53148 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 179 / Monday, September 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

A deed dated March 18, 2005 contains 

the appropriate use restrictions for the 

11-acre portion of Parcel B. The 

restrictions listed in the deed include 

restrictions on groundwater use, 

restrictions limiting the use of the 

property, restrictions on land 

disturbance, and limitations on 

activities to protect the remedy. The 

deed with the use restrictions are 

institutional controls. 

For Parcel C the current owner of the 

11-acre portion of Parcel B also bought 

Parcel C to maintain the property as 

open space. Parcels B and C are adjacent 

to one another. A deed dated July 10, 

2006 contains restrictions on the use of 

the parcel consistent with the UAO. The 

restrictions listed in the deed include 

restrictions on groundwater use, 

restrictions limiting the use of the 

property, restrictions on land 

disturbance, and limitations on 

activities to protect the remedy. The 

deed with the use restrictions are 

institutional controls. 

Regarding Parcel D, the owner of 

Parcel D signed a letter agreement dated 

August 14, 2002 with the UAO 

Respondents granting the Respondents 

access to install a sentinel well and to 

collect groundwater samples. The letter 

agreement also provides for 

groundwater use restrictions and 

prohibitions on interfering with the 

well. The letter agreement is an 

institutional control. 

Five-Year Review 

Since the remedy for the Site utilized 

containment of the hazardous materials 

as a method to reduce risk, EPA will 

conduct five-year reviews to insure that 

the remedy is functioning as designed 

and preventing exposure to human 

health and the environment. EPA 

completed the first statutory Five-Year 

Review on August 2, 2005 and has 

determined that the remedy for Berks 

Landfill remains protective of human 

health and the environment. EPA plans 

to complete the next five-year review by 

August, 2010. 

Community Involvement 

To ensure that the community was 

well informed about activities at the 

Site, a series of outreach activities were 

performed. Public meetings at key 

points in the remedial process were 

held such as a meeting on the proposed 

remedy in 1997 and the construction of 

the remedy in 2000. Since then, in 2005 

as part of the five-year review, EPA 

placed an advertisement in the Reading 

Eagle and mailed a fact sheet notifying 

residents of the five-year review. In 

addition, residents whose water is 

tested receive annual information on 

their well water test results. As part of 

the deletion, EPA will place an 

advertisement in the local paper 

notifying the community of the public 

comment period, the process for 

submitting comments, and location of 

the deletion docket. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

This Site meets all the requirements 

in the NCP and the criteria specified in 

OSWER Directive 9320.2–09–A–P, Close 

Out Procedures for National Priorities 

List Sites. Specifically, sampling 

performed during operation, 

maintenance, and monitoring verifies 

the Site has achieved the ROD remedial 

action objective that no site-related 

contaminants exceed MCLs off-site and 

that all components of the remedy 

selected by EPA in the ROD have been 

implemented. Operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring are, and will continue to 

be, performed by the Respondents 

pursuant to the 1998 UAO. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

Commonwealth through the PADEP, has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance, and 

monitoring and five-year reviews, have 

been completed. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective November 14, 

2008 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by October 15, 2008. If 

adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final notice of deletion before the 

effective date of the deletion, and it will 

not take effect. EPA will prepare a 

response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: September 5, 2008. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing the entry under 

Pennsylvania for ‘‘Berks Landfill’’, 

‘‘Spring Township’’. 

[FR Doc. E8–21305 Filed 9–12–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

45 CFR Part 2 

Testimony by Employees and the 

Production of Documents in 

Proceedings Where the United States 

Is Not a Party 

AGENCY: Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends Part 2 of 

Title 45 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, which provides that 

employees and former employees of the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS or Department) may not 

provide testimony as part of their 

official duties in litigation where the 

United States or a federal agency is not 

a party, without the approval of the 

head of the agency. The purpose of 

these amendments is to modify the 

definition of ‘‘employee’’ contained in 

45 CFR part 2. Under these 

amendments, the definition of employee 

will be revised to reflect changes in 

Medicare contracting, including changes 

brought about by the Medicare 

Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 

Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. 

L. 108–173). In addition, the definition 

of employee will be modified to include 

employees of a state agency performing 

survey, certification, or enforcement 

functions under Title XVIII of the Social 

Security Act or Section 353 of the 

Public Health Service Act. Further, the 

definition of employee with respect to 

employees of entities covered by the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 179 / Monday, September 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53149 

Federally Supported Health Centers 

Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

233(g)–(n) (FSHCAA), will be limited to 

testimony requested in medical 

malpractice tort litigation which relates 

to medical functions performed at a 

time when the center was covered under 

FSHCAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate General 

Counsel, General Law Division, Office 

of the General Counsel, Department of 

Health and Human Services, 330 

Independence Ave., SW., Room 4760 

Cohen Bldg., Washington, DC 20201, 

Telephone Number 202–619–0150. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1987, 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services published regulations 

addressing the issue of the increasing 

number of requests for the testimony of 

Department employees in litigation 

involving only private parties and not 

the United States. The regulations 

generally prohibit an employee or 

former employee of the Department 

from giving testimony concerning 

information acquired in the course of 

performing official duties or because of 

such person’s official capacity, except 

where the relevant agency head 

determines that the appearance would 

promote the objectives of the 

Department. 

These amendments are designed to 

address changes in Medicare 

contracting, including changes brought 

about by the MMA. The amendments 

also address involvement of the 

Department in matters in which parties 

request testimony or documents from 

employees of state survey agencies or 

contractors that carry out survey, 

certification, or enforcement activities 

for the Medicare and CLIA programs. 

Finally, these amendments address the 

involvement of the Department in cases 

other than medical malpractice matters 

where parties request testimony from 

any current or former employee or 

contractor of an entity covered by the 

FSHCAA. 

Section 911 of the MMA added 

section 1874A to the Social Security Act 

(SSA) and took the separate authorities 

under which the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS) contracted 

with intermediaries and carriers and 

consolidated them into a single 

authority for a new type of contractor, 

the Medicare Administrative Contractor 

(MAC). See MMA section 911. Under 

section 911, the Secretary may enter 

into contracts with any eligible entity to 

serve as a MAC with respect to the 

performance of the core Medicare 

administrative functions listed at SSA 

section 1874A(a)(4). Thus, in the 

contracting environment created by the 

MMA, MACs perform functions once 

performed solely by intermediaries and 

carriers. Currently, CMS has agreements 

with intermediaries, carriers and MACs 

to make Medicare payments for health 

care items and services. Furthermore, 

under section 911(e) of the MMA, any 

reference to a carrier or intermediary 

under title XI or XVIII of the Social 

Security Act (or any regulation, manual 

instruction, interpretative rule, 

statement of policy, or guideline issued 

to carry out these titles) shall be deemed 

a reference to a MAC. 

Furthermore, historically, carriers and 

intermediaries also carried out all 

Medicare program integrity activities, 

such as cost report audits and medical, 

utilization, and fraud reviews. However, 

CMS has begun contracting with 

Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs) 

and Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) 

to perform program integrity activities, 

see SSA section 1893, although 

intermediaries and carriers continue to 

carry out many program integrity 

functions. There is substantial 

functional overlap between the 

functions that are performed by PSCs 

and RACs and the program integrity 

activities that are now, or were once, 

carried out by carriers and 

intermediaries. 

Accordingly, we are amending the 

definition of ‘‘employee’’ in these 

regulations to include the employees of 

contractors that perform the core 

Medicare administrative functions listed 

at SSA sections 1874A(a)(4) and 1893. 

Under such definition, these regulations 

cover intermediaries, carriers, MACs, 

PSCs and RACs, and any successor 

entities that perform the functions listed 

in the amended definition. Not only 

does this definition reflect the more 

flexible contracting procedures created 

by the MMA, but a functional definition 

of ‘‘employee’’ also limits the need to 

amend these regulations again in the 

event Congress further modifies the 

Medicare contracting nomenclature 

through future legislation. 

The second amendment concerns 

requests for testimony and documents of 

employees of contractors, 

subcontractors, and state survey 

agencies that carry out many of the 

Department’s survey, certification, and 

enforcement activities. Section 1864 of 

the Social Security Act provides that the 

Secretary shall enter into agreements 

with states under which appropriate 

state or local survey agencies determine 

whether providers meet Medicare 

conditions of participation, suppliers 

meet Medicare conditions of coverage, 

and rural health clinics meet Medicare 

conditions of certification. Furthermore, 

under section 353(o) of the Public 

Health Service Act, the Secretary is 

permitted to use the services of state 

agencies to carry out his responsibilities 

under the Clinical Laboratory 

Improvement Act Amendments of 1988 

(CLIA). Thus, employees of state survey 

agencies carry out federal functions for 

both the Medicare and CLIA programs. 

In addition, contractors of the 

Department under certain circumstances 

survey and certify providers and 

suppliers. Contractors of the Department 

also perform validation surveys to 

ensure that state survey agencies and 

deeming authorities satisfactorily 

perform their survey, certification, and 

enforcement responsibilities. 

Parties in private litigation frequently 

request testimony and documents from 

employees of contractors, 

subcontractors, and state survey 

agencies that perform survey, 

certification, and enforcement functions 

under the Medicare and CLIA programs. 

These requests are especially prevalent 

in medical malpractice litigation. 

Although any specific request for 

testimony or documents may not be 

unduly burdensome, the requests divert 

employees from their federal survey, 

certification, and enforcement 

responsibilities. The cumulative effect 

of these requests can impede these 

activities. Moreover, we believe that 

information gathered during these 

federal activities is federal information 

and may be protected by governmental 

privileges. Therefore, we are amending 

the definition of ‘‘employee’’ in these 

regulations to include employees of 

contractors, subcontractors, and state 

survey agencies that perform survey, 

certification, or enforcement activities 

under the Medicare and CLIA programs. 

We recognize that employees of state 

survey agencies may have dual roles. 

These employees perform activities for 

the Medicare and CLIA programs, but 

also have survey, certification, and 

enforcement responsibilities with 

respect to state requirements. For 

example, it is our understanding that 

state survey agencies commonly survey 

skilled nursing facilities for compliance 

with both federal and state requirements 

during a single visit. Under 45 CFR 

2.1(a), the Department’s regulations 

apply only to information acquired in 

the course of performing official duties 

or because of the employee’s official 

capacity with the Department. 

Therefore, these regulations will apply 

to requests for testimony or documents 

from an employee of a contractor, 

subcontractor, or state agency only to 

the extent the information was acquired 

in the course of performing survey, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
53150 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 179 / Monday, September 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

certification, or enforcement functions 

under Title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act or section 353 of the Public Health 

Service Act and regardless of whether 

documents are also relevant to the 

state’s activities. 

The third amendment addresses the 

increasing frequency of requests to the 

Department in cases other than medical 

malpractice matters for employees and 

qualified contractors of entities covered 

under the FSHCAA to provide 

testimony. The FSHCAA provides that, 

for the purposes of the Federal Tort 

Claims Act (FTCA), employees and 

certain qualified health care practitioner 

contractors acting within the scope of 

their employment with an entity 

covered under the FSHCAA are deemed 

to be employees of the Public Health 

Service. 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(1)(A). As such, 

these employees or qualified contractors 

are deemed to be employees solely for 

the purpose of securing coverage under 

the FTCA in medical malpractice cases 

brought against them. The current 

definition of ‘‘employee’’ in the 

Department’s regulations includes 

employees and contractors of a covered 

entity when the requested testimony 

relates to their performance of medical, 

surgical, dental or related functions 

which were performed at a time when 

HHS deemed the entity to be covered by 

the FSHCAA, even in matters that do 

not relate to medical malpractice 

litigation. 

The interests of the United States are 

implicated in state court actions that 

may impact upon liability under the 

FTCA. By amending the definition to 

require application of these regulations 

in medical malpractice cases only, the 

number of requests to the Department 

for testimony of federally supported 

health center employees and qualified 

contractors will be significantly 

reduced. Thus, the burden on the 

Department to respond to these timeconsuming requests will be lessened. 

Further, the current definition of 

‘‘employee’’ under subpart (3) of section 

2.2 refers to ‘‘the requested testimony or 

information.’’ Because FSHCAA entities 

and records are normally subject to state 

law and are beyond the control of the 

Department, we have only applied the 

Department’s regulations in matters 

involving the FSHCAA to requests for 

testimony in FTCA matters, not to 

record requests. Therefore, we have 

limited this subpart to requests for 

testimony. 

Public Participation: This rule is 

published as a final rule. It is exempt 

from public comment, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(A), as a rule of ‘‘agency 

organization, procedure, or practice.’’ 

Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

regulation is not subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act because it 

deals solely with the Department’s 

internal rules of organization, procedure 

or practice. 

Cost/Regulatory Analysis: We have 

examined the impact of this rule as 

required by Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), as 

amended, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); the 

Unfunded Mandated Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.); 

and EO 13132 (Federalism). EO 12866, 

as amended, directs agencies to assess 

all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize the benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). A regulatory impact analysis 

must be prepared for major rules with 

economically significant effects ($100 

million or more in 1 year). We have 

determined that the rule is consistent 

with the principals set forth in the EO, 

and we find that the rule would not 

have an effect on the economy that 

exceeds $100 million in any one year. 

Under the RFA, if a rule has a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, an agency 

must analyze regulatory options that 

would minimize any significant impact 

of the rule on small entities and 

determine it will not have any effect. 

The agency has considered the effect 

that this rule would have on small 

entities. I hereby certify, under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

including small businesses, small 

organizations and small local 

governments. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. The 

UMRA also requires that agencies assess 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in 

expenditure in any one year by State, 

local, or tribunal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million. As noted above, we find 

that the rule would not have an effect 

of this magnitude on the economy. 

Therefore, no further analysis is 

required under the UMRA. EO 13132 

establishes certain requirements that an 

agency must meet when it promulgates 

a final rule that imposes substantial 

direct requirement costs on State and 

local governments, preempts State law, 

or otherwise has federalism 

implications. We have reviewed the rule 

under the threshold criteria of EO 13132 

and have determined that this rule 

would not have substantial direct 

impact on States, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. As there 

are no federalism implications, a 

federalism impact statement is not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Freedom of Information, 

Government employees. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, 45 CFR part 2 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 2—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552. 

■ 2. The definition of ‘‘Employee’’ in 45 

CFR 2.2 is amended by revising the 

introductory text and paragraphs (2) and 

(3), adding paragraph (4), and placing 

the definition in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 2.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Employee of the Department includes 

current and former: 

* * * * * 

(2) Employees of intermediaries, 

carriers, Medicare Administrative 

Contractors, Program Safeguard 

Contractors, and Recovery Audit 

Contractors, and any successor entities, 

that perform one or more of the 

following functions described in section 

1874A or 1893 of the Social Security 

Act relating to the administration of the 

Medicare program: 

(i) Determination of payment 

amounts; making payments; beneficiary 

education and assistance; providing 

consultative services; communication 

with providers; or, provider education 

and technical assistance; or, 

(ii) Other such functions as are 

necessary to carry out the Medicare 

program, including any of the following 

program integrity functions under 

section 1893 of the Social Security Act: 

(A) Review of activities of providers 

or suppliers, including medical and 

utilization review and fraud review; 

(B) Auditing of cost reports; 

(C) Determinations as to whether 

payment should not be, or should not 

have been, made because Medicare is 

the secondary payer, and recovery of 

payments that should not have been 

made; 

(D) Education of providers, 

beneficiaries, and other persons with 

respect to payment integrity and benefit 

quality assurance issues; or, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 179 / Monday, September 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53151 

(E) Developing (and periodically 

updating) a list of items of durable 

medical equipment which are subject to 

prior authorization. 

(3) Employees of a contractor, 

subcontractor, or state agency 

performing survey, certification, or 

enforcement functions under title XVIII 

of the Social Security Act or Section 353 

of the Public Health Service Act but 

only to the extent the requested 

information was acquired in the course 

of performing those functions and 

regardless of whether documents are 

also relevant to the state’s activities. 

(4) Employees and qualified 

contractors of an entity covered under 

the Federally Supported Health Centers 

Assistance Act of 1992, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 233(g)–(n), (FSHCAA), provided 

that the testimony is requested in 

medical malpractice tort litigation and 

relates to the performance of medical, 

surgical, dental or related functions 

which were performed by the entity, its 

employees and qualified contractors at a 

time when the DHHS deemed the entity 

and its employees and qualified 

contractors to be covered by the 

FSHCAA. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 28, 2008. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–21113 Filed 9–12–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 202 and 252 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Technical 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical 

amendments to the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to update the list of DoD 

contracting activities and to correct a 

reference in a contract clause. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone 703–602–0311; 

facsimile 703–602–7887. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule amends DFARS text as follows: 

• 202.101. Adds the U.S. 

Transportation Command to the list of 

DoD contracting activities. 

• 252.212–7001. Amends the 

reference to the clause at 252.219–7004 

in paragraph (b)(3) to reflect the current 

clause date. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202 and 

252 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR parts 202 and 252 

are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 202 and 252 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Chapter 1. 

PART 202—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS 

AND TERMS 

202.101 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 202.101 is amended in the 

definition of ‘‘Contracting activity’’ by 

adding at the end ‘‘United States 

Transportation Command, Directorate of 

Acquisition’’. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

252.212–7001 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 252.212–7001 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By revising the clause date to read 

‘‘(SEP 2008)’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(3) by removing 

‘‘(APR 2007)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘(AUG 2008)’’. 

[FR Doc. E8–21375 Filed 9–12–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 206, 225, and 252 

RIN 0750–AG02 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Acquisitions 

in Support of Operations in Iraq or 

Afghanistan (DFARS Case 2008–D002) 

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 Sections 886 and 

892 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. 

Section 886 provides authority for DoD 

to limit competition when acquiring 

products or services in support of 

operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Section 892 addresses competition 

requirements for the procurement of 

small arms for assistance to Iraq or 

Afghanistan. 

DATES: Effective date: September 15, 

2008. 

Comment date: Comments on the 

interim rule should be submitted in 

writing to the address shown below on 

or before November 14, 2008, to be 

considered in the formation of the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2008–D002, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Æ E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2008–D002 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 703–602–7887. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy 

Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), 

IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

Æ 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. 

Amy Williams, 703–602–0328. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Section 886 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Pub. L. 110–181) provides authority for 

DoD to limit competition when 

acquiring products or services in 

support of military operations or 

stability operations in Iraq or 

Afghanistan (including security, 

transition, reconstruction, and 

humanitarian relief activities) under 

certain circumstances. In those 

circumstances, and when the required 

determination is made, Section 886 

authorizes DoD to— 

Æ Limit competition to products or 

services from Iraq or Afghanistan; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES