Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75017

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contact. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Oregon, is amended 

by adding Clatskanie, Channel 225C3. 

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Washington, is 

amended removing Channel 224A and 

by adding Channel 259A at Long Beach 

and by removing Channel 259A and by 

adding Channel 253A at Ilwaco.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–27447 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–3615, MB Docket No. 04–420, RM–

11119] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Corydon 

and Morganfield, KY

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on a petition for rulemaking 

filed by Union County Broadcasting Co., 

Inc., licensee of Station WMSK–FM, 

Morganfield, Kentucky proposing the 

substitution of Channel 237C3 for 

Channel 237A at Morganfield and the 

reallotment of Channel 237C3 from 

Morganfield to Corydon, Kentucky, as 

the community’s first local transmission 

service, and the modification of the 

license for Station WMSK–FM to reflect 

the changes. Channel 237C3 has been 

proposed to be reallotted at Corydon at 

petitioner’s proposed site 11.1 

kilometers (6.9 miles) southwest of the 

community at coordinates 37–41–31 NL 

and 87–48–45 WL.

DATES: Comments or counterproposals 

must be filed on or before January 18, 

2005, and reply comments must be filed 

on or before February 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve the 

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: John F. 

Garziglia, Esq. and Howard J. Barr, Esq., 

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, 

PLLC; 1401 Eye Street, NW., Seventh 

Floor; Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 

04–420, adopted November 24, 2004, 

and released November 26, 2004. The 

full text of this Commission decision is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

Commission’s Reference Center 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text of this 

decision may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20054, telephone 800–

378–3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com.

The provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is issued until the matter is 

no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 

336.

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Kentucky, is amended 

by removing Morganfield, Channel 

237A and adding Corydon, Channel 

237C3.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04–27445 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Parts 901 and 970 

RIN 1991–AB64 

Acquisition Regulation: Make-or-Buy 

Plans

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is proposing to amend the 

Department of Energy Acquisition 

Regulation (DEAR) to revise its 

requirements for contractor make-or-buy 

plans. The make-or-buy program, as it is 

currently structured, is not delivering 

the value to the Department 

commensurate with the costs of its 

implementation. The proposed rule 

would eliminate the burden of make-orbuy analysis.

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed rulemaking must be received 

on or before close of business January 

14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: This proposed rule is 

available and comments may be 

submitted on line at http://

www.regulations.gov. Comments may be 

submitted electronically to 

Irma.Brown@hq.doe.gov. Comments 

may be mailed to U.S. Department of 

Energy, Attn: Irma Brown, Mail Code 

ME–62, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irma 

Brown at (202) 586–8455 or 

Irma.Brown@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background. 

II. Section-by-Section Analysis. 

III. Procedural Requirements. 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866. 

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988. 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

75018 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001. 

K. Approval by the Office of the Secretary 

of Energy.

I. Background 

In response to a report entitled 

Making Contracting Work Better and 

Cost Less, Report of the Contract Reform 

Team, DOE/S–0107, February 1994, 

DOE promulgated a rule that established 

a make-or-buy policy on June 27, 1997 

(62 FR 34842). The make-or-buy policy 

established criteria to assist 

management and operating (M&O) 

contractors in categorizing all internal 

work activities under their contracts as 

‘‘make’’ or ‘‘buy’’ activities. ‘‘Make’’

activities are core competencies critical 

to the mission success that are not 

available for outsourcing. ‘‘Buy’’

activities are non-core work activities 

that provide strategic support to core 

competencies that are available for 

outsourcing. Contractors use their makeor-buy plan to evaluate subcontracting 

opportunities and improve in-house 

performance. The objective of the makeor-buy policy is to require M&O 

contractors to operate the Department’s 

laboratories, weapons production 

plants, and other facilities in a most cost 

effective and efficient manner.

DOE now has more than six years of 

experience with the make-or-buy policy. 

All M&O contractors have approved 

make-or-buy plans in place. The 

Department has evaluated the operation 

of the make-or-buy policy and the effect 

that policy has had in achieving the 

Department’s objectives. As discussed 

in the following paragraphs, the makeor-buy program is not delivering the 

value to the Department commensurate 

with the costs of its implementation. 

DOE conducted several assessments 

and implemented a number of actions to 

improve the manner in which DOE and 

its contractors implemented the makeor-buy plan requirements. Beginning in 

April 1998, DOE conducted its initial 

assessment to determine whether the 

requirements of make-or-buy were being 

implemented. The assessment examined 

whether: (1) The make-or-buy clause 

had been incorporated into the contract; 

(2) the contractor had prepared and 

submitted a make-or-buy plan; and (3) 

the plans were approved by the 

contracting officer. The results indicated 

that the implementation of the 

contractor make-or-buy plan 

requirements was on schedule. 

However, there were several issues 

noted in the early implementation of the 

make-or-buy plans: (1) The plans did 

not always meet the documentation 

requirements of the make-or-buy clause; 

(2) the make-or-buy plans did not 

always demonstrate the basic intent 

(i.e., least cost alternative) of the makeor-buy requirements; and (3) roles and 

responsibilities of key individuals, 

including the contracting officer, were 

not clearly understood. 

In August 1999, follow-up action was 

initiated to determine progress on the 

adequacy of the contractor make-or-buy 

plans and whether contracting officer 

approvals were obtained. The results 

indicated a number of contractors had 

well-thought-out and elaborate 

processes for arriving at make-or-buy 

decisions and several contractors were 

implementing productivity 

improvements for work areas retained 

under ‘‘make’’ decisions. There were a 

number of examples where the 

contractors had approved make-or-buy 

plans in place; however, contractor 

analysis of all work activities under the 

contract were not always accomplished. 

Overall, implementation across the DOE 

complex had been inconsistent largely 

because of a general misunderstanding 

of the make-or-buy policy and its 

attendant administration requirements. 

Additionally, the assessment questioned 

whether the DOE requirements for 

contractor’s make-or-buy plans are 

overly stringent, unrealistic and 

inappropriate, thereby creating an 

impossible standard of performance. 

DOE implemented a number of 

corrective actions to promote a better 

understanding of the make-or-buy 

requirements: (1) In December 1999, the 

M&O contractors conducted 

benchmarking studies of contractor 

make-or-buy plans and procedures to 

develop a decision model and a sample 

make-or-buy plan to be used by the 

M&O contractors; (2) in February 2000, 

program specific make-or-buy criteria 

were issued to the M&O contractors to 

assist in identifying core and non-core 

activities; (3) in July 2001, a workshop 

was conducted with federal and 

contractor staff to discuss and promote 

an understanding of the make-or-buy 

requirements and to identify potential 

problem areas where policy and 

procedural improvements could be 

made, and (4) in August 2001 

assessment compliance criteria were 

developed and implemented by the 

Department to assist in the oversight of 

contractor make-or-buy plans. 

The July 2001 workshop had a large 

attendance of both contractors and 

federal staff from the offices responsible 

for implementing the make-or-buy 

program. Discussions were held on what 

was working and what was not. The 

following problem areas were quickly 

identified: (1) An inconsistent approach 

by the M&O contractors in categorizing 

work activities; (2) the DOE complex 

was relatively inexperienced in 

conducting actual make-or-buy 

analyses; and (3) the costs to conduct 

make-or-buy analyses were a major 

consideration in determining how many 

would be done annually (in most cases 

the time estimated to complete the 

make-or-buy analyses on the available 

‘‘buy’’ inventory extended beyond the 

expiration date of the contract). There 

were minor comments made for 

improving the existing policies and 

procedures, however, it was determined 

that these changes would have made 

minimal impact in increasing the value 

of the make-or-buy program. 

By June 2002, the Department began 

considering whether to discontinue the 

make-or-buy program. But before 

moving in that direction, the 

Department conducted a random 

sampling of four contractors’ make-orbuy plans. The results indicated that, 

based on contractor inventories ranging 

from approximately 46 to 119 eligible 

‘‘buy’’ functions, M&O contractors were 

conducting 4% or 2–5 make-or-buy 

decisions per year for eligible ‘‘buy’’

functions, which is far less than the 

anticipated 20% or approximately 9–24 

make-or-buy decisions per year. In most 

cases, the rationale for the low number 

of actions per year was the significant 

costs and time required to conduct 

comprehensive analyses on each makeor-buy decision. In one case, the costs 

associated with the process were 

determined to be extremely high relative 

to the potential benefits (2,149 hours of 

mostly senior level management and 

professionals) only to make the decision 

to keep the function in-house based on 

a variety of appropriate factors. 

The conclusion drawn from these 

assessments is that there is little 

evidence that these plans are producing 

the efficiencies and cost savings 

anticipated by the Department. The 

Department has determined that the 

lack of measurable progress, costs of 

complying, and additional workload to 

monitor compliance with the make-orbuy policy outweigh any potential 

benefits to the Department. 

Although the results of the 

Department’s evaluation of the make-orbuy policy are a rationale for revising 

the Department’s policy, another 

consideration for revising the policy is 

the progress made in the Department’s 

contractual environment since the 

Department’s contract reform initiative 

in February 1994. Recognizing that there 

are multiple approaches to achieving 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75019

cost efficiencies and operational 

effectiveness under a contract, the 

Department has made great strides in its 

contract reform initiatives. For its major 

site and facility contracts, the 

Department significantly increased the 

use of Performance-Based Management 

Contracts, competing more than 31 

contracts while extending only 15 (four 

contracts only for an interim period), 

increased subcontracting goals to as 

high as 60% in some contracts, reduced 

DOE sponsored Federally Funded 

Research and Development Center 

(FFRDC) contracts by 27%, and 

increased the use of alternative contract 

types, such as cost plus incentive fee, to 

drive both cost efficiencies and 

operational effectiveness in contractor 

performance. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Department proposes to amend its 

Acquisition Regulation to eliminate the 

requirement that M&O contractors 

prepare and maintain formal make-orbuy plans. 

The Department proposes to amend 

the clause at 970.5203–1 entitled 

‘‘Management Controls’’ and the clause 

at 970.5203–2 entitled ‘‘Performance 

Improvement and Collaboration’’ by 

adding a requirement in both clauses for 

contractors to consider outsourcing as a 

mechanism to introduce improvements 

in the management of the contract. 

Outsourcing would be one of many 

options available for improving the 

contractor’s cost effectiveness and 

performance. 

In addition, the Department is 

proposing to amend the clause entitled 

Contractor Purchasing System by 

removing and reserving paragraph (n) 

entitled ‘‘Make-or-Buy Plans.’’

II. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The Department proposes to amend 

the DEAR as follows.

1. Sections 901.105 would be 

amended to delete the reference to the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

OMB, number for make-or-buy plans. 

2. Section 970.1504–4–1 through 

970.1504–4–3 would be eliminated. 

3. Section 970.1504–5(b) would be 

eliminated. 

4. Section 970.5203–1 would be 

amended to provide outsourcing of 

functions for considerations of efficient 

and effective operations. 

5. Section 970.5203–2 would be 

amended to provide a requirement for 

contractors to consider outsourcing as a 

mechanism to increase improvement in 

the management of the contract. 

6. Section 970.5215–2 would be 

eliminated. 

7. Section 970.5244–1 would be 

amended to remove and reserve 

paragraph (n). 

III. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

This regulatory action has been 

determined not to be a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this rule is not subject to 

review under the Executive Order by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) within the OMB. 

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), 

imposes on Executive agencies the 

general duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. With regard to 

the review required by section 3(a), 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, these 

regulations meet the relevant standards 

of Executive Order 12988. 

C. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., which requires 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any rule that 

must be proposed for public comment 

and that is likely to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on small entities 

because no small entities are DOE M&O 

contractors and because the rule would 

eliminate the existing burden of 

preparing make-or-buy analyses. 

Accordingly, DOE certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis has been prepared. 

D. Review Under Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

Information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements contained 

in this rulemaking have been previously 

cleared under OMB paperwork 

clearance package number 1910–5102. 

The existing burden will be removed by 

this rulemaking. 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has concluded that promulgation 

of this proposed rule falls into a class of 

actions which would not individually or 

cumulatively have significant impact on 

the human environment, as determined 

by DOE’s regulations (10 CFR Part 1021, 

Subpart D) implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

Specifically, this proposed rule is 

categorically excluded from NEPA 

review because the amendments to the 

DEAR would be strictly procedural 

(categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, 

this proposed rule does not require an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment pursuant to 

NEPA. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 4, 1999) imposes certain 

requirements on agencies formulating 

and implementing policies or 

regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. 

Agencies are required to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and carefully assess the necessity 

for such actions. DOE has examined 

today’s rule and has determined that it 

does not preempt State law and does not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. No further action 

is required by Executive Order 13132. 

75020 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires a 

Federal agency to perform a detailed 

assessment of costs and benefits of any 

rule imposing a Federal Mandate with 

costs to State, local or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any single year. 

This rulemaking does not impose a 

Federal mandate on State, local or tribal 

governments or on the private sector. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277), requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

or policy that may affect family wellbeing. This rule will have no impact on 

family well being. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use, (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the OIRA, Office 

of Management and Budget, a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

Today’s rule is not a significant 

energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001, 

44 U.S.C. 3516, note, provides for 

agencies to review most disseminations 

of information to the public under 

implementing guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s notice under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Approval by the Office of the 

Secretary of Energy 

The Office of the Secretary of Energy 

has approved issuance of this proposed 

rule.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 901 and 

970 

Government procurement.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 8, 

2004. 

Richard H. Hopf, 

Director, Office of Procurement and 

Assistance Management, Office of 

Management, Budget and Evaluation, 

Department of Energy.

Robert C. Braden, Jr., 

Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply 

Management, National Nuclear Security 

Administration.

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend 

Chapter 9 of Title 48 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

1. The authority citation for part 901 

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 

2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et. seq.; 41 U.S.C. 

418b; 50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.

PART 901—FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

REGULATIONS SYSTEM 

2. Section 901.105 is amended by 

revising the second sentence to read as 

follows:

901.105 OMB control numbers. 

* * * The OMB control number for 

the collection of information under 48 

CFR chapter 9 is 1910–4100 except for 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements for Safety Management 

(see 48 CFR 970.5223–1) which is 1910–

5103. 

3. The authority citation for part 970 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 

2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et. seq.; 41 U.S.C. 

418b; 50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.

PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT AND 

OPERATING CONTRACTS

970.1504–4–1–970.1504–4–3 [Removed 

and Reserved] 

4. Sections 970.1504–4–1 through 

970.1504–4–3 are removed and 

reserved.

970.1504–5 [Amended] 

5. Section 970.1504–5 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b), and 

redesignating paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) 

as paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) 

respectively.

970.5203–1 [Amended] 

6. Section 970.5203–1 is amended by 

revising the clause date to read [Date 

(Month and Year) 30 days following the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] and by adding in 

paragraph (a)(1), second sentence, the 

words ‘‘including consideration of 

outsourcing of functions’’ after the word 

‘‘promoted’’.

970.5203–2 [Amended] 

7. Section 970.5203–2, is amended by 

revising the clause date to read [Date 

(Month and Year) 30 days following the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] and by adding in 

paragraph (a), last sentence, the words 

‘‘outsourcing decisions,’’ after the words 

‘‘changes in organization.’’

970.5215–2 [Removed and Reserved] 

8. Section 970.5215–2, Make-or-Buy 

plan, is removed and reserved. 

9. Section 970.5244–1 is amended by 

revising the clause date and by 

removing and reserving paragraph (n) to 

read as follows:

970.5244–1 Contractor purchasing 

system. 

***

Contractor Purchasing System 

[Date (Month and Year) 30 days 

following date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register]

* * * * *

(n) [Removed and Reserved].

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–27417 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19840] 

RIN 2127–AH34 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Door Locks and Door 

Retention Components and Side 

Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Department of 

Transportation.