57470 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

changes to the FAR do not impose 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 31 

Government procurement. 

Dated: September 22, 2005. 

Julia B. Wise, 

Director, Contract Policy Division. 

■ Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

amend 48 CFR part 31 as set forth 

below: 

PART 31—CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 31 continues to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

■ 2. Amend section 31.205–35 by 

revising paragraph (b)(4); and adding 

paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) to read as 

follows: 

31.205–35 Relocation costs. 

* * * * * 

(b)* * * 

(4) Amounts to be reimbursed shall 

not exceed the employee’s actual 

expenses, except as provided for in 

paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of this 

subsection. 

(5) For miscellaneous costs of the type 

discussed in paragraph (a)(5) of this 

subsection, a lump-sum amount, not to 

exceed $5,000, may be allowed in lieu 

of actual costs. 

(6)(i) Reimbursement on a lump-sum 

basis may be allowed for any of the 

following relocation costs when 

adequately supported by data on the 

individual elements (e.g., 

transportation, lodging, and meals) 

comprising the build-up of the lumpsum amount to be paid based on the 

circumstances of the particular 

employee’s relocation: 

(A) Costs of finding a new home, as 

discussed in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

subsection. 

(B) Costs of travel to the new location, 

as discussed in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

subsection (but not costs for the 

transportation of household goods). 

(C) Costs of temporary lodging, as 

discussed in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

subsection. 

(ii) When reimbursement on a lumpsum basis is used, any adjustments to 

reflect actual costs are unallowable. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–19477 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 31 

[FAC 2005–06; FAR Case 2001–021; Item 

XI] 

RIN 9000–AJ38 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Training and Education Cost Principle 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) have agreed on a final rule 

amending the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) by revising the 

‘‘training and education costs’’ contract 

cost principle. The amendment 

streamlines the cost principle and 

increases clarity by eliminating 

restrictive and confusing language, and 

by restructuring the rule to list only 

specifically unallowable costs. The final 

rule eliminates several specific 

limitations on the allowability of costs 

associated with the various categories of 

education, eliminates the disparate 

treatment of full-time and part-time 

undergraduate education costs, and 

limits allowable costs to training and 

education related to the field in which 

the employee is working or may 

reasonably be expected to work. The 

rule makes job-related training and 

education costs generally allowable, 

except for six public policy exceptions 

that are retained from the current cost 

principle. Except for the six expressly 

unallowable cost exceptions, the 

reasonableness of specific contractor 

training and education costs is assessed 

by reference to the FAR section entitled 

‘‘Determining reasonableness.’’

DATES: Effective Date: October 31, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755 for 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules. For clarification 

of content, contact Mr. Jerry Olson at 

(202) 501–3221. Please cite FAC 2005–

06, FAR case 2001–021. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Councils published a proposed 

FAR rule in the Federal Register (67 FR 

34810) on May 15, 2002, with a request 

for comments by July 15, 2002. On June 

11, 2002, an amendment was published 

in the Federal Register (67 FR 40136) to 

correct an error in the Supplementary 

Information section accompanying the 

proposed rule. Six respondents 

submitted public comments. As a result 

of the comments received, the Councils 

made significant changes to the 

proposed FAR rule and published a 

second proposed FAR rule in the 

Federal Register (69 FR 4436) on 

January 29, 2004, with a request for 

comments by March 29, 2004. 

Nine respondents submitted 

comments in response to the second 

proposed FAR rule. A discussion of 

these public comments is provided 

below. The Councils considered all 

comments and concluded that the 

proposed rule should be converted to a 

final rule, with changes to the proposed 

rule. Differences between the second 

proposed rule and final rule are 

discussed in Section B, Comments 1, 2, 

4, and 6, below. 

B. Public Comments 

Proposed paragraph (a): Education for 

sole purpose to obtain academic degree 

or qualify for job. 

Comment 1: Seven respondents 

generally supported the proposed rule; 

however, they strongly recommended 

that proposed paragraph (a) be deleted 

before issuing a final rule. Several of the 

respondents pointed out that paragraph 

(a) is inconsistent with the Councils’

own Federal Register comments that 

they ‘‘support upward mobility, job 

retraining, and educational 

advancement.’’ In this regard, one 

respondent stated its concern that 

paragraph (a) would prevent it from 

providing ‘‘the educational 

opportunities that we have provided for 

decades.’’ Some respondents 

complained that it had ‘‘no idea how 

one is to discern whether the training 

and education relates ‘solely’ to 

obtaining an academic degree or to a 

particular position’’ and that 

‘‘implementation of this provision will 

be burdensome and lead to contested 

costs; hardly a simplification that 

increases the clarity of the cost 

principle.’’

Several respondents challenged the 

fundamental notion that the allowability 

of contractor employee training and 

education costs must parallel exactly 

the treatment afforded Federal 

employees. One respondent wrote— ‘‘We believe that utilization of the test of 

whether the Federal Government is willing to 

reimburse education costs for Federal 

employees is an inappropriate basis for 

determining cost allowability. The 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57471 

benchmark for measuring the cost 

reasonableness of payments for education 

and training should be based on commercial 

practices that encourage the continued 

training and education of our workforce. 

Accordingly, we recommend that paragraph 

31.205–44(a) of the proposed rule ... be 

deleted prior to issuing the final rule.’’

To further support this position, 

another respondent pointed out that 

Congress has long advocated increased 

use of commercial practices in the 

Federal acquisition process: 

‘‘Congress has consistently endorsed and 

supported the adoption of commercial 

practices—not Government practices—in the 

Government procurement arena. The most 

recent example is the 2004 DoD 

Authorization Legislation (P.L. 108–136), 

Section 1423. This section prescribes the 

establishment of a panel to propagate the use 

of commercial practices by, among other 

things, reviewing all regulations.’’

One respondent stated that the 

proposed paragraph (a) ‘‘will decrease 

industry’s ability to assist the U.S. 

Government in ensuring future 

economic strength’’ through private 

sector training and education which 

often involves employees ‘‘in 

Government–authorized, 

socioeconomic/disadvantaged programs 

that encourage upward mobility.’’ In 

support of this assessment, the 

respondent provided a detailed 

description of the benefits that accrue to 

the company, the Government, and 

society in general from its Employee 

Scholar Program (ESP): 

‘‘There are over 9,000 U.S. employees 

(approximately 25% of whom are hourly 

workers) currently participating in 

respondent’s ESP. These people are pursuing 

degrees from colleges and universities that 

many undoubtedly could not have afforded 

to fund on their own. ESP is encouraging 

educational pursuits that support social, 

political, and business needs, for example: 

• Approximately 40% of the respondent’s 

employees participating from the aerospace 

and defense business units in the ESP are 

obtaining first degrees; 

• Over 80% of the degrees awarded to the 

respondent’s employees from the aerospace 

and defense business units over the last 3 

years are in the business/management or 

technical/engineering areas (less than 3% of 

degrees awarded were not in current or 

possible future job-related areas); 

• Female and Hispanic employees 

participate in the ESP at about 11/2 times 

their proportion in the respondent’s 

workforce; 

• ESP participants have increased loyalty 

and motivation to remain with the 

respondent. They leave their jobs at a lower 

rate than the general population, thereby 

enhancing retention and reducing allowable 

recruiting, relocation, and job training costs; 

• ESP graduates are promoted at a higher 

rate than the general population; 

• The average age of a ESP participant is 

39 years old (suggesting that most 

participants are of an age where they are able 

to use their education on the job, and seek 

further education in the future to keep their 

skills current).’’

Finally, one respondent summarized 

the confusion expressed by several 

respondents over the purpose and effect 

of the proposed paragraph (a): 

‘‘However, we are troubled by the 

statement in the comment section that the 

Councils’ intent is also to ’’... make it (the 

rule) consistent with recent statutory changes 

that cover the payment of costs for Federal 

employee academic degree training.’’ This 

statement and the resulting proposed 

paragraph 31.205–44(a) nullify the benefits of 

simplification and adopting commercial 

practices. We are perplexed as to how the 

costs for allowing and encouraging 

employees to obtain degrees and take classes 

to provide for future opportunities is against 

public policy and how these costs potentially 

could be classified as unallowable.’’

Councils’ response: The Councils 

agree that the allowability of contractor 

employee training and education costs, 

to the extent that it is job related, should 

be rooted in sound commercial practices 

that encourage upward mobility in the 

private sector workforce. The Councils 

also are acutely sensitive to the concern 

about the appearance of disparate 

treatment of contractor and Federal 

employees’ full-time undergraduate 

level educational expenses. Therefore, 

the Councils carefully examined the 

comments of the largest Federal 

employee union, the American 

Federation of Government Employees 

(AFGE), and noted that the inclusion of 

the statutory limitations on agency 

payment of Federal employee 

educational costs in paragraph (a) 

apparently did little to temper the 

union’s strong opposition to the 

proposed rule. Instead, AFGE focused 

its criticism primarily on the lack 

therein of a job-relatedness requirement 

for allowable contractor employee fulltime undergraduate educational costs, 

while it asserted that a demonstration of 

job-relatedness would be essential 

before the Government would pay these 

expenses for a Federal employee (see 

Comment 6, below). Accordingly, the 

Councils have deleted the proposed 

paragraph (a) and added the following 

allowability requirement for all training 

and education costs in the introductory 

sentence of the final rule: ‘‘Costs of 

training and education that are related 

to the field in which the employee is 

working or may reasonably be expected 

to work are allowable, except as 

follows:’’ The Councils believe that this 

broad accommodation of AFGE’s 

principal criticism of the proposed rule 

constitutes sound public policy. 

Proposed paragraph (d): Full-time 

graduate level education. 

Comment 2: Three respondents 

expressed concern that the proposed 

paragraph (d) would make currently 

allowable full-time graduate level 

educational costs unallowable. They 

pointed out that under the current 

coverage for such education, only the 

costs in excess of two years or the length 

of the graduate degree program, 

whichever is less, are unallowable. They 

argued that, in contrast, the proposed 

paragraph (d) would make the entire 

cost (not just the excess) of the graduate 

program unallowable if it exceeded two 

years or the length of the degree 

program. 

Councils’ response: Concur. There 

was never any intent to change this 

aspect of the current allowability 

criteria for full-time graduate level 

educational costs. Accordingly, the 

Councils have revised this coverage 

(now paragraph (c) of the final rule) to 

clarify that only the costs in excess of 

two school years or the length of the 

degree program, whichever is less, are 

unallowable. 

Proposed paragraph (e): Grants. 

Comment 3: Two respondents 

recommended that the proposed 

paragraph (e) on grants to educational or 

training institutions be deleted ‘‘because 

this subject matter is adequately covered 

by FAR 31.205–8, Contributions or 

donations.’’

Councils’ response: Nonconcur. The 

Councils believe that the proposed 

paragraph (e) (which is essentially the 

same as the current paragraph (g), 

Grants) provides very helpful guidance 

regarding specific types of unallowable 

grants to educational or training 

institutions which should be retained. 

To avoid confusion, the Councils have 

also added back the explanatory words 

‘‘are considered contributions and’’

from the current paragraph (g) to this 

provision (now paragraph (d) of the 

final rule). 

Proposed paragraph (g): Employee 

dependents college savings plans. 

Comment 4: Three respondents 

expressed concern that the proposed 

paragraph (g), which makes costs of 

university and college plans for 

employee dependents unallowable, 

could be misinterpreted to make the 

administrative costs of such plans 

unallowable. One of the respondents 

suggested changing the words ‘‘Costs 

of’’ to ‘‘Contractor contributions to’’ to 

clarify the intent of this provision. 

Councils’ response: Concur. The 

Federal Register notice accompanying 

57472 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the January 29, 2004, proposed rule 

provided the following response to 

essentially this same industry concern: 

‘‘The cost principle does not address the 

administrative costs of such plans; therefore, 

the administrative costs are allowable, 

subject to the reasonableness criteria at FAR 

31.201–3. However, any contributions to the 

plan by the company for employee 

dependents would be unallowable under the 

redesignated paragraph (g) in this second 

proposed rule.’’

Even though the Councils are 

unaware of any problems involving the 

misapplication of this provision to the 

administrative costs of college savings 

plans, they see no problem in making 

the suggested clarifying change. As 

stated above, the intent of the proposed 

paragraph (g) (which is the same as that 

of the current paragraph (j), Employee 

dependent education plans) is to make 

contractor contributions to college 

savings plans for employee dependents 

unallowable. Reasonable administrative 

costs for college savings plans funded 

by employee contributions should 

continue to be allowable. In revising 

this provision (now paragraph (f) of the 

final rule), the Councils have also used 

the appropriate financial planning term, 

‘‘college savings plans.’’

Current paragraph (h): Advance 

agreements. 

Comment 5: Two respondents argued 

that in view of the potential changes in 

the allowability of full-time graduate 

level educational costs in the proposed 

paragraph (d), it is necessary to retain 

the current paragraph (h), Advance 

agreements, in order to keep currently 

allowable costs from becoming 

unallowable. This is because the current 

paragraph (h) permits advance 

agreements that would make costs 

allowable ‘‘in excess of those otherwise 

allowable under paragraphs (c) and (d)’’

of the current cost principle. 

Councils’ response: Nonconcur. Since 

the Councils have revised the coverage 

for full-time graduate level educational 

costs in the final rule to prevent a 

possible ‘‘all or nothing’’ interpretation 

(see Comment 2, above), this should no 

longer be a concern for industry. 

Job-relatedness. 

Comment 6: In opposing the proposed 

rule, one respondent categorized it as 

‘‘another attempt on the part of the 

Director of Procurement and 

Acquisition Policy at DoD to accord 

contractors and contractor employees 

further benefits not granted to Federal 

employees in similar circumstances.’’

Continuing that theme, the respondent 

expressed its principal criticism of the 

proposed rule as follows: 

‘‘The proposed rule makes at least one 

extremely offensive change to the contract 

cost allowability rules that is not accorded to 

Federal employees, despite the misleading 

statement contained in the proposal’s 

preamble. Permitting contractors to claim as 

an allowable cost, the costs of providing 

employees with full-time undergraduate 

education, amounts to nothing more than a 

contractor scholarship program, at taxpayer 

expense. While the respondent, as a matter 

of public policy, encourages Federal 

employees to further their education and 

training, it is well understood, that when 

taxpayers pick up these costs, such education 

and training must reasonably relate to the 

employee’s actual or anticipated duties.’’

Councils’ response: Partially concur. 

The Councils see significant benefits to 

both the Government and industry in 

publishing the final rule in this case. 

However, the Councils agree with the 

respondent that job-relatedness should 

be a requirement for allowable 

contractor employee full-time 

undergraduate level educational costs. 

In fact, the Councils have added such an 

allowability requirement for all training 

and education costs in the introductory 

sentence of the recommended final rule 

(see Comment 1, above). The Councils 

believe this change constitutes sound 

public policy. 

Applicability to Federal employees. 

Comment 7: One respondent stated 

‘‘The combination of training and 

education for the 1102 series is critical, 

without the Government paying for the 

required courses and training, most 

employees could not afford to get the 

degree required.’’ The respondent 

concluded with the request to ‘‘Please 

reconsider and completely fund the 

education and training of current 

employees.’’

Councils’ response: The respondent 

apparently confused the proposed rule 

as applying to Federal employees. The 

proposed rule does not apply to Federal 

employees. 

C. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This is not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, was not subject to 

review under Section 6(b) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

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

804. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of Defense, the 

General Services Administration, and 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration certify that this final 

rule will not 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 most 

contracts awarded to small entities use 

simplified acquisition procedures or are 

awarded on a competitive, fixed-price 

basis and do not require application of 

the cost principle discussed in this rule. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the changes to the 

FAR do not impose information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 31 

Government procurement. 

Dated: September 22, 2005. 

Julia B. Wise, 

Director, Contract Policy Division. 

■ Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

amend 48 CFR part 31 as set forth 

below: 

PART 31–CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 31 continues to read as follows: 

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

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

■ 2. Revise section 31.205–44 to read as 

follows: 

31.205–44 Training and education costs. 

Costs of training and education that 

are related to the field in which the 

employee is working or may reasonably 

be expected to work are allowable, 

except as follows: 

(a) Overtime compensation for 

training and education is unallowable. 

(b) The cost of salaries for attending 

undergraduate level classes or part-time 

graduate level classes during working 

hours is unallowable, except when 

unusual circumstances do not permit 

attendance at such classes outside of 

regular working hours. 

(c) Costs of tuition, fees, training 

materials and textbooks, subsistence, 

salary, and any other payments in 

connection with full-time graduate level 

education are unallowable for any 

portion of the program that exceeds two 

school years or the length of the degree 

program, whichever is less. 

(d) Grants to educational or training 

institutions, including the donation of 

facilities or other properties, 

scholarships, and fellowships are 

considered contributions and are 

unallowable. 

(e) Training or education costs for 

other than bona fide employees are 

unallowable, except that the costs 

incurred for educating employee 

dependents (primary and secondary 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57473 

level studies) when the employee is 

working in a foreign country where 

suitable public education is not 

available may be included in overseas 

differential pay. 

(f) Contractor contributions to college 

savings plans for employee dependents 

are unallowable. 

[FR Doc. 05–19478 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Chapter 1 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small 

Entity Compliance Guide 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Small Entity Compliance Guide. 

SUMMARY: This document is issued 

under the joint authority of the 

Secretary of Defense, the Administrator 

of General Services and the 

Administrator for the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

This Small Entity Compliance Guide 

has been prepared in accordance with 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996. It consists of a summary of rules 

appearing in Federal Acquisition 

Circular (FAC) 2005–06 which amend 

the FAR. An asterisk (*) next to a rule 

indicates that a regulatory flexibility 

analysis has been prepared. Interested 

parties may obtain further information 

regarding these rules by referring to FAC 

2005–06 which precedes this document. 

These documents are also available via 

the Internet at http://www.acqnet.gov/ 

far. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurieann Duarte, FAR Secretariat, (202) 

501–4755. For clarification of content, 

contact the analyst whose name appears 

in the table below. 

List of Rules in FAC 2005–06 

Item Subject FAR case Analyst 

*I ........... Information Technology Security (Interim) .......................................................................................... 2004–018 Davis. 

II ........... Improvements in Contracting for Architect-EngineerServices ............................................................ 2004–001 Davis. 

III .......... Title 40 of United States Code Reference Corrections ...................................................................... 2005–010 Zaffos. 

*IV ........ Implementation of the Anti-Lobbying Statute ...................................................................................... 1989–093 Woodson. 

V ........... Increased Justification and Approval Threshold forDOD, NASA, and Coast Guard .......................... 2004–037 Jackson. 

*VI ........ Addition of Landscaping and Pest Control Services to theSmall Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program.2004–036 Marshall. 

*VII ....... Powers of Attorney for Bid Bonds ....................................................................................................... 2003–029 Davis. 

*VIII ...... Expiration of the Price Evaluation Adjustment(Interim) ...................................................................... 2005–002 Cundiff. 

IX .......... Accounting for Unallowable Costs ...................................................................................................... 2004–006 Olson. 

X ........... Reimbursement of Relocation Costs on a Lump-Sum Basis ............................................................. 2003–002 Olson. 

XI .......... Training and Education Cost Principle ................................................................................................ 2001–021 Olson. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summaries for each FAR rule follow. 

For the actual revisions and/or 

amendments to these FAR cases, refer to 

the specific item number and subject set 

forth in the documents following these 

item summaries. 

FAC 2005–06 amends the FAR as 

specified below: 

*Item I—Information Technology 

Security (FAR Case 2004–018) 

This interim rule amends the FAR to 

implement the Information Technology 

(IT) Security provisions of the Federal 

Information Security Management Act 

of 2002 (FISMA) (Title III of the EGovernment Act of 2002 (E-Gov Act)). 

This interim rule focuses on the 

importance of system and data security 

by contracting officials and other 

members of the acquisition team. The 

intent of adding specific guidance in the 

FAR is to provide clear, consistent 

guidance to acquisition officials and 

program managers; and to encourage 

and strengthen communication with IT 

security officials, chief information 

officers, and other affected parties. 

Item II—Improvements in Contracting 

for Architect-Engineer Services (FAR 

Case 2004–001) 

This final rule implements Section 

1427(b) of the Services Acquisition 

Reform Act of 2003, which prohibits 

architect-engineering services from 

being offered under GSA multipleaward schedule contracts or under 

Governmentwide task and delivery 

order contracts unless they are awarded 

using the procedures of the Brooks 

Architect-Engineer Act and the services 

are performed under the direct 

supervision of a professional architect 

or engineer licensed, registered, or 

certified in the State, Federal district or 

outlying area, in which the services are 

to be performed. This rule is of interest 

to agencies and contracting officers that 

use GSA schedules and 

Governmentwide task and delivery 

order contracts. 

Item III—Title 40 of United States Code 

Reference Corrections (FAR Case 2005–

010) 

This final rule amends the FAR to 

reflect the most recent codification of 

Title 40 of the United States Code. No 

substantive changes are being made to 

the FAR. 

*Item IV—Implementation of the AntiLobbying Statute (FAR Case 1989–093) 

This final rule converts the interim 

rule published in the Federal Register at 

55 FR 3190, January 30, 1990 to a final 

rule with minor changes amends the 

FAR to implement section 319 of the 

Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, Public 

Law 101–121, which added a new 

section 1352 to Title 31 of the United 

States Code, entitled ‘‘Limitations on 

the use of funds to influence certain 

Federal contracting and financial 

transactions.’’ Section 319 generally 

prohibits recipients of Federal contracts, 

grants, and loans from using 

appropriated funds for lobbying the 

executive or legislative branches of the