34266 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD certifies 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 the rule primarily relates to 

DoD planning and budget 

considerations with regard to the leasing 

of vessels, aircraft, and combat vehicles. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply, because the rule does not 

impose any 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 207 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR Part 207 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 207—ACQUISITION PLANNING 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

Part 207 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 1. 

■ 2. Section 207.470 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By redesignating paragraphs (a) and 

(b) as paragraphs (b) and (c) 

respectively; 

■ b. By adding a new paragraph (a); and 

■ c. In newly designated paragraph (c), 

by removing ‘‘Except as provided in 

paragraph (a) of this section’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘Except as provided 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section’’. 

The new paragraph (a) reads as 

follows: 

207.470 Statutory requirements. 

(a) Requirement for authorization of 

certain contracts relating to vessels, 

aircraft, and combat vehicles. The 

contracting officer shall not enter into 

any contract for the lease or charter of 

any vessel, aircraft, or combat vehicle, 

or any contract for services that would 

require the use of the contractor’s 

vessel, aircraft, or combat vehicle, 

unless the Secretary of the military 

department concerned has satisfied the 

requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2401, when— 

(1) The contract will be a long-term 

lease or charter as defined in 10 U.S.C. 

2401(d)(1); or 

(2) The terms of the contract provide 

for a substantial termination liability as 

defined in 10 U.S.C. 2401(d)(2). Also see 

PGI 207.470. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–16650 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 209, 237, and 252 

RIN 0750–AF80 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Lead System 

Integrators (DFARS Case 2006–D051) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: DoD has issued an interim 

rule amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to implement Section 802 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008. Section 802 places 

limitations on the award of new 

contracts for lead system integrator 

functions in the acquisition of major 

DoD systems. 

DATES: Effective date: July 15, 2009. 

Comment date: Comments on the 

interim rule should be submitted in 

writing to the address shown below on 

or before September 14, 2009, to be 

considered in the formation of the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2006–D051, 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2006–D051 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Fax: 703–602–7887. 

• Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. 

Cassandra Freeman, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense 

Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal 

Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, 

Arlington, VA 22202–3402. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cassandra Freeman, 703–602–8383. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DoD published an interim rule at 73 

FR 1823 on January 10, 2008, to 

implement Section 807 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109–364) with regard 

to limitations on the performance of 

lead system integrator functions by DoD 

contractors. On January 28, 2008, 

Section 802 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Pub. L. 110–181) placed additional 

limitations on DoD use of lead system 

integrators. This second interim rule 

amends the interim rule published on 

January 10, 2008, to implement Section 

802 of Public Law 110–181. 

One source submitted comments on 

the interim rule published on January 

10, 2008. A discussion of the comments 

is provided below. 

1. Comment: Section 802 of the Fiscal 

Year 2008 National Defense 

Authorization Act (Pub. L. 110–181), 

which was enacted after publication of 

the interim rule, contains a definition of 

‘‘lead system integrator’’ that renders 

the interim rule definition obsolete. 

DoD Response: The definition of 

‘‘lead system integrator’’ in this second 

interim rule has been amended for 

consistency with the definition in 

Section 802 of Public Law 110–181. 

2. Comment: The limitations on the 

award of new contracts for lead system 

integrator functions, in Section 802 of 

Public Law 110–181, will make any 

implementing regulations applicable to 

only a handful of contractors. Given the 

limited duration of ongoing contracts for 

programs that have been identified as 

lead system integrators, the newly 

created contract clauses in the interim 

rule are unlikely to be incorporated into 

a contract, because the fiscal year 2008 

statutory prohibition effectively 

precludes their use. Therefore, DoD 

should withdraw or suspend the interim 

rule. 

DoD Response: DoD agrees that the 

rule will apply only to a limited number 

of contractors and only for a limited 

duration. However, the law must be 

implemented for those situations where 

it is applicable. 

3. Comment: It is inappropriate to 

require contractors to represent whether 

or not they propose to perform lead 

system integrator functions under vague 

definitions, given that the contract may 

be terminated for default or other 

remedies may be imposed at the sole 

discretion of the contracting officer if 

the contractor misrepresented its 

‘‘financial interests’’ when that term is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34267 

not defined. Since a ‘‘lead system 

integrator with system responsibility’’ is 

essentially ‘‘as determined by the 

Contracting Officer’’ at the time of 

award, this presents an unacceptable 

situation where a contractor may be 

subject to penalty effectively for an 

errant determination by the 

Government. Moreover, successful 

offerors risk termination for default for 

misrepresenting their status at some 

later time if their lead system integrator 

status is found to be wrong, even if that 

representation was mistakenly, rather 

than knowingly or falsely, executed. 

DoD Response: The definitions in the 

clause at DFARS 252.209–7007, as 

amended by this interim rule, 

sufficiently address the compliance 

requirements of a contractor certifying 

as a lead system integrator. It is 

incumbent upon the contractor to 

ensure that certifications represent the 

most current, accurate, and complete 

information to avoid the 

misinterpretation of information by the 

contracting officer. Likewise, it is the 

responsibility of the contracting officer 

to ensure due diligence in the 

evaluation of contractor certifications. 

4. Comment: Existing regulations, 

such as those governing conflicts of 

interest, that are adequate to protect the 

public interest in situations where a 

prime contractor is responsible for 

integrating subsystems into a weapon 

system, are also adequate to protect the 

correlating situation in which a prime 

contractor is integrating systems into a 

‘‘system of systems.’’ Additional policy 

guidance may be warranted to advise 

contracting officers to take appropriate 

steps in evaluating proposals to ensure 

mechanisms are in place to avoid 

conflicts of interest. In that case, the 

policy additions to Part 209 of the 

DFARS are sufficient to implement 

Section 807 of the Fiscal Year 2007 

National Defense Authorization Act 

without the imposition of requirements 

for contractor representations and 

additional clauses in solicitations and 

contracts. 

DoD Response: DoD considers the 

rule’s provision and clause to be the 

appropriate means of conveying this 

specific statutory requirement to 

offerors and contractors. 

5. Comment: Section 209.570–1 of the 

rule merely references the reader to the 

clause at 252.209–7007 for a definition 

of lead system integrator. The definition 

should be included in section 209.570– 

1 instead of referring the reader to the 

clause section of the DFARS. 

DoD Response: The reference to the 

definition in the contract clause is 

consistent with the DFARS convention 

of minimizing repetition of text. 

6. Comment: The rule would benefit 

in the Definitions section by the 

addition of a cross-reference to the 

existing statutory or regulatory 

definition of a major system, so that it 

is clear exactly what type of standards 

(dollar threshold, etc.) apply to the rule. 

DoD Response: FAR 2.101 provides a 

definition of ‘‘major system.’’ It is not 

necessary to include a cross-reference in 

this DFARS rule, since the definitions in 

FAR 2.101 apply throughout the FAR 

system unless otherwise specified. 

7. Comment: Clarification is needed 

on the term ‘‘substantial portion’’ used 

in paragraph (a)(2) of the clause at 

252.209–7007. 

DoD Response: Contracting officers 

have the discretion to determine 

whether an activity constitutes a 

‘‘substantial portion’’ of the work on the 

system and the major subsystems. 

Factors to be considered in making this 

determination are the relative dollar 

value of the effort and the criticality of 

the effort to be performed. 

8. Comment: Section 209.570–2(b)(1) 

states that the statutory prohibition does 

not apply if the Secretary of Defense 

certifies to both the House and Senate 

Armed Services Committees that the 

lead system integrator contractor was 

selected through a competitive process, 

and any potential organizational conflict 

of interest was neutralized in the 

selection process. The certification 

requirement itself would benefit from 

some clarity, and both the certification 

level and the body to whom the 

certification is made would benefit from 

the flexibility to delegate the exception 

authority to another approval level, 

such as the head of the contracting 

activity. 

DoD Response: The certification 

requirement is consistent with Section 

807 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

In view of the limited number of 

contracts to which this requirement 

applies, DoD considers it unnecessary to 

delegate this exception authority. 

9. Comment: Section 209.570–2(b)(2), 

which cites another exception to the 

prohibition, is confusing. If the goal of 

this section is to allow for a lead system 

integrator to act as a subcontractor in 

the major system development/ 

construction contract after completing 

lead system integrator functions, the 

standard for the exception is unclear. 

What exactly is a ‘‘process over which 

the entity exercised no control’’? The 

tiering of subcontractors as an 

ingredient to the selection process for an 

exception requires clarification. 

DoD Response: Section 209.570– 

2(b)(2) of the rule is consistent with the 

language in Section 807 of National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007. The record does not 

document the legislative intent; 

however, DoD believes that a ‘‘process 

over which the entity exercised no 

control’’ means that the entity was 

selected to perform as a lower-tier 

subcontractor as a result of an 

independent selection process in which 

the entity did not participate as a 

decision-maker. 

10. Comment: Section 235.008 

contains language that is unclear. In 

particular, the statement ‘‘See 209.570 

for limitations on the award of contracts 

to contractors acting as lead system 

integrators,’’ appears to prohibit the 

award of contracts for research and 

development efforts to lead system 

integrators. 

DoD Response: The cross-reference in 

DFARS 235.008 does not prohibit the 

award of contracts for research and 

development efforts to lead system 

integrators; it advises the reader to 

consider the limitations on contractors 

acting as lead system integrators when 

evaluating research and development 

proposals for contract award. 

11. Comment: Both the provision at 

252.209–7006 and the clause at 

252.209–7007 present problematic 

interpretation issues. Both include 

references to two different types of lead 

system integrators: a lead system 

integrator with system responsibility 

and a lead system integrator without 

system responsibility. The distinction 

between these two types of lead system 

integrators is somewhat difficult to 

comprehend, but the offeror is asked to 

make written representations as to its 

lead system integrator status based 

presumably on the type of work 

statement contained in the solicitation 

(which may or may not state that the 

work is for integration or systems 

engineering, etc.). 

DoD Response: Consistent with the 

statutory provisions, the definitions 

recognize two categories of contracts for 

major systems: development/production 

contracts and service contracts. The 

offeror’s representation will be based 

upon the contract work statement and 

any special provisions in the solicitation 

in light of the limitations and 

prohibitions in the provision at 

252.209–7006 and the clause at 

252.209–7007. 

12. Comment: The definition of ‘‘lead 

system integrator without system 

responsibility’’ in the clause at 252.209– 

7007 anticipates that the lead system 

integrator understands and can make 

judgments about what is meant by 

inherently governmental functions. The 

definition references a section of the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
34268 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

completely unaddressed elsewhere in 

the rule. At no time prior to this 

juncture was the prohibition against 

lead system integrators receiving 

development/construction contracts tied 

to a determination that certain types of 

lead system integrator work were 

inherently governmental, a term 

evolving out of the FAIR Act and 

Competitive Sourcing/A–76 world of 

contracting. The clause states that 

contractors performing lead system 

integrator functions throughout the 

acquisition timeframe for a major 

system will refrain from acquiring a 

financial interest in any company 

anywhere that might be eligible to 

develop or manufacture the major 

system. Without addressing the impact 

on commerce by prohibiting business 

enterprises doing defense-related work 

for the Government from making 

strategic acquisitions, the timeframes for 

the complete acquisition cycle for major 

systems could last for years, effectively 

bringing legitimate and otherwise legal 

forms of economic activity (mergers and 

acquisitions) to a halt and extending the 

lead system integrator limitation period 

well beyond that envisioned by 

Congress when crafting the law. 

DoD Response: The definitions and 

the requirements in the contract clause 

are consistent with the statutory 

provisions. 

13. Comment: Paragraph (c) of the 

clause at 252.209–7007 imposes an 

unclear standard and undefined 

timeline for notice from a lead system 

integrator contractor to the contracting 

officer if the lead system integrator 

contractor acquires a financial interest 

in a relevant major system contractor. 

Additionally, the clause provides the 

contracting officer the unilateral right to 

impose a default termination in the 

event that a conflict cannot be mitigated 

or avoided after the contract has been 

awarded and/or in force for some time. 

Termination should not be made a 

specific requirement of this clause; 

rather, if a lead system integrator 

contractor is acting in good faith and 

otherwise complying with the 

requirements of the contract, but 

termination is still necessary to comport 

with the principle of any final lead 

system integrator limitation clause, 

termination should be one of 

convenience that allows the lead system 

integrator contractor to recoup all costs 

incurred prior to termination. Both 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of the clause 

should be rewritten to establish a 

reasonable standard for both timely 

notice and to clarify the extent of the 

Government’s remedies in termination. 

DoD Response: A failure to comply 

with statutory prohibitions speaks to the 

lack of responsibility of a contractor, 

and could be reasonable justification to 

terminate a contract for default. 

However, the clause does not direct a 

default termination; it only provides for 

it and also allows other remedial action 

as may be appropriate. 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. 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 application of the rule is 

limited to contractors performing lead 

system integrator functions for major 

DoD systems. Therefore, DoD has not 

performed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. DoD invites 

comments from small businesses and 

other interested parties. DoD also will 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the affected DFARS subparts 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such 

comments should be submitted 

separately and should cite DFARS Case 

2006–D051. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply, because the rule does not 

impose any information collection 

requirements that require the approval 

of the Office of Management and Budget 

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

D. Determination To Issue an Interim 

Rule 

A determination has been made under 

the authority of the Secretary of Defense 

that urgent and compelling reasons exist 

to publish an interim rule prior to 

affording the public an opportunity to 

comment. This interim rule implements 

Section 802 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Pub. L. 110–181). Section 802 places 

additional limitations on the 

performance of lead system integrator 

functions by DoD contractors. DoD may 

award a new contract for lead system 

integrator functions in the acquisition of 

a major system only if the major system 

has not yet proceeded beyond low-rate 

initial production; or if the Secretary of 

Defense determines that it would not be 

practicable to carry out the acquisition 

without continuing to use a contractor 

to perform lead system integrator 

functions, and that doing so is in the 

best interest of DoD. Comments received 

in response to this interim rule will be 

considered in the formation of the final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 209, 

237, and 252 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR parts 209, 237, and 

252 are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 209, 237, and 252 continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 1. 

PART 209—CONTRACTOR 

QUALIFICATIONS 

■ 2. Section 209.570–2 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 

follows: 

209.570–2 Policy. 

* * * * * 

(c) In accordance with Section 802 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110–181), 

DoD may award a new contract for lead 

system integrator functions in the 

acquisition of a major system only if— 

(1) The major system has not yet 

proceeded beyond low-rate initial 

production; or 

(2) The Secretary of Defense 

determines in writing that it would not 

be practicable to carry out the 

acquisition without continuing to use a 

contractor to perform lead system 

integrator functions and that doing so is 

in the best interest of DoD. The 

authority to make this determination 

may not be delegated below the level of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

(Also see 209.570–3(b).) 

(d) Effective October 1, 2010, DoD is 

prohibited from awarding a new 

contract for lead system integrator 

functions in the acquisition of a major 

system to any entity that was not 

performing lead system integrator 

functions in the acquisition of the major 

system prior to January 28, 2008. 

■ 3. Section 209.570–3 is revised to read 

as follows: 

209.570–3 Procedures. 

(a) In making a responsibility 

determination before awarding a 

contract for the acquisition of a major 

system, the contracting officer shall— 

(1) Determine whether the prospective 

contractor meets the definition of ‘‘lead 

system integrator’’; 

(2) Consider all information regarding 

the prospective contractor’s direct 

financial interests in view of the 

prohibition at 209.570–2(a); and 

(3) Follow the procedures at PGI 

209.570–3. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34269 

(b) A determination to use a 

contractor to perform lead system 

integrator functions in accordance with 

209.570–2(c)(2)— 

(1) Shall specify the reasons why it 

would not be practicable to carry out the 

acquisition without continuing to use a 

contractor to perform lead system 

integrator functions, including a 

discussion of alternatives, such as use of 

the DoD workforce or a system 

engineering and technical assistance 

contractor; 

(2) Shall include a plan for phasing 

out the use of contracted lead system 

integrator functions over the shortest 

period of time consistent with the 

interest of the national defense; and 

(3) Shall be provided to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives 

at least 45 days before the award of a 

contract pursuant to the determination. 

PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING 

■ 4. Section 237.102–72 is added to read 

as follows: 

237.102–72 Contracts for management 

services. 

In accordance with Section 802 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110–181), DoD 

may award a contract for the acquisition 

of services the primary purpose of 

which is to perform acquisition support 

functions with respect to the 

development or production of a major 

system, only if— 

(a) The contract prohibits the 

contractor from performing inherently 

governmental functions; 

(b) The DoD organization responsible 

for the development or production of 

the major system ensures that Federal 

employees are responsible for 

determining— 

(1) Courses of action to be taken in the 

best interest of the Government; and 

(2) Best technical performance for the 

warfighter; and 

(c) The contract requires that the 

prime contractor for the contract may 

not advise or recommend the award of 

a contract or subcontract for the 

development or production of the major 

system to an entity owned in whole or 

in part by the prime contractor. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 5. Section 252.209–7007 is amended 

by revising the clause date and 

paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (e) to read 

as follows: 

252.209–7007 Prohibited Financial 

Interests for Lead System Integrators. 

* * * * * 

PROHIBITED FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR 

LEAD SYSTEM INTEGRATORS (JUL 2009) 

(a) * * * 

(2) Lead system integrator with system 

responsibility means a prime contractor for 

the development or production of a major 

system, if the prime contractor is not 

expected at the time of award to perform a 

substantial portion of the work on the system 

and the major subsystems. 

(3) Lead system integrator without system 

responsibility means a prime contractor 

under a contract for the procurement of 

services, the primary purpose of which is to 

perform acquisition functions closely 

associated with inherently governmental 

functions (see section 7.503(d) of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation) with respect to the 

development or production of a major 

system. 

* * * * * 

(e) This clause implements the 

requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2410p, as 

added by Section 807 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109–364), and 

Section 802 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Pub. L. 110–181). 

[FR Doc. E9–16676 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 212 and 239 

RIN 0750–AG32 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Use of 

Commercial Software (DFARS Case 

2008–D044) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to implement Section 803 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009. Section 803 

requires DoD to identify and evaluate, at 

all stages of the acquisition process, 

opportunities for the use of commercial 

computer software and other nondevelopmental software. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Julian Thrash, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3D139, 

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone 703–602–0310; 

facsimile 703–602–7887. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2008–D044. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Section 803 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Pub. L. 110–417) requires DoD to 

ensure that contracting officials identify 

and evaluate, at all stages of the 

acquisition process (including concept 

refinement, concept decision, and 

technology development), opportunities 

for the use of commercial computer 

software and other non-developmental 

software. This final rule adds text at 

DFARS 212.212 to address the 

requirements of Section 803 of Public 

Law 110–117. In addition, the rule adds 

cross-references to existing DFARS 

policy regarding the acquisition of 

commercial software, software 

maintenance, and software 

documentation. 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule will not have a significant 

cost or administrative impact on 

contractors or offerors, or a significant 

effect beyond the internal operating 

procedures of DoD. Therefore, 

publication for public comment under 

41 U.S.C. 418b is not required. 

However, DoD will consider comments 

from small entities concerning the 

affected DFARS subparts in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments 

should cite DFARS Case 2008–D044. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply, because the rule does not 

impose any 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 Parts 212 and 

239 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR parts 212 and 239 

are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 212 and 239 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 1. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES