44224 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

process as a valid replacement for a

military or Federal specification or

standard cited in a solicitation.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Annual Burden Hours: 540.

Number of Respondents: 180.

Responses Per Respondent: 3.

Annual Responses: 540.

Average Burden Per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency: On occasion.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Respondents are offerors responding to

DoD solicitations for previously

developed items that cite military or

Federal specifications or standards,

when the offeror has a management or

manufacturing process that has been

previously accepted by DoD, under SPI,

as a valid replacement for a military or

Federal specification or standard.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 211,

242, and 252

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 211, 242, and

252 are amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Parts 211, 242, and 252 continues to

read as follows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR

Chapter 1.

PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCY

NEEDS

2. Sections 211.273 through 211.273–

4 are added to read as follows:

211.273 Substitutions for military or

Federal specifications and standards.

211.273–1 Definition.

‘‘SPI process,’’ as used in this section,

is defined in the clause at 252.211–

7005, Substitutions for Military or

Federal Specifications and Standards.

211.273–2 Policy.

(a) Under the Single Process Initiative

(SPI), DoD accepts SPI processes in lieu

of specific military or Federal

specifications or standards that specify

a management or manufacturing

process.

(b) DoD acceptance of an SPI process

follows the decision of a Management

Council, which includes representatives

from the Defense Contract Management

Command, the Defense Contract Audit

Agency, and the military departments.

(c) In procurements of previously

developed items, SPI processes that

previously were accepted by the

Management Council shall be

considered valid replacements for

military or Federal specifications or

standards, absent a specific

determination to the contrary (see

211.273–3(c)).

211.273–3 Procedures.

(a) Solicitations for previously

developed items shall encourage

offerors to identify SPI processes for use

in lieu of military or Federal

specifications and standards cited in the

solicitation. The solicitation shall

require an offeror proposing to use an

SPI process to include, in its response

to the solicitation, documentation of the

Government acceptance of the process.

(b) Contracting officers shall ensure

that—

(1) Concurrence of the requiring

activity has been or will be obtained for

any proposed substitutions prior to

contract award; and

(2) Any necessary additional

information regarding the SPI process

identified in the proposal is obtained

from the cognizant administrative

contracting officer.

(c) Any determination that an SPI

process is not acceptable for a specific

procurement shall be made at the head

of the contracting activity or program

executive officer level. This authority

may not be delegated.

211.273–4 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.211–7005,

Substitutions for Military or Federal

Specifications and Standards, in

solicitations and contracts exceeding the

micro-purchase threshold, when

procuring previously developed items.

PART 242—CONTRACT

ADMINISTRATION

3. Section 242.302 is amended by

adding paragraph (a) (S–70) to read as

follows:

242.302 Contract administration functions.

(a) * * *

(S–70) Serve as the single point of

contact for all Single Process Initiative

(SPI) Management Council activities.

The ACO shall negotiate and execute

facilitywide class modifications and

agreements for SPI processes, when

authorized by the affected components.

* * * * *

PART 252—SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT

CLAUSES

4. Section 252.211–7005 is added to

read as follows:

252.211–7005 Substitutions for Military or

Federal Specifications and Standards.

As prescribed in 211.273–4, use the

following clause:

SUBSTITUTIONS FOR MILITARY OR

FEDERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND

STANDARDS (AUG 1997)

(a) Definition. ‘‘SPI process,’’ as used in

this clause, means a management or

manufacturing process that has been

accepted previously by the Department of

Defense under the Single Process Initiative

(SPI) for use in lieu of a specific military or

Federal specification or standard. Under SPI,

these processes are reviewed and accepted by

a Management Council, which includes

representatives from the Defense Contract

Management Command, the Defense Contract

Audit Agency, and the military departments.

(b) Offerors are encouraged to propose SPI

processes in lieu of military or Federal

specifications and standards cited in the

solicitation.

(c) An offeror proposing to use an SPI

process shall—

(1) Identify the specific military or Federal

specification or standard for which the SPI

process has been accepted, and the specific

paragraph or other location in the solicitation

where the military or Federal specification or

standard is required;

(2) Provide a copy of the Department of

Defense acceptance of the SPI process;

(3) Identify each facility at which the

offeror proposes to use the specific SPI

process; and

(4) Unless provided in response to

paragraph (c)(2) of this clause, provide the

name and telephone number of the cognizant

Administrative Contracting Officers for each

facility where the SPI process is proposed for

use.

(d) Absent a determination at the head of

the contracting activity or program executive

officer level that an SPI process is not

acceptable for this procurement, the

Contractor shall use the following SPI

processes in lieu of military or Federal

specifications and standards:

(Offeror Insert Information for Each SPI

Process)

SPI Process: lllllllllllllll

Facility: llllllllllllllll

Military or Federal Specification or Standard:

lllllllllllllllllllll

Affected Contract Line Item and Subline Item

Number and Requirement Citation:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Cognizant Administrative Contracting

Officer:

lllllllllllllllllllll

(End of clause)

[FR Doc. 97–21887 Filed 8–19–97–8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 225

[DFARS Case 96–D023]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Foreign

Machine Tools and Powered and NonPowered Valves

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44225

1The amount of ballast in the thorax depends on

how weight tolerances of the various parts that

make up the thorax assembly accumulate.

ACTION: Correction.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

issuing a correction to the final rule

published at 61 FR 58488, November 15,

1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Defense Acquisition Regulations

Council, Attn: Ms. Michele Peterson,

PDUSD (A&T) DP (DAR), IMPD 3D139,

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0131;

telefax (703) 602–0350.

Correction

In the issue of Friday, November 15,

1996, on page 58489, in the first

column, amendatory instruction 5 is

corrected to read as follows: ‘‘Section

225.7005 is added to read as follows:’’.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

[FR Doc. 97–21890 Filed 8–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. 97–047, Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AG44

Anthropomorphic Test Dummy; SixYear-Old Child Dummy

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: This document corrects

NHTSA’s regulation specifying the

characteristics of the test dummy

representing a six-year-old child. It

revises the specification for locating the

center of gravity (cg) of the thorax by

moving it forward 0.4 inches from the

location currently specified in part 572.

This document also amends the

dummy’s specifications to show that

thorax ballast mass, if used, is mounted

on the inside of the anterior wall of the

spine box rather than to its sides. Both

of these changes bring the drawing

specifications in line with the actual

construction of the dummy. They are

intended to ensure that there is no

confusion among dummy manufacturers

and users as to whether a particular

dummy meets the specifications of

NHTSA’s regulation.

DATES: The changes made in this rule

are effective August 20, 1997. The

incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in this rule is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of August 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

nonlegal issues: Stan Backaitis, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone:

202–366–4912). For legal issues: Deirdre

Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (202–

366–2992). Both can be reached at the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 14, 1991, NHTSA published

a rule that added specifications for a 6-

year-old child test dummy to NHTSA’s

set of regulations for ‘‘Anthropomorphic

Test Dummies’’ (49 CFR part 572). The

dummy was adopted to test child

restraint systems for older children. The

specifications for the dummy are set

forth in subpart I of 49 CFR part 572.

The dummy is instrumented with

accelerometers for measuring

accelerations in the thorax during

dynamic testing. NHTSA was very

specific in describing, in drawings

referenced in part 572, subpart I, the

location of the center of gravity (cg) of

the dummy’s thorax. However, location

descriptions for the cg in the

specifications do not reflect where the

cg is actually located in the dummy.

This discrepancy was brought to the

agency’s attention by First Technology

Safety Systems, Inc. (FTSS), a

manufacturer of test dummies. On

January 23, 1996, FTSS petitioned the

agency to move the shown location of

the cg of the thorax of the dummy

forward 0.4 inches from the current

location specified in drawings that are

incorporated into part 572. Currently,

these drawings specify that the cg is 0.9

± 0.5 inches back from the dummy’s

shoulder yoke center. The petitioner

requested that the cg be located 0.5 ± .5

inches back from the shoulder yoke, ‘‘to

fit within the design proportions and

put the cg in line with its current

production value.’’

NHTSA has examined FTSS’s

concerns and agrees that the

specification for the cg of the dummy’s

thorax should be amended.

Accordingly, this document corrects the

specification for locating the cg of the

thorax by moving the specified location

forward 0.4 inches.

The discrepancy in the current

specification usually results when

ballast is used in the dummy’s thorax to

achieve the required thorax weight.1

NHTSA had found that in some tests of

the dummy, the screws that affix the

ballast firmly to the lateral sides of the

thoracic spine box loosen during

dynamic testing. This causes the ballast

to vibrate, resulting in extraneous

accelerometer responses. To prevent the

ballast retaining screws from loosening,

NHTSA moved the ballast forward from

the lateral sides of the thoracic spine

box to the inside anterior wall of the

box, where the ballast could not load

the screws with high dynamic forces.

FTSS estimates that the repositioned

ballast could result in the accumulation

of the various weight tolerances within

the thorax such that it could put the cg

location up to 0.6 inches forward from

its current specification. However, FTSS

believes that relocating the cg 0.4 inches

forward from the current position would

be a more representative mean location

for all of the dummy population.

NHTSA has decided to revise Subpart

I as requested by FTSS to avoid

potential sources of complaint and

confusion caused by a discrepancy in

the cg location of the dummy’s thorax.

Dummy manufacturers have asked

NHTSA on different occasions to correct

inconsistencies between the part 572

specifications and the actual design and

manufacture of the test dummies, to

avoid potential customer complaints

that a particular dummy does not meet

the specifications of NHTSA’s

regulation, even when the problems are

relatively minor and are related to the

specification rather than the dummy.

Such conforming amendments to part

572 have been made several times, e.g.,

corrections of NHTSA’s regulations for

the side impact test dummy, 59 FR

52089; October 14, 1994; and six-yearold dummy, 60 FR 2896, January 12,

1995.) These amendments are primarily

corrective in nature, and do not affect

the impact response of the dummy in

any significant manner.

Today’s correction does not impose

any additional responsibilities on any

manufacturer and has virtually no effect

on the performance of the dummy. To

determine the importance and the

effects of thorax cg location on the

dummy’s kinematics, a modeling study

was performed for NHTSA by the

National Crash Analysis Center of the

George Washington University. The

study used an Articulated Total Body

computer model to represent the sixyear-old child dummy restrained by a

three-point belt system and seated on a

belt-positioning booster seat. The

location of the thorax cg varied over a

range of one inch up, down, forward

and backward. The study showed that a

movement of the cg one inch forward

did not change the chest g response,

reduced head g response by 1 g and