Overview
Title
Federal Acquisition Regulation: Training To Prevent Human Trafficking for Certain Air Carriers
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government made a new rule that says airlines flying people for the government have to check and report on people being forced to do bad things, like working against their will, and they have to tell on it every year. This is to help stop bad stuff from happening around airplanes.
Summary AI
The Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and NASA have issued a final rule that updates the Federal Acquisition Regulation to comply with a section of the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2018. This rule mandates that domestic air carriers contracting with the federal government to provide passenger air transportation must submit annual reports with details on training employees to recognize human trafficking, notifications received about potential human trafficking instances, and any actions taken in response. The new requirement applies to commercial services contracts but excludes contracts for commercial products and those awarded by the Department of Defense. The regulation aims to support the fight against human trafficking by ensuring air carriers are vigilant and report suspicious activities.
Abstract
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2018, which requires that domestic carriers who contract with the Federal Government to provide air transportation must submit an annual report with certain information related to prevention of human trafficking.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent publication in the Federal Register details a final rule issued by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and NASA. This rule updates the Federal Acquisition Regulation to align with the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2018, with a focus on preventing human trafficking in the realm of air travel.
General Summary
At its core, this rule requires that U.S.-based air carriers providing passenger transportation to the federal government submit annual reports. These reports need to cover the number of employees trained to detect human trafficking, notifications about potential trafficking incidents, and any actions undertaken in response to these notifications. Importantly, the rule applies to commercial services within this context but excludes commercial product contracts and those specifically awarded by the Department of Defense.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document utilizes dense legal language, which may pose comprehension challenges to individuals unfamiliar with legal or governmental terminologies. The extensive length and complex details could hinder small business owners who might struggle to interpret the requirements without legal aid or substantial resources.
There is a potential for ambiguity and delayed implementation due to the necessary written determinations by the FAR Council and other entities mentioned in the rule. Additionally, overlapping existing reporting obligations might lead to confusion or duplicate submissions for air carriers.
Another noteworthy issue is the time estimations for compliance-related tasks. The rule suggests five hours per response for reporting, a figure that may not accurately reflect the actual time small entities will need. Moreover, without a waiver for nonscheduled freight air transport sectors, companies that are unlikely to engage in human trafficking scenarios might face undue regulatory burdens.
Public Impacts
Broadly, the rule represents a continued commitment to address the significant issue of human trafficking, potentially enhancing public safety and awareness. It mandates that air carriers participate actively in identifying and reporting suspicious activities, which may deter trafficking activities but acknowledging that its effectiveness depends significantly on the carriers' readiness and efficiency in identifying such cases.
Stakeholder Impacts
For air carriers, especially smaller ones, the new obligations may initially pose challenges. These entities might need to develop new systems or processes, potentially incurring additional costs not fully outlined in the document. The requirement could place a disproportionate burden on smaller companies compared to larger players with more resources.
On the positive side, the rule encourages a societal shift towards greater vigilance against human trafficking. Entities in compliance could enhance their reputation as socially responsible organizations.
Overall, while this rule marks a significant step towards enhancing preventative measures against human trafficking in air transport, balancing the practical implications with the intended policy outcomes remains crucial. Ensuring clarity, adequate support for small businesses, and ongoing assessment of the rule's operation will be integral to its success.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document provides information about a final rule issued by the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This rule requires domestic air carriers contracting with the Federal Government to submit annual reports regarding training and notifications related to human trafficking. The document includes several financial references, specifically addressing public and government costs associated with the new reporting requirement.
Application of the Law to Contracts
The rule applies to contracts at or below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), which is currently set at $250,000. This decision aims to further the objective of combating human trafficking. However, one issue noted in the document is that relying on percentages and data from past years might not adequately project the future impact of this application, especially when considering the financial implications for both the government and the air carriers.
Public Cost of Reporting
The document estimates the total public cost for domestic air carriers to comply with the annual reporting requirement. The reporting has two components:
Reports on training are estimated to cost $25,920 per year. This is based on 180 air carriers, each preparing a report that takes two hours to complete, at a rate of $72 per hour.
Reports on notifications are estimated to cost $38,880 per year. This estimate considers each air carrier spending three hours compiling and submitting their report.
The rule recognizes that air carriers may have existing procedures to track training and notifications, but small businesses, which make up a significant proportion of these carriers, might still face challenges. Developing new processes or adjusting current ones could impose indirect financial burdens that are not fully covered in this cost estimate.
Government Cost of Reviewing Reports
The government also incurs costs in reviewing the submitted reports. The document estimates this at $16,200 per year for five federal agencies, each spending 15 minutes per report. As the requirement does not specify a detailed use of these reports, there may be concerns about whether this cost represents an efficient use of resources.
Hourly Rate Assumptions
Calculations for both public and government costs use a revised loaded hourly rate of $72. This rate is computed from the federal General Schedule (GS) Grade 12/Step 5 position, reflecting typical personnel wage levels involved in the reporting process. The use of this specific wage rate, while standardized, may underestimate the burden on smaller entities that may require more resources per report due to less existing infrastructure.
Overall Financial Implication and Issues
While the document outlines the costs for both the public and the government, it does not sufficiently address potential indirect costs or long-term financial implications for air carriers. These include possible adjustments needed for compliance and how these might evolve as the regulations become fully implemented. Furthermore, despite examining impacts on small businesses, it provides limited exploration of potential indirect burdens such as increased administrative work, adjustments to existing systems, or gaps in current knowledge about human trafficking awareness among airline staff.
In summary, the document's financial references provide a framework for understanding the immediate direct costs of compliance with the new rule. However, for a comprehensive view, particularly on future implications and indirect costs, further analysis might be necessary. These issues highlight the complexity of implementing financial and regulatory measures and the ongoing challenge of balancing such requirements against their intended public welfare outcomes.
Issues
• The document's language is dense and uses legal jargon, which may be difficult for those without a legal background to understand.
• The document is lengthy and contains a significant amount of detailed information, which could be challenging for small businesses to interpret and comply with without substantial resources.
• There is mention of the need for a written determination by the FAR Council and other entities, which could lead to inconsistencies or delays in application.
• Potential overlap with existing regulations and reporting requirements is discussed, but it may still lead to confusion or redundancy for air carriers.
• The estimated time of five hours per response for reporting may underestimate the actual burden on small entities who may have to develop new processes to comply.
• The lack of a specific waiver for nonscheduled freight air transportation may result in unnecessary obligations for contractors whose operations are unlikely to intersect with human trafficking issues.
• The determination that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to apply these regulations to acquisitions at or below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold is based on percentages and data from past years without clear projected analysis for future impact.
• While there are costs outlined, the document does not sufficiently address potential indirect costs or long-term financial implications for air carriers and government agencies.
• The clause applicability to a broad range of contract types, including commercial services, could lead to complexity in determining contract compliance.
• Despite an analysis of impacts on small businesses, there is minimal exploration of potential indirect burdens these entities might face beyond direct compliance.