SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

• Title of Information Collection: Foreign Assistance Recordkeeping Requirements.
• OMB Control Number: None.
• Type of Request: New Collection.
• Originating Office: Department of State, Office of Foreign Assistance Oversight.
• Form Number: No form.
• Respondents: Foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs), U.S. NGOs, and international organizations.
• Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,500.
• Estimated Number of Responses: 2,500.
• Average Time per Response: 240 hours.
• Total Estimated Burden Time: 600,000 hours.
• Frequency: On occasion.
• Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.

Abstract of Proposed Collection

This information collection relates to three final rules published on January 27, 2026. 91 FR 3319, 91 FR 3332, and 91 FR 3345. These rules implement the President's Protecting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance (PHFFA) policy, by requiring recipients of U.S. foreign assistance funds to agree to certain terms and conditions. In summary, foreign NGOs, U.S. NGOs, and international organizations are required to comply with the policy (foreign governments and parastatals may also be required to comply with the policies, but those entities are not “persons” under the Paperwork Reduction Act, thus not covered by this notice) and agree that during the period of the award they will segregate records so that the Department can verify that they are not violating the terms of the foreign assistance grants that were provided to them. Full details are included in the three final rules.

Methodology

There is no form involved in this information collection. The final rules require recipients of U.S. foreign assistance funds to maintain records and make business records available upon request, which is a requirement governed by the Paperwork Reduction Act. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.334, all recipients need to preserve records. The final rules require U.S. NGOs to ensure that any program, project, or activity for which funds are made available under a Department award must be organized so that the program, project, or activity is physically and financially separate from any “prohibited activities” undertaken using other funding sources. Foreign assistance grantees must ensure that all award terms flow down to any subrecipients of such assistance, as applicable.

Public Comments

The Department published a 60-day notice for this information collection on April 6, 2026. 91 FR 17322. Four comments were received from three organizations. The Department is publishing a Federal Register notice, soliciting comment for 30 days. The Department published a 60-day notice for this information collection on April 6, 2026. 91 FR 17322. Four comments were received from three organizations.

Summary of InterAction Comment

InterAction's central argument is that the Department's burden estimates fail to capture the real operational costs of PHFFA compliance, particularly because the regulations require organizations to assess activities and funding streams beyond a single U.S. Government award. Training costs are understated: one member organization consolidated training across three related regulations but still had to run both introductory and specialized HR-focused sessions, with more anticipated as interpretation evolves—meaning these are recurring, not one-time, costs. A second major cost driver is ambiguity around allowable activities; without clear definitions or standardized documentation expectations, organizations cannot direct compliance resources efficiently and must repeatedly engage legal review. Subaward relationships compound the burden further—prime recipients must determine which PHFFA requirements apply to which partners, monitor activities funded by non-U.S. donors to assess overall organizational compliance, and in some cases provide technical assistance to partners struggling to interpret the rules against their own funding structures. InterAction warns this could push smaller local and national organizations out of U.S.-funded programs altogether, given their limited administrative capacity. Finally, the comment flags unresolved retention-period questions (duration, post-award cost allocation, audit-triggered extensions, and translation of non-English records) as a gap likely to cause organizations to over-retain records defensively, inflating costs further. InterAction's asks are narrow and specific: clarify the scope of monitoring for non-federally-funded activities, and ensure any new compliance IT tools integrate with existing nonprofit systems rather than adding parallel administrative layers.

FAO Response

The Department of State acknowledges InterAction for its comment submitted in response to the 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Foreign Assistance Requirements (Public Notice 12977, 91 FR 17322, April 6, 2026).

The Department acknowledges the compliance requirements on prime and sub-recipients. and will consider further additional information regarding the scope of prime recipient monitoring obligations with respect to non-U.S. Government-funded activities. The Department also notes InterAction's concern regarding potential compliance costs and will take these issues into consideration.

Regarding InterAction's points on record retention, the guidance outlined in 2 CFR 200.334 (Uniform Guidance) shall apply. Records must generally be retained for three years from the date of the final expenditure report, subject to applicable exceptions.

Taking note of InterAction's observation on technology and automation, the Department does not require recipients to maintain technological or automated compliance systems for the purposes of PHFFA ( printed page 67387) compliance. To the extent a recipient implements a PHFFA-specific technological or automated monitoring system, the Department suggests that any technological solutions should be designed to integrate with existing compliance systems wherever possible. Regarding InterAction's observations on award budget structures appropriately accounting for PHFFA compliance costs, particularly for organizations managing complex partner networks, the Department takes seriously its obligations under the PRA to ensure burden estimates are accurate, information collections are clear and useful, and reporting burden is minimized. See44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)-(C). The Department remains committed to maintaining an open dialogue for ongoing feedback in relation to the demonstrated burden estimates.

Conclusion

The Department thanks InterAction for its comment. The Department is committed to working with the implementing partner community to ensure that PHFFA compliance requirements are clear and accurately reflected in the burden estimates submitted to OMB.

Summary of National Catholic Bioethics Center Comment and FAO Response

The NCBC provided an argument focused on Title X of the Public Health Service Act. The Department does not implement Title X programs.

Summary of The Council for Global Equality Comment

CGE's comment is a procedural challenge under the Paperwork Reduction Act, not a policy critique of PHFFA's substance. The core claim is that the Notice fails all four PRA evaluation criteria because it discloses almost nothing about what records must be kept, why the collection is necessary, or how it will be used—stating only that recipients must maintain records “separate” from non-federally-funded activities and make them available on request. CGE identifies a specific legal defect here: the underlying Rules only require U.S. NGOs to keep separate records, yet the Notice/Supporting Statement extend this obligation to foreign recipients as well, a requirement they argue appears nowhere in the Rules themselves. On burden estimation, CGE documents two concrete numerical inconsistencies: a 52,500-hour gap between the Rules' estimate (652,500 hours) and the Notice's estimate (600,000 hours), and an approximately $85 million discrepancy in per-hour cost assumptions ($175/hour in the Rules versus $50/hour in the Supporting Statement, yielding $114M vs. $30M total cost estimates)—with no explanation offered for either gap. CGE also argues the Notice's respondent count (2,500) is unrealistic because it excludes subgrantees and subrecipients who are independently subject to monitoring obligations under the Rules; they cite an example of a single foreign NGO with roughly 1,500 subgrantees to illustrate how far off the estimate could be. Separately, CGE notes the Notice does not address burden-minimization for small entities as required by the PRA, and the Supporting Statement's response—that requirements apply “equally to large and small grantees”—does not satisfy that obligation. CGE's requested remedy is not to block the rule but to require the Department to withdraw and reissue the Notice with sufficient detail to allow a genuine 60-day comment period, arguing the current process is procedurally inadequate as a matter of law.

FAO Response

The Department of State has reviewed the comment submitted by the Council for Global Equality (CGE), Professor Pamela Herd, and Professor Donald Moynihan in response to the 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Foreign Assistance Requirements (Public Notice 12977, 91 FR 17322, April 6, 2026).

The commenters objected to the Notice's application of the segregation requirement to foreign recipients as contradicting the rules. The rules require U.S. NGOs to ensure that any program, project, or activity for which funds are made available under a Department award must be organized so that the program, project, or activity is physically and financially separate from any “prohibited activities” undertaken using other funding sources. However, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.334, all recipients need to preserve records. The Department recognizes that the terminology utilized in the Notice generated confusion due to the separation requirement for U.S. NGOs under the rules and will clarify the terminology in the 30 day notice. Regarding the concern on information collection, Appendix A to Part 602 I outlines relevant terms and conditions in alignment with Part 200 of Title 2 of the CFR.

Additionally, the Department's operating expectation is that grantees will be required to maintain records that track expenses attributable to U.S. funded activities separate from expenses attributable to other activities. A single record or records system may include both U.S. funded and other expenses but the U.S. funded expenses would need to be demonstrated separately. For U.S. NGOs impacted by the physical separation requirement, the requirement that U.S. NGOs maintain records for U.S. funded activities and that those records are physically separate from the records of other activities, the Department confirms that that requirement applies only to U.S. NGOs and only when there is an activity funded from any other source that would otherwise be prohibited under the rules. Reiterating this point, a U.S. NGO needs to maintain physical and financial separation only if it engages in any of the otherwise “prohibited activities” outlined in the rules—with another source of funds. Certain activities remain prohibited for U.S. NGOs regardless of funding sources.

Regarding concerns that there are calculation discrepancies between the burden figures in the final rules, the Notice, and the Supporting Statement. The final rules address compliance estimates beyond the more narrow scope of the PRA notice which is focused on the information collection. The final rules also include associated training. The Department is aware that burden estimates at the notice stage are preliminary and welcome continued dialogue with implementers as these compliance costs become more apparent.

Regarding the comment's point that the estimate of 2,500 respondents fails to account for subrecipients, the Department's position is that prime recipients have the duty to monitor their subrecipients and the estimate reflects the respondents as the prime recipient. The final rules require prime recipients to ensure that award terms flow down to subrecipients, as applicable, and to monitor subrecipient compliance.

Regarding the issue of the Small Entity Burden, the Department acknowledges that the PRA requires agencies to consider how to minimize burden on small entities, including through exemptions or simplified requirements that account for resource limitations.

Effect on the Proposed Collection

The Department has considered the commenters' submission in full. These actions reflect the Department's standard process for finalizing a PRA submission and are responsive to the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)-(C).

The Department does not agree that the collection must be withdrawn and reissued. The concerns raised are appropriately addressed through the ( printed page 67388) Supporting Statement and supplemental guidance, which are the standard mechanisms for providing the level of detail the commenters seek.

Conclusion

The Department thanks the Council for Global Equality, Professor Herd, and Professor Moynihan.

91 FR 67385