4584 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Request for Comment; Interim/Draft

Plan of Action To Implement Public

Law 106–107, the Federal Financial

Assistance Management Improvement

Act of 1999

AGENCIES: Department of Agriculture,

Department of Energy, Small Business

Administration, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, Social

Security Administration, Department of

Commerce, Department of State, Agency

for International Development,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Department of Justice,

Department of Labor, Department of the

Treasury, Department of Defense,

Department of Education, Department of

Veterans Affairs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Department of the

Interior, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Department of

Health and Human Services, National

Science Foundation, National

Endowment for the Arts—National

Foundation on the Arts and the

Humanities, National Endowment for

the Humanities—ional Foundation on

the Arts and the Humanities, Institute of

Museum and Library Services—National

Foundation on the Arts and the

Humanities, Corporation for National

and Community Service, Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice; request for public

comments

SUMMARY: This notice is a request for

comments, intended to help the Federal

agencies satisfy the provisions of Public

Law 106–107, the Federal Financial

Assistance Management Improvement

Act of 1999 (henceforth ‘‘the Act’’),

which requires each agency to develop

and implement a plan that streamlines

and simplifies the application,

administrative, and reporting

procedures for Federal financial

assistance programs. The Act also

requires the agencies to consult with

representatives of non-Federal entities

during the development and

implementation of their plans.

This notice and interim/draft plan of

action reflect the joint effort of the

Federal grant-making agencies listed in

Section X, below, to meet the

requirements of the Act. The plan is

being published for public comment in

the Federal Register and on the Internet

at the U.S. Chief Financial Officers

Council’s Grants Management

Committee home page (http://

www.financenet.gov/fed/cfo/grants/

grants.htm), pursuant to Section 5 of the

Act. One intent of the agencies is to use

the information gathered through this

notice to identify additional areas of the

grant life cycle which lend themselves

to common practices and

implementation.

The Federal departments and agencies

will refine this plan as the interagency,

consultative effort identifies additional

specific Federal Government actions

needed to achieve the purposes of the

Act. The initial plan will be submitted

in May, 2001. As this plan evolves into

more specific actions, the Federal

agencies, after consultations with

affected constituencies, will submit

updated information to Congress in the

annual implementation reports required

by the Act.

Desired Focus of Comments

The participating agencies request

your comments on the Federal

grantmaking process and the objectives

outlined in this plan, particularly on the

following questions. To the maximum

extent possible, please provide specific

information in your responses. For

example, the name of the Federal

program or the number of a particular

form. This information will assist the

agencies in their efforts to reform these

programs.

I. Application and Reporting Forms

A. Please identify application and

reporting forms you believe could be

improved or streamlined.

B. Please identify specific data

elements on these forms that you

believe could be eliminated or

combined to reduce reporting burden

while still providing the Federal agency

enough information to manage the

program.

C. What programs do you think could

share common application and

reporting forms that currently do not?

Do not limit your response to programs

within the same agency. For example, if

there are programs administered by the

Department of Agriculture and the

Department of Health and Human

Services that you believe should share

common forms because they share a

similar purpose, please identify them.

D. How do you obtain copies of the

forms you need for your grant? Are they

readily available over the Internet, or are

they provided in materials you received

from your awarding agency, such as a

funding notice or handbook? What

forms have been difficult to locate in

updated formats?

II. Terms and Conditions

A. What terms and conditions are

attached to your grants that you believe

are not treated consistently from

program to program, and across the

various Federal agencies?

B. How would you suggest the

agencies create more uniformity in these

terms and conditions?

III. Payment Systems

A. What payment systems are you

currently required to use to receive

grant payments?

B. Which of these systems offer online services?

C. Does the use of multiple payment

systems by Federal agencies cause a

burden on your financial system?

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4585

IV. Audit Issues

A. What could the Federal agencies

do to improve your understanding of the

Single Audit process?

B. Have you used the Single Audit

Clearinghouse to obtain information on

subrecipient audits?

C. Do you believe that single audits

provide appropriate audit coverage for

your programs and the programs where

you are a pass-through entity?

V. Electronic Processing

A. What electronic processing systems

do you currently use for your Federal

grants? Please note any systems you use

due to Federal agency requirements, as

well as any systems or technologies

your organization uses for other

activities.

B. What is the likelihood that your

organization would utilize an on-line

application or financial reporting

system?

C. How can the agencies best prepare

your organization for the future use of

electronic processing option for your

grants?

DATES: Comments in response to this

notice must be received on or before

March 19, 2001. Each Federal agency

will submit an implementation plan to

OMB and Congress before May 20, 2001

and report annually thereafter.

ADDRESSES: General comments on this

notice, and those relating to more than

one Federal agency, should be

addressed to: Attn: PL 106–107

Comments, Department of Health and

Human Services, 200 Independence

Avenue, SW, Room 517–D, Washington,

DC 20201. Comments may also be

transmitted by E-mail

(PL106107@os.dhhs.gov) or by fax, (202)

690–8772. Comments that are specific to

a particular Federal agency or program

should be directed to the agency’s

contact listed at the end of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general questions regarding this notice,

please contact Rodd Clay, Office of

Grants Management, Department of

Health and Human Services by E-mail

(rclay@os.dhhs.gov) or phone at (202)

690–8723; for the hearing impaired

only: TDD 202–690–6415. For agencyspecific issues, please contact the

agency’s contact listed at the end of this

notice. Additional information

regarding the agencies’ reform efforts

may be found at the Chief Financial

Officers (CFO) Council’s Grants

Management Committee home page

(http://www.financenet.gov/fed/cfo/

grants/grants.htm).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose

This interim/draft plan of action is

being presented for public comment. It

was developed jointly by the Federal

grant-making agencies listed in Section

X, below, to meet the requirements of

the Financial Assistance Improvement

Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–107,

henceforth ‘‘the Act’’). It sets out broad

goals and objectives; describes an

ongoing, coordinated interagency effort

to implement the Act in consultation

with non-Federal entities; and details

accomplishments in some areas. The

Federal agencies will refine this plan as

the interagency, consultative effort

identifies additional specific Federal

Government actions needed to achieve

the purposes of the Act. As this plan

evolves into more specific actions, the

Federal agencies, after consultations

with affected constituencies, will

submit updated information to Congress

in the annual implementation reports

required by the Act. This plan and the

comments received will help the

agencies to meet the requirements of the

Act.

II. Background

Federal programs providing financial

assistance comprise a large and diverse

enterprise with widely varying purposes

and recipient communities. The Catalog

of Federal Domestic Assistance lists

hundreds of programs in more than 25

Federal grant-making agencies with

approximately $300 billion in annual

expenditures. The programs stimulate or

support a wide variety of public

purposes in areas such as health, social

services, law enforcement, agriculture,

housing, community and regional

development, education and training,

and research.

III. Statutory Requirement

In enacting Public Law 106–107,

Congress expressed concern that some

requirements related to the award and

administration of Federal financial

assistance may be duplicative,

burdensome, or conflicting, thus

impeding the cost-effective delivery of

services. Congress further found that

State, local, and tribal governments and

private, nonprofit organizations must

deal with increasingly complex

problems that require the delivery and

coordination of many kinds of services

and result in complex grant

administration. To address these

concerns, the Act requires each Federal

agency to develop and implement a

plan, with the direction, coordination

and assistance of the Director of the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), in consultation with

representatives of non-Federal entities,

that:

• Streamlines and simplifies the

application, administrative, and

reporting procedures for Federal

financial assistance programs

administered by the agency;

• Demonstrates active participation in

an interagency process to:

—Streamline and simplify

administrative procedures and

reporting requirements for nonFederal entities receiving Federal

financial assistance;

—Improve interagency and

intergovernmental coordination of

information collection and sharing

of data pertaining to Federal

programs providing financial

assistance; and

—Improve the timeliness,

completeness, and quality of

information received by Federal

agencies from financial assistance

recipients;

• Demonstrates appropriate agency

use, or plans for use, of a common

application and reporting system that

includes:

—A common application or set of

common applications, whereby a

non-Federal entity can apply for

Federal financial assistance from

multiple Federal programs that

serve similar purposes and are

administered by different Federal

agencies;

—A common system, including

electronic processes, whereby a

non-Federal entity can apply for,

manage, and report on the use of

financial assistance funding from

multiple Federal programs that

serve similar purposes and are

administered by different Federal

agencies; and

—Uniform administrative rules for

Federal financial assistance

programs across different Federal

agencies;

• Designates a lead agency official for

carrying out the responsibilities of the

agency under the Act;

• Allows applicants the option to

electronically apply for, and report on

the use of, funds from programs of the

agency that provides financial

assistance;

• Ensures that recipients of financial

assistance provide timely, complete,

and high quality information in

response to Federal reporting

requirements; and

• Establishes, in cooperation with

recipients of financial assistance,

specific annual goals and objectives to

further the purposes of the Act and

measure annual performance as part of

4586 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

the agency’s planning responsibilities

under the Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–

62).

IV. Goal

An appropriate interagency structure

for accomplishing all aspects of this Act

has been established, and the Federal

agencies have agreed on a common goal:

To maximize the effectiveness with

which Federal financial assistance

programs support the accomplishment

of their purposes, consistent with good

stewardship of public funds and

accountability.

Several agencies have already

undertaken efforts to identify common

grant process flows and to streamline

business practices. These agencies are

continuing to work to identify and

establish performance measures to

effectively manage and track grantee use

of funds. They have also been

developing electronic systems for the

entire grants life cycle which will

support these efforts.

While there have been many studies,

reports, and attempts at Federal

financial assistance simplification in the

past, a comprehensive, Governmentwide review of this magnitude has not

been undertaken since a standardization

effort entitled, ‘‘Federal Assistance

Review’’ was undertaken in 1969. That

review, which took three years to

complete, significantly reduced burdens

on recipients and improved the

uniformity among Federal agencies’

assistance awards to governmental

organizations. For example, it led to the

issuance of OMB Circulars A–87 and A–

102, which contain cost principles and

uniform administrative requirements for

awards to governmental organizations. It

also resulted in a standard application:

The Standard Form 424.

Similarly, the new interagency effort

described in the next section of this

plan is a multi-year effort. As it

progresses, the Federal agencies will

identify more specific goals, objectives

and solutions, as the Act requires.

Therefore, this plan is necessarily an

interim/draft plan. It will evolve as the

Federal agencies, in conjunction with

their non-Federal partners, continue to

identify problems to be addressed,

devise ways to solve them, and specify

the expected outcomes.

V. Process

A. Interagency Approach

Central to the development of the

plan and its implementation is the

active participation in an interagency

process, with direction, coordination

and assistance from OMB, in

consultation with representatives of

non-Federal entities. The Director of

OMB charged the Grants Management

Committee (‘‘the Committee’’) of the

Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Council

to perform most of the work required in

coordinating the interagency,

consultative effort to meet the objectives

of the Act. The Committee is chaired by

the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of

the Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS), which is assisting OMB

as the lead agency for implementation of

the Act. All Federal grant-making

agencies are participating through the

Committee, and therefore, are

developing this coordinated and

consistent implementation plan with

respect to the requirements of the Act.

The Committee established four

streamlining and simplification work

groups to conduct the effort, chaired by

representatives of various agencies. It

also created a General Policy and

Oversight Team to examine crosscutting

issues and to oversee the progress of the

work groups. Serving as co-chair of this

oversight team along with HHS, OMB

directs, coordinates and assists the

process, and addresses individual

agency and other related problems. The

four streamlining and simplification

work groups are the Pre-Award, PostAward, Audit Oversight, and Electronic

Processing work groups.

B. Public Consultations

One cornerstone of the interagency

effort is consultation with

representatives of non-Federal entities

that apply for and receive Federal

financial assistance. The consultation

process began soon after enactment of

Public Law 106–107, when several

individual agencies posted information

about the Act on their home pages. The

agencies asked for comments and

suggestions about the Federal processes

for providing financial assistance. As

they received input, they shared it with

officials in other Federal agencies.

The Grants Management Committee

reinforced and expanded those early

efforts in two ways. First, it created a

central Web site for information about

the interagency process in general and

the four work groups more specifically.

The Web site allows the public to

electronically submit comments and

suggestions directly to the work group

members who need it, which gets the

input to them more rapidly and

efficiently. Secondly, through its

General Policy and Oversight Team and

with assistance of the work group

chairs, the committee conducted five

public consultation meetings with the

major recipient constituencies-States,

local governments, tribal governments,

universities and nonprofit organizations

that conduct research, and other

nonprofit organizations.

The consultation meetings provided

the work groups with a variety of

insights on issues that need to be

addressed in the Act’s implementation.

These included specific examples, by

agency and by program, of areas

requiring attention and, in some cases,

concrete suggestions for improvement.

The public comments at the

consultation meetings raised several

significant issues of a crosscutting

nature, such as those related to Native

American tribal entities and to rural

access and infrastructure (described in

Section VI. A. of this plan). They also

raised issues related to the different

phases of the financial assistance

process—pre-award, post-award, and

audit—as well as with the technology

that will support the process.

Non-Federal organizations, in general,

are concerned with the announcement

of funding opportunities, including the

availability of information, its clarity

(e.g., clear statements of eligibility), and

the time allowed for application

preparation and submission. They also

indicated a need for greater

commonality in award requirements

across agencies, including more

consistent reporting requirements in

terms of both content and timing. While

there is widespread support in the nonFederal constituencies for making the

process less paper intensive and using

the electronic option, the participants in

some of these sessions reminded the

Federal agencies of the real limitations

(e.g., personnel, equipment, and access)

they face and the need to ensure that

training and technical assistance are

available.

Further information about these

consultation meetings, including

summaries of public comments, is

available on the Committee’s home page

(http://www.financenet.gov/fed/cfo/

grants/grants.htm). The work groups

and individual Federal agencies will

continue to consult with recipients

throughout the interagency streamlining

and simplification effort.

C. Prior and Ongoing Efforts

A second cornerstone of the

interagency process is to build on what

has already been done or is already

underway. There were numerous

streamlining and simplification

initiatives underway before the

enactment of Public Law 106–107,

although not of the magnitude called for

by the Act. Some affected a particular

set of activities, such as research, or a

particular agency’s programs. An

example is the Federal Demonstration

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4587

Partnership (FDP), an organization

comprising 11 Federal awarding offices

and 65 universities and nonprofit

organizations, which already has made

and is continuing to make more uniform

these 11 Federal offices’ applications,

terms and conditions, and reporting

requirements.

The Committee’s work groups will

build upon the results of groups like the

FDP and prior or ongoing streamlining

efforts of individual agencies and nonFederal entities. The work groups will

use successful initiatives as models that

may be expanded if they have broader

applicability to more Federal agencies,

to more Federal programs for other

purposes, and to more of the many

recipients of Federal grants and

cooperative agreements.

In addition, the Committee has

integrated several on-going Governmentwide initiatives into its four new work

groups, to increase the initiatives’

priority and accelerate them. These

include:

• The Interagency Committee on

Debarment and Suspension which, with

OMB’s support, has been working to

simplify and update the Governmentwide common rule on debarment and

suspension. The work of this committee

has been integrated into the Pre-Award

Work Group.

• The Committee’s prior

subcommittees that began the

streamlining initiatives related to

grantees’ payments. One effort led to a

policy decision, now being

implemented, to consolidate numerous

civilian agency payment systems into

two systems (The Department of

Defense will use the Defense

Procurement Payment System). The

efforts of the Committee’s prior work

have been incorporated into the PostAward Work Group.

• The Interagency Electronic Grants

Committee (IAEGC) that has established

a standard transaction set for electronic

submission of applications for grants

and cooperative agreements, and is

working toward a Government-wide

system for applicant and recipient

electronic business interactions with

Federal awarding agencies. The IAEGC

co-chairs are leading the Electronic

Processing Work Group and electronic

interagency grant coordination

activities.

• The Single Audit Compliance

Supplement Core group has been

responsible for producing the annual

update to the Compliance Supplement

required by OMB Circular A–133. The

group provides the information needed

by auditors to guide them to the major

compliance areas they should review in

their single audit of Federal programs.

The group ensures that compliance

requirements are valid and up-to-date.

VI. Specific Projects

At the outset of the interagency,

consultative process, the Committee

identified specific projects for the

General Policy and Oversight Team and

the four work groups. As the effort

progresses, the list of specific projects

may be modified. The following

paragraphs describe the projects being

undertaken by each work group.

For most tasks, a goal is to have more

uniform approaches across the many

Federal agencies, at least when their

programs have similar purposes. This

involves three phases. The first phase is

to establish what Federal agencies are

doing today, as a baseline from which

any improvements would be made. Data

is being compiled from a number of

sources, to help establish the scope of

the undertakings and identify

representative samples of Federal

programs for detailed analysis. Input

from applicants and recipients is being

reviewed regarding the problems that

they see with the way things are today.

The second phase of the effort is a

critical assessment to determine which

requirements and problems are

candidates for elimination, streamlining

or improvement. The groups must

question the rationale for current

requirements, particularly requirements

that are not uniform across Federal

agency programs with similar purposes

and recipients.

The third and final phase is to assist

OMB develop recommendations for the

Committee and Congress.

A. General Policy and Oversight Team

The General Policy and Oversight

Team is overseeing the progress of the

work groups, and examining

crosscutting issues and entitlement

grant regulatory coverage. It is providing

direction and assistance, and is

coordinating interagency work groups’

activities in their endeavors to improve

the delivery of services to the public. A

proposed budget has been developed

based on an examination of resources

available through the CFO Council to

implement the Act.

One objective is to ensure that

recipients provide timely, complete, and

high quality information in response to

Federal reporting requirements. Other

objectives include streamlining and

simplifying administrative requirements

and procedures for Federal financial

assistance programs; and improving the

effectiveness and performance of

programs by facilitating greater

coordination among Federal agencies

responsible for delivering services to the

public, e.g., to bring more coordination

to the administrative process,

particularly for similar programs.

In addition, this team will review and

prioritize three areas of concern that

arose during public consultation

meetings with recipient communities.

The team will consider these issues as

tasks for possible expansion and/or

assignment to one or more of the four

work groups:

(1) Native American Tribal Entities

The objective of this task will be to

study and address several issues unique

to Native American tribal entities, such

as developments under the Indian SelfDetermination Act.

(2) Rural Access and Infrastructure

The objective of this task will be to

examine problems related to access or

infrastructure, as these problems affect

the ability to participate in Federal

financial assistance programs. For

example, public comments highlighted

that some rural and other participants

encounter barriers due to

communications infrastructure,

including computers and high-speed

transmission lines needed for optimal

Internet access and electronic commerce

with Federal agencies.

(3) Grantee Ombudsman

Due to the many issues raised by nonFederal grantees, the objective of this

task would be to assess the extent to

which requirements may be duplicative

or unduly burdensome.

B. Pre-Award Work Group

The Pre-Award Work Group currently

has three tasks: applications, terms and

conditions, and debarment and

suspension. The current plans for these

projects are described in the following

paragraphs.

To carry out the first two tasks, the

work group created two subgroups

based on recipient type. One subgroup

will look at requirements for States,

local and tribal governments, and

nonprofit organizations participating in

Federal programs for purposes other

than research. The other subgroup will

look at universities and nonprofit

organizations that administer research

awards. The work group’s analysis of

Federal funding data suggested that the

two subcategories of nonprofit

organizations are different sets of

organizations. As the subgroups make

progress on these two tasks, they may

organize their work so as to recognize

other types of recipients (e.g., for-profit

firms) and specific functions (e.g.,

construction).

4588 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

(1) Applications

The objective of this task is to

streamline and simplify application or

proposal requirements and procedures

for Federal financial assistance

programs administered by the agencies.

The focus is on the types of

information that Federal agencies

require applicants or proposers to

submit as a prerequisite to obtaining

Federal funds, whether in paper form or

electronically. The intent is to achieve

greater consistency in the requirements

of the many Federal agencies,

particularly where programs have

similar purposes. The goal of this group

is to propose a standard set of data

elements for application forms or

electronic transaction sets, which will

address more common formats.

(2) Terms and Conditions

The objective of this task is to

streamline and simplify Federal

agencies’ grant terms and conditions,

through which agencies communicate

post-award requirements to recipients.

This task includes eliminating

unnecessary requirements and

unjustified differences among the

various awarding agencies (e.g., in the

language used and the placement of

various provisions within the award

document). This task also includes

developing a model or standard set of

terms and conditions, as well as

standard assurances of compliance with

applicable national requirements.

(3) Debarment and Suspension

This task involves completion of

ongoing work of the existing Interagency

Committee on Debarment and

Suspension to simplify and update the

Government-wide common rule on

nonprocurement debarment and

suspension, which also contains the

Government-wide regulation

implementing the Drug-Free Workplace

Act of 1988. The Committee is drafting

the rule in plain language format to

make it easier to understand and use.

The updated rule will be published as

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the

Federal Register, with an opportunity

for the public to comment.

C. Post-Award Work Group

The Post-Award Work Group has five

tasks: reporting, agencies’ payment

systems, cost principles, grant financial

system requirements, and pooled

payments. These tasks will be addressed

primarily in subgroups, and are

described in the following paragraphs.

(1) Reporting

The objective of the first task is to

review, streamline and simplify

reporting requirements and procedures

for Federal grant and cooperative

agreement programs administered by

the agencies.

This includes the development of

more standard reports, particularly

among programs that serve similar

purposes and are administered by

different Federal agencies. The current

work group focus is on the types of

information that Federal agencies

require a recipient to submit for like

programs, whether in paper form or

electronic, and establishing necessary

data elements for common forms/

transaction sets. One goal is to

consolidate forms, including specialized

OMB-approved forms for major Federal

programs, and ensure that instructions

are clear.

Another goal is to improve the

effectiveness and performance of

programs by facilitating greater

coordination among Federal agencies

responsible for delivering services to the

public, particularly for similar

programs.

(2) Agencies’ Payment Systems

On June 16, 1998, the CFO Council

approved a plan to have non-Defense

agencies select either the HHS Payment

Management System (PMS) or the

Automated Standard Applications for

Payments (ASAP) operated by the

Treasury’s Financial Management

Service and the Federal Reserve Bank of

Richmond for use in making payments

to their grantees. The Department of

Defense will use the Defense

Procurement Payment System. The

work group will continue to monitor

agency progress in implementing this

plan.

(3) Cost Principles

One objective is to establish uniform

administrative rules for programs that

cross agency lines. The goal in this area

is to improve the consistent use of

language and terminology in describing

the requirements that are similar in the

OMB cost principles (Circulars A–21,

A–87 and A–122). Currently there are

differences in language, interpretation,

and description for many items that

basically have the same requirements.

More consistent use of language and

terminology among the circulars will

improve the relationship between

grantees, the Federal agencies, and

external auditors. Adding new

restrictions or eliminating current ones,

is not an objective.

In addition, the work group will

review widely varying agency

implementations of Circular A–110 and

differing interpretations of Circulars A–

102 and A–110, and other crosscutting

regulations, are also being reviewed.

However, revision of these circulars and

the regulations themselves is not a

current focus of the work group.

(4) Grant Financial System

Requirements

The work group will monitor agency

progress in implementing the Grant

Financial System Requirements, the first

functional requirements document

issued for grant financial systems of the

Federal Government. It is one of a series

of functional system requirements

documents published by the Joint

Financial Management Improvement

Program (JFMIP) on Federal financial

management systems requirements.

The Federal Financial Management

Improvement Act of 1996 mandated that

agencies implement and maintain

systems that comply substantially with

Federal financial management systems

requirements, applicable Federal

accounting standards, and the U.S.

Government Standard General Ledger

(SGL) at the transaction level. This act

codified JFMIP financial systems

requirements as a key benchmark that

agency systems must meet, in order to

be substantially in compliance with

systems requirements provisions.

This document is intended to identify

financial system requirements necessary

to support grants programs. It is

intended to assist system analysts,

system accountants, and others who

design, develop, implement, operate,

and maintain financial management

systems.

(5) Pooled Payments

On May 1, 2000, an advance notice of

proposed revision to Circular A–110,

that would require Federal awarding

agencies to offer recipients the option to

request cash advances on a ‘‘pooled’’

basis, was published in the Federal

Register (65 FR 25396). Comments were

sought on the merits of pooled payment

systems and grant-by-grant payment

systems. In that all comments have been

received and analyzed, it is the intent of

this group to clarify differing positions

on the issue and specify when pooling

is applicable.

D. Audit Oversight Work Group

The Audit Oversight Work Group’s

task is to streamline and simplify auditrelated requirements and services. The

plans for this project include examining

the services provided by the Federal

Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) to determine

where improvements can be made to

reduce the burden on auditors and

auditees in complying with OMB

Circular A–133, and improving those

FAC services.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4589

The work group will suggest changes

to the FAC procedures to improve the

FAC’s dissemination of audit

information to the public and Federal

agencies, its assistance to Federal

cognizant and oversight agencies in

obtaining OMB Circular A–133 data and

reporting packages, and the FAC’s

services provided to assist OMB’s

oversight and assessment of Federal

award audit requirements. The work

group will also study ways to improve

the FAC’s home page, the outputs of the

FAC, and methods to identify and

follow-up on delinquent audits.

Additional goals include improving

single audit coverage of critical areas

identified by program officials;

analyzing the adequacy of methods to

assess and measure single audit quality

(e.g., quality control reviews) to support

Federal agency reliance on single audits;

providing general information on the

process, responsibilities, and role of the

FAC; updating the Data Collection Form

(Form SF–SAC); providing annual

updates to the Compliance Supplement;

and producing an overview of the single

audit process to better inform recipients

and funding officials of the purposes

and benefits of the single audit process

and the FAC.

E. Electronic Processing Work Group

The Electronic Processing Work

Group is chaired by the two co-chairs of

the Interagency Electronic Grants

Committee. Its task is to enable effective

use of electronic commerce throughout

the Federal financial assistance

community, including a common

application, administrative and

reporting system, and information

collection and sharing. This work group

will assist and provide electronic

solutions to the other work groups in

their endeavors. Plans are described in

the following paragraphs.

(1) Common Application,

Administrative and Reporting System

One goal is to allow applicants the

option to electronically apply for, and

report on the use of funds. This includes

the development and use of a common

application, administrative and

reporting system for funding from

multiple programs administered by

different Federal agencies.

These electronic options will be

accomplished through the establishment

of a comprehensive, one-stop Federal

Gateway for electronic grants

processing: the Federal Commons.

Given adequate funding, the Federal

Commons will be developed and

supported as the common face for ECommerce over the entire grants life

cycle, offering both general information

exchange and secure electronic

transaction processing. The Federal

Commons would allow each grantee to

choose how it conducts business with

the Federal government, i.e., translate

whatever technology the grantee uses to

a single standard; provide electronic

search capability; and possibly be

housed at HHS.

Several pilots are underway. If

successful, they will be developed as

modules of the Federal Commons. The

first of these is based on the

FedBizOpps.Gov site (maintained by the

General Services Administration) for

posting procurement opportunities. A

contractor will develop a parallel, but

separate, system based on the Federal

Register that will be Web searchable. In

addition to their work on Transaction

Set 194 and current activity broadening,

as necessary, for the non-research

community, they are beginning to

develop data standards for reporting.

Short term plans for the electronic

option include supporting work groups,

continuing to pilot test, using successful

pilots to develop modules, rolling-out

modules when ready, and deploying the

Federal Commons across agencies.

Longer term plans include developing

data standards for reporting, enhancing

Federal Commons modules using

products/end results of work groups,

expanding use of the Federal Commons

across agencies, and eliminating

unnecessary categorical barriers which

impede true streamlining efforts.

(2) Grantee Information Collection and

Sharing

The second goal is to improve

interagency and intergovernmental

coordination of information collection,

and sharing of uniform data pertaining

to financial assistance programs. It

applies to grant recipients, not

recipients of services, and it must be

consistent with privacy and

confidentiality constraints.

This coordination and sharing would

be accomplished through the Federal

Commons, with the development of a

single information release form that

allows ‘‘boiler-plate’’ information

(including certifications and assurances)

to be shared across Federal programs, so

that participating grantees need not

repeat the same information for each

grant and Federal agency. Electronic

processes would be available for

interactive dialogue and updating. The

form could be filed once, easily pulled

up, referenced, and updated.

VII. Accomplishments

The following is a list of

accomplishments that have been or are

expected to be completed by May, 2001,

or for which there will be a short-term

plan for resolution.

• State, local government, tribal

government, research, and other

nonprofit entity consultation meetings

conducted;

• The Joint Financial Management

Improvement Program (JFMIP)

standards for grants/financial systems

issued. These are standards for financial

transactions that are part of any grants

management information system;

• Federal Commons concept: a single

common portal for secure E-Grants

Business. Five initial pilots have been

successfully completed and are in the

process of integration testing with three

Federal agencies—the User Registration,

Account Administration, Organizational

Profile, Professional Profile, and

Application Status Checking modules;

• Data standards developed for grant

application, organizational and

professional profiles, and grant award

(promulgated by the National Institute

for Standards and Technology);

• Data dictionary developed for all

grants transactions as a result of indepth reviews by interagency teams of

the data elements used for grants

administration;

• Focus/forum for E-grants;

• Federal commons electronic user

administration completed (includes

organization profile and professional

profile capability);

• Debarment and suspension

regulatory action;

• Entitlement grant regulatory

coverage;

• Civilian agency conversion to HHS/

Treasury payment systems;

• Pooled payment issues clarified in

Federal Register;

• Audit clearinghouse form (SF–SAC

revised); and

• Audit compliance supplement

update issued

VIII. Time Frames/Conclusion

This effort will continue toward the

establishment of further specific annual

goals and objectives, and an interim

plan will be submitted to Congress by

May 20, 2001. However, this is a work

in progress and completion is expected

to take up to five years. Implementation

of most aspects is expected by 2002, and

the electronic option is expected to be

functional by 2003.

We recognize the tremendous

importance of Federal financial

assistance programs and the services

they provide, and are strongly

committed to the accomplishment of the

objectives of the Act. We are committed

to making improvements in the areas

described, and continuing to develop

additional specific annual goals and

objectives.

4590 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

Implementation can only be

accomplished with full-time resources,

so the CFO Council is working with

OMB, the Chief Information Officers

Council, and the Procurement

Executives Council to secure the

necessary funding for this multi-year

effort.

IX. Potential Recommendations to

Congress

Section 6 of the Act requires OMB to

submit a report to Congress containing

recommendations for changes in law to

improve the effectiveness, performance,

and coordination of Federal financial

assistance programs. Therefore, a very

important part of the interagency

process described in Sections V and VI

of this plan will be an assessment of the

statutory impediments to accomplishing

the streamlining and simplification that

Public Law 106–107 intends. OMB will

coordinate this assessment.

X. Individual Agency Commitments to

the Interagency Process

The following agencies have jointly

submitted the above-described plan for

implementation of Public Law 106–107;

are actively participating in the

interagency process described in

Sections V and VI of this plan; support

the designation and use of the Federal

Commons as the single portal for

electronic business interactions with

non-Federal entities related to grants

award and administration; and will

identify and address in their respective

resource allocation processes the

necessary agency resources, including

both human and financial resources, to

interconnect internal agency

organizations and systems with the

Federal Commons and otherwise

implement this plan:

Department of Agriculture,

Department of Energy, Small Business

Administration, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, Social

Security Administration, Department of

Commerce, Department of State, Agency

for International Development,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Department of Justice,

Department of Labor, Department of the

Treasury, Department of Defense,

Department of Education, Department of

Veterans Affairs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Department of the

Interior, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Department of

Health and Human Services, National

Science Foundation, National

Endowment for the Arts—National

Foundation on the Arts and the

Humanities, National Endowment for

the Humanities—National Foundation

on the Arts and the Humanities,

Institute of Museum and Library

Services—National Foundation on the

Arts and the Humanities, Corporation

for National and Community Service,

Department of Transportation.

XI. Lead Agency Officials

The following is a list of the

participating agencies’ designated lead

agency official for carrying out the

responsibilities of the agency under

Section 5(a)(4) of the Act and, in some

cases, additional contact information.

Department of Agriculture

Patricia Healy, Deputy Chief Financial

Officer, 202–720–7407,

phealy@cfo.usda.gov.

Department of Energy

Trudy Wood, Office of Procurement

and Assistance Policy, Office of

Procurement and Assistance

Management, 202–586–5625, 202–586–

0545 (Fax), trudy.wood@pr.doe.gov.

Small Business Administration

Sharon Gurley, Director, Office of

Procurement and Grants Management,

202–205–6622, 202–205–6821 (Fax),

sharon.gurley@sba.gov.

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

David Havrilla, Senior Systems

Accountant, 202–358–2482, 202–359–

2952 (Fax), dhavrill@nasa.gov.

Social Security Administration

Tom Staples, Deputy Chief Financial

Officer, 410–965–3504,

tom.staples@ssa.gov.

Department of Commerce

Elizabeth Dorfman, Acting Director,

Office of the Executive Assistance

Management, 202–482–3313, 202–482–

3270 (Fax), Edorfman@doc.gov.

Department of State

Chris Flaggs, Director, Office of

Financial Policy, Reporting and

Analysis, 202–261–8625, 202–261–8622

(Fax), FlaggsCh@state.gov; and Lloyd W.

Pratsch, Procurement Executive, Office

of the Procurement Executive, 703–516–

1680, 703–875–6155 (Fax),

PratschLW@state.gov.

Agency for International Development

Kathleen O’Hara, Deputy Director,

Office of Procurement, 202–712–4759,

202–216–3395 (Fax),

KOHara@usaid.gov.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Pamela Woodside, Director, Office of

Systems Integration & Efficiency, Office

of the Chief Information Officer, 202–

708–0614 ext. 109, 202–708–3135 (Fax),

pamlwoodside@hud.gov; Barbara Dorf,

Office of the Secretary, 202–708–0614

ext. 4637, barbaraldorf@hud.gov;

Mailing Address: Regulations Division,

Office of the General Counsel, Attn:

Barbara Dorf, Room 10276, 451 7th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.

Department of Justice

Cynthia Schwimer, Comptroller,

Office of Justice Programs, 202–307–

3186, 202–514–9028 (Fax),

cindy@ojp.usdoj.gov.

Department of Labor

Mark Wolkow, Systems Analyst, 202–

693–6829, 202–693–6964 (Fax),

wolkow-mark@dol.gov; and Phyllis

McMeekin, Director, Departmental

Procurement Policy, 202–219–9174,

202–219–9440 (Fax), mcmeekinphyllis@dol.gov.

Department of the Treasury

Birdie McKay, Director, Program

Compliance Division, Financial

Management Service, 202–874–6925,

202–874–6965 (Fax),

birdie.mckay@fms.treas.gov.

Sheryl Morrow, Director, Program

Assistance Division, Financial

Management Service, 202–874–6847,

202–874–6965 (Fax),

sheryl.morrow@fms.treas.gov.

Department of Defense

Designated lead official: Director of

Defense Research and Engineering.

Please send DOD-specific comments

concerning this notice to: Mark Herbst,

703–696–0372, 703–696–0569 (Fax),

herbstm@acq.osd.mil; and Ron

Massengill, Financial Management

Analyst, 703–602–0125, 703–602–0777

(Fax), massengr@osd.pentagon.mil.

Department of Education

Mark Carney, Deputy Chief Financial

Officer, Office of the Chief Financial

Officer, 202–401–3892, 202–401–2455

(Fax), marklcarney@ed.gov.

Department of Veterans Affairs

W. Todd Grams, Deputy CFO and

Acting CFO, 202–273–5583,

todd.grams@mail.va.gov.

Environmental Protection Agency

Bruce Feldman, Branch Chief, Grants

Administration Division, 202–564–

5308, 202–565–2469 (Fax),

feldman.bruce@epa.gov.

William Kinser, Office of Grants and

Debarment, Phone: 202–564–5378, Fax:

202–565–2470, kinser.william@epa.gov.

Department of the Interior

Ceceil Belong, Grants Policy

Specialist, 202–208–3474, 202–208–

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4591

6301 (Fax), ceceillbelong@ios.doi.gov;

and Monica Taylor, 202–219–0213,

202–208–6940 (Fax),

monicaltaylor@ios.doi.gov.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Richard Goodman, Director, Grants

and Acquisition Division, 202–646–

4181, 202–646–3846 (Fax),

Richard.Goodman@fema.gov.

Department of Health and Human

Services

George Strader, Deputy Chief

Financial Officer; and Rodd Clay, Office

of Grants Management, 202–690–8723,

202–690–6415 (TDD, for the hearing

impaired), 202–690–8772 (Fax),

rclay@os.dhhs.gov.

National Science Foundation

Jean Feldman, Head, Policy Office,

Office of Budget, Finance and Award

Management, 703–292–8243, 703–292–

9141 (Fax), jfeldman@nsf.gov; and Rick

Noll, Head, Institutional Ledger Section,

Division of Financial Management, 703–

292–4458, 703–292–9005 (Fax),

rnoll@nsf.gov.

National Endowment for the Arts

Nicki Jacobs, Director, Grants and

Contracts Office, 202–682–5546, 202–

682–5610 (Fax),

jacobsn@arts.endow.gov.

National Endowment for the Humanities

David Wallace, Director, Grants

Office, 202–606–8494, 202–606–8633

(Fax), dwallace@neh.gov.

Institute of Museum and Library

Services

Rebecca Danvers, Director of Research

and Technology, 202–606–2478,

rdanvers@imls.gov.

Corporation for National and

Community Service

Jim Phipps, Office of Grants

Management, 202–606–5000 ext. 271,

202–565–2850 (Fax),

mjphipps@cns.gov.

Quinton Lynch, Grants/Financial

Analyst, Office of Grants Management,

202–606–5000 ext. 160, 202–565–2850

(Fax), qlynch@cns.gov.

Department of Transportation

Robert G. Taylor, Office of the Senior

Procurement Executive, 202–366–4289,

202–366–7510 (Fax),

PL106107@ost.dot.gov; and Richard

Meehleib, Office of Budget and Finance,

Federal Highway Administration, 202–

366–2869, 202–366–7510 (Fax),

PL106107@ost.dot.gov.

Mailing address for comments: Office

of the Senior Procurement Executive,

Attn: Pub. L. 106–107–DOT, Room

7101, M–60, U. S. Department of

Transportation, 400 7th St SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

XII. Agency Adoptions

As stated in the common agency

commitments in Section X, above, the

following agencies are participating in

this notice:

Department of Agriculture

For the Department of Agriculture.

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Patricia Healy,

Deputy Chief Financial Officer.

Department of Energy

For the Department of Energy.

Dated: November 16, 2000.

James J. Cavanagh,

Acting Director, Office of Procurement and

Assistant Management.

Small Business Administration

For the Small Business Administration.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Thomas Dumaresq,

Assistant Administrator for Administration.

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

For the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

David Havrilla,

Senior Systems Accountant.

Social Security Administration

For the Social Security Administration.

Dated: November 28, 2000.

Tom Staples,

Deputy Chief Financial Officer.

Department of Commerce

For the Department of Commerce.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Raul Perea-Henze,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Administration.

Department of State

For the Department of State.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Chris Flaggs,

Office of Financial Policy, Reporting and

Analysis.

Agency for International Development

For the Agency for International

Development.

Dated: November 15, 2000.

Richard Nygard,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Management.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Initiatives Specific to the Department of

Housing and Urban Development

The Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) has taken a

number of steps to streamline

management of its grant programs.

Highlights of this are discussed below.

A. Creation of A Departmental Grants

Management System (DGMS)

HUD is in the process of creating a

department-wide Internet based system

for managing its grants. The system

covers the entire life cycle of a grant,

including application submission,

review and evaluation of a submission,

award and monitoring, and finally

close-out and audit. HUD currently has

a number of different systems that are

used for managing grants, none of which

provide coverage through the entire

grant life cycle, or provide a means of

capturing data from the various systems

to create one picture of grants across the

department. The purpose of DGMS is to

have information on HUD grants in one

place, at one time. This will allow HUD

to better monitor grantees for

compliance with existing regulations

and assist in assessing performance of

grantees against agreed-upon

performance measures. DGMS will also

enable HUD to accurately report

performance against the goals in the

Annual Business Operating Plan and the

strategic plan. DGMS will have current

and active information for timely

submission of HUD’s Annual Progress

Report to Congress. For grantees, DGMS

can be a useful planning tool for the

allocation and management of local

financial resources and staff. DGMS will

also allow grantees to have accurate

knowledge of status of all their grants

with HUD. The creation of DGMS has

been a collaborative effort involving all

arms of HUD that are directly or

indirectly involved in providing

information and assistance to grantees

and potential applicants, or managing

grants. Below are some results achieved

through the DGMS development

process:

• One process for accepting grant

applications for all formula grants and

one process for accepting competitive

grant applications.

• A single unified way to commit, decommit, obligate, and de-obligate funds

to a selected applicant, issue grant

4592 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

awards, and issue grant amendments for

all grant awards.

• Uniform elements for conducting

risk assessments of grantees.

• Uniform monitoring module for

assessing grantee performance over the

life of the grant.

• Uniform method for grantees to

identify the projects, activities they

were undertaking as part of their grant

programs. DGMS will include

opportunity for grantees to include tasks

but in consultation with grantees, it was

determined to make tasks optional.

• Tracking of grant information as it

was proposed in the application and as

it was approved by HUD. DGMS will

also track actual fund usage and

accomplishments by activity.

• Tracking of draw downs and

performance in completing projects and

activities on time and within budget,

plus or minus 10% of the approved

program budget line items and have the

ability to roll the activity items up into

budget line items of salaries, fringe,

travel, equipment, supplies, etc. for the

entire grant. Grantees asked that DGMS

use the accrual system to make it easier

for accounting staff and auditors to track

funds.

• Applicants/Grantees will enter

information directly into DGMS to avoid

errors or misunderstandings among

grantees and HUD staff.

• Each program will have an

administrator to set-up DGMS,

including creation of parameters and

checklists for applicants/grantees to use.

This idea came from requests by

grantees and public interest groups, as

well as program staff.

• Interested parties wanting to get

general grant program information or

applications for assistance will be able

to do so at HUD’s home page

(www.hud.gov).

• Program administrators will give

access rights to staff and grantees, who

will in turn give access rights to their

staff and grantees.

• Tracking of funds down to an

infinite levels of sub-recipients.

• A single process for close-out and

audit of all HUD grants.

B. HUD’s 2020 Management Reform

Efforts

Over the past several years, HUD has

been reforming its management and

operational practices. As part of this

effort, HUD examined the various

processes used to manage its portfolio of

grants, subsidies and contracts. Agency

staff worked to streamline grant

application processes, identified areas

for streamlining and elimination of

paperwork, and sought ways programs

could better work together. Chief among

examples of where HUD has

successfully streamlined its processes is

HUD’s Consolidated Plan which

combines four separate entitlement

programs (CDBG, HOME, ESG, and

HOPWA) into a single planning and

application process that State and local

governments can use to manage their

HUD program dollars; the Continuum of

Care Homeless Assistance Programs

which consolidated the application and

submission process for a variety of

programs (Supportive Housing, Shelter

Plus Care, Section 8 moderate

Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy);

and the HOPE VI Revitalization program

which includes demolition,

revitalization, and Section 8 program

funds into a single application. The

Consolidated Plan won Harvard

University’s Innovations In Government

Award in 1998; the Continuum of Care

won this prestigious award in 1999; and

HOPE VI in the year 2000.

The same effort that has gone into

reforming HUD’s programs is being used

to reform HUD’s management of its

grant programs. Using a collaborative reengineering process, HUD is currently

working in Legal Joint Application

Design sessions with the Office of

General Counsel on streamlining

application forms, developing common

grant award documents, and

standardized terms and conditions for

formula and competitive grant awards.

C. Notice of Funding Availability

(NOFA)

HUD now publishes all its

competitive grant NOFAs at one time in

a ‘‘SuperNOFA.’’ Grant funding

opportunities were previously

announced at various times during the

year, and often had varying policies and

requirements for applications. With the

SuperNOFA, HUD has established

standardized policies and language for

the following:

• Deadlines and acceptance of

applications for competitive grants.

• Submission procedures for all

applications.

• Basic criteria for rating and ranking

applications—Capacity of the Applicant

and Organizational Staff to Perform the

Work; Need/Extent of the Problem;

Soundness of Approach; Leveraging

Resources; and Comprehensiveness and

Coordination.

• Encouragement of applicants to

participate in HUD policy initiatives.

• Eligibility based on program

statutory and regulatory requirements.

• Threshold requirement for

compliance with Fair Housing and Civil

Rights Laws.

• Threshold requirements for

compliance with the Americans With

Disabilities Act of 1990, and if

applicable, compliance with Section 3

of the Housing and Urban Development

Act of 1968 for providing economic

opportunities for Low and Very-Low

Income Persons; and Affirmatively

Furthering Fair Housing.

• Application of requirements under

the Uniform Relocation Assistance and

Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970,

as amended, and the governmentwide

rule in 49 CFR part 24.

• Use of Standard Forms in the

application submission.

• Applicability of environmental

requirements under 24 CFR part 50 and

part 58.

• Applicability of OMB Circulars and

provided information on how to obtain

copies.

• Bonus Points in Rating

Applications.

• Grant negotiations.

• Correction of Deficient

Applications.

• Adjustments to Funding.

• Prohibitions on Lobbying.

• Requirements for documentation

and public access under Section 102 of

the HUD Reform Act of 1989 and the

regulations codified in 24 CFR part 4,

Subpart A in a uniform manner.

• Application forms that apply to all

applications, in addition to program

specific forms.

For the Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

Gloria R. Parker,

Chief Information Officer.

Department of Justice

For the Department of Justice.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

Stephen R. Colgate,

Assistant Attorney General for

Administration.

Department of Labor

For the Department of Labor.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Ken Bresnahan,

Chief Financial Officer.

Department of the Treasury

For the Department of the Treasury.

Dated: November 16, 2000.

Paul Gist,

Director of Asset Management Directorate.

Department of Defense

For the Department of Defense.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4593

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate Office of the Secretary of Defense

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Department of Education.

For the Department of Education.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Thomas P. Skelly,

Acting Chief Financial Officer.

Department of Veterans Affairs

For the Department of Veterans Affairs.

W. Todd Grams,

Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Acting

Chief Financial Officer.

Environmental Protection Agency

For the Environmental Protection Agency.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

Marty Monell,

Director, Grants Administration Division.

Department of the Interior

For the Department of the Interior.

Dated: November 14, 2000.

Debra E. Sonderman,

Director, Office of Acquisition and Property

Management.

Federal Emergency Management

Agency.

For the Federal Emergency Management

Agency.

Dated: November 13, 2000.

Richard Goodman,

Director, Grants and Acquisition Division.

Department of Health and Human

Services

For the Department of Health and Human

Services.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Terrence J. Tychan,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grants and

Acquisition Management.

National Science Foundation

For the National Science Foundation.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

Lawrence Rudolph,

General Counsel.

National Foundation on the Arts and

the Humanities

For the National Endowment for the Arts.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

Laurence Baden,

Deputy Chairman for Management and

Budget.

For the National Endowment for the

Humanities.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

John Roberts,

Deputy Chairman.

Institute of Museum and Library

Services

For the Institute of Museum and Library

Services.

Dated: December 6, 2000.

Rebecca Danvers,

Director of Research and Technology.

Corporation for National and

Community Service

For the Corporation for National and

Community Service.

Dated: November 16, 2000.

Anthony Musick,

Chief Financial Officer.

Department of Transportation

For the Department of Transportation.

David K. Kleinberg,

Deputy Chief Financial Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–1177 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–KS–P, 6450–01–P, 7510–01–P,

3510–FA–P, 4710–01–P, 6116–01–P, 4410–18–P, 4510–23–

P, 5001–10–P, 4000–01–P, 6560–50–P, 4310–RF–P, 4150–

24–P, 4910–62–P, 4210–01–P, 4810–62–P, 7537–01–P,

7536–01–P, 7036–01–P, 7555–01–P, 8025–01–P, 7536–01–

P, 7036–01–P, 6050–28–P, 4910–62–P.