[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52558-52560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20262]


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

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Cost Principles for Educational Institutions, for State, Local, 
and Indian Tribal Governments and for Non-Profit Organizations

AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget.

ACTION: Proposed revisions to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
cost principles' Circulars A-21, A-87, and A-122.

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

SUMMARY: OMB proposes to amend OMB cost principles A-21, A-87, and A-
122. These changes are intended to further the objectives of Public Law 
(Pub. L.) 106-107, the Federal Financial Assistance Management 
Improvement Act. On May 18, 2001, agencies working with OMB published a 
plan to implement Pub. L. 106-107. The plan included a proposal to 
simplify the cost principles to make the descriptions of similar cost 
items consistent with one another where possible, thus reducing the 
possibility of misinterpretation.

DATES: All comments on this proposal should be in writing and must be 
received by October 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of 
mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to 
submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot 
guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the comment 
closing date.
    Electronic comments may be submitted to: [email protected]. 
Please include ``Cost Principles Revision Comments'' in the subject 
line and put the full body of your comments in the text of the 
electronic message and as an attachment. Please include your name, 
title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail 
address in the text of the message. Comments may also be submitted via 
facsimile to 202-395-4915.
    Comments may be mailed to Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial 
Management, Office of Management and Budget, Room 6025, New Executive 
Office Building, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal 
Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-3052 
(direct) or (202) 395-3993 (main office) and e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 
(Pub. L. 106-107) provides both a mandate and a challenge for the 
administration of Federal financial assistance programs and activities. 
The purposes of Pub. L. 106-107 are to (1) improve the effectiveness 
and performance of Federal financial assistance programs, (2) simplify 
Federal financial assistance application and reporting requirements, 
(3) improve the delivery of services to the public, and (4) facilitate 
greater coordination among those responsible for delivering the 
services. Federal financial assistance includes grants, cooperative 
agreements, loans, loan guarantees, scholarships, and other forms of 
assistance.
    The grant and cooperative agreement portion of that enterprise, 
commonly referred to as ``grants,'' involves more than 600 programs and 
their subprograms, with awards of more than $325 billion a year 
administered by 26 Federal agencies. Grant programs stimulate or 
support public purposes in areas such as health, social services, law 
enforcement, agriculture, housing, community and regional development, 
economic development, education and training, and national security. 
Many of these programs require complex arrangements, such as 
intergovernmental coordination or public-private partnerships, to 
coordinate and deliver the needed services. Among the recipient 
constituencies are State, local, and Native American tribal 
governments, public housing authorities and resident organizations, and 
private, non-profit organizations, including institutions of higher 
education. The funding mechanisms for these programs include mandatory 
grants, such as formula and block grants, and discretionary grants and 
cooperative agreements in support of specific programs or projects.
    Public Law 106-107 states that some Federal administrative 
requirements are duplicative, burdensome, and conflicting, sometimes 
impeding cost-effective delivery of services at the local level. Grant 
recipients deal with increasingly complex problems that require the 
delivery and coordination of many kinds of services. Their need to 
respond to numerous Federal grant administration requirements only adds 
to that complexity.

Implementation of Public Law 106-107

    The Director of OMB partnered with the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) and the former Grants Management Committee (GMC) 
of the Chief Financial Officers Council to coordinate and oversee the 
government-wide implementation of Pub. L. 106-107. Five interagency 
groups were established to implement the steps laid out in the plan 
that was submitted to Congress and OMB on May 18, 2001.
    The General Policy and Oversight group provides detailed oversight 
of the other work groups' planning and implementation efforts and is 
examining broad issues. Three groups represent various parts of the 
grant life cycle: Pre-Award; Post-Award; and Audit Oversight. The 
Electronic Processing group supports the development of an electronic 
option for application for and reporting of grants.
    The Post-Award group includes a cost consistency sub-group charged 
with reviewing the cost principles in OMB Circulars A-21, A-87, and A-
122 to ensure they are current, consistent, and appropriate for covered 
recipients. The sub-group's objectives are to make the descriptions of 
similar cost items consistent, where possible, and reduce the 
possibility of misinterpretation by clarifying existing policies. The 
sub-group's mission did not include adding restrictions or modifying 
current requirements.
    The three OMB's cost circulars established government-wide 
principles for costs incurred under Federal awards (Circulars A-21, 
``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions;'' A-87, ``Cost 
Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments;'' and A-122, 
``Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations''). These cost 
principles specify allowable and unallowable costs. The three circulars 
apply to different types of recipient entities and were developed 
accordingly. As a result, in a number of cases, similar cost items are 
described in varying terms. This can cause inconsistent interpretations 
by Federal staff, recipients, and auditors. Public comments indicate 
the need for language that is more consistent and for clarification 
regarding some aspects of the cost principles. Many Federal assistance 
grant programs require organizations that are subject to different cost 
circulars to work together in consortia to achieve the objectives of a 
grant program. It is important in these situations that, to the 
greatest extent possible, all participants in a consortium be subject 
to the same treatment for the same kinds of transactions.
    The groups focused initially on the definitions in the circulars 
and the 30 cost items that appear in all three cost circulars. They 
drafted common descriptions for those cost items that should have 
similar treatment, but are

[[Page 52559]]

currently described differently. Where different outcomes are intended, 
the language should definitely show the difference. Those cost items 
that are currently in one or more but not all of the circulars also 
have been reviewed to determine if it is appropriate and beneficial to 
include them in one or both of the other cost circulars. In those cases 
where the groups believe that a cost principle in one circular might be 
applicable to entities subject to the other circulars, they have tried 
to state the principle in such a way that it does not change the 
current policy in the circulars to which the principle is added. In all 
of the cases where a cost principle in one circular has been applied to 
one or both of the other circulars, we have done that only to clarify 
that the outcome is the same under the circular(s) to which the 
principle is added.
    The approach included:
     Reviewing the cost item descriptions in all the circulars;
     Noting the similarities and differences in the 
descriptions;
     Researching the history of the cost policies related to 
the cost item;
     Determining if the cost policies are consistent among the 
circulars;
     Preparing common language, where possible, for the 
descriptions of those cost items that have a consistent cost policy 
basis; and
     Restating the principles in simpler language, to the 
extent possible without changing the meaning of the principles.

Presentation of the Circulars

    Rather than include the revised language in the three cost 
principles separately, the team created a chart that allows side-by-
side comparison of proposed changes to the language contained in the 
current circulars. In addition, the three circulars use different 
standard terminology to refer to ``recipients'' and ``awards;'' the 
groups adopted conventions for the circulars so they would all use the 
same standard terminology. The conventions are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Existing terms in A-21, A-
         Proposed change language                   87, and A-122
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Non-Federal entity''....................  ``Institution,'' ``unit of
                                             government'' and
                                             ``organization''
``Federal award''.........................  ``Sponsored agreement,''
                                             ``Federal award'' and
                                             ``Sponsored award''
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the cost principles are published in final form, OMB will use 
the new conventions in the revised version. However, OMB plans to use 
the same words to describe the units of organization, i.e., A-21 would 
still be divided into ``sections'' and ``subsections'' while A-87 and 
A-122 would still use ``paragraphs'' and ``subparagraphs.''

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and the 
Presidential memorandum on ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' 
require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. 
OMB invites comments on how to make these cost principles easier to 
understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed circulars clearly 
stated?
     Do the cost principles contain technical terms or other 
wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Would the cost principles be easier to understand if 
divided into more (but shorter) paragraphs or sections; or used the 
question and answer format?
     What else would make the proposed circulars easier to 
understand?
    To give commenters an idea about how a circular might appear in 
plain language, the groups provided at the end of the chart a plain 
language version of one cost item to show how it would look in a 
different style of drafting.
    Send any comments that concern how we could make these proposed 
regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of the preamble. If the comments generated by the plain 
language treatment indicate that the circulars could be written using 
this convention, OMB will publish any changes based on those comments 
for another round of comment.

Inadvertent Changes in Policy

    OMB has not attempted to change the policy in any of the circulars. 
However, in the effort to make the language more consistent, some 
unintended changes in policy may have been made. OMB encourages 
comments on any proposed changes that could be construed as changes to 
current policy.
    Also, there are places where different language in the current 
circulars for a particular treatment could be viewed either as 
intending the same or intending different policies. When faced with 
this ambiguity, in most cases, OMB has not attempted to write a common 
treatment. However, OMB is interested in comments on the extent to 
which some of these treatments could be viewed as expressing the same 
policy in all three circulars.

Response to Public Bodies and Cost Shifting

    Where professional bodies such as the Financial Accounting 
Standards Board (FASB) and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board 
(GASB) have issued pronouncements that contradicted existing circular 
provisions or otherwise clarified ``generally accepted accounting 
principles'' (GAAP), the policy of the professional bodies has been 
reflected in this draft.
    Lastly, in the process of reviewing the circulars for better 
consistency and clarity, we concluded that this provided another 
opportunity to address an area of much confusion concerning one of the 
general standards contained in A-87, Attachment A, C.3., Allocable 
costs. In attempting to recognize situations where two or more Federal 
programs might allow identical services or assistance and served the 
identical population, an effort was made to distinguish between 
``funding allocations'' vs. ``cost allocation''. Unfortunately, this 
section was phrased in a manner that could be interpreted as allowing 
cost shifting. Cost shifting has always been unallowable. The confusing 
language has been eliminated in this Notice and no change in policy is 
intended. The following reflects the proposed revision to OMB Circular 
A-87, Attachment A, C.3.c., where the last sentence in brackets would 
be deleted.
    ``Any cost allocable to a particular Federal award or cost 
objective under the principles provided for in this Circular may not be 
charged to other Federal awards to overcome fund deficiencies, to avoid 
restrictions imposed by law or terms of Federal awards, or for other 
reasons. [However, this prohibition would not preclude governmental 
units from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more awards 
in accordance with existing program agreements.]''

Organization of the Chart

    In the chart, the first column lists the current A-21 item, the 
second column lists the similar item, if any, from A-87, the third 
column lists the similar item, if any, from A-122 and the fourth column 
lists any proposed change to the item and which of the circulars would 
include the revised item. In some cases one or more of the circulars do 
not have a cost item that is included in one or more of the other 
circulars. If a circular does not have an item equivalent to the other 
circulars, the column for that circular is blank. Also, given the 
separate development of the three circulars, some items contain more 
than one concept and some of those concepts

[[Page 52560]]

are stated in different places in the other circulars. In some cases, 
we have moved a cost item in one circular to the place where that item 
appears in the other circulars. In every case where one circular 
handles an item in a different place than the others, we explain in the 
fourth column where we propose to treat a particular concept in the 
three circulars.

How To Obtain the Chart

    Due to its size, the chart is not printed in this Federal Register 
notice. It is displayed on the OMB Web site at: http://www.omb.gov 
under the ``Grants Management/Current Documents'' section. You can also 
request a hard copy by calling Gilbert Tran at (202) 395-3052.

    Dated: July 31, 2002.
Mark W. Everson,
Controller.
[FR Doc. 02-20262 Filed 8-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P