[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 34, Volume 3]

[Revised as of July 1, 2005]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 34CFR668.27]



[Page 437-441]

 

                           TITLE 34--EDUCATION

 

 CHAPTER VI--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 

PART 668_STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS--Table of Contents

 

     Subpart B_Standards for Participation in Title IV, HEA Programs

 

Sec. 668.27  Waiver of annual audit submission requirement.



    (a) General. (1) At the request of an institution, the Secretary may 

waive the annual audit submission requirement for the period of time 

contained in paragraph (b) of this section if the institution satisfies 

the requirements contained in paragraph (c) of this section and posts a 

letter of credit in the amount determined in paragraph (d) of this 

section.

    (2) An institution requesting a waiver must submit an application to 

the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 

prescribes.



[[Page 438]]



    (3) The first fiscal year for which an institution may request a 

waiver is the fiscal year in which it submits its waiver request to the 

Secretary.

    (b) Waiver period. (1) If the Secretary grants the waiver, the 

institution need not submit its compliance or audited financial 

statement until six months after--

    (i) The end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year for 

which the institution last submitted a compliance audit and audited 

financial statement; or

    (ii) The end of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year for 

which the institution last submitted compliance and financial statement 

audits if the award year in which the institution will apply for 

recertification is part of the third fiscal year.

    (2) The Secretary does not grant a waiver if the award year in which 

the institution will apply for recertification is part of the second 

fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the institution last 

submitted compliance and financial statement audits.

    (3) When an institution must submit its next compliance and 

financial statement audits under paragraph (b)(1) of this section--

    (i) The institution must submit a compliance audit that covers the 

institution's administration of the title IV, HEA programs for the 

period for each fiscal year for which an audit did not have to be 

submitted as a result of the waiver, and an audited financial statement 

for its last fiscal year; and

    (ii) The auditor who conducts the audit must audit the institution's 

annual determinations for the period subject to the waiver that it 

satisfied the 90/10 rule in Sec. 600.5 and the other conditions of 

institutional eligibility in Sec. 600.7 and Sec. 668.8(e)(2), and 

disclose the results of the audit of the 90/10 rule for each year in 

accordance with Sec. 668.23(d)(4).

    (c) Criteria for granting the waiver. The Secretary grants a waiver 

to an institution if the institution--

    (1) Is not a foreign institution;

    (2) Did not disburse $200,000 or more of title IV, HEA program funds 

during each of the two completed award years preceding the institution's 

waiver request;

    (3) Agrees to keep records relating to each award year in the 

unaudited period for two years after the end of the record retention 

period in Sec. 668.24(e) for that award year;

    (4) Has participated in the title IV, HEA programs under the same 

ownership for at least three award years preceding the institution's 

waiver request;

    (5) Is financially responsible under Sec. 668.171, and does not 

rely on the alternative standards of Sec. 668.175 to participate in the 

title IV, HEA programs;

    (6) Is not on the reimbursement or cash monitoring system of 

payment;

    (7) Has not been the subject of a limitation, suspension, fine, or 

termination proceeding, or emergency action initiated by the Department 

or a guarantee agency in the three years preceding the institution's 

waiver request;

    (8) Has submitted its compliance audits and audited financial 

statements for the previous two fiscal years in accordance with and 

subject to Sec. 668.23, and no individual audit disclosed liabilities 

in excess of $10,000; and

    (9) Submits a letter of credit in the amount determined in paragraph 

(d) of this section, which must remain in effect until the Secretary has 

resolved the audit covering the award years subject to the waiver.

    (d) Letter of credit amount. For purposes of this section, the 

letter of credit amount equals 10 percent of the amount of title IV, HEA 

program funds the institution disbursed to or on behalf of its students 

during the award year preceding the institution's waiver request.

    (e) Rescission of the waiver. (1) The Secretary rescinds the waiver 

if the institution--

    (i) Disburses $200,000 or more of title IV, HEA program funds for an 

award year;

    (ii) Undergoes a change in ownership that results in a change of 

control; or

    (iii) Becomes the subject of an emergency action or a limitation, 

suspension, fine, or termination action initiated by the Department or a 

guarantee agency.

    (2) If the Secretary rescinds a waiver, the rescission is effective 

on the last day of the fiscal year in which the rescission takes place.



[[Page 439]]



    (f) Renewal. An institution may request a renewal of its waiver when 

it submits its audits under paragraph (b) of this section. The Secretary 

grants the waiver if the audits and other information available to the 

Secretary show that the institution continues to satisfy the criteria 

for receiving that waiver.



(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1094)



[64 FR 58618, Oct. 29, 1999]



Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 668--Standards for Audit of Governmental 

        Organizations, Programs, Activities, and Functions (GAO)



                    Part III Chapter 3--Independence



    (a) The Third general standard for governmental auditing is: In 

matters relating to the audit work, the audit organization and the 

individual auditors shall maintain an independent attitude.

    (b) This standard places upon the auditor and the audit organization 

the responsibility for maintaining sufficient independence so that their 

opinions, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial. 

If the auditor is not sufficiently independent to produce unbiased 

opinions, conclusions, and judgments, he should state in a prominent 

place in the audit report his relationship with the organization or 

officials being audited. \1\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    \1\ If the auditor is not fully independent because he or she is an 

employee of the audited entity, it will be adequate disclosure to so 

indicate. If the auditor is a practicing certified public accountant, 

his or her conduct should be governed by the AICPA ``Statements on 

Auditing Procedure.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    (c) The auditor should consider not only whether his or her own 

attitude and beliefs permit him or her to be independent but also 

whether there is anything about his or her situation which would lead 

others to question his or her independence. Both situations deserve 

consideration since it is important not only that the auditor be, in 

fact, independent and impartial but also that other persons will 

consider him or her so.

    (d) There are three general classes of impairments that the auditor 

needs to consider; these are personal, external, and organizational 

impairments. If one or more of these are of such significance as to 

affect the auditor's ability to perform his or her work and report its 

results impartially, he or she should decline to perform the audit or 

indicate in the report that he or she was not fully independent.



                          Personal Impairments



    There are some circumstances in which an auditor cannot be impartial 

because of his or her views or his or her personal situation. These 

circumstances might include:

    1. Relationships of an official, professional, and/or personal 

nature that might cause the auditor to limit the extent or character of 

the inquiry, to limit disclosure, or to weaken his or her findings in 

any way.

    2. Preconceived ideas about the objectives or quality of a 

particular operation or personal likes or dislikes of individuals, 

groups, or objectives of a particular program.

    3. Previous involvement in a decisionmaking or management capacity 

in the operations of the governmental entity or program being audited.

    4. Biases and prejudices, including those induced by political or 

social convictions, which result from employment in or loyalty to a 

particular group, entity, or level of government.

    5. Actual or potential restrictive influence when the auditor 

performs preaudit work and subsequently performs a post audit.

    6. Financial interest, direct or indirect, in an organization or 

facility which is benefiting from the audited programs.



                          External Impairments



    External factors can restrict the audit or impinge on the auditor's 

ability to form independent and objective opinions and conclusions. For 

example, under the following conditions either the audit itself could be 

adversely affected or the auditor would not have complete freedom to 

make an independent judgment. \2\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    \2\ Some of these situations may constitute justifiable limitations 

on the scope of the work. In such cases the limitation should be 

identified in the auditor's report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    1. Interference or other influence that improperly or imprudently 

eliminates, restricts, or modifies the scope or character of the audit.

    2. Interference with the selection or application of audit 

procedures of the selection of activities to be examined.

    3. Denial of access to such sources of information as books, 

records, and supporting documents or denial or opportunity to obtain 

explanations by officials and employees of the governmental 

organization, program, or activity under audit.

    4. Interference in the assignment of personnel to the audit task.

    5. Retaliatory restrictions placed on funds or other resources 

dedicated to the audit operation.

    6. Activity to overrule or significantly influence the auditors 

judgment as to the appropriate content of the audit report.



[[Page 440]]



    7. Influences that place the auditor's continued employment in 

jeopardy for reasons other than competency or the need for audit 

services.

    8. Unreasonable restriction on the time allowed to competently 

complete an audit assignment.



                       Organizational Impairments



    (a) The auditor's independence can be affected by his or her place 

within the organizational structure of governments. Auditors employed by 

Federal, State, or local government units may be subject to policy 

direction from superiors who are involved either directly or indirectly 

in the government management process. To achieve maximum independence 

such auditors and the audit organization itself not only should report 

to the highest practicable echelon within their government but should be 

organizationally located outside the line-management function of the 

entity under audit.

    (b) These auditors should also be sufficiently removed from 

political pressures to ensure that they can conduct their auditing 

objectively and can report their conclusions completely without fear of 

censure. Whenever feasible they should be under a system which will 

place decisions on compensation, training, job tenure, and advancement 

on a merit basis.

    (c) When independent public accountants or other independent 

professionals are engaged to perform work that includes inquiries into 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations, efficiency and economy 

of operations, or achievement of program results, they should be engaged 

by someone other than the officials responsible for the direction of the 

effort being audited. This practice removes the pressure that may result 

if the auditor must criticize the performance of those by whom he or she 

was engaged. To remove this obstacle to independence, governments should 

arrange to have auditors engaged by officials not directly involved in 

operations to be audited.



[51 FR 41921, Nov. 19, 1986. Redesignated at 65 FR 65650, Nov. 1, 2000]



Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 668--Appendix I, Standards for Audit of 

  Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities, and Functions (GAO)



     Qualifications of Independent Auditors Engaged by Governmental 

                              Organizations



    (a) When outside auditors are engaged for assignments requiring the 

expression of an opinion on financial reports of governmental 

organizations, only fully qualified public accountants should be 

employed. The type of qualifications, as stated by the Comptroller 

General, deemed necessary for financial audits of governmental 

organizations and programs is quoted below:

    ``Such audits shall be conducted * * * by independent certified 

public accountants or by independent licensed public accountants, 

licensed on or before December 31, 1970, who are certified or licensed 

by a regulatory authority of a State or other political subdivision of 

the United States: Except that independent public accountants licensed 

to practice by such regulatory authority after December 31, 1970, and 

persons who although not so certified or licensed, meet, in the opinion 

of the Secretary, standards of education and experience representative 

of the highest prescribed by the licensing authorities of the several 

States which provide for the continuing licensing of public accountants 

and which are prescribed by the Secretary in appropriate regulations may 

perform such audits until December 31, 1975; Provided, That if the 

Secretary deems it necessary in the public interest, he may prescribe by 

regulations higher standard than those required for the practice of 

public accountancy by the regulatory authorities of the States.'' \1\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    \1\ Letter (B-148144, September 15, 1970) from the Comptroller 

General to the heads of Federal departments and agencies. The reference 

to ``Secretary'' means the head of the department or agency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



    (b) The standards for examination and evaluation require 

consideration of applicable laws and regulations in the auditor's 

examination. The standards for reporting require a statement in the 

auditor's report regarding any significant instances of noncompliance 

disclosed by his or her examination and evaluation work. What is to be 

included in this statement requires judgment. Significant instances of 

noncompliance, even those not resulting in legal liability to the 

audited entity, should be included. Minor procedural noncompliance need 

not be disclosed.

    (c) Although the reporting standard is generally on an exception 

basis--that only noncompliance need be reported--it should be recognized 

that governmental entities often want positive statements regarding 

whether or not the auditor's tests disclosed instances of noncompliance. 

This is particularly true in grant programs where authorizing agencies 

frequently want assurance in the auditor's report that this matter has 

been considered. For such audits, auditors should obtain an 

understanding with the authorizing agency as to the extent to which such 

positive comments on compliance are desired. When coordinated audits are 

involved, the audit program should specify the extent of comments that 

the auditor is to make regarding compliance.



[[Page 441]]



    (d) When noncompliance is reported, the auditor should place the 

findings in proper perspective. The extent of instances of noncompliance 

should be related to the number of cases examined to provide the reader 

with a basis for judging the prevalence of noncompliance.



[45 FR 86856, Dec. 31, 1980. Redesignated at 65 FR 65650, Nov. 1, 2000]