Revisions are proposed to 2 CFR Statutory and national policy requirements, to align with Executive Orders (E.O.) 13798 “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” and E.O. 13864 “Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities.” These Executive Orders advise agencies on the requirements of religious liberty laws, including those laws that apply to grants and provided a policy for free inquiry at institutions receiving Federal grants. The revision to 2 CFR underscores the importance of compliance with the First Amendment.
OMB proposes to standardize terms across 2 CFR part 200 to support efforts under the Grants CAP Goal to standardize the grants management business process and data.
Some examples of proposed revisions include terms associated with time periods (period of performance, budget period and renewal), financial obligation, and assistance listing. The current terms used to describe time periods are inconsistently used by Federal awarding agencies. OMB proposes revisions to the definition of “period of performance” in 2 CFR part 200 to reflect that the term is the anticipated time interval between the start and end date of an initial Federal award or subsequent renewal. For example, a recipient may receive a Federal award that reflects a five-year period of performance, but only received one year worth of funding as reflected in the first year budget period. The recipient may only incur motorcycle title pawn in Minnesota costs during the first year budget period until subsequent budget periods are funded based on the availability of appropriations, satisfactory performance, and compliance with the terms and conditions of the award. The proposed change also ensures consistent use of the term for purposes of transparency reporting as required by FFATA. Further, OMB is proposing definitions for budget period and renewal to further clarify the use of time period terms throughout 2 CFR.
In addition, OMB proposes to replace the term “obligation” to either “financial obligation” or “responsibility” within the guidance as appropriate, to ensure alignment with DATA Act definitions. OMB requests comments on the anticipated impact of replacing the term “obligation” from 2 CFR part 200 to “financial obligation”; specifically, OMB asks if replacing “obligation” will help to align requirements set out in 2 CFR 200 and the DATA Act.
As reflected in the proposed changes, there are instances where the terms within 2 CFR cannot be made consistent. For example, the term “non-Federal entity” cannot be consistently defined across 2 CFR: parts 25 and 170 apply to Federal awards to foreign organizations, foreign public entities, and for-profit organizations, while part 200 only applies to these type of non-Federal entities when a Federal awarding agency elects for part 200 to apply. For definitions that are consistent across 2 CFR parts 25, 170 and 200, revisions have been made to parts 25 and 170 to refer definitions to part 200 as the authoritative source.
OMB also proposes changes across 2 CFR to ensure consistent use of terms across parts 25, 170, 180 and 200 where possible, relying on 2 CFR part 200 as the primary source
The definitions “Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number” and “CFDA program title” have been replaced with the terms “Assistance listing number” and “Assistance listing program title” to reflect the change in terminology.
OMB proposes a number of additional revisions to definitions for clarity. For example, the term management decision is revised to emphasize that it is a written determination provided by a Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity.
To promote uniform application of standard data elements in future information collection requests, OMB is also proposing revisions to 2 CFR and to reflect that information collection requests must adhere to the standards available from the OMB-designated standards lead
This proposed change further supports OMB Memorandum M-19-16 Centralized Mission Support Capabilities for the Federal Government, which requires that future shared service solutions must adhere to the Federal Integrated Business Framework standards (available at: