73150 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) The contracting officer may, when 

contracting by negotiation, use in 

solicitations and contracts a clause 

similar to the clause at FAR 52.219–10, 

Incentive Subcontracting Program, 

when a subcontracting plan is required 

and inclusion of a monetary incentive 

is, in the judgment of the contracting 

officer, necessary to increase 

subcontracting opportunities for HBCU/ 

MIs. The clause should include a 

separate goal for HBCU/MIs. 

226.370–9 Solicitation provision and 

contract clause. 

(a) Use the clause at 252.226–7000, 

Notice of Historically Black College or 

University and Minority Institution SetAside, in solicitations and contracts set 

aside for HBCU/MIs. 

(b) Use the provision at FAR 52.226–

2, Historically Black College or 

University and Minority Institution 

Representation, in solicitations set aside 

for HBCU/MIs. 

Subpart 226.70—[Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 5. Subpart 226.70 is removed and 

reserved. 

Subpart 226.72—[Removed] 

■ 6. Subpart 226.72 is removed. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

252.226–7000 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 252.226–7000 is amended 

in the introductory text by removing 

‘‘226.7008’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘226.370–9’’. 

[FR Doc. 05–23729 Filed 12–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Parts 211, 223, and 252 

[DFARS Case 2003–D039] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Environment, 

Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free 

Workplace 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to update text pertaining to the 

environment, occupational safety, and a 

drug-free workplace. This rule is a result 

of a transformation initiative undertaken 

by DoD to dramatically change the 

purpose and content of the DFARS. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Debra Overstreet, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132, 

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0296; 

facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2003–D039. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DFARS Transformation is a major 

DoD initiative to dramatically change 

the purpose and content of the DFARS. 

The objective is to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of the 

acquisition process, while allowing the 

acquisition workforce the flexibility to 

innovate. The transformed DFARS will 

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

authorities, deviations from FAR 

requirements, and policies/procedures 

that have a significant effect beyond the 

internal operating procedures of DoD or 

a significant cost or administrative 

impact on contractors or offerors. 

Additional information on the DFARS 

Transformation initiative is available at 

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

dfars/transformation/index.htm. 

This final rule is a result of the 

DFARS Transformation Initiative. The 

DFARS changes include—

• Deletion of redundant or 

unnecessary text at 223.300, 223.302, 

223.370–3(a), 223.570–1, and 223.570–

3. 

• Deletion of text at 223.370–4 and 

223.405 containing internal DoD 

procedures relating to safety precautions 

for ammunitions and explosives and use 

of recovered materials. This text has 

been relocated to the new DFARS 

companion resource, Procedures, 

Guidance, and Information (PGI), 

available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ 

dpap/dars/pgi. 

• Relocation of text on ozonedepleting substances, from Subpart 

211.2 to Subpart 223.8, with retention of 

a cross-reference in Subpart 211.2. 

DoD published a proposed rule at 70 

FR 19039 on April 12, 2005. DoD 

received no comments on the proposed 

rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the 

proposed 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., 

because the rule updates and 

streamlines DFARS text, but makes no 

significant change to DoD contracting 

policy. 

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 211, 

223, and 252 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR parts 211, 223, and 

252 are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 211, 223, and 252 continues to 

read as follows: 

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

Chapter 1. 

PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCY 

NEEDS 

■ 2. Section 211.271 is revised to read 

as follows: 

211.271 Elimination of use of class I 

ozone-depleting substances. 

See subpart 223.8 for restrictions on 

contracting for ozone-depleting 

substances. 

PART 223—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY 

AND WATER EFFICIENCY, 

RENEWABLE ENERGY 

TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE 

WORKPLACE 

■ 3. The heading of part 223 is revised 

to read as set forth above. 

223.300 [Removed] 

■ 4. Section 223.300 is removed. 

■ 5. Section 223.302 is revised to read 

as follows: 

223.302 Policy. 

(e) The contracting officer shall also 

provide hazard warning labels, that are 

received from apparent successful 

offerors, to the cognizant safety officer. 

■ 6. Section 223.370–3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

223.370–3 Policy. 

(a) DoD policy is to ensure that its 

contractors take reasonable precautions 

in handling ammunition and explosives 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 73151 

so as to minimize the potential for 

mishaps. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 223.370–4 is revised to read 

as follows: 

223.370–4 Procedures. 

Follow the procedures at PGI 

223.370–4. 

■ 8. Section 223.405 is revised to read 

as follows: 

223.405 Procedures. 

Follow the procedures at PGI 223.405. 

223.570–1 [Removed] 

■ 9. Section 223.570–1 is removed. 

223.570–2 [Redesignated as 223.570–1] 

■ 10. Section 223.570–2 is redesignated 

as section 223.570–1. 

223.570–3 [Removed] 

■ 11. Section 223.570–3 is removed. 

223.570–4 [Redesignated as 223.570–2] 

■ 12. Section 223.570–4 is redesignated 

as section 223.570–2. 

■ 13. Section 223.803 is revised to read 

as follows: 

223.803 Policy. 

(1) Contracts. No DoD contract may 

include a specification or standard that 

requires the use of a class I ozonedepleting substance or that can be met 

only through the use of such a substance 

unless the inclusion of the specification 

or standard is specifically authorized at 

a level no lower than a general or flag 

officer or a member of the Senior 

Executive Service of the requiring 

activity in accordance with Section 326, 

Public Law 102–484 (10 U.S.C. 2301 

(repealed) note). This restriction is in 

addition to any imposed by the Clean 

Air Act and applies after June 1, 1993, 

to all DoD contracts, regardless of place 

of performance. 

(2) Modifications. (i) Contracts 

awarded before June 1, 1993, with a 

value in excess of $10 million, that are 

modified or extended (including option 

exercise) and, as a result of the 

modification or extension, will expire 

more than one year after the effective 

date of the modification or extension, 

must be evaluated in accordance with 

agency procedures for the elimination of 

ozone-depleting substances. 

(A) The evaluation must be carried 

out within 60 days after the first 

modification or extension. 

(B) No further modification or 

extension may be made to the contract 

until the evaluation is complete. 

(ii) If, as a result of this evaluation, it 

is determined that an economically 

feasible substitute substance or 

alternative technology is available, the 

contracting officer shall modify the 

contract to require the use of the 

substitute substance or alternative 

technology. 

(iii) If a substitute substance or 

alternative technology is not available, a 

written determination shall be made to 

that effect at a level no lower than a 

general or flag officer or a member of the 

Senior Executive Service of the 

requiring activity. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

252.223–7004 [Amended] 

■ 14. Section 252.223–7004 is amended 

in the introductory text by removing 

‘‘223.570–4’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘223.570–2’’. 

[FR Doc. 05–23730 Filed 12–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Parts 216 and 217 

[DFARS Case 2003–D097/2004–D023] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Contract 

Period for Task and Delivery Order 

Contracts 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, 

with changes, an interim rule amending 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

implement Section 843 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 and Section 813 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005. Section 843 placed a 

5-year limit on the period of task or 

delivery order contracts awarded under 

10 U.S.C. 2304a. Section 813 further 

amended 10 U.S.C. 2304a to permit a 

total period of up to 10 years, which 

may be exceeded if the head of the 

agency determines in writing that 

exceptional circumstances require a 

longer contract period. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0326; 

facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2003–D097. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This final rule implements Section 

843 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Pub. L. 108–136) and Section 813 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108–375). 

Section 843 amended the general 

authority for task and delivery order 

contracts at 10 U.S.C. 2304a to specify 

that a task or delivery order contact 

entered into under that section may 

cover a total period of not more than 5 

years. Section 813 further amended 10 

U.S.C. 2304a to permit a total contract 

period of not more than 10 years, unless 

the head of the agency determines in 

writing that exceptional circumstances 

require a longer contract period. 

DoD published an interim rule 

implementing Section 843 of Public 

Law 108–136 at 69 FR 13478 on March 

23, 2004. As a result of public 

comments received on the interim rule, 

and to implement the provisions of 

Section 813 of Public Law 108–375, 

DoD published a second interim rule at 

69 FR 74992 on December 15, 2004. 

Four sources submitted comments on 

the second interim rule. A discussion of 

the comments is provided below. 

1. Comment: Clarification of reporting 

requirement. One respondent 

recommended amendment of the rule to 

specify the frequency and ending date of 

the reporting requirement that applies to 

contracts with ordering periods 

exceeding 10 years. 

DoD Response: Concur. The final rule 

amends DFARS 217.204(e)(ii) to specify 

that DoD must submit a report to 

Congress, annually through fiscal year 

2009, when an ordering period is 

extended beyond 10 years. 

2. Comment: Applicability to 

information technology contracts. One 

respondent recommended consolidation 

of the text addressing the types of 

contracts to which the rule does not 

apply. In addition, the respondent 

recommended deletion of text 

addressing the applicability of the rule 

to information technology contracts. 

The respondent did not believe it was 

necessary to call out a single type of 

contract with regard to the rule’s 

applicability. 

DoD Response: Partially concur. The 

final rule revises DFARS 217.204(e)(iii) 

to consolidate the text addressing the 

types of contracts to which the rule does 

not apply, and to remove the reference 

to information technology contracts. 

However, a parenthetical phrase 

emphasizing the applicability of the rule 

to information technology contracts has 

been added at 217.204(e)(i), since FAR 

17.204(e) specifically exempts