6390 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The rule 

amendments will not impose any new 

requirements on small entities. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 1, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–2304 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 02–60; FCC 04–289] 

Rural Health Care Support Mechanism

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this document, we modify 

our rules to improve the effectiveness of 

the rural health care universal service 

support mechanism. In the Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM), we seek comment on whether 

we should increase the percentage 

discount that rural health care providers 

receive for Internet access and whether 

infrastructure development should be 

funded. Additionally, we seek comment 

on whether to modify our rules 

specifically to allow mobile rural health 

care providers to use services other than 

satellite.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 8, 2005. Reply comments are due 

on or before May 9, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina Brown at (202) 418–0792 or 

Dana Bradford at (202) 418–1932, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, TTY (202) 418–0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in WC 

Docket No. 02–60 released on December 

17, 2004. A companion Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration

was also released on December 17, 2004. 

The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

I. Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

A. Internet Access 

1. In the 2003 Report and Order, 68 

FR 74492, December 24, 2003, the 

Commission concluded that support 

equal to 25 percent of the monthly cost 

for any form of Internet access 

reasonably related to the health care 

needs of the facility should be provided 

to rural health care providers. The 

Commission specifically noted that it 

was acting conservatively by choosing a 

25 percent flat discount initially. 

Because requests for Internet access 

discounts have remained at low levels, 

to seek comment on whether a 25 

percent flat discount off the cost of 

monthly Internet access for eligible rural 

health care providers is sufficient. We 

continue to believe that a flat discount 

will lead to greater predictability and 

fairness among health care providers. 

We encourage commenters to be specific 

as to the level of support that we should 

offer, and to provide us with the facts 

that they rely upon in advocating a level 

of support. 

2. Further, to accurately gauge the 

demand for support under the rural 

health care mechanism, we seek 

comment on the effect that an increase 

in Internet access support would have 

on the demand for support from rural 

health care providers. We therefore seek 

comment from rural health care 

providers on the demand for Internet 

access, and from service providers on 

the cost of such services. We seek 

comment on whether demand for 

Internet access is likely to reach the 

$400 million cap on the amount of 

support to be provided by the rural 

health care mechanism, and how 

increased demand would affect the 

operation of the rural health care 

mechanism. 

3. We also seek comment on the 

positive or negative effects that a 

decision to increase Internet access 

support will have on the rural health 

care support mechanism, from the 

perspective of the health care providers, 

the service providers, and USAC. We 

encourage parties to discuss any issues 

relevant to whether we should provide 

increased support for Internet access, 

what level of support to provide, what 

restrictions, if any, we should place on 

such support, what administrative 

problems and concerns may arise if we 

provide increased support, and the 

impact of an increase in support on the 

mechanism’s ability to support other 

services. Specifically, we seek comment 

on whether an increase of support 

would have positive or negative effects 

on facilities-based broadband 

deployment in rural areas. 

B. Support for Other 

Telecommunications Services for 

Mobile Rural Health Care Providers 

4. In the companion Report and 

Order, we revise our policy to allow 

mobile rural health care clinics to 

receive discounts for satellite services 

calculated by comparing the actual cost 

of the satellite service to the rate for an 

urban wireline service with a similar 

bandwidth. We recognize that not only 

satellite services but other 

telecommunications platforms, such as 

terrestrial wireless, may provide the 

most cost-effective means of providing 

the telemedicine link. Because we want 

to encourage mobile health care 

providers to consider all available 

telecommunications services when 

determining which service best suits the 

needs of the telemedicine project, we 

seek comment on whether to modify our 

rules specifically to allow mobile rural 

health care providers to use services 

other than satellite. We seek comment 

on what other telecommunications 

services might be available to support 

mobile rural telemedicine projects. We 

ask commenters to address how such 

service may be a more cost-effective 

method of providing service than a 

satellite connection. We also request 

whether services other than satellite 

services would require different rules, 

different eligibility criteria or any other 

changes from the rules we establish 

today. 

C. Support for Infrastructure 

Development 

5. In the 1997 Universal Service 

Order, 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997, the 

Commission requested comment on 

whether and how to support 

infrastructure development or ‘‘network 

buildout’’ needed to enhance public and 

not-for-profit health care providers’

access to advanced telecommunications 

and information services. At the time, 

the Commission noted that the record 

contained anecdotal evidence regarding 

the need for support for infrastructure 

development. We now seek to refresh 

the record on this issue. 

6. In the 1997 Universal Service 

Order, the Commission agreed with MCI 

that infrastructure development is not a 

‘‘telecommunications service’’ within 

the scope of section 254(h)(1)(A) and 

concluded that the Commission has the 

discretionary authority to establish rules 

to implement a program of universal 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 6391

service support for infrastructure 

development as a method to enhance 

access to advanced telecommunications 

and information services under section 

254(h)(2)(A), as long as such a program 

is competitively neutral, technically 

feasible, and economically reasonable. 

Section 254(h)(2)(A) directs the 

Commission to establish competitively 

neutral rules ‘‘to enhance, to the extent 

technically feasible and economically 

reasonable, access to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services for all * * * health care 

providers.’’ Extending or upgrading 

existing telecommunications 

infrastructure could enhance access to 

the advanced services that may be 

offered over that infrastructure. 

Alternatively, in the schools and 

libraries context, the Commission has 

recognized that some carrier 

infrastructure costs may be passed on as 

a component of monthly service 

charges. 

7. Should the Commission authorize 

support for upgrades to the public 

switched or backbone networks? How 

would the program be structured so that 

it is competitively neutral, technically 

feasible and economically reasonable? If 

so, how should the Commission limit 

such support so that funds are only 

provided when such upgrades can be 

shown to be necessary to deliver 

services to eligible health care 

providers? Should certifications or other 

evidence of necessity attesting to the use 

of such support be required from the 

rural health care provider or the service 

provider? Are other safeguards required 

to ensure that no waste, fraud or abuse 

occurs? Should these charges be 

prorated over a specified number of 

years? Commenters should provide 

specific information on the probable 

costs, advantages, and disadvantages of 

supporting such upgrades. Commenters 

should also provide information 

regarding the effect on the fund’s 

resources. 

II. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

8. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared the 

present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

FNPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the FNPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. In addition, 

the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will be published in the Federal 

Register.

B. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

9. The Commission is required by 

section 254 of the Act to promulgate 

rules to implement the universal service 

provisions of section 254. On May 8, 

1997, the Commission adopted rules 

that reformed its system of universal 

service support mechanisms so that 

universal service is preserved and 

advanced as markets move toward 

competition. Among other programs, the 

Commission adopted a program to 

provide discounted telecommunications 

services to public or non-profit health 

care providers that serve persons in 

rural areas. Important changes in the 

rural health community over the past 

few years, such as technological 

advances and the variety of needs of the 

rural health care community, prompt us 

to review the rural health care universal 

service support mechanism. 

10. In this FNPRM, we seek comment 

on whether we should increase the 

percentage discount that rural health 

care providers receive for Internet 

access. To the extent that we were 

concerned, in the 2003 Report and 

Order, that demand for Internet access 

support would exceed the annual 

funding cap, to date, those concerns 

have not come to fruition at this time. 

Therefore, we take this opportunity to 

seek comment on whether a 25 percent 

flat discount off the cost of monthly 

Internet access for eligible rural health 

care providers is sufficient. We also seek 

comment, in the FNPRM, on whether 

infrastructure development should be 

funded. In the 1997 Universal Service 

Order, the Commission requested 

comment on whether and how to 

support infrastructure development or 

‘‘network buildout’’ needed to enhance 

public and not-for-profit health care 

providers’ access to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services. At the time, the Commission 

noted that the record contained 

anecdotal evidence regarding the need 

for support for infrastructure 

development. We now seek to refresh 

the record on this issue. Additionally, in 

the FNPRM, we seek comment on 

whether to modify our rules specifically 

to allow mobile rural health care 

providers to use services other than 

satellite. In the companion Report and 

Order, we revise our policy to allow 

mobile rural health care providers to 

receive discounts for satellite services 

calculated by comparing the actual cost 

of the satellite service to the rate for an 

urban wireline service with a similar 

bandwidth. However, we recognize that 

not only satellite services but other 

telecommunications platforms, such as 

terrestrial wireless, may provide the 

most cost-effective means of providing 

the telemedicine link. Therefore, 

because we want to encourage mobile 

health care providers to consider all 

available telecommunications services 

when determining which service best 

suits the needs of the telemedicine 

project, we seek comment on whether to 

allow mobile rural health care providers 

to use telecommunications services 

other than satellite. 

C. Legal Basis 

11. This FNPRM is adopted pursuant 

to sections 1, 4(i), (4j), 201, 202, 254, 

and 303 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

(j), 201, 202, 254, and 303. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which 

Rules Will Apply 

12. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that will be affected by the 

proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

13. We have described in detail in the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) to the companion Report and 

Order the categories of entities that may 

be directly affected by any rules or 

proposals adopted in our efforts to 

reform the universal service rural health 

care support mechanism. For this IRFA, 

we hereby incorporate those entity 

descriptions by reference. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

14. This FNPRM seeks comment on 

whether we should increase the 

percentage discount that rural health 

care providers receive for Internet 

access and whether infrastructure 

development should be funded. These 

potential changes will not impact 

6392 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. They may, however, 

increase the number of applicants. 

Additionally, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on whether to modify our 

policy specifically to allow mobile rural 

health care providers to use services 

other than satellite services, such as 

terrestrial wireless. If this proposal is 

adopted, mobile rural health care 

providers could potentially be required 

to submit additional information 

regarding their mobile services, if they 

choose to seek discounts. Any reporting 

and/or recordkeeping requirements 

adopted as part of this modification 

would only minimally impact both 

small and large entities. However, any 

minimal impact of such requirements 

would be outweighed by the benefit of 

providing support necessary to make 

mobile telemedicine economical for 

rural health care providers to provide 

high-quality health care to rural and 

remote areas, and to make 

telecommunications rates for public and 

non-profit rural health care providers 

comparable to those paid in urban areas. 

Further, such requirement/s may be 

necessary to ensure that the statutory 

goals of section 254 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 are 

met without waste, fraud, or abuse. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

15. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

16. In the FNPRM, we seek comment 

on whether we should increase the 

percentage discount that rural health 

care providers receive for Internet. We 

also seek comment on whether 

infrastructure development should be 

funded by the universal service fund. 

Further, in the Further Notice, we seek 

comment on whether to modify our 

rules specifically to allow mobile rural 

health care providers to use services 

other than satellite, such as terrestrial 

wireless, to provide support to mobile 

rural health care providers. If these 

proposals are adopted, we believe the 

proposed changes will help small 

businesses by providing additional 

support under the rural health care 

mechanism than is currently available 

and provide rural health care providers 

with greater flexibility in choosing the 

services that best suit their needs. These 

proposed changes could potentially 

increase the number of applicants, 

including small entities, seeking 

support under the rural health care 

support mechanism. Affected small 

businesses could include rural health 

care providers and small companies 

serving those rural health care 

providers. In seeking to minimize any 

burdens imposed on small entities, 

where doing so does not compromise 

the goals of the universal service 

mechanism, we invite comment on 

alternative ways to minimize any 

significant economic impact of our 

proposals on small entities and on any 

alternatives to these proposals that may 

be more beneficial to small entities.

G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

17. None 

H. Filing Procedures 

18. We invite comment on the issues 

and questions set forth in the FNPRM

and IRFAs contained herein. Pursuant 

to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, comments are due 

on or before April 8, 2005, and reply 

comments on or before May 9, 2005. In 

order to facilitate review of comments 

and reply comments, parties should 

include the name of the filing party and 

the date of the filing on all pleadings. 

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. 

19. Comments filed through the ECFS 

can be sent as an electronic file via the 

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. 

Generally, only one copy of an 

electronic submission must be filed. If 

multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 

appear in the caption of this proceeding, 

however, commenters must transmit 

one electronic copy of the comments to 

each docket or rulemaking number 

referenced in the caption. In completing 

the transmittal screen, commenters 

should include their full name, U.S. 

Postal Service mailing address, and the 

applicable docket or rulemaking 

number. Parties may also submit an 

electronic comment by Internet e-mail. 

To get filing instructions for e-mail 

comments, commenters should send an 

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should 

include the following words in the body 

of the message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample 

form and directions will be sent in 

reply. Or you may obtain a copy of the 

ASCII Electronic Transmittal Form 

(FORM–ET) at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

email.html. 

20. Parties that choose to file by paper 

must file an original and four copies of 

each filing. Filings can be sent by hand 

or messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). The Commission’s contractor, 

Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 

or messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary at a new 

location in downtown Washington, DC. 

The address is 236 Massachusetts 

Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 

20002. The filing hours at this location 

will be 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

21. Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class 

mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 

should be addressed to 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings 

must be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission.

If you are sending this type of document or using this delivery method 

. . . It should be addressed for delivery to . . . 

Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary.236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002 (8 

a.m. to 7 p.m.). 

Other messenger-delivered documents, including documents sent by 

overnight mail (other United States Postal Service Express Mail and 

Priority Mail).

9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743 (8 a.m. to 5:30 

p.m.). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 6393

If you are sending this type of document or using this delivery method 

. . . It should be addressed for delivery to . . . 

United States Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority 

Mail.

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

22. Parties who choose to file by 

paper should also submit their 

comments on diskette. These diskettes, 

plus one paper copy, should be 

submitted to: Sheryl Todd, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Federal Communications, at the filing 

window at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 

Such a submission should be on a 3.5-

inch diskette formatted in an IBM 

compatible format using Word or 

compatible software. The diskette 

should be accompanied by a cover letter 

and should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly 

labeled with the commenter’s name, 

proceeding (including the docket 

number, in this case WC Docket No. 02–

60, type of pleading (comment or reply 

comment), date of submission, and the 

name of the electronic file on the 

diskette. The label should also include 

the following phrase ‘‘Disk Copy—Not 

an Original.’’ Each diskette should 

contain only one party’s pleadings, 

preferably in a single electronic file. In 

addition, commenters must send 

diskette copies to the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CYB402, Washington, DC 20554 

(see alternative addresses above for 

delivery by hand or messenger). 

23. Regardless of whether parties 

choose to file electronically or by paper, 

parties should also file one copy of any 

documents filed in this docket with the 

Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 

12th Street SW., CY–B402, Washington, 

DC 20554 (see alternative addresses 

above for delivery by hand or 

messenger) (telephone (202) 488–5300; 

facsimile (202) 488–5563) or via e-mail 

at qualexint@aol.com. 

24. The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC, 

20554. This document may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC, 

20554, telephone (202) 488–5300, 

facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via e-mail 

qualexint@aol.com. 

I. Further Information 

25. Alternative formats (computer 

diskette, large print, audio recording, 

and Braille) are available to persons 

with disabilities by contacting Brian 

Millin at (202) 418–7426 voice, (202) 

418–7365 TTY, or bmillin@fcc.gov. This 

FNPRM can also be downloaded in 

Microsoft Word and ASCII formats at 

http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/

universalservice/highcost. 

26. For further information, contact 

Regina Brown at (202) 418–0792 or 

Dana Bradford at (202) 418–1932 in the 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

27. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in §§ 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–205, 

214, 254, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

201–205, 214, 254, and 403, this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

28. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05–2268 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 250

[DFARS Case 2003–D048] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Extraordinary 

Contractual Actions

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

update text pertaining to processing of 

requests for extraordinary contract 

adjustments. This proposed rule is a 

result of a transformation initiative 

undertaken by DoD to dramatically 

change the purpose and content of the 

DFARS.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before April 

8, 2005, to be considered in the 

formation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2003–D048, 

using any of the following methods: 

» Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

» Defense Acquisition Regulations 

Web site: http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/

dar/dfars.nsf/pubcomm. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

» E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2003–D048 in the subject 

line of the message. 

» Fax: (703) 602–0350. 

» Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations Council, Attn: Mr. Euclides 

Barrera, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 

3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

» Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council, 

Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th 

Street, Arlington, VA 22202–3402. 

All comments received will be posted 

to http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/

dfars.nsf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Euclides Barrera, (703) 602–0296.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DFARS Transformation is a major 

DoD initiative to dramatically change 

the purpose and content of the DFARS. 

The objective is to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of the 

acquisition process, while allowing the 

acquisition workforce the flexibility to 

innovate. The transformed DFARS will 

contain only requirements of law, DoDwide policies, delegations of FAR 

authorities, deviations from FAR 

requirements, and policies/procedures 

that have a significant effect beyond the 

internal operating procedures of DoD or 

a significant cost or administrative 

impact on contractors or offerors. 

Additional information on the DFARS 

Transformation initiative is available at 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dfars/

transf.htm.