[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47722-47726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23878]
[[Page 47721]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Office of Management and Budget
_______________________________________________________________________
Cost Principles for Educational Institutions; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 /
Notices
[[Page 47722]]
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Cost Principles for Educational Institutions
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget.
ACTION: Proposed revisions to OMB Circular A-21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-21, ``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' by:
(1) Establishing guidance for Federal cost negotiators to assure the
reasonableness of facility costs, (2) implementing a new alternative
approach to replace using special cost studies for the recovery of
utility costs and deferring the elimination of special cost studies for
the recovery of library costs, (3) providing additional guidance on the
calculation of depreciation and use allowances on buildings and
equipment, (4) proposing the use of and soliciting input on a standard
format for facility and administrative rate proposal submissions, and
(5) changing the distribution basis for the facilities and
administrative cost application (from salaries and wages to modified
total direct costs) at universities that use the simplified (short-
form) method to calculate their facilities and administrative rate.
DATE: Comments on these proposals are due November 10, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Gilbert Tran, Financial
Standards and Reporting Branch, Office of Federal Financial Management,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Room 6025,
Washington, DC 20503. Comments up to three pages in length may be
submitted via facsimile to 202-395-4915. Electronic mail comments may
be submitted via Internet to [email protected] Please include the
full body of electronic mail comments in the text and not as an
attachment. Please include the name, title, organization, postal
address, and E-mail address in the text of the message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Non-Federal organizations should contact the
organization's cognizant Federal agency. Federal agencies should
contact Gilbert Tran, Financial Standards and Reporting Branch, Office
of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, (202)
395-3993.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Purpose of Circular A-21
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21, ``Cost
Principles for Educational Institutions,'' establishes principles for
determining costs applicable to Federal grants, contracts, and other
sponsored agreements with educational institutions.
B. Recent Prior Revisions
Circular A-21 was last amended on May 8, 1996 (61 FR 20880). The
1996 revision incorporated four Cost Accounting Standards applicable to
educational institutions, issued by the Cost Accounting Standards Board
(CASB) on November 8, 1994 (59 FR 55746), and extended these standards
to all sponsored agreements. The revision also: required certain large
institutions to disclose their cost accounting practices by the
submission of a Disclosure Statement prescribed by the CASB; amended
the definition of equipment; eliminated in 1998 the use of special cost
studies to allocate utility, library and student services costs; and,
required the use of fixed facilities and administrative (F&A) cost
rates for the life of sponsored agreements. Furthermore, the 1996
revision: established cost negotiation cognizant agency
responsibilities; replaced the term ``indirect costs'' with
``facilities and administrative costs'' (to describe more accurately
the various cost components of sponsored agreements); clarified the
policy for a change from use allowance to depreciation; added criteria
to interest allowability; and, disallowed tuition benefits for employee
family members.
C. Revisions Proposed for Comment
On February 6, 1995, OMB published two sets of proposed revisions
(60 FR 7104 and 60 FR 7105). The first set was finalized in 1996, as
described in Section B. The second set required further development
prior to proposed implementation. The following proposed revisions
address the second set of proposals made in 1995.
1. Establish a Review Process To Ensure the Reasonableness of Facility
Costs.
To increase accountability in the research component of F&A costs
and ensure that the cost of new research facilities passes a ``prudent
person'' test of reasonableness, OMB proposes to establish a review
process for research facility construction project costs. The proposal,
which is detailed in a new Section F.2.b, would require Federal cost
negotiators to determine whether the gross square foot (GSF) cost of
new research facilities with an actual or estimated total cost of more
than $10 million (or renovation costs of more than $4 million) meet the
reasonableness test. The review process would apply to all new research
building construction and renovation projects that are included in F&A
rates negotiated after January 1, 2000. The review process would apply
only to research buildings in which 40 percent or more of total space
is devoted to federally-sponsored agreements.
Federal cost negotiators will rely on the most recent GSF data
collected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in response to its
biennial survey, ``Science and Engineering Facilities at Colleges and
Universities.'' Biennially, NSF will calculate the median cost per GSF
figures for new research facilities and the median cost per GSF for
renovations to research facilities. NSF will publish these results in
its biennial survey report, which is publicly available. The review
will apply to projects in the 50 states and the District of Columbia,
and the benchmarks will be broken down into the ten Federal regions
established by OMB Circular A-105, ``Standard Federal Regions,'' in
April of 1974, minus the island territories (in addition, as explained
below, Alaska and Hawaii raise unique issues).
The cost items that go into research facility costs have been found
to be geographically sensitive and so the costs within contiguous and
regional states should be comparable. NSF analyzed previous years'
construction cost data by these longstanding Federal regions, and found
that geography explained a significant degree of variation in cost-per-
square-foot in university research facilities and that the Federal
regional grouping provided a reasonable approximation of comparable
construction costs. Further, the geographic regions established in
Circular A-105 are used by the Department of Health and Human Services,
which has negotiation cognizance over a majority of educational
institutions, in their administration of grants and contracts and is
familiar with the grantee community. Therefore, OMB proposes to use
these ten regions for initiating the review process for a particular
university facility costs. Given that other geographic groupings could
be contemplated, OMB invites suggestions of other geographic groupings
that might be demonstrated to be significant contributors to research
facility costs. See proposed new Appendix C to Circular A-21.
[[Page 47723]]
In reviewing data pertaining to newly-constructed or renovated
space, Federal cost negotiators will determine whether the facility's
GSF cost exceeds 125 percent of the NSF median for the region in which
the facility is located. No justification is necessary if the GSF cost
is below the 125 percent benchmark. If the GSF cost exceeds the 125
percent benchmark, then institutions must submit detailed and
quantitative justifications in order for such costs to be considered in
rate negotiations. Acceptable justification should address one of the
following:
(a) Lower life-cycle costs--The institution must demonstrate that
it will incur higher up-front costs in constructing a facility in order
to lower operating costs, and that the initial investment will benefit
the institution and sponsored research agreements; or
(b) Unique research needs--The institution must demonstrate that
unusual design or materials are required for the type of research. For
example, biomedical research space costs are typically more expensive
than the costs of other types of research space.
Additionally, given the different nature of construction costs in
Alaska and Hawaii, a third acceptable justification for construction
costs to exceed the benchmarks is that the project lies in one of those
states.
If an institution's justification is accepted by the Federal cost
negotiators, the full GSF cost amount may be included in the
institution's calculation of its depreciation or use allowance. If an
institution's justification is not deemed acceptable, the Federal cost
negotiators will limit payment of facilities' depreciation or use
allowance to the 125 percent benchmark rate for the region in which the
facility is located. If an institution submits justification that
justifies costs above the benchmark but justifies an amount less than
actual or estimated costs, the Federal cost negotiators and
institutions may arrive at an amount above 125 percent of the regional
median but less than the actual or estimated costs that may be included
in an institution's calculation of depreciation and use allowance.
2. Implement an Alternative Approach for the Payment of Utility Costs
and Defer the Elimination of Special Cost Studies for the Recovery of
Library Costs
The 1996 revision to Circular A-21 indicated that special cost
studies will be eliminated starting with fiscal years beginning on or
after July 1, 1998. OMB committed to developing an alternative approach
to replace special cost studies for utility costs. The proposed
alternative approach, as outlined in proposed new subsections F.4.c and
d, provides a simple methodology to pay for increased utility costs
related to research activities. The approach consists of adding a
utility cost adjustment (UCA) of 1.3 percentage points to the
university's overall F&A organized research rate calculated using the
standard Circular A-21 allocation methods. The 1.3 percentage points
represent the weighted average incremental rate that the Federal
Government paid above the rate calculated using the standard allocation
methodology to institutions that submitted in the past special utility
studies for utility costs related to research activities. OMB will
periodically reassess the UCA.
The UCA will initially be available, starting with fiscal years
beginning on or after July 1, 1998, to the institutions that included
special cost studies in their most recently submitted F&A proposal. The
list of these institutions, based on review of Federal records, is
provided in Attachment A to this proposal. OMB will develop criteria by
which the institutions may be periodically recertified and by which
other institutions could qualify for the UCA by July 1, 2002 and may
change the UCA.
Further, due to the uncertain effects of recent and ongoing changes
to university libraries and their services brought about by the
increased use of the Internet and on-line research, OMB proposes to
defer the elimination of special cost studies to support the allocation
of library costs until OMB has an opportunity to evaluate the impact of
these changes on the costs of library services benefitting organized
research. See proposed revised subsection E.2.d.(5).
3. Provide Additional Guidelines on Depreciation and Use Allowances
In 1995, OMB stated its intention to examine and potentially revise
the current useful life schedules for equipment, the cost of which is
allocated to federally-sponsored agreements through a use allowance, to
ensure that F&A recovery payments keep pace with the changing nature of
scientific equipment. The use allowance methodology is based on an
averaging concept that defines a 15-year useful life as an average life
for all equipment at educational institutions. OMB's examination of
this issue determined that the current 15-year useful life used in the
computation of use allowance is, on balance, reasonable. That is,
although the 15-year useful life may not match the expected life of
some types of equipment (e.g., scientific and computer equipment), it
remains appropriate considering the longer useful life of other types
of equipment (e.g., furniture and fixtures). Therefore, OMB does not
intend to revise the useful life for equipment for the use allowance
method.
For those educational institutions that find that a shorter useful
life for their equipment is more appropriate, Circular A-21 allows the
use of depreciation for the recovery of equipment costs.
To provide more consistency in the treatment of use allowance and
depreciation among educational institutions and Federal cognizant
agencies, OMB proposes the following clarifications for the calculation
of depreciation and use allowance:
(a) Use allowance recovery shall be limited to the acquisition
costs of assets, or fair market value of donated assets at the time of
donation (see proposed revised subsection J.2.c).
(b) Institutions that report depreciation in their financial
statements must use the same depreciation methodology and useful lives
for the F&A proposal (see proposed revised subsection J.12.b).
(c) Guidelines are proposed for the calculation of depreciation on
buildings when depreciation is calculated on individual building
components (see proposed revised subsection J.12.b). This revision
establishes general categories of building components for the
assignment of useful life.
(d) Gains and losses shall be computed on the disposition of
depreciable assets (see proposed revised section J.33). This is how
gains and losses are computed under other OMB cost principles found in
Circulars A-87, ``Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal
Governments,'' and A-122, ``Cost Principles for Non-Profit
Organizations,'' in the treatment of gains or losses resulting from
disposition of depreciable assets. Previously, Circular A-21 was silent
on this issue because depreciation calculations were not required for
educational institutions under generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP).
4. Propose To Develop a Standard Format for the Ssubmission of F&A
Proposals
A standard format would assist institutions in completing their F&A
rate proposal more efficiently and help the Federal cognizant agency
review each proposal on a more consistent basis. It would also allow
the Federal Government to collect improved information about F&A costs
and to analyze F&A data that could be useful
[[Page 47724]]
in explaining variances in F&A rates among institutions. OMB intends to
develop the standard format with assistance from Federal agencies,
universities, and other interested parties, and then request comments
under the Paperwork Reduction Act through a notice in the Federal
Register. When completed, it will be included as an Appendix to the
Circular and be available electronically.
5. Change the distribution Basis for F&A Application (From Salaries and
Wages to Modified Total Direct Costs) for Institutions That Use the
Simplified Allocation Method
This change, detailed in proposed revised Section H.2, would
provide more comparability between F&A rates at small and large
universities.
D. Other Proposed Items for Consideration in the 1995 Notice
OMB does not propose at this time to make revisions on two other
items that were discussed in the 1995 Federal Register notice. They
were: (1) to develop methods for direct charging of space costs, and
(2) to develop new methods for charging specialized services
facilities. The following discussion summarizes the result of OMB's
analyses on these two items.
1. Develop Methods for Direct Charging of Space Costs
In February 1995, OMB stated its intention to develop and test a
model for charging facilities costs directly to sponsored agreements.
The objective of this study was to strengthen the incentive for
universities to allocate space costs more efficiently. OMB asked the
Federal Demonstration Project (FDP), which was created to test ways to
improve flexibility and reduce administrative costs associated with
grant-making, to perform the study. In October 1995, the FDP reported
to OMB that it had developed three models of direct charging space
costs to sponsored agreements. It also reported that, although direct
charging is likely to produce more efficient use of space, it could
also impose an excessive administrative burden on educational
institutions and Federal agencies.
In recognition of the FDP's concerns, OMB is not formally pursuing
this concept at the present time. However, OMB requests that Federal
research agencies attempt to identify candidate institutions willing to
pilot test direct charging. Federal agencies should work with pilot
institutions to identify the best ways to quantify the efficiencies and
administrative burdens direct charging creates and to see if an
acceptable balance can be developed.
2. Consider New Methods for Charging Specialized Service Facilities
In February 1995, OMB stated its intention to develop a standard
methodology for uniform treatment of specialized service facilities
(e.g., animal care, computer centers and biohazard centers). OMB
examined the issue and is not considering a change at this time in the
current provisions for charging specialized service facilities costs.
OMB intended to identify the operating expenses of specialized
service facilities that should be allocated to the direct costs and
those to be included in a facility-specific rate or the general
facilities cost pool. Based on OMB's analysis, costs associated with
the specialized service facilities can be generally identified to these
facilities. In accordance with current provisions of Circular A-21,
these costs shall be directly assigned to the special service
facilities and shall not be included in a facility-specific rate or the
general facilities cost pool, unless the costs are immaterial or not
readily identifiable. To allow the allocation of facilities and general
administrative costs associated with specific specialized service
facilities to a general facilities cost pool would violate the basic
allocability principles of OMB cost principles Circulars (A-21, A-87
and A-122) and inequitably distribute costs to projects that do not
benefit from the specialized service facilities.
E. Clarification on the Use of Fixed Rates for the Life of the
Sponsored Agreement
On May 8, 1996, OMB revised Circular A-21 by adding section G.7,
``Fixed rates for the life of the sponsored agreement,'' (61 FR 20891)
to require Federal agencies to ``use the negotiated rates for F&A costs
in effect at the time of the initial award throughout the life of the
sponsored agreement.'' In a response to public comments in the preamble
section (61 FR 20884), OMB indicated that ``negotiated rates'' could
include predetermined, fixed or provisional rates; and that provisional
rates could be used for both funding and reimbursement throughout the
life of the award.
OMB's intention in section G.7 was to require the Federal funding
agencies to use the negotiated rates (final, fixed or predetermined
rate) in effect at the time of the initial award to determine the total
funding and the reimbursement of F&A costs of a multi-year project.
Therefore, this notice is to clarify that ``negotiated rates,'' as
mentioned in section G.7, do not include provisional rates.
G. Edward DeSeve,
Controller.
Circular A-21 is proposed to be revised as follows:
1. Replace subsection E.2.d.(5) with the following:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (3), effective July 1, 1998, a cost
analysis or base other than that in Section F shall not be used to
distribute utility or student services costs. Instead, subsections
F.4.c and F.4.d may be used in the recovery of utility costs.
2. Renumber subsection F.2.b to F.2.c, and change the reference in
subsection F.4.b from ``subsection 2.b'' to ``subsection 2.c.''
3. Add new subsection F.2.b:
b. Review of selected research facilities construction costs.
Cognizant agencies shall review the reasonableness of the construction
costs, used in an institution's calculation of depreciation or use
allowance, for all research-related capital projects that meet the
criteria in subsection (1). The review requires Federal cost
negotiators to determine, prior to including a new or renovated
research facility's costs in an institution's F&A proposal, whether the
cost per gross square foot (GSF) of new facilities is reasonable when
compared with benchmarks for construction or renovation costs discussed
in subsection (2). The goals of this objective review process are: to
ensure that research facility costs charged to federally-sponsored
agreements are reasonable, to increase accountability in the facilities
component of F&A costs, and to encourage efficient construction and
renovation of research facilities.
(1) All new research capital projects, on which design and
construction begins after July 1, 1998, which are included in F&A rate
proposals negotiated after January 1, 2000, shall be reviewed if they
meet the following criteria:
(a) Facilities construction costs are greater than or equal to $10
million, or renovation costs greater than or equal to $4 million; and
(b) 40 percent or more of the facility's depreciation or use
allowance is assigned to federally-sponsored agreements at any time
during the life of the building.
(2) The benchmark is equal to 125 percent of the most recent cost
per GSF data the National Science Foundation (NSF) collects in response
to its biennial survey, ``Science and Engineering Facilities at
Colleges and Universities.'' Using these survey data, NSF will
[[Page 47725]]
biennially calculate median cost per GSF for new research facilities
constructed and median cost per GSF for renovation projects completed
at colleges and universities. These benchmarks will be broken down
according to ten Federal regions (see Appendix C of Circular A-21).
(3) No justification is necessary if the cost per GSF is below the
125 percent benchmark. If the cost per GSF exceeds 125 percent of the
median cost for the region in which the facility of an institution is
located, then the institution must submit detailed and quantitative
justification in order for such costs to be considered in rate
negotiation. While the submission can address other justifications, the
institution must address whether the following justify the higher
rates:
(a) Lower life-cycle costs--The institution incurred higher up-
front costs in constructing a facility in order to lower operating
costs. This initial investment will benefit the institution and
sponsored research agreements; or
(b) Unique research needs--The unusual design or materials, if
required for the type of research, that significantly increased the
construction costs of the facility. For example, biomedical research
space costs are typically more expensive than the costs for other types
of research space, according to NSF facilities data.
Additionally, given the different nature of construction costs in
Alaska and Hawaii, a third acceptable justification for construction
costs to exceed the benchmarks is that the project lies in one of those
states.
If the Federal cost negotiators determine that an institution's
justification is acceptable, then the full GSF cost amount may be
included in the institution's calculation of its depreciation or use
allowance. If the Federal cost negotiators determine that an
institution's justification is not acceptable, then the Federal cost
negotiators will limit payment of facility's depreciation or use
allowance to the 125 percent benchmark rate for the region in which the
facility is located. If the Federal cost negotiators determine that an
institution has submitted a justification that justifies costs above
the benchmark but at an amount less than actual or estimated costs,
then the Federal cost negotiators and institutions may arrive at an
amount above 125 percent of the regional median but less than the
actual or estimated costs that may be included in an institution's
calculation of depreciation or use allowance.
4. Add new subsections F.4.c and F.4.d:
c. For F&A rates negotiated on or after July 1, 1998, an
institution that previously employed a utility special cost study in
its most recently negotiated F&A rate proposal in accordance with
Section E.2.d, may add a utility cost adjustment (UCA) of 1.3
percentage points to its negotiated overall F&A rate for organized
research. The allocation of utility costs to the benefitting functions
shall otherwise be made in the same manner as described in subsection
F.4.b. Beginning on July 1, 2002, Federal agencies shall reassess
periodically the eligibility of institutions to receive the UCA.
d. Beginning on July 1, 2002, Federal agencies shall receive
applications for utilization of the UCA from institutions not subject
to the provisions of subsection F.4.c.
5. Replace subsection H.1.a with the following:
a. Where the total direct cost of work covered by Circular A-21 at
an institution does not exceed $10 million in a fiscal year, the use of
the simplified procedure described in subsection 2, may be used in
determining allowable F&A costs. Under this simplified procedure, the
institution's most recent annual financial report and immediately
available supporting information shall be utilized as basis for
determining the F&A cost rate applicable to all sponsored agreements.
6. Replace subsection H.2.a with the following:
a. Establish the total costs incurred by the institution for the
base period.
7. Replace subsection H.2.c with the following:
c. Establish the modified total direct cost distribution base, as
defined in Section G.2.
8. Replace subsection H.2.e with the following:
e. Apply the F&A cost rate to the modified total direct costs for
individual agreements to determine the amount of F&A costs allocable to
such agreements.
9. Replace subsection J.12.b.(2) with the following:
(2) The depreciation method used to charge the cost of an asset (or
group of assets) to accounting periods shall reflect the pattern of
consumption of the asset during its useful life. In the absence of
clear evidence indicating that the expected consumption of the asset
will be significantly greater in the early portions than in the later
portions of its useful life, the straight-line method shall be presumed
to be the appropriate method. Depreciation methods once used shall not
be changed unless approved in advance by the cognizant Federal agency.
The depreciation methods used to calculate the depreciation amounts for
F&A rate purposes shall be the same methods used by the institution for
its financial statements. This section does not apply to institutions
(e.g., public institutions) which are not required to record
depreciation by applicable generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP).
10. Replace subsection J.12.b.(4) with the following:
(4) When the depreciation method is used for buildings, a building
may be divided into three general components. Each component item must
then be depreciated over its estimated useful life. The three general
components of a building are: building shell (including construction
and design costs), building services systems (e.g., elevators, HVAC,
plumbing system and heating and air-conditioning system) and fixed
equipment (e.g., sterilizers, casework, fumehoods, cold rooms and
glassware/washers). When an institution elects to depreciate its
buildings by its components, the same depreciation methods must be used
for F&A purposes and financial statements purposes, as described in
subsection b.(2). However, the entire building, including the shell and
all components, may be treated as a single asset and depreciated over a
single useful life.
11. Replace subsection J.12.c.(1) with the following:
(1) The use allowance for buildings and improvements (including
improvements such as paved parking areas, fences, and sidewalks) shall
be computed at an annual rate not exceeding two percent of acquisition
cost. The use allowance for equipment shall be computed at an annual
rate not exceeding six and two-thirds percent of acquisition cost. Use
allowance recovery is limited to the acquisition costs of the assets.
For donated assets, use allowance is limited to the fair market of the
assets at the time of donation.
12. Replace section J.33 with the following:
33. Profits and losses on disposition of plant equipment or other
capital assets.
a. (1) Gains and losses on the sale, retirement, or other
disposition of depreciable property shall be included in the year in
which they occur as credits or charges to the asset cost grouping(s) in
which the property was included. The amount of the gain or loss to be
included as a credit or charge to the appropriate asset cost
grouping(s) shall be the difference between the amount realized on the
property and the undepreciated basis of the property.
(2) Gains and losses on the disposition of depreciable property
shall
[[Page 47726]]
not be recognized as a separate credit or charge under the following
conditions:
(a) The gain or loss is processed through a depreciation account
and is reflected in the depreciation allowable under Section J.12.
(b) The property is given in exchange as part of the purchase price
of a similar item and the gain or loss is taken into account in
determining the depreciation cost basis of the new item.
(c) A loss results from the failure to maintain permissible
insurance, except as otherwise provided in Section J.21.d.
(d) Compensation for the use of the property was provided through
use allowances in lieu of depreciation.
b. Gains or losses of any nature arising from the sale or exchange
of property other than the property covered in subsection a shall be
excluded in computing Federal award costs.
c. When assets acquired with Federal funds, in part or wholly, are
disposed of, the distribution of the proceeds shall be made in
accordance with Circular A-110, ``Uniform Administrative Requirements
for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education,
Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations.''
13. Add new Appendix C.
Appendix C
Federal Regions for Construction Benchmark Facilities Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States (and the District of
Region Columbia)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................................... Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island and Vermont.
II..................................... New York and New Jersey.
III.................................... Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia and District of
Columbia.
IV..................................... Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina and
Tennessee.
V...................................... Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
VI..................................... Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
VII.................................... Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and
Nebraska.
VIII................................... Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and
Wyoming.
IX..................................... Arizona, California, Hawaii and
Nevada.
X...................................... Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and
Washington.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment A
Listing of institutions that included special cost studies for
the recovery of utility costs in their most recent F&A proposal
submission based on a review of Federal records.
1. Boston College
2. Boston University
3. California Institute of Technology
4. Columbia University
5. Cornell University (Endowed)
6. Cornell University (Statutory)
7. Cornell University (Medical)
8. Emory University
9. Harvard Medical School
10. Harvard University
11. Johns Hopkins University
12. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
13. Medical University of South Carolina
14. Mount Sinai School of Medicine
15. New York University (except New York University Medical Center)
16. New York University Medical Center
17. North Carolina State University
18. Northeastern University
19. Oregon Health Sciences University
20. Oregon State University
21. Rice University
22. Rockefeller University
23. Stanford University
24. Tufts University
25. Tulane University
26. University of Arizona
27. University of CA, Berkeley
28. University of CA, Irvine
29. University of CA, Los Angeles
30. University of CA, San Diego
31. University of CA, San Francisco
32. University of Colorado, Health Sciences Center
33. University of Illinois, Urbana
34. University of Pennsylvania
35. University of Pittsburgh
36. University of Rochester
37. University of Southern California
38. University of Virginia
39. University of Michigan
40. University of Massachusetts, Medical Center
41. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey
42. University of Connecticut, Health Sciences Center
43. University of Vermont & State Agriculture College
44. University of Texas, Austin
45. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
46. Virginia Commonwealth University
47. Vanderbilt University
48. Washington University
49. Yale University
50. Yeshiva University
[FR Doc. 97-23878 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
