OMB proposes several revisions to increase transparency regarding Federal spending as required by FFATA, as amended by the DATA Act, which mandates Federal agencies to report Federal appropriations received or expended by Federal agencies and non-Federal entities. OMB also proposes revisions to the reporting thresholds to further align financial assistance requirements with those of the Federal acquisition community.
OMB also proposes to make changes throughout 2 CFR to make it clear that Federal agencies may receive Federal financial assistance awards. This will increase transparency for Federal awards received by Federal agencies.
To further align implementation of FFATA, as amended by DATA Act, between the Federal financial assistance and acquisition communities, OMB proposes revisions to Federal awarding agency and pass-through entity reporting thresholds. For Federal awarding agencies, OMB proposes revisions to 2 CFR part 170 to require agencies to report Federal awards that equal or exceed the micro-purchase threshold as set by the FAR at 48 CFR subpart 2.1. Consistent with the FAR threshold for subcontract reporting, OMB is proposing to raise the reporting threshold for subawards that equal or exceed $30,000. OMB seeks comments that includes an analysis on the advantages and disadvantages of raising this threshold.
Currently, Federal awarding agencies have the flexibility to exempt this requirement for awards valued at less than $25,000. Federal awarding agencies may exempt the registration requirement up to $100,000 in cases where the agency has conducted a risk-based analysis and deems it impractical for the entity to comply with the requirements(s). OMB proposes this revision after receiving feedback from the international community that requiring certain foreign entities to register in SAM introduces substantial burden with no significant value for the Federal awarding agency. Federal awarding agencies will remain responsible for reporting these awards for transparency purposes. Recognizing the benefits of SAM registration, OMB is interested in feedback in support or against the proposal to raise the threshold.
Finally, OMB proposes requiring Federal awarding agencies to associate Financial Assistance Listings with the authorizing statute to make listings more consistent. This supports implementation of the DATA Act which requires agencies to report award level Financial Assistance Listings information for display on .
OMB seeks comments on whether the proposed revisions increase transparency regarding Federal spending and support implementation of the DATA Act
OMB proposes a revision to 2 CFR Compensation-fringe benefits to allow states to conform with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), specifically Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 68, and to continue to claim pension costs that are both actual and funded. OMB proposes this revision because GASB issued Statement 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions which amends GASB Statement 27 and allows non- Start Printed Page 3772 Federal entities (NFE) to claim only estimated pension costs in their financial statements. OMB’s revision will allow non-Federal entities to continue to claim pension costs that are both actual and funded.
The definition for “Improper Payment” has been revised to refer to the authoritative source for clarity, OMB Circular A-123-Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control in Federal Agencies, Appendix C-Requirements for Payment Integrity Improvement. In addition, both the “Improper Payment” and “Questioned Cost” definitions have been revised to clarify that questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C.
III. Clarifying Requirements Regarding Areas of Misinterpretation
Following the publication of the Uniform Guidance, OMB received a substantial amount of questions from stakeholders requesting clarifications about key aspects of the guidance. In other instances, it has come to OMB’s attention that the interpretation of certain provisions was not consistent with the intent of the Uniform Guidance. In response, OMB proposes a number of clarifications that are aimed at reducing recipient administration burden and ensuring consistent interpretation of guidance.