Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Notices 2459 

1 44 U.S.C. 3583(a). ‘‘Statistical agencies or units’’ 

are those agencies or organizational units 

designated by the Director of OMB pursuant to 44 

U.S.C. 3562(a). 

2 44 U.S.C. 3504(e). 

3 5 U.S.C. 314. 

agency or program, either directly or via 

a Federal contractor. This could include 

individuals or households; businesses 

or other for-profit organizations; not-forprofit institutions; State, local, Tribal, or 

territorial governments; and 

universities. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

2,001,550. 

Estimated Time per Response: Varied, 

dependent upon the data collection 

method used. The possible response 

time to complete a questionnaire or 

survey may be 3 minutes or up to 1.5 

hours to participate in an interview. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 101,125. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $2,737,454. 

C. Public Comments 

OMB invites comments on: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden (including hours and cost) 

of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to this 

notice will be summarized or included 

in the request for OMB approval of this 

information collection; they also will 

become a matter of public record. 

Jason S. Miller, 

Deputy Director of Management. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00662 Filed 1–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

The Interagency Council on Statistical 

Policy’s Recommendation for a 

Standard Application Process (SAP) 

for Requesting Access to Certain 

Confidential Data Assets 

AGENCY: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Executive 

Office of the President. 

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of the implementation 

of the Foundations for Evidence-Based 

Policymaking Act of 2018, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

requests comments on the Interagency 

Council on Statistical Policy’s 

recommendation for a Standard 

Application Process (SAP) for 

requesting access to certain confidential 

data assets. The SAP is to be a process 

through which agencies, the 

Congressional Budget Office, State, 

local, and Tribal governments, 

researchers, and other individuals, as 

appropriate, may apply to access 

confidential data assets accessed or 

acquired by a statistical agency or unit 

for the purposes of developing evidence. 

This new process would be 

implemented while maintaining 

stringent controls to protect 

confidentiality and privacy, as required 

by the law. 

DATES: To ensure consideration of 

comments on this Notice, comments 

must be provided in writing no later 

than 60 days from the publication date 

of this notice. Because of delays in the 

receipt of regular mail related to 

security screening, respondents are 

encouraged to send comments 

electronically (see ADDRESSES, below). 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via 

www.regulations.gov—a Federal EGovernment website that allows the 

public to find, review, and submit 

comments on documents that agencies 

have published in the Federal Register 

and that are open for comment. Simply 

type ‘‘OMB–2022–0001’’ (in quotes) in 

the Comment or Submission search box, 

click Go, and follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. Comments 

received by the date specified above 

will be included as part of the official 

record. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice may be made available to the 

public and are subject to disclosure 

under the Freedom of Information Act. 

For this reason, please do not include in 

your comments information of a 

confidential nature, such as sensitive 

personal information or proprietary 

information. If you send an email 

comment, your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket; however, 

www.regulations.gov does include the 

option of commenting anonymously. 

Please note that responses to this public 

comment request containing any routine 

notice about the confidentiality of the 

communication will be treated as public 

comments that may be made available to 

the public notwithstanding the 

inclusion of the routine notice. 

Electronic Availability: Federal 

Register notices are available 

electronically at 

www.federalregister.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this request for 

comments, contact Rochelle Martinez, 

OMB, Statistical_Directives@

omb.eop.gov, 9242 New Executive 

Office Building, 725 17th St. NW, 

Washington, DC 20503, telephone (202) 

395–5897. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB is 

issuing a request for comment under the 

Foundations for Evidence-Based 

Policymaking Act of 2018, Public Law 

115–435, 132 stat. 5529 (2019), hereafter 

referred to as the Evidence Act. 

Specifically, the Evidence Act 

requires OMB to establish a process 

through which agencies, the 

Congressional Budget Office, State, 

local, and Tribal governments, 

researchers, and other individuals, as 

appropriate, may apply for access to 

confidential data assets accessed or 

acquired by a statistical agency or unit.1

This new process would be 

implemented while maintaining 

stringent controls to protect 

confidentiality and privacy, as required 

by the law. In addition, under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Interagency Council on Statistical Policy 

(ICSP) is to advise and assist the 

Director of OMB in coordinating the 

Federal statistical system and setting 

statistical policy.2 The ICSP is chaired 

by the Chief Statistician of the United 

States and membership includes the 

heads of the 13 recognized statistical 

agencies, or in the case of an agency that 

does not have a statistical agency or 

unit, the agency’s Statistical Official.3

In that capacity, and in order for the 

statistical system to comply with this 

Evidence Act requirement, the ICSP 

submitted a set of recommendations to 

OMB for a policy that would establish 

a standard application process (SAP) for 

requesting access to certain confidential 

data assets accessed or acquired by 

designated statistical agencies and units. 

OMB’s Office of the Chief Statistician, 

within the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), relies on 

public comment and subject matter 

expertise across the Federal government 

when establishing OMB policies or 

guidance for efficient coordination of 

Federal statistics. Accordingly, OMB is 

seeking public comment on the ICSP’s 

recommendations. 

Applicability 

The proposed policy would impose 

requirements on all recognized 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
2460 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Notices 

4https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2019/03/Full-Report-The-Promise-ofEvidence-Based-Policymaking-Report-of-theComission-on-Evidence-based-Policymaking.pdf. 

5H.R. Rep No. 115–411 (2017). 

6 44 U.S.C. 3583(a). Agencies, the Congressional 

Budget Office, State, local, and Tribal governments 

may, for the purposes of developing evidence, 

apply to access confidential data accessed or 

acquired by statistical agencies and units by 

applying for an employee(s) of those organizations 

to be designated as agents to conduct a specific 

statistical activity. 

statistical agencies and units under 44 

U.S.C. 3561(11) and 3562. As a result, 

all persons seeking access to data under 

U.S.C. 3583 would apply for such access 

under the requirements of this policy. 

At the time of this proposal, there are 

sixteen designated statistical agencies 

and units: Bureau of Economic Analysis 

(Department of Commerce); Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (Department of Justice); 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (Department 

of Labor); Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (Department of 

Transportation); Census Bureau 

(Department of Commerce); Center for 

Behavioral Health Statistics and 

Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration 

(Department of Health and Human 

Services); Economic Research Service 

(Department of Agriculture); Energy 

Information Administration 

(Department of Energy); Microeconomic 

Surveys Unit (Board of Directors of the 

Federal Reserve System); National 

Agricultural Statistical Service 

(Department of Agriculture); National 

Animal Health Monitoring System, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (Department of Agriculture); 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(Department of Education); National 

Center for Health Statistics (Department 

of Health and Human Services); 

National Center for Science and 

Engineering Statistics (National Science 

Foundation); Office of Research, 

Evaluation, and Statistics (Social 

Security Administration); and Statistics 

of Income Division (Department of the 

Treasury). 

In the future, if the Director of OMB 

recognizes an agency or organizational 

unit as a statistical agency or unit, then 

it would become subject to this policy 

and shall adopt the SAP. 

Under the proposal, other Executive 

branch agencies or organizational units 

may, at their discretion, and with the 

concurrence of the SAP Governance 

Body, utilize the SAP to accept 

applications for access to confidential 

data for the purpose of developing 

evidence. Agencies facilitate access to 

confidential data by enabling applicants 

to submit proposals through the SAP. 

When making use of the SAP to accept 

such proposals, it is proposed that an 

Agency must adopt and abide by the 

entirety of this policy for those data 

assets, including use of the data 

inventory, common application, review 

criteria, timelines, appeals process, 

progress tracking, and reporting, with 

appropriate exceptions for legal and 

regulatory requirements as allowed for 

in the proposed policy. 

Background 

Data accessed or acquired by 

statistical agencies and units is vital for 

developing evidence on conditions, 

characteristics, and behaviors of the 

public and on the operations and 

outcomes of public programs and 

policies. This evidence can benefit the 

stakeholders in the programs, the 

broader public, and policymakers and 

program managers at the local, State, 

Tribal, and National levels. Some 

evidence may be built upon public 

versions of data that were initially 

collected under a statistical 

confidentiality protection statute, but 

where some type of disclosure 

limitation methods have been applied, 

such as the removal of Personal 

Identifying Information (PII) and 

aggregation of information, to prevent 

the risk of disclosing the identities of 

individuals. However, some evidencebuilding activities have long required or 

benefited greatly from the use of 

properly and strongly protected 

confidential data. Such uses are 

conducted in a manner that maintains 

the confidentiality of the data and the 

public trust. 

Again, these arrangements have long 

been established by contract or by 

entering into a special agreement, where 

a statistical agency or unit may allow 

approved individuals (hereafter, 

referred to as agents) to perform 

exclusively statistical activities on an 

approved project using confidential 

data, subject to appropriate control, 

supervision, and agreement to comply 

with all relevant legal provisions. 

CIPSEA authorizes data accessed or 

acquired by a statistical agency or unit 

under a pledge of confidentiality to be 

shared with such agents, and subjects 

such agents to the same fines and 

penalties, including potential criminal 

penalties, for willful and unauthorized 

disclosures as statistical agency or unit 

employees and officers. Such 

arrangements have been used 

successfully even prior to CIPSEA’s 

enactment in 2002 for the purpose of 

facilitating the generation of evidence. 

However, the process for an 

individual to become a designated agent 

authorized to access a confidential data 

asset for an approved statistical activity 

often varies across Federal statistical 

agencies. Moreover, the trusted status 

that agents obtain from one agency may 

not transfer to another agency, requiring 

the potential duplication of costly and 

time-consuming clearance processes. 

The variety of applications and 

clearance procedures used across the 

Federal statistical system for 

confidential data access potentially 

impacts the ability of agents to generate 

evidence that could inform the 

efficiency of government policies and 

programs, as well as the availability of 

evidence to inform non-Federal decision 

making. Evidence building 

opportunities would be enhanced, while 

maintaining data protections and 

ensuring appropriate use, by the design 

and construction of a standard 

application process (SAP) for access to 

confidential data. 

Recognizing this potential, in 2016, 

the U.S. Congress established the 

Commission on Evidence-Based 

Policymaking (CEP) to explore how to 

increase the availability and use of 

evidence in the Federal government 

while protecting privacy and 

confidentiality. In the September 7, 

2017 report on its findings, the CEP 

provided a series of recommendations 

in response to its charge. As part of its 

findings, the CEP highlighted the 

heterogeneity in application processes 

for confidential data as an important 

challenge for those seeking to access 

confidential data from multiple agencies 

to build evidence. The CEP further 

noted that ‘‘inefficiencies in the 

[confidential] data access processes 

create administrative expenses and 

researcher burdens that can impede 

Federally-funded research.’’ 4 Federallyfunded research, while not the only type 

of research that would be supported by 

the SAP, today represents a large share 

of data-access demand. 

The CEP report directly influenced 

the Evidence Act. Informed by the 

findings of the CEP,5 the Evidence Act 

requires that the Director of OMB 

establish an SAP that will be adopted by 

statistical agencies and units and allow 

agencies, the Congressional Budget 

Office, State, local, and Tribal 

governments, researchers, and other 

individuals, as appropriate, to apply to 

access certain confidential data accessed 

or acquired by statistical agencies or 

units.6 Specifically, the Evidence Act 

requires that each statistical agency or 

unit establish an ‘identical’ application 

process, which includes not just the 

application form but also the criteria for 

determining whether to grant an 

applicant access to the confidential data 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Notices 2461 

7Those decisions fall within the scope of a 

regulation that OMB will promulgate under 44 

U.S.C. 3582. 

asset, timeframes for prompt 

determinations, an appeals process for 

adverse determinations, and reporting 

requirements for full transparency. 

While the adoption of the SAP is 

required for statistical agencies and 

units recognized under CIPSEA, it is 

understood that other agencies and 

organizational units within the 

Executive branch may benefit from the 

adoption of the SAP to accept 

applications for access to confidential 

data assets available for the purpose of 

developing evidence. 

In 2019, a subset of statistical agencies 

and units associated with the Federal 

Statistical Research Data Centers 

established a pilot project that provided 

researchers with a common, online 

application form and metadata 

inventory for requesting access to 

certain confidential data assets 

(www.researchdatagov.com). Two key 

lessons learned from the pilot were that 

the standard application process 

requires clear policy guidelines and a 

central capacity to guide 

implementation and standardization. As 

the number of participating agencies 

increases, as well as the complexity of 

the SAP program itself, a policy that 

guides decision making and establishes 

clear roles and responsibilities becomes 

increasingly important. Based on the 

pilot experience and subsequent, in 

2021 OMB designated the Standard 

Application Process program as a 

government-wide shared service and 

established the role of Program 

Management Office (PMO) as a 

managing partner of the program. 

In order to provide needed guidance 

and recommendations, in 2020 the ICSP 

established a subcommittee on the SAP. 

The subcommittee sought to build on 

the earlier pilot project and the lessons 

learned by engaging in outreach to 

researchers and data providers likely to 

use the SAP. Initial feedback from 

stakeholders had common themes. For 

example, stakeholders indicated that 

application processes are often long and 

cumbersome, that transparency of 

requirements and timely approvals are 

important, and that they would like to 

see more standardization of processes 

across agencies. 

Guided by the requirements of the 

Evidence Act and the stakeholder 

feedback, the ICSP SAP subcommittee 

drafted a policy for the establishment of 

an SAP. The draft policy went through 

multiple rounds of review by ICSP 

member agencies and units to ensure 

the requirements align with the 

requirements of Evidence Act, the 

additional statutory and regulatory 

requirements governing certain data 

assets or statistical agencies and units, 

and the practical conditions affecting an 

approved research project’s lifecycle. In 

July 2021, the ICSP voted to send the 

draft policy to OMB as a 

recommendation for establishing an 

SAP consistent with the Evidence Act 

requirements. 

Interagency Council on Statistical 

Policy Recommendation 

OMB seeks comment on this proposal. 

We have made a preliminary 

determination that the proposal also 

meets the requirements of the Evidence 

Act (44 U.S.C. 3583), and has the 

potential to reduce the burden to 

applicants while maintaining currently 

strong access and confidentiality 

protections. 

In summary, the application process 

begins with an applicant identifying a 

confidential data asset for which a 

statistical agency or unit is accepting 

applications for the purpose of 

developing evidence, and ends with the 

agency or unit’s determination whether 

to grant access to the applicant. In the 

case of an adverse determination, the 

application process ends with the 

conclusion of an appeals process if the 

applicant elects to appeal the adverse 

determination. The scope of this 

proposal excludes decisions about the 

mode of access to confidential data or 

methods by which data are protected 

from unauthorized disclosure.7

The implementation of the proposed 

SAP would include an online portal that 

serves as the primary location for 

researchers and others seeking to 

identify and apply for access to 

confidential data available for evidence 

building purposes. The SAP Portal 

would include an SAP Data Inventory 

and searchable metadata on confidential 

data assets for which evidence-building 

applications are being accepted, and 

would be populated by statistical 

agencies and units. The goal of the 

policy is for the metadata to be 

sufficient to facilitate data identification 

and ensure that potential applicants can 

find and access adequate documentation 

on available data assets. The SAP Portal 

would also include a common 

application form that is standardized 

across statistical agencies and units and 

datasets, except where unique legal or 

regulatory requirements create a need 

for additional fields. 

Upon receipt of a completed 

application, statistical agencies and 

units would apply a common set of 

criteria when reviewing both the 

proposed project and the applicant. 

When reviewing a proposed project, 

statistical agencies and units would 

ensure that the data use is for 

exclusively statistical purposes; the use 

is allowed under relevant statutes, 

regulations, notices, agreements, and 

other requirements governing the use of 

the data; that appropriate statistical 

disclosure limitations could be applied 

to the relevant data; there is a 

demonstrated need for the data; the 

project is feasible; and the public trust 

can be maintained. When required by 

statute or regulation, statistical agencies 

or units may consider additional criteria 

as appropriate. 

The proposed policy would establish 

a set of four authorization levels that 

define the level of applicant review 

required. For example, Authorization 

Level 1 would require evaluation of the 

applicant’s identity and completion of 

training, Authorization Level 2 would 

have the additional requirement of a 

non-disclosure or other agreement(s) to 

be completed, and Authorization Levels 

3 and 4 would require two levels of 

background investigations. The 

authorization level required for an 

applicant would be determined by the 

data asset and mode of data access 

requested in the project proposal, and 

would be listed in the SAP Data 

Inventory itself. The authorization 

levels are generally consistent with 

current practices for given modes of 

data access. For example, Authorization 

Level 1 would be consistent with the 

level of access that is usually associated 

with indirect access to confidential data 

using a secure web-based query system 

and Authorization Level 4 would be 

consistent with practices at the Federal 

Statistical Research Data Centers. 

The timeline for review of 

applications would be standardized 

across statistical agencies and units 

under the proposal. For applications 

involving a single agency it is proposed 

that review of project should occur 

within twelve (12) weeks, and for 

applications involving requests for data 

access from multiple agencies the 

review should occur within twenty-four 

(24) weeks to allow for the additional 

complexity and coordination. Agencies 

who cannot meet the required timing 

would be able to seek an extension 

when appropriate. Requests that require 

the statistical agency or unit to obtain 

approval from entities not subject to the 

proposed policy are not subject to the 

timeframes. Under the proposal, review 

of applicants should occur no later than 

three (3) weeks after a project receives 

approval, unless the review requires a 

new background investigation. 

Upon receipt of an adverse 

determination, it is proposed that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
2462 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Notices 

8The proposal describes a procedural appeal, 

which would not extend to review of the 

substantive decision. 

applicants have the opportunity to 

appeal the decision to a review body 

within the statistical agency or unit, 

when the grounds for the adverse 

determination are under the control of 

the relevant statistical agencies or units. 

The result of the appeals process would 

be communicated with the applicant 

within eight (8) weeks of the appeal 

request submission. Under the proposal 

applicants would also have the 

opportunity to file an appeal of alleged 

noncompliance with the policy directly 

with the Chief Statistician at OMB, who 

would review the allegation and, if 

appropriate, take steps to facilitate 

compliance with the policy.8

The SAP Portal will provide 

applicants with up-to-date tracking of 

applications throughout the review 

process. The SAP Portal will also 

provide public reporting of key 

information with regard to the operation 

of the SAP, such as the review status 

and final determination for every 

project, as required by the Evidence Act. 

The full text of the ICSP policy 

recommendation may be found in the 

docket (OMB–2022–0001). 

Desired Focus of Comments 

OMB is particularly interested in 

receiving comments on the specific 

areas of interest described below. To 

provide the most useful feedback, 

responders should read the SAP policy 

draft before addressing the posed 

questions. We also recommend that 

responses be concise, include citations 

if summarizing or depending on 

published work, and provide any links 

to related research. In addition, a fuller 

consideration of comments would be 

facilitated by clear identification of the 

question(s) being addressed. Each 

question provides a link to the related 

discussion within the policy draft. The 

full text of the ISCP SAP policy 

recommendations is available as a 

supplemental document on 

www.regulations.gov in docket number 

‘‘OMB–2022–0001’’. 

OMB welcomes comment on any and 

all aspects of this policy. We have also 

identified specific areas of interest for 

comment, including: 

Metadata standards: 

• To provide flexibility over time, the 

proposed policy would require the SAP 

Program Management Office (PMO) to 

develop and maintain a set of metadata 

standards subject to approval by the 

SAP Governance Body. 

1. Should key metadata elements be 

considered as part of the policy? If so, 

which? 

2. What are the key metadata elements 

that the PMO should consider in its 

development of the metadata standards? 

3. Would it be valuable for the 

metadata standards to comply with any 

other existing metadata standards? If so, 

which? 

Application windows: 

• The proposed policy would allow 

each individual statistical agency or 

unit to establish their own time window 

during which applications will be 

accepted for a given data asset as a way 

to manage resource constraints. This 

approach is designed to maximize 

services from higher capacity statistical 

agencies, which have resources to keep 

an application window open all year in 

many cases, but at the potential expense 

of standardization across statistical 

agencies, because some lower capacity 

statistical agencies may not have the 

resources to review applications on a 

constant flow basis. 

4. How could this proposed approach 

be improved, if at all? 

• If instead the policy were to require 

all agencies to align to a common fixedlength window, we believe that has the 

potential to lead to a decrease in 

availability for higher capacity agencies. 

5. How could this policy be 

implemented in a way that maximizes 

its usefulness? How could the following 

aspects help: 

i. Frequency of windows for accepting 

applications (e.g., annual, quarterly)? 

ii. Minimum number of days for 

accepting applications (e.g., 60 days) for 

each window? 

iii. Alignment of acceptance windows 

across statistical agencies or products? 

iv. Any other features to assist 

applicants seeking data from multiple 

statistical agencies for a single project? 

Applicant evaluation: 

• The proposed policy would 

introduce four standardized 

authorization levels and four standard 

review criteria against which 

applicant(s) will be evaluated. The 

authorization levels are designed to 

align generally with currently used 

access modes as described above. They 

will also need to align with accessibility 

levels to be defined in an upcoming 

OMB regulation required under 44 

U.S.C. 3582. The standard review 

criteria would respond to the 

requirement for an explicit, consistent, 

and identical review process. 

6. Is the proposal an appropriate 

framework, and should it differ in any 

manner between Federal and nonFederal applicants? If not, what 

additional levels or criteria should 

guide the applicant review process to 

improve the efficiency of the SAP? 

Appeals process: 

• The proposed policy would provide 

applicants the ability to file an appeal 

in the event their application receives a 

negative disposition. Under this 

process, the appeal is reviewed by three 

officials at the statistical agency or unit, 

including the statistical agency or unit 

head or delegate, and a consensus 

decision is required to reverse the 

original determination. 

7. What additional aspects should be 

considered to ensure that the process is 

fair, equitable, and transparent? 

8. How, if at all, should processes 

vary for applications that would use 

data from multiple agencies? 

Public reporting: 

• The Evidence Act (44 U.S.C. 

3583(a)(6)) requires public reporting on 

the status and disposition of each 

application to promote transparency. 

9. What additional information 

should be considered as part of the 

proposed public reporting requirements 

beyond what the proposal suggests? 

In addition, OMB welcomes more 

general comment on the merit of the 

proposed SAP both in technical terms 

and as statistical policy, including 

whether any elements should be 

modified in support of technical 

improvement or to improve statistical 

policy. The technical implications of the 

proposed SAP involve the feasibility, 

cost, and effectiveness of its structure 

and processes. The statistical policy 

implications relate to how well the 

proposed SAP supports the missions of 

statistical agencies and units by serving 

the information and research needs of 

policymakers and the public, while 

protecting the privacy and 

confidentiality of individuals who 

provide data. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3583. 

Shalanda D. Young, 

Acting Director, Office of Management and 

Budget. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00620 Filed 1–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: 22–003] 

Name of Information Collection: NASA 

Contractor Financial Management 

Records 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of information collection. 

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1