[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 49 (Friday, March 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11899-11901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5147]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


OMB Circular A-133 Information Collection Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget.

ACTION: Notice of submission for OMB review, comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as 
amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that an 
information collection request was submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) for processing under 5 CFR 1320.10. The first notice of 
this information collection request, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, was published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2003 
(68 FR 48960). The information collection request involves two proposed 
information collections from two types of entities: (1) Reports from 
auditors to auditees concerning audit results, audit findings, and 
questioned costs; and (2) reports from auditees to the Federal 
government providing information about the auditees, the awards they 
administer, and the audit results. These collection efforts are 
required by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501 et 
seq.) and OMB Circular A-133, ``Audits of States, Local Governments, 
and Non-Profit Organizations.'' Circular A-133's information collection 
requirements apply to approximately 30,000 States, local governments, 
and non-profit organizations on an annual basis.

[[Page 11900]]


DATES: Submit comments on or before April 12, 2004. Late comments will 
be considered to the extent practicable.

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 mail comments may be submitted via the Internet to 
[email protected]. Please include ``Form SF-SAC Comments'' in the 
subject line and the full body of your comments in the text of the 
electronic message and not as an attachment. Please include your name, 
title, organization, postal address, telephone number and E-mail 
address in the text of the message. You may also submit comments via 
facsimile to 202-395-7285.
    Comments may be mailed to Alexander Hunt, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10236, Washington, 
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact 
Elizabeth C. Phillips, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office 
of Management and Budget, 202-395-3053 (direct) or 202-395-3993 (main 
office) and via e-mail: [email protected]. The data collection form, 
SF-SAC, and its instructions can be obtained by contacting the Office 
of Federal Financial Management, as indicated above or by download from 
the OMB Grants Management home page on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants by selecting the ``Forms'' option.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    OMB Control No.: 0348-0057.
    Title: Data Collection Form.
    Form No: SF-SAC.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: States, local governments, non-profit organizations 
(non-Federal entities) and their auditors.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 62,400.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 59 hours for each of 400 large 
respondents and 17 hours for each of 62,000 small respondents for 
estimated annual burden hours of 1,077,600.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Needs and Uses: Reports from auditors to auditees and reports from 
auditees to the Federal government are used by non-Federal entities, 
pass-through entities, and Federal agencies to ensure that Federal 
awards are expended in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 
The Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) (maintained by the U.S. Census 
Bureau) uses the information on the SF-SAC to ensure proper 
distribution of audit reports to Federal agencies and to identify non-
Federal entities who have not filed the required reports. The FAC also 
uses the information on the SF-SAC to create a government-wide database 
which contains information on audit results. This database is publicly 
accessible on the Internet at http://harvester.census.gov/fac/. It is 
used by Federal agencies, pass-through entities, non-Federal entities, 
auditors, the General Accounting Office, OMB, and the general public 
for management and information about Federal awards and the results of 
audits.

B. Public Comments and Responses

    Pursuant to the August 15, 2003, Federal Register notice, OMB 
received 17 comment letters relating to the proposed revision to the 
information collection. Letters came from State governments (including 
State auditors), certified public accountants (CPAs) at two national 
accounting firms, and three Federal agencies. The comments received 
relating to the information collection and OMB's responses are 
summarized below.

General

    Comments: Six comments were in favor of the proposed changes. 
General comments included concerns about the clarity of the 
instructions and an overall concern with the DUNS numbers requirement.

Electronic Submission

    Comments: Six States endorsed the proposed procedure to allow 
electronic submission of the reporting package and Form SF-SAC. Two 
State auditors and the AICPA expressed concern over the limitation on 
the number of PDF files in electronic submissions.
    Response: All suggestions offered will be given consideration 
during the development phase. However, standardization of electronic 
submission is necessary to allow the FAC to develop an automated 
procedure to process and manage the submissions.

Addition of DUNS numbers

    Comments: Five State auditors and the AICPA found the instructions 
confusing or unclear about different issues. The main concerns centered 
on questions about why DUNS are required, which DUNS numbers are 
required to be reported, and the reporting burden.
    Response: The intent of this item is to capture only the DUNS 
numbers related to Federal award applications submitted on or after 
October 1, 2003. DUNS numbers are collected to tighten Federal 
oversight of Federal award expenditures. The instructions have been re-
worded to clarify the intent of the question.

Auditor Information

    Comment: One State auditor commented that it is not clear whether 
Federal agencies are interested in knowing of the additional audit 
organizations that participated in the audit of Federal programs, or in 
knowing of all additional audit organizations, including those that 
participated in the financial statements audit for departments in which 
no Federal programs were tested. The commenter felt the instructions 
should more clearly describe which additional audit organizations must 
be included.
    Response: Agree. The form instructions for part I, item 7(g) were 
revised to clarify this.

Auditor Certification

    Comments: One commenter noted that the auditor statement should be 
revised as follows: ``The information included in Parts II and III of 
the Form, except for Part III, Items 7, 8, and 9a through 9e, was 
transferred from the auditor's report(s) for the period ***''
    Response: Agree. The auditor certification statement was corrected.

Financial Statements-Type of Audit Report

    Comment: Two auditors commented that the type of audit report for 
financial statements (part II, item 1) should allow the auditor to 
select any combination of responses that apply to all the differing 
types of opinions that have been issued, including unqualified 
opinions.
    Response: Agree. The instructions were revised to allow any 
combination of responses for this item (financial statements). Major 
programs, however, are still limited to only one opinion for each 
program as a whole (including clusters).

Statement in Auditor's Report

    Comment: The AICPA commented that part III, item 1 refers to AICPA 
SOP 98-3. That SOP was recently replaced by an AICPA audit guide 
titled, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Not-for-Profit 
Organizations Receiving Federal Awards.

[[Page 11901]]

    Response: The form and form instructions have been revised.

Dollar Threshold To Distinguish Type A and Type B Programs

    Comment: Three comments noted an error in the instructions. The 
dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs 
did not change to $500,000.
    Response: Agree. The minimum threshold to distinguish between Type 
A and Type B programs remains $300,000. The form instructions were 
corrected.

Reporting Packages

    Comment: One State auditor commented that hard copy submissions of 
reporting packages should no longer be required.
    Response: Submission of reporting packages are still required. 
However, more options will be available. The Federal Audit 
Clearinghouse is developing a procedure to permit auditees to submit 
either an electronic version of the reporting package or the 
appropriate number of hard copies. The form instructions were changed 
to direct those interested in an electronic submission to the FAC Web 
site for further instructions.

Federal Awards Reporting (Form Page 3)

    Comment: One Federal agency commented that requiring awardees to 
separately input this information into the Federal Audit Clearinghouse 
database for each CFDA number could create an unnecessary 
administrative burden on the awardees.
    Response: OMB has determined that the most effective way to capture 
the Schedule of Federal awards and the auditors' findings is to require 
the respondents to compile the information in the data collection form. 
The alternative is to require the Federal Audit Clearinghouse to 
interpret and type the information from each of the different 35,000 
audit reports received annually into its database. It is deemed 
unreasonable to expect the Federal Audit Clearinghouse staff to 
accurately interpret so many different audit reports. It is more 
reasonable that the auditor should be able to more accurately translate 
its report into the standardized format on the SF-SAC.
    Comment: The Instructions for Completing Form SF-SAC do not explain 
what to use as the name of the Federal program in column 9(c) if the 
Federal program is not in the CFDA.
    Response: Additional instructions have been added for 
clarification.
    Comment: One State auditor commented that it is not clear what 
benefit is gained by being able to show more than one opinion if there 
is not any information as to what an other-than-unqualified opinion 
pertains to. It is a burden to make an additional entry to code the 
opinion on each line.
    Response: To provide better oversight, the Federal agencies 
requested that the type of audit report for each major program be 
captured on the data collection form. Because large auditees use 
spreadsheet uploads of the Federal award data on page 3 of the form, 
OMB disagrees that the burden of entering a letter on each line for 
each major program is a significant burden.
    Comment: One commenter was not certain how type of audit 
information should be entered. Specifically, should the auditor enter 
the required information (major program and type of audit report) 
relating to the CFDA number in its entirety on the first line and leave 
the other line(s) blank or would they repeat the entry on every line?
    Response: Each line must be completed. The instructions have been 
revised to clarify this.
    Comment: One State auditor was not certain how to report a 
departure from an unqualified opinion on a major program cluster if the 
opinion is not related to all programs in the cluster. Specifically, 
what should be entered in the box for the programs not causing the 
departure from an unqualified opinion?
    Response: The type of audit report for a major program must apply 
to the whole program. All programs in a major program cluster should 
have the same type of audit report.

Editorial

    Comment: One commenter stated that additional guidance should be 
given auditors who will discover both Federal Emergency Management 
Administration (FEMA) grants and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
grants in the same audit year.
    Response: The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Appendix VII 
``Historical Profile of Catalog Programs'' provides a historical index 
to changed CFDA numbers (http://www.cfda.gov/). When new DHS CFDA 
numbers replace FEMA CFDA numbers, auditees should rely on the Catalog 
and its historical index. Until the Catalog is revised, FEMA awards 
should be reported using the original CFDA numbers.

Form Instructions

    Comment: One Federal agency commented that the form instructions 
need to more clearly indicate the SF-SAC is not to be used by 
commercial organizations.
    Response: Agree. The form instructions have been revised. A note 
was added on the first page of the instructions.
    Comment: One auditor stated that the current instructions are too 
vague regarding the date the form is due. A better explanation is 
requested in the form instructions
    Response: Agree. The form instructions were revised to denote the 
due date formula.

Linda M. Springer,
Controller.
[FR Doc. 04-5147 Filed 3-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P