69236 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 

the proposed actions. These 

consultations were intended to provide 

other agencies an opportunity to 

comment on the proposed actions, and 

to ensure that the requirements of 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act were met with 

respect to the proposed actions. 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

The staff, on October 10, 2007, 

consulted with the Virginia Department 

of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and 

the Virginia Department of Health 

(VDH). The VDEQ reviewed the draft 

and agreed with NRC’s conclusion that 

no significant environmental impacts 

would result from this proposed action, 

if implemented. The VDH had technical 

questions regarding the criticality 

monitoring systems. 

Fish and Wildlife 

The staff has determined that 

consultation for Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act is not required 

because the proposed action does not 

involve construction or any other 

change in physical environment, 

therefore, will not affect listed species 

or critical habitat. 

Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources 

The staff has determined that the 

proposed action does not have the 

potential to effect on historic properties 

because it does not involve construction 

or any other change in physical 

environment. Therefore, no further 

consultation is required under Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of the EA, the NRC 

concludes that the proposed action will 

not have a significant effect on the 

quality of the human environment and 

that preparation of an EIS is not 

warranted. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of this assessment, the 

Commission has concluded that 

environmental impacts that are 

associated with the proposed action 

would not be significant and the 

Commission is making a finding of no 

significant impact. 

Preparers 

J. Wiebe, Project Manager, All Sections 

A. Snyder, Project Manager, Sections 

1.0, 4.0 and 5.0. 

List of References 

1. BWXT. Request for Exemption from 10 

CFR 70.24, Letter (May 2, 2007) to 

Director, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Lynchburg, 

Virginia: BWXT, Nuclear Products 

Division (confidential) 

2. NRC. NUREG 1748, Environmental Review 

Guidance for Licensing Actions 

Associated with NMSS Programs—Final 

Report. (August 2003) Washington, DC: 

NRC (ML032450279) 

3. BWXT. Environmental Report for Renewal 

of License SNM–42, March 10, 2004 

(nonpublic) 

4. BWXT. E-mail to NRC, Criticality 

Exemption, dated May 14, 2007 

(ML073180015) 

5. NRC. Environmental Assessment Related 

to the Renewal of License No. SNM–42. 

Docket 70–027 (August 2005) 

Washington, DC: NRC. (ML071300450) 

6. NRC. E-mail to VDEQ, Pre-decisional EA, 

dated October 9, 2007, (ML073180022) 

7. NRC. E-mail to VDH, Pre-decisional EA, 

dated October 10, 2007, (ML073180034) 

8. VDH. Letter to NRC, Response to Predecisional EA, dated October 24, 2007 

(ML73180017) 

9. NRC. E-mail to VDH, Additional 

Comments on Pre-decisional EA, dated 

October 31, 2007 (ML073180027) 

10. VDH. E-mail to NRC, Response to 

Additional Comments on Pre-decisional 

EA, dated October 31, 2007 

(ML073180029) 

11. VEQ. Letter to NRC, Response to Predecisional EA, dated October 17, 2007 

(ML073230756) 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day 

of November, 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kevin M. Ramsey, 

Acting Chief, Fuel Manufacturing Branch, 

Fuel Facility Licensing Directorate, Division 

of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E7–23784 Filed 12–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Financial Reporting for Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements: Federal 

Financial Report (FFR) 

AGENCY: Office of Management and 

Budget, Office of Federal Financial 

Management. 

ACTION: Comment request; final notice. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Management 

and Budget is consolidating and 

replacing four existing financial 

reporting forms (SF–269, SF–269A, SF–

272, and SF–272A) with a single Federal 

Financial Report (FFR). The purpose of 

the FFR is to give recipients of grants 

and cooperative agreements a standard 

format for reporting the financial status 

of their grants and cooperative 

agreements (hereby referred to 

collectively as awards). Federal 

awarding agencies developed the FFR as 

part of their implementation of the 

Federal Financial Assistance 

Management Improvement Act of 1999 

(Pub. L. 106–107). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Marguerite Pridgen, Office 

of Federal Financial Management, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503; telephone 202–395–7844; fax 

202–395–3952; e-mail 

mpridgen@omb.eop.gov. Due to 

potential delays in OMB’s receipt and 

processing of mail sent through the U.S. 

Postal Service, we encourage 

respondents to submit comments 

electronically to ensure timely receipt. 

We cannot guarantee that comments 

mailed will be received before the 

comment closing date. Please include 

‘‘FFR comments’’ in the subject line of 

the e-mail message; please also include 

the full body of your comments in the 

text of the message and as an 

attachment. Include your name, title, 

organization, postal address, telephone 

number, and e-mail address in your 

message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marguerite Pridgen at the addresses 

noted above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On April 8, 2003, OMB announced in 

the Federal Register its intent to 

establish a new Federal Financial 

Report (FFR) (68 FR 17097). This new 

report would consolidate into a single 

report the current Financial Status 

Report (SF–269 and SF–269A) and the 

Federal Cash Transactions Report (SF–

272 and SF–272A). This consolidation, 

consistent with government-wide grant 

streamlining efforts being carried out 

under the Federal Financial Assistance 

Management Improvement Act of 1999 

(Pub. L. 106–107), is intended to 

streamline and simplify award-reporting 

requirements. This form was an 

undertaking of the interagency Post 

Award Workgroup that supports the 

Federal Grants Streamlining Initiative. 

Additional information on the Federal 

Grants Streamlining Initiative, which 

focuses on implementing Public Law 

106–107, was announced in the Federal 

Register on September 13, 2006 (71 FR 

54098). An overview of the FFR and five 

other report forms being developed 

under the Initiative was provided 

during a webcast of the Grants Policy 

Committee of the U.S. Chief Financial 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69237 

Officer Council held on March 8, 2007 

(72 FR 7090). 

The FFR standardizes reporting 

information by providing a pool of data 

elements from which agencies can 

choose to use for reporting purposes. As 

a result, Federal agencies are not 

required to collect all of the information 

included in the FFR. Instead, they will 

identify, prior to or at time of award, the 

data elements that recipients must 

complete, the reporting frequency, the 

periods covered by each report, the 

dates that the reports are due, and the 

locations to which the reports are to be 

submitted. 

Consistent with Federal efforts to 

promote standardization while giving 

agencies more flexibility in post-award 

administration, agencies may require 

recipients to submit interim FFRs on a 

quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis, 

all in accordance with standard period 

end dates. The immediate availability of 

the FFR may be in a paper format or 

portable document format (PDF). 

However, the FFR’s data elements are 

intended to be used in the future for the 

electronic submission and collection of 

financial information. Note that the 

establishment of the government-wide 

FFR will necessitate amendments to 

OMB Circulars A–110 (2 CFR 215) and 

A–102 which OMB will subsequently 

publish in the Federal Register. 

The April 8, 2003 announcement in 

the Federal Register generated nearly 

200 comments from Federal agencies 

and a wide range of recipients including 

state and local governments, non-profit 

entities, institutions of higher 

education, and associations representing 

academic institutions. Those comments, 

which are summarized below, were 

considered in developing this Federal 

Register notice. 

Due to the number of the comments 

received and form revisions made, OMB 

announced that it intended to issue a 

second 60-day notice (68 FR 44975). 

However, instead of issuing a second 

60-day notice, OMB chose other 

avenues such as a webcast and posting 

of the forms on Grants.gov to allow for 

public viewing and feedback (72 FR 

7090). The primary concern raised to 

OMB through this interaction is that as 

the draft form was written, different 

officials could be responsible for the 

‘‘Federal cash’’ and the ‘‘Federal 

Expenditures and Unobligated 

Balances’’ sections of the form. OMB 

determined that this was an issue for the 

submitting organization and therefore, 

OMB did not make any changes to the 

form based upon this concern. No other 

substantive comments were received 

during the webcast and posting and 

OMB did not make any changes based 

upon the posting. We anticipate that 

this will be the last notice before the 

form and instructions are finalized. 

II. Comments and Responses on 2003 

Federal Register Notice 

Comment 1: Six comments expressed 

strong support for the proposed FFR, 

viewing it as a welcome initiative to 

simplify and streamline grant-reporting 

requirements, consistent with the 

Federal Financial Assistance 

Management Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

106–107). 

Response: The government-wide 

workgroup made a diligent effort to 

streamline and simplify Federal grant 

reporting requirements. 

Comment 2: Six comments suggested 

changes to the FFR’s format to provide 

additional clarity. 

Response: In response to those 

comments, a page number block was 

added to the FFR Attachment, the OMB 

approval number was moved to the 

lower right corner of the FFR, section 

titles such as ‘‘Federal Expenditures and 

Unobligated Balance’’ are now in bold 

font, and references to sections of the 

FFR consistently state the line or box 

number followed by a reference to 

specific letters, if applicable. 

Comment 3: Ten comments suggested 

ways to strengthen and clarify the FFR’s 

instructions. 

Response: In response to these 

suggestions, the following modifications 

were made to the FFR Instructions: (1) 

Noted the possible impact of the FFR on 

an agency’s internal business processes; 

(2) Explained how the FFR could be 

used to provide reporting data on single 

and multiple awards; (3) Explained how 

the FFR could be used to report cash 

management and financial status 

activity; and (4) Requested additional 

supplemental pages if recipients needed 

more space. 

Comment 4: One comment indicated 

that the clearances conducted by OMB’s 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, as required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, were not 

shown on the FFR. 

Response: A burden statement has 

been added to the bottom of the FFR and 

the updated FFR has been cleared by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs. 

Comment 5: Three comments 

suggested that the frequency of reports 

should be based on the risk level 

associated with specific awards. 

Response: The FFR allows agencies to 

determine the frequency that recipients 

submit reports for each award or 

program. That frequency can be based 

on the agency’s assessment of the level 

of risk associated with the award or 

program. Since agencies can base the 

frequency of reports on risk levels, no 

changes were made to either the FFR or 

its instructions. 

Comment 6: Two comments indicated 

that the timeframes for reporting on the 

cash management of a grant and the 

financial status of a grant differ and 

requested that the instructions provide 

directions on using the same form to 

meet these different reporting 

timeframes. 

Response: The workgroup is mindful 

of the differences between the current 

SF–269 and SF–272 reporting 

timeframes as well as the varying size, 

complexity, and risk associated with 

grant programs and individual awards. 

As a result, the FFR allows agencies to 

determine the cash management and 

financial status reporting requirements 

for each award. FFR Instructions have 

been updated to state: ‘‘For a particular 

award, agencies may require cash 

management reporting more or less 

frequently than financial status 

reporting. Alternatively, agencies may 

request, for a particular award, the 

submission of FFRs at a given reporting 

interval (e.g., quarterly) to reflect cash 

management activity and a separate FFR 

at a different reporting interval (e.g., 

annually) to reflect financial status 

activity.’’

Comment 7: Two comments 

highlighted that a program’s authorizing 

statutes should require the submission 

of monthly financial status reports. 

Response: The FFR instructions were 

amended to indicate that agencies 

requiring more frequent reporting may 

do so if more frequent reporting is 

prescribed by statute and/or consistent 

with the provisions in OMB Circulars 

A–102 or A–110 dealing with special 

award conditions and exceptions to 

standard reporting frequencies. If an 

agency wants to deviate from any of 

these requirements, it must obtain 

approval from OMB. 

Comment 8: One comment suggested 

substituting ‘‘funding or grant period’’

for ‘‘project’’ in the instructions 

concerning the submission of final 

reports: ‘‘Final reports shall be 

submitted no later than 90 days after the 

project end date.’’ The primary reason 

for this comment was that each budget 

period has its own final report. 

Response: In accordance with OMB’s 

administrative circulars, agencies 

should request final reports only at the 

completion of the project or grant 

period. The FFR instructions have not 

changed and continue to state ‘‘Final 

reports shall be submitted no later than 

90 days after the project or grant period 

end date.’’ If an agency wants to deviate 

from this requirement by submitting 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
69238 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 

final reports for each budget period, it 

must obtain approval from OMB. 

Comment 9: One comment pertained 

to the instructions on due-date 

extensions: ‘‘Extensions of reporting due 

dates may be approved by the Federal 

awarding agency upon request of the 

recipient.’’ Specifically, the comment 

expressed concern that requesting 

extensions past a 30-day timeframe 

would be an additional burden. 

Response: Due dates are necessary, 

but circumstances may dictate that due 

dates be extended to help ensure the 

submission of complete and accurate 

reports. As a result, the workgroup did 

not limit the extension period to 30 

days. 

Comment 10: One comment 

recommended that the second bullet 

entitled ‘‘Instructions to Federal 

Agencies, Reporting Frequency,’’ be 

removed because the language ‘‘may be 

used’’ is confusing when compared to 

the language in the three other bullets 

that is more prescriptive because the 

word ‘‘shall’’ is used. 

Response: The section called 

‘‘Instructions to Federal Agencies, 

Reporting Frequency’’ has been 

removed; however, we have reviewed 

language in other parts of the 

instructions to ensure that the wording 

on reporting frequency is consistent. 

Comment 11: One comment suggested 

changing ‘‘30 days’’ to ‘‘one month’’ and 

‘‘90 days’’ to ‘‘three months.’’

Response: Days were used instead of 

months because of the need to establish 

consistent report submission periods. 

The periods are now 45 days and 90 

days. 

Comment 12: Several comments 

objected to reducing the timeframe for 

submission of interim annual reports 

from 90 days to 30 days. One comment 

requested 120 days to submit the FFR. 

Response: The instructions have been 

changed to state: ‘‘Quarterly, semiannual, and annual interim reports are 

due 45 days after the end of the 

reporting period. Final reports are due 

no later than 90 days after the project or 

grant period end date. Extensions of 

reporting due dates may be approved by 

the Federal agency upon request by the 

recipient.’’ The due dates for submitting 

interim reports allow for 

standardization. The workgroup 

concluded that sound fiscal grant 

management throughout the annual 

reporting period, combined with the use 

of electronic systems to collect and 

transmit data, would allow recipients 

sufficient time to complete the annual 

reports within the 45 day timeframe. 

The shortened timeframe for the 

submission of annual interim reports 

would also allow Federal agencies to 

obtain financial data in a more timely 

manner. Additionally, the timeframe for 

submission of quarterly and semiannual reports was increased from 30 

days to 45 days. The workgroup further 

concluded that 120 days for submission 

of annual and final reports was too 

lengthy and would not provide agencies 

with the data necessary to monitor 

projects or grants effectively and to 

make timely funding decisions. 

Moreover, recipients are provided the 

opportunity to request extensions for 

submitting reports in both OMB Circular 

A–110 (2 CFR 215) and FFR 

Instructions. 

Comment 13: One comment noted 

that under existing timelines, the SF–

269 Financial Status Report is due no 

later than 45 days after the end of each 

reporting period and requested that this 

existing 45-day timeline remain in 

place. Another comment requested 

reinstatement of the 90-day due date for 

interim reports, while still another 

disagreed with reducing the due date 

from 90 days to 30 days for final reports. 

Response: The existing timelines for 

submission of the SF–269, as stated in 

OMB Circular A–110 (2 CFR 215), are 30 

days for quarterly and semi-annual 

reports and 90 days for annual and final 

reports. As a result, there currently is no 

provision for submission of interim 

reports 45 days after the reporting 

period end date. Moreover, only annual 

interim reports (not quarterly or semiannual) are allowed to be submitted 90 

days after the reporting period end date. 

The proposed notice stated: ‘‘Final 

reports shall be submitted no later than 

90 days after the project end date.’’ The 

due date for final reports has not been 

reduced to 30 days in the final notice. 

Comment 14: One comment expressed 

concern regarding the costs of system, 

policy, and other changes associated 

with revised due dates. 

Response: In an effort to be responsive 

to public comments regarding grants 

streamlining and ensuing legislation, 

Federal agencies and recipients may 

need to make several system, policy, 

and other changes. The costs of these 

changes, which will be borne by both 

Federal agencies and recipients, are 

necessary to achieve long-term grants 

streamlining efficiencies and promote 

greater customer service. In some 

instances, provisions have been made to 

accommodate financial hardships that 

may be experienced by recipients with 

the advent of government-wide grants 

streamlining. For example, recipients 

may still be given the option of 

submitting forms and reports on paper 

rather than having to create or modify 

electronic systems that may be cost 

prohibitive. Also, Federal agencies that 

use grants data systems that are 

maintained by OMB-approved Grants 

Management Line of Business 

consortium leads will not be updating 

their agency’s legacy systems to 

accommodate the receipt of the forms. 

Federal agencies that have not yet 

migrated to an OMB-approved Grants 

Management Line of Business 

consortium are required to coordinate 

with OMB prior to performing 

enhancements or interim improvements 

to legacy systems. 

Comment 15: One comment noted 

that the requirement to submit final 

reports no later than 90 days after the 

project end date conflicts with the 

instruction in section 23, ‘‘Grants 

Management Common Rule,’’ that 

requires grantees to liquidate all 

obligations incurred no later than 90 

days after the end date. 

Response: No conflict exists. 

Recipients should strive to liquidate 

obligations within 90 days of the project 

or grant period end date before they 

submit the final FFR, which is also due 

within 90 days after the project or grant 

period end date. If, however, the timing 

of liquidating obligations precludes 

submission of the final FFR within 90 

days of the project or grant period end 

date, recipients can request an 

extension. 

Comment 16: Seven comments 

requested that reporting period end 

dates be based on award dates, 

consistent with current practice, rather 

than on the proposed reporting period 

end dates: 3/31, 6/30, 9/30, or 12/31. 

Response: The decision to adopt 

calendar quarters for the reporting 

period end dates was made to promote 

standardization, thereby reducing the 

current reporting burden associated 

with different reporting period end 

dates among different grants. If a 

Federal agency wants to use reporting 

period end dates other than 3/31, 6/30, 

9/30, or 12/31, it must obtain approval 

from OMB. 

Comment 17: Eight comments 

requested greater standardization. Some 

of the comments suggested using one 

standardized format that could not be 

changed or modified. Others indicated 

that allowing agencies to determine the 

data elements to be submitted would 

diminish the objective of 

standardization and suggested having 

one set of data elements that all 

recipients must complete. Still other 

comments suggested that the FFR 

simply combines the data elements 

contained in the current SF–269, SF–

269A, SF–272, and SF–272A, so it does 

not advance streamlining objectives. 

Response: The proposed FFR 

advances standardization by providing a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69239 

pool of data elements from which 

agencies can customize their reporting 

requirements without imposing an 

undue burden on recipients by adding 

or modifying elements. In addition, 

agencies cannot add or modify FFR data 

elements unless they submit compelling 

requests to OMB for approval. OMB will 

evaluate all requests for changes and 

modifications, and exercise utmost 

prudence in approving exceptions in 

order to prevent the proliferation of 

multiple financial reporting forms. 

Requiring agencies to use all of the 

data elements in the proposed FFR is 

not practical. As an example, ‘‘Recipient 

Share and Program Income’’ does not 

apply to some programs and awards. 

Furthermore, the FFR is designed to 

accommodate reporting on the cash 

management of single or multiple 

awards and on the financial status of a 

single award, so this flexibility is not 

conducive to mandating the completion 

of a required set of elements. Finally, 

the data that each agency needs to 

adequately monitor awards differ greatly 

because of the wide variety of governing 

statutes, regulations, and policies. As a 

result, requiring recipients to report on 

all data on a standardized FFR could 

actually result in the submission of data 

that would not be useful or required, 

while increasing the reporting burdens 

to recipients. 

In developing the standard pool of 

data elements, the workgroup assessed 

the SF–269, SF–269A, SF–272, and SF–

272A, eliminating or combining many of 

the existing data elements. The FFR also 

promotes standardization through the 

development of one set of instructions 

and definitions for reports submitted to 

a single location within an agency, and 

the use of standardized timeframes for 

reporting period end dates and due 

dates. 

Comment 18: Five comments 

suggested that OMB follow a standard 

frequency for report submissions. 

Response: The degree to which 

monitoring is needed varies in view of 

the risks, statutes, regulations, and 

policies governing programs and 

awards, so the frequency of reporting 

should be commensurate with these 

factors. In addition, adopting a 

standardized frequency for report 

submissions could be detrimental to an 

agency’s ability to adequately monitor a 

program or award. 

The FFR promotes standardization by 

requiring the use of reporting period 

end dates for quarterly, semi-annual, 

and annual interim reports: 3/31, 6/30, 

9/30, or 12/31. It further requires the 

submission of quarterly, semi-annual, 

and annual interim reports 45 days after 

the end of each reporting period and 

final reports no later than 90 days after 

the project or grant period end date. 

Extensions of reporting due dates may 

be approved by the Federal agency upon 

request by the recipient. 

Comment 19: Eleven comments 

questioned use of the FFR to report on 

single and multiple awards. Some 

comments indicated that reporting 

financial status information for multiple 

awards on one report would be 

meaningless and an administrative 

burden. Other comments questioned 

why detailed data were required for 

individual awards, but not for multiple 

awards. One comment asked whether 

the Federal agency could require a 

recipient to report all Federal and 

recipient expenditures for a single 

award rather than multiple awards. 

Another comment stated that the FFR 

Attachment does not provide reporting 

for ‘‘Cash Receipts’’ or ‘‘Cash on Hand,’’

so the FFR cannot be used to determine 

if a recipient has excess cash on hand. 

Response: The FFR Instructions have 

been clarified to better explain the 

procedures for reporting on single and 

multiple awards. 

A single FFR will not be used to 

report totals on the financial status of 

multiple awards. Instead, a separate FFR 

must be completed for each award when 

the financial status (Lines 10d through 

10q) for more than one award is 

requested by the agency. Currently, 

agencies have the choice between 

collecting detailed financial status data 

on a single award (using the SF–269 or 

SF–269A) or collecting summary cash 

management data on multiple awards 

(using the SF–272 or SF–272A). The 

FFR preserves this flexibility while 

allowing recipients to submit these data 

on one form. If an agency wants to 

obtain detailed financial status data on 

more than one award, it must instruct 

recipients to complete a separate FFR 

(the FFR Attachment would not be 

required) for each award. Conversely, if 

less detailed data are needed on 

multiple awards, agencies should 

instruct recipients to complete 

designated lines and boxes on the FFR 

as well as the FFR Attachment. 

According to the FFR Instructions, an 

agency can require a recipient to report 

cash management activity for a single 

award and for multiple awards. In doing 

so, the FFR will capture ‘‘Cash 

Receipts’’ and ‘‘Cash on Hand,’’ which 

can be used to determine if a recipient 

has excess cash on hand. The FFR 

Attachment does not provide this 

capability. 

Comment 20: Five comments 

indicated that the FFR does not capture 

certain data elements that currently 

exist within agency- or program-specific 

reports that have been approved by 

OMB. One comment requested that the 

final notice clarify that the FFR is 

intended to replace the SF–269, SF–

269A, and SF–270 and that agencies 

using alternative program-specific forms 

could continue to do so. 

Response: The FFR replaces the SF–

269, SF–269A, SF–272 and SF–272A, 

and OMB-approved agency-specific and 

program-specific financial forms, but 

not the SF–270 or SF–271. The FFR 

Instructions have been clarified to state 

that the FFR is replacing the SF–269, 

SF–269A, SF–272, and SF–272A and, in 

doing so, it is now the standard 

government-wide financial report that 

all agencies and recipients will be 

required to use. Furthermore, the use of 

new or existing agency-specific or 

program-specific financial reports will 

require approval by OMB. 

Comment 21: Five comments 

requested that the FFR be modified to 

depict ‘‘Total Outlays,’’ which would be 

the sum of ‘‘Total Federal Share,’’

‘‘Total Recipient Share,’’ and 

‘‘Expended Program Income.’’ Two 

comments requested that the FFR be 

modified to include ‘‘Total 

Unliquidated Obligations,’’ the sum of 

‘‘Federal Share of Unliquidated 

Obligations’’ and ‘‘Recipient Share of 

Unliquidated Obligations.’’

Response: The ‘‘Total Outlays’’ and 

‘‘Total Unliquidated Obligations’’ line 

items were not added to the FFR 

because the agencies and recipients that 

need this information can do so by 

performing simple calculations, without 

imposing additional requirements on all 

recipients. 

Comment 22: One comment noted 

that additional fields, which are 

currently not required on the SF–269, 

may be required by agencies submitting 

an individual grant expenditure report, 

thereby increasing the overall number of 

data elements that must be reported. 

The additional data elements include 

the following: ‘‘Status of Federal Cash 

(previous, current, cumulative),’’ ‘‘Total 

Federal Funds Authorized (previous, 

current),’’ ‘‘Total Federal Share of 

Unliquidated Obligations (current),’’

‘‘Total Recipient Share Required 

(previous, current, cumulative),’’

‘‘Required Recipient Share of 

Unliquidated Obligations (current, 

cumulative),’’ ‘‘Program Income 

Expended in Accordance with the 

Addition Alternative (previous, 

current),’’ and ‘‘Unexpended Program 

Income (current).’’

Response: The FFR has been modified 

to only collect cumulative totals. This 

action eliminates Column I (Previously 

Reported) and Column II (Current 

Period) for all line items. The ‘‘Federal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
69240 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 

Cash’’ section has been modified to 

include Line 10a, ‘‘Cash Receipts;’’ Line 

10b, ‘‘Cash Disbursements;’’ and Line 

10c, ‘‘Cash on Hand.’’ By requiring only 

cumulative totals, this modification will 

allow the FFR to highlight activities that 

took place during the reporting period 

and facilitate the calculation of cash on 

hand as of the reporting period end 

date. With respect to ‘‘Total Federal 

Funds Authorized,’’ only one entry is 

required in the cumulative column. 

Accordingly, the instructions for Line 

10d have been changed to state: ‘‘Enter 

the total Federal funds authorized as of 

the reporting period end date.’’ ‘‘Federal 

Share of Unliquidated Obligations,’’

‘‘Recipient Share of Unliquidated 

Obligations,’’ ‘‘Program Income 

Expended in Accordance with the 

Addition Alternative,’’ and 

‘‘Unexpended Program Income’’ are 

now reported only as cumulative totals. 

‘‘Total Recipient Share Required’’ was 

added to mirror the approach used to 

account for Federal dollars, while the 

‘‘Federal Expenditures and Unobligated 

Balance’’ section begins with ‘‘Total 

Federal Funds Authorized’’ and depicts 

the manner in which authorized funds 

have been managed. Similarly, the 

‘‘Recipient Share’’ section begins with 

‘‘Total Recipient Share Required’’ and 

depicts the manner in which the 

recipient’s required share is managed. 

Comment 23: One comment suggested 

that the proposed FFR cannot serve as 

a compiled Cash Transactions Report 

because it does not start with ‘‘Cash on 

Hand, Beginning of Reporting Period,’’

as does the current SF–272. Another 

comment suggested an alternative 

method to report cash management 

activity for multiple awards and 

requested an additional column, ‘‘Total 

Obligated,’’ on the FFR Attachment. 

Still another comment suggested an 

alternative method for reporting on the 

financial management of an award. 

Response: By requiring only 

cumulative totals, the FFR will be more 

useful in highlighting activity that took 

place during the reporting period and 

facilitating the calculation of cash on 

hand as of the reporting period end 

date. The alternative methods proposed 

to report cash and financial 

management activities for an award are 

more detailed and require more 

calculations by recipients than the 

proposed FFR requirements. As a result, 

adopting these methods would be 

counter to grant streamlining and 

improved customer service efforts. 

Comment 24: One comment requested 

adding a data element with the name of 

a particular person at each agency to 

whom the FFR should be submitted. 

Another comment requested including 

the recipient’s Automated 

Clearinghouse (ACH) account number, 

two comments requested including the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) number on the FFR, and one 

comment requested including a glossary 

and definitions in the final FFR notice. 

Response: A data element was not 

added to identify a particular person at 

each agency to whom the report should 

be submitted. During the course of the 

reporting period for a particular award, 

contact points may vary and requiring 

recipients to provide this information 

prior to the submission of the FFR 

would be an undue burden. Instead, the 

required FFR identifying grant 

information, including the ‘‘Federal 

Agency and Organizational Element to 

Which Report is Submitted’’ (Box 1) and 

‘‘Federal Grant or Other Identifying 

Number’’ (Box 2), is sufficient for 

agencies to route the FFR to the 

appropriate person. Furthermore, the 

FFR Attachment includes information 

on multiple awards, which would make 

the identification of a point of contact 

for each award impractical. The ACH 

account number was not added to the 

FFR because this report will not be used 

to facilitate payment or drawdown 

activity. As a result, including the ACH 

account number would be extraneous to 

the FFR’s purpose. Furthermore, the 

information disclosed on the ACH form 

is considered confidential and if 

included on the FFR would increase the 

risk of fraud. The CFDA number was not 

added to the FFR because it is not 

needed. The ‘‘Federal Grant or Other 

Identifying Number Assigned by the 

Federal Agency’’ (Box 2 of the FFR) and 

‘‘Federal Grant Number’’ (Box 5 on the 

FFR Attachment) provide sufficient 

information. OMB Circulars A–102, A–

110, and A–133, combined with the FFR 

Instructions, provide sufficient 

information to facilitate understanding 

and completion of the FFR. As such, a 

glossary and definition of terms are not 

added. 

Comment 25: One comment suggested 

that the policy requiring the submission 

of one original and two copies of paperbased FFR submission should be 

retained. 

Response: A statement was added that 

‘‘The Federal agency shall request that 

the recipient submit the original and no 

more than two copies of the FFR.’’

Comment 26: One comment requested 

the retention of the instruction on the 

current SF–272 that requires an 

explanation when more than 3 days of 

cash remains on hand at the end of the 

reporting period. Two comments asked 

whether there were alternative methods 

for assessing excess cash, such as OMB 

Circular A–133 audits, rather than using 

the FFR. Another comment noted that 

the requirement for recipients to have 

no more than 3 days of cash on hand is 

burdensome because it is difficult to 

estimate the amount of money needed to 

meet immediate cash needs. One 

comment asked how recipients are 

expected to report on cash advances to 

subgrantees and subcontractors when 

they are unable to provide expenditure 

reports within the timeframe required 

for the recipient’s FFR submission. 

Response: A statement was added to 

the FFR Instructions requiring an 

explanation if more than 3 days of cash 

remains on hand at the end of the 

reporting period. 

The FFR is one tool that agencies may 

use to assess the cash management and 

financial status of an award. As a result, 

agencies must determine how they wish 

to use this tool, in conjunction with 

other tools, such as OMB Circular A–

133 audits and site visits. However, the 

FFR is considered to be one of the most 

viable tools, primarily because all 

recipients are not subject to OMB 

Circular A–133 audits and conducting 

site visits may be cost and resource 

prohibitive. Award recipients are 

discouraged from having more than 3 

days of cash on hand in order to 

maximize the government’s opportunity 

to collect interest on unspent funds and 

ensure compliance with the Cash 

Management Improvement Act. 

Through the use of automated processes 

to request funds and facilitate electronic 

fund transfers, recipients should be able 

to accurately estimate their funding 

needs, thereby minimizing instances in 

which they have more than 3 days of 

cash on hand. Furthermore, the 

management of an award does not 

necessarily preclude having more than 3 

days of excess cash on hand; instead, it 

requires that the reasons for such excess 

be reported to ensure appropriate 

stewardship of Federal funds. 

Recipients are expected to report the 

amount of cash disbursed, including 

advances to subrecipients and 

subcontractors, but they are not 

expected to report on how these 

disbursements and advances were 

actually expended. As a result, 

determining subrecipient and 

subcontractor expenditures will not 

affect the timely completion and 

submission of the FFR. 

Comment 27: Several comments 

requested clarification on the cash 

versus accrual basis reporting on the 

FFR. One comment indicated that the 

instructions for Line 10f, ‘‘Federal Share 

of Unliquidated Obligations (current 

period),’’ states: ‘‘For accrual basis 

reporting, this is the amount of 

obligations incurred for which an 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69241 

expenditure has not been recorded.’’

However, if an organization that 

accounts on an accrual basis incurred 

obligations for which an expenditure 

had not been incurred, it would need to 

record those expenditures and include 

them in its total expenditures reported 

on an accrual basis. The need to report 

on expenditures that have not been 

recorded should only exist in an 

organization that maintains its books on 

a cash basis. Similarly, another 

comment stated that it might be 

advisable to require that reporting be 

done on an accrual basis even if the 

organization maintains its accounting 

on a cash basis because the requirement 

on Line 10f has the effect of requiring 

recipients to report an accrual on the 

FFR regardless whether the accrual is 

actually entered on its books or only 

used in producing the FFR. Another 

comment stated that OMB Circular A–

110 defines obligations as ‘‘the amounts 

of orders placed, contracts and grants 

awarded, services received and similar 

transactions during a given period that 

require payment by the recipient during 

the same or a future period.’’ ‘‘Orders 

placed’’ and ‘‘awards’’ and other 

obligations for ‘‘future periods’’ are not 

accrued, so these transactions would not 

be reported as unliquidated obligations. 

As a result, the comment requested 

clarification on whether these futureperiod obligations would be included in 

the ‘‘Federal Share of Unliquidated 

Obligations’’ and ‘‘Recipient Share of 

Unliquidated Obligations.’’

Response: The instructions for Line 

10f have been clarified to provide one 

definition for ‘‘Federal Share of 

Unliquidated Obligations,’’ whether the 

recipient maintains a cash or accrual 

basis accounting system. The FFR 

Instructions have also been updated to 

indicate that, in accordance with OMB 

Circulars A–110 and A–102, if the 

Federal awarding agency requires 

accrual information and the recipient’s 

accounting records are kept on the cash 

basis, the recipient shall not be required 

to convert its accounting system. 

Instead, the recipient must develop such 

accrual information through best 

estimates using available 

documentation. Consistent with the 

approach used to develop one definition 

for ‘‘Federal Share of Unliquidated 

Obligations,’’ regardless of whether the 

recipient maintains a cash or accrual 

basis accounting system, the FFR 

Instructions have been updated to 

include common definitions for Line 

10e, ‘‘Federal Share of Expenditures;’’

Line10j, ‘‘Recipient Share of 

Expenditures;’’ and Line 10k, 

‘‘Recipient Share of Unliquidated 

Obligations.’’

Comment 28: One comment asked 

why the ‘‘Status of Federal Cash’’ (Lines 

10a through 10c) requires totals on a 

cash basis (Cash Disbursements) while 

the ‘‘Status of Federal Expenditures’’

(Lines 10e through 10k) require 

reporting on an accrual basis. Another 

comment stated that Box 7, ‘‘Basis of 

Accounting,’’ appears to apply only to 

Lines 10e through 10h because Lines 

10a through 10c require cash basis 

reporting even if the recipient maintains 

an accrual basis accounting system. The 

same comment also asked how it was 

decided that cash or accrual accounting 

would be the appropriate basis for FFR 

reporting purposes. 

Response: The ‘‘Federal Cash’’ portion 

of the FFR enables agencies to 

determine the amount of a recipient’s 

Federal cash on hand. This portion of 

the report also enables agencies to 

reconcile their internal cash receipt and 

disbursement records with Federal cash 

receipt and disbursement records 

maintained by recipients. The ‘‘Federal 

Expenditures and Unobligated Balance’’

portion of the FFR enables agencies to 

determine, for a single award, how 

much money has actually been 

expended and the expenses that have 

been incurred but not yet paid. This 

information gives agencies an overview 

of the amount of encumbered and 

unencumbered funds, at a given point in 

time, which is useful when assessing 

the financial status of an award. 

Obtaining cash and accrual information 

serves different, yet complimentary 

purposes, and determining the type of 

information to submit is left to the 

discretion of the agency. The 

instructions for Box 7, ‘‘Basis of 

Accounting,’’ have been clarified to 

indicate that recipients should specify 

whether they use a cash or accrual basis 

accounting system for recording 

transactions related to the award. The 

form permits agencies to request cash 

basis information (Lines 10a through 

10c and the FFR Attachment) from 

recipients maintaining an accrual basis 

accounting system and accrual basis 

information (Lines 10f and 10k) from 

recipients maintaining a cash basis 

accounting system. If the Federal 

awarding agency requires accrual 

information and the recipient’s 

accounting records are kept on a cash 

basis, the recipient shall not be required 

to convert its accounting system. 

Instead, it should develop the required 

accrual information through best 

estimates based on available 

information. 

Comment 29: One comment indicated 

that the FFR duplicates reporting now 

required for recipients using the Federal 

government’s automated payment 

systems. 

Response: The FFR is used to show 

the activity of a single award or the 

amount of funds expended for multiple 

awards. The information collected 

through the FFR is required by Federal 

agencies to aid in monitoring their grant 

funds. Conversely, payment forms are 

used to generate disbursements in 

response to a specific request, and 

agencies utilize multiple payment 

systems and forms. The information 

required on these diverse payment 

forms may not be adequate for agencies 

to fulfill their fiscal stewardship 

responsibilities. Furthermore, agencies 

should instruct recipients to submit the 

FFR to a single location within the 

agency. Each agency will then modify 

its internal business processes to 

coordinate the distribution of the FFR to 

payment and financial offices that 

require the information. 

Comment 30: One comment asked 

whether using electronic payment 

mechanisms or receiving funds on a 

reimbursement basis obviate the need to 

account for cash disbursements by 

grant. Three comments questioned the 

usefulness of the SF–272 and, 

consequently, the FFR Attachment, 

given that agencies can obtain cash 

management information on a grant 

using the Payment Management System 

(PMS) and the Automated Standard 

Application for Payments (ASAP) 

systems. 

Response: Not all electronic payment 

mechanisms obviate the need to account 

for cash disbursements by grant because 

all funds obtained through cash 

advances may not be expended 

immediately and agencies may want to 

monitor cash disbursements and, 

consequently, cash on hand at a given 

point in time. Agencies may also want 

to obtain cash disbursement information 

by grant, even for recipients on a 

reimbursement basis, as a means of 

monitoring cash disbursements for 

which reimbursement has not been 

sought. For recipients on an advance 

payment system and the ASAP, agencies 

can readily determine the amount of 

cash advanced but these systems do not 

capture the amount of cash actually 

disbursed by recipients. Similarly, for 

recipients on a reimbursement payment 

system and ASAP, agencies cannot 

capture cash disbursements for which 

recipients have not requested 

reimbursement. Moreover, not all 

agencies use PMS or ASAP. Cash 

disbursement information, as provided 

on the FFR and the optional FFR 

Attachment sections which replace the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
69242 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 

SF–272A, is deemed useful to many 

agencies. 

Comment 31: One comment noted 

that the April 8, 2003, notice in the 

Federal Register did not reference 

continued use of SF–270. It was 

suggested that the SF–270 is the source 

of some of the reporting problems 

experienced by recipients and that there 

is a strong relationship between the SF–

270 and the new forms. The comment 

further indicated that the SF–270 was 

created to meet the need for a paper 

document on which recipients could 

request cash, when such payments were 

also being made by paper check. 

However, with the required movement 

by Federal agencies to payment by 

electronic funds transfer, the form now 

serves, in some agencies, as a 

duplicative financial reporting tool. 

Response: The SF–269 and SF–272 

are used to monitor the financial 

activity of a single award or multiple 

awards, while the SF–270 is used to 

obtain funds. These forms serve 

different purposes, which were 

considered in the development of the 

FFR proposal. Specifically, agencies are 

currently using various payment 

systems, some of which may require the 

submission of the SF–270 if funds 

cannot be requested electronically. As a 

result, eliminating the SF–270 through 

the current FFR proposal could have a 

negative effect on a recipient’s ability to 

obtain funds, which would be an 

unacceptable consequence. 

Comment 32: Several comments 

requested delaying implementation of 

the FFR until a fully automated version 

was available, which would provide for 

calculation macros, carry forward prior 

period-ending balances to the current 

period report, automate comparisons 

between recipient and agency data, and 

support electronic submissions and Web 

accessibility. 

Response: The workgroup’s primary 

goals included reducing the number of 

required financial forms and 

standardizing the resulting product. The 

FFR achieves these goals by 

consolidating four existing forms into 

one report and using standard data 

elements, instructions, definitions, 

reporting period end dates, and the due 

date for report submissions. Given the 

numerous benefits associated with the 

FFR, the workgroup does not want to 

delay its implementation. Instead, it 

seeks to proceed with implementation 

to achieve immediate benefits, while 

concurrently moving forward with 

automation initiatives. Under OMB’s 

overall direction, the Federal awarding 

agencies began to address electronic 

solutions for financial reporting in 

February 2004. Those solutions include 

the electronic submission of the FFR 

through unified and common Federal 

electronic solutions. In the interim, 

agencies, using methods similar to those 

for automating the SF–269 and SF–272, 

may proceed, once they request and 

receive approval from OMB, with 

automating the FFR. This includes 

incorporating macros for facilitating 

calculations, linking the FFR to payment 

systems to facilitate electronic 

comparisons between recipient-reported 

figures and those maintained by the 

agency, allowing for electronic 

submission to agencies, and providing 

Web accessibility. As part of the 

approval request, agencies must confirm 

if automating the FFR will require either 

minor system enhancements or interim 

system improvements, and if 

development, modernization and 

enhancement (DME) funding would be 

necessary. These measures are not 

anticipated to be costly or timeintensive because the FFR includes only 

four new data elements that are not 

currently resident on either the SF–269 

or SF–272. 

Comment 33: One comment requested 

that the paper format of the 

consolidated financial report be made 

available so that it can be completed 

using a computer keyboard either in 

Microsoft Word or ‘‘writeable’’ PDF. The 

comment further stated that applicants 

prefer filling out documents and forms 

using a computer keyboard and that the 

old-style PDF forms are difficult to use 

because they must be printed and then 

completed using a typewriter. Another 

comment requested that the paper FFR 

show a Web address that would provide 

specific instructions and information for 

completing the FFR. 

Response: As described previously, 

the Federal awarding agencies began 

addressing electronic solutions for 

financial reporting in February 2004, 

including the electronic submission of 

the FFR through unified and common 

Federal electronic solutions. The 

workgroup concluded that URL 

references should be included on Web 

sites rather than the FFR forms because 

the URL references may change. 

Comment 34: One comment requested 

assurance that security controls be 

established to prevent the electronic 

submission of an FFR report that had 

not been approved by the appropriate 

individuals. 

Response: Potential solutions for 

electronic submissions include 

submission and electronic 

authentication by an Authorized Agency 

Representative. In addition, existing 

payment systems only allow access by 

Authorized Agency Representatives. 

These agency security measures must be 

supplemented by the recipient’s internal 

security measures to preclude the 

submission of reports by unauthorized 

representatives. 

Comment 35: One comment stated 

that there is a need to ensure that 

subrecipients and subcontractors be 

subject to the same requirements as 

recipients for reporting purposes. 

Another comment noted that States 

serving in a pass-through capacity 

should also adopt the FFR, which would 

then reap the FFR’s benefits across the 

grant community. Another comment 

stated that the FFR does not contain a 

line item showing funds disbursed to 

subrecipients. 

Response: The Federal government 

may not impose prime recipient 

reporting requirements on subrecipients 

and subcontractors as a means of 

securing the contractual relationship 

between the prime and the sub. Instead, 

OMB, through its administrative 

circulars, requires recipients to manage 

and monitor each project, program, 

function, and activity supported by the 

award. Furthermore, agencies may 

obtain information regarding the 

subrecipient and subcontractor aspects 

of an award by requiring recipients to 

indicate the amount of monies advanced 

or disbursed to subrecipients and 

contractors through FFR submissions. 

Requesting that States adopt the FFR is 

beyond the scope of the workgroup, but 

it is considered to be an area worthy of 

continued exploration. ‘‘Cumulative 

Cash Disbursements,’’ as shown in the 

FFR Attachment, include funds 

disbursed to subrecipients. A separate 

line item was not added to capture 

disbursements to subrecipients because, 

in the interest of streamlining, 

recipients will only be required to 

report disbursements without detailing 

specific types of expenditures. 

Comment 36: One comment proposed 

enlarging Box 1, ‘‘Federal Agency and 

Organizational Element to Which Report 

is Submitted;’’ two comments noted the 

absence of instructions advising on the 

level to which reports should be 

submitted within an agency, 

particularly for multiple grants captured 

on the FFR; and a fourth comment 

stated that OMB should establish a 

single location for submission of the 

report, which would eliminate the 

submission of identical reports to 

multiple locations within an agency. 

Response: The size of Box 1 was not 

changed because recipients may use 

acronyms to depict the Federal agency 

and organizational element. The ability 

to group multiple grants will be at the 

discretion of the Federal awarding 

agency. Agencies can provide guidance 

on identifying ‘‘the organizational 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69243 

element’’ for recipients reporting on 

multiple grants. The instructions for 

Box 1 have been clarified to state ‘‘Enter 

the name of the Federal agency and 

organizational element identified in the 

award document or as instructed by the 

agency.’’ Even though electronic 

solutions for the FFR are pending, some 

recipients may still elect to submit 

paper-based reports. Agencies will not 

be required to request submissions to 

one location. However, the instructions 

have been modified to state: ‘‘Agencies 

should instruct recipients to submit the 

FFR to one single location within the 

agency.’’ This language states that 

submission to one location in the 

agency is not required, but strongly 

encouraged. 

Comment 37: One comment requested 

that Box 4 be changed from ‘‘Universal 

Identifier’’ to ‘‘DUNS Number.’’ Another 

comment asked if ‘‘Universal Identifier’’

is the DUNS Number or the Employer 

Identification Number (EIN). 

Response: The DUNS number is the 

universal identifier for grants and 

cooperative agreements. As such, the 

term ‘‘Universal Identifier Number’’ has 

been changed to ‘‘DUNS Number.’’ Box 

4 on the FFR has been modified to 

include separate entries of the ‘‘DUNS 

Number’’ (Box 4a) and ‘‘Employer 

Identification Number (EIN)’’ (Box 4b). 

The FFR Instructions have been 

amended to incorporate this change. 

Comment 38: Several comments were 

raised about the requirement for 

recipients to provide their DUNS 

number. One comment requested a 

reference in the FFR Instructions on 

how to obtain a DUNS number, another 

asked what mechanism OMB intends to 

employ to ensure that recipients use the 

correct DUNS number. Still another 

comment requested OMB to provide 

guidance on how to manage multiple 

DUNS numbers for organizations and 

their affiliates. Finally, three comments 

expressed overall concern with the 

requirement to obtain a DUNS number. 

Response: All of these comments 

pertain to pre-award activities and are 

outside of the scope of the FFR 

proposal. Instead, they should have 

been submitted in response to OMB’s 

Federal Register notice dated June 27, 

2003, ‘‘Use of a Universal Identifier by 

Grant Applicants.’’ Although these 

comments did not result in any changes 

to the FFR, they still warrant some 

clarification. Use of the DUNS will 

allow Federal agencies and recipients to 

readily identify a DUNS ‘‘family tree,’’

allowing for more effective management 

of multiple grants. Also, a DUNS 

number is required for registering in the 

Business Partner Network (BPN), which 

includes the Central Contract Registry 

(CCR). The BPN/CCR maintains an 

applicant and recipient profile, which 

reduces the amount of data required for 

electronic submission of information to 

Grants.gov. 

Comment 39: Three comments 

addressed continued use of the EIN, 

along with the DUNS number, on the 

FFR. One comment requested that 

recipients furnish either the EIN or 

DUNS number, while another requested 

that the EIN be added to the FFR. One 

comment asked if the EIN was actually 

intended to be dropped. 

Response: On June 27, 2003, an OMB 

notice in the Federal Register, ‘‘Use of 

a Universal Identifier by Grant 

Applicants,’’ established the 

requirement for recipients to obtain a 

DUNS number when applying for 

Federal grants and cooperative 

agreements. This policy has since been 

revised to apply to all forms of Federal 

financial assistance pursuant to the 

Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–

282). It stipulated that Federal agencies 

could continue to use their EIN or 

similar vendor identification for their 

internal use. In response, the FFR has 

been modified to include both the 

DUNS number and EIN. The addition of 

the EIN to the FFR does not preclude 

furnishing a DUNS number. Instead, 

recipients providing an EIN (or similar 

vendor identification number) on the 

FFR will still be required to provide a 

DUNS number. 

Comment 40: Two comments 

indicated that basic information about a 

recipient, including financial 

information, should be stored in a 

password protected site that recipients 

could access to update their information 

annually or when major changes occur 

such as the name of a contact person. 

After the standard application is 

submitted to the clearinghouse, an 

applicant or recipient could access the 

information and submit a new grant 

application without having to fill out 

another form with the same information. 

This practice should be possible 

because standard information is 

required with every application, but 

rarely changes from one application to 

another. 

Response: These comments pertain to 

pre-award activity, so they are outside 

the scope of the FFR proposal. Although 

no changes were made to the FFR in 

response to these comments, some 

clarification is warranted. The Federal 

government is currently using BPN/CCR 

for grant applicants and recipients to 

help centralize applicant and recipient 

information, and to provide a central 

location for applicants and recipients to 

change organizational information. Use 

of BPN/CCR provides one location for 

applicants and recipients to change 

information about their organization for 

use by all Federal agencies. Currently, 

recipients will use the BPN/CCR 

template that is in place for vendors and 

contractors conducting business with 

the Federal government. 

Comment 41: Three comments 

pertained to Box 5, ‘‘Recipient Account 

Number or Identifying Number.’’ One 

comment requested an example of ‘‘any 

other identifying number,’’ while 

another asked that ‘‘For Recipient Use 

Only; Not Required by Federal Funding 

Agency’’ be replaced with ‘‘This 

Account Number May be the Same 

Number as Shown in Item 2, Federal 

Grant or Other Identifying Number.’’

One comment suggested that Box 5 does 

not serve a useful purpose and it should 

be eliminated. 

Response: As stated in the FFR 

Instructions, Box 5 is intended for 

recipient use only, such as providing a 

tracking mechanism for reconciliation 

purposes. For example, a recipient 

could assign a number to an award that 

is automatically generated from its 

financial system, which would make 

Box 5 very useful in reconciling the 

recipient’s internal data with that 

maintained by the Federal government. 

The language was not modified because 

the proposed language better depicts the 

intent and appropriate use of Box 5. 

Comment 42: One comment requested 

that the shading be removed from all the 

Column II, Current Period, cells because 

this information could be useful if the 

FFR is to be used for Current Cash 

Transactions. 

Response: The FFR has been modified 

to collect only cumulative totals. This 

action would eliminate Column I 

(Previously Reported) and Column II 

(Current Period) for all line items. The 

overall financial status of the award, as 

shown in the ‘‘Cumulative’’ column, 

should serve as the basis from which 

assessments and decisions are made. 

The ‘‘Federal Cash’’ section has been 

modified to include Line 10c, ‘‘Cash On 

Hand.’’ By requiring only cumulative 

totals, this modification will allow the 

FFR to provide a good overview of 

activity that took place during the 

reporting period and facilitate the 

calculation of cash on hand as of the 

reporting period end date. The FFR 

Instructions have been amended to 

show these changes. 

Comment 43: One comment suggested 

revising the last sentence of the 

instructions for Line 10, ‘‘Transactions,’’

to state: ‘‘If you need to adjust amounts 

entered on previous reports, include a 

note in Line 12 of the Remarks section.’’


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
69244 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 

Response: The statement ‘‘If you need 

to adjust amounts entered on previous 

reports, include a note in Line 12 of the 

Remarks section’’ has been added to the 

instructions for Line 10. Any 

information deemed necessary to 

support or explain FFR information 

should be noted in Line 12, ‘‘Remarks.’’

Comment 44: One comment noted 

that recipients are now instructed to 

report adjustments to prior report 

periods in Column I (Previously 

Reported). This instruction is consistent 

with generally accepted accounting 

principles, which require publicly 

traded corporations to report prior 

period adjustments as revisions to 

retained earnings rather than as results 

of current year operations. Nevertheless, 

the comment requests that recipients be 

allowed to report adjustments in the 

period in which they are recognized 

(Column II, Current Period) because the 

FFR is a cumulative document. The 

amount that ultimately is of interest to 

the agency is the amount captured in 

Column III (Cumulative) and an 

adjustment has the same effect on 

Column III whether the recipient enters 

it in Column I or Column II. 

Response: The FFR has been modified 

to collect only cumulative totals. This 

action eliminates Column I (Previously 

Reported) and Column II (Current 

Period) for all line items. Since the 

practice of reflecting adjustments within 

the period that the error occurred is a 

generally accepted accounting principle, 

no changes will be imposed on the 

recipient community. If an agency has 

unique reporting situations requiring 

adjustments in the prior period, it can 

request an exemption from OMB. 

Comment 45: One comment requested 

that the instructions for Line 10a be 

changed to read: ‘‘Enter the amount of 

actual cash received to date from the 

Federal awarding agency.’’

Response: The instructions for Line 

10a, ‘‘Cash Receipts,’’ have been 

amended to include the requested 

language. 

Comment 46: One comment asked if 

Line 10d, ‘‘Total Federal Funds 

Authorized,’’ includes the amount of 

Federal increase resulting from program 

income reported on Line 10o, ‘‘Program 

Income Expended in Accordance with 

the Addition Alternative.’’

Response: Line 10d, ‘‘Total Federal 

Funds Authorized,’’ does not include 

program income since, by definition, 

program income is generated by award 

activities and not provided by the 

awarding agency. The instructions for 

Line 10d have been modified to provide 

clarification. 

Comment 47: One comment noted 

that recipients are given a total award 

amount without limitations on when 

those funds can be spent, other than the 

restrictions on the start and end dates of 

each award. However, the instructions 

for Line 10d, ‘‘Total Federal Funds 

Authorized,’’ request recipients to 

report on ‘‘Total Federal funds 

authorized for the current funding 

period.’’ This information is currently 

requested on SF–269 on a cumulative 

basis for an award, not for the current 

reporting period. The comment further 

requests that the same option be 

available to recipients on the FFR and 

that this detail be included in the line 

item instructions. 

Response: Columns I and II for ‘‘Total 

Federal Funds Authorized’’ have been 

eliminated, requiring a cumulative total 

entry only. The instructions for Line 

10d, ‘‘Total Federal Funds Authorized,’’

have been changed to state: ‘‘Enter the 

total Federal funds authorized as of the 

reporting period end date.’’

Comment 48: One comment noted 

that the instruction for Line 11e, 

‘‘Indirect Expense, Federal Share,’’

should explain that this is the amount 

of indirect expense that has been 

combined with direct expenses and 

reported in Lines 10e, 10f, and 10g. 

Response: The FFR instruction at Line 

11e was not modified because we felt it 

would be clearer to the user if we 

modified the instructions at 10e, f and 

g. The FFR instructions at Line 10e, 

‘‘Federal Share of Expenditures,’’have 

been modified to read: ‘‘Expenditures 

are the sum of actual cash 

disbursements for direct charges for 

goods and services, the amount of 

indirect expenses charged to the award, 

and the amount of cash advances and 

payments made to subrecipients and 

subcontractors, minus program income 

expended in accordance with the 

deduction alternative, rebates, refunds 

or other credits.’’ The instructions for 

Line 10f, ‘‘Federal Share of 

Unliquidated Obligations,’’ have been 

modified to read: ‘‘Unliquidated 

obligations reflect expenses incurred 

that have not yet been paid, as of the 

reporting period end date (cash basis), 

or expenses that have been incurred but 

not yet recorded (accrual basis). Enter 

the Federal portion of unliquidated 

obligations, which includes direct and 

indirect expenses incurred but not yet 

paid or charged to the award, including 

amounts due to subrecipients and 

subcontractors. On the final report, this 

line should be zero unless the awarding 

agency has provided specific 

instructions.’’ The instructions for Line 

10g, ‘‘Total Federal Share,’’ were not 

changed because Total Federal Share is 

the sum of Line 10e, ‘‘Federal Share of 

Expenditures’’ and Line 10f, ‘‘Federal 

Share of Unliquidated Obligations,’’ and 

the instructions for these two lines have 

been modified to reflect the treatment of 

indirect expenses. 

Comment 49: One comment noted 

that it is unclear what resources are 

contemplated in the instructions for 

Line 10e, ‘‘Federal Share of 

Expenditures,’’ particularly the phrase 

‘‘the value of in-kind contributions 

applied.’’ OMB’s use of the term ‘‘inkind contributions’’ in circulars and 

related documentation is confined to 

resources related to the non-Federal 

share and is usually modified by the 

term ‘‘third-party’’ to indicate that such 

non-cash contributions come from a 

party other than the Federal agency and 

recipient. As a result, such discussion 

should be included in the section of the 

report related to ‘‘Status of Recipient 

Share.’’

Response: The reference to ‘‘the value 

of in-kind contributions applied’’ has 

been removed from the definition of 

Line 10e, ‘‘Federal Share of 

Expenditures.’’ The instructions for Line 

10j, ‘‘Recipient Share of Expenditures,’’

have been clarified to state: ‘‘This 

amount may include the value of 

allowable in-kind match contributions 

* * *.’’

Comment 50: One comment stated 

that the sentence ‘‘Do not include any 

amounts on Line 10f that have been 

included on Line 10e’’ in the current 

SF–269 instructions for reporting 

unliquidated obligations has been 

dropped from the FFR Instructions for 

Lines 10f and 10k. This sentence is 

needed to control against ‘‘double 

dipping.’’

Response: The instructions for Line 

10f have been clarified to state: ‘‘Do not 

include any amount in Line 10f that has 

been reported in Line 10e.’’ Also, the 

instructions for Line 10k have been 

clarified to state: ‘‘Do not include any 

amount in Line 10k that has been 

reported in Line 10j.’’

Comment 51: One comment indicated 

that the instructions for Line 10i, ‘‘Total 

Recipient Share Required,’’ on the new 

FFR requests recipients to report on 

total recipient share required by 

reporting period, yet some awards 

require recipients to agree to a specific 

match for the entire grant period, which 

means that recipients would be able to 

report their required share only on a 

cumulative basis, rather than on a 

period-by-period basis. Another 

comment asked if the recipient share to 

be provided relates only to mandatory 

cost sharing amounts or if it also 

included committed cost sharing. A 

similar comment requested clarification 

for Lines 10i through 10m to show that 

the terms ‘‘recipient share’’ and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69245 

‘‘recipient funds’’ include all matching 

and cost sharing funds that have been 

committed to the project by the 

recipient and other providers. A fourth 

comment asked whether the amount 

reported on Line 10i includes level of 

effort requirements. 

Response: The FFR has been modified 

to collect only cumulative totals. This 

action eliminates Column I (Previously 

Reported) and Column II (Current 

Period) for all line items. The 

instructions for Line 10i, ‘‘Total 

Recipient Share Required,’’ have been 

amended to state: ‘‘Enter the total 

required recipient share for budget, 

funding, and project periods. The 

required recipient share to be provided 

includes all matching and cost sharing 

provided by recipients and third-party 

providers to meet the level required by 

the Federal agency. This amount should 

not include cost sharing and match 

amounts in excess of the amount 

required by the Federal agency (such as 

cost overruns for which the recipient 

incurs additional expenses and, 

therefore, contributes a greater level of 

cost sharing or matching than the level 

required by the Federal agency).’’

Comment 52: One comment indicated 

that the current long version of SF–269 

allows the agency to break the 

recipient’s share of outlays into in-kind 

and cash matches, while the proposed 

FFR combines in-kind and cash match 

totals and reports them as one figure on 

Line 10i, ‘‘Total Recipient Share 

Required.’’ The comment further asked 

that the FFR be revised to show a break 

in the recipient’s share between in-kind 

and cash matches. Another comment 

suggested using the term ‘‘mandatory’’

cost sharing instead of recipient’s share, 

while another comment asked that the 

word ‘‘required’’ used in front of 

‘‘recipient funds’’ and ‘‘match or cost 

sharing amount’’ be deleted because the 

match actually received may be 

different than what was committed. 

Response: Since documentation 

requirements for third-party and in-kind 

contributions and cash matches are 

virtually the same, no purpose would be 

served by differentiating between the 

two on the FFR. If an agency wants to 

obtain this information, it may do so 

through progress reporting mechanisms. 

Recipients may not universally 

understand the terms ‘‘mandatory’’ and 

‘‘committed’’ in reference to cost 

sharing. As such, introducing these 

terms may result in greater confusion 

than the term ‘‘required recipient 

share,’’ which is currently used. The 

word ‘‘required’’ was not removed from 

the line item instructions because it 

ensures a correct, mutual understanding 

between the recipient and the agency 

regarding the precise amount of match 

required against the funds awarded. The 

match or cost sharing reported may be 

different from the required amount, but 

the amount required has significance for 

this report because adjustments can be 

made prior to or during closeout to 

reconcile differences between actual 

cost sharing amounts and the amount 

required by the Federal agency. 

Comment 53: One comment requested 

that the phrases—(current period only) 

and (This period)—be removed from 

Line 10k, ‘‘Recipient Share of 

Unliquidated Obligations.’’ The shaded 

and unshaded cells for each line item 

are sufficient for determining the period 

of time for which the information needs 

to be reported. As a result, (current 

period only) and (This period) are 

redundant. 

Response: The two phrases were not 

on Line 10k of the form but were in the 

instructions for Line 10k. The two 

phrases have been removed from the 

instructions. The FFR has been modified 

to collect only cumulative totals. The 

instructions for Line 10k now state: 

‘‘Unliquidated obligations reflect 

expenses incurred that have not yet 

been paid, as of the reporting period end 

date. Enter the recipient’s portion of 

unliquidated obligations which includes 

direct and indirect expenses incurred 

but not yet paid or charged to the award, 

including amounts due to subrecipients 

and subcontractors.’’

Comment 54: One comment stated 

that the proposed form includes a new 

line item, Line 10m, ‘‘Remaining 

Recipient Share to be Provided,’’ that 

requires the total recipient share less the 

total recipient share disbursed and 

obligated leaving the remaining 

recipient share to be provided. The 

comment further indicated that this 

information is not useful because the 

recipient frequently does not spend the 

entire grant award, so it does not need 

to provide the entire match shown in 

the grant award. 

Response: Even if the entire amount 

of the award is not spent, the 

information on Line 10m enables the 

Federal agency to readily view required 

and actual recipient share activity and 

make necessary adjustments prior to or 

at time of closeout. The information also 

provides a valuable tool for agencies to 

assess the sufficiency of the recipient’s 

contributions throughout the project or 

grant period, enabling agencies to 

monitor awards, identify deficiencies, 

and make adjustments, as necessary. 

Comment 55: One comment indicated 

that the FFR does not address the three 

methods in which program income can 

be treated. Two comments requested a 

separate line item for identifying 

program income that is used to finance 

the non-Federal share of the project. 

Response: The FFR and instructions 

capture the three ways in which 

program income can be treated. 

Specifically, Line 10o is used for 

program income expended in 

accordance with the deduction 

alternative; Line 10p is used for program 

income expended in accordance with 

the addition alternative; and Line 10j 

may include program income expended 

to meet the recipient’s share of the 

program or project. A separate line item 

for program income used to finance the 

recipient’s share is not necessary 

because the instructions for Line 10j 

state: ‘‘This amount may include the 

value of allowable in-kind match 

contributions and recipient share of 

program income used to finance the 

non-Federal share of the project or 

program.’’

Comment 56: One comment asked 

whether it would be better to include a 

question or a pair of boxes to be checked 

on whether the award in question 

requires the use of the deduction or the 

addition alternative. Alternatively, if the 

award does not include such a 

provision, indicate whether the 

recipient should be required to choose 

one or the other. The form would then 

be arranged so that if the deduction 

alternative were indicated, the Federal 

share of expenditures would be shown 

in total and the amount of program 

income would be deducted from the 

total to arrive at a net, which the federal 

government would need to reimburse. If 

the addition alternative were indicated, 

the recipient would then demonstrate 

the total program income earned, the 

total spent on costs of the program, and 

the amount not used. 

Response: The FFR was not modified 

to ask a question or show boxes 

indicating whether the deduction or 

addition method for program income 

was used because the method used to 

account for program income should be 

evident by virtue of the line items 

completed by the recipient. It should 

also be noted that if the award is silent 

with respect to the treatment of program 

income, the recipient does not have the 

option of choosing the method to be 

utilized. Instead, it is the agency’s 

decision regarding which method is 

used to account for program income 

and, if applicable, the expenditure of 

program income. The instructions for 

Lines 10e and 10o have been modified 

in response to the portion of the 

comment regarding the manner in 

which program income, utilizing the 

deduction alternative, is reported. The 

instruction for Line 10e states: ‘‘Enter 

the amount of Federal fund 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
69246 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 

expenditures. Expenditures are the sum 

of actual cash disbursements for direct 

charges for goods and services, the 

amount of indirect expenses charged to 

the award, and the amount of cash 

advances and payments made to 

subrecipients and subcontractors, minus 

program income expended in 

accordance with the deduction 

alternative, rebates, refunds, or other 

credits.’’ Program Income expended in 

accordance with the deduction 

alternative should be reported 

separately on Line 10o. The instructions 

for Line 10o state: ‘‘Enter the amount of 

program income that was used to reduce 

the Federal share of the total project 

costs.’’ No change was made regarding 

the depiction of program income 

utilizing the addition alternative 

because the current proposal presents 

the amount expended and unexpended 

without requesting extraneous 

information. 

Comment 57: Two comments 

requested that two phrases—(current 

period) and (This Period)—be removed 

from Line 10p,—‘‘Unexpended Program 

Income,’’ because the shaded and 

unshaded cells for each line item are 

sufficient for determining for what 

period of time the information needs to 

be reported. As such, (current period) 

and (This Period) are redundant. 

Response: The phrase (This Period) 

appeared in the instructions for Line 

10p but not on Line 10p of the form. 

The phrase (current period) appeared on 

Line 10p of the form. The phrase 

(current period only) appeared in the 

instructions for Line 10p. These phrases 

have been removed from the 

instructions of the form. The FFR has 

been modified to collect only 

cumulative totals. The instructions for 

Line 10q now state: ‘‘Enter the amount 

of Line 10n minus Line 10o on Line 

10p. This is the amount of program 

income that has been earned but not 

expended, as of the reporting period end 

date.’’

Comment 58: One comment indicated 

that the instructions should include a 

title line for indirect expense; otherwise, 

it appears that indirect expense falls 

under program income. 

Response: The FFR section for 

Indirect Expense has not been modified 

because the separate line number and 

block formatting of the section makes it 

stand out from the preceding section. 

Comment 59: One comment requested 

that Box 11a, ‘‘Indirect Expense, Type of 

Rate,’’ be amended by changing the term 

‘‘Fixed’’ to ‘‘Fixed with Carry-Forward’’

to conform to current practices used by 

Federal agencies. Another comment 

requested that definitions be provided 

for the types of rate identified in Box 

11a (provisional, predetermined, final, 

or fixed). 

Response: The FFR has not been 

modified because the terminology 

‘‘Fixed’’ is currently used in OMB 

Circulars. Also, the type of indirect 

expense rate should be identified in the 

negotiated indirect cost rate agreement 

with the Federal agency or identified in 

the grant agreement. Definitions for each 

type of rate were not added to the FFR 

because at this post-award phase of the 

award cycle, recipients should already 

be aware of their indirect cost rates and 

their meanings. If recipients need 

additional information on indirect cost 

rates, they should consult the cognizant 

agency or OMB cost principles circulars. 

Comment 60: One comment requested 

that the instructions for Line 11b, 

‘‘Indirect Expense Rate,’’ should be 

revised to state: ‘‘Enter the actual 

approved rate in effect during this 

reporting period. This rate should be 

contained in the grant agreement or 

otherwise negotiated.’’ Two comments 

requested that guidance be added to the 

instructions for Line 11b advising 

recipients on how to complete the FFR 

when multiple indirect cost rates apply 

to the reporting period. 

Response: The FFR instructions have 

been modified to state ‘‘Enter the 

indirect cost rate in effect during the 

reporting period. This rate should be 

contained in the grant agreement or 

agreement negotiated with the cognizant 

federal agency.’’

Comment 61: One comment asked 

whether the amount reported in Box 

11e, ‘‘Indirect Expense, Federal Share,’’

was also included in Line 10e, ‘‘Federal 

Share of Expenditures,’’ and Line 10f, 

‘‘Federal Share of Unliquidated 

Obligations.’’

Response: The FFR instructions have 

been modified to explain that the 

amount of indirect expense is combined 

with the Federal share of direct 

expenses and is to be reported on Lines 

10e and 10f. 

Comment 62: One comment noted 

that the language associated with Box 

13, ‘‘Certification,’’ does not convey that 

civil or criminal penalties exist for 

making a knowingly false statement or 

willful misrepresentation in regards to 

the reported information including cash 

receipts and disbursements, and 

expenditures and unliquidated 

obligations. Including such a 

certification would ensure that 

recipients are aware of their 

responsibilities and provide a stronger 

basis for the Federal government to take 

legal action if recipients knowingly 

make a false certification or willful 

misrepresentation. Another comment 

indicated that the instructions should 

state who qualifies as an ‘‘authorized 

certifying official.’’ Still another 

comment asked that the instructions for 

Box 13e, ‘‘Date Report Submitted,’’

prescribe the date format to be used (for 

example, month, day, year). 

Response: Determining who qualifies 

as an ‘‘authorized certifying official’’

should be made by the recipient, not the 

Federal agency. In general, the 

‘‘authorized certifying official’’ has the 

authority to commit the recipient to a 

course of action and agreement, and 

ensure compliance with that action and 

agreement. The FFR has been modified 

to specify a date format and instructions 

for Box 13e have been modified to state: 

‘‘Enter the date the FFR is submitted to 

the Federal agency in the format of 

month, day, year.’’

Comment 63: One comment requested 

that Box 2, ‘‘Federal Grant or Other 

Identifying Number Assigned by the 

Federal Agency,’’ also ask for the name 

of the Federal grant. A second comment 

asked that the legal name of the 

recipient be provided in Box 3, 

‘‘Recipient Organization,’’ while a third 

comment asked that the agency be 

identified on the FFR. A fourth 

comment asked that the recipient’s fax 

number be provided on the FFR. 

Response: Box 2 is intended for the 

award number or other identifying 

number that the Federal awarding 

agency assigns to the grant or 

cooperative agreement. This unique 

number precludes the need to ask 

recipients to provide additional 

identifying information, such as the 

name of the grant program. In addition, 

the recipient’s legal name and fax 

number should be obtained in the preaward phase, if that information is 

pertinent. There is no need to impose an 

undue burden on recipients by 

requesting this information again during 

the reporting phase. 

Comment 64: One comment requested 

that the instructions for Box 8, ‘‘Project/ 

Grant Period,’’ and Box 9, ‘‘Period 

Covered by the Report,’’ be clarified to 

indicate that the two reporting periods 

may not agree since awards are sent out 

late and project activities are often not 

completed by the project or grant period 

end date. Another comment asked that 

the instructions for Box 9 be revised to 

state: ‘‘Enter beginning and ending dates 

of the current reporting period * * *.’’

Response: The first comment most 

likely pertains to the submission of final 

FFRs, in which case the ‘‘Reporting 

Period End Date’’ (Box 9) end date 

should be the same as the ‘‘Project/ 

Grant Period’’ (Box 8) end date. If 

project activities are not completed by 

the project or grant period end date, 

then the recipient should request an 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69247 

extension. If the extension is approved, 

the project or grant period end date (Box 

8) would be extended and the reporting 

period end date (Box 9) on the final FFR 

would be the same as the extended 

project or grant period end date. The 

instructions for Box 9 have been revised 

to state: ‘‘Enter the ending date of the 

reporting period.’’

Comment 65: One agency stated that 

the existing financial reporting forms 

are not inherently burdensome, but they 

often become so because of misuse and 

misinterpretation of their instructions 

by some Federal agencies. One comment 

indicated that the current SF–269 and 

SF–272 function well on their own 

since the recipients for each report are 

distinct and the combined FFR merely 

combines the information requested on 

the current forms into one form, which 

does not decrease the amount of time 

required to submit financial data. 

Another comment indicated that several 

opportunities for streamlining were 

missed. They included eliminating 

interim financial status reports and 

relying on nearly identical data 

submitted quarterly on the Federal Cash 

Transactions Report, reducing the 

frequency with which agencies may 

require reports, and standardizing 

reporting requirements like those for 

outstanding obligations and carry 

forward of unobligated balances. One 

comment asked whether a standardized 

report comparing budgets to actual 

expenditures will be required or will 

this function continue to be left to 

individual program officials. 

Response: Four individual financial 

reports have been combined into one 

FFR with standardized informational 

reporting requirements. Agencies may 

require recipients to provide all of the 

information included on the FFR, but no 

agency can require recipients to provide 

additional information, without 

approval from OMB. The FFR allows for 

flexibility in the frequency of reporting, 

but it establishes uniform reporting 

period end dates and uniform due dates 

for the submission of interim reports. 

Furthermore, the FFR Instructions 

provide clarification and 

standardization with respect to 

reporting on the cash management 

activity and financial status of single or 

multiple awards. Use of the FFR and its 

instructions across the government will 

minimize instances of misuse and 

misinterpretation. Some recipients 

currently complete the SF–269; others 

complete the SF–272, while others 

complete both forms, depending on 

agency reporting requirements. These 

forms serve both distinct and 

overlapping populations. As such, 

having an FFR that encompasses both 

financial status activity (currently 

resident on the SF–269) and cash 

management activity (the SF–272) 

allows agencies to preserve reporting 

flexibilities while serving distinct and 

overlapping populations with one form. 

Furthermore, completing the FFR 

reduces the number of data elements 

that are currently required on the 

current SF–269 and SF–272. Interim 

FFRs were not eliminated because the 

information submitted on those reports 

depicts information that does not appear 

on the Federal Cash Transaction Report. 

Many agencies need that information 

during interim timeframes throughout 

the project or grant period to adequately 

monitor the financial status of their 

awards. The frequency with which 

agencies may require submission of 

FFRs remains flexible because their 

needs differ in terms of the related risks 

associated with a particular program or 

award. The scope of the FFR proposal 

was not designed to address an agency’s 

internal policies regarding financial 

management of grant and cooperative 

agreement funds, nor was it designed to 

be used as a tool to compare budgets to 

actual expenditures. Instead, the FFR 

provides a standardized format through 

which recipients report on the cash 

management and financial status of 

grants and cooperative agreements in 

accordance with each agency’s existing 

internal policies. 

Comment 66: One comment indicated 

that the proposed change does not 

contain information about OMB’s plans 

to revise Circulars A–102 and A–110. 

Those circulars prescribe the use of the 

current forms that would be replaced by 

the FFR. 

Response: OMB issued the proposed 

revisions to Circulars A–102 and A–110 

as a way of initiating changes associated 

with several government-wide grant 

streamlining initiatives. 

III. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request. 

Title: Federal Financial Report (FFR). 

OMB No.: New Collection. 

Description: In furtherance of Public 

Law 106–107, and its goal of 

streamlining the Federal grant process, 

the Federal Financial Report (FFR) will 

reduce the burden and reporting effort 

on recipients by consolidating four 

forms into one. The purpose of the FFR 

is to give recipients of grants and 

cooperative agreements a standard 

format for reporting the financial status 

of their grants and cooperative 

agreements (hereby referred to 

collectively as awards). 

Respondents: Federal agencies and 

their assistance recipients. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 2.00. 

Estimated Cost: There is no expected 

cost to the respondents or to OMB. 

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Instrument Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average burden 

hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

Federal Financial Report (FFR) ....................................................... 1 1 1.50 1.50 

Federal Financial Report (FFR) Attachment ................................... 1 1 0.50 0.50 

Total .......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 2.00 

Agencies and the public are asked to 

comment on: 

• Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the collection 

of information; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

• 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; 

and 

• Estimates of capital or start-up costs 

and costs of operation, maintenance, 

and purchase of services to provide 

information. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
69248 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 

IV. Summary of Actions 

OMB, through this Federal Register 

publication, is establishing the 

government-wide FFR. The FFR 

provides a standard format from which 

agencies can determine data elements 

that recipients must complete to report 

on the cash management and financial 

status of single or multiple awards. 

Consistent with government-wide grant 

streamlining objectives, the FFR will 

result in the use of standard reporting 

period end dates and due dates for the 

submission of cash management and 

financial information. 

This establishment of the governmentwide FFR requires amendments to OMB 

Circulars A–110 (2 CFR part 215) and 

A–102. Those amendments will be 

published under a separate notice. We 

also recognize that a transition period 

will be necessary to provide agencies 

and grantees with time to adapt their 

processes to the new form and phase out 

the use of old ones. When the FFR is 

approved by OMB, the SF–269, SF–

269A, SF–272 and SF–272A may 

continue to be accepted by agencies 

until September 30, 2008. Agencies 

must determine the earliest practical 

time that their recipients will transition 

to using the FFR on or before September 

30, 2008. 

Danny Werfel, 

Acting Controller. 

Attachments 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69249 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESEN07DE07.027</GPH>
69250 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESEN07DE07.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69251 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESEN07DE07.029</GPH>
69252 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESEN07DE07.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69253 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESEN07DE07.031</GPH>
69254 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESEN07DE07.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69255 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESEN07DE07.033</GPH>
69256 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICESEN07DE07.034</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 235 / Friday, December 7, 2007 / Notices 69257 

[FR Doc. 07–5941 Filed 12–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–C 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Excepted Service 

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This gives notice of OPM 

decisions granting authority to make 

appointments under Schedules A, B, 

and C in the excepted service as 

required by 5 CFR 6.6 and 213.103. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. 

Penn, Group Manager, Executive 

Resources Services Group, Center for 

Human Resources, Division for Human 

Capital Leadership and Merit System 

Accountability, 202–606–2246. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Appearing 

in the listing below are the individual 

authorities established under Schedules 

A, B, and C between October 1, 2007, 

and October 31, 2007. Future notices 

will be published on the fourth Tuesday 

of each month, or as soon as possible 

thereafter. A consolidated listing of all 

authorities as of June 30 is published 

each year. 

Schedule A 

No Schedule A appointments were 

approved for October 2007. 

Schedule B 

No Schedule B appointments were 

approved for October 2007. 

Schedule C 

The following Schedule C 

appointments were approved during 

October 2007. 

Section 213.3303 Executive Office of 

the President 

Office of Management and Budget 

BOGS70031 Executive Assistant to the 

Associate Director for Natural 

Resource Programs. Effective October 

11, 2007. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

QQGS70016 Legislative Assistant to 

the Associate Director Office of 

Legislative Affairs. Effective October 

19, 2007. 

Office of the United States Trade 

Representative 

TNGS70008 Deputy Assistant United 

States Trade Representative for 

Congressional Affairs to the Assistant 

United States Trade Representative 

for Congressional Affairs. Effective 

October 03, 2007. 

Section 213.3304 Department of State 

DSGS61264 Special Assistant to the 

Director, Policy Planning Staff. 

Effective October 02, 2007. 

DSGS61263 Special Assistant to the 

Assistant Secretary for Democracy 

Human Rights and Labor. Effective 

October 10, 2007. 

DSGS61260 Staff Assistant to the 

Ambassador-At-Large (War Crimes). 

Effective October 11, 2007. 

DSGS61262 Legislative Management 

Officer to the Assistant Secretary for 

Legislative and Intergovernmental 

Affairs. Effective October 16, 2007. 

DSGS61265 Senior Advisor to the 

Secretary of State. Effective October 

26, 2007. 

Section 213.3306 Department of 

Defense 

DDGS17113 Staff Assistant to the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Western Hemisphere Affairs). 

Effective October 02, 2007. 

DDGS17117 Special Assistant to the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Legislative Affairs). Effective October 

03, 2007. 

DDGS17108 Staff Assistant to the 

Principal Deputy to the Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense (Asian and 

Pacific Security Affairs). Effective 

October 09, 2007. 

DDGS17095 Staff Assistant for 

Correspondence to the Special 

Assistant to the Secretary and Deputy 

Secretary of Defense. Effective 

October 11, 2007. 

Section 213.3310 Department of 

Justice 

DJGS00067 Chief of Staff to the 

Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Justice Programs. Effective October 

02, 2007. 

DJGS00229 Public Affairs Specialist to 

the Director, Office of Public Affairs. 

Effective October 10, 2007. 

Section 213.3311 Department of 

Homeland Security 

DMGS00717 Special Assistant to the 

Assistant Secretary for Private Sector. 

Effective October 03, 2007. 

DMGS00719 Confidential Assistant to 

the White House Liaison. Effective 

October 11, 2007. 

DMGS00721 Confidential Assistant to 

the Executive Secretary. Effective 

October 11, 2007. 

DMGS00722 Advisor to the Executive 

Officer. Effective October 17, 2007. 

DMGS00720 Confidential Assistant to 

the Chief of Staff. Effective October 

24, 2007. 

DMGS00724 Advisor to the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy. Effective October 

31, 2007. 

Section 213.3312 Department of the 

Interior 

DIGS01109 Associate Director—

Congressional and Legislative Affairs 

to the Director, Congressional and 

Legislative Affairs. Effective October 

16, 2007. 

DIGS01108 Special Assistant for 

Public Affairs to the Director, Take 

Pride In America. Effective October 

24, 2007. 

DIGS01110 Chief of Staff to the 

Director Minerals Management 

Service. Effective October 25, 2007. 

Section 213.3313 Department of 

Agriculture 

DAGS00921 Confidential Assistant to 

the Assistant Secretary for 

Congressional Relations. Effective 

October 03, 2007. 

DAGS00917 Special Assistant to the 

Under Secretary for Natural Resources 

and Environment. Effective October 

11, 2007. 

DAGS00922 Associate Administrator 

to the Administrator, Rural Housing 

Service. Effective October 11, 2007. 

DAGS00924 Staff Assistant to the 

Administrator for Risk Management. 

Effective October 29, 2007. 

Section 213.3314 Department of 

Commerce 

DCGS00684 Director for 

Speechwriting to the Director of 

Public Affairs. Effective October 04, 

2007. 

DCGS00353 Confidential Assistant to 

the Assistant Secretary and Director 

General of United States/For 

Commercial Services. Effective 

October 19, 2007. 

DCGS00161 Confidential Assistant to 

the Director, Office of Legislative 

Affairs. Effective October 26, 2007. 

DCGS00448 Confidential Assistant to 

the Assistant Secretary for Market 

Access and Compliance. Effective 

October 26, 2007. 

Section 213.3315 Department of Labor 

DLGS60093 Staff Assistant to the 

Director of Scheduling. Effective 

October 03, 2007. 

DLGS60113 Special Assistant to the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Disability Employment Policy. 

Effective October 03, 2007. 

DLGS60081 Legislative Assistant to 

the Assistant Secretary for 

Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Affairs. Effective October 17, 2007. 

DLGS60194 Special Assistant to the 

Associate Deputy Secretary. Effective 

October 17, 2007. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES