2418 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

countries bordering the Arabian Gulf, 

see 236.273(a). 

(b) For restriction on acquisition of 

steel for use in military construction 

projects, see 236.274. 

PART 236—CONSTRUCTION AND 

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 

■ 3. Section 236.274 is added to read as 

follows: 

236.274 Restriction on acquisition of steel 

for use in military construction projects. 

In accordance with section 108 of the 

Military Construction and Veterans 

Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. 

L. 110–329, Division E), do not acquire, 

or allow a contractor to acquire, steel for 

any construction project or activity for 

which American steel producers, 

fabricators, or manufacturers have been 

denied the opportunity to compete for 

such acquisition of steel. 

■ 4. Section 236.570 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By redesignating paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (e); and 

■ b. By adding a new paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

236.570 Additional provisions and 

clauses. 

* * * * * 

(d) Use the clause at 252.236–7013, 

Requirement for Competition 

Opportunity for American Steel 

Producers, Fabricators, and 

Manufacturers, in solicitations and 

contracts that— 

(1) Use funds appropriated by Title I 

of the Military Construction and 

Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 

2009 (Pub. L. 110–329, Division E); and 

(2) May require the acquisition of 

steel as a construction material. 

* * * * * 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 5. Section 252.236–7013 is added to 

read as follows: 

252.236–7013 Requirement for 

competition opportunity for american steel 

producers, fabricators, and manufacturers. 

As prescribed in 236.570(d), use the 

following clause: 

REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETITION 

OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICAN 

STEEL PRODUCERS, FABRICATORS, 

AND MANUFACTURERS (JAN 2009) 

(a) Definition. Construction material, as 

used in this clause, means an article, 

material, or supply brought to the 

construction site by the Contractor or a 

subcontractor for incorporation into the 

building or work. 

(b) The Contractor shall provide American 

steel producers, fabricators, and 

manufacturers the opportunity to compete 

when acquiring steel as a construction 

material (e.g., steel beams, rods, cables, 

plates). 

(c) The Contractor shall insert the 

substance of this clause, including this 

paragraph (c), in any subcontract that 

involves the acquisition of steel as a 

construction material. 

(End of clause) 

■ 6. Section 252.244–7000 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By revising the clause date; 

■ b. By redesignating paragraphs (b) 

through (d) as paragraphs (c) through (e) 

respectively; and 

■ c. By adding a new paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

252.244–7000 Subcontracts for 

commercial items and commercial 

components (DOD contracts). 

* * * * * 

SUBCONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL 

ITEMS AND COMMERCIAL 

COMPONENTS (DOD CONTRACTS) 

(JAN 2009) 

* * * * * 

(b) 252.236–7013 Requirement for 

Competition Opportunity for American Steel 

Producers, Fabricators, and Manufacturers 

(Pub. L. 110–329, Division E, Section 108). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–677 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 

RIN 0750–AF82 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; DoD Law of 

War Program (DFARS Case 2006– 

D035) 

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 address requirements for 

DoD contractors to institute effective 

programs to prevent violations of the 

law of war by contractor personnel 

authorized to accompany U.S. Armed 

Forces deployed outside the United 

States. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Angie Sawyer, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone 703–602–8384; 

facsimile 703–602–7887. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2006–D035. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This final rule amends the clause at 

DFARS 252.225–7040, Contractor 

Personnel Authorized To Accompany 

U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside 

the United States, to address 

requirements for DoD contractors to 

institute effective programs to prevent 

law of war violations by contractor 

personnel. The rule requires that 

deploying contractor personnel receive 

appropriate law of war training, and that 

contractor personnel report any 

violations of the law of war to the 

appropriate authorities. The DFARS rule 

is consistent with the policy in DoD 

Directive 2311.01E, DoD Law of War 

Program, dated May 9, 2006. 

DoD published a proposed rule at 73 

FR 1853 on January 10, 2008. Four 

sources submitted comments on the 

proposed rule. A discussion of the 

comments is provided below. 

1. Comment: The limitation on the 

use of Web-based basic law of war 

training is overly restrictive (i.e., must 

be approved by the contracting officer). 

The training should be available at any 

time for completion via a Web-based 

source to prevent delays in meeting 

training requirements. 

DoD Response: Deployed contractor 

personnel must process through a 

deployment center, in accordance with 

paragraph (f) of the clause at DFARS 

252.225–7040. DoD has provided 

training materials to all the predeployment training centers as the 

primary method of meeting basic 

training requirements. Web-based 

training is intended to substitute for live 

pre-deployment training only when 

determined to be appropriate by the 

contracting officer. 

2. Comment: To ensure the 

availability of advanced training when 

needed, advanced training should be 

handled as an in-processing matter and 

should be provided at an in-theater/incountry central processing center for 

newly arriving contractor personnel. 

DoD Response: Advanced training 

could be provided at in-processing, as 

long as the Judge Advocates or other 

Government counsel are involved. The 

DFARS rule has been amended to 

provide additional flexibility in meeting 

advanced law of war training 

requirements. However, government 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 2419 

counsel must review advanced training 

content in all cases to ensure that it is 

commensurate with the duties and 

responsibilities of the personnel to be 

trained. 

3. Comment: DoD should develop 

standard training content to ensure 

consistency and accuracy. 

DoD Response: DoD has developed 

standard basic training for 

dissemination, as described in the 

response to comment 1 above. However, 

for advanced training, different missions 

require different emphasis, making 

complete standardization infeasible. 

4. Comment: This rule will have cost 

impacts associated with 

implementation, especially if the 

contractor loses time while waiting for 

advanced law of war training. 

Contractors should not be held 

accountable for compliance with law of 

war training requirements until such 

time as DoD has its training materials 

deployed. 

DoD Response: DoD has already 

deployed the basic training module to 

the military training centers, and online 

training is also available for use when 

deemed appropriate by the contracting 

officer. The DFARS rule has been 

amended to permit flexibility in meeting 

advanced law of war training 

requirements, provided the training 

content is coordinated with government 

counsel. 

5. Comment: The Rules for the Use of 

Force (RUF) and the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ) should be 

addressed as part of law of war training. 

DoD Response: RUF training is 

already required by the clause at DFARS 

252.225–7040. The basic and advanced 

training on the law of war will 

complement this training by addressing 

law of war issues pertaining to the use 

of force. RUF training should be 

provided by the contractor in 

accordance with the cognizant 

Commander’s RUF guidance. UCMJ 

criminal liability for law of war 

violations is included in the training 

program. However, the UCMJ applies to 

contractor employees, along with the 

Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, 

in a broader context than law of war 

violations. The contractor is responsible 

for ensuring that its employees are 

properly trained on all aspects of their 

criminal and civil liability. 

6. Comment: The word ‘‘prevent’’ 

should be changed to the phrase 

‘‘minimize the possibility of,’’ in the 

context of requiring contractors to 

implement a program to prevent law of 

war violations. 

DoD Response: The word ‘‘prevent’’ 

is consistent with both DoD Directive 

2311.01E and treaty obligations under 

international law. 

7. Comment: What metrics will be 

used to determine if a contractor has an 

effective training program to prevent 

law of war violations? 

DoD Response: The goal is to prevent 

law of war violations. Contractors 

should adopt training, control measures, 

and reporting procedures to that end. 

Basic training is Government resourced. 

Advanced training will be provided as 

specified in the contract. 

8. Comment: The rule will impose a 

mandatory requirement on contractor 

personnel to report violations directly to 

Commanders, bypassing other 

complaint channels. Such reporting by 

individuals should be optional. 

DoD Response: Contractor reporting 

of law of war violations is required by 

DoD Directive 2311.01E. The clause at 

DFARS 252.225–7040 has been 

amended to permit contractor personnel 

to report violations to authorities other 

than the Combatant Commander. 

9. Comment: The requirement for 

contractor personnel to report law of 

war violations will amount to 

unenforceable ‘‘good faith’’ reporting. 

Contractors instead should be required 

to submit a daily or weekly log of 

activity on any violations as a way to 

enforce reporting. 

DoD Response: DoD does not agree 

with the recommended change. Creating 

a daily or weekly log would cause an 

unnecessary recordkeeping requirement 

for contractors. 

10. Comment: Requiring reporting by 

individuals requires contractor 

personnel to make legal judgments 

about the conduct of other contractor 

personnel and about the credibility of 

information that they may not be 

equipped to make. 

DoD Response: DoD does not agree 

that this requirement calls for contractor 

personnel to make legal judgments. The 

basic law of war training is designed to 

educate contractor personnel on the law 

of war and on how to recognize 

suspected law of war violations. The 

legal analysis and credibility 

determinations will be made by the 

Commander, with the advice of 

Counsel, when deciding to report the 

incident to higher headquarters. For 

purposes of the DFARS clause, 

contractor personnel must report all 

suspected law of war violations, not 

only those violations that may have 

been committed by contractor 

personnel. 

11. Comment: DoD should stablish an 

Office of Primary Responsibility to 

assist contractors with law of war 

issues. 

DoD Response: DoD does not believe 

that establishing an Office of Primary 

Responsibility is necessary. Contractors 

should follow normal procedures by 

requesting any needed clarification from 

the contracting officer, who in turn can 

request assistance from a Judge 

Advocate or other Government counsel. 

12. Comment: Paragraph (d) of the 

clause at 252.225–7040 should include 

a cross-reference to paragraph (a) of the 

clause, which defines the law of war. 

DoD Response: The cross-reference is 

unnecessary. Paragraph (a) of the clause 

makes it clear that the definitions in that 

paragraph apply wherever the defined 

terms are used throughout the clause. 

13. Comment: ‘‘Third country 

national laws’’ should be removed from 

252.225–7040(d)(1)(i). 

DoD Response: This change is 

outside the scope of this rule, which is 

focused on implementing law of war 

training in accordance with DoD 

Directive 2311.01E. 

14. Comment: The Geneva and Hague 

Conventions should be specifically 

addressed in 252.225–7040(d)(1)(ii), as 

they are integral to the law of war. 

DoD Response: This level of 

specificity should be and is addressed 

in basic law of war training and is not 

necessary for inclusion in the DFARS 

clause. 

15. Comment: The rule should 

include a requirement for all contractors 

to be notified of the Geneva/Hague 

status and designation noted on the 

letters of agreement. 

DoD Response: This requirement 

should be handled as part of inprocessing procedures and is not 

necessary for inclusion in the DFARS. 

16. Comment: At 252.225– 

7040(e)(1)(vii)(A), the phrase ‘‘all 

deploying personnel’’ should be 

replaced with ‘‘all contractors 

accompanying armed forces.’’ 

DoD Response: For consistency with 

DoD Directive 2311.01E and the rest of 

the clause, the phrase has been changed 

to ‘‘Contractor personnel authorized to 

accompany U.S. Armed Forces 

deployed outside the United States.’’ 

17. Comment: At 252.225–7040(h)(3), 

the phrase ‘‘installation to which they 

are assigned’’ should be changed to 

‘‘installation where they reside,’’ 

because contractors are not assigned to 

installations. 

DoD Response: The phrase 

‘‘installation to which they are 

assigned’’ has been excluded from the 

final rule. 

18. Comment: ‘‘Applicable United 

States, host country and third country 

national laws’’ should be added to 

252.225–7040(h)(3)(i). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

2420 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DoD Response: This recommended 

change is outside the scope of this rule, 

which is focused on implementing law 

of war training in accordance with DoD 

Directive 2311.01E. 

19. Comment: At 252.225– 

7040(h)(3)(ii), the phrase ‘‘military 

operations other than war’’ should be 

changed to ‘‘declared contingency 

operations’’ to reflect latest terminology. 

DoD Response: The phrase has been 

revised to read ‘‘during any other 

military operations.’’ 

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 requirement to institute an 

effective program to prevent law of war 

violations need not be a costly 

endeavor, and it can be tailored to the 

size of the company. Basic law of war 

training will be provided by the 

Government. Advanced law of war 

training requirements will be specified 

in the solicitation and contract to permit 

contractors to receive appropriate 

reimbursement of any training costs. 

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 225 and 

252 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 

are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 225 and 252 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Chapter 1. 

PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 

225.7402–4 [Redesignated as 225.7402–5] 

■ 2. Section 225.7402–4 is redesignated 

as 225.7402–5. 

■ 3. A new section 225.7402–4 is added 

to read as follows: 

225.7402–4 Law of war training. 

(a) Basic training. Basic law of war 

training is required for all contractor 

personnel authorized to accompany U.S. 

Armed Forces deployed outside the 

United States. The basic training 

normally will be provided through a 

military-run training center. The 

contracting officer may authorize the 

use of an alternate basic training source, 

provided the servicing DoD legal 

advisor concurs with the course content. 

An example of an alternate source of 

basic training is the Web-based training 

provided by the Defense Acquisition 

University at https://acc.dau.mil/

CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=18014&

lang=en-US. 

(b) Advanced law of war training. (1) 

The types of personnel that must obtain 

advanced law of war training include 

the following: 

(i) Private security contractors. 

(ii) Security guards in or near areas of 

military operations. 

(iii) Interrogators, linguists, 

interpreters, guards, report writers, 

information technology technicians, or 

others who will come into contact with 

enemy prisoners of war, civilian 

internees, retained persons, other 

detainees, terrorists, or criminals who 

are captured, transferred, confined, or 

detained during or in the aftermath of 

hostilities. 

(iv) Other personnel when deemed 

necessary by the contracting officer. 

(2) If contractor personnel will be 

required to obtain advanced law of war 

training, the solicitation and contract 

shall specify— 

(i) The types of personnel subject to 

advanced law of war training 

requirements; 

(ii) Whether the training will be 

provided by the Government or the 

contractor; 

(iii) If the training will be provided by 

the Government, the source of the 

training; and 

(iv) If the training will be provided by 

the contractor, a requirement for 

coordination of the content with the 

servicing DoD legal advisor to ensure 

that training content is commensurate 

with the duties and responsibilities of 

the personnel to be trained. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 4. Section 252.225–7040 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By revising the introductory text 

and the clause date; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), by adding, in 

alphabetical order, a definition of ‘‘Law 

of war’’; 

■ c. By revising paragraph (d) and 

paragraph (e)(1) introductory text; and 

■ d. By adding paragraphs (e)(1)(vii) and 

(h)(3) to read as follows: 

252.225–7040 Contractor Personnel 

Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed 

Forces Deployed Outside the United States. 

As prescribed in 225.7402–5(a), use 

the following clause: 

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZED TO ACCOMPANY U.S. 

ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED OUTSIDE 

THE UNITED STATES (JAN 2009) 

(a) * * * 

Law of war means that part of international 

law that regulates the conduct of armed 

hostilities. The law of war encompasses all 

international law for the conduct of 

hostilities binding on the United States or its 

individual citizens, including treaties and 

international agreements to which the United 

States is a party, and applicable customary 

international law. 

* * * * * 

(d) Compliance with laws and regulations. 

(1) The Contractor shall comply with, and 

shall ensure that its personnel authorized to 

accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed 

outside the United States as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this clause are familiar 

with and comply with, all applicable— 

(i) United States, host country, and third 

country national laws; 

(ii) Provisions of the law of war, as well as 

any other applicable treaties and 

international agreements; 

(iii) United States regulations, directives, 

instructions, policies, and procedures; and 

(iv) Orders, directives, and instructions 

issued by the Combatant Commander, 

including those relating to force protection, 

security, health, safety, or relations and 

interaction with local nationals. 

(2) The Contractor shall institute and 

implement an effective program to prevent 

violations of the law of war by its employees 

and subcontractors, including law of war 

training in accordance with paragraph 

(e)(1)(vii) of this clause. 

(e) Pre-deployment requirements. (1) The 

Contractor shall ensure that the following 

requirements are met prior to deploying 

personnel authorized to accompany U.S. 

Armed Forces. Specific requirements for each 

category may be specified in the statement of 

work or elsewhere in the contract. 

* * * * * 

(vii) Personnel have received law of war 

training as follows: 

(A) Basic training is required for all 

Contractor personnel authorized to 

accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed 

outside the United States. The basic training 

will be provided through— 

(1) A military-run training center; or 

(2) A Web-based source, if specified in the 

contract or approved by the Contracting 

Officer. 

(B) Advanced training, commensurate with 

their duties and responsibilities, may be 

required for some Contractor personnel as 

specified in the contract. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 2421 

(h) * * * 

(3) Contractor personnel shall report to the 

Combatant Commander or a designee, or 

through other channels such as the military 

police, a judge advocate, or an inspector 

general, any suspected or alleged conduct for 

which there is credible information that such 

conduct— 

(i) Constitutes violation of the law of war; 

or 

(ii) Occurred during any other military 

operations and would constitute a violation 

of the law of war if it occurred during an 

armed conflict. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–680 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 237 

RIN 0750–AF64 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; SecurityGuard Functions (DFARS Case 2006– 

D050) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, 

without change, an interim rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to implement Section 343 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008. Section 343 

extended, through September 30, 2012, 

the period during which contractor 

performance of security-guard functions 

at military installations or facilities is 

authorized to fulfill additional 

requirements resulting from the terrorist 

attacks on the United States on 

September 11, 2001. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael Benavides, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone 703–602–1302; 

facsimile 703–602–7887. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2006–D050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DoD published an interim rule at 73 

FR 53156 on September 15, 2008, to 

implement Section 343 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110–181). Section 

343 extended, through September 30, 

2012, the period during which 

contractor performance of securityguard functions at military installations 

or facilities is authorized to fulfill 

additional requirements resulting from 

the terrorist attacks on the United States 

on September 11, 2001, provided the 

total number of personnel employed to 

perform such functions does not exceed 

specified limits. 

DoD received no comments on the 

interim rule. Therefore, DoD has 

adopted the interim rule as a final rule 

without change. 

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. 

Although the rule may provide 

opportunities for small business 

concerns to receive contracts for the 

performance of security-guard functions 

at military installations or facilities, the 

economic impact is not expected to be 

substantial. 

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 237 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without 

Change 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 48 CFR part 237, which was 

published at 73 FR 53156 on September 

15, 2008, is adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

[FR Doc. E9–665 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 252 

RIN 0750–AG18 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Removal of 

North Korea From the List of Terrorist 

Countries (DFARS Case 2008–D036) 

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 remove North Korea from 

the list of terrorist countries subject to 

a prohibition on DoD contract awards. 

This change is a result of the State 

Department’s removal of North Korea 

from the list of countries designated as 

state sponsors of terrorism. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone 703–602–0328; 

facsimile 703–602–7887. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2008–D036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The provision at DFARS 252.209– 

7001, Disclosure of Ownership or 

Control by the Government of a 

Terrorist Country, implements 10 U.S.C. 

2327, which prohibits DoD from 

entering into a contract with a firm that 

is owned or controlled by the 

government of a country that has been 

determined by the Secretary of State to 

repeatedly provide support for acts of 

international terrorism. This final rule 

removes North Korea from the terrorist 

countries listed in the provision at 

DFARS 252.209–7001, since the 

Secretary of State has removed North 

Korea from the list of designated state 

sponsors of terrorism. 

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, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES