4846 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

won multiple blocks that are assigned at 

least two contiguous blocks; (2) 

minimizing for all bidders that won two 

or more blocks in the clock phase the 

number of blocks that are noncontiguous to any of the bidder’s other 

blocks; and (3) maximizing the number 

of bidders that are assigned only 

contiguous blocks. Under the 

Commission’s proposed procedures, the 

auction system will first solve or 

optimize for the first objective and use 

that outcome as a constraint in solving 

the second objective, which would then 

constrain solving the third objective. 

The winning bids in each assignment 

round will be bids for which the 

assignment satisfies these three 

constraints and for which the bidders in 

that round are willing to pay the most. 

204. As described in Appendix H of 

the Auction 1000 Request for Comment, 

the Commission proposes that the 

additional price a bidder will pay for a 

specific frequency (above the 

discounted final clock price) will be 

calculated consistent with a generalized 

‘‘second price’’ approach—that is, the 

winner will pay a price that would be 

just sufficient to result in the bidder 

receiving that same winning frequency 

assignment. This price will be less than 

or equal to the price the bidder 

indicated it was willing to pay for the 

assignment. The Commission proposes 

to determine prices in this way because 

it facilitates bidding strategy for the 

bidders, giving them an incentive to bid 

their full value for the assignment, 

knowing that if the assignment is 

selected, they will pay no more than 

would have been necessary to ensure 

that the assignment won. 

E. Additional Default Payment 

Percentage 

205. The Commission’s competitive 

bidding rules provide that it shall 

establish the percentage of any 

defaulted bid that will be assessed as a 

payment owed by the defaulter in 

addition to the difference between with 

defaulted bid and a subsequent winning 

bid for the same license. In an auction 

without combinatorial bidding, such as 

the forward auction the Commission 

proposes here, the percentage shall be 

between three and 20 percent. The 

Commission proposes that the 

percentage shall be 20 percent in the 

forward auction. The Commission 

tentatively concludes that the maximum 

amount is in the public interest, given 

the importance of deterring defaults in 

order to minimize the possibility that 

the auction will not generate shortly 

after its conclusion the full amount of 

the proceeds indicated by winning bids. 

VI. Ex Parte 

206. This proceeding has been 

designated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making oral ex parte presentations are 

reminded that memoranda summarizing 

the presentations must contain 

summaries of the substance of the 

presentations and not merely a listing of 

the subjects discussed. More than a one 

or two sentence description of the views 

and arguments presented is generally 

required. Other provisions pertaining to 

oral and written ex parte presentations 

in permit-but-disclose proceedings are 

set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

207. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 

603, the Commission prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

in connection with the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, ‘‘Expanding the 

Economic and Innovation Opportunities 

of Spectrum Through Incentive 

Auction,’’ 77 FR 69933, November 21, 

2012 (Incentive Auction NPRM) and a 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) in connection with the Incentive 

Auction R&O. While no commenter 

directly responded to the IRFA, the 

FRFA addressed concerns about the 

impact on small business of various 

auction design issues. The Commission 

seeks comment on how the proposals in 

the Auction 1000 Request for Comment 

could affect either the IRFA or the 

FRFA. Such comments must be filed in 

accordance with the same filing 

deadlines for responses to the Auction 

1000 Request for Comment and have a 

separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA and FRFA. 

208. The IRFA and FRFA set forth the 

need for and objectives of the 

Commission’s rules for the broadcast 

spectrum incentive auction; the legal 

basis for those rules, a description and 

estimate of the number of small entities 

to which the rules apply; a description 

of projected reporting, recordkeeping, 

and other compliance requirements for 

small entities; steps taken to minimize 

the significant economic impact on 

small entities and significant 

alternatives considered; and a statement 

that there are no federal rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

rules. The proposals in the Auction 

1000 Request for Comment do not 

change any of those descriptions. 

209. The Auction 1000 Request for 

Comment does, however, detail 

proposed procedures implementing 

those rules. The Commission seeks 

comment on how the proposals in the 

Auction 1000 Request for Comment 

could affect either the IRFA or the 

FRFA. These proposals include 

procedures for setting the initial 

broadcast spectrum clearing target, 

determining whether the final stage rule 

is satisfied and the steps triggered by 

that determination, determining how 

much market variation will be 

accommodated, and a process of moving 

from one stage of the auction to any 

subsequent stage(s), if necessary. The 

Auction 1000 Comment PN also 

addresses detailed proposals for setting 

opening prices, applying to participate 

in the reverse or forward auction, 

establishing bidding procedures for each 

auction, optimizing the final television 

assignment channel plan, providing 

information to forward auction bidders, 

grouping license blocks into categories 

for bidding, implementing the marketbased spectrum reserve, repacking 

broadcasting stations in conjunction 

with the reverse auction, and assigning 

licenses with specific frequencies in the 

forward auction. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01607 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 204 and 237 

RIN 0750–AI29 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Electronic 

Copies of Contractual Documents 

(DFARS Case 2012–D056) 

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 

state the policy that the Electronic 

Document Access (EDA) system is 

DoD’s online repository and distribution 

tool for contract documents and contract 

data, require internal control procedures 

for contract document and data 

verification in EDA, and remove 

outmoded language that is not 

consistent with electronic document 

processes. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 4847 

address shown below on or before 

March 30, 2015 to be considered in the 

formation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2012–D056, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2012–D056’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

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

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2012– 

D056.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2012– 

D056’’ on your document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2012–D056 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Jennifer 

Hawes, 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: 

Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571–372– 

6115. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD utilizes the Electronic Document 

Access (EDA) system for the distribution 

and sharing of contracts and contract 

data. The Defense Electronic Business 

Program Office established business 

rules for the EDA system, which became 

effective November 5, 2001. In 

November 2009, DoD instructed its 

contracting officers to register in EDA, 

and use of EDA is now the standard 

business practice employed by DoD 

contracting offices. A review of DFARS 

coverage related to contract files and 

contract distribution resulted in 

recommendations to remove language 

that was structured to support processes 

for and distribution of paper files and 

paper copies. Similarly, DFARS 

language is required to reflect current 

electronic processes supported by EDA. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

This rule proposes to amend DFARS 

204.270, Electronic Document Access, 

to effect the following clarifications and 

changes: 

• State as policy that EDA, an online 

repository for contractual instruments 

and supporting documents, is DoD’s 

primary tool for electronic distribution 

of contract documents and contract 

data. 

• Provide that agencies have certain 

responsibilities when posting 

documents to EDA, to include internal 

control procedures that ensure 

electronic copies of contract documents 

and data in EDA are accurate 

representations of original documents. 

The rule also proposes revisions to 

DFARS 204.802, Contract Files. The 

language in this section, which 

addresses contract file requirements for 

authenticating and conforming paper 

documents and copies, is being removed 

as it is outdated. A new paragraph is 

being added providing that electronic 

documents posted to the EDA system 

are a part of the contract file. 

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 proposed 

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 is only updating 

the regulation to reflect current 

electronic distribution practices in lieu 

of paper distribution. However, an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis has 

been performed and is summarized as 

follows: 

DoD utilizes the Electronic Document 

Access (EDA) system for the distribution 

and sharing of contracts and contract 

data. The Defense Electronic Business 

Program Office established business 

rules for the EDA system, which became 

effective November 5, 2001. In 

November 2009, DoD instructed its 

contracting officers to register in EDA, 

and use of EDA is now a standard 

practice of DoD contracting offices. A 

review of the DFARS language related to 

contract files and contract distribution 

resulted in recommendations to remove 

coverage that was structured to support 

processes for and distribution of paper 

files and paper copies. Additionally, it 

was recognized that coverage was 

needed to reflect current electronic 

processes supported by EDA. 

This rule proposes to amend the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) to add language to 

DFARS 204.270, Electronic Document 

Access, to effect the following 

clarifications and changes: 

• State as policy that EDA, an online 

repository for contractual instruments 

and supporting documents, is DoD’s 

primary tool for electronic distribution 

of contract documents and contract 

data. 

• Provide that agencies have certain 

responsibilities when posting 

documents to EDA, to include internal 

control procedures that ensure 

electronic copies of contract documents 

and data in EDA are accurate 

representations of original documents. 

• The rule also proposes revisions to 

DFARS 204.802, Contract Files. The 

language in this section, which 

addresses contract file requirements for 

authenticating and conforming paper 

documents and copies, is being removed 

as it is outdated. A new paragraph is 

being added providing that electronic 

documents posted to the EDA system 

are a part of the contract file. 

Use of EDA has been a standard 

business practice employed by DoD 

contracting offices to distribute 

electronic copies of contractual 

documents for several years. Therefore, 

this proposed rule is expected to have 

little, if any, impact on small entities. 

The rule proposes to update the DFARS 

to reflect policy regarding electronic 

posting and distribution of contractual 

instruments and to remove outdated 

coverage applicable to paper copies of 

contractual documents. As such, this 

rule primarily affects internal 

Government distribution procedures. 

This rule does not require any 

reporting or recording keeping. The rule 

does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with any other Federal rule. There are 

no practical alternatives that will 

accomplish the objectives of this 

proposed rule. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4848 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 2012–D056), in 

correspondence. 

V. 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 Parts 204 and 

237 

Government procurement. 

Manuel Quinones, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204 and 237 

are proposed to be amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for parts 204 

and 237 continues to read as follows: 

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

chapter 1. 

PART 204—ADMINISTRATIVE 

MATTERS 

■ 2. Add sections 204.270–1 and 

204.270–2 to subpart 204.2 to read as 

follows: 

204.270–1 Policy. 

(a) The Electronic Document Access 

(EDA) system, an online repository for 

contractual instruments and supporting 

documents, is DoD’s primary tool for 

electronic distribution of contract 

documents and contract data. 

(b) Agencies are responsible for 

ensuring the following when posting 

documents, including contractual 

instruments, to EDA— 

(1) The timely distribution of 

documents; and 

(2) That internal controls are in place 

to ensure that— 

(i) The electronic version of a contract 

document in EDA is an accurate 

representation of the original contract 

document; and 

(ii) The contract data in EDA is an 

accurate representation of the 

underlying contract. 

204.270–2 Procedures. 

The procedures at PGI 204.270–2 

provide details on how to record the 

results of data verification in EDA. 

When these procedures are followed, 

contract documents in EDA are an 

accurate representation of the original 

contract document and therefore may be 

used for audit purposes. 

■ 3. Revise section 204.802 to read as 

follows: 

204.802 Contract files. 

(a) Any document posted to the 

Electronic Document Access (EDA) 

system is part of the contract file and is 

accessible by multiple parties, including 

the contractor. Inclusion of any 

document in EDA other than contracts, 

modifications, and orders is optional. 

204.805 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend section 204.805 by 

removing ‘‘official contract files’’ and 

adding ‘‘contract files’’ in its place. 

PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING 

■ 5. Revise section 237.172 to read as 

follows: 

237.172 Service contracts surveillance. 

Ensure that quality assurance 

surveillance plans are prepared in 

conjunction with the preparation of the 

statement of work or statement of 

objectives for solicitations and contracts 

for services. These plans should be 

tailored to address the performance 

risks inherent in the specific contract 

type and the work effort addressed by 

the contract. (See FAR subpart 46.4.) 

Retain quality assurance surveillance 

plans in the contract file. See http://

sam.dau.mil, Step Four—Requirements 

Definition, for examples of quality 

assurance surveillance plans. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01435 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 212, 213, and 252 

RIN 0750–AI40 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Past 

Performance Information Retrieval 

System—Statistical Reporting (PPIRS– 

SR) (DFARS Case 2014–D015) 

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 

require contracting officers to consider 

information in the Statistical Reporting 

module of the Past Performance 

Information Retrieval System when 

evaluating past performance of offerors 

under competitive solicitations for 

supplies using simplified acquisition 

procedures. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before 

March 30, 2015, to be considered in the 

formation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2014–D015, 

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–D015’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

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

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D015.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

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

D015’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2014–D015 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Attn: Ms. 

Jennifer Hawes, 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. 

Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571–372– 

6115. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

To fill the need for past performance 

data on lower dollar value contracts, 

DoD developed and deployed the Past 

Performance Information Retrieval 

System—Statistical Reporting (PPIRS– 

SR) module. This module of PPIRS 

collects quantifiable delivery and 

quality data from existing systems and 

uses that data to classify each supplier’s 

performance by Federal supply class 

and product or service code. This 

objective data on past performance will 

assist contracting officers in making 

better-informed best value award 

decisions on small dollar value 

acquisitions for supplies, while also 

eliminating the burden of collecting 

subjective past performance information 

on contractors for smaller dollar value 

contracts. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS