47722 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Cost Principles for Educational

Institutions

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget.

ACTION: Proposed revisions to OMB

Circular A–21.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise

Office of Management and Budget

Circular A–21, ‘‘Cost Principles for

Educational Institutions,’’ by: (1)

Establishing guidance for Federal cost

negotiators to assure the reasonableness

of facility costs, (2) implementing a new

alternative approach to replace using

special cost studies for the recovery of

utility costs and deferring the

elimination of special cost studies for

the recovery of library costs, (3)

providing additional guidance on the

calculation of depreciation and use

allowances on buildings and equipment,

(4) proposing the use of and soliciting

input on a standard format for facility

and administrative rate proposal

submissions, and (5) changing the

distribution basis for the facilities and

administrative cost application (from

salaries and wages to modified total

direct costs) at universities that use the

simplified (short-form) method to

calculate their facilities and

administrative rate.

DATE: Comments on these proposals are

due November 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Gilbert Tran, Financial

Standards and Reporting Branch, Office

of Federal Financial Management,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street, N.W., Room 6025,

Washington, DC 20503. Comments up to

three pages in length may be submitted

via facsimile to 202–395–4915.

Electronic mail comments may be

submitted via Internet to

TRANlH@A1.EOP.GOV. Please

include the full body of electronic mail

comments in the text and not as an

attachment. Please include the name,

title, organization, postal address, and

E-mail address in the text of the

message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Non-Federal

organizations should contact the

organization’s cognizant Federal agency.

Federal agencies should contact Gilbert

Tran, Financial Standards and

Reporting Branch, Office of Federal

Financial Management, Office of

Management and Budget, (202) 395–

3993.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose of Circular A–21

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Circular A–21, ‘‘Cost Principles

for Educational Institutions,’’

establishes principles for determining

costs applicable to Federal grants,

contracts, and other sponsored

agreements with educational

institutions.

B. Recent Prior Revisions

Circular A–21 was last amended on

May 8, 1996 (61 FR 20880). The 1996

revision incorporated four Cost

Accounting Standards applicable to

educational institutions, issued by the

Cost Accounting Standards Board

(CASB) on November 8, 1994 (59 FR

55746), and extended these standards to

all sponsored agreements. The revision

also: required certain large institutions

to disclose their cost accounting

practices by the submission of a

Disclosure Statement prescribed by the

CASB; amended the definition of

equipment; eliminated in 1998 the use

of special cost studies to allocate utility,

library and student services costs; and,

required the use of fixed facilities and

administrative (F&A) cost rates for the

life of sponsored agreements.

Furthermore, the 1996 revision:

established cost negotiation cognizant

agency responsibilities; replaced the

term ‘‘indirect costs’’ with ‘‘facilities

and administrative costs’’ (to describe

more accurately the various cost

components of sponsored agreements);

clarified the policy for a change from

use allowance to depreciation; added

criteria to interest allowability; and,

disallowed tuition benefits for employee

family members.

C. Revisions Proposed for Comment

On February 6, 1995, OMB published

two sets of proposed revisions (60 FR

7104 and 60 FR 7105). The first set was

finalized in 1996, as described in

Section B. The second set required

further development prior to proposed

implementation. The following

proposed revisions address the second

set of proposals made in 1995.

1. Establish a Review Process To Ensure

the Reasonableness of Facility Costs.

To increase accountability in the

research component of F&A costs and

ensure that the cost of new research

facilities passes a ‘‘prudent person’’ test

of reasonableness, OMB proposes to

establish a review process for research

facility construction project costs. The

proposal, which is detailed in a new

Section F.2.b, would require Federal

cost negotiators to determine whether

the gross square foot (GSF) cost of new

research facilities with an actual or

estimated total cost of more than $10

million (or renovation costs of more

than $4 million) meet the

reasonableness test. The review process

would apply to all new research

building construction and renovation

projects that are included in F&A rates

negotiated after January 1, 2000. The

review process would apply only to

research buildings in which 40 percent

or more of total space is devoted to

federally-sponsored agreements.

Federal cost negotiators will rely on

the most recent GSF data collected by

the National Science Foundation (NSF)

in response to its biennial survey,

‘‘Science and Engineering Facilities at

Colleges and Universities.’’ Biennially,

NSF will calculate the median cost per

GSF figures for new research facilities

and the median cost per GSF for

renovations to research facilities. NSF

will publish these results in its biennial

survey report, which is publicly

available. The review will apply to

projects in the 50 states and the District

of Columbia, and the benchmarks will

be broken down into the ten Federal

regions established by OMB Circular A–

105, ‘‘Standard Federal Regions,’’ in

April of 1974, minus the island

territories (in addition, as explained

below, Alaska and Hawaii raise unique

issues).

The cost items that go into research

facility costs have been found to be

geographically sensitive and so the costs

within contiguous and regional states

should be comparable. NSF analyzed

previous years’ construction cost data

by these longstanding Federal regions,

and found that geography explained a

significant degree of variation in costper-square-foot in university research

facilities and that the Federal regional

grouping provided a reasonable

approximation of comparable

construction costs. Further, the

geographic regions established in

Circular A–105 are used by the

Department of Health and Human

Services, which has negotiation

cognizance over a majority of

educational institutions, in their

administration of grants and contracts

and is familiar with the grantee

community. Therefore, OMB proposes

to use these ten regions for initiating the

review process for a particular

university facility costs. Given that

other geographic groupings could be

contemplated, OMB invites suggestions

of other geographic groupings that might

be demonstrated to be significant

contributors to research facility costs.

See proposed new Appendix C to

Circular A–21.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices 47723

In reviewing data pertaining to newlyconstructed or renovated space, Federal

cost negotiators will determine whether

the facility’s GSF cost exceeds 125

percent of the NSF median for the

region in which the facility is located.

No justification is necessary if the GSF

cost is below the 125 percent

benchmark. If the GSF cost exceeds the

125 percent benchmark, then

institutions must submit detailed and

quantitative justifications in order for

such costs to be considered in rate

negotiations. Acceptable justification

should address one of the following:

(a) Lower life-cycle costs—The

institution must demonstrate that it will

incur higher up-front costs in

constructing a facility in order to lower

operating costs, and that the initial

investment will benefit the institution

and sponsored research agreements; or

(b) Unique research needs—The

institution must demonstrate that

unusual design or materials are required

for the type of research. For example,

biomedical research space costs are

typically more expensive than the costs

of other types of research space.

Additionally, given the different

nature of construction costs in Alaska

and Hawaii, a third acceptable

justification for construction costs to

exceed the benchmarks is that the

project lies in one of those states.

If an institution’s justification is

accepted by the Federal cost negotiators,

the full GSF cost amount may be

included in the institution’s calculation

of its depreciation or use allowance. If

an institution’s justification is not

deemed acceptable, the Federal cost

negotiators will limit payment of

facilities’ depreciation or use allowance

to the 125 percent benchmark rate for

the region in which the facility is

located. If an institution submits

justification that justifies costs above the

benchmark but justifies an amount less

than actual or estimated costs, the

Federal cost negotiators and institutions

may arrive at an amount above 125

percent of the regional median but less

than the actual or estimated costs that

may be included in an institution’s

calculation of depreciation and use

allowance.

2. Implement an Alternative Approach

for the Payment of Utility Costs and

Defer the Elimination of Special Cost

Studies for the Recovery of Library Costs

The 1996 revision to Circular A–21

indicated that special cost studies will

be eliminated starting with fiscal years

beginning on or after July 1, 1998. OMB

committed to developing an alternative

approach to replace special cost studies

for utility costs. The proposed

alternative approach, as outlined in

proposed new subsections F.4.c and d,

provides a simple methodology to pay

for increased utility costs related to

research activities. The approach

consists of adding a utility cost

adjustment (UCA) of 1.3 percentage

points to the university’s overall F&A

organized research rate calculated using

the standard Circular A–21 allocation

methods. The 1.3 percentage points

represent the weighted average

incremental rate that the Federal

Government paid above the rate

calculated using the standard allocation

methodology to institutions that

submitted in the past special utility

studies for utility costs related to

research activities. OMB will

periodically reassess the UCA.

The UCA will initially be available,

starting with fiscal years beginning on

or after July 1, 1998, to the institutions

that included special cost studies in

their most recently submitted F&A

proposal. The list of these institutions,

based on review of Federal records, is

provided in Attachment A to this

proposal. OMB will develop criteria by

which the institutions may be

periodically recertified and by which

other institutions could qualify for the

UCA by July 1, 2002 and may change

the UCA.

Further, due to the uncertain effects of

recent and ongoing changes to

university libraries and their services

brought about by the increased use of

the Internet and on-line research, OMB

proposes to defer the elimination of

special cost studies to support the

allocation of library costs until OMB has

an opportunity to evaluate the impact of

these changes on the costs of library

services benefitting organized research.

See proposed revised subsection

E.2.d.(5).

3. Provide Additional Guidelines on

Depreciation and Use Allowances

In 1995, OMB stated its intention to

examine and potentially revise the

current useful life schedules for

equipment, the cost of which is

allocated to federally-sponsored

agreements through a use allowance, to

ensure that F&A recovery payments

keep pace with the changing nature of

scientific equipment. The use allowance

methodology is based on an averaging

concept that defines a 15-year useful life

as an average life for all equipment at

educational institutions. OMB’s

examination of this issue determined

that the current 15-year useful life used

in the computation of use allowance is,

on balance, reasonable. That is,

although the 15-year useful life may not

match the expected life of some types of

equipment (e.g., scientific and computer

equipment), it remains appropriate

considering the longer useful life of

other types of equipment (e.g., furniture

and fixtures). Therefore, OMB does not

intend to revise the useful life for

equipment for the use allowance

method.

For those educational institutions that

find that a shorter useful life for their

equipment is more appropriate, Circular

A–21 allows the use of depreciation for

the recovery of equipment costs.

To provide more consistency in the

treatment of use allowance and

depreciation among educational

institutions and Federal cognizant

agencies, OMB proposes the following

clarifications for the calculation of

depreciation and use allowance:

(a) Use allowance recovery shall be

limited to the acquisition costs of assets,

or fair market value of donated assets at

the time of donation (see proposed

revised subsection J.2.c).

(b) Institutions that report

depreciation in their financial

statements must use the same

depreciation methodology and useful

lives for the F&A proposal (see proposed

revised subsection J.12.b).

(c) Guidelines are proposed for the

calculation of depreciation on buildings

when depreciation is calculated on

individual building components (see

proposed revised subsection J.12.b).

This revision establishes general

categories of building components for

the assignment of useful life.

(d) Gains and losses shall be

computed on the disposition of

depreciable assets (see proposed revised

section J.33). This is how gains and

losses are computed under other OMB

cost principles found in Circulars A–87,

‘‘Cost Principles for State, Local and

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ and A–

122, ‘‘Cost Principles for Non-Profit

Organizations,’’ in the treatment of gains

or losses resulting from disposition of

depreciable assets. Previously, Circular

A–21 was silent on this issue because

depreciation calculations were not

required for educational institutions

under generally accepted accounting

principles (GAAP).

4. Propose To Develop a Standard

Format for the Ssubmission of F&A

Proposals

A standard format would assist

institutions in completing their F&A

rate proposal more efficiently and help

the Federal cognizant agency review

each proposal on a more consistent

basis. It would also allow the Federal

Government to collect improved

information about F&A costs and to

analyze F&A data that could be useful
47724 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices

in explaining variances in F&A rates

among institutions. OMB intends to

develop the standard format with

assistance from Federal agencies,

universities, and other interested

parties, and then request comments

under the Paperwork Reduction Act

through a notice in the Federal Register.

When completed, it will be included as

an Appendix to the Circular and be

available electronically.

5. Change the distribution Basis for F&A

Application (From Salaries and Wages

to Modified Total Direct Costs) for

Institutions That Use the Simplified

Allocation Method

This change, detailed in proposed

revised Section H.2, would provide

more comparability between F&A rates

at small and large universities.

D. Other Proposed Items for

Consideration in the 1995 Notice

OMB does not propose at this time to

make revisions on two other items that

were discussed in the 1995 Federal

Register notice. They were: (1) to

develop methods for direct charging of

space costs, and (2) to develop new

methods for charging specialized

services facilities. The following

discussion summarizes the result of

OMB’s analyses on these two items.

1. Develop Methods for Direct Charging

of Space Costs

In February 1995, OMB stated its

intention to develop and test a model

for charging facilities costs directly to

sponsored agreements. The objective of

this study was to strengthen the

incentive for universities to allocate

space costs more efficiently. OMB asked

the Federal Demonstration Project

(FDP), which was created to test ways

to improve flexibility and reduce

administrative costs associated with

grant-making, to perform the study. In

October 1995, the FDP reported to OMB

that it had developed three models of

direct charging space costs to sponsored

agreements. It also reported that,

although direct charging is likely to

produce more efficient use of space, it

could also impose an excessive

administrative burden on educational

institutions and Federal agencies.

In recognition of the FDP’s concerns,

OMB is not formally pursuing this

concept at the present time. However,

OMB requests that Federal research

agencies attempt to identify candidate

institutions willing to pilot test direct

charging. Federal agencies should work

with pilot institutions to identify the

best ways to quantify the efficiencies

and administrative burdens direct

charging creates and to see if an

acceptable balance can be developed.

2. Consider New Methods for Charging

Specialized Service Facilities

In February 1995, OMB stated its

intention to develop a standard

methodology for uniform treatment of

specialized service facilities (e.g.,

animal care, computer centers and

biohazard centers). OMB examined the

issue and is not considering a change at

this time in the current provisions for

charging specialized service facilities

costs.

OMB intended to identify the

operating expenses of specialized

service facilities that should be

allocated to the direct costs and those to

be included in a facility-specific rate or

the general facilities cost pool. Based on

OMB’s analysis, costs associated with

the specialized service facilities can be

generally identified to these facilities. In

accordance with current provisions of

Circular A–21, these costs shall be

directly assigned to the special service

facilities and shall not be included in a

facility-specific rate or the general

facilities cost pool, unless the costs are

immaterial or not readily identifiable.

To allow the allocation of facilities and

general administrative costs associated

with specific specialized service

facilities to a general facilities cost pool

would violate the basic allocability

principles of OMB cost principles

Circulars (A–21, A–87 and A–122) and

inequitably distribute costs to projects

that do not benefit from the specialized

service facilities.

E. Clarification on the Use of Fixed

Rates for the Life of the Sponsored

Agreement

On May 8, 1996, OMB revised

Circular A–21 by adding section G.7,

‘‘Fixed rates for the life of the sponsored

agreement,’’ (61 FR 20891) to require

Federal agencies to ‘‘use the negotiated

rates for F&A costs in effect at the time

of the initial award throughout the life

of the sponsored agreement.’’ In a

response to public comments in the

preamble section (61 FR 20884), OMB

indicated that ‘‘negotiated rates’’ could

include predetermined, fixed or

provisional rates; and that provisional

rates could be used for both funding and

reimbursement throughout the life of

the award.

OMB’s intention in section G.7 was to

require the Federal funding agencies to

use the negotiated rates (final, fixed or

predetermined rate) in effect at the time

of the initial award to determine the

total funding and the reimbursement of

F&A costs of a multi-year project.

Therefore, this notice is to clarify that

‘‘negotiated rates,’’ as mentioned in

section G.7, do not include provisional

rates.

G. Edward DeSeve,

Controller.

Circular A–21 is proposed to be

revised as follows:

1. Replace subsection E.2.d.(5) with

the following:

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (3),

effective July 1, 1998, a cost analysis or

base other than that in Section F shall

not be used to distribute utility or

student services costs. Instead,

subsections F.4.c and F.4.d may be used

in the recovery of utility costs.

2. Renumber subsection F.2.b to F.2.c,

and change the reference in subsection

F.4.b from ‘‘subsection 2.b’’ to

‘‘subsection 2.c.’’

3. Add new subsection F.2.b:

b. Review of selected research

facilities construction costs. Cognizant

agencies shall review the reasonableness

of the construction costs, used in an

institution’s calculation of depreciation

or use allowance, for all research-related

capital projects that meet the criteria in

subsection (1). The review requires

Federal cost negotiators to determine,

prior to including a new or renovated

research facility’s costs in an

institution’s F&A proposal, whether the

cost per gross square foot (GSF) of new

facilities is reasonable when compared

with benchmarks for construction or

renovation costs discussed in subsection

(2). The goals of this objective review

process are: to ensure that research

facility costs charged to federallysponsored agreements are reasonable, to

increase accountability in the facilities

component of F&A costs, and to

encourage efficient construction and

renovation of research facilities.

(1) All new research capital projects,

on which design and construction

begins after July 1, 1998, which are

included in F&A rate proposals

negotiated after January 1, 2000, shall be

reviewed if they meet the following

criteria:

(a) Facilities construction costs are

greater than or equal to $10 million, or

renovation costs greater than or equal to

$4 million; and

(b) 40 percent or more of the facility’s

depreciation or use allowance is

assigned to federally-sponsored

agreements at any time during the life

of the building.

(2) The benchmark is equal to 125

percent of the most recent cost per GSF

data the National Science Foundation

(NSF) collects in response to its biennial

survey, ‘‘Science and Engineering

Facilities at Colleges and Universities.’’

Using these survey data, NSF will
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices 47725

biennially calculate median cost per

GSF for new research facilities

constructed and median cost per GSF

for renovation projects completed at

colleges and universities. These

benchmarks will be broken down

according to ten Federal regions (see

Appendix C of Circular A–21).

(3) No justification is necessary if the

cost per GSF is below the 125 percent

benchmark. If the cost per GSF exceeds

125 percent of the median cost for the

region in which the facility of an

institution is located, then the

institution must submit detailed and

quantitative justification in order for

such costs to be considered in rate

negotiation. While the submission can

address other justifications, the

institution must address whether the

following justify the higher rates:

(a) Lower life-cycle costs—The

institution incurred higher up-front

costs in constructing a facility in order

to lower operating costs. This initial

investment will benefit the institution

and sponsored research agreements; or

(b) Unique research needs—The

unusual design or materials, if required

for the type of research, that

significantly increased the construction

costs of the facility. For example,

biomedical research space costs are

typically more expensive than the costs

for other types of research space,

according to NSF facilities data.

Additionally, given the different

nature of construction costs in Alaska

and Hawaii, a third acceptable

justification for construction costs to

exceed the benchmarks is that the

project lies in one of those states.

If the Federal cost negotiators

determine that an institution’s

justification is acceptable, then the full

GSF cost amount may be included in

the institution’s calculation of its

depreciation or use allowance. If the

Federal cost negotiators determine that

an institution’s justification is not

acceptable, then the Federal cost

negotiators will limit payment of

facility’s depreciation or use allowance

to the 125 percent benchmark rate for

the region in which the facility is

located. If the Federal cost negotiators

determine that an institution has

submitted a justification that justifies

costs above the benchmark but at an

amount less than actual or estimated

costs, then the Federal cost negotiators

and institutions may arrive at an

amount above 125 percent of the

regional median but less than the actual

or estimated costs that may be included

in an institution’s calculation of

depreciation or use allowance.

4. Add new subsections F.4.c and

F.4.d:

c. For F&A rates negotiated on or after

July 1, 1998, an institution that

previously employed a utility special

cost study in its most recently

negotiated F&A rate proposal in

accordance with Section E.2.d, may add

a utility cost adjustment (UCA) of 1.3

percentage points to its negotiated

overall F&A rate for organized research.

The allocation of utility costs to the

benefitting functions shall otherwise be

made in the same manner as described

in subsection F.4.b. Beginning on July 1,

2002, Federal agencies shall reassess

periodically the eligibility of

institutions to receive the UCA.

d. Beginning on July 1, 2002, Federal

agencies shall receive applications for

utilization of the UCA from institutions

not subject to the provisions of

subsection F.4.c.

5. Replace subsection H.1.a with the

following:

a. Where the total direct cost of work

covered by Circular A–21 at an

institution does not exceed $10 million

in a fiscal year, the use of the simplified

procedure described in subsection 2,

may be used in determining allowable

F&A costs. Under this simplified

procedure, the institution’s most recent

annual financial report and immediately

available supporting information shall

be utilized as basis for determining the

F&A cost rate applicable to all

sponsored agreements.

6. Replace subsection H.2.a with the

following:

a. Establish the total costs incurred by

the institution for the base period.

7. Replace subsection H.2.c with the

following:

c. Establish the modified total direct

cost distribution base, as defined in

Section G.2.

8. Replace subsection H.2.e with the

following:

e. Apply the F&A cost rate to the

modified total direct costs for individual

agreements to determine the amount of

F&A costs allocable to such agreements.

9. Replace subsection J.12.b.(2) with

the following:

(2) The depreciation method used to

charge the cost of an asset (or group of

assets) to accounting periods shall

reflect the pattern of consumption of the

asset during its useful life. In the

absence of clear evidence indicating that

the expected consumption of the asset

will be significantly greater in the early

portions than in the later portions of its

useful life, the straight-line method

shall be presumed to be the appropriate

method. Depreciation methods once

used shall not be changed unless

approved in advance by the cognizant

Federal agency. The depreciation

methods used to calculate the

depreciation amounts for F&A rate

purposes shall be the same methods

used by the institution for its financial

statements. This section does not apply

to institutions (e.g., public institutions)

which are not required to record

depreciation by applicable generally

accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

10. Replace subsection J.12.b.(4) with

the following:

(4) When the depreciation method is

used for buildings, a building may be

divided into three general components.

Each component item must then be

depreciated over its estimated useful

life. The three general components of a

building are: building shell (including

construction and design costs), building

services systems (e.g., elevators, HVAC,

plumbing system and heating and airconditioning system) and fixed

equipment (e.g., sterilizers, casework,

fumehoods, cold rooms and glassware/

washers). When an institution elects to

depreciate its buildings by its

components, the same depreciation

methods must be used for F&A purposes

and financial statements purposes, as

described in subsection b.(2). However,

the entire building, including the shell

and all components, may be treated as

a single asset and depreciated over a

single useful life.

11. Replace subsection J.12.c.(1) with

the following:

(1) The use allowance for buildings

and improvements (including

improvements such as paved parking

areas, fences, and sidewalks) shall be

computed at an annual rate not

exceeding two percent of acquisition

cost. The use allowance for equipment

shall be computed at an annual rate not

exceeding six and two-thirds percent of

acquisition cost. Use allowance recovery

is limited to the acquisition costs of the

assets. For donated assets, use

allowance is limited to the fair market

of the assets at the time of donation.

12. Replace section J.33 with the

following:

33. Profits and losses on disposition

of plant equipment or other capital

assets.

a. (1) Gains and losses on the sale,

retirement, or other disposition of

depreciable property shall be included

in the year in which they occur as

credits or charges to the asset cost

grouping(s) in which the property was

included. The amount of the gain or loss

to be included as a credit or charge to

the appropriate asset cost grouping(s)

shall be the difference between the

amount realized on the property and the

undepreciated basis of the property.

(2) Gains and losses on the

disposition of depreciable property shall
47726 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices

not be recognized as a separate credit or

charge under the following conditions:

(a) The gain or loss is processed

through a depreciation account and is

reflected in the depreciation allowable

under Section J.12.

(b) The property is given in exchange

as part of the purchase price of a similar

item and the gain or loss is taken into

account in determining the depreciation

cost basis of the new item.

(c) A loss results from the failure to

maintain permissible insurance, except

as otherwise provided in Section J.21.d.

(d) Compensation for the use of the

property was provided through use

allowances in lieu of depreciation.

b. Gains or losses of any nature arising

from the sale or exchange of property

other than the property covered in

subsection a shall be excluded in

computing Federal award costs.

c. When assets acquired with Federal

funds, in part or wholly, are disposed

of, the distribution of the proceeds shall

be made in accordance with Circular A–

110, ‘‘Uniform Administrative

Requirements for Grants and

Agreements with Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals, and Other NonProfit Organizations.’’

13. Add new Appendix C.

Appendix C

FEDERAL REGIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION BENCHMARK FACILITIES COSTS

Region States (and the District of

Columbia)

I ............ Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode

Island and Vermont.

II ........... New York and New Jersey.

FEDERAL REGIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION BENCHMARK FACILITIES

COSTS—Continued

Region States (and the District of

Columbia)

III .......... Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and

District of Columbia.

IV .......... Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

V ........... Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

VI .......... Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,

Oklahoma and Texas.

VII ......... Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska.

VIII ........ Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

IX .......... Arizona, California, Hawaii and

Nevada.

X ........... Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Attachment A

Listing of institutions that included special

cost studies for the recovery of utility costs

in their most recent F&A proposal

submission based on a review of Federal

records.

1. Boston College

2. Boston University

3. California Institute of Technology

4. Columbia University

5. Cornell University (Endowed)

6. Cornell University (Statutory)

7. Cornell University (Medical)

8. Emory University

9. Harvard Medical School

10. Harvard University

11. Johns Hopkins University

12. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

13. Medical University of South Carolina

14. Mount Sinai School of Medicine

15. New York University (except New York

University Medical Center)

16. New York University Medical Center

17. North Carolina State University

18. Northeastern University

19. Oregon Health Sciences University

20. Oregon State University

21. Rice University

22. Rockefeller University

23. Stanford University

24. Tufts University

25. Tulane University

26. University of Arizona

27. University of CA, Berkeley

28. University of CA, Irvine

29. University of CA, Los Angeles

30. University of CA, San Diego

31. University of CA, San Francisco

32. University of Colorado, Health Sciences

Center

33. University of Illinois, Urbana

34. University of Pennsylvania

35. University of Pittsburgh

36. University of Rochester

37. University of Southern California

38. University of Virginia

39. University of Michigan

40. University of Massachusetts, Medical

Center

41. University of Medicine & Dentistry of

New Jersey

42. University of Connecticut, Health

Sciences Center

43. University of Vermont & State Agriculture

College

44. University of Texas, Austin

45. University of Texas Southwestern

Medical Center

46. Virginia Commonwealth University

47. Vanderbilt University

48. Washington University

49. Yale University

50. Yeshiva University

[FR Doc. 97–23878 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P