III.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

DoD does not expect this interim rule to 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.

However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared and is summarized as follows:

The objectives of this interim rule are to prohibit specification of the use of fire-resistant rayon fiber in solicitations issued before January 1, 2015, as required by the statute. This will provide opportunity for offerors to propose alternative solutions to meet DoD requirements.

The legal basis for this interim rule is section 821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383).

The two major sources of fire-resistant fiber used in DoD products either come from DuPont (product called Nomex) or The Lenzing Group, Austria (product called Fire-Resistant Rayon). In order to manufacture a fire-resistant uniform currently being sourced by the services, three products are blended together to meet desired cost, availability, and performance criteria:

Nylon;

Para-aramid (Kevlar by DuPont or Twaron by Teijin (the Netherlands)); and

Either Nomex (DuPont) or Fire-Resistant Rayon (Lenzing).

DuPont is a domestic large business and the other players are foreign. Therefore, this rule will have minimal impact on U.S. small businesses.

This rule does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

There are no significant alternatives to accomplish the stated objectives of this rule. The rule specifically implements the statutory requirement.

DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2011-D021) in correspondence.