(1) A Federal program administered under multiple internal control structures may have higher risk. When assessing risk in a large single audit, the auditor shall consider whether weaknesses are isolated in a single operating unit (e.g., one college campus) or pervasive throughout the entity.

(ii) When significant parts of a Federal program are passed through to subrecipients, a weak system for monitoring subrecipients would indicate higher risk.

(iii) The extent to which computer processing is used to administer Federal programs, as well as the complexity of that processing, should be considered by the auditor in assessing risk. New and recently modified computer systems may also indicate risk.

(2) Prior audit findings would indicate higher risk, particularly when the situations identified in the audit findings could have a significant impact on a Federal program or have not been corrected.

(3) Federal programs not recently audited as major programs may be of higher risk than Federal programs recently audited as major programs without audit findings.

(c) Oversight exercised by Federal agencies and pass-through entities. (1) Oversight exercised by Federal agencies or pass-through entities could indicate risk. For example, recent monitoring or other reviews performed by an oversight entity which disclosed no significant problems would indicate lower risk. However, monitoring which disclosed significant problems would indicate higher risk.

(2) Federal agencies, with the concurrence of OMB, may identify Federal programs which are higher risk. OMB plans to provide this identification in the compliance supplement.

(d) Inherent risk of the Federal program. (1) The nature of a Federal program may indicate risk. Consideration should be given to the complexity of the program and the extent to which the Federal program contracts for goods and services. For example, Federal programs that disburse funds through third party contracts or have eligibility criteria may be of higher risk. Federal programs primarily involving staff payroll costs may have a

high-risk for time and effort reporting, but otherwise be at low-risk.

(2) The phase of a Federal program in its life cycle at the Federal agency may indicate risk. For example, a new Federal program with new or interim regulations may have higher risk than an established program with time-tested regulations. Also, significant changes in Federal programs, laws, regulations, or the provisions of contracts or grant agreements may increase risk. (3) The phase of a Federal program in its life cycle at the auditee may indicate risk. For example, during the first and last years that an auditee participates in a Federal program, the risk may be higher due to start-up or closeout of program activities and staff.

(4) Type B programs with larger Federal awards expended would be of higher risk than programs with substantially smaller Federal awards pended.

ex

low-risk

An auditee which meets all of the following conditions for each of the preceding two years (or, in the case of biennial audits, preceding two audit periods) shall qualify as a low-risk auditee and be eligible for reduced audit coverage in accordance with §3052.520:

(a) Single audits were performed on an annual basis in accordance with the provisions of this part. A non-Federal entity that has biennial audits does not qualify as a low-risk auditee, unless agreed to in advance by the cognizant or oversight agency for audit.

(b) The auditor's opinions on the financial statements and the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards were unqualified. However, the cognizant or oversight agency for audit may judge that an opinion qualification does not affect the management of Federal awards and provide a waiver.

(c) There were no deficiencies in internal control which were identified as material weaknesses under the requirements of GAGAS. However, the cognizant or oversight agency for audit may judge that any identified material weaknesses do not affect the management of Federal awards and provide a waiver.

(d) None of the Federal programs had audit findings from any of the following in either of the preceding two years (or, in the case of biennial audits, preceding two audit periods) in which they were classified as Type A programs:

(1) Internal control which were identified

weaknesses;

as

deficiencies

material

(2) Noncompliance with the provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, or grant agreements which have a material effect on the Type A program; or

(3) Known or likely questioned costs that exceed five percent of the total Federal awards expended for a Type A program during the year.

tion of antiquities; and authorizes scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal lands, subject to permit and regulations. Paleontological resources also are considered to fall within the authority of this Act.

(b) Historic Sites Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-292; 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.) which authorizes the establishment of National Historic Sites and otherwise authorizes the preservation of properties of national historical or archeological significance; authorizes the designation of National Historic Landmarks; establishes criminal sanctions for violation of regulations pursuant to the Act; authorizes interagency, intergovernmental, and interdisciplinary efforts for the preservation of cultural resources; and other provisions.

(c) Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (Pub. L. 86-521; 74 Stat. 220; 16 U.S.C. 469469c.) which provides for the recovery and preservation of historical and archeological data, including relics and specimens, that might be lost or destroyed as a result of the construction of dams, reservoirs, and attendant facilities and activities.

(d) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), which establishes positive national policy for the preservation of the cultural environment, and sets forth a mandate for protection in section 106. The purpose of section 106 is to protect properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places through review and comment by the ACHP of Federal undertakings that affect such properties. Properties are listed on the National Register or declared eligible for listing by the Secretary of the Interior. As developed through the ACHP's regulations, section 106 establishes a public interest process in which the Federal agency proposing an undertaking, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the ACHP, interested organizations and individuals participate. The process is designed to insure that properties, impacts on them, and effects to them are identified, and that alternatives to avoid or mitigate an adverse effect on property eligible for the National Register are adequately considered in the planning process.

(e) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Pub. L. 91-190; 83