Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67771 

$193,000 for supplies and services and 

$7,407,000 for construction. 

Item V—Technical Amendments 

Editorial changes are made at FAR 

15.404–1, 22.1006, 22.1304, 28.202, 

52.212–5, 52.222–43, 52.228–15, and 

52.228–16, in order to update 

references. 

Dated: November 15, 2006. 

Ralph De Stefano, 

Director, Contract Policy Division. 

Federal Acquisition Circular 

Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 

2005-14 is issued under the authority of 

the Secretary of Defense, the 

Administrator of General Services, and 

the Administrator for the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Unless otherwise specified, all 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

and other directive material contained 

in FAC 2005-14 is effective November 

22, 2006. 

Dated: November 12, 2006. 

Shay D. Assad, 

Director, Defense Procurement and 

Acquisition Policy. 

Dated: November 8, 2006. 

Roger D. Waldron, 

Acting Senior Procurement Executive, 

General Services Administration. 

Dated: November 6, 2006. 

Tom Luedtke, 

Assistant Administrator for Procurement, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 06–9309 Filed 11–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 2, 4, 7, and 52 

[FAC 2005–14; FAR Case 2005–015; Item 

I; Docket 2006–0020, Sequence 19] 

RIN 9000–AJ91 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2005–015, Common Identification 

Standard for Contractors 

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 to convert the 

interim rule published in the Federal 

Register at 71 FR 208 on January 3, 

2006, to a final rule with changes. This 

final rule is amending the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to add the 

contractor personal identification 

requirements identified in the 

Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive (HSPD) 12, ‘‘Policy for a 

Common Identification Standard for 

Federal Employees and Contractors,’’

and Federal Information Processing 

Standards (FIPS) Number 201, 

‘‘Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of 

Federal Employees and Contractors,’’ as 

amended. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 22, 

2006. 

Applicability Date: This rule applies 

to solicitations and contracts issued or 

awarded on or after November 22, 2006. 

Contracts awarded before October 27, 

2005 requiring contractors to have 

routine physical access to a Federallycontrolled facility and/or routine access 

to a Federally-controlled information 

system must be modified to ensure that 

credentials are issued by October 27, 

2007, pursuant to FAR Subpart 4.13 in 

accordance with agency implementation 

of FIPS PUB 201 and OMB guidance M–

05–24, as amended. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Michael Jackson, Procurement Analyst, 

at (202) 208–4949. Please cite FAC 

2005–14, FAR case 2005–015. For 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the FAR 

Secretariat at (202) 501–4755. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This final rule amends the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation to require 

contracting officers to incorporate the 

requirement for contractors to comply 

with agency verification procedures that 

implement Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive–12 (HSPD–12), 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance M–05–24, and Federal 

Information Processing Standards 

Publication (FIPS PUB) Number 201 

when applicable to the work to be 

performed under the contract. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA published an 

interim rule in the Federal Register at 

71 FR 208 on January 3, 2006. The 60- 

day comment period for the interim rule 

ended March 6, 2006. Five respondents 

provided comments. Most comments 

pointed out areas of concern and 

language that required clarification. The 

substantive comments are discussed 

below. 

Public Comments 

Comment: One respondent requested 

the Government clarify/elaborate on the 

requirements to have subcontractors 

properly cleared. 

Response: Implementation of 

Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive (HSPD) 12 required by OMB 

memorandum M–05–24, Policy for a 

Common Identification Standard for 

Federal Employees and Contractors, 

follows the Federal Information 

Processing Standard Publication (FIPS 

PUB) 201 when individuals under 

contract with a Federal department or 

agency, requiring routine access to 

Federally-controlled facilities and/or 

Federally-controlled information 

systems, require identity credentials 

consistent with existing agency security 

policies. The need to have contactors 

meet the requirements of FIPS PUB 201, 

including background investigations, 

applies equally to contractors and 

subcontractors to the extent that 

subcontractors require routine access to 

Federally-controlled facilities and/or 

Federally-controlled information 

systems. As such, the Councils have 

revised the final rule to add the term 

‘‘routine’’ to clarify that personal 

identity verification does not apply to 

all contractors and/or subcontractors. 

Comment: One respondent stated 

there is an overlap with Department of 

Defense Instruction (DoDI) 3020.41 

(October 3, 2005) paragraph 6.2.7.3 

which states ‘‘contingency contractor 

personnel shall be issued a standard 

Geneva Convention Card...U.S. citizens 

and selected other CDF will be issued a 

DoD Uniformed Services Identification 

and Privilege Card...’’, and points out 

that FAC 2005–07 requires agencies to 

adopt and accredit a registration process 

consistent with the identity proofing, 

registrations and accreditation 

requirements in section 2.2 of FIPS 

[PUB] 201. The respondent asks will the 

requirement in DoDI 3020.41 satisfy the 

requirements of FAC 2005–07 for 

providing a personal identity card for 

contingency contractors? The 

respondent also asks does FAC 2005–07 

duplicate or supplement the 

requirement in DoDI 3020.41 or does it 

depend on the contingency status of the 

contractor? 

Response: Those contingency 

contractor personnel who receive a 

common access card (CAC), including 

those who receive a CAC based on the 

eligibility for a Geneva Conventions 

card, must comply with the identity 

proofing and vetting requirements of 

FIPS PUB 201, as the CAC represents 

DoD’s implementation of the Personal 

Identity Verification (PIV) for Federal 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
67772 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Employees and Contractors standard. 

Policy change is currently in staffing to 

modify and update existing documents 

to comply with the heightened 

requirements. The current DoDI 3020.41 

does not satisfy FIPS PUB 201 

requirements; pending publication of 

the policy changes, FIPS PUB 201 must 

be considered additive to the 

requirements of DoDI 3020.1. 

Comment: One respondent highlights 

that the FIPS PUB 201 will be 

implemented in two phases, that the 

documents referenced in the interim 

rule are lengthy and a small business 

may not have the capability to 

download them, and that SBA may need 

to assist small businesses and/or 

provide training to make them 

competent in this arena. The respondent 

also stated that added administrative 

time is required for businesses and 

Federal agencies to incorporate the 

required contract modifications. The 

respondent also recommends that the 

standards required by parts 1 and 2 of 

the OMB memorandum (M–05–24) be 

outlined in the FAR clause at 52.204–9, 

and that the clause be added to 

solicitations and contracts in full text 

versus incorporation by reference. 

Response: The rule permits 

modifications to be executed according 

to agency procedures for FIPS PUB 201 

implementation. The Councils consider 

the October 2007 date to be in full 

compliance with FIPS PUB 201 and 

allow adequate time for agencies to 

establish a completion date to modify 

contracts thereby lessening any 

administrative burden. Agencies will 

establish their own procedures for 

complying with FIPS PUB 201, therefore 

the Councils do not want to give the 

appearance that the outline 

encompasses all facets of identity 

verification by including an outline in 

the clause. Because agency policy will 

implement FIPS PUB 201, agency 

resources should be available to assist 

small businesses with questions or 

concerns regarding their procedures. 

Adding the clause in solicitations and 

contracts by reference is the proper 

prescription, and the full text of clause 

52.204–9 is available using the Internet. 

Nonetheless, a small business can 

receive clarification or a copy of the 

clause by contacting the contracting 

officer. 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that the interim rule is a 

significant regulatory action and 

suggested that the budgetary and 

administrative impact is so significant it 

should be a ‘‘major rule’’ that is subject 

to congressional review pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq. and to the regulatory 

planning and review process under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Response: The budgetary and 

administrative resources to implement 

HSPD–12 are provided by the 

Government. The Councils have 

appropriately complied with the 

determination made by OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs that 

this rule is not significant, nor 

economically significant, nor a major 

rule. 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that the HSPD–12 requires 

agencies to ‘‘complete and receive 

notification of results of the FBI 

National Criminal History check prior to 

credential issuance.’’ Both requirements 

will significantly increase the demands 

placed on Government investigative 

services far beyond their current 

budgetary and manpower capabilities. 

The respondent provided an overview 

of the backlog OPM is currently 

experiencing. The respondent indicates 

that hundreds of thousands more 

investigations will be required by 

HSPD–12 for government personnel, 

contractors, and subcontractors, and 

questions how the Government will 

handle the influx of contractor 

personnel. The respondent also stated 

the rule will cause an artificial increase 

in the number of investigations to 

ensure that personnel that may become 

critical to the contract performance are 

not excluded only because they do not 

have a government-issued I.D. 

Response: Attachment A to the OMB 

Memo M–05–24 dated August 5, 2005, 

states that agencies should receive 

notification of results of the National 

Agency Checks before issuing a 

credential. However, the memo provides 

that the identity credential can be 

issued based on the FBI National 

Criminal History Check (fingerprint 

check) if the results are not received in 

5 days. Because of this provision, the 

Councils have concluded that 

flexibilities exist to allow credentialing 

which may mitigate the impact of an 

increase in demand placed on 

investigative services. OPM is 

responsible for the investigative services 

and has procedures in place to handle 

the associated workload. 

Comment: One respondent expressed 

that a concern for industry is the 

potential impact of this rule on the 

performance of contracts by contractors 

and subcontractors, because the rule is 

silent on the consequences of 

Government investigative services not 

being completed in a timely fashion. 

The respondent questions if an agency 

is allowed beyond October 27, 2005 to 

continue to provide access to ‘‘federallycontrolled facilities’’ and/or ‘‘federal 

information systems’’ for contractors 

and subcontractors who are not yet 

adjudicated. Additional concern was 

expressed that a contractor or 

subcontractor would be barred from 

performing on a contract because the 

Government is unable to provide a final 

identity verification and successful 

criminal background check. 

Response: In reference to the OMB 

Memo M–05–24, agencies are instructed 

to initiate National Agency Checks by 

October 27, 2005. Full completion will 

occur over a specified time period. The 

guidance includes instruction for 

distinguishing adjudicated individuals 

from those that have not yet been 

adjudicated; it does not prohibit access. 

Each agency will follow its own 

implementation policy for access 

authorization when a final identity 

verification and successful criminal 

background check are pending. 

Therefore, the Councils do not 

anticipate that contractors or 

subcontractors will be barred from 

performing their contractual obligations. 

Comment: Two respondents question 

the course of action for contractors and 

subcontractors, including small and 

disadvantaged businesses, needing to 

obtain identity verification for their 

employees. It appears that the agency 

will be responsible for ensuring all 

contractor and subcontractor employees 

are able to complete the process, but 

such a sequence would indicate that 

verification occurs after award and 

employers who do not currently have 

adjudicated personnel would be 

required to delay performance on the 

contract until such time as a sufficient 

number of personnel can be 

adjudicated. 

Response: As stated in the response 

above, implementation of HSPD–12 

does not prohibit access to a Federallycontrolled facility and/or Federallycontrolled information system pending 

a final identity verification and 

successful criminal background check. 

Contractors must comply with agency 

procedures for access authorization 

when a final adjudication has not been 

issued. There is no intent to delay 

contract performance until a sufficient 

number of personnel can be 

adjudicated. 

Comment: One respondent stated the 

prospect of investigative delays would 

drive businesses that can offer the 

Government successful commercial 

solutions from the marketplace because 

the delays would impact performance, 

and suggests a solution is to start 

verifying identity before contract award. 

However, this option would exacerbate 

the problem of workload delays that 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67773 

already plague the Government 

investigative services. 

Response: The Councils have been 

informed by OPM that the full extent to 

which HSPD–12 will create 

investigative delays is unknown. It is 

anticipated that cases received by OPM 

because of HSPD–12 implementation, 

that would not otherwise have been 

received, will be almost exclusively for 

uncleared contractors. While the true 

size of this population is unknown, 

what is known is that a large number of 

agencies have been investigating 

uncleared contractors on a regular basis 

and the workload increase will be 

significantly smaller than if no activity 

had ever occurred. National Agency 

Check with Inquiries (NACI), the 

minimum investigation required for 

HSPD–12 compliance and personal 

identity verification (PIV) issuance, are 

not labor intensive. Once the case is 

data-entered, it is processed by 

automated systems. NACIs do not, other 

than in rare cases, require the use of 

field investigators. Further, PIV 

credentials can be issued upon favorable 

completion of the fingerprint portion of 

the NACI, which in most cases will be 

accomplished in a matter of days. The 

option of allowing contractors to begin 

the investigative process before contract 

award would create a far greater burden 

on the process. OPM is the authority on 

handling workload for investigative 

services, and has procedures to support 

implementation of HSPD–12. 

Comment: One respondent stated it 

supports the need for secure and 

reliable forms of identification, but it is 

not clear that the Government has 

sufficiently anticipated the full scale of 

the impact on investigative services, 

historical delays, nor the potential 

impact on contractors and subcontractor 

and Government contracting as a whole 

on the Government’s ability to verify the 

personnel for every contractor and 

subcontractor requiring access to 

‘‘federal information systems’’ and/or 

‘‘federally-controlled facilities.’’

Response: As stated in the above 

response, the Councils have been 

informed by OPM that the full extent to 

which HSPD–12 will create 

investigative delays is unknown, 

however, it is anticipated that cases 

received by OPM because of HSPD–12 

implementation, that would not 

otherwise have been received, will 

almost exclusively be for uncleared 

contractors. OPM is responsible for 

handling investigative requests 

regarding HSPD–12 and has existing 

procedures to manage this type of 

workload. 

Comment: One respondent stated the 

Councils must require as part of the rule 

that agencies submit information to the 

Government investigative services. 

Citing the November 9, 2005 testimony 

of Linda Springer, Director of the Office 

of Personnel Management, to the Senate 

Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce and the District of Columbia, 

this information will at least provide the 

bases for adequate, reasonable and 

accurate annual estimates of the 

personnel and costs demands they will 

place upon the process. 

Response: In her November 9, 2005 

testimony, Ms. Springer indicated that 

‘‘OPM will assist agencies in improving 

their workload forecasting by collecting 

quarterly data comparing agencies’

annual workload projections with actual 

requests,’’ and that OPM will continue 

to work toward reducing the time it 

takes to complete the process for 

investigative cases. The Councils 

support OPM’s role in managing 

resources to perform investigations and 

OPM’s procedures for gathering 

information for investigative services, 

and do not believe it is necessary to add 

further implementation requirements to 

this rule. 

Comment: One respondent states the 

FAR interim rule sets a mechanism for 

requiring contractors to comply with 

HSPD–12 that differs from the OMB 

guidance. Because DOE has 

implemented the appropriate 

mechanism to assure contractors 

comply with HSPD–12, implementation 

of the FAR rule will cause hardship to 

the Department. The FAR policy 

requires agencies to follow HSPD–12 

and its associated guidance. The policy 

states ‘‘agencies must follow FIPS 201 

and OMB guidance for personal identity 

verification for all affected contractor 

and subcontractor personnel...’’ This 

policy language indicates that the FAR 

interim rule is intended to further the 

requirements of FIPS 201 and OMB 

guidance. This language clearly implies 

that for contractors which are not 

affected by HSPD–12, contracting 

officers do not have to include this 

clause. 

Response: The Councils did not 

intend to overstate requirements to 

implement FIPS PUB 201 and the OMB 

guidance and agree that contracting 

officers do not have to include the 

clause if contract performance does not 

require compliance with HSPD–12. The 

final rule clarifies that HSPD–12 applies 

when contractors and subcontractors 

require routine physical access to a 

Federally-controlled facility and/or 

routine access to a Federally-controlled 

information system. 

Comment: One respondent 

recommends that the FAR Interim Rule 

be modified for consistency with 

established HSPD–12 guidance, because 

the FAR requirement is not consistent 

with the recently amended FIPS PUB 

201 and the OMB memorandum M–05–

24. In particular, promulgation of the 

final rule as written could result in 

substantial confusion among the Federal 

agency employees and contractors who 

are assigned to implement HSPD–12 at 

large Federal agencies. The respondent 

listed items in the FAR interim rule 

which are different from the OMB 

memo including the definition of 

Federally-controlled facilities; the use of 

‘‘Federal Information System’’ instead of 

‘‘Federally Controlled Information 

System’’; the omission of ‘‘facilities 

under a management and operation 

contract’’; the exception for ‘‘education 

institution’’; and the expansion of the 

definition of ‘‘Federally owned 

buildings and leased space’’ to include 

property interests controlled by any 

department or agency. 

Response: The Councils have 

reviewed updated FIPS PUB 201 

guidance and have revised the 

definitions in the final rule for 

Federally-controlled facilities and 

Federally-controlled information 

systems to be consistent with the OMB 

Memo M–05–24, dated August 5, 2005. 

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. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The changes may 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 all 

entities that hold contracts or wish to 

hold contracts that require their 

personnel to have access to Federallycontrolled facilities or information 

systems will be required to employ on 

Government contracts only employees 

who meet the standards for being 

credentialed and expend resources 

necessary to help employees fill out the 

forms for credentialing. The Councils 

prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA), and it is summarized 

as follows: 

1. Statement of need for, and objectives of, 

the rule. 

This rule amends the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation to implement the Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, 

‘‘Policy for a Common Identification 

Standard for Federal Employees and 

Contractors,’’ dated August 27, 2004. HSPD 

12 requires the development and agency 

implementation of a mandatory 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
67774 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Governmentwide standard for secure and 

reliable forms of identification for Federal 

employees and contractors, including 

contractor employees. 

2. Summary of significant issues raised by 

the public comments in response to the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

a summary of the assessment of the agency 

of such issues, and a statement of any 

changes made in the interim rule as a result 

of such comments. 

An interim rule was published in the 

Federal Register at 71 FR 208 on January 3, 

2006. The Councils considered all of the 

comments in finalizing the rule. An Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was 

performed. One respondent highlights that 

the FIPS PUB 201 will be implemented in 

two phases, that the documents referenced in 

the interim rule are lengthy and a small 

business may not have the capability to 

download them, and that SBA may need to 

assist small businesses and/or provide 

training to make them competent in this 

arena. The respondent also stated that added 

administrative time is required for businesses 

and Federal agencies to incorporate the 

required contract modifications. The councils 

consider the October 2007 date to be in full 

compliance with FIPS PUB 201 and allow 

adequate time for agencies to establish a 

completion date to modify contracts thereby 

lessening any administrative burden. Because 

agency policy will implement FIPS PUB 201, 

agency resources should be available to assist 

small businesses with questions or concerns 

regarding their procedures. 

3. Description of, and an estimate of the 

number of, small entities to which the rule 

will apply or an explanation of why no such 

estimate is available. 

This rule will apply to all large and small 

businesses that seek awards when contract 

performance requires contractors and/or 

subcontractors to have routine physical 

access to a Federally-controlled facility and/ 

or routine access to a Federally-controlled 

information system. A precise estimate of the 

number of small entities that fall within the 

rule is not currently feasible because it would 

include both contractors who perform in 

Government-owned space as well as those 

who perform in Government-leased space 

(including employees of the lessor and its 

contractors). 

The Councils did not receive any 

comments on this issue from small business 

concerns or other interested parties in 

response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. 

4. Description of the projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the rule, including an 

estimate of the classes of small entities which 

will be subject to the requirement and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record. 

The rule does not directly require 

reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance 

requirements within the meaning of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The rule 

does require that any entity, including small 

businesses that will be performing a contract 

that requires its employees to have access to 

Federal facilities or information systems, 

submit information on their employees. Such 

information will include a personnel history 

for each employee having access to a Federal 

facility or information system for a period 

exceeding 6 months. Although the forms 

involved are similar to a standard application 

for employment that is used by many 

companies, it is envisioned that some 

employers, especially those using non-skilled 

or semi-skilled laborers, will need to help 

their employees complete the form. It is 

estimated that each applicant will spend 

approximately 30 minutes completing the 

form. 

Five respondents provided public 

comments in response to the interim rule. 

The public expressed concern that 

downloading large documents may be 

problematic for small business concerns, 

there will be a significant increase workload 

for OPM resources who provide investigative 

services that may cause a delay and prohibit 

a contractor’s ability to start performance 

while awaiting adjudication, and the interim 

rule overstated the credentialing 

requirements by referencing all contractors 

and subcontractors. The responses to public 

comments in the final rule preamble address 

these comments. 

Agencies must adopt the technical 

standards for an approved identity proofing 

and registration process established by 

Federal Information Processing Standard 

Publication (FIPS PUB) 201, and establish 

their own implementation policy. The real 

implementation of this directive will occur at 

the agency level. Agencies should be 

prepared to assist contractors with questions 

or concerns about the agency policy. 

5. Description of steps the agency has 

taken to minimize significant economic 

impact on small entities consistent with the 

stated objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, policy, 

and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 

adopted in the final rule and why each of the 

other significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency was rejected. 

There are no known significant alternatives 

that will accomplish the objectives of the 

rule. No alternatives were proposed during 

the public comment period. 

The FAR Secretariat has submitted a 

copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. Interested parties may 

obtain a copy from the FAR Secretariat. 

The Councils will consider comments 

from small entities concerning the 

affected FAR Parts 2, 4, 7, and 52 in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested 

parties must submit such comments 

separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq. (FAC 2005–14, FAR Case 2005–

015), in correspondence. 

C. 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 Parts 2, 4, 7, 

and 52 

Government procurement. 

Dated: November 15, 2006. 

Ralph De Stefano, 

Director, Contract Policy Division. 

Interim Rule Adopted as Final with 

Changes 

■ Accordingly, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

adopt the interim rule amending 48 CFR 

parts 2, 4, 7, and 52, which was 

published in the Federal Register at 71 

FR 208, January 3, 2006, as a final rule 

with the following changes: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 2, 4, 7, and 52 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). 

PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS 

AND TERMS 

■ 2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph 

(b)(2) by removing the definition 

‘‘Federal information system’’; revising 

the definition ‘‘Federally-controlled 

facilities’’; and adding the definition 

‘‘Federally-controlled information 

system’’ to read as follows: 

2.101 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

Federally-controlled facilities 

means—

(1) Federally-owned buildings or 

leased space, whether for single or 

multi-tenant occupancy, and its grounds 

and approaches, all or any portion of 

which is under the jurisdiction, custody 

or control of a department or agency; 

(2) Federally-controlled commercial 

space shared with non-government 

tenants. For example, if a department or 

agency leased the 10th floor of a 

commercial building, the Directive 

applies to the 10th floor only; 

(3) Government-owned, contractoroperated facilities, including 

laboratories engaged in national defense 

research and production activities; and 

(4) Facilities under a management and 

operating contract, such as for the 

operation, maintenance, or support of a 

Government-owned or Governmentcontrolled research, development, 

special production, or testing 

establishment. 

Federally-controlled information 

system means an information system (44 

U.S.C. 3502(8) used or operated by a 

Federal agency, or a contractor or other 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67775 

organization on behalf of the agency (44 

U.S.C. 3544(a)(1)(A)). 

* * * * * 

PART 4—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 

■ 3. Revise section 4.1300 in paragraphs 

(a) and (b) and section 4.1301 to read as 

follows: 

4.1300 Policy. 

(a) Agencies must follow Federal 

Information Processing Standards 

Publication (FIPS PUB) Number 201, 

‘‘Personal Identity Verification of 

Federal Employees and Contractors,’’ as 

amended, and the associated Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

implementation guidance as amended, 

for personal identity verification for all 

affected contractor and subcontractor 

personnel when contract performance 

requires contractors to have routine 

physical access to a Federally-controlled 

facility and/or routine access to a 

Federally-controlled information 

system. 

(b) Agencies must include their 

implementation of FIPS PUB 201 as 

amended, and OMB guidance M–05–24, 

dated August 5, 2005, as amended, in 

solicitations and contracts that require 

the contractor to have routine physical 

access to a Federally-controlled facility 

and/or routine access to a Federallycontrolled information system. 

* * * * * 

4.1301 Contract clause. 

The contracting officer shall insert the 

clause at 52.204–9, Personal Identity 

Verification of Contractor Personnel, in 

solicitations and contracts when 

contract performance requires 

contractors to have routine physical 

access to a Federally-controlled facility 

and/or routine access to a Federallycontrolled information system. The 

clause shall not be used when 

contractors require only intermittent 

access to Federally-controlled facilities. 

PART 7—ACQUISITION PLANNING 

■ 4. Amend section 7.105 by revising 

the last sentence in paragraph (b)(17) to 

read as follows: 

7.105 Contents of written acquisition 

plans. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(17) Security considerations. * * * For 

acquisitions requiring routine contractor 

physical access to a Federally-controlled 

facility and/or routine access to a 

Federally-controlled information 

system, discuss how agency 

requirements for personal identity 

verification of contractors will be met 

(see Subpart 4.13). 

* * * * * 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

■ 5. Amend section 52.204–9 by 

revising the date of the clause to read 

‘‘(NOV 2006)’’; and revising paragraphs 

(a) and (b) to read as follows: 

52.204–9 Personal Identity Verification of 

Contractor Personnel. 

* * * * * 

(a) The Contractor shall comply with 

agency personal identity verification 

procedures identified in the contract 

that implement Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive–12 (HSPD–12), 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance M–05–24, as amended, 

and Federal Information Processing 

Standards Publication (FIPS PUB) 

Number 201, as amended. 

(b) The Contractor shall insert this 

clause in all subcontracts when the 

subcontractor is required to have 

routine physical access to a Federallycontrolled facility and/or routine access 

to a Federally-controlled information 

system. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 06–9308 Filed 11–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 25 and 52 

[FAC 2005–14; FAR Case 2005–045; Item 

II; Docket 2006–0020, Sequence 20] 

RIN 9000–AK43 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2005–045, Removal of Sanctions 

Against Certain EU Countries 

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 to adopt as final, 

without change, an interim rule that 

amended the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) to remove the 

sanctions against certain European 

Union (EU) countries. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 22, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Jeremy Olson, at (202) 501–3221. Please 

cite FAC 2005–14, FAR case 2005–045. 

For information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the FAR 

Secretariat at (202) 501–4755. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DoD, GSA, and NASA published an 

interim rule in the Federal Register at 

71 FR 20305 on April 19, 2006. The 

interim rule deleted FAR Subpart 25.6, 

Trade Sanctions, and the clauses at FAR 

52.225–15, Sanctioned European Union 

Country End Products, and FAR 52.225–

16, Sanctioned European Union Country 

Services, and other associated 

references in FAR Part 25. 

No comments were received by the 

close of the public comment period on 

June 19, 2006. Therefore, the Councils 

have agreed to convert the interim rule 

to a final rule without change. 

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. 

B. 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 this 

rule only removes sanctions from—

• End products from sanctioned EU 

countries with an estimated acquisition 

value less than $193,000; 

• Sanctioned EU country construction 

with an estimated acquisition value less 

than $7,407,000; or 

• Sanctioned EU country services with 

an estimated acquisition value less than 

$193,000 or that are excluded from 

coverage by the World Trade 

Organization Government Procurement 

Agreement. 

These sanctions did not apply to 

small business set-asides, to 

acquisitions below the simplified 

acquisition threshold using simplified 

acquisition procedures, or to 

acquisitions by the Department of 

Defense. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the changes to the 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2