Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Quality Control of Aviation Critical Safety Items and Related Services, 57188-57190 [05-19462]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57188
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(vi) List and summarize, if seeking the
exemption for rural telephone
cooperatives pursuant to § 1.2110, all
documentation to establish eligibility
pursuant to the factors listed under
§ 1.2110(b)(3)(iii)(A).
[FR Doc. 05–19519 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 204, 212, 213, and 252
[DFARS Case 2003–D040]
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Central
Contractor Registration
Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final,
with changes, an interim rule amending
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
remove policy on Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) that duplicated
policy found in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR). The rule also
addresses requirements for use of
Commercial and Government Entity
(CAGE) codes in DoD contracts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Tronic, Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council,
OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132,
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0289;
facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite
DFARS Case 2003–D040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
DoD published an interim rule at 68
FR 64557 on November 14, 2003, to
remove DFARS requirements for
contractors to register in the CCR
database, since policy on this subject
had been added to the FAR. The interim
rule also addressed requirements for
inclusion of CAGE codes on contracts
and in the CCR database to
accommodate DoD payment systems.
Three sources submitted comments
on the interim DFARS rule. A
discussion of the comments is provided
below.
1. Comment: Provision of DUNS
numbers and CAGE codes. One
respondent stated that the interim rule
appeared to require contracting officers
to provide both a DUNS number and a
CAGE code on contractual documents
submitted to the payment office,
whereas the previous DFARS coverage
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:28 Sep 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
required either a DUNS number or a
CAGE code.
DoD Response: The final rule revises
DFARS 204.1103(e) to clarify that
contracting officers must include the
contractor’s CAGE code on contractual
documents transmitted to the payment
office, instead of the DUNS number.
2. Comment: Timely assignment of
CAGE codes. One respondent
recommended adding a statement to the
rule to address the need for the Defense
Logistics Information Service to assign
CAGE codes in a timely manner, to
avoid payment delays and payment of
interest.
DoD Response: DoD agrees that timely
assignment of CAGE codes is important.
However, such a statement is
considered unnecessary for inclusion in
the DFARS.
3. Comment: Contractor failure to
provide correct or current CCR
information. One respondent provided
an example of a contractor’s failure to
maintain current information in the CCR
database.
DoD Response: Contractors are
responsible for maintaining CCR
information and are required to review
and update their information annually
to ensure it is current, accurate, and
complete.
This rule was not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under
Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 204, 212,
213, and 252
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Quality
Control of Aviation Critical Safety
Items and Related Services
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 adds no new
requirements for contractors. The rule
removes DFARS text on Central
Contractor Registration that has become
obsolete as a result of policy that was
added to the FAR, and retains existing
requirements for use of Commercial and
Government Entity codes in DoD
contracts.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR parts 204, 212, 213,
and 252, which was published at 68 FR
64557 on November 14, 2003, is
adopted as a final rule with the
following change:
PART 204–ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 204 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR
Chapter 1.
2. Section 204.1103 is revised to read
as follows:
I
204.1103
Procedures.
(e) On contractual documents
transmitted to the payment office,
provide the Commercial and
Government Entity code, instead of the
DUNS number or DUNS+4 number, in
accordance with agency procedures.
I
[FR Doc. 05–19464 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 209, 217, and 246
[DFARS Case 2003–D101]
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final,
with changes, an interim rule amending
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
implement Section 802 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004. Section 802 requires DoD to
establish a quality control policy for the
procurement of aviation critical safety
items and the modification, repair, and
overhaul of those items.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council, 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–D101.
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
DoD published an interim rule at 69
FR 55987 on September 17, 2004, to
implement Section 802 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–136). Section
802 requires DoD to prescribe in
regulations a quality control policy for
the procurement of aviation critical
safety items and the modification,
repair, and overhaul of those items. The
interim rule identified the
responsibilities of the head of the design
control activity with regard to quality
control of aviation critical safety items
and related services.
Six respondents submitted comments
on the interim rule. A discussion of the
comments is provided below.
1. Comment: One respondent
suggested there might be confusion
between the head of the contracting
activity for the procuring activity of an
aviation critical safety item and the
head of the contracting activity for the
design control activity. A proposed
change was suggested to clarify this
issue.
DoD Response: The final rule amends
DFARS 209.270–3(a) to clarify that the
policy in that paragraph applies to the
head of the contracting activity
responsible for procuring an aviation
critical safety item.
2. Comment: Two respondents
recommended clarification as to who
has responsibility for identifying and
determining aviation critical safety
items.
DoD Response: The final rule adds a
paragraph at DFARS 209.270–4(a)(1) to
clarify that the head of the design
control activity is responsible for
identifying items that meet the criteria
for designation as aviation critical safety
items.
3. Comment: Six respondents
requested clarification as to whether the
authority to disposition minor
nonconformances in aviation critical
safety items can be delegated, and
recommended that the DFARS state that
delegation can be authorized.
DoD Response: The final rule amends
DFARS 246.407(S–70) to state that
acceptance of minor nonconformances
in aviation critical safety items may be
delegated as determined appropriate by
the design control activity.
4. Comment: Two respondents
requested clarification as to whether the
rule applies only to Government
contract awards or if prime contractors
must obtain design control activity
approval of subcontracts for aviation
critical safety items.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:28 Sep 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
DoD Response: Clarification of this
issue in the DFARS rule is considered
unnecessary. Unless otherwise stated,
DFARS policy applies to contracts
awarded by the Government.
5. Comment: One respondent
recommended clarification of the
connection between the DFARS rule
and qualified products list policies.
DoD Response: Clarification of this
issue in the DFARS rule is considered
unnecessary. However, DoD is presently
drafting a joint service/agency
instruction that will address this issue.
6. Comment: One respondent asked
whether the rule would apply to
commercial items acquired under FAR
Part 12 or commercial aviation systems
and components governed by Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulations.
DoD Response: The draft joint service/
agency instruction will make it clear
that aviation critical safety item policies
do not apply to commercial aircraft or
subsystems purchased and maintained
in accordance with FAA regulations
unless specifically required by the
military department.
7. Comment: Three respondents
questioned whether there would be
drawing changes and new reporting
requirements as a result of the rule and
how the costs associated with these
changes would be reimbursed.
DoD Response: The rule contains no
requirements for drawing changes or
new reporting. Such changes would be
determined on a case-by-case basis or
would be addressed in policy issued by
the requirements community.
8. Comment: Two respondents
expressed concern that the rule would
result in changes to approved quality
systems, additional requirements for
disposal of critical safety items, and
additional acceptance testing.
DoD Response: The rule does not
address these issues. Such changes
would be determined on a case-by-case
basis or would be addressed in policy
issued by the requirements community.
9. Comment: One respondent
recommended that DoD look for synergy
between the unique item identification
policy and aviation critical safety item
policy.
DoD Response: DoD is looking at
unique item identification as a
facilitator for product identification,
serialization, and tracking.
10. Comment: Two respondents
expressed concern that the rule could
have a significant economic impact on
small businesses due to (1) new
qualification standards established by
the heads of the design control
activities, and (2) significant differences
that exist between contractor/original
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57189
equipment manufacturer critical
component designations and DoD
critical safety item designations.
DoD Response: These issues are
addressed in the final regulatory
flexibility analysis.
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 has prepared a final regulatory
flexibility analysis consistent with 5
U.S.C. 604. The analysis is summarized
below. A copy of the analysis may be
obtained from the point of contact
specified herein.
The objective of the rule is to give the
head of the design control activity
responsibility for the quality control of
aviation critical safety items, including
identifying and designating these items,
and approval of sources, products, and
offerors prior to contract award. Two
respondents expressed concern that
there could be significant economic
impact on small businesses or original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) due
to (1) new qualification standards
established by the heads of design
control activities, and (2) significant
differences that exist between
contractor/OEM critical component
designations and DoD critical safety
item designations. If a small business
has previously been approved to furnish
an aviation critical safety item, has
furnished the item within the past 3
years, and has a good quality track
record, there should be no impact on
that business. Many small businesses
fall into this category. If a small
business did not go through the
approval process but furnished the
aviation critical safety item within the
past 3 years, the Government will check
the company’s quality track record and
test samples from DoD inventory to
ensure conformity. When the company
next receives a contract for the aviation
critical safety item, the Government will
request commonly generated
manufacturing, quality, and inspection
information. The 3-year timeframe is
consistent with established Government
and nongovernment qualification
requirements, particularly those relating
to the aerospace sector. DoD Qualified
Products List and Qualified
Manufacturers List procedures require
revalidation every 2 years. The Society
of Automotive Engineers standard
AS9102 on Aerospace First Article
Inspection requires reinspection of an
aerospace part if there has been a lapse
in production for 2 years or as specified
by the customer. The Federal Aviation
Administration’s Advisory Circular 00–
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
57190
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
56A, Voluntary Industry Distributor
Accreditation Program, establishes that
civil aerospace parts distributors may
not exceed the 24-month requirement if
they were accredited prior to revision of
the circular and that accredited
distributors shall be audited at least
once every 36 months. The Aviation
Suppliers Association Quality System
Standard ASA–100 requires an
accreditation audit every 36 months and
a surveillance audit during the 36month period. The National Aerospace
and Defense Contractors Accreditation
Program (NADCAP)—Performance
Review Institute (PRI) establishes
product qualification to be generally
valid for 3 years or as determined by the
specific Qualified Products Group.
In calendar year 2003, the year before
the interim rule took effect, 62.8% of
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
contracts for currently identified
aviation critical safety items were
awarded to small businesses. During the
first 8 months of calendar year 2005 (the
year after the interim rule became
effective), 62.9% of DLA contracts for
critical safety items were awarded to
small businesses. There has been no
significant impact on contract awards to
small businesses as a result of the
DFARS rule.
Regardless of whether the contractor
or DoD designates an item as a critical
safety item, the contractor is required to
deliver conforming products. This is
especially important when the
consequences of item failure could be
catastrophic. Small businesses that
understand the design intent of a critical
safety item, and the item’s application
in the weapon system, its critical
attributes, and its failure implications,
should have high-performing
manufacturing, supplier management,
and quality control processes. While the
contractor/OEM and DoD may have
different methods of categorizing parts,
the critical safety item designation is not
expected to have a significant cost
impact on small businesses with
approved quality systems.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 209,
217, and 246
Government procurement.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I
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.
246.407 Nonconforming supplies or
services.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:28 Sep 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR parts 209, 217, and
246, which was published at 69 FR
55987 on September 17, 2004, is
adopted as a final rule with the
following changes:
I
overhaul of such items (see 209.270).
Authority for acceptance of minor
nonconformances in aviation critical
safety items may be delegated as
determined appropriate by the design
control activity. See additional
information at PGI 246.407.
[FR Doc. 05–19462 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Part 219
PART 209—CONTRACTOR
QUALIFICATIONS
[DFARS Case 2005–D020]
I
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
parts 209 and 246 continues to read as
follows:
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Extension of
Partnership Agreement—8(a) Program
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR
Chapter 1.
AGENCY:
2. Section 209.270–3 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
209.270–3
Policy.
(a) The head of the contracting
activity responsible for procuring an
aviation critical safety item may enter
into a contract for the procurement,
modification, repair, or overhaul of such
an item only with a source approved by
the head of the design control activity.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 209.270–4 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
209.270–4
Procedures.
(a) The head of the design control
activity shall—
(1) Identify items that meet the
criteria for designation as aviation
critical safety items. See additional
information at PGI 209.270–4;
(2) Approve qualification
requirements in accordance with
procedures established by the design
control activity; and
(3) Qualify and identify aviation
critical safety item suppliers and
products.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 246—QUALITY ASSURANCE
4. Section 246.407 is amended by
revising paragraph (S–70) to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(S–70) The head of the design
control activity is the approval authority
for acceptance of any nonconforming
aviation critical safety items or
nonconforming modification, repair, or
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to reflect an extension in the
expiration date of a partnership
agreement between DoD and the Small
Business Administration (SBA). The
partnership agreement permits DoD to
award contracts to 8(a) Program
participants on behalf of SBA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Tronic, Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L)
DPAP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062.
Telephone (703) 602–0289; facsimile
(703) 602–0350. Please cite DFARS Case
2005–D020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
By partnership agreement dated
February 1, 2002, between the SBA and
DoD, the SBA delegated to DoD its
authority to enter into contracts under
Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 637(a)). The expiration date
of the partnership agreement has been
extended from September 30, 2005, to
September 30, 2006. This final rule
amends DFARS 219.800 to reflect the
extension.
This rule was not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under
Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will not have a significant
cost or administrative impact on
contractors or offerors, or a significant
effect beyond the internal operating
procedures of DoD. Therefore,
publication for public comment is not
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57188-57190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19462]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 209, 217, and 246
[DFARS Case 2003-D101]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Quality
Control of Aviation Critical Safety Items and Related Services
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 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004. Section 802 requires DoD to establish a quality
control policy for the procurement of aviation critical safety items
and the modification, repair, and overhaul of those items.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council, 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-D101.
[[Page 57189]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
DoD published an interim rule at 69 FR 55987 on September 17, 2004,
to implement Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136). Section 802 requires DoD to
prescribe in regulations a quality control policy for the procurement
of aviation critical safety items and the modification, repair, and
overhaul of those items. The interim rule identified the
responsibilities of the head of the design control activity with regard
to quality control of aviation critical safety items and related
services.
Six respondents submitted comments on the interim rule. A
discussion of the comments is provided below.
1. Comment: One respondent suggested there might be confusion
between the head of the contracting activity for the procuring activity
of an aviation critical safety item and the head of the contracting
activity for the design control activity. A proposed change was
suggested to clarify this issue.
DoD Response: The final rule amends DFARS 209.270-3(a) to clarify
that the policy in that paragraph applies to the head of the
contracting activity responsible for procuring an aviation critical
safety item.
2. Comment: Two respondents recommended clarification as to who has
responsibility for identifying and determining aviation critical safety
items.
DoD Response: The final rule adds a paragraph at DFARS 209.270-
4(a)(1) to clarify that the head of the design control activity is
responsible for identifying items that meet the criteria for
designation as aviation critical safety items.
3. Comment: Six respondents requested clarification as to whether
the authority to disposition minor nonconformances in aviation critical
safety items can be delegated, and recommended that the DFARS state
that delegation can be authorized.
DoD Response: The final rule amends DFARS 246.407(S-70) to state
that acceptance of minor nonconformances in aviation critical safety
items may be delegated as determined appropriate by the design control
activity.
4. Comment: Two respondents requested clarification as to whether
the rule applies only to Government contract awards or if prime
contractors must obtain design control activity approval of
subcontracts for aviation critical safety items.
DoD Response: Clarification of this issue in the DFARS rule is
considered unnecessary. Unless otherwise stated, DFARS policy applies
to contracts awarded by the Government.
5. Comment: One respondent recommended clarification of the
connection between the DFARS rule and qualified products list policies.
DoD Response: Clarification of this issue in the DFARS rule is
considered unnecessary. However, DoD is presently drafting a joint
service/agency instruction that will address this issue.
6. Comment: One respondent asked whether the rule would apply to
commercial items acquired under FAR Part 12 or commercial aviation
systems and components governed by Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) regulations.
DoD Response: The draft joint service/agency instruction will make
it clear that aviation critical safety item policies do not apply to
commercial aircraft or subsystems purchased and maintained in
accordance with FAA regulations unless specifically required by the
military department.
7. Comment: Three respondents questioned whether there would be
drawing changes and new reporting requirements as a result of the rule
and how the costs associated with these changes would be reimbursed.
DoD Response: The rule contains no requirements for drawing changes
or new reporting. Such changes would be determined on a case-by-case
basis or would be addressed in policy issued by the requirements
community.
8. Comment: Two respondents expressed concern that the rule would
result in changes to approved quality systems, additional requirements
for disposal of critical safety items, and additional acceptance
testing.
DoD Response: The rule does not address these issues. Such changes
would be determined on a case-by-case basis or would be addressed in
policy issued by the requirements community.
9. Comment: One respondent recommended that DoD look for synergy
between the unique item identification policy and aviation critical
safety item policy.
DoD Response: DoD is looking at unique item identification as a
facilitator for product identification, serialization, and tracking.
10. Comment: Two respondents expressed concern that the rule could
have a significant economic impact on small businesses due to (1) new
qualification standards established by the heads of the design control
activities, and (2) significant differences that exist between
contractor/original equipment manufacturer critical component
designations and DoD critical safety item designations.
DoD Response: These issues are addressed in the final regulatory
flexibility analysis.
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 has prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis consistent
with 5 U.S.C. 604. The analysis is summarized below. A copy of the
analysis may be obtained from the point of contact specified herein.
The objective of the rule is to give the head of the design control
activity responsibility for the quality control of aviation critical
safety items, including identifying and designating these items, and
approval of sources, products, and offerors prior to contract award.
Two respondents expressed concern that there could be significant
economic impact on small businesses or original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) due to (1) new qualification standards established by the heads
of design control activities, and (2) significant differences that
exist between contractor/OEM critical component designations and DoD
critical safety item designations. If a small business has previously
been approved to furnish an aviation critical safety item, has
furnished the item within the past 3 years, and has a good quality
track record, there should be no impact on that business. Many small
businesses fall into this category. If a small business did not go
through the approval process but furnished the aviation critical safety
item within the past 3 years, the Government will check the company's
quality track record and test samples from DoD inventory to ensure
conformity. When the company next receives a contract for the aviation
critical safety item, the Government will request commonly generated
manufacturing, quality, and inspection information. The 3-year
timeframe is consistent with established Government and nongovernment
qualification requirements, particularly those relating to the
aerospace sector. DoD Qualified Products List and Qualified
Manufacturers List procedures require revalidation every 2 years. The
Society of Automotive Engineers standard AS9102 on Aerospace First
Article Inspection requires reinspection of an aerospace part if there
has been a lapse in production for 2 years or as specified by the
customer. The Federal Aviation Administration's Advisory Circular 00-
[[Page 57190]]
56A, Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation Program, establishes
that civil aerospace parts distributors may not exceed the 24-month
requirement if they were accredited prior to revision of the circular
and that accredited distributors shall be audited at least once every
36 months. The Aviation Suppliers Association Quality System Standard
ASA-100 requires an accreditation audit every 36 months and a
surveillance audit during the 36-month period. The National Aerospace
and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program (NADCAP)--Performance
Review Institute (PRI) establishes product qualification to be
generally valid for 3 years or as determined by the specific Qualified
Products Group.
In calendar year 2003, the year before the interim rule took
effect, 62.8% of Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) contracts for currently
identified aviation critical safety items were awarded to small
businesses. During the first 8 months of calendar year 2005 (the year
after the interim rule became effective), 62.9% of DLA contracts for
critical safety items were awarded to small businesses. There has been
no significant impact on contract awards to small businesses as a
result of the DFARS rule.
Regardless of whether the contractor or DoD designates an item as a
critical safety item, the contractor is required to deliver conforming
products. This is especially important when the consequences of item
failure could be catastrophic. Small businesses that understand the
design intent of a critical safety item, and the item's application in
the weapon system, its critical attributes, and its failure
implications, should have high-performing manufacturing, supplier
management, and quality control processes. While the contractor/OEM and
DoD may have different methods of categorizing parts, the critical
safety item designation is not expected to have a significant cost
impact on small businesses with approved quality systems.
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 209, 217, and 246
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 209, 217, and 246,
which was published at 69 FR 55987 on September 17, 2004, is adopted as
a final rule with the following changes:
PART 209--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 209 and 246 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
0
2. Section 209.270-3 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
209.270-3 Policy.
(a) The head of the contracting activity responsible for procuring
an aviation critical safety item may enter into a contract for the
procurement, modification, repair, or overhaul of such an item only
with a source approved by the head of the design control activity.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 209.270-4 is amended by removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
209.270-4 Procedures.
(a) The head of the design control activity shall--
(1) Identify items that meet the criteria for designation as
aviation critical safety items. See additional information at PGI
209.270-4;
(2) Approve qualification requirements in accordance with
procedures established by the design control activity; and
(3) Qualify and identify aviation critical safety item suppliers
and products.
* * * * *
PART 246--QUALITY ASSURANCE
0
4. Section 246.407 is amended by revising paragraph (S-70) to read as
follows:
246.407 Nonconforming supplies or services.
* * * * *
(S-70) The head of the design control activity is the approval
authority for acceptance of any nonconforming aviation critical safety
items or nonconforming modification, repair, or overhaul of such items
(see 209.270). Authority for acceptance of minor nonconformances in
aviation critical safety items may be delegated as determined
appropriate by the design control activity. See additional information
at PGI 246.407.
[FR Doc. 05-19462 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
