65912 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

apply the Rules of Practice to 

adjudicatory proceedings for the 

assessment of civil penalties by the EPA 

under its Act to Prevent Pollution from 

Ships authority, and will revise the 

mailing and hand delivery address for 

the EAB to reflect the Board’s 

relocation. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175 Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action will apply the Rules 

of Practice to adjudicatory proceedings 

for the assessment of civil penalties by 

the EPA under its Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships authority, and will 

revise the mailing and hand delivery 

address for the EAB to reflect the 

Board’s relocation. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This action will apply the 

Rules of Practice to adjudicatory 

proceedings for the assessment of civil 

penalties by the EPA under its Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships authority, 

and will revise the mailing and hand 

delivery address for the EAB to reflect 

the Board’s relocation. 

V. Statutory Authority 

Statutory authority for this proposed 

action comes from sections 1903 and 

1908 of the Act to Prevent Pollution 

from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1901 et 

seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 22 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, Penalties, 

Pesticides and pests, Poison prevention, 

Water pollution control. 

Dated: October 23, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26318 Filed 11–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 202, 203, 205, 207, 211, 

212, 215, 217, 218, 219, 225, 228, 234, 

236, 237, 250, and 252 

RIN 0750–AI43 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Inflation 

Adjustment of Acquisition-Related 

Thresholds (DFARS Case 2014–D025) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

further implement the U.S.C. statute on 

inflation adjustment of acquisitionrelated dollar thresholds. This statute 

requires an adjustment every five years 

of acquisition-related thresholds for 

inflation using the Consumer Price 

Index for all urban consumers, except 

for the Construction Wage Rate 

Requirements statute (Davis-Bacon Act), 

Service Contract Labor Standards 

statute, and trade agreements 

thresholds. DoD is also proposing to use 

the same methodology to adjust some 

nonstatutory DFARS acquisition-related 

thresholds in 2015. 

DATES: Comment Date: Comments on 

the proposed rule should be submitted 

in writing to the address shown below 

on or before January 5, 2015, to be 

considered in the formation of the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2014–D025, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2014–D025’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D025.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D025’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2014–D025 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. 

Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65913 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy G. Williams, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6106. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This rule proposes to amend multiple 

DFARS parts to further implement 41 

U.S.C. 1908. Section 1908 requires an 

adjustment every five years (on October 

1 of each year evenly divisible by five) 

of statutory acquisition-related 

thresholds for inflation, using the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban 

consumers, except for the Construction 

Wage Rate Requirements statute (DavisBacon Act), Service Contract Labor 

Standards statute, and trade agreements 

thresholds (see FAR 1.109). As a matter 

of policy, DoD is also proposing to use 

the same methodology to adjust some 

nonstatutory DFARS acquisition-related 

thresholds. All proposed threshold 

adjustments would become effective on 

October 1, 2015. 

FAR case 2014–022 proposes 

comparable changes to acquisitionrelated thresholds in the FAR. 

This is the third review of DFARS 

acquisition-related thresholds since the 

statute was enacted on October 28, 2004 

(section 807 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2004). The last review was conducted 

under DFARS case 2009–D003. The 

final rule was published under that case 

in the Federal Register on August 2, 

2010 (75 FR 45072), effective October 1, 

2010. 

II. Analysis 

A. What is an acquisition-related 

threshold? 

This case builds on the review of 

DFARS thresholds in 2005 and 2010, 

using the same interpretation of an 

acquisition-related threshold. 41 U.S.C. 

1908 is applicable to ‘‘a dollar threshold 

that is specified in law as a factor in 

defining the scope of the applicability of 

a policy, procedure, requirement, or 

restriction provided in that law to the 

procurement of property or services by 

an Executive agency, as the [FAR] 

Council determines.’’ 

There are other thresholds in the 

DFARS that, while not specified in law, 

nevertheless meet all the other criteria. 

These thresholds may have their origin 

in Executive order or regulation. 

Therefore, as used in this case, 

‘‘acquisition-related threshold’’ has a 

broader meaning, i.e., a threshold that is 

specified in law, Executive order, or 

regulation as a factor in defining the 

scope of the applicability of a policy, 

procedure, requirement, or restriction 

provided in that law, Executive order, or 

regulation to the procurement of 

property or services by an Executive 

agency, as determined by the FAR 

Council. Acquisition-related thresholds 

are generally tied to the value of a 

contract, subcontract, or modification. 

Examples of thresholds that are not 

‘‘acquisition-related,’’ as defined in this 

case, are thresholds relating to claims, 

penalties, withholding, payments, 

required levels of insurance, small 

business size standards, liquidated 

damages, etc. This report does not 

address thresholds that are not 

acquisition-related. 

B. What acquisition-related thresholds 

are not subject to escalation adjustment 

under this case? 

41 U.S.C. 1908 does not permit 

escalation of acquisition-related 

thresholds established by the 

Construction Wage Rate Requirements 

statute (Davis Bacon Act), the Service 

Contract Labor Standards statute, or the 

United States Trade Representative 

pursuant to the authority of the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979. 

Also, the statute does not authorize 

DoD to escalate thresholds originating in 

Executive order or the implementing 

agency (such as the Department of Labor 

or the Small Business Administration), 

unless the Executive order or agency 

regulations are first amended. 

C. How does DoD analyze escalation of 

a statutory acquisition-related 

threshold? 

If an acquisition-related threshold is 

based on statute, the matrix at http://

www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi/docs/

2014-D025_(p)_TAB_E_matrix_Sep_12_

14.xls identifies the statute, and the 

statutory threshold, including the 

original threshold and any subsequent 

revisions to it. 

With the exception of thresholds set 

by the Construction Wage Rate 

Requirements statute (Davis Bacon Act), 

the Service Contract Labor Standards 

statute, and trade agreements, 41 U.S.C. 

1908 requires adjustment of the 

acquisition-related thresholds for 

inflation using the Consumer Price 

Index (CPI) for all-urban consumers. 

Acquisition-related thresholds in 

statutes that were in effect on October 

1, 2000, are only subject to escalation 

from that date forward. Acquisitionrelated thresholds in statutes that took 

effect after October 1, 2000, are 

escalated from the date that they took 

effect. For purposes of this proposed 

rule, the matrix includes calculation of 

escalation based on the estimated CPI 

value for March 2015 (currently 

estimated at 243.0) divided by the CPI 

for the date of enactment of the statute 

or regulation (October 2000, for statutes 

enacted prior to October 1, 2000). DoD 

will subsequently adjust as necessary 

before issuance of the final rule. 

Once the escalation factor is applied 

to the acquisition-related threshold, 

then statutory thresholds must be 

rounded as follows: 

< $10,000—Nearest $500 

$10,000–<$100,000—Nearest $5,000 

$100,000–<$1,000,000—Nearest $50,000 

$1,000,000 or more—Nearest $500,000 

The calculations in this proposed rule 

are all based on the base year amount, 

because escalated amounts in the 2005 

rule were subject to rounding and using 

those amounts as the base would distort 

future calculations. 

In 2010, some thresholds (e.g., 

$3,000), although subject to inflation 

calculation, did not actually change, 

because the inflation in 2010 was 

insufficient to overcome the rounding 

requirements—i.e., the escalation factor, 

when applied, did not cause the 

escalated values to be high enough to 

round to the next higher value. 

However, in FY 2015, thresholds that 

did not escalate in 2010 will now 

escalate because of five additional years 

of inflation. Likewise, some thresholds 

that were escalated in 2010 (e.g., 

$150,000) will not escalate in 2015. 

This rule proposes to remove the 

major defense acquisition program 

thresholds (expressed in FY 1990 

constant dollars) from the definition of 

‘‘major weapon system’’ at DFARS 

234.7001. The current major defense 

acquisition program thresholds in FY 

2014 constant dollars are set forth in 

DoD Instruction 5000.02, established in 

accordance with the authority in 10 

U.S.C. 2430(b), which allows the 

Secretary of Defense to adjust the 

amounts (and the base fiscal year) 

provided in subsection (a)(2) on the 

basis of DoD escalation rates (rather 

than the CPI for all urban consumers). 

The most recent thresholds were 

calculated by the DoD Comptroller, and 

coordinated with the Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation (CAPE) Office 

and the DoD General Counsel. In 

accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2430(b), 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65914 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

these thresholds were reported to 

Congress in December 2013. There is no 

need to provide these thresholds in the 

DFARS. The term ‘‘major defense 

acquisition program’’ is already defined 

in DFARS 202.1 and used in multiple 

DFARS parts (e.g., 204, 209, 215, and 

216). 

This proposed rule has been 

coordinated with the Small Business 

Administration in areas of the 

regulation for which they are the lead 

agency. 

D. How does DoD analyze a 

nonstatutory acquisition-related 

threshold? 

No statutory authorization is required 

to escalate thresholds that were set as 

policy within the DFARS. Escalation of 

the DoD policy acquisition-related 

thresholds is generally recommended 

using the same formula applied to the 

statutory thresholds, unless a reason has 

been provided for not doing so. 

Escalation is calculated using the same 

procedures as were explained for the 

statutory thresholds, to provide 

consistency. 

However, nonstatutory thresholds that 

exceed $10 million may be rounded as 

follows: 

$10 million–<$100 million—Nearest $5 

million 

$100 million–<$1 billion—Nearest $50 

million 

$1 billion or more—Nearest $500 

million 

III. 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. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD does 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., 

because the rule maintains the status 

quo by adjusting thresholds for actual 

inflationary increases in the CPI. 

However, an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis has been performed 

and is summarized as follows: 

This rule proposes to amend the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) to implement 41 

U.S.C. 1908 and to amend other 

acquisition-related dollar thresholds 

that are based on policy rather than 

statute in order to adjust for the 

changing value of the dollar. 41 U.S.C. 

1908 requires adjustment every five 

years of statutory acquisition-related 

dollar thresholds, except for 

Construction Wage Rate Requirements 

statute (Davis-Bacon Act), Service 

Contract Labor Standards statute, and 

trade agreements thresholds. While 

reviewing all statutory acquisitionrelated thresholds, this case presented 

an opportunity to also review all 

nonstatutory acquisition-related 

thresholds in the DFARS that are based 

on policy. 

The objective of the case is to 

maintain the status quo, by adjusting 

acquisition-related thresholds for 

inflation. The legal basis is 41 U.S.C. 

1908. The statute does not authorize the 

DFARS to escalate thresholds 

originating in Executive orders or the 

implementing agency (such as the 

Department of Labor or the Small 

Business Administration), unless the 

Executive order or agency regulations 

are first amended. 

This rule will likely affect to some 

extent all small business concerns that 

submit offers or are awarded contracts 

by the Federal Government. However, 

most of the threshold changes proposed 

in this rule are not expected to have any 

significant economic impact on small 

business concerns because any 

threshold changes are intended to 

maintain the status quo by adjusting for 

changes in the value of the dollar. Often 

any impact will be beneficial, by 

preventing burdensome requirements 

from applying to more and more 

acquisitions, as the dollar loses value. 

The rule does not impose any new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance 

requirements. Changes in thresholds for 

approved information collection 

requirements are intended to maintain 

the status quo and prevent those 

requirements from increasing over time. 

The rule does not duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with any other Federal rules. 

There are no practical alternatives 

that will accomplish the objectives of 

the statute. 

DoD invites comments from small 

business concerns and other interested 

parties on the expected impact of this 

rule on small entities. 

DoD will also consider comments 

from small entities concerning the 

existing regulations in subparts affected 

by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

610. Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 5 

U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2014–D025), in 

correspondence. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

apply. The proposed changes to the FAR 

do not impose new information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. By adjusting the thresholds 

for inflation, the status quo for the 

current information collection 

requirements are maintained under the 

following OMB clearance numbers: 

OMB control No. Title DFARS part 

0704–0187 ........ Information Collection in Support of the DOD Acquisition Process (Solicitation Phase) .................... 208, 209, 226, 235 

0704–0229 ........ Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and related 

clauses.

225 

0704–0286 ........ Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Part 205, Publicizing Contract Actions, and DFARS 252–205– 

7000, Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders.

205 

0704–0477 ........ Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Major Defense Acquisition Programs ...................................... 209.5 

However, the rule contains one 

information collection requirement that 

requires the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). Accordingly, DoD has 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget a request for approval of a 

new information collection requirement 

entitled ‘‘DFARS Part 249, Termination 

of Contracts, and Associated DFARS 

Clauses at 252.249.’’ 

A. Public reporting burden for this 

collection of information is estimated to 

average approximately .75 hours per 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65915 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

The annual reporting burden 

estimated as follows: 

Respondents: 42. 

Responses per respondent: 

Approximately 6. 

Total annual responses: 260. 

Preparation hours per response: 

Approximately .75 hours 

Total response Burden Hours: 193. 

B. Request for Comments Regarding 

Paperwork Burden 

Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, 

should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503, or email Jasmeet_K._Seehra@

omb.eop.gov, with a copy to the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: 

Ms. Amy G. Williams, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 

3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments can be received from 30 to 60 

days after the date of this notice, but 

comments to OMB will be most useful 

if received by OMB within 30 days after 

the date of this notice. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of functions of the DFARS, 

and will have practical utility; whether 

our estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate, 

and based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways in 

which we can minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, through the use of 

appropriate technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

To request more information on this 

proposed information collection or to 

obtain a copy of the proposal and 

associated collection instruments, 

please write to the Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. 

Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, or email 

osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS 

Case 2014–D025 in the subject line of 

the message. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202, 

203, 205, 207, 211, 212, 215, 217, 218, 

219, 225, 228, 234, 236, 237, 250, and 

252 

Government Procurement. 

Manuel Quinones, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 202, 203, 205, 

207, 211, 212, 215, 217, 218, 219, 225, 

228, 234, 236, 237, 250, and 252 are 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 202, 203, 205, 212, 215, 217, 225, 

234, 237, and 252 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

PART 202—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS 

AND TERMS 

202.101 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 202.101 by— 

■ a. Designating the definition of 

‘‘Simplified acquisition threshold’’ in 

alphabetical order in the list of 

definitions; and 

■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Simplified 

acquisition threshold’’, removing 

‘‘$300,000’’ and adding $400,000’’ in its 

place. 

PART 203—IMPROPER BUSINESS 

PRACTICES AND PERSONAL 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

203.1004 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend section 203.1004 in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) by removing ‘‘$5 

million’’ and adding ‘‘$5.5 million’’ in 

its place. 

PART 205—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT 

ACTIONS 

205.303 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend section 205.303 by 

removing ‘‘$6.5 million’’ and adding 

‘‘$7 million’’ in its place for the 

following— 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(i) introductory text, 

in two places; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(i)(A); and 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(i)(B), in two places. 

205.470 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend section 205.470 by 

removing ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and adding 

‘‘$1.5 million’’ in its place. 

PART 207—ACQUISITION PLANNING 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 207 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

207.170–3 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend section 207.170–3 in 

paragraph (a) introductory text by 

removing ‘‘$6 million’’ and adding 

‘‘$6.5 million’’ in its place. 

PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCY 

NEEDS 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 211 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

211.503 [Amended] 

■ 9. Amend section 211.503 in 

paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘$650,000’’ 

and adding ‘‘$700,000’’ in its place in 

two places. 

PART 212—ACQUISITION OF 

COMMERCIAL ITEMS 

212.7102–1 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend section 212.7102–1 in 

paragraph (c) by removing ‘‘$50 

million’’ and adding ‘‘$55 million’’ in 

its place. 

PART 215—CONTRACTING BY 

NEGOTIATION 

215.403–1 [Amended] 

■ 11. Amend section 215.403–1 in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(B) and (c)(4)(B) by 

removing ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and adding 

‘‘$20 million’’ in its place. 

PART 217—SPECIAL CONTRACTING 

METHODS 

■ 12. Amend section 217.170 by— 

■ a. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv); and 

■ b. In paragraph (e)(5) by removing 

‘‘$100 million’’ and adding ‘‘$139.5 

million’’ in its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

217.170 General. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Include a cancellation ceiling in 

excess of $139.5 million (see 10 U.S.C. 

2306c(d)(4) and 10 U.S.C. 2306b(g)). 

* * * * * 

217.171 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend section 217.171 in 

paragraph (d) by removing ‘‘$625.5 

million’’ and adding ‘‘$698.5 million’’ 

in its place. 

217.172 [Amended] 

■ 14. Amend section 217.172 in 

paragraphs (c), (e)(1), and (e)(2) by 

removing ‘‘$500 million’’ and adding 

‘‘$698.5 million’’ in its place. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65916 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

PART 218—EMERGENCY 

ACQUISITIONS 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 218 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

218.270 [Amended] 

■ 16. Amend section 218.270 by 

removing ‘‘$300,000’’ and adding 

‘‘$400,000’’ in its place. 

PART 219—SMALL BUSINESS 

PROGRAMS 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 219 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

219.502–1 [Amended] 

■ 18. Amend section 219.502–1 in 

paragraph (2) by removing ‘‘$350,000’’ 

and adding ‘‘$400,000’’ in its place in 

both places. 

219.502–2 [Amended] 

■ 19. Amend section 219.502–2 by— 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(i), removing ‘‘$2.5 

million’’ and adding ‘‘$3 million’’ in its 

place; and 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(iii), removing 

‘‘$350,000’’ and adding ‘‘$400,000’’ in 

its place. 

PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 

225.7204 [Amended] 

■ 20. Amend section 225.7204 by— 

■ a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), removing 

‘‘$12.5 million’’ and adding ‘‘$14 

million’’ it its place in both places; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c), removing 

‘‘$650,000’’ and adding ‘‘$700,000’’ in 

its place. 

225.7703–2 [Amended] 

■ 21. Amend section 225.7703–2 in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) by removing ‘‘$85.5 

million’’ and adding ‘‘$95.5 million’’ in 

its place. 

PART 228—BONDS AND INSURANCE 

■ 22. The authority citation for part 228 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

228.102–1 [Amended] 

■ 23. Amend section 228.102–1 by— 

■ a. In the introductory text and 

paragraph (1), removing ‘‘$30,000’’ and 

adding ‘‘$35,000’’ in its place in both 

places; and 

■ b. In paragraph (2) introductory text, 

removing ‘‘$100,000’’ and adding 

‘‘$150,000’’ in its place. 

PART 234—MAJOR SYSTEM 

ACQUISITION 

■ 24. Revise section 234.7001 to read as 

follows: 

234.7001 Definition. 

Major weapon system, as used in this 

subpart, means a weapon system 

acquired pursuant to a major defense 

acquisition program. 

PART 236—CONSTRUCTION AND 

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 

■ 25. The authority citation for part 236 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

236.601 [Amended] 

■ 26. Amend section 236.601 in 

paragraph (1) by removing ‘‘$1,000,000’’ 

and adding ‘‘$1.5 million’’ in its place. 

PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING 

237.170–2 [Amended] 

■ 27. Amend section 237.170–2 in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) by removing 

‘‘$85.5 million’’ and adding ‘‘$95.5 

million’’ in its place in both places. 

PART 250—EXTRAORDINARY 

CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS AND THE 

SAFETY ACT 

■ 28. The authority citation for part 250 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

250.102–1 [Amended] 

■ 29. Amend section 250.102–1 in 

paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘$65,000’’ 

and adding ‘‘$70,000’’ in its place. 

250.102–1–70 [Amended] 

■ 30. Amend section 250.102–1–70 in 

paragraph (b)(1) by removing ‘‘$65,000’’ 

and adding ‘‘$70,000’’ in its place. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

252.203–7004 [Amended] 

■ 31. Amend section 252.203–7004 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘DEC 

2012’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (c) introductory text, 

removing ‘‘$5 million’’ and adding 

‘‘$5.5 million’’ in its place. 

252.209–7004 [Amended] 

■ 32. Amend section 252.209–7004 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘MAR 

2014’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (a), removing 

‘‘$30,000’’ and adding ‘‘$35,000’’ in its 

place. 

252.209–7009 [Amended] 

■ 33. Amend section 252.209–7009 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘DEC 

2012’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(ii), removing ‘‘$50 

million’’ and adding ‘‘$55 million’’ in 

its place. 

252.225–7003 [Amended] 

■ 34. Amend section 252.225–7003 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘OCT 

2010’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(1), removing 

‘‘$12.5 million’’ and adding ‘‘$14 

million’’ in its place; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(2)(i), removing 

‘‘$650,000’’ and adding ‘‘$700,000’’ in 

its place. 

252.225–7004 [Amended] 

■ 35. Amend section 252.225–7004 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘OCT 

2010’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(1), removing 

‘‘$650,000’’ and adding ‘‘$700,000’’ in 

its place. 

252.225–7006 [Amended] 

■ 36. Amend section 252.225–7006 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘OCT 

2010’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (f)(1), removing 

‘‘$650,000’’ and adding ‘‘$700,000’’ in 

its place. 

252.225–7017 [Amended] 

■ 37. Amend section 252.225–7017 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘JAN 

2014’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

and 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(1), removing 

‘‘$3,000’’ and adding ‘‘$3,500’’ in its 

place. 

252.225–7018 [Amended] 

■ 38. Amend section 252.225–7018 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘JAN 

2014’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(1), removing 

‘‘$3,000’’ and adding ‘‘$3,500’’ in its 

place; and 

■ c. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (2), 

removing ‘‘$3,000’’ and adding ‘‘$3,500’’ 

in both places. 

252.249–7002 [Amended] 

■ 39. Amend section 252.249–7002 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘OCT 

2010’’ and adding ‘‘DATE’’ in its place; 

and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65917 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(1), removing 

‘‘$650,000’’ and adding ‘‘$700,000’’ in 

its place. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26266 Filed 11–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 212, 219, and 252 

RIN 0750–AI42 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Advancing 

Small Business Growth (DFARS Case 

2014–D009) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

clarify that entering into a contract 

award may cause a small business to 

eventually exceed the applicable small 

business size standard. 

DATES: Comment Date: Comments on 

the proposed rule should be submitted 

in writing to the address shown below 

on or before January 5, 2015, to be 

considered in the formation of a final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2014–D009, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2014–D009’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D009.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D009’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2014–D009 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Lee 

Renna, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lee Renna, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 

3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Telephone 571–372–6095. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS 

to implement policy to ensure a small 

business contractor is made aware that 

entering into a covered contract conveys 

its acknowledgement that doing so may 

cause it to eventually exceed the small 

business size standard of the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code identified in the 

solicitation and contract. This 

clarification is required by section 1611 

of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014, (10 U.S.C. 

2419). 

A ‘‘covered’’ contract within the 

context of this rule means a contract 

that was awarded to a qualified small 

business concern, as defined in section 

3(a) of the Small Business Act, Public 

Law 85–536 as amended, (15 U.S.C. 

632(a)), with an estimated annual dollar 

value that— 

• Will exceed the small business size 

standard (if expressed in dollars) for the 

North American Industry System 

(NAICS) code assigned by the 

contracting officer; or 

• Will exceed $70,000,000, if the 

small business standard is expressed in 

number of employees, for the NAICS 

code assigned by the contracting officer. 

Should this occur, the company will 

no longer qualify as a small business in 

that and other similar NAICS codes. 

Section 1611 further stipulates that 

new language shall be added to the 

DFARS to encourage these companies to 

develop the capabilities and 

characteristics typically sought by DoD 

from contractors that are competitive as 

other than small businesses. To this 

end, small business contractors may 

seek out the training and counseling 

services available from the Procurement 

Technical Assistance Program (PTAP). 

The PTAP, through its network of over 

300 Procurement Technical Assistance 

Centers located across the United States 

as well as the territories of Puerto Rico 

and Guam, offers a wide range of 

Government contracting assistance. The 

PTAP is administered by the Defense 

Logistics Agency and funded through 

cooperative agreements between DoD 

and state and local non-profit entities. 

To incorporate this guidance, the rule 

proposes to revise 212.301(f); add a new 

section 219.309 entitled Solicitation 

provisions and contract clauses; and 

add a new solicitation provision at 

252.219. 

II. 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 a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was 

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. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD does 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., 

because it does not create or alleviate 

any financial burden on small entities. 

The purpose of the rule is to advise 

small businesses that by entering into a 

DoD contract, they may eventually 

cause the company to exceed the size 

standard associated with the NAICS 

code identified in the contract. The rule 

further encourages these contractors to 

develop the competencies typically 

desired of other than small businesses. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis has not been 

performed. 

DoD invites comments from small 

business concerns and other interested 

parties on the expected impact of this 

rule on small entities. 

DoD will also consider comments 

from small entities concerning the 

existing regulations in subparts affected 

by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

610. Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 5 

U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2014–D009), in 

correspondence. 

IV. 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS