be able to be
completed within the project period and with the initial award of funds.
Applicants should request the entire amount of money needed to complete
the project. Recipients should not anticipate additional funding beyond
the initial award of funds for a specific project.

EPA awards funds to one eligible applicant as the recipient even if
other eligible applicants are named as partners or co-applicants or
members of a coalition or consortium. The recipient is accountable to
EPA for the proper expenditure of funds.

Funding may be used to provide subgrants or subawards of financial
assistance, which includes using sub awards or sub grants to fund
partnerships, provided the recipient complies with applicable
requirements for sub awards or sub grants including those contained in
40 CFR Parts 30 or 31, as appropriate. Applicants must compete contracts
for services and products, including consultant contracts, and conduct
cost and price analyses, to the extent required by the procurement
provisions of the regulations at 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31, as appropriate.
The regulations also contain limitations on consultant compensation.
Applicants are not required to identify subawardees/subgrantees and/or
contractors (including consultants) in their proposal. However, if they
do, the fact that an applicant selected for award has named a specific
subawardee/subgrantee, contractor, or consultant in the proposal EPA
selects for funding does not relieve the applicant of its obligations to
comply with subaward/subgrant and/or competitive procurement
requirements as appropriate. Please note that applicants may not award
sole source contracts to consulting, engineering or other firms
assisting applicants with the proposal solely based on the firm\'s role
in preparing the proposal.

Successful applicants cannot use sub grants or sub awards to avoid
requirements in EPA grant regulations for competitive procurement by
using these instruments to acquire commercial services or products from
for-profit organizations to carry out its assistance agreement. The
nature of the transaction between the recipient and the subawardee or
sub grantee must be consistent with the standards for distinguishing
between vendor transactions and sub recipient assistance under Subpart B
Section .210 of [OMB Circular
A-133](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html), and the
definitions of sub award at 40 CFR 30.2(ff) or sub grant at 40 CFR 31.3,
as applicable. EPA will not be a party to these transactions. Applicants
acquiring commercial goods or services must comply with the competitive
procurement standards in 40 CFR Part 30 or 40 CFR Part 31.36 and cannot
use a subaward/subgrant as the funding mechanism.

Section V of the announcement describes the evaluation criteria and
evaluation process that will be used by EPA to make selections under
this announcement. During this evaluation, except for those criteria
that relate to the applicant\'s own qualifications, past performance,
and reporting history, the review panel will consider, if appropriate
and relevant, the qualifications, expertise, and experience of:

\(i\) an applicant\'s named subawardees/subgrantees identified in the
proposal/application if the applicant demonstrates in the
proposal/application that if it receives an award that the
subaward/subgrant will be properly awarded consistent with the
applicable regulations in 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31. For example, applicants
must not use subawards/subgrants to obtain commercial services or
products from for profit firms or individual consultants.

\(ii\) an applicant\'s named contractor(s), including consultants,
identified in the proposal/application if the applicant demonstrates in
its proposal/application that the contractor(s) was selected in
compliance with the competitive Procurement Standards in 40 CFR Part 30
or 40 CFR 31.36 as appropriate. For example, an applicant must
demonstrate that it selected the contractor(s) competitively or that a
proper non-competitive sole-source award consistent with the regulations
will be made to the contractor(s), that efforts were made to provide
small and disadvantaged businesses with opportunities to compete, and
that some form of cost or price analysis was conducted. EPA may not
accept sole source justifications for contracts for services or products
that are otherwise readily available in the commercial marketplace.

EPA will not consider the qualifications, experience, and expertise of
named subawardees/subgrantees and/or named contractor(s) during the
proposal/application evaluation process unless the applicant complies
with these requirements.

**[E. Grants.gov Proposal Submission Instructions]{.underline}**

**Please read this entire section before attempting an electronic
submission through Grants.gov. If you are unable to utilize the
Grants.gov application submission process, contact Will Wheeler
(wheeler.william@epa.gov) for alternative application submission
instructions at least 10 working days before the deadline to assure
timely receipt of alternate 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 e-mailed whenever possible. The proposal
deadlines and other requirements of this solicitation still apply to
applicants that use alternative submission methods.**

**Note: Grants.gov submission instructions are updated on an as-needed
basis. Please provide your Authorized Organizational Representative
(AOR) with a copy of the following instructions to avoid submission
delays that may occur from the use of outdated instructions.**

The electronic submission of your proposal package must be made by an
official representative of your institution who is registered with
Grants.gov and is authorized to sign applications for Federal
assistance.  For more information, go to
[http://www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/) and click on "Get
Registered" on the left side of the page. * Note that the registration
process may take a week or longer to complete.*  If your organization is
not currently registered with Grants.gov, please encourage your office
to designate an AOR and ask that individual to begin the registration
process as soon as possible. 

The appropriate electronic proposal package available through the
[http://www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/) site must be used for
electronic submissions. To begin the application process, go to
[http://www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/) and click on the "Apply
for Grants" tab on the left side of the page. Then click on "Apply Step
1: Download a Grant Application Package" to download the compatible
Adobe viewer and obtain the proposal package. For more information on
Adobe Reader please go to <http://www.grants.gov/help/help.jsp>.

***Note: Grants.gov is aware of a corruption issue when Adobe Reader
application packages are saved in different versions of Adobe Reader. It
is recommended that applicants uninstall earlier versions of Adobe
Reader and then install the version available and compatible through
Grants.gov.***

The proposal package may be quickly accessed from
<https://apply.grants.gov/forms_apps_idx.html> using the appropriate FON
(EPA-OPEI-NCEE-08-02). Please register for announcement change
notification emails.

    

The Grants.gov website provides customer support via (800) 518-GRANTS
(this is a toll-free number) or through e-mail at <support@grants.gov>.
The customer support center is open from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, to address
Grants.gov technology issues

**Proposal Submission Deadline:**  Your organization's AOR must submit
your complete proposal package, as described in Section IV. B of the
announcement, electronically to EPA through Grants.gov
([http://www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/)) no later than 11:59pm
EST on December 5, 2008. Proof of timely submission is automatically
recorded by Grants.gov.

An electronic time stamp is generated within the system when the
proposal is successfully received by Grants.gov. The applicant will
receive an acknowledgement of receipt and a tracking number from
Grants.gov with the successful transmission of their proposal.

Applicants should print this receipt and save it, along with facsimile
receipts for information provided by facsimile, as proof of timely
submission. When EPA successfully retrieves the package from Grants.gov,
Grants.gov will provide an electronic acknowledgment of receipt to the
e-mail address of the AOR. Proof of Timely submission shall be the date
and time that Grants.gov receives your proposal package.

EPA ***strongly*** suggests that applicants submit their proposals
during the operating hours of the Grants.gov Support Desk, so that if
there are questions concerning transmission, operators will be available
to walk you through the process. Submitting it during the Support Desk
hours will also ensure that you have sufficient time for the proposal to
complete its transmission prior to the proposal deadline.

Applicants using dial-up connections should be aware that transmission
should take some time before Grants.gov receives it. Grants.gov will
provide either an error or a successfully received transmission message.
The Grants.gov Support desk reports that some applicants abort the
transmission because they think that nothing is occurring during the
transmission process.

Please be patient and give the system time to process the proposal.
Uploading and transmitting many files particularly electronic forms with
associated XML schemas will take some time to be processed.

Please submit *all* of the proposal materials described below and in
Section IV.B of the announcement.. To view the full funding
announcement, go to [http://www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/)  and
click on "Find Grant Opportunities" on the left side of the page and
then click on Search Opportunities/Browse by Agency and select
Environmental Protection Agency.

**1. Proposal Materials**

**The following forms and documents are required to be submitted under
this announcement:**

Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)\
Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424A)\
Narrative Proposal-See Section IV.B of the announcement for details.

Key Contacts Form (IV.B.3., above).

Other Attachments Form-Attachment for Documentation of Qualifications
and Letters of Intent

The proposal package *must* include all of the following materials: \
 

**a. Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance**

Complete the form.  There are no attachments

Please note that the organizational Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data
Universal Number System (DUNS) number must be included on the SF-424. 
Organizations may obtain a DUNS number at no cost by calling the
toll-free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711.

**b. Standard Form SF 424A -- Budget Information**:\
Complete the form.  There are no attachments.\
The total amount of federal funding requested for the project period
should be shown on line 5(e) and on line 6(k) of SF-424A.  If indirect
costs are included, the amount of indirect costs should be entered on
line 6(j).  The indirect cost rate (i.e., a percentage), the base (e.g.,
personnel costs and fringe benefits), and the amount should also be
indicated on line 22.

**c. Narrative Proposal** -- prepared as described in Section IV.B.3 of
the announcement. The document should be readable in PDF, MS Word or
Word Perfect WP6/7/8 for Windows and consolidated into a single file. 

**d. EPA Form 5700-54, Key Contacts Form**

Complete the form.  There are no attachments.\
If additional pages are needed, attach these additional pages to the
electronic application package by using the "Other Attachments Form" in
the "Optional Documents" box.  (See Application Preparation and
Submission Instructions below for more details.)

 e. **Attachment for Documentation of Qualifications and Letters of
Intent** - The applicant must include in this attachment resumes of all
principal staff who will have a major role in the project and letters of
intent to provide resources for the proposed research or to document
intended interactions. If your RFP is submitted electronically through
Grants.gov, use the "Other Attachments Form" in the "Optional Documents"
box to attach this.

     \
       \
**2. Proposal** **Preparation and Submission Instructions**

\(a\) On the initial electronic Grant Application Package page, complete
the "Application Filing Name" field by entering the Lead/Contact PI's
name, starting with the last name. Note: Applicants do not need to
complete the "Competition ID" field.

\(b\) Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424): Complete the form.

\(c\)  Standard Form SF 424A -- Budget Information: Complete the form.

\(d\) EPA Key Contacts Form 5700-54: Complete the form.

(e) Narrative Proposal-Project Narrative Attachment Form (click on "Add
    Mandatory Project Narrative"): Attach a single electronic file
    labeled "Narrative Proposal" that contains the items described in
    Section IV.B.3. of this solicitation.

(f) Other Attachment for Documentation of Qualifications and Letters of
    Intent - The applicant must include in this attachment resumes of
    all principal staff who will have a major role in the project and
    letters of intent to provide resources for the proposed research or
    to document intended interactions. If your RFP is submitted
    electronically through Grants.gov, use the "Other Attachments Form"
    in the "Optional Documents" box to attach this.

For documents (b)-(d), click on the appropriate form and then click
"Open Form" below the box.  The fields that must be completed will be
highlighted in yellow.  Optional fields and completed fields will be
displayed in white.  If you enter an invalid response or incomplete
information in a field, you will receive an error message.  When you
have finished filling out each form, click "Save."  When you return to
the electronic Grant Application Package page, click on the form you
just completed, and then click on the box that says, "Move Form to
Submission List."  This action will move the document over to the box
that says, "Mandatory Completed Documents for Submission." 

For document (e) (or if additional pages are needed for the Key Contacts
Form), you will need to attach electronic files.  Prepare your narrative
proposal as described above in Section IV.B.3 of the announcement and
save the document to your computer. The document should be readable in
PDF, MS Word or Word Perfect WP6/7/8 for Windows. When you are ready to
attach your proposal to the application package, click on "Project
Narrative Attachment Form," and open the form.  Click "Add Mandatory
Project Narrative File," and then attach your proposal (previously saved
to your computer) using the browse window that appears.  You may then
click "View Mandatory Project Narrative File" to view it.  Enter a brief
descriptive title of your project in the space beside "Mandatory Project
Narrative File Filename;" the filename should be no more than 40
characters long.  If there other attachments that you would like to
submit to accompany your proposal, you may click "Add Optional Project
Narrative File" and proceed as before.  When you have finished attaching
the necessary documents, click "Close Form."  When you return to the
"Grant Application Package" page, select the "Project Narrative
Attachment Form" and click "Move Form to Submission List."  The form
should now appear in the box that says, "Mandatory Completed Documents
for Submission."

For document f, see above.

Once the application package has been completed, the "Submit" button
should be enabled. If the "Submit" button is not active, please call
Grants.gov for assistance at 1-800-518-4726. Investigators should save
the completed application package with two different file names before
providing it to the AOR to avoid having to re-create the package should
submission problems be experienced or a revised application needs to be
submitted.

Submitting the proposal package. The proposal package must be
transferred to Grants.gov by an AOR. The AOR should close all other
software before attempting to submit the proposal package. Click the
"submit" button of the proposal package. Your Internet browser will
launch and a sign-in page will appear. *Note: Minor problems are not
uncommon with transfers to Grants.gov. It is essential to allow
sufficient time to follow all trouble-shooting instructions, including
contacting Grants.gov, before 11:59 pm Eastern Time on the solicitation
closing date.*

A successful transfer will end with an on-screen acknowledgement. For
documentation purposes, print or screen capture this acknowledgement. If
a submission problem occurs, reboot the computer -- turning the power
off may be necessary -- and re-attempt the submission. If submission
problems continue, call Grants.gov for assistance (Telephone:
1-800-518-4726).

Note: Grants.gov issues a "case number" upon a request for assistance 

**[F. Intergovernmental Review]{.underline}** -- All applicants should
be aware that formal requests for assistance might be subject to
intergovernmental review under Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental
Review of Federal Programs. Applicants should contact their State\'s
Single Point of Contact (SPOC\'s) for further information. A list of
SPOC\'s can be accessed at
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html>. This information
should be addressed in Block 16 of the required form, SF 424.

**[G.]{.underline}** **[Pre-proposal/Application Assistance and
Communications.  ]{.underline}**

In accordance with EPA\'s Assistance Agreement Competition Policy (EPA
Order 5700.5A1), EPA staff will not meet with individual applicants to
discuss draft proposals, provide informal comments on draft proposals,
or provide advice to applicants on how to respond to ranking criteria.
Applicants are responsible for the contents of their
applications/proposals. However, consistent with the provisions in the
announcement, EPA will respond to questions from individual applicants
regarding threshold eligibility criteria, administrative issues related
to the submission of the proposal, and requests for clarification about
the announcement.

**Section V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION**

All eligible grant proposals under area (1), "Design of Policies for
Pollution Control Using Market Mechanisms", will be reviewed by an
appropriate external technical peer review panel comprised of individual
experts using the peer review criteria described below. This review is
designed to evaluate each proposal according to its scientific merit.
Reviewers are asked to individually assign a score of excellent, very
good, good, fair, or poor to each proposal. EPA translates the average
of these individual scores into the final panel review score. Proposals
under area (1) receiving final panel review 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 NCEE, ORD, and program
and regional offices involved with the economics proposed. All proposals
under area (1) that do not receive a score of Very Good or Excellent
from the peer review panel are automatically declined.

Proposals under area (2), "Data Gathering for Dissertation and Early
Career Research on the Pollution Control Aspects of Environmental
Economics", undergo a separate internal programmatic review as described
below and do not undergo peer review.

**[A. Evaluation Criteria For Area One]{.underline}**

1\. Peer Review Criteria for Area (1), "Design of Policies for Pollution
Control Using Market Mechanisms."

Individual external peer review panel members consider the proposals
merit based on the criteria below. Criteria 1-5 are listed in descending
order of importance:

> 1\. Narrative Proposal (criteria 1a through 1f are essentially equal):
>
> a\. The originality and creativity of the proposed research and the
> appropriateness and adequacy of the proposed research methods to the
> research question(s).
>
> b\. The practicality and technically defensibility of the research
> approach, and the adequacy of the proposed time period.

c\. The expected contributions to the knowledge of policy design using
market mechanisms

> d\. The projected benefits of the proposed activity to society,
> including improving the environment or human health.
>
> e\. How well the results will be disseminated broadly to enhance
> scientific and technological understanding.
>
> f\. How well the proposal is 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. The extent to which all key personnel make an adequate time
> commitment to the project commensurate with their role in the project.
>
> 3\. Responsiveness: The responsiveness of the proposal to the research
> needs identified for the topic area. How well the proposal addresses
> 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/or equipment proposed for the project. The existence of
> any potential deficiencies that may interfere with the successful
> completion of the research.
>
> 5\. Budget: 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.

2\. Programmatic Review Criteria for Area (1), "Design of Policies for
Pollution Control Using Market Mechanisms."

Proposals under area one receiving a score of Very Good or Excellent
from the peer review panel will be evaluated against the following
technical criteria in the programmatic review. The importance of each
criterion is indicated in percentage terms in parentheses after each
criterion, and applicants are advised that their proposals should
explicitly address each of the following to facilitate evaluation:

(1) Relevance and usefulness of the proposed research to solving
    important environmental problems. Applicants will be evaluated based
    on usefulness of new analytical models or empirical methods and how
    the usefulness of such research can be greatly enhanced by applying
    those new developments to one or more relevant, real-world problems
    as part of the proposed project. (Given the scope of the RFP, the
    benchmark real-world problem which is considered to be most useful
    to study is climate change in the United States.) (35%)

(2) Cost-effectiveness of the proposed research in terms of its likely
    contribution towards advancing knowledge of the use of market
    mechanisms for the research community, the interested public, and
    for policy makers. The proposals will be evaluated based on the
    extent that the budget is clearly stated, detailed, and appropriate
    to achieve the project's objectives. Proposals that identify
    partnering organization(s) will be evaluated on their ability to
    document these relationships with the applicant, for example,
    through letters of support, joint statements, or principles of
    agreement signed by other parties (25%)

(3) Likely credibility of the resulting research to the research
    communities and stakeholders involved. This will be judged primarily
    on the professional standing of the proposed researchers in their
    respective research communities but also on the likelihood that the
    methods proposed would be accepted by these communities and other
    stakeholders. (20%)

(4) Programmatic Capability: Under this criterion, applicants will be
    evaluated based on their ability to successfully complete and manage
    the proposed project taking into account the following factors (each
    is worth 2.5%): (i) its past performance in successfully completing
    and managing federally funded assistance agreements (an assistance
    agreement is a grant or cooperative agreement and not a contract)
    similar in size, scope, and relevance to the proposed project
    performed within the last 3 years, (ii) its history of meeting
    reporting requirements under federally funded assistance agreements
    (an assistance agreement is a grant or cooperative agreement and not
    a contract) similar in size, scope, and relevance to the proposed
    project performed within the last 3 years and submitting acceptable
    final technical reports under those agreements, (iii) its
    organizational experience and plan for timely and successfully
    achieving the objectives of the proposed project, and (iv) its staff
    expertise/qualifications, staff knowledge, and resources or the
    ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of the
    proposed project. Note: In evaluating applicants under this
    criterion, the Agency will consider the information provided by the
    applicant and may also consider relevant information from other
    sources including agency files and prior/current grantors (e.g., to
    verify and/or supplement the information supplied by the applicant).
    Applicants with no relevant or available past performance or
    reporting history (items i and ii above), will receive a neutral
    score (1.25%) for those elements of this criterion. (10%)

(5) Environmental Results Past Performance Criterion: Under this
    criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on the extent and
    quality to which they adequately documented and/or reported on their
    progress towards achieving the expected results (e.g., outcomes and
    outputs) under Federal agency assistance agreements (an assistance
    agreement is a grant or cooperative agreement and not a contract)
    performed within the last three years, and if such progress was not
    being made whether the applicant adequately documented and/or
    reported why not. Note: In evaluating applicants under this factor,
    EPA will consider the information provided by the applicant and may
    also consider relevant information from other sources including
    agency files and prior/current grantors (e.g., to verify and/or
    supplement the information supplied by the applicant). Applicants
    with no relevant or available past performance reporting history
    will receive a neutral score (2.5 %) for this factor. (5%)

(6) Completeness of the Plan for Tracking and Reporting Progress Towards
    Achieving Environmental Outcomes and Outputs: Applicants will be
    evaluated based on their plan for tracking and measuring their
    progress towards achieving the expected project outputs and outcomes
    including those identified in Section I. (5%).

**[B. Evaluation Criteria for Area 2, "Data Gathering for Dissertation
and Early Career Research on the Pollution Control Aspects of
Environmental Economics."]{.underline}**

Each eligible proposal submitted for this area will be evaluated against
the following technical criteria in the programmatic review. The
importance of each criterion is indicated in percentage terms in
parentheses after each criterion. Applicants are advised that their
proposals should explicitly address each of the following to facilitate
evaluation:

(1) Relevance and usefulness of the proposed research to solving
    important environmental problems. Applicants will be evaluated based
    on usefulness of new analytical models or empirical methods and
    their correspondence to the priorities outlined in the Environmental
    Economics Research Strategy (U.S. EPA 2005) as described in
    Section I. (30%)

(2) Cost-effectiveness of the proposed data gathered in terms of its
    likely contribution towards advancing knowledge of the pollution
    control aspects of environmental economics for the research
    community, the interested public, and for policy makers. This will
    be judged by the absence of similar and equally useful data already
    collected by others, the importance of the data proposed to be
    collected to advancing knowledge of the pollution control aspects of
    environmental economics, the data plan, and the projected cost of
    gathering the data. The proposals will be evaluated based on the
    extent that the budget is clearly stated, detailed, and appropriate
    to achieve the project's objectives. Proposals that identify
    partnering organization(s) will be evaluated on their ability to
    document these relationships with the applicant, for example,
    through letters of support, joint statements, or principles of
    agreement signed by other parties. (25%)

(3) Likely credibility of the proposed data to the environmental
    economics research community. This criterion will be evaluated on
    the basis of the following five data assessment factors (see
    <http://www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/pdfs/assess2.pdf> for additional
    information on some closely related data assessment factors):

> [Soundness]{.underline} - The extent to which the scientific and
> technical procedures, measures, methods or models employed to generate
> the information are likely to be reasonable for, and consistent with,
> the intended application (10%).
>
> [Clarity and Completeness]{.underline} - The degree of clarity and
> completeness with which the data, assumptions, methods, quality
> assurance, sponsoring organizations, and analyses employed to generate
> the information are likely to be documented (5%).
>
> [Uncertainty and Variability]{.underline} - The extent to which the
> variability and uncertainty (quantitative and qualitative) in the
> information or in the procedures, measures,
>
> methods or models are likely to be evaluated and characterized (5%).
>
> [Evaluation and Review]{.underline} - The likely extent of independent
> verification, validation and peer review of the information or of the
> procedures, measures, methods or models, and effectiveness of the plan
> in measuring and tracking progress(5%). (Total: 25%).

(4) Programmatic Capability: Under this criterion, applicants will be
    evaluated based on their ability to successfully complete and manage
    the proposed project taking into account the following factors (each
    is worth 2.5%): (i) its past performance in successfully completing
    and managing federally funded assistance agreements (an assistance
    agreement is a grant or cooperative agreement and not a contract)
    similar in size, scope, and relevance to the proposed project
    performed within the last 3 years, (ii) its history of meeting
    reporting requirements under federally funded assistance agreements
    (an assistance agreement is a grant or cooperative agreement and not
    a contract) similar in size, scope, and relevance to the proposed
    project performed within the last 3 years and submitting acceptable
    final technical reports under those agreements, (iii) its
    organizational experience and plan for timely and successfully
    achieving the objectives of the proposed project, and (iv) its staff
    expertise/qualifications, staff knowledge, and resources or the
    ability to obtain them, to successfully achieve the goals of the
    proposed project. Note: In evaluating applicants under this
    criterion, the Agency will consider the information provided by the
    applicant and may also consider relevant information from other
    sources including agency files and prior/current grantors (e.g., to
    verify and/or supplement the information supplied by the applicant).
    Applicants with no relevant or available past performance or
    reporting history (items i and ii above), will receive a neutral
    score (1.25%) for those elements of this criterion. (10%)

(5) Environmental Results Past Performance Criterion: Under this
    criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on the extent and
    quality to which they adequately documented and/or reported on their
    progress towards achieving the expected results (e.g., outcomes and
    outputs) under Federal agency assistance agreements (an assistance
    agreement is a grant or cooperative agreement and not a contract)
    performed within the last three years, and if such progress was not
    being made whether the applicant adequately documented and/or
    reported why not.

> Note: In evaluating applicants under this factor, EPA will consider
> the information provided by the applicant and may also consider
> relevant information from other sources including agency files and
> prior/current grantors (e.g., to verify and/or supplement the
> information supplied by the applicant). Applicants with no relevant or
> available past performance reporting history will receive a neutral
> score (2.5%) for this factor. (5%)
>
> \(6\) Completeness of the Plan for Tracking and Reporting Progress
> Towards Achieving Environmental Outcomes and Outputs. Applicants will
> be evaluated based on their plan for tracking and measuring their
> progress towards achieving the expected project outputs and outcomes
> including those identified in Section I. (5%)

**[C. Selection Process]{.underline}**

The review of proposals for areas one and two will be conducted in a
manner that provides for separate rankings of proposals submitted for
each of the subject areas. The final programmatic review scores for each
proposal for each area will be based on averaging the individual scoring
of each programmatic reviewer, after panel discussions regarding their
initial evaluations. The review panels will recommend the proposals with
the highest evaluated average numerical scores in each of the two
subject areas to the EPA Approving Official (the NCEE Director) for
consideration of funding. Final funding decisions are made by the NCEE
Director based on these recommendations and in making the final funding
decisions the NCEE Director may also consider program balance, available
funds, and the results of the peer review for area one. Applicants
selected for funding will be required to provide additional information
listed below under "Award Notices." The proposal will then be forwarded
to EPA's Grants and Interagency Agreement Management Division for award
in accordance with the EPA's procedures.

NCEE may ask applicants whose Proposals to modify their work plans or
budgets before making final funding recommendations. Applicants will not
be asked or permitted to make any material changes to their work
plans/budgets that would affect the basis upon which the proposal (or
portions of the proposal) was recommended or selected for funding. EPA
expects to identify and notify final contending applicants regarding the
need for complete proposals within four months of the closing of this
solicitation. Final contending applicants will then have approximately
four to six weeks to complete and submit a full assistance agreement
application.

**Section VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION**

**[A. Award Notices]{.underline}**

Applicants will be notified by e-mail about evaluation decisions and the
prospect of a grant award based upon the outcome of the review and
recommendation of the Approving Official. A summary statement of the
scientific review by the review panel will be provided to each applicant
upon request

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.

The official notification of an award will be made by the Agency's
Grants and Interagency Agreement Management Division. Applicants are
cautioned that only a grants officer is authorized to bind the
Government to the expenditure of funds; a preliminary selection does not
guarantee an award.

NCEE anticipates that proposals under this announcement will be reviewed
and selections for awards completed by April 15, 2009.

Upon receipt and processing of the formal grant applications, EPA will
announce recipients through the posting of information on NCEE's
website,
[[http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/Grants.html]{.underline}](http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/Grants.html).

EPA expects to announce successful awards no later than May 2009.

**[B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements]{.underline}**

Applicants must comply with standard EPA assistance agreement
requirements. Funded activities must be allowable under EPA statutory
authority (see *Section III*, *Eligibility Information*). Expectations
and responsibilities of grantees *and* cooperative agreement holders are
summarized in this section, although the terms grant and grantee are
used.

1.  **Meetings:** PIs under area (1) "Design of Policies for Pollution
    Control Using Market Mechanisms" 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 a significant change from the
    work described in the proposal. 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.

During annual reviews, the designated EPA Project Officer will evaluate
the progress of the grantee in completing tasks detailed in the
workplan, ensure that the grantee is meeting all programmatic
requirements, and spending federal funds on allowable activities under
the cooperative agreement.

In addition to the required quarterly progress reports recipients must
submit proceedings for any conferences held as well as comprehensive
overall draft and final technical reports. The final report should
provide a complete description of all research undertaken and all
results achieved; and the proceedings should be submitted in a form
suitable for posting on the NCEE Website. In the case of area (2) a copy
of the dissertation and if possible the data gathered must be submitted
and will be accepted in lieu of a final report. The draft final report
will be due 90 days prior to the end of the assistance agreement. After
reviewing the Project Officer's comments, the grantee will prepare a
final report, which will be due at the end of the assistance agreement.

Grantees are in addition encouraged to develop and submit technical
papers based on their research to appropriate technical journals. A
grant recipient must also agree to provide copies of any peer reviewed
journal article(s) resulting from the award during the project period.
In addition, the recipient should notify the EPA Project Officer of any
papers published after completion of the grant that were based on
research supported by the grant.

3.  **Acknowledgement of EPA Support:** EPA's full or partial support
    must be acknowledged in the proceedings document, journal articles,
    oral or poster presentations, news releases, interviews with
    reporters and other communications. Any documents developed under
    this agreement that are intended for distribution to the public or
    inclusion in a scientific, technical, or other journal shall include
    the following statement:

> This proceedings document \[or article\] was developed under
> Assistance Agreement No. ("assigned upon issuance by EPA's Office of
> Grants and Debarment") 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.

**[C. Reporting]{.underline}**

The recipient of these financial awards will be subject to post award
monitoring by a designated EPA Project Officer. A Project Officer will
be designated at the time of award of the assistance agreements. To
comply with standard EPA post award monitoring requirements, the
recipient must submit progress reports quarterly, and participate in an
annual review of the project with the EPA Project Officer. Annual
reviews may take place on or off-site. Quarterly progress reports detail
the project status, tasks completed during the reporting period,
compliance with the workplan, anticipated goals and tasks for the
upcoming quarter, expenditures, and remaining grant funds. Every fourth
quarterly progress report should be in the format for STAR annual
reports and be accompanied by a summary suitable for web posting. (The
STAR format is detailed at
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/terms/tscs05.html.)

During annual reviews, the designated EPA Project Officer will evaluate
the progress of the grantee in completing tasks detailed in the
workplan, ensure that the grantee is meeting all programmatic
requirements, and spending federal funds on allowable activities under
the grant or cooperative agreement.

In addition to the required quarterly progress reports recipients must
submit proceedings for any conferences suitable for posting on the NCEE
Website as well as copies of any technical reports. The final report
should provide a complete description of all results achieved. The draft
final report will be due 90 days prior to the end of the assistance
agreement. After reviewing the Project Officer's comments, the grantee
will prepare a final report, which will be due at the end of the
assistance agreement. The final report should be accompanied by a
summary suitable for web posting in the format required for STAR final
report summaries.

**[D. Disputes]{.underline}**

Assistance agreement competition-related disputes will be resolved in
accordance with the dispute resolution procedures published in 70 FR
(Federal Register) 3629, 3630 (January 26, 2005) which can be found at
<http://www.epa.gov/ogd/competition/resolution.htm>. Copies of these
procedures may also be requested through the Agency contact listed in
*Section VII*.

**E. Nonprofit Administrative Capability Clause**

Nonprofit applicants that are recommended for funding under this
announcement are subject to pre-award administrative capability reviews
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' which can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700_8.pdf. In addition, non-profit
applicants that qualify for funding may, depending on the size of the
award, be required to fill out and submit to the Grants Management
Office the Administrative Capability Form, with supporting documents,
contained in Appendix A of EPA Order 5700.8.

**[F. Human Subjects]{.underline}**

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.

**[G. Public Access and Information Release]{.underline}**

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 EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. 30.36.

In addition, the proposal must include a Data Plan to make available all
data from observations, analyses, or model development collected under
an agreement awarded as a result of this RFP in a format and with
documentation/metadata such that they may be used by others in the
scientific community, to the extent feasible to protect confidentiality
and within a reasonable time period.

Section VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Applicants with questions about this solicitation should e-mail their
questions to <NCEE@epa.gov>, using "Grant Solicitation Question" as the
subject. Questions will not be replied to directly. Instead, we will
respond to all appropriate questions by posting answers on our website
on the frequently asked questions (FAQ) page,
[[http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/GrantsFAQ.html]{.underline}](http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/GrantsFAQ.html).
We will acknowledge receipt of e-mail questions within two business
days, indicating whether a response will be posted on our FAQ page.
Questions submitted in other ways will result in a request to resubmit
them by e-mail.

Questions should be submitted as early as possible. Only questions posed
to us by nine days (November 26, 2008) before the closing date (December
5, 2008) will be considered, and no changes will be made to the FAQ page
after four days prior (December 1, 2008) to the closing date of the
solicitation (December 5, 2008).

An email will be sent by NCEE to the Principal Investigator and the
Administrative Contact to acknowledge receipt of the application and
transmit other important information. If you do not receive an email
acknowledgment within 14 days of the submission closing date,
immediately contact the Technical Contact listed under "Agency Contacts"
in this solicitation. See "Submission Instructions for Electronic
Applications" for additional information regarding acknowledgment of
receipt of electronically submitted applications.

**Section VIII. OTHER INFORMATION**

A brief overview of assistance agreements NCEE has awarded over the last
few years is available at:

[http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/Grants.html](http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/Grants.html )