Comment on OMB-2026-0034-0001

This comment is submitted by The Optimum Department, LLC, an independent research infrastructure strategy consultancy, drawing on nearly twenty years of experience in research administration, grant finance, and compliance at research-intensive universities. It is submitted on behalf of the firm and the commenter individually, not on behalf of any institution, client, or employer. This is a supplemental comment. It supplements and incorporates by reference the comment I filed in this docket, OMB-2026-0034, on June 22, 2026, Comment Tracking No. mqc-ye3k-zz3z. The full analysis is provided in the attached document. The comment and this supplement oppose the proposed rule and urge OMB to withdraw it. Since that filing, the National Science Foundation released for public comment a draft NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA), Docket No. NSF-2026-OTR-0001-0003, the successor to the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The GFA expressly aligns its provisions with the proposed revisions to 2 CFR 200 published at 91 Fed. Reg. 32198 (May 29, 2026). As the implementation document of a co-issuing agency, it bears on objections my prior comment already raised, and this supplement places that material in the OMB record. The supplement makes three points. First, the GFA builds its operative provisions, including fixed-price awards, publication costs, and termination, around the proposed 2 CFR 200 text before the comment period on that rule has closed; this bears on the inadequacy of the 45-day comment period under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. NSF afforded its own draft approximately 60 days, while OMB afforded the foundational rule 45. Second, the GFA confirms the absence of agency-specific statutory analysis identified in my prior comment: NSF's merit review guide reports no significant changes and cites the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, yet the document aligns with Executive Order 14332 and proposed [200.205] without reconciling the appointee-priority direction against NSF's merit review authority. Third, the GFA disallows publication costs under proposed [200.461] while simultaneously expanding and accelerating public access requirements, demonstrating within a single agency document the unfunded-mandate conflict my prior comment identified. For the reasons stated in my prior comment and this supplement, I continue to urge OMB to withdraw the proposed rule.