Source: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-11-022.html
Timestamp: 2014-09-24 05:25:15
Document Index: 254555841

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 52', 'art 50', 'art 16', 'art 46', 'art 46', 'art 93', 'arts 74', 'art 87', '§ 1320', 'art 1003']

PAR-11-022: Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (U54)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh)
Safety and Health (NIOSH), (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh)
Title: Centers
for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (U54)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated in this announcement may
differ from those used by the HHS National Institutes of Health (NIH). Written guidance on completing an
application is provided in this announcement and at various websites referenced
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and is
not subject to intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Section 20(a) and
21(a) (29 USC 669(a) and 29 USC 670); Federal Mine Safety and Health Act,
Section 501(a), 30 USC 951(a); Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act as
amended (42 USC 241) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Parts 52 and 86 and 45
principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.
(FOA) is a reissue of PAR-06-057.
November 21, 2012 - See Notice NOT-OH-12-005. Notice of Change to Expiration Date.
October 21, 2011 - See Notice NOT-OH-11-005. NIOSH is announcing that new or revised Ag Center applications will not be accepted for the December 2, 2011 receipt date.
December 22, 2010 - See Notice NOT-OH-11-002 This Notice updates various sections of this PAR.
NIH will gradually transition each research grant mechanism to electronic submission
forms. For more information and an initial timeline, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-06-035.html. NIH will announce each grant mechanism change in the NIH
Guide to Grants and Contracts (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html). NIOSH is following the NIH transition schedule.
Program Announcement (PA) Number: PAR-11-022
Letter of Intent Receipt Date(s): January 4,
2011; November 2, 2011; November 4, 2012.
Receipt Dates(s): February 4, 2011; December 2, 2011 (Not accepting applications per NOT-OH-11-005); (Not accepting applications per NOT-OH-12-005 December 4, 2012), (New Date December 2, 2013 per NOT-OH-12-005).
Review Date(s): April 2011; February/March 2012; February/March 2013.
Review Date(s): May 2011; May 2012; May 2013.
1, 2011; July 1, 2012; July 1, 2013.
Expiration Date: (Extended to December 3, 2013 per NOT-OH-12-005), Originally December 5, 2012.
Purpose. NIOSH is encouraging applications from
qualified organizations for Centers of Excellence in Agricultural
Disease and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers). These centers
will conduct high quality research and help translate scientific
discoveries into practical applications to improve worker safety and health. Ag
Centers are expected to have a high caliber of scientific and technical
competency, be forward looking, and provide regional leadership in the
development and delivery of relevant interventions to improve Ag health and
safety. Center structure should take advantage of diverse scientific resources
and focus on local, regional and national issues. Center functions should
include developing holistic approaches that link prevention, intervention,
translation, outreach, education, and evaluation. The implementation of innovative,
evidence-based solutions that address important agricultural safety and health
problems in a collaborative manner is expected. While a specific Center theme
is not required, applicants must concisely describe the mission, structure,
function and service area of the proposed Center. Supporting information on
major issues, priority focus areas, and essential gaps/needs must be concise,
complete, timely and clearly tied to the basis for the proposed Center.
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards. About
$12M per year is available to be awarded under the Ag Center program. This
includes new applications and resubmission applications. In FY-2011, it is
anticipated that 7-9 center awards will be made for up to 5 years. Awards issued under this FOA are
contingent upon availability of funds and a sufficient number of meritorious
applications. Because the nature and scope of the proposed research will
vary from application to application, it is also anticipated that the size and
duration of each award may also vary. The total amount awarded and the number
of awards will depend upon the number, quality, duration and cost of the
and Project Period. Applicants may
request a project period of up to five years and an annual budget for direct
costs up to $1.3 million dollars per year.
Application Research Strategy Length: The Research
Strategy page length varies by the type of project. Page limits are clearly specified
Submission Information of this announcement.
individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIOSH
Number of PDs/PIs. More than one PD/PI or multiple PDs/PIs may be designated on the
application as Center director. In this case, each PD/PI will be
considered a Center co-director. Multiple PIs may also lead individual research,
prevention, intervention, translation, outreach, education or evaluation projects. Multiple program directors may also be designated.
Number of Applications. Eligible applicant institutions
may submit one application to this announcement.
submit one resubmission application which must include an Introduction
addressing the previous peer review critique (Summary Statement). See new NIOSH
poloicy on resubmission (amended) applications (NOT-OH-10-008).
FOA uses non-standard
receipt dates.
Materials. See Section IV.1 for application materials. Hearing Impaired. Telecommunications for the hearing impaired are available at: TTY: (770) 488-2783.
to NIOSH C. Application Processing
1. Principal Investigator Rights
4. Dispute Resolution Process
Part II - Full Text of Announcement Section I. Funding Opportunity Description 1.
A three year policy development process
(1987-1990) known as “Agricultural Occupational and Environmental Health:
Policy Strategies for the Future” resulted in the emergence of occupational
health and safety in US agriculture as a public health policy issue (see Agricultural at Risk: A
Report to the Nation). Agricultural health and safety programs which subsequently
resulted include NIOSH agricultural occupational health programs, The Kellogg
Foundation agricultural health grants programs, and prospective chronic health
studies of pesticides funded by USEPA and NIH.
In 1990, Public Law 101-517 directed NIOSH to
establish a program of improving the health and safety of agricultural workers
and their families. Details in the Senate
appropriations language of PL 101-517 included the innovative call to establish
extramural Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and
Prevention (Ag Centers). Beginning in 1990 NIOSH established and maintained
these centers through a series of competitive funding opportunity announcements
(FOAs) including PAR-06-057, RFA-OH-03-002,
and RFA-OH-01-004.
The Ag Centers conduct high quality research and help translate scientific discoveries into
practical applications to improve agricultural health and safety. These centers
of excellence help find practical solutions to complex problems,
cultivate collaboration and partnerships, and conduct outreach/education
efforts for specific issues or worker populations. The Ag Centers
are distributed throughout the nation to be responsive to agricultural safety
and health issues unique to different regions. Links to the Ag Centers currently
funded by NIOSH are provided below:
Great Plains Center for
High Plains Intermountain
Center for Agricultural Health and Safety
Northeast Center for Agricultural and
Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety
Southeast Center for
Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention
Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education
Highlights of recent activities can be
found in the Spring
2010 and Fall
2010 editions of the Ag Connections newsletter. Earlier editions of Ag Connections are also available online.
Note: NIOSH also funds the National
Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety (Child
Ag Center). This center strives to enhance the health and safety of children
exposed to hazards associated with agricultural work and rural environments. The
center recompeted for funding in 2008.
From mid-2005 through 2008,
the National Academies (NA) conducted separate evaluation studies of eight NIOSH
programs, including Agriculture,
Forestry and Fishing. These evaluations were guided by a framework document which set standards and methods for all the reviews. Prior to the evaluation,
NIOSH provided an initial
report to the NA evaluation committee. Upon completion of the evaluation,
the NA found the Ag
Centers to be a national resource for addressing occupational safety and health
problems through research, education, prevention and intervention. The
committee considered the centers to be an invaluable component of NIOSH’s
efforts to improve agricultural safety and health.
As the NA reviews were
occurring, NIOSH entered the second decade of the National
Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) with a sector and cross-sector based
structure to better move research to practice within workplaces. The transition
to the new NORA structure involved developing a NORA
National Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Agenda. In addition, NIOSH has
prepared a draft plan to implement recommendations made by the NA evaluation committee.
Continued Need for
Efforts in Agricultural Health and Safety
fishing continue to rank among the most hazardous industries in the US. National Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries (CFOI) data for 2005-2009 indicate that overall
fatality rates for workers in agriculture (farming, ranching, forestry, logging
and fishing) continue to be at least 6-10 times greater than U.S. workers in
general. Fatality rates for parts of the sector (commercial fishing, logging) are
often much higher (up to 50 times greater than U.S. workers in general). Overall
fatality rates in agriculture typically exceed those for occupations
traditionally known as dangerous, such as mining and construction.
Farmers and agricultural workers are also
at high risk for nonfatal injuries, work-related lung diseases, noise-induced
hearing loss, skin diseases, and certain cancers associated with chemical use
and prolonged sun exposure. Farming is one of the few industries in which
families (who often share the work and live on the premises) are also at risk
for injuries, illness, and death. Information compiled by NIOSH from various sources
indicates that in the United States:
About 1.82 million full-time workers were employed in production
agriculture in 2008. That year 456 farmers and farm workers died from
work-related injuries yielding a fatality rate of 25.1 deaths per 100,000
From 1992-2007, almost 8,100 farmers or farm workers died from
work-related injuries. The leading cause, tractor overturns, killed 96 people per
Each day about 243 agricultural workers suffer lost-work-time
injuries. Five percent of these result in permanent impairment.
About 1.12 million children and adolescents under 20 years of age
resided on farms in 2006. About 590,000 of these youth worked on the farms and
an additional 307,000 children and adolescents were hired to work on farms. An
estimated 23,100 children and adolescents were injured on farms; 5,800 of these
injuries were due to farm work.
The most effective way to prevent tractor overturn deaths is the
use of a Roll-Over Protective Structure (ROPS) combined
with use of a seatbelt. In 2006, only 59% of tractors used on farms were
equipped with ROPS. If ROPS were placed on all current farm tractors manufactured
since the mid-1960s, the prevalence of ROPS-equipped tractors could be
increased to over 80%.
Commercial fishing is part
of the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industry sector. Between
80,000-160,000 fishermen are employed on about 80,000 fishing vessels in the
US. This industry consistently experiences one of the highest occupational
fatality rates in the country. In 2007, commercial fishermen had the most
dangerous job in the United States, with an annual fatality rate 28 times
greater than the rate of all U.S. workers (112 and 4 per 100,000,
respectively). A review of commercial fishing fatalities conducted by the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) found that during 1994-2004:
641 commercial fishermen died while fishing in the US; More than 100 vessels were lost each year and resulted in more
than half of all fatalities;
Another 184 (29%) fatalities were due to fisherman falling
Additional fatalities were due to deck injuries (8%), diving (5%)
and fires or explosions (5%).
Logging has
consistently been one of the most hazardous industries in the US. In 2008, the
logging industry employed 86,000 workers, and accounted for 93 deaths which resulted
in a fatality rate of 108.1 deaths per 100,000 workers. This rate is over 30
times higher than the overall fatality rate in the US in 2008 (3.5 deaths per
100,000). This excessive risk for fatal work injuries points to a need for
prioritizing research and intervention programs to make this industry less
The NORA Agricultural, Forestry,
and Fishing Sector Council has developed strategic
goals related to:
Improving surveillance to describe the nature, extent, and economic burden of
occupational illnesses, injuries, and fatalities; occupational hazards; and
worker populations at risk for adverse health outcomes;
Reducing deleterious health and
safety outcomes for workers who are more susceptible to injury or illness due to
circumstances which limit options for safeguarding their own safety and health;
Moving proven health and safety
strategies into workplaces through partnerships and collaborative efforts;
Reducing the number, rate, and
severity of traumatic injuries and deaths involving hazards of production
agriculture, commercial forestry and commercial fishing; and
of workers throughout this sector by reducing occupational causes of, or
factors contributing to, acute and chronic illness and disease.
strategic goals can be obtained from the NORA
National Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Agenda. (Note: Appendix II provides
a dictionary to help standardize terminology used to describe and report
occupational hazards, risks, injury, disease and illness).
Top priorities identified in the NORA
National Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Agenda include:
Improved systems for collecting, analyzing and reporting data
(surveillance);
Valid, timely data regarding
characteristics of vulnerable workers;
Evidence-based interventions for
vulnerable workers;
Effective interventions in
preventing tractor rollovers and runovers;
Effective interventions to reduce
the incidence and prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders; and
deaths associated with vessel sinking and falls overboard.
The 17 priorities identified in the
previous Ag Center announcement (PAR-06-057) are still considered to be important.
to consult Agriculture,
Forestry and Fishing Research at NIOSH published by the National Research
Council and Institute of Medicine. Chapter 11 discusses new and emerging
research areas, and specifically identifies the following six high priority
Changes in demographic characteristics of the workforce;
Changes in the fishing industry;
Emerging forestry issues;
Blurring boundaries for food harvesting and food processing;
Food safety and security; and
Industrialization of agriculture.
Chapter 12 of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishing Research at NIOSH lists eight major recommendations related to improving
the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Research Program. Topics related to
Ag Centers include:
Aligning efforts with national goals and addressing issues on a
regional scale;
Addressing regional forestry and fishing-related issues where
Enhancing the use/role of the National Agricultural Safety
Database (NASD);
Conducting research on knowledge diffusion processes;
Conducting research on reproductive health related to workers; and
Partnering with state, regional, local, community agencies to
increase the capacity for transforming research findings into practical,
Deaths and injuries from tractors continue to
be a great concern in the US. There are ample research data that identify
tractor rollovers as the most frequent cause of death in the agricultural
community. The most effective way to prevent tractor overturn deaths is the
use of a Roll-Over Protective Structure (ROPS) in
conjunction with a seatbelt. It is also important to keep kids away from
Additional information on ROPS can be found in the January 2010
issue of the Journal of Agricultural Safety and
Health. This includes the following:
Jan;16(1):3-4 (PubMed PMID: 20222266)
Jan;16(1):5-18 (PubMed PMID: 20222267)
Jan;16(1):31-40 (PubMed PMID: 20222269)
with pertinent tractor-related information include:
http://depts.washington.edu/trsafety/ http://www.mc.uky.edu/SCAHIP/nationaltractorsafetyinitiativedesingningcommunity.html
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-dhs/agromedicine/tractor.cfm
http://agcenter.ucdavis.edu/tsi/tractor_safety.php
ROPS Guide
Challenges for Ag
The diverse occupational environments
found in this sector reflect the many types of activities conducted in
production agriculture, commercial forestry and commercial fishing. These
activities can vary substantially by geographic region, time of year and the
state of the economy in the US or other countries.
For these, and other, reasons, Ag
Centers face a variety of challenges that include:
Identifying critical
regional issues (or needs) and developing holistic approaches toward resolving
those issues or meeting those needs in alignment with national goals.
integrating evidence-based prevention, intervention, translation, outreach,
education, and evaluation in innovative ways.
caliber of scientific and technical competency.
Being forward-looking
and functioning effectively beyond multiple individual projects.
Building an operational base that extends
beyond NIOSH funding.
Developing and sustaining collaborative,
systematic approaches to identify new knowledge and use it to improve
agricultural safety and health.
Effectively using evaluation to
help assess impact, guide projects and assess programs.
To help meet these challenges
and achieve maximum effectiveness, Ag Centers often rely on collaborative, sustainable
partnerships with diverse organizations. This includes service oriented groups (Agrisafe, NECAS, Agriwellness), state-funded centers
(I-CASH, NYCAMH) or programs (Certified Safe Farms), state/federal
agencies (USDA NASS and NIFA), professional organizations (NIFS), private insurance companies (Farm Bureau) and other groups (AEM, ASHCA).
State, regional, local, or community health departments can also provide
effective partnerships to help initiate, promote and sustain a variety of
activities related to agricultural health and safety.
Ag Centers are considered to be centers
of excellence and are expected to be cohesive, coordinated and synergistic
in their efforts to improve agricultural health and safety. A particular challenge
is developing a cohesive center built on individual projects/programs that are scientifically
and technically meritorious, and clearly contribute in an integrated manner to
the overall Center mission. Thus, each part must be sound, and the combined
parts together must represent a coordinated, cohesive effort toward developing
and delivering relevant interventions to improve agricultural health and safety.
expected to exert a sustained, powerful (transformative) influence on agricultural
health and safety (including forestry and fishing). The focus of each center
may vary based on regional needs and priorities. Overall, the research, prevention, intervention, outreach, education,
translation and evaluation efforts of all centers should be focused on
improving worker health and safety. All levels of Center efforts are expected
to have a direct tie to impacts whenever possible. NIOSH strongly encourages
the use of suitable evaluation techniques/tools and follow-up actions to help
assess impact and outcomes.
NIOSH intends to continue the
Ag Center program and would like to receive
cooperative agreement applications which address regional and national needs in
agricultural health and safety. Applicants should provide holistic approaches
that link and integrate evidence-based prevention, intervention, translation,
outreach, education, and evaluation in innovative ways. Centers are expected to
have a high caliber of scientific and technical competency, be forward looking,
and provide regional leadership in the development and delivery of relevant
interventions to improve Ag health and safety.
Applicant institutions must
demonstrate a commitment of support and encouragement for an Ag Center. Examples
include faculty release time, acquisition of scientific equipment and supplies,
capital improvements for program facilities, travel and meeting/conference
support. Helping ensure that an Ag Center has full support of, and access to,
the diverse resources available at the institution is critical in synergizing
the efforts, impacts and outcomes of NIOSH funding.
Required Federal Citations, for policies related to this announcement. Section II. Award Information 1. Mechanism of Support This funding opportunity
announcement (FOA) will use the U54 cooperative agreement award mechanism. The
directing, and executing the proposed project, with NIOSH staff being
Award". This is an ongoing program. Applications to
this announcement may include a project period of up to five years. NIOSH
intends to re-announce the program upon expiration of this announcement.
2. Funds Available NIOSH intends to commit about $12 million in FY2011 to fund 7-9
cooperative agreements in response to this FOA for a period of up to 5 years.
Funding amounts in future years will depend on annual NIOSH
financial plans of NIOSH provide support for this program, awards pursuant to
receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. Facilities and administrative costs requested by
consortium participants are not included in the direct cost limitation; see NOT-OD-05-004. HHS grants
policies as described in the HHS Grants Policy
organizations/institutions are eligible to apply: Public nonprofit
Small, minority,
and women-owned businesses
recognized or state-recognized American Indian/Alaska
Native tribal governments
Native tribally designated organizations
individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for CDC programs.
More than one PD/PI (i.e., multiple PDs/PIs),
(eRA) Commons prior to the submission of the application (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm for instructions).
with a single PD/PI or multiple PDs/PIs grant is the responsibility of the
Cost Sharing or Matching This program does not require
cost sharing as defined in the current HHS Grants Policy
of Applications. Eligible
applicant institutions may submit one application to this announcement.
Resubmissions. Per NIOSH
policy, one resubmission application is
allowed provided that it includes an Introduction which addresses the previous
Request Application Information Current PHS 398
the PHS 398.
using PHS 398 application forms in accordance with the PHS 398 Application Guide (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html). Applications
title and number of this funding opportunity must be typed in item (box) 2 only of the face page of the application form and the YES box
in the remainder of this section describes special requirements, specific content
to be included, items to be addressed, and guidance on how to organize an
ESSENTIAL AG CENTER COMPONENTS
Ag Center cooperative agreements will support broadly based
multi-disciplinary research, prevention, intervention, translation, outreach,
education and evaluation programs. Ag Centers are expected to have the
following components that cohesively address the stated goals, objectives, and
service/focus areas of the Center:
Administrative and Planning Core (up to $140K direct costs)
Pilot/Feasibility Projects and Emerging Issues Program (up to $70K
direct costs)
Outreach Program (up to $40K direct costs)
Research Core Projects (about 30% of annual costs)
Prevention/Intervention Core Projects (about 20% of annual costs)
Education/Translation Core Projects (about 20% of annual costs)
Evaluation Program (about 10% of annual costs)
The percentages provided above are guidelines and projects may
overlap the categories. The combination of projects and level of effort in each
category will depend on how a Center identifies: 1) its service area, 2) the
critical needs and gaps to be addressed, 3) the role(s) of the Center, and 4)
the systematic approaches that the Center will use to achieve a measurable
impact on agricultural safety and health.
a specific Center theme is not required, applicants must concisely describe the
mission, structure, function and service area of the proposed Center.
Supporting information on major issues, priority focus areas, and essential
gaps/needs must be concise, complete, timely and clearly tied to the basis for
the proposed Center. The overall Center effort must
represent a reasonable, prudent, forward-looking, innovative, and
cost-effective approach toward meaningful and measurable impacts.
and Planning (AP) Core
AP Core facilitates the leadership, guidance, and management of the Center
Director in accomplishing the stated objectives the Ag Center. It provides the
infrastructure to promote cross-discipline interactions among all cores,
programs and projects, and to help ensure research translation.
structure of the AP Core provides the Center Director with a mechanism for:
coordinating and monitoring research, prevention,
intervention, education, translation, outreach, education, and evaluation
cross-discipline expertise;
fiscal and resource management;
internal and external advisory committees;
ensuring appropriate facilities for seminars, meetings, workshops,
advisory committee meetings or conferences;
compiling annual report information.
must clearly explain how the AP Core will achieve effective and efficient
administrative functions. Clear lines of communication and mechanisms for
ensuring integration and interaction between projects, including evaluation,
Center Directors should provide at least a 15% time commitment
(direct and in-kind). The
AP Core supports the entire Center and should not be duplicated within other
and External Advisory Committees
aid the Center Director in achieving the goals of the Ag Center, the
establishment of Internal and External Advisory Committees is required.
Internal Advisory Committees assist Center Directors
with scientific and administrative decisions about operations of the Ag Center.
These committees should be comprised of individual project/program leaders. At
least one from each type of project (research, prevention, intervention and
translation) should be included. Senior key personnel responsible for the
Pilot/Feasibility Projects and Emerging Issues Program, the Outreach Program
and the Evaluation Program should also be included. Responsibilities include
monitoring progress, integrating cross-discipline expertise, providing advice
on outreach, evaluation, and translation, and resolving problems.
Advisory Committees provide guidance, advice and feedback to Center
Directors, project/program leaders, key center personnel, and project
scientists on the progress, direction, impact, and effectiveness of the Center.
These committees should include people knowledgeable about agriculture health
and safety in the area or region served by the Ag Center. Committee composition
should represent the diversity of production agriculture, commercial forestry
or commercial fishing activities in 1) area or region served by the Ag Center,
2) the projects being undertaken by the Center, and 3) the goals of the Center.
Members could include regional or national agriculture experts, producers,
farmers, ranchers, workers, extension specialists, insurers, equipment dealers
or manufacturers, healthcare providers, community organizations, or a NIOSH
scientist (as a non-voting member).
Annual meetings to review the Ag Center’s progress,
direction, successes, impacts and challenges should be convened. These meetings
should provide an open exchange of ideas, information, approaches and knowledge
on various topics including: effective research translation; linking researchers and
stakeholders; identifying effective outreach and education activities; emerging
issues; coordinating research across
disciplines; and sustainability of established, effective prevention,
intervention, outreach and education efforts. Effective external advisors can
serve as force multipliers to enhance Center effectiveness, expand Center reach,
and increase the sustainability of Center efforts beyond reliance on NIOSH
funding alone.
Pilot/Feasibility projects are fundamental to sustaining the
quality, breadth and dynamics of an Ag Center program the program. These
projects are expected to lead to the development of new and creative research,
prevention, intervention, outreach, education, evaluation or translation
findings and outcomes. They should develop and explore new activities or
directions, or take advantage of special opportunities. Pilot projects may not
be used to supplement or prolong ongoing research and should not be used as
bridge funds when other research support is no longer available.
Funds should be designated to provide support for short-term
projects (12-18 months and up to $25K per project). This will also enable
investigators to collect sufficient data to pursue support through other
funding mechanisms. A few examples of feasibility or pilot projects include:
Initial support for developing novel, innovative, cutting edge
research, translation, prevention, intervention, education or outreach
Adapting and evaluating proven prevention, intervention, outreach
or education tools or techniques for new populations, work environments or
Obtaining preliminary data, mining existing state or national
datasets or pursuing critical data gaps;
Supporting investigators from other fields of study to apply their
expertise to agriculture safety and health challenges;
Developing new mechanisms for external or multi-Center collaborative
partnerships to address emerging agriculture safety and health concerns; and
Exploring new directions that represent significant departures
from established approaches yet have the potential to yield great impacts.
Input from Internal and External Advisory Committees on
managing the Pilot/Feasibility Projects and Emerging Issues Program is strongly
recommended. Committee members can advise on scientific merit, relevance and
importance, cross discipline integration, linkage or access to viable stakeholders,
likelihood of success, and important factors for outreach or education
Center application must clearly address how the following will be accomplished:
Widely announcing each pilot/feasibility project funding
Conducting a merit review of pilot/feasibility project proposals;
Maintaining appropriate records including copies of proposals and
their reviews, relative rankings, and final actions (upon request, these
records must be made available to the NIOSH Scientific Program Official named
in the notice of grant award);
Ensuring that appropriate human subjects protections are provided;
Reporting results or outcomes for each pilot/feasibility project
study (publications, presentations, independent grant applications, guidance
documents, web sites, etc.) in grant progress reports or annual reports; and
Sharing significant results or outcomes to the NIOSH Scientific
Program Official named in the notice of grant award in a timely manner.
Center applications should focus on how this program will be
structured and managed. Brief highlights, progress statements or outcomes of
previous pilot or feasibility studies may be included. Areas of interest or priorities
for future projects may be included if known.
Note on Emerging Issues. It is not always possible to
predict: what, when or where new issues may emerge; when a rapid response by a
Center could be critically important; or when a small, timely investment by a
Center could make a big difference. To help address these situations, Center
Directors are allowed some latitude to use $5-10K from this program for strictly
extramural activities at their discretion. The Center Director must fully report
the discretionary use of these funds, including the rationale and outcome of
the Center’s efforts, to the NIOSH Scientific Program Official named in
the Notice of Grant Award. Any such discretionary use of these funds must fully
comply with all applicable HHS/CDC/NIOSH policies.
Outreach Program (up to $50K direct costs)
outreach is necessary to ensure that evidence-based prevention or intervention
findings, best practices, tools, approaches, technologies, guidelines or
policies reach the workplaces and the people who can benefit from them. Ag
Centers must have external partnerships and collaborations to accomplish this.
should highlight strategies and collaborations that can yield effective
adoption of best practices in production agriculture, commercial forestry or
commercial fishing at regional or national levels. Best practices could include
new technologies, engineering controls, behavior change interventions,
education, training, guidelines or incentive programs.
coordination is strongly encouraged to help provide an economy of effort, cost
savings, and to maximally extend any given outreach effort. This
could also include ongoing agriculture communication efforts, regional center
meetings or joint center meetings based on common interests, issues, problems or
Ag Centers should have a cohesive plan for timely dissemination
and translation of evidence-based techniques, tools or programs. Appropriate
communication interventions should be used to promote the adoption of
evidence-based health protection or injury prevention practices. Strategic partnerships
and collaborations should be established to diffuse evidenced-based practices
for preventing work-related illness, injury, and death into the workplace.
Outreach activities and materials should be culturally, linguistically and educationally
Research projects are hypothesis driven projects focused on
improving our understanding of agricultural health and safety issues. They may
include, but are not limited to, projects involving surveillance, etiology,
engineering, risk factor characterization, or development of analytical and
exposure assessment approaches. They may be laboratory or field projects that
provide the basis for creation or improvement of interventions. Research projects
should target priority topics, be done as a part of multidisciplinary efforts
to address important problems, and avoid fragmentary efforts. Topics should be relevant
at the regional or national level.
Core Projects (about 20% of annual costs)
These studies are for testing promising approaches in actual
agriculture, forestry or fishing settings. Prevention/Intervention projects may
include but are not limited to actions taken to eliminate or reduce exposure to
safety and health hazards via practices or policies, or projects to demonstrate
the value of screening or related approaches to detecting disorders and
diseases in early stages. They can also examine the value of larger preventive
systems (e.g., the workers compensation system) in reducing hazards and adverse
outcomes. Prevention/Intervention projects examine the utility and impact of
new and existing measures in the workplace. They may include but are not
limited to combinations of techniques such as control technologies, work
practices, tools and materials, personal protective equipment, exposure
guidelines and regulations, worker participation programs, contract language,
design specifications, and changes in education and training.
should address significant agriculture problems and involve agriculture
stakeholder input to maximize relevance. The development of strong partnerships
with organizations that can facilitate the identification of project needs and
culturally appropriate, prevention, and intervention activities is encouraged.
These projects should include the active participation of target populations
identified at the state and national level, and include an evaluation plan to
determine the efficiency and effectiveness of these techniques and programs.
The significance of a project and its application to the development or implementation of
intervention efforts must be fully developed in the proposal. Individual
projects should identify the types, and the geographical
distribution, of the agricultural issue(s) which will be addressed. The
size and characteristics of populations which can potentially be impacted by
the research findings should be described.
These are projects that focus on the translation of extant
knowledge (e.g. peer reviewed articles) into products or practices that meet
agriculture “customer” needs so as to maximize the impact on
industry practices. The Center Director should view these projects as the tool
to move the results from the research environment into the agriculture industry.
As the goal for these projects is the adoption of new or improved knowledge in
the agriculture sector, the principal investigator must include in the project
plan how the study will accomplish this goal.
Education/Translation projects may include but are not limited to technology
transfer projects or demonstration projects that expand the use of effective
interventions by an agriculture trade or industry group. Projects may address
diffusion research issues to improve understanding of what influences
agriculture industry decision-makers, workers, contractors, building owners, or
others to adopt new practices, tools, and methods to improve safety and health
performance. Participatory research projects, where research subjects and
researchers work as active co-partners on translation issues are encouraged. Social
marketing projects and other approaches that target important topics such as
reducing agriculture fatalities at the industry, state, or national level are
also appropriate.
Program (about 10% of annual costs)
consistent, realistic and convincing evaluation is essential for both short-
and long-term progress toward improving agricultural safety and health. The NIOSH
Ag, Forestry and Fishing Program had major evaluations in 1995 (“the
Kennedy Report”) and 2007 (“the National Academies report”). Evaluation
challenges of Ag Centers were discussed by McDonald and White in 1998.
Donham and Storm also discussed evaluation in their 2002 paper. In an effort to
enhance and improve Ag Center evaluation activities, NIOSH has also funded the Ag Center Evaluation Project.
Center applications must incorporate appropriate evaluation activities at the
program, project or overall center level. Center Directors are allowed
flexibility in developing sensible, practical and realistic Evaluation Programs.
Approaches and rationales should be clearly explained in relevant sections of
the application. Centers may balance evaluation costs between this component,
individual projects and other Center programs or cores (as appropriate) to help
economy of effort, cost savings, or to gain maximum benefits from any given evaluation
is critical in reviewing, adjusting, refining, implementing, and improving a
project, product, process, tool, practice or guideline. Questions like
“Does it work? Will they use it? Did it make a difference? How do we make
it better?”, and many others, require evaluation. Center Directors should
consider consistent and realistic evaluation from the outset and facilitate
collaborations between evaluation experts and project scientists or program
managers. Organized, proactive approaches to evaluation that are considered
from the beginning are likely to be the most useful.
2nd edition (2004) of “The Handbook
of Practical Program Evaluation” (Wholey, Hatry and Newcomer) provides a comprehensive evaluation reference. Applicants may also find the
following links helpful:
Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for Program Evaluation in Public
Health. MMWR 1999;48 (No. RR-11).
Framework for Program
Occupational Health and Safety Research Programs
types of research, prevention, intervention, education, translation or
evaluation projects are encouraged:
projects (R01);
projects (R03);
or developmental projects (R21); and
projects (R18).
of the types of projects proposed, they must be clearly tied to the goals, aims
and mission of the proposed center.
projects (R01) address fully developed ideas and represent fully formed
research efforts that are intended to produce definitive information. The
project period is expected to be 3-5 years. Additional information on the R01 funding mechanism is available at: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-10-188.html and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-09-138.html.
Small projects (R03) can be carried out in a
short period of time (1-2 years) with limited resources (typically up to $50K
direct costs/year for up to two years). Examples include pilot and feasibility
technology. Additional information on the R03 funding mechanism is available
at the following web sites: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-09-138.html and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-10-064.html.
projects (R21) are intended to support early and conceptual stages of project
development. This can include novel projects that break new ground or extend
previous discoveries toward new directions or applications. High-risk/high-reward
studies that may lead to breakthroughs in specific areas, or result in novel
techniques, methodologies, models or applications may be considered. These
types of projects often generate preliminary data that supports submission of
more comprehensive research,
prevention, intervention, education, translation or evaluation grant applications. The project period for R21-type
proposals is expected to be up to 2 years. Additional
information on the R21 funding mechanism is available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-09-138.html and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-10-069.html.
Relevant, high
quality research findings alone do not assure good agricultural safety and
health practices under real world conditions. Acceptance and effective transfer
or incorporation of such findings into routine safety and health practices,
guidelines or policies is not automatic. Translation projects (R18) are
intended to support efforts to facilitate the transfer of research findings to
practice through implementation, dissemination and diffusion research. Proposals
should identify 1) impediments/facilitators to the successful translation of
evidence-based agricultural safety and health interventions; 2) methods for the
successful translation of evidence-based interventions that retain fidelity,
and achieve positive outcomes for specific populations; or 3) optimal
strategies to enhance the widespread adoption and institutionalization of
effective safety and health intervention programs. Types of interventions
may include, but are not limited to, educational strategies, community-based
approaches, behavior change techniques, demonstration
and dissemination projects, and environmental or organizational
strategies. The project period for R18-type proposals
is expected to be 2-4 years. Prospective applicants can refer to the NIOSH Research to Practice (r2p) program. R2p is focused on transferring and translating knowledge,
interventions, and technologies into highly effective prevention practices or
products which are adopted in the workplace. Additional information on a
variety of translation research is available at Improving
Public Health Practice through Translation Research, Research
Demonstration and Dissemination Grants, and Transforming
Primary Care Practice. Tractor-related Projects
Tractor-related proposals included as part of
an Ag Center application must clearly and concisely identify the nature and
scope of the problem to be addressed, the approach to be used and how the
project would contribute to a national solution.
Tractor-related proposals for engineering approaches (e.g., sensors for rear overturn prevention and side stability information, operator
control designs, engineering plastics for universal ROPS mounting), operator
education and training, social marketing, or other innovative approaches will
be considered. Business models that leverage partnerships with dealers,
equipment manufacturers, insurers or other stakeholders to stimulate tractor
upgrades or ROPS retrofitting will also be considered.
NIOSH grant/cooperative agreement funds cannot be used to provide
rebates, incentives or subsidies for retrofitting, upgrading or replacing
AN AG CENTER APPLICATION
must use the PHS
398 version, and the instructions,
which are current at the time of their application. The applications submitted in response to this announcement are complex. The scientific
and programmatic information needed to properly assess them is not fully
accommodated within the basic PHS 398. Consequently, applicants will need to modify
and expand the PHS 398 to properly organize the necessary information for
reviewers. To help facilitate an effective and efficient peer review process, each individual
core, program or project
(i.e., research,
prevention/intervention or education/ translation) should constitute
a complete, discrete unit within the application with minimal
duplication elsewhere. All applicants should use the following outline:
PHS 398 Face Page (Form Page 1)
Form Page 1-continued (only if Multiple PD/PIs are proposed)
Summary, Relevance, Project/Performance Sites, Senior/Key
Personnel, Other Significant Contributors, and Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Use Form
Page 2, additional Project/Performance Site pages and additional continuation pages as needed.
for entire Ag Center (1st 12 month budget for all components in the order they appear in the application)—Form
Budget for the Entire Proposed Project Period (all years, all components)—Form
Biographical Sketch for Center Director/co-Directors
Other Support for Center
Director/co-Directors
Other Biographical Sketches (for people relevant to overall Center)
Other Support for Key Personnel (relevant to overall Center)
Resources (facilities, scientific
environment, physical resources, etc., relevant to overall
Overall Description of the Center for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research,
Education, and Prevention (up
to 10 pages)
Project Period (for existing centers)
Performance/Accomplishments Relevant to Ag Center goals (for new applicants)
Institutional Commitment to the Ag Center (up
to 2 pages)
Identification of States that will be
involved with the Ag Center
the projects and human subjects information (project title, performance sites,
FWAs, IRB approval date/status)
Administrative and Planning Core Cover Sheet (with section title, PI Name and
table of contents for the section)
Administrative and Planning Core Description (see outline and page limits below)
Pilot/Feasibility Projects and Emerging Issues Program Cover Sheet with section
title, PI Name and
Pilot/Feasibility Projects and Emerging Issues Program (see outline and
page limits below)
Outreach Program Cover Sheet (with section title, PI/Program Director, and table of
contents for the section)
Outreach Program (see outline and page limits below)
Research Core Cover
Sheet (should serve
as table of contents for the section by including each project title, PI, type of project (R01, etc.) and 1st page of each project)
Individual Research Core Project Plans (A, B, etc.—see
outline and page limits below) Prevention/Intervention Core Cover Sheet (should serve as table of contents for the
section by including each project title, PI, type of project (R01, etc.) and 1st page of each project)
Prevention/Intervention Project Plans (A,
B, etc.—see outline and
Education/Translation Core Cover Sheet (should
serve as table of contents for the section by including each project title, PI,
type of project (R01, etc.) and 1st page of each project)
Education/Translation Project Plans (A,
Evaluation Program Cover Sheet should serve as table of contents for the
Evaluation Program (see outline and page limits below)
Note: Each individual core, program or project (research, prevention,
intervention, education, or translation) should constitute a complete, discrete unit within the
application, and should use the following
PHS 398 Face Page with Items
1-8 completed
Page 2, additional Project/Performance Site pages and additional continuation pages as
Highlights of Accomplishments for Past
Project Period (if part of existing
Ag Center, 2 pages)
Detailed Budget for the Initial Budget Period for
Individual Core, Program, Project or Component (Form
Budget for the Entire Proposed Period for
for Program Directors/Principal Investigators
Other Biographical
Resources (facilities,
scientific environment, physical resources) Research Plan (or Program Plan)
(for resubmission applications, 1 page)
Aims (1 page)
Strategy (or Program Strategy)--follow
the page limits specified below
Studies for New Applications/Progress
Report for Renewal Applications (see note below)
Enrollment Report (renewal or revision applications only)
and References Cited/Progress Report Publication List
PD/PI Leadership Plan
of Support (e.g., consultants, collaborators, including NIOSH)
Research Strategy Page Limits for Individual Projects: 12 pages for each R01-type project; 6 pages for each R03,
R18 and R21-type project.
Preliminary Studies/Progress Report for Individual Projects: may be included within the Significance, Innovation or Approach sections of the
Research Strategy; may be a separate section of the Research Strategy; may be
placed in different order within Research Strategy than shown above.
AP Core, Pilot/Feasibility Projects and
Emerging Issues Program, Outreach Program,
and Evaluation Program: should follow the outline provided above. The
Research Plan section may be
modified (Program Plan) to accommodate these programs. In each of these
cases, the section equivalent to the Research Strategy (i.e., Program Strategy) noted above is
limited to 10 pages.
Applications must conform to PHS 398 typeset
limitations. All pages should be numbered sequentially throughout the application
beginning with the Face Page as Page 1.
Page limits (and guidance) in the PHS398
instructions, and subsequent update
notices, should be adhered to unless superceded by limits (and guidance) specified
in this announcement. Applications that do not observe the required page
limitations (or other guidance) may not be reviewed.
Appendices are optional. NIOSH, AHRQ and NIH issued
a notice on 15 April 2010 about limits on appendix materials that may be submitted with
grant applications. Appendix materials must be well organized, clearly labeled
as to the relevant section of the application, and ordered similarly to the application
page limitations. 3. Submission Dates and Times
See Section IV.3.A. for details. 3.A. Receipt, Review and
Anticipated Start Dates Letter of
Intent Receipt Date(s): January 4, 2011; November 2, 2011; November 4, 2012.
Receipt Dates(s): February 4, 2011; December 2, 2011; December 4, 2012.
title for each component (core, program or project)
of each core, program or project leader
individual research, prevention, intervention, education, translation or evaluation
projects, indicate the type of project (R01, R03, R21, R18)
indication where human or animal subjects will be involved
key personnel, and participating or collaborating institutions.
not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of the subsequent
application, the information which it contains allows NIOSH staff to estimate
the potential review workload and plan adequately for the review.
sent by the date listed in Section IV.3.A.
M. Chris Langub, Ph.D.
FAX: (404) 498-2571 Email: mlangub@cdc.gov
Century Parkway NE (4th Floor), Atlanta, GA 30345-3114
an Application to NIOSH
be prepared using the research grant application forms found in the PHS 398
the time of submission, two additional paper copies of the application and 5
CDs of the appendix materials (if any) must be sent to:
received on or before the application receipt date described above (Section
IV.3.A.). If an application is received after that
date, the application may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed.
for responsiveness by the NIOSH. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications
will not be reviewed. Note: Since email can be unreliable, it is
NIOSH will not accept
currently pending initial merit review, unless the applicant withdraws the
the same as one already reviewed. However, NIOSH will accept a resubmission
Ag Center applications
previously submitted to PAR-06-057,
but not funded, must be prepared as NEW applications. A new application
is expected to be substantially different in content and scope with more
significant differences than would normally be encountered in a resubmitted
application. It should exhibit a significant change in direction and approach
and include substantial changes in all sections of the Research Plan. The application must not include an Introduction describing
the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate
4. Intergovernmental Review Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
5. Funding Restrictions All CDC/NIOSH awards are
Requirements Awardees must agree
to the "Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award" in Section
VI.2.A. PHS 398 Research Plan
be followed, unless specified otherwise in this announcement.
resubmission applications, an Introduction is required and is limited to 3 pages.
same package with the two application copies to the NIOSH Scientific Review
Officer listed in Section IV.3.B.
limitations may not be considered in the review process.
The HHS/CDC data sharing policy is available at http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/ARs.htm under Additional Requirements “Release and Sharing of
Data”. All investigators responding to this funding opportunity should
include a description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why
data sharing is not possible. The precise content of the data-sharing plan will
planning to share the data. Applicants should describe briefly the expected
they will provide, whether or not any analytic tools also will be provided,
receive the data and whether or not the awardee will place any conditions on
through a data archive or enclave). References to data sharing may also be
HHS policy requires that grant award
publication (see the HHS Grants Policy Statement http://www.hhs.gov/grantsnet/docs/HHSGPS_107.doc.) Investigators responding to this
funding opportunity should include a plan for sharing research resources
will be considered by the HHS/CDC Program staff of the funding organization
each non-competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm). See Section VI.3. Reporting.
technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by CDC/NIOSH and in accordance with HHS peer review
procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/), using the review criteria stated below.
Applications that are complete and responsive
review group convened by NIOSH in accordance with HHS/NIH peer review
below. For additional information on the enhanced peer review process to be
used for this announcement, see http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/.
a selection process in which all Center applications will be discussed and
assigned a priority score;
a written critique consisting of a summary evaluation of the overall Center
program and a separate assessment of the:
and Planning (AP) Core;
Pilot/Feasiblity
Projects and Emerging Issues Program;
research project proposals*;
prevention/intervention project proposals*;
education/translation project proposals*; and
a second level of review by the NIOSH Secondary Review Committee.
that individual research, prevention/intervention, education/translation or
evaluation project proposals may undergo a review process in which only those
deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit are discussed and
assigned an impact/priority score.
disability. Major goals of
NIOSH research and training programs are to: identify the risks and conditions
associated with occupational diseases and injuries, explore methods for
reducing risks and preventing/minimizing exposure to hazardous conditions in
the workplace, and to translate significant scientific findings into prevention
practices or products that effectively reduce work-related illnesses and
injuries. NIOSH-supported Ag Centers help
engage well-qualified scientists, special resources and the creativity
available in the extramural community in improving agricultural safety and
health for workers in the US and addressing the Nation’s occupational safety and health research
needs. The scientific review group will address and consider each of the review
appropriate for each application.
Review Criteria for the Overall Center
score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the proposed center to
exert a sustained, powerful transformative influence on agricultural health and
safety using the following five scored review criteria, and the additional
review criteria listed (Multidisciplinary and/or Interdisciplinary
Nature of the Center) and, as applicable, Review Criteria for Renewal
Reviewers will consider the five scored review
criteria below in determining scientific and technical merit of the Center, and
will give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong
example, a component that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to support
the Center. However, each
individual part must be scientifically and technically sound, and clearly
contribute in an integrated manner to the overall Center mission.
Significance. Does the Center address important problems or critical barriers to
progress in the field? If the aims of the Center are achieved, how will
scientific knowledge, technical capability, or best practices be
drive this field? Is the Center likely to have an impact in
meeting regional or national agricultural safety and health needs through effective research, intervention, translation, outreach, education
and partnership activities? How will scientific knowledge be advanced by the Center? How will impact(s) be measured? Is
there evidence or indications of collaborative
relationships which are likely to contribute
to the knowledge, benefits and sustainability of prevention
intervention efforts to improve agricultural health and safety?
Investigator(s). Do the experience and scientific leadership of the Center
Director (or co-Directors) allow him/her to effectively direct a large complex
multidisciplinary program? Has the Center Director (or co-Directors)
demonstrated the appropriate ability and experience to coordinate the
interactions of the Research Projects with effective utilization of cores to
achieve programmatic goals? Are the level of commitment and ability to
develop a well-defined central focus adequate? If
the project? Is the leadership ability and scientific
stature of the Center Director and his/her
ability to meet the program’s demands of time and effort adequately
described? Are the qualifications of the Center Director and Program Directors
as evidenced by education, experience and accomplishments adequate to
accomplish the goals and mission of the Center? Does the investigative team
bring complementary and integrated expertise to the projects?
Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current paradigms or
industry practices by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies,
theoretical concepts, approaches, methodologies, practices, instrumentation, or
interventions proposed? Does the Center propose new and novel
projects? Does
the Center appropriately build
on current projects? Are new areas of investigation proposed that are
challenging and have the potential for success? To what degree does the
proposed program design address the distinct characteristics, specific
populations and health needs in agricultural safety and health?
appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the Center? Are potential
problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the Center
and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves research
involving human subjects or a clinical investigation, are the plans for 1)
proposed? Is the Center cohesive in
integrating all projects, facilitating interdisciplinary and
trans-disciplinary interaction and likely to produce results that are
translatable to occupational safety and health? For existing Centers, has the
organization and structure of the Center contributed to producing measurable
results and accomplishments? Is there an evaluation plan or program in place for the
entire Center? Does the Center address national goals with a focus on
regional issues? Is there appropriate collaboration with public and
private community organizations, professional groups, industry and labor that
will enhance the work of the Center and provide continuity? Is there a plan for
dissemination of project results?
other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the Center
proposed? Will the Center benefit from unique features of the scientific
environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Is
there evidence of institutional commitment as evidenced by sufficient
resources, technical support and administrative arrangements and facilities
that facilitate collaboration among researchers? Is there a plan for reaching
out to other university environments, state agencies and professional groups? Do the presence, stature, and effectiveness of the Center represent an
established organizational component within the institution?
In addition to the above scored review criteria, the following criteria will be considered in determining scientific
merit and the impact score of the Center.
Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary Nature of the Overall Center
Interdisciplinary Nature of Activities. Are the
projects integrated around a clearly defined mission, focus areas or a central
theme? Are there plans to effectively pursue interdisciplinary research,
prevention, intervention, outreach, education, translation or evaluation
objectives? Does the program propose a plan for the development of
interdisciplinary collaboration among all components of the program? Coordination and Cohesiveness. Is there
evidence of adequate integration of the various cores, programs and projects?
Is there evidence for the translation and delivery of the research findings to
appropriate audiences?
Synergy of the Program. Is there
evidence of meaningful interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary collaboration and
synergistic potential among the various cores, programs and projects? Is the
whole greater than the sum of the parts? Is the size of the program sufficient
to afford effective interaction focused on a specific central mission (or
theme), but sufficiently diverse in scientific disciplines to achieve
meaningful contributions toward impacting agricultural health and safety at the
regional or national level?
Is there evidence of integration/interaction between health and
non-health related portions of the Center? Is there a systematic focus on outcomes
and impacts?
For renewal applications, the following criteria
will be considered for the overall Center: Have existing Centers
made significant contributions to improving agricultural safety and health as
demonstrated by their accomplishments? Is
there evidence of progress and achievements specific to this program since the
previous competitive review? Is there evidence of integration
and synergy among the projects and cores within the program? Is there documentation through publications,
conferences, etc. that demonstrates that collaboration between or among
projects has occurred? Is there evidence that the cores have met their
objectives and been well utilized by the individual research projects? Is there
adequate justification for adding new projects or cores or for deleting
components previously supported? Is there evidence of transfer of research
findings? Have the specific commitments and plans for the Center from the
previous project period been met?
Review Criteria for the Administrative and Planning (AP) Core
The following scored review criteria will be
used to assess the AP Core:
Adequacy of Administrative Core. Are there adequate administrative and management plans to support all
operational facets of the Center? Is the Center Director adequately supported
and sufficient management depth to provide long-term continuity of Center
leadership? Does the administrative structure facilitate communication among
Center leaders and project scientists? Are plans for routine management,
allocation of funds and partnerships designed to effectively achieve Center
objectives? Is there sufficient evidence that
the lines of authority and the administrative structure are designed for
effective management of the Center?
Evidence of an internal plan to promote
integration and coordination. Does the
research and stimulate collaborations among constituent research projects and
cores, particularly with regard to biomedical and non-biomedical project
Qualifications of senior leaders of the
administrative core. Does the senior
leadership have appropriate experience and have they demonstrated effective and
Qualifications of administrative staff. Are the qualifications, duties and time commitments of administrative
staff appropriate to contribute to the needs and conduct of the program’s
research activities?
Adequacy of Internal/External Advisory
Committees. Are there appropriate plans for organizing and
convening internal and external committees to advise the Center Director? Is
the External Advisory Committee (EAC) comprised of leaders and stakeholders
from the community with expertise appropriate for the projects and mission of
the Center? Does the role of the EAC include oversight and making
recommendations to the Center which are considered and adopted?
Review Criteria for the Pilot/Feasibility
Projects and Emerging Issues Program
The following scored criteria
will be used to assess the Pilot/Feasibility Projects and Emerging
Issues Program:
Adequacy of Pilot/Feasibility Projects Program. Are the goals for the program well described?
Is the plan to conduct the program adequate (includes procedures for scientific/technical
review, funding projects, monitoring progress, and documenting outcomes)? Does
the applicant encourage participation by other investigators within the
institution or at regional institutions? Is the plan for announcing the Pilot or
Feasibility Projects Program adequate? Does the Center plan to retain copies of
all proposals, with documentation of reviews, relative ranking, and final
action? Is there a mechanism for tracking the results of each study?
Adequacy of Emerging Issues Plan. Does the application include a clear explanation about the use of
discretionary funds for emerging issues? Is there mechanism or process for
reporting the outcomes, findings, results or impacts of the use of emerging
issue funds? Are priority areas identified as emerging issues?
program. Does the senior leadership have appropriate
the past? Is the percent effort requested adequate?
Criteria for the Outreach Program
used to assess the Outreach Program:
Adequacy of Outreach Plan. Does the program adequately describe activities that will impact other
institutions or agencies located within the Ag Center region? Does the program
facilitate the translation of occupational safety and health findings into the
work environment? Are appropriate occupational safety and health constituents
engaged in the program? Will the proposed activities have an impact on the
practitioner or ability to affect occupational safety and health?
Adequacy of Communication Plan. Does the
project include a cohesive plan for timely dissemination and translation of
evidence-based techniques, tools or programs that integrate health protection
and health promotion? Are appropriate communication interventions used to
promote the adoption of evidence-based health protection practices? Does the
project include strategic partnerships and collaborations to diffuse
evidenced-based practices for preventing work-related illness, injury, and
death into the workplace? Is there a process for ensuring that the
communication materials developed are culturally, linguistically and educationally
Criteria for Research, Prevention/Intervention, Education/Translation
Core Projects Review
of individual projects conducted in a manner similar to the review of individual
investigator-initiated grant applications (R01, R03, R21, and R18).
Overall Impact. Reviewers
likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on agricultural
health and safety in consideration of the following five scored review criteria,
and the project’s contribution to the overall Center
Criteria. Reviewers will
have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is
not innovative may be essential to advance a field. Significance. Does the project
knowledge, technical capability, or practices be improved? How will
treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? If the study is successful, would it lead to incremental
advance, or would it provide a substantial (transformative) step forward that
that could be utilized to agricultural health and safety? If successful, would
the project provide data, information, and knowledge to prevent or reduce
fatalities or non-fatal injuries? Will the project provide rigorous scientific
data that might be used for effective decision-making?
the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If
record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? Does the investigative team bring complementary and
application challenge and seek to shift current research, prevention/intervention,
or education/translation paradigms (or industry practices) by
theoretical concepts, approaches, methodologies, practices, instrumentation,
or interventions proposed? Does the project address an
the project address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in
understanding a pertinent issue, concern or problem in agricultural health
and safety? Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and
problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If
feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the
project involves research involving human subjects or a clinical investigation,
are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2)
strategy proposed? Does the project apply an
integrated approach to address a national agricultural health and safety goal
with appropriate focus on a regional issue?
environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
In addition to the above scored review
criteria, the following criterion will be considered in determining scientific
Contribution to Overall Center Program. Reviewers will evaluate each project for its contribution to the overall
goals of the Center:
Does the project contribute scientifically to the overall
proposed mission or programmatic theme (i.e., the importance of the ideas
or aims, the rationale and originality of the approach, the feasibility of
greater effectiveness and/or economy of effort, etc.).
For renewals, reviewers will evaluate whether
previous specific aims, as funded, have been accomplished and whether the
new research goals are logical extensions of ongoing work.
Criteria for the Evaluation Program
Adequacy of Center Evaluation. Does the application describe evaluation of scientific
projects, the overall Center, and Center objectives to assess the effectiveness of the Center? Are there plans to obtain
feedback from advisors, partners, stakeholders, workers or employers to assess
the quality and effectiveness of agricultural health and safety prevention,
intervention, translation, promotion or protection programs?
Qualifications of senior leaders of the component. Does the senior leadership have appropriate
Institutional Commitment. Is there an adequate level of institutional commitment to effective,
practical evaluation efforts? Do the proposed evaluation efforts reflect an
Contribution to Overall Center Program. Is
the evaluation component an integral part of the Center? Are the approaches and
rationales clearly explained in relevant sections of the application? Are
evaluation efforts appropriately balanced between individual projects and other
Center programs or cores to help achieve an economy of effort and gain maximum
For research that involves human subjects and
meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are
for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3)
sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Inclusion
section, please
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children. When the proposed
project involves human subjects or a clinical investigation, the committee will
genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion
Resubmission Applications. When reviewing a Resubmission application (formerly an amended
Renewal Applications. When reviewing a Renewal application (formerly a competing continuation
Revision Applications. When reviewing a Revision application (formerly a competing supplement
Applications from Foreign Organizations. Not applicable.
Budget and Period Support. Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of
and technical merit of the proposed Center as determined by scientific peer
of the proposed Center to NIOSH program priorities;
balance of Centers among regions of the country;
and program purposes to be accomplished;
extent to which the components of the proposed program would be coordinated
commitment of the applicant institution; and
administrative and managerial capability of the applicant.
the application is under consideration for funding, HHS/CDC will request
applicants may refer to the HHS Grants Policy
Statement . A
allowable pre-award costs. See Also Section IV.5. Funding
National Policy Requirements All CDC/NIOSH grant and
cooperative agreement awards incorporate the HHS Grants Policy Statement by reference as part of the Notice of Award.
requirements. For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the
National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html. Additional requirements are available Section VIII. Other
Information of this document or on the HHS/CDC website at the following
Internet address: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/ARs.htm. These will be incorporated into the NoA by reference.
provided to the appropriate institutional official and a courteous copy to the
PD/PI at the time of award.
2.A. Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award The following special
to apply), and other HHS, PHS, CDC and NIOSH grant administration policies.
substantial NIOSH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated
NIOSH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by
and NIOSH as defined below.
2.A.1. Center
Director/Principal Investigator (CD/PI) Rights and Responsibilities
The Recipient will have the primary
responsibility for management, administrative and scientific aspects of the Center
including data, resources and operations, including, but not limited to the
The Recipient Organization will retain
custody of and have primary rights to the information, data and software
developed under this award, subject to U.S. Government rights of access
consistent with current HHS/CDC policies.
recipient will coordinate all technical, scientific and administrative aspects
of all component Center activities at the awarded institution and at other
sites that may be supported by sub-contracts to this award.
applicant will have primary authority and responsibility to: define objectives
and approaches; plan, conduct, and analyze data; and publish results,
interpretations, and conclusions of studies conducted under the terms and
conditions of the Ag Center award.
applicant will collaborate with diverse groups (community-based, workers,
producers, and others) in the area or region to develop, implement or evaluate interventions,
prevention strategies, educational efforts translation projects, research projects
or demonstration projects focused on preventing work-related injuries and
illnesses among agricultural workers and their families.
recipient will also:
linkages and communication with other governmental and non-governmental bodies
involved in agricultural health and safety.
research results, and relevant health/safety information.
with other NIOSH Ag Centers to develop and utilize a uniform evaluation scheme
for Ag Center research, prevention, intervention, education, translation, outreach
an external advisory committee that includes expertise from agricultural
experts in the region and the nation to help guide the Ag Center.
as a center for consultation on agricultural health and safety.
pilot research on the causes and the prevention of agricultural-related injuries
(including fatalities).
appropriate evaluation activities in coordination with other Ag Centers.
implement and evaluate model programs for preventing injuries and illnesses
among agricultural workers, farmers and their families, and
the appropriate Institutional Review Board approvals for all institutions or
individuals participating in the research project.
2.A.2. HHS/CDC
The NIOSH Office of Extramural Programs and the CDC
Procurement and Grants Office will designate a Program Official (PO) for
this cooperative agreement. This person will be
named in the Notice of Award (NoA). The PO will have programmatic
involvement during the conduct of this activity through approval for added
subprojects that have undergone NIOSH meritorious review, approval of progress
report, approval of pilot study guidance/plan and human subjects protection,
approval of annual summary report, advice and coordination commensurate with normal
program stewardship for grants, as described below. Responsibilities
of the PO include:
information such as the Annual Report and research reports. Provide guidance or
information for addressing recipient inquiries. Participate in
grantee meetings (as a non-voting member); facilitate development of goals
and agenda for these meetings as necessary.
NIOSH Project Scientists
NIOSH anticipates having substantial scientific
involvement during conduct of this activity in the form of technical
assistance, collaboration, guidance and coordination. One or more NIOSH Project
Scientists may be involved. Responsibilities of the NIOSH Project Scientists
prior NIOSH approval/clearance for involvement in project.
request of the Center (and approval by NIOSH), provide expert consultation in
the area of occupational health and safety as needed.
request of the Center (and approval by NIOSH), provide advice on formats for
data reporting and coding, computer software and electronic storage of data.
collaboration, upon request.
invitation by Center, attend meetings (as voting members) and other workshops.
the PO, facilitate coordination and collaboration among grantees
on meeting agendas, and prevention activities and opportunities requested.
and actively participate in the planning and implementation of grantee meetings
collaborative efforts to compile and disseminate program results through
with the awardee if mutually agreeable and warranted by the nature and extent
of his/her intellectual contribution to the program or project, and
Institutional Review Board approvals as required by CDC when CDC is engaged in
NIOSH Project Scientists will be named in the
Notice of Award and will work closely with the recipient and the PO.
Respective Center Directors should plan to meet annually with
NIOSH in Washington, DC, and budget accordingly.
Likewise, Center Directors should expect that a Coordinating
Committee (CC) will be formed to facilitate the sharing of information about
activities and accomplishments among the Centers. The CC will provide
leadership and work collaboratively to address occupational safety and health
issues at a national level.
The CC will be comprised of the Center Directors and the principal
investigators from the Centers. NIOSH representatives may participate in CC
meetings as appropriate, but will not have voting privileges. The CC may
designate working groups comprised of staff from each Center for specific
purposes. These multi-site committees could provide a means to share data,
enhance translation, or help provide focus on specific issues of national
To the extent practicable, CC meetings should be held annually in
conjunction with major scientific meetings that center staff attend or utilize
current technology suitable for distance meetings.
About every other year, NIOSH will organize a workshop, conference
or meeting to encourage interactions between Ag Center scientists and NIOSH scientists.
These will provide opportunities to discuss projects, progress, emerging
issues, and mutual interests. Centers should plan to participate in these
between award recipients and the NIOSH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A
have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIOSH
staff voting, one NIOSH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the
regulations 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and HHS regulations 45 CFR Part 16. 3. Reporting
Recipient Organization must provide HHS/CDC with an original,
plus two hard copies of the following reports:
Grant Progress Report, (use form PHS 2590, posted on the HHS/CDC website, http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/forms.htm and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm, no less than
120 days prior to the end of the current budget period. The progress report
will serve as the non-competing continuation application. Annual
report suitable for public distribution submitted to NIOSH/OEP Scientific
program official.
status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the
The Recipient Organization must forward these reports by the U.S.
Postal Service or express delivery to the Grants Management Specialist listed
in the “Agency Contacts” section of this FOA.
Prior to initiating pilot projects, grantees
must provide written notification to the NIOSH Scientific Program Official
named in the notice of grant award. This notification should contain a
brief description of, and rationale for, the planned project, the funding
amount and the proposed length of the project. The Center Director should also
verify that: 1) the project complies with applicable HHS policies, 2) all
necessary assurances have been obtained; and that 3) the project received an
appropriate within-Center review. Studies involving clinical trials must
include a Data and Safety Monitoring Plan approved by the relevant
institutional review board(s) with concurrence by the NIOSH Scientific Program
the financial plans of the NIOSH provide support for this program, awards
funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in
required reports) and the determination that continued funding is in the best
interest of the Federal government.
Scientific/Research Contacts: W. Allen Robison, Ph. D. Office of Extramural Programs National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS E-74
Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone: (404) 498-2530
WRobison@cdc.gov
Contacts: M. Chris Langub, Ph.D.
3. Financial or Grants Management Contacts: Maryann Monroe Acquisition and Assistance Field Branch
Telephone: 412-386-5075
Email: MPMonroe@cdc.gov
Email: Section VIII. Other Information Required Federal Citations Human Subjects
Additional HHS/CDC Requirements under AR-1 Human Subjects Requirements can be
found on the Internet at the following address: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/ARs.htm.
of Laboratory Animals (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf)
Requirements can be found on at http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/ARs.htm. Requirements
Inclusion of Persons Under the
Age of 21 in Research
of 45 C.F.R. Part 46, HHS Policy for the Protection of Human
Subjects. Therefore, proposals for research involving human subjects
must include a description of plans for including persons under the age of 21.
If persons under the age of 21 will be excluded from the research, the
application or proposal must present an acceptable justification for the
exclusion. In an extramural research plan, the
investigator should create a section titled "Participation of persons
under the age of 21." This section should provide either a description of
the plans to include persons under the age of 21 and a rationale for selecting or
excluding a specific age range, or an explanation of the reason(s) for
excluding persons under the age of 21 as participants in the research. When
persons under the age of 21 are included, the plan must also include a
description of the expertise of the investigative team for dealing with
individuals at the ages included, the appropriateness of the available
facilities to accommodate the included age groups, and the inclusion of a
sufficient number of persons under the age of 21 to contribute to a meaningful
analysis relative to the purpose of the study. Scientific review groups at CDC
will assess each application as being acceptable or unacceptable in regard to
the age-appropriate inclusion or exclusion of persons under the age of 21 in
the research project, in addition to evaluating the plans for conducting the
research in accordance with these provisions.
The inclusion of children (as defined by the
applicable law of the jurisdiction in which the research will be conducted) as
subjects in research must be in compliance with all applicable subparts of 45 C.F.R. Part 46, as well as with other
pertinent federal laws and regulations. The policy of inclusion of persons under the
age of 21 in CDC-conducted or CDC-supported research activities in foreign
countries (including collaborative activities) is the same as that for research
HIV/AIDS Confidentiality
A. A copy of the face page of
the application (SF 424). B. A summary of
the project that should be titled "Public Health System Impact
Statement" (PHSIS), not exceed one page, and include the following:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, projects that involve the
collection of information from 10 or more individuals and funded by a grant or
a cooperative agreement will be subject to review and approval by the Office of
smoke-free workplace and to promote abstinence from all tobacco products. Public
"Healthy People 2010" at www.healthypeople.gov.
should be aware of restrictions on the use of HHS funds for lobbying of Federal
or State legislative bodies. Under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Section 1352,
recipients (and their sub-tier contractors) are prohibited from using
appropriated Federal funds (other than profits from a Federal contract) for
lobbying congress or any Federal agency in connection with the award of a
particular contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or loan. This includes
grants/cooperative agreements that, in whole or in part, involve conferences
for which Federal funds cannot be used directly or indirectly to encourage
participants to lobby or to instruct participants on how to lobby.
activity designed to influence action in regard to a particular piece of
pending legislation would be considered "lobbying." That is lobbying
for or against pending legislation, as well as indirect or "grass
proposals is prohibited. As a matter of policy, HHS/CDC extends the
prohibitions to lobbying with respect to local legislation and local
provisions are not intended to prohibit all interaction with the legislative
branch, or to prohibit educational efforts pertaining to public health. Clearly
there are circumstances when it is advisable and permissible to provide
information to the legislative branch in order to foster implementation of
prevention strategies to promote public health. However, it would not be
permissible to influence, directly or indirectly, a specific piece of pending
remains permissible to use HHS/CDC funds to engage in activity to enhance
prevention; collect and analyze data; publish and disseminate results of
research and surveillance data; implement prevention strategies; conduct
community outreach services; provide leadership and training, and foster safe
and healthful environments. Recipients of HHS/CDC grants and cooperative agreements
need to be careful to prevent CDC funds from being used to influence or promote
pending legislation. With respect to conferences, public events, publications,
and "grassroots" activities that relate to specific legislation,
recipients of HHS/CDC funds should give close attention to isolating and
separating the appropriate use of HHS/CDC funds from non-CDC funds. HHS/CDC
also cautions recipients of HHS/CDC funds to be careful not to give the
Prohibition on Use of HHS/CDC
Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities
small, minority, women-owned business firms on bidders’ mailing lists. Solicit
construction, or services. Where
schedules that will encourage participation by these firms. Use
signature of the institution official on the face page of the application
submitted under this Funding Opportunity Announcement is certifying compliance
with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations in Title 42
Part 93, Subparts A-E, entitled PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH
The regulation places
requirements on institutions receiving or applying for funds under the PHS Act
that are monitored by the DHHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) (http://ori.hhs.gov./policies/statutes.shtml). For
Section 93.301 Institutional
assurances. (a) General policy. An institution with PHS supported biomedical or
behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research
or research training must provide PHS with an assurance of compliance with this
part, satisfactory to the Secretary. PHS funding components may authorize
[[Page 28389]] funds for biomedical and behavioral research, research training,
or activities related to that research or research training only to
institutions that have approved assurances and required renewals on file with
ORI. (b) Institutional Assurance. The responsible institutional official must
assure on behalf of the institution that the institution-- (1) Has written
policies and procedures in compliance with this part for inquiring into and
investigating allegations of research misconduct; and (2) Complies with its own
policies and procedures and the requirements of this part. Compliance
Faith-based organization are eligible to receive federal
financial assistance, and their applications are evaluated in the same manner
and using the same criteria as those for non-faith-based organizations in
accordance with Executive Order 13279, Equal Protection of the Laws for
Faith-Based and Community Organizations. All applicants should, however, be
aware of restrictions on the use of direct financial assistance from the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for inherently religious activities.
Under the provisions of Title 45, Parts 74, 87, 92 and 96, organizations that
receive direct financial assistance from DHHS under any DHHS program may not
engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious
instruction, or proselytization as a part of the programs or services funded
with direct financial assistance from DHHS. If an organization engages in such
programs or services funded with direct DHHS assistance, and participation must
be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the programs or services funded with such
assistance. A religious organization that participates in the DHHS funded
programs or services will retain its independence from Federal, State, and
local governments, and may continue to carry out its mission, including the
organization=s
name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious
references in its organization=s mission statements and
other governing documents in accordance with all program requirements,
statutes, and other applicable requirements governing the conduct of DHHS
funded activities. For further guidance on the use of DHHS direct financial
assistance, see Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 87, Equal Treatment
for Faith-Based Organizations, and visit the internet site:
b. Completely,
and as accurately as possible.
facilitate the broader community.
in accordance with CDC policy on Releasing and Sharing Data. April 16, 2003, http://www.cdc.gov/od/foia/policies/sharing.htm,
and in full compliance with the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPPA), (where applicable), The Office of Management and
Budget Circular A110, (2000) revised 2003, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/query.html?col=omb&qt=Releasing+and+Sharing+of+Data and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) http://www.cdc.gov/od/foia/index.htm.
HHS/CDC with appropriate documentation on the reliability of the data. Applications
submitted without the required Plan may be ineligible for award. Reviewers may
determination of the scientific merit or the impact/priority score. Award will
be made when reviewing officials have approved an acceptable Plan. The
format. HHS/CDC recommends data is released in the form closest to micro data
and one that will preserve confidentiality. National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665, 80 Stat. 915)
grantee’s signature on the grant application attests to their: (1)
knowledge of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665,
80 Stat. 915); and (2) intent to ensure all grant related activities are in
compliance with referenced public law, as stated:
jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or Federally assisted undertaking in any
State and the head of any Federal department or independent state agency having
authority to license any undertaking, shall, prior to the approval of the
expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of
any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the
undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is
included in or is eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of
any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation established under Title II of this ACT a reasonable opportunity to
comment with regard to such undertaking.
b. Additionally, the NHPA also contains the following excerpt that
forbids “anticipatory demolition:”
Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a
loan, loan guarantee, permit, license, or other assistance to an applicant who,
with intent to avoid the requirements of Section 106 of this Act, has
intentionally, significantly, adversely affected a historic property to which
the grant would relate or, having legal power to prevent it, allowed such
significant adverse effect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation with
the Council, determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance
despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.
Disclaimer: Where a
conference is funded by a grant or cooperative agreement, a sub grant or a
contract the recipient must include the following statement on conference
materials, including promotional materials, agenda, and internet sites:
“Funding for this
conference was made possible [in part] by [insert grant or cooperative
agreement award number] from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The
views expressed in written conference materials or publications and by speakers
and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the
Government.” Logos: Neither
the HHS nor the CDC (“CDC” includes ATSDR) logo may be displayed if
such display would cause confusion as to the source of the conference or give
the false appearance of Government endorsement. A non-federal entity’s
unauthorized use of the HHS name or logo is governed by U.S.C. § 1320b-10,
which prohibits the misuse of the HHS name and emblem in written communication.
The appropriate use of the HHS logo is subject to the review and approval of
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (OASPA). Moreover, the
Office of the Inspector General has authority to impose civil monetary
penalties for violations (42 C.F.R. Part 1003). Neither the HHS nor the CDC
logo can be used on conference materials under a grant, cooperative agreement,
contract or co-sponsorship agreement without the expressed, written consent of
either the Project Officer or the Grants Management Officer. It is the
responsibility of the grantee (or recipient of funds under a cooperative