80 FR 76581 - Information Collection; Request for Public Comments
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 236 (December 9, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 236 (December 9, 2015)
| Page Range | 76581-76583 | |
| FR Document | 2015-30986 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 76581-76583] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-30986] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Information Collection; Request for Public Comments AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) invites the general public and Federal agencies to comment on a revision of an approved information collection, Form SF-SAC, that is used to report audit results, audit findings, and questioned costs as required by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.) and 2 CFR part 200, ``Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit [[Page 76582]] Requirements for Federal Awards.'' A draft of the proposed Form SF-SAC can be reviewed at the OMB Grants Management Internet home page at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/grants_docs.html. The Form SF-SAC instructions contain a detailed listing of the proposed changes to the Form SF-SAC. DATES: Submit comments on or before February 8, 2016. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: 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 mailed comments will be received before the comment closing date. Electronic mail comments may be submitted to: Gilbert Tran at [email protected]. Please include ``2016 Form SF-SAC Comments'' in the subject line and the full body of your comments in the text of the electronic message, not as an attachment. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number and email address in the text of the message. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile to 202-395-3952 (with ``2016 Form SF-SAC Comments'' as title page). Comments may be mailed to Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. In general, responses will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also be a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-3052. The proposed revisions to the Information Collection Form, Form SF-SAC can be obtained by contacting the Office of Federal Financial Management as indicated above or by download from the OMB Grants Management home page on at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_forms SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This is a revision of a currently approved form with changes of Form SF-SAC, OMB Control Number 0348-0057. Non-Federal entities (states, local governments, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations) that expend a total amount of Federal awards equal to or in excess of $750,000 in any fiscal year are required by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501, et. seq.) (Act) and 2 CFR part 200, ``Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,'' (Uniform Guidance) to have audits of their Federal awards and file the resulting reporting packages and data collection forms (Single Audit reports) with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). The data collection form (Form SF-SAC) is Appendix X to 2 CFR part 200. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated the U.S. Bureau of the Census as the FAC, which serves as the government-wide repository of record for Single Audit reports. The Uniform Guidance imposes new reporting requirements effective for non- Federal entity fiscal years beginning on or after December 26, 2014. The first year under the new requirements is the fiscal year ending on or after December 26, 2015. The Single Audit process is the primary method Federal agencies and pass-through entities use to provide oversight for Federal awards and reduce risk of non-compliance and improper payments. This includes following up on audit findings and questioned costs. The proposed changes make revisions to the Form SF-SAC that reflect Uniform Guidance requirements; revise some existing data elements; and add data elements that would make the reports easier for Federal agencies, pass-through entities, and the public to use. The changes would also delete data elements that are no longer needed. In particular, the Uniform Guidance requires the FAC to make Single Audit reports publically available on a Web site. This represents a change as the FAC previously only made publically available the Form SF-SAC data. The Uniform Guidance also requires non-Federal entities to sign a statement that the reporting package does not include protected personally identifiable information and that the FAC is authorized to make the reporting package and the data collection form publicly available on a Web site. An exception is provided in 2 CFR 200.512(b)(2) for Indian tribes and tribal organizations to opt not to authorize the public display of their reporting packages on the FAC Web site. The revised form reflects the Uniform Guidance's requirements. For fiscal year starting on or after December 26, 2014, the FAC also plans to allow Non-Federal entities who did not meet the threshold requiring submission of a Single Audit report to voluntarily notify the FAC that they did not meet the reporting threshold. This information helps the Federal agencies in the review of applicants that fall below the reporting requirements. The FAC plans to put this information on their Web site. In addition, we are planning a pilot project to combine the reporting of this form and the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards into a singular form to streamline the Non-Federal entities reporting process. This proposal will be included under a separate notice. II. Method of Collection The information will be collected electronically through FAC's Web based Internet Data Entry System available at https://harvester.census.gov/facweb. III. Data OMB Control Number: 0348-0057. Title: Data Collection Form. Form Number(s): SF-SAC. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Respondents: States, local governments, non-profit organizations (Non-Federal entities) and their auditors. Estimated Number of Respondents: 80,000 (40,000 from auditees and 40,000 from auditors). Estimated Time per Response: 65 hours for each of the 400 large respondents and 20 hours for each of the 79,600 small respondents. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,618,000. Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1. Frequency of Response: Annually. Legal Authority: Title 31 U.S.C. Section 7501 et. seq. and 2 CFR Part 200. Needs and Uses: Reports from auditors to auditees and reports from auditees to the Federal government are used by non-Federal entities, pass-through entities and Federal agencies to ensure that Federal awards are expended in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The FAC (designated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) uses the information on the Form SF-SAC to ensure proper distribution of audit reports to Federal agencies and identify non-Federal entities who have not filed the required reports. The FAC also uses the information on the Form SF-SAC to create a government-wide database, which contains information on audit results. This database is publicly accessible on the Internet at http://harvester.census.gov/fac/. It is used by Federal agencies, pass-through entities, non-Federal entities, auditors, the Government Accountability Office, OMB and the general public for management of and information about Federal awards and the results of audits. [[Page 76583]] IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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. In general, comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Mark Reger, Deputy Controller. [FR Doc. 2015-30986 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices 76581
But it is undisputed that no participant administrative difficulties or [a] reasoned decision[] supported by the
in the proceeding in fact proposed rates consequences of such rates and written record before them.’’ 62
or terms that differentiated among terms.’’ 55 In sum, given the posture of the case,
licensors and, accordingly, such a In this regard, the Register further the question referred by the CRJs
structure was not understood to be a observes that the CRJs are statutorily appears to be only a theoretical one in
subject of litigation.52 Moreover, based required to make determinations that that the Register is unable to discern
on the parties’ briefs in response to the are ‘‘supported by the written record’’ 56 how a written decision at this juncture
referred question and the Copyright and based ‘‘on economic, competitive could substantively impact the conduct
Office’s review of the Web IV docket, and programming information presented or outcome of this proceeding.63 Indeed,
there is no indication that the CRJs went by the parties.’’ 57 Significantly, the U.S. the question itself is presented in
beyond their general invitation at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has hypothetical terms: it asks the Register
outset of the proceeding to require that twice vacated CRJ determinations that to ‘‘assum[e] a factual basis in the
such differentiation be addressed.53 As relied on theories ‘‘first presented in the evidentiary record’’ for a distinction
a result, no party addressed the question Judges’ determination and not advanced among licensors. As significant as the
of ‘‘segmentation by licensor,’’ 54 and by any participant.’’58 Here—consistent question of a differentiated rate
‘‘no participant had the opportunity, or with their rate proposals—the structure for licensors might be under
any reason, to introduce evidence or to participants’ respective proposed different circumstances, the Register
respond to any such proposal, or to findings of fact and conclusions of law does not believe that the statute
demonstrate the potential submitted at the conclusion of the contemplates the issuance of a written
proceeding uniformly fail to advocate opinion when the inquiry is wholly
‘‘the potential applicability or inapplicability of for statutory rates and terms that theoretical in nature.
price discrimination within the commercial distinguish among licensors.59 The language of the Act makes clear
webcaster segment of the market as well.’’ Id. at
413–14. But the CRJs’ discussion focused on price
Moreover, in briefing the question now that the referral procedure under section
discrimination by sellers—i.e., where sellers charge before the Register, no party has 802(f)(1)(B) is limited to novel material
different prices for identical goods with the price identified any basis upon which the questions of substantive law that are
differences based on the status of the buyers. Id. at CRJs could reasonably rely to adopt a
413. That, of course, is the type of price
actually ‘‘presented.’’ As the Register
discrimination expressly contemplated by the
differentiated rate structure.60 Thus, has concluded that the question set
statute, which requires the CRJs to adopt ‘‘rates and even assuming for the sake of argument forth in the CRJs’ September 11, 2015
terms [that] distinguish among the different types that they possess the legal authority to order is not actually presented in this
of [services] then in operation.’’ 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(2). establish rates that differentiate by proceeding, she leaves the answer for
52 See NAB/NRBNMLC Response Br. at 1;
licensor,61 it seems that under the another day.
SiriusXM Initial Br. at 6; Independent Labels and
Unions Initial Br. at 11–12; see also Direct
current circumstances, the CRJs could November 24, 2015
Testimony of Kurt Hanson Submitted on behalf of not meet their basic obligation ‘‘to make Maria A. Pallante
AccuRadio, LLC, 16–18 (Oct. 6, 2014); Written
Direct Statement of College Broadcasters, Inc. (Oct. 55 See
Register of Copyrights and Director,
NAB/NRBNMLC Response Br. at 1.
7, 2014) (attaching proposed regulations); Letter 56 17
United States Copyright Office
U.S.C. 803(c)(3).
from David Oxenford on behalf of Educational 57 Id. § 114(f)(2)(B). [FR Doc. 2015–30910 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]
Media Foundation to Copyright Royalty Board (Oct. 58 Settling Devotional Claimants v. Copyright
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
7, 2014) (joining in the rate proposal submitted by
Royalty Bd., 797 F.3d 1106, 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
NRBNMLC); Written Direct Statement of Geo Music
(quoting Intercollegiate Broad. Sys. v. Copyright
Group, 4–5 (Oct. 10, 2014); Written Testimony of Royalty Bd., 574 F.3d 748, 767 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
Michael Papish on behalf of Harvard Radio (internal quotation marks omitted)). OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
Broadcasting Co., Inc. (WHRB) (Oct. 7, 2014); 59 See Proposed Findings and Conclusions of
Written Testimony of Frederick J. Kass on behalf of BUDGET
Intercollegiate Broadcasting Systems, 13 (July 19,
Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (Oct. 7, 2014);
2015); Proposed Findings of Fact of iHeartMedia,
Proposed Rates and Terms of iHeartMedia, Inc. Inc., 207 (June 24, 2015); National Association of
Information Collection; Request for
(Oct. 7, 2014); Written Direct Statement of the Broadcasters’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Public Comments
National Association of Broadcasters, Vol. 1B (Oct. Conclusions of Law (July 19, 2015) (attaching
7, 2014); Written Direct Case of the Corporation for NAB’s Proposed Rates and Terms); The National AGENCY: Executive Office of the
Public Broadcasting, on behalf of National Public Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music President, Office of Management and
Radio, Inc., including National Public Radio, Inc.’s License Committee’s Corrected Proposed Findings
Member Stations, American Public Media, Public Budget.
of Fact and Conclusions of Law (June 24, 2015)
Radio International, and Public Radio Exchange (attaching NRBNMLC’s Proposed Noncommercial ACTION: Notice and request for
Broadcasting, 6–8 (Oct. 7, 2014); Written Direct Webcaster Rates and Terms); Pandora Media, Inc.’s comments.
Statement of the National Religious Broadcasters Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
Noncommercial Music License Committee, 1–2 (June 19, 2015); Sirius XM Radio Inc.’s
Including Educational Media Foundation (Oct. 7,
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Proposed Findings of Fact, 1 (June 19, 2015);
2014); Proposed Rates and Terms of Pandora Media, Proposed Findings of Fact of SoundExchange, Inc.,
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
Inc.; Written Direct Statement of Sirius XM Radio 94–96 (June 19, 2015); Proposed Findings and U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Inc., 1–2 (Oct. 7, 2014); Proposed Rates and Terms Conclusions on behalf of Harvard Radio Management and Budget (OMB) invites
of SoundExchange, Inc. (Oct. 7, 2014). Broadcasting Co., Inc. (WHRB) (June 19, 2015).
53 See Notice of Participants, Commencement of
the general public and Federal agencies
60 Although the Major Labels suggest that the CRJs
Voluntary Negotiation Period, and Case Scheduling to comment on a revision of an
could ‘‘credit evidence supporting a different rate
Order, Docket No. 14–CRB–0001–WR (2016–2020), structure than they have adopted in the past,’’ they approved information collection, Form
1 (Feb. 19, 2014) (asking parties to ‘‘address do not point to any actual argument or evidence in SF–SAC, that is used to report audit
expressly issues relating to categories of licensees,’’ the record that would support such an approach. results, audit findings, and questioned
but omitting any mention of issues relating to See Majors Labels Supp. Br. at 14. In any event, as
categories of licensors). noted, such an approach would appear to run afoul
costs as required by the Single Audit
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
54 SoundExchange Initial Br. at 2. In this regard, of controlling precedent. See Settling Devotional Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C.
it is notable that SoundExchange finds itself unable Claimants, 797 F.3d at 1121 (reversing CRJ 7501 et seq.) and 2 CFR part 200,
to put forth a unified view on the question of determination where theory was ‘‘first presented in ‘‘Uniform Administrative Requirements,
differentiated rates. Presumably SoundExchange the Judges’ determination and not advanced by any
could not have acted as the representative of participant’’).
Cost Principles, and Audit
virtually all of the rightsholders in the proceeding 61 In considering these procedural issues, the
62 Settling Devotional Claimants, 797 F.3d at
if the question of a differentiated rate structure was Register does not mean to suggest any conclusion
actually in contention. See Independent Labels and concerning the CRJs’ legal authority to adopt rates 1121.
Unions Initial Br. at 14. and terms that distinguish among licensors. 63 Referral Order at 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_76817/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices 76583
IV. Request for Comments Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia be collected; and (d) ways we could
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 22314–3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, minimize the burden of the collection of
the proposed collection of information Email: OCIOPRA@ncua.gov the information on the respondents such
is necessary for the proper performance OMB Reviewer: Office of Management as through the use of automated
of the functions of the agency, including and Budget, ATTN: Desk Officer for collection techniques or other forms of
whether the information shall have the National Credit Union information technology. It is NCUA’s
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Administration, Office of Information policy to make all comments available
agency’s estimate of the burden and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, to the public for review.
(including hours and cost) of the DC 20503
II. Data
proposed collection of information; (c) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Requests for additional information Title: Organization and Operation of
clarity of the information to be should be directed to: Federal Credit Unions—Loan
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the NCUA Contact: Tracy Crews, National Participation, 12 CFR part 701.22.
burden of the collection of information OMB Number: 3133–0141.
Credit Union Administration, 1775
on respondents, including through the Form Number: None.
Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia
use of automated collection techniques Type of Review: Reinstatement with
22314–3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861,
or other forms of information change.
Email: OCIOPRA@ncua.gov Description: Section 701.22 of
technology. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In general, comments submitted in NCUA’s regulations, 12 CFR 701.22,
response to this notice will be I. Abstract and Request for Comments outlines the requirements for the
summarized and/or included in the administration of a loan participation
NCUA is requesting comments on program. Section 741 of NCUA’s
request for OMB approval of this 3133–0141; Organization and Operation
information collection; they also will regulations, 12 CFR 741.225, extends 12
of Federal Credit Unions—Loan CFR 701.22 to Federally Insured State
become a matter of public record. Participation, 12 CFR part 701.22. Chartered Credit Unions. Section 701.22
Mark Reger, NCUA’s regulation, 12 CFR (§ 701.22), includes various collections which
Deputy Controller. outlines loan participation NCUA uses to ensure credit unions have
[FR Doc. 2015–30986 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]
requirements. Loan participations pose implemented a safe and sound program.
inherent risk to the NCUSIF due to the Respondents: Federally Insured Credit
BILLING CODE P
interconnectedness between Unions.
participants. Section 741.225 extends Estimated No. of Respondents/
the requirements of Section 701.22 of Recordkeepers: 1,515 for loan
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
NCUA’s regulations to Federally Insured participation policy revision and loan
ADMINISTRATION
State Chartered Credit Unions (FISCUs), agreement retention, 10 for waiver
Agency Information Collection noting there are strong indications of submission and 1 for appeal request.
Activities: Submission for Office of potential risk to the NCUSIF from Estimated Burden Hours per
Management and Budget Review; FISCUs’ loan participation activity. Response: 3 hours per policy revision, 4
Comment Request; for Reinstatement Section 701.22 includes three collection hours per waiver submission and 4
With Change of a Previously Approved requirements (1) maintenance of a hours per appeal.
Collection; Organization and Operation written policy, (2) requirements on the Frequency of Response: One time and
of Federal Credit Unions—Loan purchasing credit union to have a optionally with each waiver submission.
Participation written loan participation agreement, (3) Estimated Total Annual Burden
options to apply for waivers from Hours: 4,589 hours total.
AGENCY: National Credit Union concentration limits. Estimated Total Annual Cost:
Administration (NCUA). In the Federal Register of August 28, $146,343.21.
ACTION: Request for comment. 2015, (80 FR 52344), NCUA published
By the National Credit Union
a 60-day notice requesting public
SUMMARY: National Credit Union Administration Board on November 18, 2015.
comment on the proposed collection of
Administration is announcing that a information. NCUA received no Gerard Poliquin,
proposed collection of information has comments. Secretary of the Board.
been submitted to the Office of An agency may not conduct or [FR Doc. 2015–30934 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]
Management and Budget (OMB) for sponsor, and a person is not required to BILLING CODE 7535–01–P
review and clearance under the respond to, a collection of information
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 unless it displays a currently valid OMB
(PRA). This is related to NCUA’s control number. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
regulation 701.22 that outlines NCUA requests that you send your ADMINISTRATION
requirements for loan participation comments on this collection to the
programs. The rule requires various location listed in the addresses section. Agency Information Collection
information collections, which NCUA Your comments should address: (a) The Activities: Submission to OMB for
uses to ensure credit unions have necessity of the information collection Reinstatement With Change, Bank
implemented a safe and sound loan for the proper performance of NCUA, Conversions and Mergers, 12 CFR Part
participation program. 708a; Comment Request
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
including whether the information will
DATES: Comments will be accepted until have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AGENCY: National Credit Union
January 8, 2016. our estimate of the burden (hours and Administration (NCUA).
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are cost) of the collection of information, ACTION: Request for comments.
invited to submit written comments on including the validity of the
the information collection to: methodology and assumptions used; (c) SUMMARY: NCUA intends to submit the
NCUA Contact: Tracy Crews, National ways we could enhance the quality, following information collection to the
Credit Union Administration, 1775 utility, and clarity of the information to Office of Management and Budget
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_76817/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 13:32:56
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 13:32:56
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice and request for comments. | |
| Dates | Submit comments on or before February 8, 2016. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. | |
| Contact | Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-3052. The proposed revisions to the Information Collection Form, Form SF-SAC can be obtained by contacting the Office of Federal Financial Management as indicated above or by download from the OMB Grants Management home page on at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_forms | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 76581 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR