Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 76067 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN REGULATIONS—Continued 

Michigan citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Part 19. New Source Review for Major Sources Impacting Nonattainment Areas 

R 336.2901 .................................. Definitions .................................... 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, [INSERT 

PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

R 336.2901a ................................ Adoption by reference ................. 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, [INSERT 

PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

R 336.2902 .................................. Applicability .................................. 6/20/2008 12/16/2013, [INSERT 

PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

R 336.2903 .................................. Additional permit requirements 

for sources impacting nonattainment areas.

6/20/2008 12/16/2013, [INSERT 

PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

R 336.2907 .................................. Plantwide applicability limits or 

PALs.

6/20/2008 12/16/2013, [INSERT 

PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

R 336.2908 .................................. Conditions for approval of a 

major new source review permit in a nonattainment area.

6/20/2008 12/16/2013, [INSERT 

PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

[FR Doc. 2013–29555 Filed 12–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 211, 212, 218, 246, 252, 

and Appendix F to Chapter 2 

RIN 0750–AH64 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Item Unique 

Identifier Update (DFARS Case 2011– 

D055) 

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 update and clarify 

requirements for unique identification 

and valuation of items delivered under 

DoD contracts. 

DATES: Effective December 16, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Dustin Pitsch, telephone 571–372–6090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register at 77 FR 35921 on June 

15, 2012. The comment period closed 

on August 14, 2012. This rule proposed 

to revise the prescription and the clause 

at DFARS 252.211–7003 to update and 

clarify instructions for the identification 

and valuation processes. Five 

respondents submitted public 

comments in response to the proposed 

rule. 

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 final rule incorporates the 

following significant changes from the 

proposed rule: 

• Paragraphs 211.274–2(a)(2) and (3) 

are revised to consolidate requirements. 

• The definition of ‘‘data matrix’’ 

within the clause at 252.211–7003 is 

modified from the proposed rule to 

clarify the specification with which 

contractors must comply. 

• The words ‘‘at its own expense’’ at 

252.211–7003(c)(1)(v) are removed as a 

result of a public comment. 

• The statement ‘‘or registered in the 

DoD Item Unique Identification 

Registry’’ is added at 252.211– 

7003(c)(2). 

• The phrase ‘‘ECC200 data matrix 

specification’’ is added at 252.211– 

7003(c)(3) to note the exact specification 

within the listed standard. 

• 252.211–7003(c)(5)(D) is revised to 

read ‘‘Verify that the marks on items 

and labels on shipments, storage 

containers, and packages are machine 

readable and conform to the applicable 

standards. The contractor shall use an 

automatic identification technology 

device for this verification that has been 

programmed to the requirements of 

Appendix A, MIL–STD–130, latest 

version.’’ 

• 252.211–7003(f)(1) is revised to 

include the sentence ‘‘If WAWF is not 

required by this contract, and the 

contractor is not using WAWF, follow 

the procedure at http://

dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site/

uidregistry/.’’ 

• 252.211–7003(f)(2)(ii) is revised to 

clarify that a fill-in is necessary when 

this circumstance applies. 

• Changes previously proposed to 

update the Web site at 252.225– 

7039(b)(1)(ii)(B) are no longer required 

as DFARS final rule 2013–D037 

published November 18, 2013 deleted 

this clause as coverage is now located in 

the FAR. 

• In Appendix F–103(e)(1), the last 

sentence is revised to read ‘‘WAWF 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
76068 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

shall be used to report Unique Item 

Identifiers (UIIs) at the line item level, 

unless an exception to WAWF applies, 

and can also be used to report UIIs 

embedded at the line item level.’’ 

• In Appendix F paragraph F– 

301(b)(18)(i), the fifth sentence in this 

paragraph is revised to read: ‘‘However, 

if the contract has Item Unique 

Identification (IUID) requirements and 

the receiving report is being processed 

in WAWF the unit price must represent 

the acquisition cost that will be 

recorded in the IUID registry.’’ This 

change is being made to ensure the 

instructions in Appendix F conform to 

the coverage in the clause. 

B. Analysis of Public Comments 

1. Commercial Provision/Clause List 

Comment: One respondent noted that 

DFARS clause 252.211–7003 is in the 

commercial provision/clause list at 

DFARS 212.301(f)(iv), and 

recommended that clause 252.211–7007 

be added. 

Response: Clause 252.211–7007 was 

added on August, 29, 2012, to the 

commercial provision/clause list at 

212.301(f) as the result of DFARS final 

rule 2012–D001, Reporting of 

Government-Furnished Property. 

2. Burden Added by New Reporting 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the rule adds new reporting 

requirements that will add to the burden 

of reporting. The respondent noted that 

the reporting requirements for special 

tooling, special test equipment, 

warranty items and type designation of 

items are all new with this rule. 

Response: Reporting of items of 

special tooling or special test equipment 

for a major defense acquisition program, 

which is designated for preservation 

and storage in accordance with the 

requirements of section 815 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110–417), is 

required to register and track these 

items. The special tooling, special test 

equipment, and warranty requirements 

have already been accounted for under 

final rule 2012–D001, Reporting of 

Government-Furnished Property. 

Reporting of warranty serialized items is 

required to identify and track warranted 

items so that DoD can obtain warranty 

benefits. Reporting of type designation 

is required to properly account for end 

items of DoD equipment and is a burden 

on the Government to ensure that it is 

added to line item structure. This is 

critical for auditability of property 

accountability. 

3. Benefits/Outcome 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that the benefits listed at 

DFARS 211.274–1 in the proposed rule 

would only occur with proper 

implementation and suggests adding 

text to clarify that merely tracking items 

will not automatically achieve desired 

results. 

Response: DoD recognizes that item 

unique identification is a prerequisite to 

enabling enhancements in DoD logistics, 

contracting, and financial business 

transactions. 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that the additional funding 

needed to implement the requirements 

merely changes where the budget 

impact hits, on invoices submitted by 

contractors rather than DoD achieving 

the necessary line item increases. The 

respondent also stated that the 

contractors’ workforce burden is greatly 

increased by having additional quality 

inspection requirements, having to UID 

mark the additional items such as 

Government-furnished material (GFM), 

having to enter the items in the UID 

Registry, having increased physical 

inventory responsibilities, having 

additional steps to carry out when 

transferring contractor-acquired material 

at no cost to another contract (becomes 

GFM), subsequent mandatory 

verifications, and new packaging 

requirements, and that these additional 

burdens represent neither increased 

productivity nor increased efficiency. 

Response: The cost burden of 

implementing item unique 

identification was recognized as an 

allowable cost in the Director, Defense 

Procurement and Acquisition Policy, 

Memorandum, dated July 9, 2004, 

Subject: ‘‘Contract Pricing and Cost 

Accounting Compliance with DFARS 

252.211–7003’’, and this case does not 

change the way DoD is using item 

unique identification. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

this requirement is passing a nontrivial 

DoD records responsibility along to the 

contractor in the immediate time frame, 

with no concurrent change in contract 

dollars to pay for the activity (unless 

through billing under a cost type 

contract), and suggested deleting the 

revision to 211.274–2(a)(4)(v), which 

makes item unique identification 

required for any, ‘‘DoD serially managed 

item (reparable or nonreparable).’’ 

Response: The intent is not to pass the 

records responsibility to the contractors, 

since the change applies to contracts, 

which include this clause; therefore the 

mechanism for paying the contractor to 

perform the activity can be included in 

the contract price. Note that in the final 

rule this criterion is now located at 

211.274–2(a)(3)(i). 

4. Policy Is Unreasonable 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that the marking 

requirements implemented by this rule 

are impracticable and would put 

contractors at risk of charging the 

Government for unallowable 

unreasonable costs, noting that a 

reasonable cost is described in FAR 

31.201–3(a): ‘‘A cost is reasonable if in 

its nature and amount, it does not 

exceed that which would be incurred by 

a prudent person in the conduct of 

competitive business . . .’’ The 

respondent also noted that the 

implementing marking requirements in 

this rule would constitute abuse as 

defined in the Government 

Accountability Office Yellow Book: 

‘‘Abuse involves behavior that is 

deficient or improper when compared 

with behavior that a prudent person 

would consider a reasonable and 

necessary business practice given the 

facts and circumstances . . .’’ 

Response: This case is not changing 

existing policy for reporting IUID; it is 

clarifying the categories of items subject 

to item unique identification and the 

methods for reporting items to the DoD 

Item Unique Identification Registry. 

5. Warranty Cost 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that warranted serialized items that 

require IUID be identified in the 

contract due to the significant 

administrative cost that would be 

incurred if IUID is required on all 

warranted serialized items. The 

suggested change would modify the text 

at 211.274–2(a)(4)(iii) to read: 

‘‘Warranted serialized item as identified 

in the contract.’’ 

Response: The DFARS 211.274– 

2(a)(4)(iii) reference, which the 

respondent proposed revising, reflects 

long-standing DoD policy that DoD 

unique item identification, or DoD 

recognized unique identification 

equivalent, is required for any 

warranted serialized item. See DFARS 

final rule 2009–D018 (76 33166 

published June 8, 2011). 

6. Special Test Equipment 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended against requiring IUID for 

special test equipment because special 

test equipment becomes obsolete too 

quickly. 

Response: DFARS 211.274–2(3)(iv) 

implements the policy of Public Law 

110–417, which requires that major 

defense acquisition programs designate 

items of special tooling and special test 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 76069 

equipment for preservation and storage 

upon the termination of production. 

Any issues concerning obsolescence of 

special test equipment at the 

termination of production would be 

mitigated by the program manager by 

following the guidance in SD–22, 

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and 

Material Shortages: A Guidebook of Best 

Practices for Implementing a Robust 

DMSMS Management Program, dated 

August 2012. 

7. New Requirements 

Comment: One respondent pointed 

out that the requirements at 211.274– 

2(a)(4)(v) and (vi) are both new 

requirements and contradict the rule’s 

statement that no new requirements are 

being added. The respondent 

recommends modifying the text at 

211.274–2(a)(4)(vi) to add ‘‘as defined in 

the contract’’ to the end of the sentence. 

Response: These requirements are not 

considered to be new requirements as 

they are clarifying and formalizing 

existing practices, and they are not 

anticipated to add any additional 

burden to the information collection 

required by the rule. In the final rule 

these criteria are located within 

211.274–2(a)(3). 

8. Marking 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that the required determination and 

findings conclusions stated in 211.274– 

2(b)(2) are three separate exceptions and 

should be listed exclusively. 

Response: There are only two 

conditions for the 211.274–2(b)(2) 

exceptions. They are: (1) it is more cost 

effective for the Government requiring 

activity to assign, mark, and register the 

unique item identifier after delivery for 

an item acquired from a small business 

concern, and (2) it is more cost effective 

for the Government requiring activity to 

assign, mark, and register the unique 

item identifier after delivery for a 

commercial item acquired under FAR 

part 8 or part 12. 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that the marking 

requirement at 252.211–7003(c)(1)(v) 

would not benefit the Government or 

the contractor and will ultimately lead 

to additional cost to the Government. 

The respondent suggested removing this 

requirement from the clause. 

Response: DFARS 252.211– 

7003(c)(1)(v) only addresses items for 

which the contractor elects to create and 

mark a unique item identifier with a 

data matrix for its own purposes of 

traceability, even though the item is 

delivered to DoD and does not require 

DoD unique identification. This 

provision is included to ensure that any 

items marked under it and subsequently 

delivered to DoD will be reported to the 

DoD Item Unique Identification Registry 

by the contractor to avoid having DoD 

items with unique identification 

markings that are not registered. 

Comment: One respondent opined 

that the requirement added at 252.211– 

7003(c)(5)(i)(D) to verify that IUID 

markings are readable and that they 

conform with the applicable standards 

is too broad of a requirement that adds 

unnecessary redundancy to the marking 

process and would serve only to 

increase cost that would be passed on to 

the Government. 

Response: DFARS 252.211– 

7003(c)(5)(i)(B) requires that unique 

item identifier marking comply with the 

criteria of MIL STD 130, Identification 

Marking of U.S. Military Property, latest 

version. Paragraph 252.211– 

7003(c)(5)(i)(C) requires that shipments, 

storage containers, and packages that 

contain uniquely identified items be 

labeled in accordance with the 

requirements of MIL STD 129, latest 

version. The 252.211–7003(c)(5)(i)(D) 

provision to verify that unique item 

identifier markings are readable and that 

they conform with the applicable 

standards is a prudent requirement to 

assure compliance with paragraphs (B) 

and (C). 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended deleting ‘‘or when item 

unique identification is provided under 

paragraph (c)(1)(v)’’ and instead adding 

‘‘either as part of, or associated with’’ at 

252.211–7003(d) in order to enable 

reporting IUID-related data elements to 

the Registry for occasional use of paper 

material inspection and receiving 

reports. 

Response: The purpose of the 

252.211–7003(d) and (e) clause language 

is to require reporting of the item 

unique identification data to the DoD 

Item Unique Identification Registry for 

end items and embedded items, 

respectively, marked with a unique item 

identifier. Paragraph (f) of 252.211–7003 

specifies the various methods for 

reporting these data. 

9. Tracking Buildings or Property 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

editing the prescription for clause 

252.211–7003 to specify that it applies 

to ‘‘tangible durable personal property’’ 

supplies to clarify that it does not apply 

to real property. 

Response: The inclusion of the term 

‘‘item’’, which is defined in 252.211– 

7003(a) as a single hardware article or 

a single unit formed by a grouping of 

subassemblies, components, or 

constituent parts, is a sufficient 

distinction to avoid confusion with real 

property. 

10. Definitions 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that the definition for ‘‘data 

matrix’’ is not true all of the time as in 

some circumstances the modules in the 

matrix can be round. 

Response: As specified in 252.211– 

7003(c)(3), DoD will only accept a data 

matrix symbol that complies with ISO/ 

IEC International Standard 16022, 

Information Technology—International 

Symbology Specification—Data Matrix. 

This standard defines a module as a 

single cell in a matrix symbology used 

to encode one bit of data. In data matrix, 

the module is nominally a square shape. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

modifying the definition for ‘‘type 

designation’’ because the explanation of 

a complete ‘‘item’’ is inconsistent with 

other instances within the regulations, 

standards, and guides. 

Response: To be consistent with other 

instances of ‘‘type designation’’ usage, 

the words ‘‘a complete item, such as’’ 

are not included in the final rule. 

11. Unit 

Comment: One respondents suggested 

modifying 252.211–7003(c)(1)(i) because 

the use of the term ‘‘unit’’ is 

inconsistent with other instances within 

the regulations, standards, and guides. 

Response: 252.211–7003(c)(1)(i) uses 

the term ‘‘unit acquisition cost’’, which 

is the actual cost at the time of purchase 

and is the proper measure of value. 

12. Internal Use Items 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

editing 252.211–7003(c)(3) to include an 

exemption on marking items that are for 

internal use only. 

Response: The DoD requirement is to 

have the contractor mark items that are 

delivered to DoD under the terms of a 

contract and to allow the collection of 

data where contractors voluntarily mark 

items. 

13. MIL STD 130 and MIL STD 129 

Comment: One respondent noted that 

requiring adherence to a military 

standard (e.g., MIL STD 130 and MIL 

STD 129) creates an open ended 

standard that would not be possible to 

price at the time of award and requests 

the deletion of 252.211–7003(c)(5)(i)(D) 

language: ‘‘Verify that the marks on 

items, shipments and storage containers 

and packages are machine readable and 

conform to the applicable standards.’’ 

The respondent also suggested 

clarifying that the requirement 

corresponds to the standard in place at 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
76070 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the time of award and should be cited 

in the contract. 

Response: This is a function of 

compliance with the requirements of 

MIL–STD–130 and MIL–STD–129, 

which are accomplished as a matter of 

course prior to the delivery of marked 

items. Clause 252.211–7003 requires 

compliance with the latest versions of 

MIL STD 130 and MIL STD 129 as of the 

time of award. 

Comment: One respondent requested 

adding language that states the MIL STD 

129 requirement should only apply to 

shipping. 

Response: The requirement at 

252.211–7003(c)(5)(i)(C) reinforces the 

requirements in paragraph 4.4 of MIL 

STD 129 that ‘‘For shipments of UII 

items, the 2D (PDF417) symbol shall be 

used for listing the concatenated UIIs 

(DI 25S) and the data normally included 

in the linear (Code 39) identification bar 

codes (see 4.4.2.3 and 4.4.3.3.1).’’ MIL– 

STD–129 requirements only apply to 

markings on labels and containers of 

items being shipped or stored, as 

specified in the contract. 

14. Text Clarification 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

editing the new text at 252.211– 

7003(d)(12) to read ‘‘Type designation of 

the item when specified in the contract 

specifications.’’ The respondent noted 

that this change would clarify that this 

information is only required when it has 

been provided in the contract. 

Response: 252.211–7003(d)(12) is 

modified in the final rule to read: ‘‘Type 

designation of the item as specified in 

the contract schedule, if any.’’ Use of 

the term ‘‘specifications’’ is not 

appropriate in this instance. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

editing the new text at 252.211– 

7003(d)(14) to read: ‘‘Whether the item 

was sold with a limited warranty.’’ The 

respondent opined that tracking if items 

were sold with a warranty makes more 

sense than tracking if the item is 

covered by a warranty because most 

warranties expire and there is no 

current process for updating this 

information. 

Response: The DoD requirement is to 

determine if the item is covered by a 

warranty at the time it is delivered to 

the DoD. If the contractor acquires an 

item under warranty and subsequently 

delivers it to DoD, then DoD wants to 

gain the benefits of that warranty. 

DFARS subpart 246.7 provides 

procedures for capturing warranty 

details, including duration. 

15. Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended editing 252.211– 

7003(f)(1) to allow contractors the 

option of submitting item information 

directly to the registry without the 

stipulation ‘‘If WAWF is not required by 

this contract’’. 

Response: If the WAWF clause 

252.232–7003 is in the contract, then 

WAWF shall be used to deliver the item 

unique identification data to the DoD 

Item Unique Identification Registry. If 

the WAWF clause is not in the contract, 

then direct submission will have to be 

used. This ensures that the data about 

the item is reviewed as part of 

inspection and acceptance of the item. 

16. Registration/Reporting 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

removing the words ‘‘DoD serially 

managed reparables’’ from the 

requirement at 252.211–7003(c)(1)(iii). 

Response: DoD serially managed 

reparables may be for new acquisition or 

be furnished to a contractor for repair. 

In either case, they shall be subject to 

item unique identification marking. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

adding notes to the new requirements at 

252.211–7003(c)(1)(iii) and (iv) to clarify 

which category of items these refer to 

out of the categories ‘‘ACQ’’ or ‘‘GFP’’. 

Response: The comment applies to 

the registration process. Links to 

instructions for reporting item unique 

identification data to the DoD Item 

Unique Identification Registry are found 

in 252.211–7003(f). 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

removing ‘‘at its own expense’’ from 

252.211–7003(c)(1)(v). 

Response: The phrase ‘‘at its own 

expense’’ is deleted from 252.211– 

7003(c)(1)(v). 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

adding a line at 252.211–7003(c)(vi), 

which would state: ‘‘DoD serially 

managed reparables as specified in 

Attachment Number ll. (Note: 

Corresponds to IUID Registry Category 

‘‘LEG’’).’’ 

Response: DoD serially managed 

reparables may be for new acquisitions 

or be furnished to a contractor for 

repair. In either case they would be 

subject to item unique identification 

marking. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

revising 252.211–7003(c)(2), to state: 

‘‘The unique item identifier assignment 

and the component data element 

combination shall not be duplicated on 

any other item marked and/or registered 

in the IUID Registry by the contractor 

(because STE (GFP) may have a UII 

assigned and registered, but not 

marked).’’ 

Response: DFARS 252.211–7003(c)(2) 

is revised to read: ‘‘The unique item 

identifier assignment and component 

data element combination shall not be 

duplicated on any other item marked or 

registered in the DoD Item Unique 

Identification Registry by the 

contractor.’’ 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

adding a nine-item list of pieces of 

information to be submitted directly to 

the IUID Registry for legacy items at 

252.211–7003(f), similar to the list in 

the proposed rule at 252.211–7003(e). 

Response: Instructions for reporting 

item unique identification data on 

reparable items furnished to a contractor 

for repair are included under 252.211– 

7003(d). 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

adding a new 252.211–7003(f)(3), which 

would state: ‘‘reparable items shall be 

reported by direct data submission to 

the IUID Registry following the 

procedures and formats at: http://

www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/uid/data_

submission_information.html.’’ 

Response: The reparables furnished to 

a contractor for repair would be 

reported as either end items or 

embedded items under (f)(1) or (f)(2), as 

appropriate. 

17. Government-Furnished Property 

(GFP) Policy Changes 

Comment: One respondent disagrees 

with changing 211.274–4 to address 

GFP instead of Government-furnished 

equipment and noted that not all of the 

exceptions to GFP would have been 

considered GFP anyhow. This 

respondent stated that the changes made 

to this section, to include the removal 

of exceptions for items valued at less 

than $5,000 and Government-furnished 

material, will be extremely burdensome 

to large contractors and will add tens of 

thousands of items that will need to be 

marked and tracked with IUID and 

recommended that the policy changes 

not be made. 

Response: The text at 211.274–4 was 

modified on August 29th, 2012, by final 

rule 2012–D001 and is not further 

modified by this rule. The five 

exceptions in the proposed rule were 

incorporated into the DFARS by the 

final rule 2012–D001 as well as two 

other exceptions: ‘‘Property released as 

work in process’’ and ‘‘Nonserial 

managed items (reporting is limited to 

receipt transactions only).’’ 

18. Business Systems Rule 

Comment: One respondent disagrees 

with limiting this rule to small 

businesses involved in manufacturing. 

This respondent stated that the business 

systems rule came to pass because major 

contractors’ business systems were 

assessed as poor, so a control 

environment argument is unwarranted. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 76071 

The respondent also stated that the 

exposure is greater at major contractors, 

and major contractors are more likely to 

use SAP AG software, which abrogates 

the loan/payback transaction. 

Response: This comment is outside 

the scope of this case. The scope is 

limited to clarifying the categories of 

items subject to item unique 

identification and the methods for 

reporting items to the DoD Item Unique 

Identification Registry. 

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. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD does not expect this final rule to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 

because the changes being made do not 

increase the burden of the item unique 

identification requirements, nor do they 

cause the requirement to be applicable 

to any additional small businesses. 

However, 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: 

The changes are being made to refine 

the language of the regulations and 

update the clause and prescription to 

comply with existing item unique 

identification policy. This DFARS final 

rule also clarifies the reporting 

requirements for special tooling and 

special test equipment, warranty, and 

type designation, updates text to 

describe the reason for the policy, clears 

up language that has been confusing in 

practice, and adds an alternative 

method of data submission using either 

hard copy or a wide-area-workflow 

attachment. The rule also eliminates 

Alternate I of DFARS 252.211–7003, 

which cited reporting requirements 

covered by other mechanisms. 

This rule will apply to small 

businesses involved in manufacturing. 

There are currently 1,495 small 

businesses registered in the Item Unique 

Identification Registry, out of 2,431 total 

companies registered. The changes 

made by this rule will not affect the 

number of businesses that are required 

to be registered in the Item Unique 

Identification Registry. 

There were no comments in response 

to the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis. The Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration did not file any 

comments. 

This rule does not add any new 

information collection requirements as 

it only clarifies existing requirements. 

The rule does not duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with any other Federal rules. 

No alternatives were determined that 

will accomplish the objectives of the 

rule. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not add any new 

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) beyond those already 

covered by OMB Control Numbers 

0704–0246 and 0704–0248. OMB 

Control Number 0704–0246, titled 

‘‘Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulations Supplement (DFARS) Part 

245, Government Property, related 

clauses in DFARS 252, and related 

forms in DFARS 253,’’ includes 

information collection requirements for 

DFARS subpart 211.274. OMB Control 

Number 0704–0248, titled ‘‘Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulations 

Supplement (DFARS) Appendix F, 

Material Inspection and Receiving 

Report and related forms,’’ covers all 

information submitted through the Wide 

Area WorkFlow system. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 211, 

212, 218, 246, 252, and Appendix F to 

Chapter 2 

Government procurement. 

Manuel Quinones, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 211, 212, 218, 

246, 252, and Appendix F to Chapter 2 

are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 211, 212, 218, 246, 252, and 

Appendix F to chapter 2 continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCY 

NEEDS 

■ 2. Section 211.274–1 is revised to read 

as follows: 

211.274–1 General. 

Item unique identification and 

valuation is a system of marking, 

valuing, and tracking items delivered to 

DoD that enhances logistics, contracting, 

and financial business transactions 

supporting the United States and 

coalition troops. Through item unique 

identification policy, which capitalizes 

on leading practices and embraces open 

standards, DoD— 

(a) Achieves lower life-cycle cost of 

item management and improves lifecycle property management; 

(b) Improves operational readiness; 

(c) Provides reliable accountability of 

property and asset visibility throughout 

the life cycle; 

(d) Reduces the burden on the 

workforce through increased 

productivity and efficiency; and 

(e) Ensures item level traceability 

throughout lifecycle to strengthen 

supply chain integrity, enhance cyber 

security, and combat counterfeiting. 

■ 3. Section 211.274–2 is amended by— 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(2). 

The revisions read as follows: 

211.274–2 Policy for item unique 

identification. 

(a) It is DoD policy that DoD item 

unique identification, or a DoD 

recognized unique identification 

equivalent, is required for all delivered 

items, including items of contractoracquired property delivered on contract 

line items (see PGI 245.402–71 for 

guidance when delivery of contractor 

acquired property is required)— 

(1) For which the Government’s unit 

acquisition cost is $5,000 or more; 

(2) For which the Government’s unit 

acquisition cost is less than $5,000 

when the requiring activity determines 

that item unique identification is 

required for mission essential or 

controlled inventory items; or 

(3) Regardless of value for any— 

(i) DoD serially managed item 

(reparable or nonreparable) or 

subassembly, component, or part 

embedded within a subassembly, 

component, or part; 

(ii) Parent item (as defined in 

252.211–7003(a)) that contains the 

embedded subassembly, component, or 

part; 

(iii) Warranted serialized item; 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
76072 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(iv) Item of special tooling or special 

test equipment, as defined at FAR 2.101, 

for a major defense acquisition program 

that is designated for preservation and 

storage in accordance with the 

requirements of section 815 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110–417); and 

(v) High risk item identified by the 

requiring activity as vulnerable to 

supply chain threat, a target of cyber 

threats, or counterfeiting. 

(b) Exceptions. The contractor will 

not be required to provide DoD item 

unique identification if— 

* * * * * 

(2) A determination and findings has 

been executed concluding that it is more 

cost effective for the Government 

requiring activity to assign, mark, and 

register the unique item identifier after 

delivery, and the item is either acquired 

from a small business concern, or is a 

commercial item acquired under FAR 

part 12 or part 8. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 211.274–3 is amended by— 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); and 

■ b. Amending paragraph (c) by 

removing the word ‘‘need’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘shall’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

211.274–3 Policy for valuation. 

(a) It is DoD policy that contractors 

shall be required to identify the 

Government’s unit acquisition cost for 

all deliverable end items to which item 

unique identification applies. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 211.274–6 is amended by— 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); and 

■ b. Amending paragraph (c)(1) by 

removing the clause title ‘‘Item 

Identification and Valuation’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘Item Unique 

Identification and Valuation’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

211.274–6 Contract clauses. 

(a)(1) Use the clause at 252.211–7003, 

Item Unique Identification and 

Valuation, in solicitations and contracts, 

including solicitations and contracts 

using FAR part 12 procedures for the 

acquisition of commercial items, that 

require item identification or valuation, 

or both, in accordance with 211.274–2 

and 211.274–3. 

(2) Identify in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of 

the clause the contract line, subline, or 

exhibit line item number and 

description of any item(s) below $5,000 

in unit acquisition cost for which DoD 

item unique identification or a DoD 

recognized unique identification 

equivalent is required in accordance 

with 211.274–2(a)(2). 

(3) Identify in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of 

the clause the applicable attachment 

number, when DoD item unique 

identification or a DoD recognized 

unique identification equivalent is 

required in accordance with 211.274– 

2(a)(3)(i) through (v). 

* * * * * 

PART 212—ACQUISITION OF 

COMMERCIAL ITEMS 

212.301 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 212.301 is amended in 

paragraph (f)(ix) by removing the clause 

title ‘‘Item Identification and Valuation’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘Item Unique 

Identification and Valuation’’. 

PART 218—EMERGENCY 

ACQUISITIONS 

■ 7. Section 218.201(2) is revised to 

read as follows: 

218.201 Contingency operation. 

* * * * * 

(2) Policy for item unique 

identification. Contractors will not be 

required to provide DoD item unique 

identification if the items, as 

determined by the head of the agency, 

are to be used to support a contingency 

operation. See 211.274–2(b). 

* * * * * 

PART 246—QUALITY ASSURANCE 

246.710 [Amended] 

■ 8. Section 246.710 is amended in 

paragraph (5)(i) introductory text by 

removing the clause title ‘‘Item 

Identification and Valuation’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘Item Unique 

Identification and Valuation’’. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 9. Amend section 252.211–7003 by— 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. Revising the clause heading and the 

clause date; 

■ c. Amending paragraph (a) by 

removing the definition title ‘‘DoD 

unique item identification’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘DoD item unique 

identification’’; 

■ d. Adding to paragraph (a), in 

alphabetical order, definitions for ‘‘Data 

matrix’’ and ‘‘Type designation’’; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text; 

■ g. Adding paragraphs (d)(12) through 

(14); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (e) introductory 

text; 

■ i. Revising paragraph (f); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (g); and 

■ k. Removing Alternate I. 

252.211–7003 Item unique identification 

and valuation. 

* * * * * 

ITEM UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AND 

VALUATION (DEC 2013) 

(a) * * * 

Data matrix means a two-dimensional 

matrix symbology, which is made up of 

square or, in some cases, round modules 

arranged within a perimeter finder 

pattern and uses the Error Checking and 

Correction 200 (ECC200) specification 

found within International Standards 

Organization (ISO)/International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

16022. 

* * * * * 

Type designation means a 

combination of letters and numerals 

assigned by the Government to a major 

end item, assembly or subassembly, as 

appropriate, to provide a convenient 

means of differentiating between items 

having the same basic name and to 

indicate modifications and changes 

thereto. 

* * * * * 

(c) Unique item identifier. (1) The 

Contractor shall provide a unique item 

identifier for the following: 

(i) Delivered items for which the 

Government’s unit acquisition cost is 

$5,000 or more, except for the following 

line items: 

Contract line, subline, 

or exhibit line item 

No. 

Item description 

(ii) Items for which the Government’s 

unit acquisition cost is less than $5,000 

that are identified in the Schedule or the 

following table: 

Contract line, subline, 

or exhibit line item 

No. 

Item description 

(If items are identified in the Schedule, 

insert ‘‘See Schedule’’ in this table.) 

(iii) Subassemblies, components, and 

parts embedded within delivered items, 

items with warranty requirements, DoD 

serially managed reparables and DoD 

serially managed nonreparables as 

specified in Attachment Number ll. 

(iv) Any item of special tooling or 

special test equipment as defined in 

FAR 2.101 that have been designated for 

preservation and storage for a Major 

Defense Acquisition Program as 

specified in Attachment Number ll. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 76073 

(v) Any item not included in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of 

this clause for which the contractor 

creates and marks a unique item 

identifier for traceability. 

(2) The unique item identifier 

assignment and its component data 

element combination shall not be 

duplicated on any other item marked or 

registered in the DoD Item Unique 

Identification Registry by the contractor. 

(3) The unique item identifier 

component data elements shall be 

marked on an item using two 

dimensional data matrix symbology that 

complies with ISO/IEC International 

Standard 16022, Information 

technology—International symbology 

specification—Data matrix; ECC200 data 

matrix specification. 

(4) Data syntax and semantics of 

unique item identifiers. The Contractor 

shall ensure that— 

(i) The data elements (except issuing 

agency code) of the unique item 

identifier are encoded within the data 

matrix symbol that is marked on the 

item using one of the following three 

types of data qualifiers, as determined 

by the Contractor: 

(A) Application Identifiers (AIs) 

(Format Indicator 05 of ISO/IEC 

International Standard 15434), in 

accordance with ISO/IEC International 

Standard 15418, Information 

Technology—EAN/UCC Application 

Identifiers and Fact Data Identifiers and 

Maintenance and ANSI MH 10.8.2 Data 

Identifier and Application Identifier 

Standard. 

(B) Data Identifiers (DIs) (Format 

Indicator 06 of ISO/IEC International 

Standard 15434), in accordance with 

ISO/IEC International Standard 15418, 

Information Technology—EAN/UCC 

Application Identifiers and Fact Data 

Identifiers and Maintenance and ANSI 

MH 10.8.2 Data Identifier and 

Application Identifier Standard. 

(C) Text Element Identifiers (TEIs) 

(Format Indicator 12 of ISO/IEC 

International Standard 15434), in 

accordance with the Air Transport 

Association Common Support Data 

Dictionary; and 

(ii) The encoded data elements of the 

unique item identifier conform to the 

transfer structure, syntax, and coding of 

messages and data formats specified for 

Format Indicators 05, 06, and 12 in ISO/ 

IEC International Standard 15434, 

Information Technology-Transfer 

Syntax for High Capacity Automatic 

Data Capture Media. 

(5) Unique item identifier. 

(i) The Contractor shall— 

(A) Determine whether to— 

(1) Serialize within the enterprise 

identifier; 

(2) Serialize within the part, lot, or 

batch number; or 

(3) Use a DoD recognized unique 

identification equivalent (e.g. Vehicle 

Identification Number); and 

(B) Place the data elements of the 

unique item identifier (enterprise 

identifier; serial number; DoD 

recognized unique identification 

equivalent; and for serialization within 

the part, lot, or batch number only: 

Original part, lot, or batch number) on 

items requiring marking by paragraph 

(c)(1) of this clause, based on the criteria 

provided in MIL–STD–130, 

Identification Marking of U.S. Military 

Property, latest version; 

(C) Label shipments, storage 

containers and packages that contain 

uniquely identified items in accordance 

with the requirements of MIL–STD–129, 

Military Marking for Shipment and 

Storage, latest version; and 

(D) Verify that the marks on items and 

labels on shipments, storage containers, 

and packages are machine readable and 

conform to the applicable standards. 

The contractor shall use an automatic 

identification technology device for this 

verification that has been programmed 

to the requirements of Appendix A, 

MIL–STD–130, latest version. 

(ii) The issuing agency code— 

(A) Shall not be placed on the item; 

and 

(B) Shall be derived from the data 

qualifier for the enterprise identifier. 

(d) For each item that requires item 

unique identification under paragraph 

(c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iv) of this clause or 

when item unique identification is 

provided under paragraph (c)(1)(v), in 

addition to the information provided as 

part of the Material Inspection and 

Receiving Report specified elsewhere in 

this contract, the Contractor shall report 

at the time of delivery, as part of the 

Material Inspection and Receiving 

Report, the following information: 

(1) * * * 

(12) Type designation of the item as 

specified in the contract schedule, if 

any. 

(13) Whether the item is an item of 

Special Tooling or Special Test 

Equipment. 

(14) Whether the item is covered by 

a warranty. 

(e) For embedded subassemblies, 

components, and parts that require DoD 

item unique identification under 

paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this clause or 

when item unique identification is 

provided under paragraph (c)(1)(v), the 

Contractor shall report as part of the 

Material Inspection and Receiving 

Report specified elsewhere in this 

contract, the following information: 

* * * * * 

(f) The Contractor shall submit the 

information required by paragraphs (d) 

and (e) of this clause as follows: 

(1) End items shall be reported using 

the receiving report capability in Wide 

Area WorkFlow (WAWF) in accordance 

with the clause at 252.232–7003. If 

WAWF is not required by this contract, 

and the contractor is not using WAWF, 

follow the procedures at http://

dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site/

uidregistry/. 

(2) Embedded items shall be reported 

by one of the following methods— 

(i) Use of the embedded items 

capability in WAWF; 

(ii) Direct data submission to the IUID 

Registry following the procedures and 

formats at http://

dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site/

uidregistry/; or 

(iii) Via WAWF as a deliverable 

attachment for exhibit line item number 

(fill in) ll, Unique Item Identifier 

Report for Embedded Items, Contract 

Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423. 

(g) Subcontracts. If the Contractor 

acquires by contract any items for which 

item unique identification is required in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this 

clause, the Contractor shall include this 

clause, including this paragraph (g), in 

the applicable subcontract(s), including 

subcontracts for commercial items. 

■ 11. Amend Appendix F to Chapter 2 

by— 

■ a. Revising section F–103(e)(1); 

■ b. Revising paragraph section F– 

301(b)(18) introductory text; and 

■ c. Revising paragraph F–301(b)(18)(i). 

The revisions read as follows: 

APPENDIX F TO CHAPTER 2— 

MATERIAL INSPECTION AND 

RECEIVING REPORT 

* * * * * 

F–103 Use. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Item Unique Identification (IUID), when 

the clause at DFARS 252.211–7003, Item 

Unique Identification and Valuation is used 

in the contract, reporting of IUID data is 

required. WAWF captures the IUID data and 

forwards the data to the IUID registry after 

acceptance. WAWF shall be used to report 

Unique Item Identifiers (UIIs) at the line item 

level, unless an exception to WAWF applies, 

and can also be used to report UIIs embedded 

at the line item level. 

* * * * * 

F–301 Preparation instructions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(18) Unit price. The contractor shall enter 

unit prices on all WAWF RR copies. 

(i) The contractor shall enter unit prices for 

each item of property fabricated or acquired 

for the Government and delivered to a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
76074 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 241 / Monday, December 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

contractor as Government furnished property 

(GFP). Get the unit price from Section B of 

the contract. If the unit price is not available, 

use an estimate. The estimated price should 

be the contractor’s estimate of what the items 

cost the Government. When the price is 

estimated, enter ‘‘Estimated Unit Price’’ in 

the description field. However, if the contract 

has Item Unique Identification (IUID) 

requirements and the receiving report is 

being processed in WAWF, the unit price 

must represent the acquisition cost that will 

be recorded in the IUID registry. Therefore, 

the unit price is required (see the clause at 

DFARS 252.211–7003, Item Unique 

Identification and Valuation). When 

delivering GFP via WAWF to another 

contractor, WAWF will initiate a property 

transfer if the vendor who is initiating the 

WAWF RR is also registered as a vendor 

property shipper in WAWF and the vendor 

receiving the property is also a vendor 

property receiver in WAWF. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–29771 Filed 12–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

48 CFR Parts 645 and 652 

[Public Notice 8546] 

RIN 1400–AC33 

Department of State Acquisition 

Regulation 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule adopts as final 

certain changes proposed to the 

Department of State Acquisition 

Regulation (DOSAR) to conform to 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

changes. It adds a new DOSAR clause 

and provision regarding reporting 

certain categories of Governmentfurnished and contractor-acquired 

property. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

15, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You 

may obtain copies of the proposed 

information collection and supporting 

documents from Ella Ramirez, Senior 

Procurement Analyst, Policy Division, 

Department of State, Office of the 

Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street 

NW., Suite 1060, State Annex Number 

15, Washington, DC 20522–0602; email 

address: RamirezIM2@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

was published as a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) on July 29, 2013 

(78 FR 45490), with a provision of 60 

days for public comment. A summary of 

the proposed changes and the reasons 

therefor were included in the NPRM. 

The Department of State (Department) 

received two comments in response to 

the NPRM. 

The first commenter recommended 

that requirements for accountability for 

Government-provided software be 

deleted because FAR Part 27 covers 

software and FAR Part 45 does not. 

While it is true that software is 

expressly excluded from the FAR 45.101 

definition of ‘‘Government property,’’ 

tracking of software provided by the 

Department to its contractors is required 

information for the Department’s 

financial statement. Prescribing separate 

reporting of this information in a 

DOSAR supplement to FAR 27 would 

be burdensome and inefficient. 

Accordingly, that recommendation is 

not accepted. The first commenter also 

recommended that ‘‘Accounting’’ be 

changed to ‘‘Accountability’’ in the 

proposed DOSAR §§ 652.245–70(a)(3) 

and 652.245–71, on the theory that Part 

45 governs the management and 

accountability of Government-owned 

property, not ‘‘accounting,’’ which is a 

financial function. The Department 

accepts this recommendation insofar as 

the language in the provision, and has 

changed the title of the clause to 

‘‘Special Reports of Government 

Property.’’ The first commenter pointed out 

duplicate provisions in proposed 

§ 652.245–71(d)(2)(iv) and (d)(2)(xiv). 

The Department agrees that these 

provisions are duplicative, and will 

delete subsection (d)(2)(xiv), renumber 

subsequent provisions, and move the 

parenthetical comment (‘‘If from another 

DOS contract, or government agency, 

please specify’’) to subsection (d)(2)(iv). The first commenter recommended 

that the words ‘‘or their delegated 

representatives’’ be added to the end of 

the chapeau to § 652.245–71(f). The 

Department does not agree that 

delegating this responsibility would be 

appropriate, and does not accept this 

recommendation. 

The second commenter advances 

several broad arguments involving the 

Department’s authority to enact rules 

and to make findings with respect to 

various administrative laws and 

executive orders that apply to 

rulemaking. The Department disagrees 

with the comments. 

The authority of agencies to regulate 

is well-established. The absolute ‘‘nondelegation’’ concept has been virtually 

abandoned since 1948. See Mistretta v. 

United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), and 

the cases cited therein. ‘‘The power of 

an administrative agency to administer 

a congressionally created . . . program 

necessarily requires the formulation of 

policy and the making of rules to fill 

any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by 

Congress.’’ Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 

199, 231 (1974). 

‘‘If Congress has explicitly left a gap 

for the agency to fill, there is an express 

delegation of authority to the agency to 

elucidate a specific provision of the 

statute by regulation. Such legislative 

regulations are given controlling weight 

unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or 

manifestly contrary to the statute. 

Sometimes the legislative delegation to 

an agency on a particular question is 

implicit rather than explicit. In such a 

case, a court may not substitute its own 

construction of a statutory provision for 

a reasonable interpretation made by the 

administrator of an agency.’’ Chevron, 

U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 

843–844 (1984) (footnote omitted). 

In the case of the FAR and DOSAR, 

Congress explicitly delegated 

rulemaking authority to certain 

agencies, resulting in the FAR. 41 U.S.C. 

1303. FAR 1.301 provides authority to 

agencies to supplement the FAR: ‘‘[A]n 

agency head may issue or authorize the 

issuance of agency acquisition 

regulations that implement or 

supplement the FAR and incorporate, 

together with the FAR, agency policies, 

procedures, contract clauses, 

solicitation provisions, and forms that 

govern the contracting process or 

otherwise control the relationship 

between the agency, including any of its 

suborganizations, and contractors or 

prospective contractors.’’ 48 CFR 

§ 1.301. The Secretary of State has the 

general authority to issue regulations to 

carry out the functions of the 

Department; specifically, in this case, 

regulations to implement procurement 

statutes and the FAR. 22 U.S.C. 2651a. 

The Department of State’s implementing 

regulations are the DOSAR, codified at 

48 CFR parts 600–699. 

The commenter further challenged the 

ability of a Department official to make 

findings with respect to compliance 

with applicable statutes and executive 

orders (contained in the ‘‘Regulatory 

Findings’’ section of the NPRM and in 

this Final Rule, below). Except for the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

the statutes or executive orders cited in 

this section require agencies to consider 

certain factors prior to publishing a rule. 

(With respect to the APA, the 

Department’s assertion was (and is) a 

simple statement of fact regarding how 

it has complied with that law.) 

If a member of the public has 

information contrary to the assertion of 

the Department official (for example, 

proof that annual impact on the U.S. 

economy from the rulemaking would in 

fact exceed $100,000,000; or proof that 

the rule would have a significant impact 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES