B.  Government Responsibilities

Comments: A respondent recommended a number of revisions to the Government responsibilities, primarily those in FAR subpart 45.6, Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal. The respondent recommended revising FAR 45.606-1(a) to require that the property administrator work in coordination with the plant clearance officer to ensure that contractor scrap disposal processes are effective and properly documented. Another recommendation was to revert to the current regulation's use of "should" in lieu of "may" at FAR 45.602-1(c)(1) in order to ensure the Government's agreement before Government property is removed from a contractor's inventory schedule. The respondent recommended modifying FAR 45.606-1(b) to require that any deviation from the contractor's standard property plan and processes be identified as early as possible in the procurement process.

Response: The first two recommendations are adopted in this final rule. The final recommendation is not adopted because the Property Administrator can make that determination at any time.

Comments: The same respondent recommended a number of other revisions to the Government responsibilities, also primarily in FAR subpart 45.6, Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal. The respondent proposed to revise FAR 45.600, Scope of subpart (which was not included in the proposed rule) to allow for either the contracting officer or the plant clearance officer to perform plant clearance officer duties.

The respondent recommended removing the proposed rule's requirement, at FAR 45.603(b), for the plant clearance officer to obtain approval at one level higher than the contracting officer before allowing the abandonment of sensitive property that does not require demilitarization. The respondent requested the addition of more examples of items considered to be incidental to the place of performance (see FAR 45.000).

Response: The above recommendations are not incorporated into the final rule because (1) contracting officers generally rely on the Government property expertise of plant clearance officers, (2) additional review and approval requirements can provide a broader perspective, and (3) too often, lists of examples are treated inappropriately as exhaustive lists.