To clarify requirements regarding responsibility for audit findings, OMB proposes a revision to 2 CFR Requirements for pass-through entities to clarify that pass-through entities (PTE) are responsible for addressing only a subrecipient’s audit findings that are specifically related to their subaward. For example, a PTE is not required to address all of the subrecipient’s audit findings. In addition, the PTE may rely on the subrecipient’s auditors and cognizant agency’s oversight for routine audit follow-up and management decisions. These changes reduce the burden for PTEs by allowing a PTE to rely on the cognizant agency to address a subrecipient’s entity-wide issues.
OMB also proposes to clarify the timing of submission of the disclosure statement (DS-2), which is only required for universities that meet certain thresholds as defined in 48 CFR -1(f). This revision reduces burden for universities while maintaining the requirement for universities to implement policies in compliance with 2 CFR. OMB seeks comments on whether the proposed revisions clarify 2 CFR requirements and reduce burden for PTEs and universities.
C. Response to Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Prior Release of 2 CFR
In , OMB developed and posted Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the Chief Financial Officers Council website in response to stakeholder requests for clarification on the first publication of 2 CFR ( Due to the volume of questions related to these topics, OMB proposes clarifying the following: The meaning of the words “must” and “may” as they pertain to requirements; the effective date of 2 CFR; applicability and documentation requirements when a non-Federal entity elects to charge the de minimus indirect cost rate of modified total direct costs (MTDC); pass-through entity responsibilities related to indirect cost rates and audits; and applicability of 2 CFR to FAR based contracts. These proposed revisions are intended to improve clarity and reduce recipient burden by providing guidance on implementing 2 CFR.
D. Applicability of Guidance to Federal Agencies
OMB proposes changes to 2 CFR (Applicability) to clarify that Federal awarding agencies may apply the requirements of 2 CFR 200 to other Federal online title loans Nevada agencies, to the extent permitted by law. This proposed change recognizes that there are instances when Federal awarding agencies or pass-through entities have the authority to issue Federal awards to Federal agencies and in these instances, the provisions of 2 CFR 200 may be applied, as appropriate. This proposed change is consistent with how for-profit entities, foreign public entities, or foreign organizations are treated in the Uniform Guidance.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The revision of 2 CFR is not a regulatory action and therefore it is not subject to the 12866 review by OIRA.
Regulatory Flexibilities Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires that an agency provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis or to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OMB does not expect this guidance to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. There are some proposed revisions that may impose burden, however, there are more proposed revisions that reduce burden to small entities. When reviewing all proposed revisions, the burden that will be reduced for recipients is much greater than the burden imposed.