71830 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

203.171–4 Solicitation provision and 

contract clause. 

(a) Use the clause at 252.203–7000, 

Requirements Relating to Compensation 

of Former DoD Officials, in all 

solicitations and contracts. 

(b) Use the provision at 252.203–7005, 

Representation Relating to 

Compensation of Former DoD Officials, 

in all solicitations, including 

solicitations for task and delivery 

orders. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 3. Add section 252.203–7005 to read 

as follows: 

252.203–7005 Representation Relating to 

Compensation of Former DoD Officials. 

As prescribed in 203.171–4(b), insert 

the following provision: 

REPRESENTATION RELATING TO 

COMPENSATION OF FORMER DOD 

OFFICIALS (NOV 2011) 

(a) Definition. Covered DoD official is 

defined in the clause at 252.203–7000, 

Requirements Relating to Compensation of 

Former DoD Officials. 

(b) By submission of this offer, the offeror 

represents, to the best of its knowledge and 

belief, that all covered DoD officials 

employed by or otherwise receiving 

compensation from the offeror, and who are 

expected to undertake activities on behalf of 

the offeror for any resulting contract, are 

presently in compliance with all postemployment restrictions covered by 18 

U.S.C. 207, 41 U.S.C. 2101–2107, and 5 CFR 

parts 2637 and 2641, including Federal 

Acquisition Regulation 3.104–2. 

(End of provision) 

[FR Doc. 2011–29421 Filed 11–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 242 

RIN 0750–AH41 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Administering 

Trafficking in Persons Regulations 

(DFARS Case 2011–D051) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to add to the list of contract 

administration functions a requirement 

to maintain surveillance over contractor 

compliance with duties and 

responsibilities pertaining to trafficking 

in persons when they are incorporated 

in contracts. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Meredith Murphy, telephone (703) 602– 

1302. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The current FAR, at section 22.1705, 

entitled ‘‘Contract clause,’’ prescribes 

use of the clause at FAR 52.222–50, 

Combating Trafficking in Persons, in all 

solicitations and contracts. When the 

contract will be performed outside the 

United States, the clause must be used 

with its Alternate I, as prescribed in 

FAR 22.1705(b). The clause requires 

contractors to inform employees of the 

Government’s zero-tolerance policy and 

the actions that will be taken against 

them for violations of the policy. In 

addition, contractors are required to 

notify the contracting officer 

immediately of any information 

received about an employee’s conduct 

that violates this policy and also of 

actions taken against an employee as a 

result of the violation. 

While the clause at FAR 52.222–50, 

Combating Trafficking in Persons, has 

been in effect since February 2009, the 

listing of Government contract 

administration functions was not 

modified at that time to add 

surveillance of a contractor’s 

compliance with the clause 

requirements. Because the addition of 

this contract administration function is 

internal to DoD and will not impact 

current contract requirements or 

contract clauses, this is not a significant 

revision as defined at FAR 1.501–1. 

Therefore, under the authority at FAR 

1.501–3(a), this rule can be published as 

a final rule without first obtaining 

public comment. 

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 a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

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

804. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does 

not apply to this rule because an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis is only 

required for proposed or interim rules 

that require publication for public 

comment (5 U.S.C. 603) and a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis is only 

required for final rules that were 

previously published for public 

comment, and for which an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis was 

prepared (5 U.S.C. 604). 

This final rule does not constitute a 

significant DFARS revision as defined at 

FAR 1.501–1 because 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 the 

Government. Therefore, publication for 

public comment under 41 U.S.C. 1707 is 

not required. 

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 Part 242 

Government procurement. 

Ynette R. Shelkin, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR part 242 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 242—CONTRACT 

ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 242 continues to read as follows: 

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

chapter 1. 

■ 2. Amend section 242.302 by adding 

paragraph (a)(S–73) to read as follows: 

242.302 Contract administration functions. 

(a) * * * 

(S–73) Maintain surveillance over 

contractor compliance with trafficking 

in persons requirements for all DoD 

contracts for services incorporating the 

clause at FAR 52.222–50, Combating 

Trafficking in Persons, and, when 

necessary, its Alternate I, as identified 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 71831 

in the clause prescription at FAR 

22.1705. (See PGI 222.1703.) 

[FR Doc. 2011–29426 Filed 11–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 211 and 225 

RIN 0750–AH22 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Fire-Resistant 

Fiber for Production of Military 

Uniforms (DFARS Case 2011–D021) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is adopting as final, with 

changes, an interim rule amending the 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) to implement the 

section of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

that prohibits specification of the use of 

fire-resistant rayon fiber in solicitations 

issued before January 1, 2015. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy G. Williams, telephone 703–602– 

0328. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD published an interim rule in the 

Federal Register at 76 FR 32843 on June 

6, 2011, to implement section 821 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011. Section 821 prohibits 

specification of the use of fire-resistant 

rayon fiber in solicitations issued before 

January 1, 2015. 

Ten respondents submitted public 

comments in response to the interim 

rule. Nine of the respondents 

(manufacturers, suppliers, or 

distributors of fire-resistant fibers, 

yarns, fabrics, or military uniforms) 

submitted comments that were 

essentially the same. 

II. Discussion and Analysis of the 

Public Comments 

DoD reviewed the public comments in 

the development of the final rule. A 

discussion of the comments and the 

changes made to the rule as a result of 

those comments are provided as 

follows: 

A. Implements Law as Written 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the DFARS interim rule implements the 

statute as written. 

Response: Noted. 

B. Selection of Fire-Resistant Rayon 

Fiber 

Comment: Nine respondents stated 

that the law only requires that DoD 

solicitations prior to January 1, 2015, 

not specify the use of fire-resistant 

rayon fiber. The law does not restrict 

DoD’s selection and use of fabrics 

containing fire-resistant rayon fiber. The 

respondents recommended that the 

DFARS final rule make clear that the 

rule does not prohibit DoD from 

selecting fabrics that include fireresistant rayon fibers. 

Response: These responses have 

correctly stated the requirements of the 

law. The DFARS interim rule correctly 

reflected the statute. However, DoD has 

added clarification to the title and text 

of section 225.7016, that it is the 

requirement that is prohibited, not the 

voluntary offer and use. 

C. Specification of Other Fire-Resistant 

Fibers 

Comment: Nine respondents stated 

that the law is narrow in its application 

only to fire-resistant rayon fibers. 

According to the respondents, the law 

does not address DoD’s ability to specify 

inherently flame-resistant cellulosic 

fibers; this broader category includes 

any manmade cellulosic fiber that has 

fire resistance added to its slurry before 

fiber extrusion, such as acetate, rayon, 

lyocell, etc. The respondents 

recommended that the DFARS final rule 

make it clear that the prohibition 

applies only to DoD’s ability to specify 

the use of fire-resistant rayon fibers, and 

not to any other categories of fibers. 

Response: The DoD interim rule 

clearly reflected the statutory 

prohibition on requiring the use of fireresistant rayon fiber in a specification. 

However, it would be contrary to the 

intent of the statute to state the 

requirements of the solicitation in such 

a way as to exclude categories of fireresistant fiber (such as polymers) from 

consideration. 

D. Specification of Branded Products 

Comment: Eight respondents stated 

that the law does not restrict the 

specification of branded products. The 

respondents recommended that the 

DFARS rule not include any mention of 

branded commercial products. 

Response: The interim DFARS rule 

did not make any mention of branded 

commercial products. However, if a 

solicitation specifies the use of a 

branded commercial product that 

contains fire-resistant rayon fibers, then 

it would be in violation of the 

prohibition not to specify the use of fireresistant rayon fiber. 

E. Domestic Nonavailability 

Determinations (DNADs) or Waivers 

Comment: Nine respondents 

recommended that the DFARS rule 

should make clear that it does not 

prohibit DoD’s ability to source foreign 

fibers under its DNAD authority or a 

legislated waiver to the Berry 

Amendment. 

Response: There is nothing in the 

interim or final rule that would, in any 

way, affect DoD’s ability to source 

foreign fibers under its DNAD authority 

or a legislated waiver to the Berry 

Amendment. 

F. Inequity in the Treatment of Foreign 

Fibers 

Comment: Nine respondents stated 

that the law produces inequity in the 

treatment of foreign fibers that are 

specified by DoD and are purchased 

under DoD’s authority to waive the 

Berry Amendment. The respondents 

cited various foreign fibers, none of 

which are ‘‘restricted for specification.’’ 

Response: Noted. However, the 

DFARS rule must implement the statute 

as enacted. 

G. Impact on Small Business 

Comment: Nine respondents 

disagreed with the statement in the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis that 

the impact on small businesses will be 

minimal. The respondents cited two 

points on which they disagree with the 

analysis: 

1. According to the respondents, 

Nomex is not a substitute for fireresistant rayon fiber for the manufacture 

of all types of military uniforms. The 

respondents stated that Nomex is 

widely used in flight suits, but not in 

ground troop uniforms, unless used 

with cotton. Cotton requires topical fire 

resistant treatment, which is not 

permanent for the life of the fiber. 

According to the respondents, the 

alternatives to the use of fire-resistant 

rayon are ‘‘next best’’ as a permanent 

fire-resistant solution in hot and humid 

environments and are also more 

expensive. 

2. Dozens of small businesses 

currently supply DoD with uniforms 

made using fire-resistant rayon fibers. 

The impact on small business can be 

significant if designing new products 

and producing existing programs 

becomes restrained by availability of 

raw materials. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES3