[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4563-4567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1262]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
National Science and Technology Council; Research Business Models
Subcommittee of the Committee on Science
ACTION: Final Notice of Standard Terms and Conditions for Research
Grants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Effective with publication of this Notice in the Federal
Register, research agencies will be able to utilize a new standard core
set of administrative terms and conditions on research and research-
related awards that are subject to OMB Circular A-110, ``Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations'' (2
CFR part 215).
This resulted from an initiative of the Research Business Models
(RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a committee of
the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). One of the RBM
Subcommittee's priority areas is to create greater consistency in the
administration of Federal research awards. Given the increasing
complexity of interdisciplinary and interagency research, it has become
increasingly important for Federal agencies to manage awards in a
similar fashion.
In 2000, the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP), a cooperative
initiative among 10 Federal agencies and 98 institutional recipients of
research funds, developed Standard Terms and Conditions as a model
implementation of OMB Circular A-110. It was demonstrated that these
terms were an effective set of requirements for many agency research
awards. In 2005, following public and agency comment on the original
FDP terms, final standard terms and conditions were developed by RBM.
With this final notice, research agencies and awarding offices that
participate in the FDP, must use the core set of administrative
requirements, to the maximum practicable extent, in research and
research-related grant awards to organizations that are subject to 2
CFR part 215. Likewise, agencies that have not participated in the FDP
may elect to use these terms on selective awards to their research
recipients.
The Government-wide core set of administrative requirements are
posted on the NSF Web site at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rtc/index.jsp. As changes are made in the future, NSF will maintain both
the current version and an archive of earlier versions. Research
agencies will post their plans for implementing the administrative
requirements either on the RBM subcommittee Web site, http://rbm.nih.gov, or on their own Web site, in which case the RBM
subcommittee will provide a link from its site to the agency's
location.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Research Terms
and Conditions, contact Jean Feldman, Head, Policy Office, Division of
Institution & Support, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd,
Arlington, VA 22230, e-mail: [email protected]; telephone (703) 292-
8243; FAX: (703) 292-9171. For further information on the NSTC RBM
Subcommittee, contact Diane DiEuliis, at the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; e-mail:
[email protected]; telephone 202-456-6059; FAX 202-456-6027. See
also the RBM Subcommittee's Web site: http://rbm.nih.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose of Today's Federal Register Notice
This proposal is an initiative of the Research Business Models
(RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a committee of
the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). One of RBM
Subcommittee's priority areas is greater consistency in the
administration of Federal research awards. Given the increasing
complexity of interdisciplinary and interagency research, it has become
increasingly important for Federal agencies to manage awards in a
similar fashion.
Federal agencies' awarding offices currently include different
award requirements, use different language to state the same
requirements, and organize the award content differently. The variation
in format and content of these terms and conditions of awards increases
both administrative effort and costs for recipients. Because
requirements arise from common government-wide statutes and
regulations, as well as OMB circulars, their standardization is
possible.
In 2000, the ten Federal agencies and awarding offices and 98
research
[[Page 4564]]
institutions that participate in the Federal Demonstration Partnership
(FDP) developed a core set of terms and conditions for research grants.
Those terms and conditions modeled administrative requirements
implementing Government-wide requirements in 2 CFR part 215, ``Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations''
(OMB Circular A-110). They also included supplementary documents for
national policy requirements and requirements that flow down to sub-
awards.
In 2003, the RBM Subcommittee asked for public comments on Federal
policies and procedures related to business practices that could be
changed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of
the nation's research enterprise. One issue raised was inconsistency in
the terms and conditions for different agencies' research grants, as
described above. Increased use of the previously developed core set of
FDP terms and conditions was suggested as one way to address the issue.
The RBM Subcommittee, with the approval of the CoS, therefore undertook
an initiative to refine the administrative requirements developed by
FDP for Government-wide use. The subcommittee proposed the
administrative requirements for comment in the Federal Register [70 FR
4159, January 28, 2005].
Public comments were received from a wide variety of respondents,
including twelve institutions of higher education; two non-profit
organizations; two associations of academic and nonprofit institutions;
components of six Federal agencies; and a group of universities that
participate in FDP. All comments were considered in developing a final
version of standardized administrative terms and conditions. Sixteen of
the seventeen public comments strongly supported the overall proposal
to create a government-wide standard core set of terms and conditions,
citing the advantages of increased consistency in Federal agencies'
award terms and reduced administrative burdens and costs. A number of
specific issues were raised, and those comments and responses are
summarized in Section II. In addition to the changes described, other
editorial changes were made to correct typographical errors, to update
references to sections of OMB Circulars A-21 and A-122, to conform with
recent amendments to those circulars, and to increase readability.
Research agencies and awarding offices participating in the FDP
should use this final core set of administrative requirements, to the
maximum practicable extent, in research and research-related grant
awards to organizations that are subject to 2 CFR part 215. Those
agencies and awarding offices may supplement the core set with agency
specific, program specific, or award specific administrative
requirements, but should limit supplemental requirements to those that
are: (1) Consistent with 2 CFR part 215 or required by a statute that
supersedes that part; and (2) necessary for programmatic purposes or
good stewardship of Federal funds. Other agencies and awarding offices
that are not participating in the FDP are encouraged to replace
administrative requirements in awards to organizations that are subject
to 2 CFR part 215 with the core set of standard requirements that the
RBM subcommittee developed and similarly limit their supplementation of
those standard requirements. Research agencies also are encouraged to
apply the administrative requirements to cooperative agreements.
In addition to the standard terms and conditions, two additional
documents have been developed: Sub-award flow-down requirements and a
matrix that contains national policy requirements. These documents are
available electronically on the NSF Web site at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rtc/index.jsp. Federal agencies' are encouraged to use
these documents as tools to precisely set forth which national policy
laws and regulations apply to their recipients, and what requirements
flow down to sub-recipients in their research grants. Each agency also
is encouraged to use the documents that the FDP maintains for national
policy requirements and requirements that flow down to sub-recipients.
An agency may revise the FDP documents as needed for currency,
completeness, and applicability to the agency's programs. See section
below for implementation guidance issued to agencies.
II. Comments and Responses
Comment: One Federal organization suggested that the RBM
Subcommittee should work with the Pre-Award Work Group, an interagency
group working to implement the Federal Financial Assistance Management
Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-107) by developing standard terms
and conditions, and restructuring current OMB circulars.
Response: Leaders and members of the Pre-Award Work Group were
active participants in conceiving and developing the RBM Subcommittee
proposal as the first of two linked initiatives on terms and
conditions. The second of the two initiatives, led by the Pre-Award
Work Group, ultimately should yield a better solution to standardizing
the format and content of all Federal grants and cooperative
agreements, including awards for research activities. The second
initiative, when completed, would replace the guidance currently in OMB
Circulars A-102 and A-110 with standard award terms and OMB guidance to
Federal agencies on the use of those award terms. Standard award terms
would communicate administrative requirements more clearly to
recipients than the current language in the circulars, which often
speaks simultaneously to recipients, agency grants policy officials,
and/or agency officials who award and administer grants; thus it is not
always clear which audience(s) is being addressed. The Pre-Award Work
Group's initiative understandably is a longer-term solution because it
entails a major restructuring of the current OMB guidance in the
circulars.
The RBM proposal cannot realize all of the advantages of the
longer-term Pre-Award Work Group initiative because it must operate
within the current structure of OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110.
Nonetheless, agency staff determined that broadening use of the FDP
terms and conditions is worthwhile as an interim approach, pending
completion of the Pre-Award Work Group's effort. That judgment was also
supported by public comments received in response to the January 2005
Federal Register notice. Commenters strongly supported interim use of
FDP terms and conditions as a way to increase consistency and reduce
unnecessary burdens for the research community. Given that the research
community also is an important part of the broader recipient community
that ultimately will benefit from the Pre-Award Work Group's
initiative, it is notable that commenters also expressed support for
completing that longer-term initiative.
Comment: A number of commenters offered different perspectives on
the following question in the January 2005 Federal Register notice:
``Are the terms and conditions easy to use and understand?'' Six
universities affirmed that they were easy to use and understand. One of
the six, however, attributed this to the fact that they were a long-
term FDP participant and therefore very familiar with the terms and
conditions. It was suggested that accommodation may need to be made for
institutions that were not yet familiar with them. Implicit support for
[[Page 4565]]
that suggestion was provided by comments from two Federal organizations
and a nonprofit research organization that are not FDP participants.
Uncertainty regarding the interrelationship between the FDP terms and
conditions and OMB Circular A-110 was also noted. The nonprofit
organization stated that the administrative requirements would be
cumbersome to use because they cross-reference OMB Circular A-110 with
some ``clarifications,'' rather than maintaining the integrity of the
circular and creating a ``generic'' set of supplemental terms. One
Federal organization stated that inconsistent wording of the terms and
conditions used to incorporate or refer to sections of OMB Circular A-
110 could cause confusion about which requirements in the circular
applied and which were modified by the terms and conditions. Another
Federal agency was unsure how the terms and conditions related to its
regulation implementing OMB Circular A-110.
Response: New articles 60 and 70 were added and the language that
refers to OMB Circular A-110 was revised in Articles 1, 2, 5, 10, 20,
23, 24, 30, 35, 40, 50, 52, 61, and 62 of the terms and conditions, in
order to state more clearly how each article implements, rather than
clarifies, the corresponding section of the circular. No article in the
terms and conditions includes any deviations from OMB Circular A-110.
Agencies are bound by their regulations (or other form of
implementation) that codified OMB Circular A-110, so there is no
potential for the terms and conditions to deviate from an agency's
regulation implementing the circular as long as the regulation provides
the agency with the same flexibility that is in the circular.
Comment: Three comments questioned how the government-wide standard
core set of terms and conditions will be maintained after they are
established. One commenter urged that a stringent review process in
consultation with stakeholders and public comment be developed prior to
finalizing changes to the terms and conditions. Two other commenters
suggested that the FDP continue to manage the process for future
changes.
Response: OSTP will review agency implementation plans to ensure a
well-managed and disciplined process for maintaining the core set of
terms and conditions.
Comment: One commenter asked if the general terms and conditions
that were in effect on the effective date of an award would be
applicable throughout the full term of the award. Noting that the terms
of an award could otherwise be changed unilaterally by the awarding
agency, without the recipient's knowledge, the commenter further stated
that any change in award terms should require a bilateral agreement
between the agency and the recipient.
Response: In establishing a standard core set of terms and
conditions available for use by the research agencies, there is no
intention to alter good business procedures that agencies use to make
awards or amend their terms. To the best of our knowledge, no agency
applies new terms and conditions retroactively to existing awards
unless they are required to do so by a Federal statute, Executive
Order, or other external requirement. Similarly, at the time of award,
or when notified of a prospective amendment to the terms and conditions
of an existing award, a recipient can negotiate with the awarding
agency. If the agency has no flexibility to alter an award term imposed
by an external requirement, or is not otherwise willing to modify the
award term, the recipient may elect to decline a new award or terminate
an existing one without accepting the amendment. In no case should an
agency amend award terms and conditions without a recipient's
knowledge.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding language in the
administrative requirements to Article 4, ``Deviations,'' to require an
agency to respond in a reasonable time frame to a recipient's request
for a waiver or deviation from a provision of the award terms and
conditions.
Response: Agree. Two sentences were added to Article 4 to require
an agency to notify the recipient within 30 calendar days of receiving
a request for waiver or deviation. The notification would inform the
recipient whether the request is approved or, if the agency still is
considering the request, when the recipient may expect a decision.
Comment: One Federal organization recommended revising the
definition of ``equipment'' in Article 2 to clarify what requirements
apply to an item of property with an acquisition cost that is less than
$5,000, should a recipient establish a lower dollar threshold than the
Federally mandated threshold for distinguishing between equipment and
supplies. The commenter noted that the proposed definition improperly
exempted the item from all of the requirements in Articles 33 and 34 of
the award and pointed out that an agency rarely, if ever, has the
authority to waive requirements in Article 33 for Federally owned
property. The commenter further suggested that an agency should not
waive the requirement in Article 34 for a recipient to account for
equipment purchased with Federal funds to ensure that (1) it is not
later included as a contribution toward cost sharing under another
Federal award; or (2)depreciation or use charges for the item are not
included later in a proposal for indirect or Facilities and
Administration costs under OMB Circular A-122 or A-21.
Response: Agree. The definition of ``equipment'' was revised to
clarify that the two requirements apply, as noted by the commenter.
Comment: One Federal organization recommended deleting paragraph
(a) in the proposed Article 23, ``Cost sharing or matching.'', as it
appeared to have been included in anticipation of an amendment to OMB
Circular A-110 that was not made. The commenter suggested an
appropriate reference would be to a memorandum issued by OMB in lieu of
amending the circular (OMB Memorandum M-01-06; ``Clarification of OMB
A-21 Treatment of Voluntary Uncommitted Cost Sharing and Tuition
Remission Costs;'' January 5, 2001; available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m01-06.html.)
Response: Agree. The paragraph was deleted and a reference was
added to the memorandum. We made a conforming change to paragraph (a)
of Article 25 by adding a reference to the same OMB memorandum.
Comment: Two Federal organizations recommended that paragraph
(b)(3) of the proposed Article 25, ``Revision of budget and program
plans,'' did not adequately state limits on Federal agency liability
related to funding amounts that the recipient and the agency anticipate
being available in the future under an award.
Response: Agree. The paragraph was revised as recommended.
Comment: A Federal organization recommended deleting paragraph
(c)(5) in the proposed Article 25, ``Revision of budget and program
plans.'' The commenter suggested that the proposed language in the
paragraph appeared to waive all prior approval requirements in the cost
principles for institutions of higher education, OMB Circular A-21,
which contradicted other provisions in Articles 25 and 27 of the terms
and conditions.
Response: Agree. Paragraph (c)(5) of Article 25 was deleted, the
substance of which was addressed elsewhere in Articles 25 and 27.
Comment: A Federal organization recommended including in Article
25, ``Revision of budget and program plans,'' the requirement contained
in paragraph (k) of section ---- .25 of OMB
[[Page 4566]]
Circular A-110 for a recipient to promptly notify the awarding agency
if it learns that it will not need all of the funds planned for a
project.
Response: Agree. A new paragraph (e) to Article 25 was added to
implement that paragraph of OMB Circular A-110.
Comment: One commenter recommended replacing the word ``phenomena''
in the proposed paragraph (a)(2) of Article 27, ``Allowable costs,''
with ``field of study'' or ``scientific or technical area under
study.'' Paragraph (a)(2) contains a clarification to supplement
language in OMB Circular A-21, the cost principles for institutions of
higher education, that provides guidance for allocation of costs by
principal investigators among interrelated research projects. The
commenter suggested that ``phenomena'' connoted an end product of a
project.
Response: No change. Being in the same field of study or scientific
or technical area is not sufficiently specific to describe interrelated
projects for allocation of costs. The proposed language referring to
study of the same ``phenomena,'' or different ``phenomena'' using the
same techniques, is appropriate.
Comment: One nonprofit organization asked if the intent in the
proposed Article 28 was to allow costs associated with production of a
final report for a project, even if those costs were incurred after the
end of the project period. A Federal organization suggested replacing
the phrase ``costs incidental to the production of the final report''
in Article 28 with the phrase ``costs allocable to the production of
the final report,'' to be clear that ability to allocate is a condition
for the allowance of the costs.
Response: In response to the first commenter's question, the intent
is to allow the costs for producing a final report that a Federal
agency requires under an award. A recipient may incur costs for that
purpose after the end of the project period since final reports
generally are not due until 90 days thereafter. The wording change
suggested by the second commenter was not made.
Comment: A nonprofit organization asked that we refer to the
appropriate sections of OMB Circular A-122, the cost principles for
nonprofit organizations, in Article 32 on real property and in
paragraph (c) of Article 34 on equipment. Those articles only referred
to OMB Circular A-21, the cost principles for institutions of higher
education.
Response: The recommended change was made because the
administrative requirements are intended for use in awards to nonprofit
organizations, as well as institutions of higher education. For the
same reason, in each paragraph that used the term ``Facilities and
Administrative costs,'' the term was replaced with ``indirect and
Facilities and Administrative costs'' if the paragraph applies to both
nonprofit organizations (for which the term ``indirect costs'' is used)
and institutions of higher education (for which the term ``Facilities
and Administrative costs'' is used).
Comment: One commenter suggested that the meaning of ``encumber''
was not clear in the following requirement in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
Article 34: ``The recipient may not encumber the equipment without the
approval of the Federal awarding agency.'' The commenter offered that
the language in OMB Circular A-110, which also uses ``encumber,'' is
clearer.
Response: No change. ``Encumber'' also is used in the commercial
sector to refer to burdening property with obligations (e.g., through
assigning, pledging, leasing, or accepting liens against property, or
using it as security). The wording of the requirement in Article 34 is
almost identical to the language used in OMB Circular A-110.
Comment: A Federal organization recommended dropping paragraph (a)
of Article 35, ``Supplies,'' because it appeared to contradict the
initial sentence of that Article. The initial sentence said that the
requirements in section ---- .35 of OMB Circular A-110 applied to
supplies acquired under an award. Paragraph (a) then stated that title
to supplies would vest unconditionally in the recipient unless agency-
specific requirements provided otherwise, which appears to mean that
the requirements in section ---- .35 do not apply.
Response: Agree. Paragraph (a) was deleted.
Comment: Two commenters recommended changes to paragraph (e) of
Article 40, ``Procurement,'' which concerns reviews of recipients'
procurement systems conducted by the Office of Naval Research (ONR).
One nonprofit organization suggested broadening the paragraph to
recognize other known agency relationships with recipients than just
those of ONR, so as not to conflict with the intent of the Single Audit
Act. A Federal organization recommended revising the requirement for a
recipient to notify ONR of any major change(s) to its procurement
system, if the system had been approved previously by ONR. The
commenter noted that the wording permitted a recipient to wait to
notify ONR until after it made a change and recommended we instead
require the recipient to notify ONR of any proposed major change.
Response: The change recommended by the second commenter was made,
but not the change suggested by the first commenter because the
requirement as written only applies if a recipient's procurement system
was reviewed and approved by ONR. Staff are not aware of other
cognizant agencies that currently perform reviews of procurement
systems of nonprofit research institutions and are aware of other
agencies (and research institutions under other agencies' cognizance)
having asked ONR to conduct reviews for them.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we replace the language on
publication of research results in paragraph (a) of Article 51 with
language that the National Science Foundation (NSF) includes in its
awards. The commenter suggested that the NSF language more clearly
defines the recipient's obligations concerning publications, factoring
in intellectual property rights, publication costs, and researchers'
interests.
Response: No change to the core set of terms and conditions. The
NSF award term covering publications and data is based on a policy of
the National Science Board, the NSF's policy and oversight body. Other
agencies have policies that vary from the NSF policy and some have a
statutory basis. Therefore, the NSF policy appropriately belongs in an
agency-specific award term that supplements the core set of
administrative terms and conditions.
Comment: One nonprofit and one Federal organization noted that
Article 52, ``Financial reporting,'' only informs a recipient about the
reporting requirement that applies if payments are made in advance. The
nonprofit organization asked if we intended to discontinue requirements
that previously applied when a recipient did not request advance
payments. The Federal organization recommended adding language about
the requirement that applies if payments are made using the
reimbursement method.
Response: A sentence was added to Article 52 to refer a recipient
to the agency-specific terms and conditions for financial reporting
requirements that apply if payments are made using the reimbursement
method.
Comment: A Federal organization recommended removing the last
sentence of paragraph (a) in Article 53, ``Retention and access
requirements for records,'' from the core set of terms and conditions
because it contained a
[[Page 4567]]
clarification of the requirement for records retention that applied
only to NSF awards.
Response: Agree. The sentence was removed and NSF will include in
its agency-specific terms and conditions that supplement the core set
of administrative requirements.
Comment: A Federal organization suggested adding a reference in
Article 54 to National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189,
``National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and
Engineering Information,'' as recommended by the National Academies in
a Congressionally requested report.
Response: Article 54 has been revised to a more streamlined form,
however, the suggested reference to NSDD-189 was not added.
Comment: A Federal organization recommended deleting paragraph (b)
of Article 72 ``Subsequent adjustments and continuing
responsibilities.'' The commenter noted that paragraph (b) of Article
72 was redundant because it restated one of the requirements in section
---- .72 of OMB Circular A-110, all of which already were incorporated
by Paragraph (a) of Article 72.
Response: Agree. Paragraph (b) of Article 72 was deleted.
III. Final Administrative Requirements and Future Steps
The final version of the standard research terms and conditions
which incorporate the changes discussed in the preceding Sections I and
II of Supplementary Information, may be viewed at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rtc/index.jsp. Agencies will post their plans for
implementing the administrative requirements either at the RBM
subcommittee Web site at: http://rbm.nih.gov, or at its own Web site
(in which case the RBM subcommittee will provide a link from its site
to the agency's location).
To the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies:
Subject: Policy on Terms and Conditions for Research Grants
1. Purpose: This policy allows all research agencies to utilize a
new standard core set of administrative terms and conditions on
research and research-related awards.
2. Authority: This policy is an implementation of OMB Circular A-
110, ``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements
With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit
Organizations'' (2 CFR part 215).
3. Background: This policy resulted from an initiative of the
Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science
(CoS), a committee of the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC). One of the RBM Subcommittee's priority areas is to create
greater consistency in the administration of Federal research awards.
Given the increasing complexity of interdisciplinary and interagency
research, it has become increasingly important for Federal agencies to
manage awards in a similar fashion.
4. Policy:
a. Use of Government-wide core set of administrative requirements.
Research agencies and awarding offices participating in the FDP must
use the core set of administrative requirements, to the maximum
practicable extent, in research and research-related grant awards to
organizations that are subject to 2 CFR part 215. Those agencies and
awarding offices may supplement the core set with agency specific,
program specific, or award specific administrative requirements, but
should limit supplemental requirements to those that are: (1)
Consistent with 2 CFR part 215 or required by a statute that supersedes
that part; and (2) necessary for programmatic purposes or good
stewardship of Federal funds. Other agencies and awarding offices that
are not participating in the FDP are encouraged to replace
administrative requirements in awards to organizations that are subject
to 2 CFR part 215 with the core set of standard requirements that the
RBM subcommittee developed and similarly limit their supplementation of
those standard requirements.
b. Use of FDP national policy and subaward requirements. Each
agency also is encouraged to use the documents that the FDP maintains
for national policy requirements and requirements that flow down to
subrecipients. An agency may revise the FDP documents as needed for
currency, completeness, and applicability to the agency's programs. The
documents are available at the FDP site maintained by the National
Science Foundation (NSF): http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rtc/index.jsp.
c. Maintenance of the administrative requirements. As Federal
requirements evolve, the RBM subcommittee will update the core set of
administrative requirements as needed to maintain it as a standard
implementation of 2 CFR Part 215. Significant changes will be
coordinated with the Office of Management and Budget, approved by the
Grants Policy Committee of the Chief Financial Officers Council, and
adopted after opportunity for public comment.
d. Posting of the administrative requirements. NSF will post the
Government-wide core set of administrative requirements on the NSF Web
site: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rtc/index.jsp. As changes are
made in the future, NSF will maintain both the current version and an
archive of earlier versions.
e. Agency implementation plans. Each CoS member agency will post
its plan for implementing the administrative requirements either at the
RBM subcommittee site, http://rbm.nih.gov, or at its own Web site (in
which case the RBM subcommittee will provide a link from its site to
the agency's location).
f. Effective dates. This policy is effective with publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. It remains in effect as long as
the core set of requirements is consistent with Government-wide
administrative requirements, which currently are in 2 CFR part 215. The
core set will be superseded when Government-wide terms and conditions
are established for all Federal grants and cooperative agreements, due
to an initiative currently under way as part of the implementation of
the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999
(Pub. L. 106-107). Agencies shall post their implementation plans as
noted in ``e'' above, no later than July 2008.
M. David Hodge,
Operations Manager, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-1262 Filed 1-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3170-W8-P