Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27303 

841, at II–747 (1986) (Conf. Rep.), 1986– 

3 (vol. 4) C.B. 608 (stating that the 

conference agreement follows the House 

bill and the Senate amendment on this 

restriction). 

To clarify the scope of the investmenttype property definition consistent with 

Congressional intent reflected in the 

legislative history, the Proposed 

Regulations would provide an express 

exception to the definition of 

investment-type property for capital 

projects that further the public purposes 

for which the tax-exempt bonds were 

issued. For example, investment-type 

property does not include a courthouse 

financed with governmental bonds or an 

eligible exempt facility under section 

142, such as a public road, financed 

with private activity bonds. 

2. Applicability Dates and Reliance 

The proposed amendments to the 

definition of investment-type property 

in the Proposed Regulations are 

proposed to apply to bonds sold on or 

after the date that is 90 days after the 

date of publication of a Treasury 

Decision adopting these rules as final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

Issuers may apply the Proposed 

Regulations to bonds that are sold before 

the applicability date provided in a 

Treasury Decision adopting these rules 

as final regulations in the Federal 

Register. 

Special Analyses 

This regulation is not subject to 

review under section 6(b) of Executive 

Order 12866 pursuant to the 

Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 

2018) between the Department of the 

Treasury and the Office of Management 

and Budget regarding review of tax 

regulations. Because these regulations 

do not impose a collection of 

information on small entities, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to 

section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice 

of proposed rulemaking will be 

submitted to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for comment on its 

impact on small entities. 

Comments and Requests for Public 

Hearing 

Before the Proposed Regulations are 

adopted as final regulations, 

consideration will be given to any 

comments that are submitted timely to 

the IRS as prescribed in this preamble 

under the ADDRESSES heading. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

request comments on all aspects of the 

proposed rules. All comments will be 

available at www.regulations.gov or 

upon request. A public hearing will be 

scheduled if requested in writing by any 

person that timely submits written 

comments. If a public hearing is 

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and 

place for the hearing will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

Drafting Information 

The principal authors of these 

regulations are Spence Hanemann of the 

Office of Associate Chief Counsel 

(Financial Institutions and Products) 

and Vicky Tsilas, formerly of the Office 

of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial 

Institutions and Products). However, 

other personnel from the Treasury 

Department and the IRS participated in 

their development. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 1.148–0(c) is amended 

by adding entries for §§ 1.148–1(e)(4) 

and 1.148–11(n) to read as follows: 

§ 1.148–0 Scope and table of contents. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

§ 1.148–1 Definitions and elections. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) Exception for certain capital 

projects. 

* * * * * 

§ 1.148–11 Effective/applicability dates. 

* * * * * 

(n) Investment-type property. 

■ Par. 3. Section 1.148–1 is amended 

by: 

■ 1. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (e)(1). 

■ 2. Adding paragraph (e)(4). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 1.148–1 Definitions and elections. 

* * * * * 

(e) Investment-type property—(1) In 

general. Except as otherwise provided 

in this paragraph (e), investment-type 

property includes any property, other 

than property described in section 

148(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), or (E), that is held 

principally as a passive vehicle for the 

production of income. * * * 

* * * * * 

(4) Exception for certain capital 

projects. Investment-type property does 

not include real property or tangible 

personal property (for example, land, 

buildings, and equipment) that is used 

in furtherance of the public purposes for 

which the tax-exempt bonds are issued. 

For example, investment-type property 

does not include a courthouse financed 

with governmental bonds or an eligible 

exempt facility under section 142, such 

as a public road, financed with private 

activity bonds. 

* * * * * 

■ Par. 4. Section 1.148–11 is amended 

by adding paragraph (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.148–11 Effective/applicability dates. 

* * * * * 

(n) Investment-type property. Section 

1.148–1(e)(1) and (4) apply to bonds 

sold on or after the date that is 90 days 

after the date of publication of a 

Treasury Decision adopting these rules 

as final regulations in the Federal 

Register. 

Kirsten Wielobob, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12565 Filed 6–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 15 

[FAR Case 2017–006; Docket No. 2017– 

0006, Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AN53 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

Exception From Certified Cost or 

Pricing Data Requirements—Adequate 

Price Competition 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to provide 

guidance to DoD, NASA, and the Coast 

Guard, consistent with a section of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 


pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
27304 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Fiscal Year 2017 that addresses the 

exception from certified cost or pricing 

data requirements when price is based 

on adequate price competition. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat at one of the addresses 

shown below on or before August 13, 

2018 to be considered in the formation 

of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2017–006 by any 

of the following methods: 

Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘FAR Case 2017–006’’ under 

the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and 

selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the link 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds 

with ‘‘FAR Case 2017–006’’. Follow the 

instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ screen. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘FAR Case 2017–006’’ on your attached 

document. 

Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 1800 F 

Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 

20405–0001. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FAR Case 2017–006’’ in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael O. Jackson, Procurement 

Analyst, at 202–208–4949 for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite 

FAR Case 2017–006. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing 

to provide a separate standard for 

‘‘adequate price competition’’ in the 

FAR, applicable only to DoD, NASA, 

and the Coast Guard, consistent with the 

requirements of section 822 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. 

L. 114–328). Setting forth the separate 

standard for DoD, NASA, and the Coast 

Guard in the FAR provides a top-level 

framework to facilitate consistent 

implementation of section 822 at the 

agency level by DoD, NASA, and the 

Coast Guard. Section 822 modifies 10 

U.S.C. 2306a, the Truth in Negotiations 

Act, which is applicable only to DoD, 

NASA, and the Coast Guard. Section 

822 limits the exception for price based 

on adequate price competition to 

circumstances in which there is 

adequate competition that results in at 

least two or more responsive and viable 

competing bids. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

This proposed rule modifies the 

standard for adequate price competition 

at FAR 15.403–1(c)(1), to provide a 

separate standard for DoD, NASA, and 

the Coast Guard. There are also 

conforming changes to the cross 

references at FAR 15.305(a)(1) and 

15.404–1(b)(2)(i). 

III. Applicability to Contracts at or 

Below the Simplified Acquisition 

Threshold and for Commercial Items, 

Including Commercially Available Offthe-Shelf Items 

This rule does not contain any 

provision or clause that applies to 

contracts or subcontracts at or below the 

simplified acquisition threshold or 

contracts or subcontracts for the 

acquisition of commercial items, 

including commercially available offthe-shelf items. 

IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under Section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

V. Executive Order 13771 

This proposed rule is not expected to 

be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action, 

because this proposed rule is not 

significant under E.O. 12866. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect 

this rule to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq. However, an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been 

performed and is summarized as 

follows: 

This rule proposes to provide a separate 

standard for ‘‘adequate price competition’’ in 

the FAR for DoD, NASA, and the Coast 

Guard, consistent with the requirements of 

section 822 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114–328). 

The objective of this rule is to clarify that 

there is a different standard applicable to 

DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, and to 

provide a top-level framework to facilitate 

consistent implementation of section 822 at 

the agency level by DoD, NASA, and the 

Coast Guard. The statutory basis is 10 U.S.C. 

2306a, as amended by section 822 of the 

NDAA for FY 2017. 

This rule only provides a statement of 

internal guidance to DoD, NASA, and the 

Coast Guard, i.e., ‘‘For DoD, NASA, and the 

Coast Guard, a price is based on adequate 

price competition only if two or more 

offerors, competing independently, submit 

responsive and viable offers.’’ This principle 

will not have impact on small entities until 

implemented at the agency level by DoD, 

NASA, and the Coast Guard. 

There are no projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements of the rule. The rule amends 

the standards for adequate price competition 

for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard. 

However, the corollary of this FAR change is 

that DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard will 

be required to obtain certified cost or pricing 

data from an offeror when only one offer is 

received and no other exception applies. The 

rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with any other Federal rules. 

Since this rule does not impose a burden 

on small entities, DoD, GSA, and NASA were 

unable to identify any alternatives that would 

reduce burden on small business and still 

meet the requirements of the statute. 

The Regulatory Secretariat Division 

has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. A copy of the 

IRFA may be obtained from the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, 

GSA, and NASA invite comments from 

small business concerns and other 

interested parties on the expected 

impact of this rule on small entities. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA will also 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the existing regulations in 

subparts affected by the rule consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties 

must submit such comments separately 

and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 

2017–006), in correspondence. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 15 

Government procurement. 


pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27305 

Dated: June 6, 2018. 

William F. Clark, 

Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

proposes to amend 48 CFR part 15 as set 

forth below: 

PART 15—CONTRACTING BY 

NEGOTIATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 15 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113. 

15.305 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 15.305 by removing 

from paragraph (a)(1) in the fourth 

sentence ‘‘(see 15.403–1(c)(1)(i)(B))’’ and 

adding ‘‘(see 15.403–1(c)(1)(i)(A)(2))’’ in 

its place. 

■ 3. Amend section 15.403–1 by— 

■ a. Revising the heading of paragraph 

(c); and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

15.403–1 Prohibition on obtaining certified 

cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 

U.S.C. chapter 35). 

* * * * * 

(c) Standards for exceptions from 

certified cost or pricing data 

requirements. 

(1) Adequate price competition. (i) 

For agencies other than DoD, NASA, 

and the Coast Guard, a price is based on 

adequate price competition if— 

(A) Two or more responsible offerors, 

competing independently, submit 

priced offers that satisfy the 

Government’s expressed requirement 

and if— 

(1) Award will be made to the offeror 

whose proposal represents the best 

value (see 2.101) where price is a 

substantial factor in source selection; 

and 

(2) There is no finding that the price 

of the otherwise successful offeror is 

unreasonable. Any finding that the price 

is unreasonable must be supported by a 

statement of the facts and approved at 

a level above the contracting officer; 

(B) There was a reasonable 

expectation, based on market research 

or other assessment, that two or more 

responsible offerors, competing 

independently, would submit priced 

offers in response to the solicitation’s 

expressed requirement, even though 

only one offer is received from a 

responsible offeror and if— 

(1) Based on the offer received, the 

contracting officer can reasonably 

conclude that the offer was submitted 

with the expectation of competition, 

e.g., circumstances indicate that— 

(i) The offeror believed that at least 

one other offeror was capable of 

submitting a meaningful offer; and 

(ii) The offeror had no reason to 

believe that other potential offerors did 

not intend to submit an offer; and 

(2) The determination that the 

proposed price is based on adequate 

price competition and is reasonable has 

been approved at a level above the 

contracting officer; or 

(C) Price analysis clearly 

demonstrates that the proposed price is 

reasonable in comparison with current 

or recent prices for the same or similar 

items, adjusted to reflect changes in 

market conditions, economic 

conditions, quantities, or terms and 

conditions under contracts that resulted 

from adequate price competition. 

(ii) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast 

Guard, a price is based on adequate 

price competition only if two or more 

responsible offerors, competing 

independently, submit responsive and 

viable offers. (10 U.S.C. 

2306a(b)(1)(A)(i)). 

* * * * * 

15.404–1 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend section 15.404–1 by 

removing from paragraph (b)(2)(i) ‘‘(see 

15.403–1(c)(1)(i))’’ and adding ‘‘(see 

15.403–1(c)(1)(i) and (ii))’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12539 Filed 6–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 180202124–8124–01] 

RIN 0648–BH59 

International Fisheries; Eastern Pacific 

Tuna Fisheries; Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory 

Species; Area of Overlap Between the 

Convention Areas of the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission 

and the Western and Central Pacific 

Fisheries Commission 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is considering whether 

to continue, or to revise, the 

management regime for fishing vessels 

that target tuna and other highly 

migratory fish species (HMS) in the area 

of overlapping jurisdiction between the 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission (IATTC) and the 

Commission for the Conservation and 

Management of Highly Migratory Fish 

Stocks in the Western and Central 

Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) in the tropical 

Pacific Ocean. To that end, we are 

issuing this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking to seek public input about 

whether U.S. fishing vessels fishing in 

that area should be governed by 

conservation measures adopted by 

IATTC or conservation measures 

adopted by WCPFC. 

DATES: Comments on this advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking must be 

submitted in writing by July 12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2018–0049, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

NOAA-NMFS-2018-0049, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Michael D. Tosatto, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands 

Regional Office, 1845 Wasp Blvd., 

Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818. 

• Fax: (808) 725–5215; Attn: Michael 

D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, might not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name and address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The United States is a member of both 

the IATTC and WCPFC. The convention 

areas for the IATTC and WCPFC overlap 

in the Pacific Ocean waters within a 

rectangular area bounded by 50° S 

latitude, 150° W longitude, 130° W 

longitude, and 4° S latitude (‘‘overlap 

area’’). Historically, regulations 

implementing the conservation 

measures adopted by the IATTC (see 50 


pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS