Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Specialty Metals-Definition of “Produce” (DFARS Case 2012-D041), 18877-18879 [2013-07107]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
18877
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
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.
Although the rule now opens up
Government procurement to the goods
and services of Colombia at or above the
threshold of $77,494.00, DoD does not
anticipate any significant economic
impact on U.S. small businesses. DoD
only applies the trade agreements to the
non-defense items listed at DFARS
225.401–70, and acquisitions that are set
aside or provide other forms of
preference for small businesses are
exempt. FAR 19.502–2 states that
acquisitions that do not exceed
$150,000 (with some exceptions) are
automatically reserved exclusively for
small business concerns.
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Part 252
RIN 0750–AH72
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: New Free
Trade Agreement With Colombia
(DFARS Case 2012–D032)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final,
without change, an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to implement the United
States-Colombia Trade Promotion
Agreement. This Trade Promotion
Agreement is a free trade agreement that
provides for mutually nondiscriminatory treatment of eligible
products and services from Colombia.
DATES: Effective date: March 28, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Amy Williams, Telephone 571–372–
6106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD published an interim rule in the
Federal Register at 77 FR 31536 on May
29, 2012, to implement the United
States-Colombia Trade Promotion
Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L.
112–42) (19 U.S.C. 3805 note).
No public comments were received.
Therefore, DoD is adopting the interim
rule as final, without change.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This is not a significant
regulatory action and, therefore, was not
subject to review under section 6(b) of
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Mar 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule affects the certification and
information collection requirements in
the provision 252.225–7035, currently
approved under OMB Control Number
0704–0229, titled Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part
225, Foreign Acquisition, and related
clauses, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35). OMB Control Number
0704–0229 assessed the total burden
related to part 225 at approximately
57,230 hours. The impact, however, is
negligible, because it is just a question
of under which category offered goods
from Colombia would be listed.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
Government procurement.
Kortnee Stewart,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without
Change
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR part 252, which was
published at 77 FR 31536 on May 29,
2012, is adopted as a final rule without
change.
[FR Doc. 2013–07108 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
PO 00000
48 CFR Part 252
RIN 0750–AH78
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Specialty
Metals—Definition of ‘‘Produce’’
(DFARS Case 2012–D041)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to revise the definition of
‘‘produce’’ as it applies to specialty
metals. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
directed DoD to review the definition of
‘‘produce’’ to ensure its compliance
with the statutory restrictions on
specialty metals and to determine if a
revision to the current rule was
necessary and appropriate.
DATES:
Effective Date: March 28, 2013.
Ms.
Amy Williams, Telephone 571–372–
6106.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register at 77 FR 43474 on July
24, 2012. DoD proposed to amend the
definition of ‘‘produce’’ to eliminate the
phrase ‘‘quenching and tempering’’ of
armor steel plate, and to expand the
application of the other listed
technologies, currently restricted just to
titanium and titanium alloys, to any
specialty metal that could be formed by
such technologies.
DoD received comments on the
proposed rule from 13 respondents.
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD reviewed the public comments in
the development of the final rule. A
discussion of the comments and the
changes made to the rule as a result of
those comments is provided, as follows:
A. Summary of Significant Changes
The phrase ‘‘gas atomization’’ in the
definition of ‘‘produce’’ has been
revised to read ‘‘atomization,’’ in order
to allow for other types of atomization
(e.g., gas, water, centrifugal, plasma).
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
28MRR1
18878
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
B. Analysis of Comments
1. Definition of ‘‘Produce’’
Comment: All respondents strongly
supported the proposed definition of
‘‘produce.’’ Some of the benefits of the
revised definition noted by the
respondents are as follows:
Provides domestic control of material
vital to protection of our troops is
critical to national security interests,
promotes self-sufficiency of U.S.
defense industry.
Helps maintain a strong domestic
armor steel plate industry and
strengthens our defense industrial base,
as well as the overall economic strength
of the United States. Incentivizes
investment in the manufacturing
capacity, process technology, research
and development necessary to meet the
needs of the U.S. military, thereby
reducing the possibility of supply
shortages. Adds new U.S. steelmaking
jobs, as well as jobs throughout the
steelmaking supply chain.
Is consistent with statutory language
and legislative history.
Response: Noted.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
2. Impact of Changes in Production
Capacity of Domestic Producers of Steel
Plate
Comment: Some respondents
commented on the statement by DoD in
the Federal Register preamble to the
proposed rule, that there is now
sufficient capacity to meet DoD
requirements, if DoD were to remove
‘‘quenching and tempering of steel
plate’’ from the definition of ‘‘produce.’’
One respondent expressed concern that
by linking the regulatory definition of
‘‘produce’’ to changes in capacity, DoD
is creating uncertainty and discourages
potential investors from building or
maintaining domestic production.
Several respondents also commented
that there are already existing statutory
authorities (i.e., the nonavailability and
national security exceptions), which
should provide sufficient flexibility and
make it unnecessary to revisit the issue
of the definition of ‘‘produce.’’
Response: Since these respondents are
all strongly in support of the proposed
rule, no change is necessary in the final
rule.
3. Other Processes
Comment: One respondent expressed
support for DoD’s decision to amend the
definition of ‘‘produce’’ to create a
uniform definition for all specialty
metals. Several respondents noted that
the definition now only includes those
technologies that make a significant
contribution equivalent to melting, and
allows for flexibility and future
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Mar 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
technology advances that could replace
the melt stage for certain specialty
metals.
Response: Noted.
Comment: One respondent stated that
atomization of metal is not always
achieved by using a stream of gas.
Atomization may also be achieved by
rotating molten metal at high speeds.
Therefore, the respondent
recommended deletion of the word
‘‘gas’’ from the proposed definition of
‘‘produce.’’
Response: DoD has removed the word
‘‘gas’’ from the final rule.
Comment: The same respondent
stated that the final consolidation of
metal powders produced through
atomization would not be sufficient to
confer domestic origin on the resulting
article, because the atomization process
uses molten metal. Therefore, the metal
powder produced through atomization
is a melt-derived powder, rather than a
non-melt derived powder. The
respondent did not request a change to
the rule with regard to this issue, but
requested clarification in the preamble
to the final rule that articles produced
from melt-derived metal powders,
including metal powders produced
through atomization, would have to be
consolidated from domestically melted
metal powders in order to be considered
products of the United States.
Response: DoD has created a vertical
list to improve the clarity with regard to
the three processes that constitute
production, and must therefore be
performed in the United States: (i)
Atomization; (ii); sputtering; or (iii) final
consolidation of non-melt derived
powders.
It is very clear that final consolidation
only constitutes production with regard
to metal powders that are derived by
non-melt processes (such as mechanical
or chemical processes). It is acceptable
for non-melt processes to occur outside
the United States, as long as final
consolidation occurs in the United
States, but any processes involving
melting must occur in the United States.
III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This is not a significant
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regulatory action and, therefore, was not
subject to review under section 6(b) of
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
has been prepared consistent with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq., and is summarized as follows:
DoD has issued a final rule amending
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
revise the definition of ‘‘produce’’ as it
applies to specialty metals. The
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 directed DoD to review
the definition of ‘‘produce’’ to ensure its
compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2533b and to
determine if a revision to the current
rule was necessary and appropriate.
The objective of the proposed rule is
to revise the definition of ‘‘produce’’ as
it applies to production of specialty
metals, in response to comments
received and consideration of current
technologies for production of specialty
metals other than titanium. The legal
basis for the rule is 10 U.S.C. 2533b. No
significant issues were raised by the
public comments in response to the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
There were no comments filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
The final rule affects primarily
producers of specialty metal steel armor
plate, and manufacturers that supply
steel armor plate that will be
incorporated into end items to be
acquired by DoD. Producers of specialty
metals are generally large businesses.
There is a high capitalization
requirement to establish a business that
can melt or produce specialty metals.
The small business size standard for
primary metal manufacturing ranges
from 500 to 1,000 employees. All the
specialty metals producers reviewed
had more than 500 employees. There are
numerous manufacturers of products
containing specialty metals, either as
prime contractors or subcontractors.
DoD does not have the data to determine
the total number of these manufacturers,
or the number that are small businesses,
because the Federal Procurement Data
System only collects data on prime
contractors and end items, not
subcontractors and components of end
items.
There are no projected reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements.
DoD did not identify any significant
alternatives to the rule which would
minimize any impact of the rule on
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
28MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
small entities and still meet the
requirements of the statute 10 U.S.C.
2533b.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
Government procurement.
b. Removing the numerical
designations preceding the definition
headings of ‘‘Alloy’’; ‘‘Assembly’’;
‘‘Commercial derivative military
article’’; ‘‘Commercially available offthe-shelf item’’; ‘‘Component’’;
‘‘Electronic component’’; ‘‘End item’’;
‘‘High performance magnet’’;
‘‘Produce’’; ‘‘Qualifying country’’;
‘‘Required form’’; ‘‘Specialty metal’’;
‘‘Steel’’; and ‘‘Subsystem’’.
■ c. Revising the definition of
‘‘Produce’’ in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Kortnee Stewart,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
252.225–7009 Restriction on Acquisition
of Certain Articles Containing Specialty
Metals.
Therefore, DoD amends 48 CFR part
252 as follows:
*
■
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
PART 252—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
1. The authority citation for part 252
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
Chapter 1.
252.212–7001
252.244–7000
2. Section 252.212–7001 is amended
by—
■ a. Removing clause date ‘‘(FEB 2013)’’
and adding ‘‘(MAR 2013)’’ in its place;
and
■ b. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing the
clause date ‘‘(JUL 2009)’’ and adding
‘‘(MAR 2013)’’ in its place; and
■ c. In paragraph (b)(8), by removing the
clause date ‘‘(JUN 2012)’’ and adding
‘‘(MAR 2013)’’ in its place.
■ 3. Section 252.225–7008 is amended
by—
■ a. Removing clause date ‘‘(JUL 2009)’’
and adding ‘‘(MAR 2013)’’ in its place;
and
■ b. Removing the numerical
designations preceding the definition
headings of ‘‘Alloy’’; ‘‘Produce’’;
‘‘Specialty metal’’; and ‘‘Steel’’.
■ c. Revising the definition of
‘‘Produce’’ in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
■
252.225–7008 Restriction on Acquisition
of Specialty Metals.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
Produce means—
(i) Atomization;
(ii) Sputtering; or
(iii) Final consolidation of non-melt
derived metal powders.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 252.225–7009 is amended
by—
■ a. Removing clause date ‘‘(JUN 2012)’’
and adding ‘‘(MAR 2013)’’ in its place;
and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Mar 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
[Amended]
5. Section 252.244–7000 is amended
by—
■ a. Removing clause date ‘‘(JUN 2012)’’
and adding ‘‘(MAR 2013)’’ in its place;
and
■ b. In paragraph (b), by removing the
clause date ‘‘(JUN 2012)’’ and adding
‘‘(MAR 2013)’’ in its place.
■
[Amended]
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
Produce means—
(i) Atomization;
(ii) Sputtering; or
(iii) Final consolidation of non-melt
derived metal powders.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–07107 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 120313185–3252–01]
RIN 0648–BC01
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Trawl Rationalization Program;
Reconsideration of Allocation of
Whiting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action revises several
portions of the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Trawl Rationalization Program
(program) regulations in response to a
court order requiring the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
reconsider the initial allocation of
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18879
Pacific whiting (whiting) to the
shorebased individual fishing quota
(IFQ) fishery and the at-sea mothership
fishery. Additionally, NMFS concludes
after review of public comments and the
record as a whole, that the Pacific
Fishery Management Council’s
(Council’s) recommendation to maintain
the existing initial allocations of whiting
is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan (Groundfish FMP), and other
applicable law. This final rule will
affect the transfer of quota share (QS)
and individual bycatch quota (IBQ)
between QS accounts in the shorebased
IFQ fishery, and severability of catch
history assignments (CHAs) in the
mothership fishery, both of which will
be allowed on specified dates, with the
exception of widow rockfish. Widow
rockfish is no longer an overfished
species and transfer of QS for this
species will be reinstated pending
reconsideration of the allocation of
widow rockfish QS in a future action.
The divestiture period for widow
rockfish QS in the IFQ fishery will also
be delayed indefinitely.
DATES: This rule is effective April 1,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Information relevant to this
final rule, which includes a final
environmental assessment (EA), and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA), including a regulatory impact
review (RIR), are available from William
W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator,
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand
Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115–
0070. Electronic copies of this final rule
are also available at the NMFS
Northwest Region Web site: https://
www.nwr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ariel Jacobs, 206–526–4491; (fax) 206–
526–6736; Ariel.Jacobs@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This final rule revises several
provisions of the Pacific coast trawl
rationalization program and supersedes
regulatory delays and/or revisions
NMFS established through temporary
emergency action in a final rule
published on August 1, 2012 (77 FR
45508), and extended on January 17,
2013 (78 FR 3848). Specifically, this
action will:
(1) Allow transfer of QS or IBQ
(except for widow rockfish QS) between
QS permit holders in the shorebased
IFQ fishery beginning January 1, 2014;
(2) Require QS permit holders in the
shorebased IFQ fishery holding QS or
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
28MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18877-18879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Part 252
RIN 0750-AH78
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Specialty
Metals--Definition of ``Produce'' (DFARS Case 2012-D041)
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to revise the definition of
``produce'' as it applies to specialty metals. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed DoD to review the
definition of ``produce'' to ensure its compliance with the statutory
restrictions on specialty metals and to determine if a revision to the
current rule was necessary and appropriate.
DATES: Effective Date: March 28, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, Telephone 571-372-
6106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 77 FR
43474 on July 24, 2012. DoD proposed to amend the definition of
``produce'' to eliminate the phrase ``quenching and tempering'' of
armor steel plate, and to expand the application of the other listed
technologies, currently restricted just to titanium and titanium
alloys, to any specialty metal that could be formed by such
technologies.
DoD received comments on the proposed rule from 13 respondents.
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final
rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as
a result of those comments is provided, as follows:
A. Summary of Significant Changes
The phrase ``gas atomization'' in the definition of ``produce'' has
been revised to read ``atomization,'' in order to allow for other types
of atomization (e.g., gas, water, centrifugal, plasma).
[[Page 18878]]
B. Analysis of Comments
1. Definition of ``Produce''
Comment: All respondents strongly supported the proposed definition
of ``produce.'' Some of the benefits of the revised definition noted by
the respondents are as follows:
Provides domestic control of material vital to protection of our
troops is critical to national security interests, promotes self-
sufficiency of U.S. defense industry.
Helps maintain a strong domestic armor steel plate industry and
strengthens our defense industrial base, as well as the overall
economic strength of the United States. Incentivizes investment in the
manufacturing capacity, process technology, research and development
necessary to meet the needs of the U.S. military, thereby reducing the
possibility of supply shortages. Adds new U.S. steelmaking jobs, as
well as jobs throughout the steelmaking supply chain.
Is consistent with statutory language and legislative history.
Response: Noted.
2. Impact of Changes in Production Capacity of Domestic Producers of
Steel Plate
Comment: Some respondents commented on the statement by DoD in the
Federal Register preamble to the proposed rule, that there is now
sufficient capacity to meet DoD requirements, if DoD were to remove
``quenching and tempering of steel plate'' from the definition of
``produce.'' One respondent expressed concern that by linking the
regulatory definition of ``produce'' to changes in capacity, DoD is
creating uncertainty and discourages potential investors from building
or maintaining domestic production.
Several respondents also commented that there are already existing
statutory authorities (i.e., the nonavailability and national security
exceptions), which should provide sufficient flexibility and make it
unnecessary to revisit the issue of the definition of ``produce.''
Response: Since these respondents are all strongly in support of
the proposed rule, no change is necessary in the final rule.
3. Other Processes
Comment: One respondent expressed support for DoD's decision to
amend the definition of ``produce'' to create a uniform definition for
all specialty metals. Several respondents noted that the definition now
only includes those technologies that make a significant contribution
equivalent to melting, and allows for flexibility and future technology
advances that could replace the melt stage for certain specialty
metals.
Response: Noted.
Comment: One respondent stated that atomization of metal is not
always achieved by using a stream of gas. Atomization may also be
achieved by rotating molten metal at high speeds. Therefore, the
respondent recommended deletion of the word ``gas'' from the proposed
definition of ``produce.''
Response: DoD has removed the word ``gas'' from the final rule.
Comment: The same respondent stated that the final consolidation of
metal powders produced through atomization would not be sufficient to
confer domestic origin on the resulting article, because the
atomization process uses molten metal. Therefore, the metal powder
produced through atomization is a melt-derived powder, rather than a
non-melt derived powder. The respondent did not request a change to the
rule with regard to this issue, but requested clarification in the
preamble to the final rule that articles produced from melt-derived
metal powders, including metal powders produced through atomization,
would have to be consolidated from domestically melted metal powders in
order to be considered products of the United States.
Response: DoD has created a vertical list to improve the clarity
with regard to the three processes that constitute production, and must
therefore be performed in the United States: (i) Atomization; (ii);
sputtering; or (iii) final consolidation of non-melt derived powders.
It is very clear that final consolidation only constitutes
production with regard to metal powders that are derived by non-melt
processes (such as mechanical or chemical processes). It is acceptable
for non-melt processes to occur outside the United States, as long as
final consolidation occurs in the United States, but any processes
involving melting must occur in the United States.
III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not
subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule
under 5 U.S.C. 804.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared
consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
and is summarized as follows:
DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to revise the definition of
``produce'' as it applies to specialty metals. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed DoD to review the
definition of ``produce'' to ensure its compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2533b
and to determine if a revision to the current rule was necessary and
appropriate.
The objective of the proposed rule is to revise the definition of
``produce'' as it applies to production of specialty metals, in
response to comments received and consideration of current technologies
for production of specialty metals other than titanium. The legal basis
for the rule is 10 U.S.C. 2533b. No significant issues were raised by
the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis. There were no comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The final rule affects primarily producers of specialty metal steel
armor plate, and manufacturers that supply steel armor plate that will
be incorporated into end items to be acquired by DoD. Producers of
specialty metals are generally large businesses. There is a high
capitalization requirement to establish a business that can melt or
produce specialty metals. The small business size standard for primary
metal manufacturing ranges from 500 to 1,000 employees. All the
specialty metals producers reviewed had more than 500 employees. There
are numerous manufacturers of products containing specialty metals,
either as prime contractors or subcontractors. DoD does not have the
data to determine the total number of these manufacturers, or the
number that are small businesses, because the Federal Procurement Data
System only collects data on prime contractors and end items, not
subcontractors and components of end items.
There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements.
DoD did not identify any significant alternatives to the rule which
would minimize any impact of the rule on
[[Page 18879]]
small entities and still meet the requirements of the statute 10 U.S.C.
2533b.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements
that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
Government procurement.
Kortnee Stewart,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
Therefore, DoD amends 48 CFR part 252 as follows:
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
0
1. The authority citation for part 252 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
252.212-7001 [Amended]
0
2. Section 252.212-7001 is amended by--
0
a. Removing clause date ``(FEB 2013)'' and adding ``(MAR 2013)'' in its
place; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing the clause date ``(JUL 2009)'' and
adding ``(MAR 2013)'' in its place; and
0
c. In paragraph (b)(8), by removing the clause date ``(JUN 2012)'' and
adding ``(MAR 2013)'' in its place.
0
3. Section 252.225-7008 is amended by--
0
a. Removing clause date ``(JUL 2009)'' and adding ``(MAR 2013)'' in its
place; and
0
b. Removing the numerical designations preceding the definition
headings of ``Alloy''; ``Produce''; ``Specialty metal''; and ``Steel''.
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Produce'' in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
252.225-7008 Restriction on Acquisition of Specialty Metals.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
Produce means--
(i) Atomization;
(ii) Sputtering; or
(iii) Final consolidation of non-melt derived metal powders.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 252.225-7009 is amended by--
0
a. Removing clause date ``(JUN 2012)'' and adding ``(MAR 2013)'' in its
place; and
0
b. Removing the numerical designations preceding the definition
headings of ``Alloy''; ``Assembly''; ``Commercial derivative military
article''; ``Commercially available off-the-shelf item'';
``Component''; ``Electronic component''; ``End item''; ``High
performance magnet''; ``Produce''; ``Qualifying country''; ``Required
form''; ``Specialty metal''; ``Steel''; and ``Subsystem''.
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Produce'' in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
252.225-7009 Restriction on Acquisition of Certain Articles Containing
Specialty Metals.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
Produce means--
(i) Atomization;
(ii) Sputtering; or
(iii) Final consolidation of non-melt derived metal powders.
* * * * *
252.244-7000 [Amended]
0
5. Section 252.244-7000 is amended by--
0
a. Removing clause date ``(JUN 2012)'' and adding ``(MAR 2013)'' in its
place; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), by removing the clause date ``(JUN 2012)'' and
adding ``(MAR 2013)'' in its place.
[FR Doc. 2013-07107 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
