OMB is proposing significant revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 (the Uniform Guidance), the federal government’s rulebook for how costs are charged to federal awards. While the proposal contains many troubling provisions that have sweeping potentially negative consequences for science, three in particular directly affect libraries. Two create immediate questions about library subscription costs and publication fees. A third, the federal purpose license (§200.315(b)), is unchanged but is important as a public access compliance pathway. The following FAQs address these specific 2 CFR Part 200 provisions.
Basics
► What is actually being proposed, and why does it matter for libraries?
-
- The proposed revision to §200.454(b) would add “academic” to the list of subscription types that cannot be charged to federal awards — raising questions about whether institutional journal subscriptions can continue to be recovered through indirect cost (F&A) rates.
- The proposed revision to §200.461 would reverse the current default and make publication costs, including article processing charges (APCs) and other author-side publication fees, generally unallowable on federal awards.
- Either change, if interpreted broadly, could significantly affect library budgets and public access compliance programs. See below for further analysis on these key questions.
► When would these changes take effect, and would they affect existing awards?
-
- 2 CFR 200 and related provisions are implemented through inclusion in the terms and conditions (T&Cs) of federal awards.
- SPARC’s understanding is that these provisions would go into effect for new awards that include them in updated T&Cs. We haven’t seen any language that would retroactively change the T&Cs that govern existing grant agreements.
- The rule states that the revisions are intended to go into effect on October 1st. We expect there to be delays in that effective date as many advocates will be working to stop or delay the process.
► Does 2 CFR apply to all agencies?
-
- Yes, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) includes all the rules published in the Federal Register by all the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
- 2 CFR Part 200 (the Uniform Guidance) streamlines grant guidance and regulations across the federal government and is the government’s rulebook for how costs are charged to federal awards.
► What are some key dates to be aware of?
-
- July 13, 2026: Deadline for submitting federal register comments on proposed regulation
- October 1 – December 31, 2026: Potential effective date
- Ongoing: Possible litigation
- TBD: Congressional Response
► Is there value in submitting comments?
-
- Yes, there is value in submitting comments. While there are indications the rule’s contours are largely settled, a robust comment record still matters. It creates an administrative record, signals the breadth of stakeholder concern, and supports any future litigation or congressional action.
- There is also active interest in this proposed revision on Capitol Hill that could be informed by these comments.
- SPARC will monitor legislative developments and share updates as they emerge.
§200.454: Memberships, subscriptions, and professional activity costs
Library Subscriptions and Indirect Costs
► How will updates to 2 CFR 200.454 affect academic subscriptions?
-
- This is an area within the proposed updates where there is enough ambiguity in the language that library budgets and subscriptions could be affected.
- To ensure libraries are prepared, we recommend having internal conversations to understand how your institution is interpreting the language and if they plan to make any changes to components of negotiated F&A rates in response.
- SPARC’s understanding of the proposed updates to this section is that academic subscription costs covered by indirect federal funding should not be directly affected.
- This interpretation comes from Section IX. Indirect Cost Rates stating “OMB is not proposing updates to the indirect cost rate negotiation system through this document”, and that a reading of the proposed update that would force universities to strip a major cost category from their indirect cost pools is hard to reconcile with this language.
- Additionally, §200.454(b) has historically targeted individually-incurred professional expenses charged directly to grants — things like a PI’s personal journal subscription or a society membership. Whereas library journal subscriptions have been an uncontested component of negotiated F&A rates for decades.
- However, the proposal also states that “all else being equal, preference for discretionary awards should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.” This may create pressure on universities that could affect library budgets and subscriptions.
- Given this uncertainty, SPARC plans to request that OMB provide clarification on this area of the proposal.
► Would these changes affect read-and-publish agreements?
-
- SPARC’s narrower interpretation, described in the FAQ above, would leave them undisturbed. However, members should treat this as an open question until there is greater regulatory clarity.
- The publication component of read-and-publish agreements may also be affected by §200.461 (see FAQs below). For most institutions, the more pressing question likely involves §200.454(b) and subscriptions, as these agreements are often paid from central library budgets and may be partially recovered through indirect costs.
§200.461: Publication and printing costs
Publishing Fees and Public Access
► Can publishing costs still be charged to federal grants?
-
- Not as a default. The proposed rule reverses the current guidance, under which publication costs are generally allowable when the publication reports on federally funded research.
- Under the proposal, all publication costs, including APCs and other author-side fees, would be unallowable unless required by federal statute or approved in advance by a federal agency on a case-by-case basis.
- With proposed changes in other sections giving political appointees greater involvement in approving grants and budgets, there will likely be significant variation in how agencies apply the narrow exceptions for publication costs.
► If publishing costs are no longer allowable, what approaches can researchers take to meet federal public-access requirements?
-
- The proposed §200.461(b) explicitly states that a general requirement to make results publicly available does not mean that publication costs are authorized.
- Therefore, institutions will need to rethink compliance pathways regardless of potential agency-by-agency exceptions.
- Viable alternatives include:
- Fully utilizing the federal purpose license (see FAQ below) to support depositing article accepted manuscripts (AAMs) in agency repositories without needing to pay publisher fees.
- Publishing with journals that do not charge author-side fees or fees for policy compliance.
- Expanding the use of diamond open access journals, alternative publishing models such as Publish, Review, Curate (PRC), and institutional agreements that don’t involve per-article payments.
- Note that section §200.315(b), the provision reserving the federal purpose license, is unchanged in the proposed rule. Agencies will continue to use it to require AAM deposit, and it remains the most reliable compliance path.
- The HELIOS Open community will also actively be exploring the intersection of these changes with review, promotion, and tenure policies and the potential for revising these policies to reduce the incentive to pay for prestige.
► If publication costs are included in a proposal budget and budget justification, might they be eligible under the exception in 200.461(b)?
-
- It’s possible that publication costs may be allowed if included in proposal budgets and budget justifications and be “approved in advance by the Federal agency on a case-by-case basis”.
- With the proposed updates including political appointees being more involved in grant approvals, there may be less flexibility within agencies to approve publication fees included within the budget.
- There will likely be a wide range of approaches across each agency and even differences within agencies depending on the program officer/manager.
► Does the clause in 200.461 about charges “levied impartially on all items published by the journal” mean that APCs for fully OA journals could still be charged as a direct cost?
-
- For publishing costs to be allowable, they need to meet an exception described in 200.461(b) (required by Federal statute or approved in advance) and meet the requirements in 200.461(c).
- If the cost is an exception, the publishing charge is allowable if it is “levied impartially on all items published by the journal” (and meets the other requirements in 200.461(c)).
► How might this affect the publication component of read-and-publish agreements?
-
- For institutions that pay for read-and-publish agreements centrally and don’t charge any portion directly to grant budgets, changes §200.461 may not affect read-and-publish agreements.
- SPARC’s understanding is that the provision in §200.461 targets direct charges to individual awards, not costs recovered through F&A rates.
- SPARC’s narrower interpretation of §200.461 would leave read-and-publish agreements undisturbed.
- However, members should treat this as an open question until there is greater regulatory clarity. We recommend having conversations with university leadership to understand your institution’s interpretation of the proposed updates and your institution plans to make any changes to F&A related to the proposal.
§200.315: Intangible property
Federal Purpose License
► Are there any proposed updates to the federal purpose license?
-
- No, the proposal did not include changes to §200.315(b), the provision used by funding agencies to reserve the government’s license to any work developed under a federal award (the federal purpose license (FPL)).
- The FPL acts as a “prior license” and takes first priority over any subsequent agreement with the journal publisher (e.g., through the copyright transfer agreement).
- No change to the FPL matters because it means the mechanism agencies rely on to implement public access requirements remains intact, even as the funding pathway for publishing fees is being cut off.
- Because §200.461 makes publishing costs generally unallowable, the federal purpose license remains the primary vehicle for public access compliance.
IX. Indirect Cost Rates
► Is OMB proposing to cut indirect cost rates?
-
- Not in this rulemaking, but the threat is real.
- The proposal cites Executive Order 14332 (August 2025), which directs OMB to limit the use of discretionary grant funds for F&A costs, then defers action on rate negotiation to a separate forthcoming rulemaking.
- The executive order remains in place. Proposed updates to 2 CFR is a deferral of addressing indirect cost rates, not a resolution.
- However, the text of the rule does include language indicating that OMB may address indirect costs in a subsequent process.
► What are the indirect cost concerns related to the proposed update?
-
- The ambiguity in §200.454(b) could be read to require stripping library subscriptions from indirect cost pools.
- The proposed rule states that “all else being equal, preference for discretionary awards should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.” This embeds a structural disadvantage for research-intensive universities whose rates reflect the full, legitimate cost of supporting research, including robust library infrastructure, without touching the rate-setting system directly.
Key Takeaways
► What is SPARC’s overall assessment of this rulemaking?
-
- This rulemaking is harmful to science. It introduces ambiguity where there should be clarity, concentrates discretionary authority in ways that invite unequal treatment, and reflects policy priorities misaligned with the public interest in open, rigorous, independent research.
- The one provision SPARC agrees with in principle – redirecting federal funds away from commercial APC fees – is at risk of being implemented in a way that creates compliance risk rather than supporting the transition to genuinely open alternatives.
- There is enough ambiguity in the sections related to subscriptions and publishing costs that library budgets and spending may be affected. We recommend having conversations internally to understand your institution’s interpretation of the proposed updates and if there are plans to make any changes in response.
► What should members do to prepare for the proposed changes?
-
- Though SPARC has a narrower reading of 200.454 and 200.461, with neither proposed update affecting indirect costs, there is enough ambiguity that members should consider preparing for the potential impacts of a broader interpretation. These include:
- Understanding any potential budget risks by analyzing current spending with publishers and how libraries are represented in your institutional F&A.
- Reviewing what would be required to exercise financial exigency clauses in existing contracts, or including a financial exigency clause in current contract negotiations. See CRKN’s model license (term 10.1) for example language.
- Utilizing SPARC negotiations resources related to exiting big deals if doing so may be financially necessary. See our Exit Interview series and ongoing SPARC programming.
- Having conversations with university leadership to understand your institution’s interpretation of the proposed regulation changes, any broader impacts to the institution, and if there are plans to make changes related to the proposal.
- Consider using the strategic questions in ARL’s Proposed Rule: Considerations for Research Librarians resource to aid in analyzing publisher costs and support internal conversations.
- Though SPARC has a narrower reading of 200.454 and 200.461, with neither proposed update affecting indirect costs, there is enough ambiguity that members should consider preparing for the potential impacts of a broader interpretation. These include:
► Do you have suggestions for communicating the proposed 2 CFR 200 updates on our campus?
-
- SPARC recommends connecting with your office of sponsored research and using resources they generate for communicating about the overall proposed 2 CFR updates.
- Engage with researchers early so they are aware of the proposal and can prepare for anticipated changes.
- SPARC will continue to provide and share resources around the areas that directly affect libraries and publishing.