Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 25569 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 223 and 252 

RIN 0750–AG35 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Minimizing 

the Use of Materials Containing 

Hexavalent Chromium (DFARS Case 

2009–D004) 

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 implement the requirements 

for minimizing the use of materials 

containing hexavalent chromium in 

items acquired by DoD (deliverables and 

construction materials hereafter referred 

to as deliverables). Hexavalent 

chromium is a chemical that has been 

used in numerous DoD weapons 

systems and platforms due to its 

corrosion protection properties. 

However, hexavalent chromium is a 

known carcinogen. This rule codifies a 

DoD policy for addressing the serious 

human health and environmental risks 

related to the use of hexavalent 

chromium. The rule prohibits the 

delivery of items containing more than 

0.1 percent by weight hexavalent 

chromium in any homogeneous material 

under DoD contracts unless there is no 

acceptable alternative to the use of 

hexavalent chromium. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy Williams, 703–602–0328. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

DoD published a proposed rule on 

hexavalent chromium in the Federal 

Register at 75 FR 18041 on April 8, 

2010. This final rule amends the DFARS 

to implement requirements to minimize 

the delivery of materials containing 

hexavalent chromium in DoD 

acquisitions. The DFARS governs only 

DoD procurements, therefore, this action 

establishes requirements that DoD 

personnel must follow when making 

acquisitions for new systems. 

Hexavalent chromium is a chemical 

that has been used in numerous DoD 

weapons systems and platforms due to 

its corrosion protection properties. 

However, hexavalent chromium is 

recognized as an inhalation carcinogen. 

The National Toxicology Program’s 

Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh 

Edition, lists hexavalent chromium 

compounds as known human 

carcinogens. (See http:// 

ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/ 

known.pdf.) The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) classifies 

hexavalent chromium as a known 

human carcinogen by the inhalation 

route of exposure. (See http:// 

www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm.) 

In response to the serious human 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the use of hexavalent 

chromium, there has been an increase in 

national and international restrictions 

and controls. For example, in 2006, the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) lowered the 

permissible exposure limit (PEL) tenfold from 52 to 5 micrograms-per-cubicmeter, making it among the most 

stringently regulated materials used in 

manufacturing and maintenance 

operations. Similarly, the European 

Union Restriction of Hazardous 

Substances Directive restricts the use of 

hexavalent chromium in the 

manufacturing of certain types of 

electronic and electrical equipment. 

Finally, a number of defense-related 

industries are minimizing or eliminating 

the use of hexavalent chromium where 

proven substitutes are available. 

Such restrictions and industry 

practices have decreased the availability 

of materials containing hexavalent 

chromium and have increased the 

regulatory burden and life cycle costs 

for DoD. Indeed, DoD and the industry 

have made substantial investments in 

finding suitable replacements for 

hexavalent chromium. To protect future 

access for critical applications and to 

implement its commitments pursuant to 

Executive Orders 13514 and 13423, on 

April 8, 2009, the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics) issued a policy memorandum 

to minimize the use of materials 

containing hexavalent chromium in the 

acquisition of new systems throughout 

DoD. Among other things, the policy 

memorandum directed DoD personnel 

(specifically the Program Executive 

Offices in conjunction with the Military 

Department’s Corrosion Control and 

Prevention Executive) to certify that ‘‘no 

acceptable alternative’’ exists before 

using any material containing 

hexavalent chromium on a new system 

and directed the Defense Acquisition 

Regulation Council to develop a clause 

for defense contracts that prohibits the 

use of materials containing hexavalent 

chromium in all future procurements 

unless specifically approved by the 

Government. This final rule implements 

those aspects of the policy 

memorandum. The final rule adds a 

new DFARS subpart and a 

corresponding contract clause to 

minimize hexavalent chromium in 

deliverables acquired under DoD 

contracts. 

II. Analysis of Public Comments 

Eleven respondents submitted 

comments on the proposed rule. A 

discussion of those comments and the 

revisions made to the rule as a result of 

those comments is provided below. The 

comments are organized and presented 

in ten overall categories. Some 

comments did not pertain to the DFARS 

rule itself; however, they are addressed 

to assist in further clarifying the rule. 

Six of the eleven respondents supported 

the objective of minimizing the use of 

hexavalent chromium or indicated that 

they were already compliant. The 

remaining five respondents did not 

express support or object to the rule, but 

provided implications and examples of 

actions that will be required to 

minimize hexavalent chromium in 

deliverables. Three respondents 

questioned the need for the rule since 

DoD and industry have been working for 

years to develop substitutes. Despite 

reservations about the need for the rule, 

these respondents provided 

recommendations for improving the 

rule. A number of the most significant 

recommendations have been 

incorporated in the revised rule as 

discussed in more detail below. 

A. Clarification of Definitions, Terms, or 

Language 

Comment: Two respondents requested 

clarification of contractor responsibility 

for identifying alternatives or obtaining 

approvals for hexavalent chromium use. 

DoD Response: A DoD solicitation for 

a new deliverable may contain 

specifications for approved hexavalent 

chromium substitutes. In other 

solicitations, or for other components in 

the same solicitation, DoD may provide 

specifications that require hexavalent 

chromium where its use is deemed 

necessary to meet performance 

requirements and/or where proven 

substitutes are not available. 

Consideration of substitutes will 

include evaluation of the factors 

described in the DoD policy memo 

including— 

• Cost effectiveness of alternative 

materials or processes; 

• Technical feasibility of alternative 

materials or processes; 

• Environment, safety, and 

occupational health risks associated 

with the use of the hexavalent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
25570 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

chromium or substitute materials in 

each specific application; 

• Achieving a DoD Manufacturing 

Readiness Level of at least eight (8) for 

any qualified alternative; 

• Materiel availability of hexavalent 

chromium and the proposed alternatives 

over the projected life span of the 

system; and 

• Corrosion performance difference of 

alternative materials or processes as 

determined by agency corrosion subject 

matter experts. 

A performance-based solicitation may 

not provide specifications for a 

substitute or pre-approval for 

hexavalent chromium. In such cases, the 

contractor is responsible for either 

providing a substitute that meets 

performance requirements or providing 

a request to the contracting officer for 

providing a deliverable containing 

hexavalent chromium. The contracting 

officer will forward the request to the 

authorized approving official (DFARS 

223.7305(a)) for decision. 

The Advanced Surface Engineering 

Technologies for a Sustainable Defense 

(ASETSDefense) Web site at http:// 

www.assetsdefense.org has been 

established to provide information 

about hexavalent chromium substitutes. 

The site has a database that can be 

searched by type of process for 

substitute information. The site also 

contains briefings and summary reports 

from DoD-industry workshops on 

sustainable coatings and processes. The 

site helps reduce duplication in testing 

for the same or similar applications. 

Comment: Two respondents requested 

that ‘‘legacy system’’ be defined, with 

one respondent stating that it should be 

any system that is past Material 

Development Decision, as the milestone 

defined in DoD Instruction 5000.02. 

DoD Response: A ‘‘legacy system’’ 

means any program that has passed 

Milestone A, as defined in DoD 

Instruction 5000.02. At the Material 

Development Decision (MDD) stage in 

the acquisition process, far too little is 

known about a system. The MDD simply 

indicates that an acquisition of a system, 

equipment, or item will be required to 

satisfy a military capability. Milestone A 

occurs after the MDD. At Milestone A, 

the system concept has been refined and 

technology development can begin. 

Milestone A represents a very early 

stage in the acquisition process. Thus, 

by defining a legacy system as one that 

has already passed Milestone A, it 

provides a phase-in period for the rule 

to take effect. In other words, the rule 

affects only new systems that are preMilestone A. This provides a sufficient 

period, typically two years or more, for 

companies that contract with DoD to 

make any necessary adjustments. 

Comment: Two respondents requested 

clarification of the term ‘‘homogeneous 

material.’’ One respondent stated that 

the definition proposed is overly broad 

and appears to be taken verbatim from 

the European Union Restriction of 

Hazardous Substances Directive. 

Another respondent suggested that the 

definition be abandoned as unusable or 

be clarified by naming common types of 

materials to be considered homogeneous 

and those which should be excluded 

from the definition. 

DoD Response: The definition of 

‘‘homogeneous material’’ was adopted 

from the European Union Restriction of 

Hazardous Substances Directive because 

it is widely understood by industry 

given the global nature of supply chains. 

The definition was supplemented by 

providing examples to assist the 

contracting activity and the offeror. The 

intent of the examples is not to be 

extensive or all inclusive. 

‘‘Homogeneous material’’ means a 

material that cannot be mechanically 

disjointed into different materials and is 

of uniform composition throughout. 

This definition can be applied to any 

material or article in order to determine 

the percent by weight of hexavalent 

chromium in the material. Surface 

coatings are considered to be a separate 

homogeneous material from the 

underlying material such as aluminum. 

The painted aluminum article as a 

whole is not a homogenous material 

because the paint can be mechanically 

disjointed (sanded or grinded) from the 

underlying aluminum. Also, the paint 

and aluminum are each of separate, 

uniform compositions. Conversion 

coatings are not considered 

homogeneous materials because they 

bond with and chemically modify the 

underlying material and cannot be 

mechanically disjointed. 

Comment: Two respondents requested 

that the prohibition of hexavalent 

chromium not apply to ‘‘use’’ but only to 

products that ‘‘contain’’ hexavalent 

chromium. Two respondents requested 

that the phrase ‘‘or use materials [that 

contain hexavalent chromium] in 

performance of this contract’’ in 

252.223–7XXXX (b) be deleted, so that 

the restriction would only apply to 

deliverables that contain hexavalent 

chromium. 

DoD Response: DFARS 223.7303 was 

revised to provide clarity that 

hexavalent chromium may be used in 

manufacturing or testing of an article, as 

long as it will not appear as hexavalent 

chromium in the final product. As an 

example, in chrome plating, only the 

metallic form of chromium remains. 

Thus, articles plated with the metal 

chromium are acceptable and the rule 

will have minimum affect on businesses 

that plate chromium. Based on an 

industry comment, DoD modified the 

rule to indicate that the ‘‘prohibition 

does not apply to hexavalent chromium 

produced as a by-product of 

manufacturing processes’’ such as hard 

chrome plating. This was a primary 

concern of one of the industry 

associations. The phrase ‘‘or use 

materials in performance of this 

contract’’ in paragraph (b) of the clause 

at 252.223–7XXX has been deleted. 

Comment: Two respondents requested 

clarification of the definitions of 

‘‘unapproved’’ and ‘‘damages’’ in 

paragraph (c) of the clause 252.223– 

7XXX. 

DoD Response: Paragraph (c) of the 

clause 252.223–7XXX was deleted in its 

entirety (see section II.I. of this 

preamble addressing contractor 

liability). 

Comment: One respondent expressed 

an opinion that the title of proposed 

DFARS Subpart 223.73 is at variance 

with other parts of the rule. Specifically: 

‘‘The proposed subpart 223.73 is entitled 

‘Minimizing the use of hexavalent 

chromium’, but paragraphs 223.7302, 

223–7303, and the proposed clause 

252.223–7XXX use the term 

‘prohibition.’ ’’ 

DoD Response: Review of the rule as 

a whole does not support a finding of 

a conflict and edits have been made to 

clarify this. While proposed DFARS 

223.7302 and the proposed clause at 

DFARS 252.223–7XXX use the term 

‘‘prohibition,’’ the prohibition exists 

only where proven substitutes are 

available that provide acceptable 

performance for the application. 

Consideration of cost effectiveness, 

technical feasibility, corrosion control 

performance, and other factors 

described in the DoD policy memo must 

be taken into account. Read in its 

entirety, proposed DFARS Subpart 

223.73 and the clause at proposed 

DFARS 252.223–7XXX do not impose 

an absolute ban on the use of hexavalent 

chromium. Rather, DFARS Subpart 

223.73 minimizes the incorporation of 

hexavalent chromium into deliverables 

to the extent practicable, considering all 

the factors described in the DoD policy 

memo. 

B. Limitation to Not More Than 0.1 

Percent Hexavalent Chromium 

Comment: One respondent indicated 

that their products are already 

compliant with the prohibition on 

hexavalent chromium in the European 

Union Restriction of Hazardous 

Substances Directive. The respondent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 25571 

further noted that trace amounts of 

hexavalent chromium remain in the 

products but are well below the 0.1% 

threshold noted in the rule. 

DoD Response: No change in the rule 

is necessary to address this comment. 

The decision to allow trace amounts of 

hexavalent chromium of less than 0.1 

percent is consistent with worldwide 

standards, including Europe’s 

Restriction of Hazardous Substances; 

thus these products will also be 

compliant with the this rule. 

Comment: One respondent noted that 

the proposal does not reference any 

background or guidance document for 

testing for hexavalent chromium percent 

by weight. 

DoD Response: There are a number of 

test procedures that could be used for 

testing for hexavalent chromium and the 

choice is dependent on the material 

being tested. Listing test methods is 

beyond the scope of the rule. Providers 

will have flexibility to choose the test 

method best suited to their application. 

International standard IEC 62321 

‘‘Determination of levels of six regulated 

substances (lead, mercury, cadmium, 

hexavalent chromium, polybrominated 

biphenyls, polybrominated diphenyl 

ethers) is the most widely used and was 

finalized in May 2009. ISO Standard 

3613 for metallic and organic coatings 

was updated in November 2010 and is 

also widely used. 

C. Need for the Rule and Adequacy of 

Current Regulations 

Comment: Three respondents 

questioned the need for the rule. One 

respondent stated that existing 

environmental, safety, and health 

regulations provide adequate 

safeguards. Another stated that it 

considered the rule to be premature 

without additional study, testing, and 

proof of performance and since it is 

limited to one federal department, it 

should be withdrawn. Another 

respondent suggested that DoD should 

consider a phased-in approach. 

DoD Response: The rule will help to 

facilitate DoD’s compliance with the 

requirements established in Executive 

Orders 13514 and 13423 to reduce the 

use of toxic and hazardous substances. 

In addition, it allows for the codification 

of the policy outlined in the DoD policy 

memo for the acquisition community to 

effectively implement the guidance in 

contract requirements. This rule is 

intended for DoD program managers and 

contracting officers by prohibiting the 

use of a DoD specification or solicitation 

that will result in a deliverable 

containing hexavalent chromium unless 

authorized by a senior level DoD 

official. This addresses a key complaint 

from industry that DoD specifications 

are preventing them from eliminating 

hexavalent chromium despite their 

desire to do so. 

The rule also provides incentive for 

industry to adopt substitutes for 

hexavalent chromium. The rule has 

been modified to provide that a ‘‘legacy 

system’’ means a program that has 

passed Milestone A in the defense 

acquisition management system, as 

defined in DoD Instruction 5000.02, 

prior to the effective date of the rule. 

This is an early entry point into the 

defense acquisition system and, as 

noted in section II.A. of this preamble, 

provides a phasing in of the mandatory 

requirements of the rule for new 

acquisitions still only in the 

development phases. In regard to the 

need for further testing, DoD and 

industry have spent years testing 

substitutes and will continue to do so. 

The DoD policy does not require use of 

substitutes unless they can meet a DoD 

Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) 

of at least eight. Essentially, this means 

that the substitute has been proven to 

meet performance requirements. An 

item at MRL eight must have detailed 

designs and/or specifications, proven 

manufacturing and quality processes, 

and an established and stable supply 

chain. 

D. Cost to Industry and Mission 

Readiness 

Comment: Seven respondents stated 

that this rule will increase costs but did 

not provide substantiation. In one case, 

the respondent indicated that 

‘‘elimination of hexavalent chromium 

compounds * * * might result in 

increased level of performance risk and 

increased procurement costs.’’ Another 

respondent referred to an increase in life 

cycle costs but did not appear to 

account for savings in using safer 

chemicals or the fact that substitutes 

must perform as well. 

DoD Response: It should be noted that 

cost-related comments were made 

before revisions in the rule that address 

the most significant concerns such as 

plating, conversion coatings, and 

hexavalent chromium as a by-product of 

manufacturing. The final rule will not 

affect these activities. Only one 

respondent provided an estimate. That 

estimate is instructive and is discussed 

further below. 

Based on numerous conversations 

with industry and small businesses, 

DoD believes that the rule will have a 

positive impact on industry and small 

business profits and, at worst, be 

revenue neutral over time. Web sites 

maintained under DoD’s Strategic 

Environmental Research and 

Development Program (SERDP) contain 

briefings describing DoD and industry 

efforts to develop hexavalent chromium 

substitutes. For example, the 2010 

SERDP conference had a special session 

on hexavalent chromium minimization. 

One of the presentations by the 

Aerospace Industries Association 

described the aerospace industry’s 

minimization strategy. (Reference: 

http://symposium.serdp-estcp.org/ 

Technical-Sessions/2B). The Web site at 

asetsdefense.org also contains briefings 

and summaries of DoD-industry 

conferences. 

A number of small businesses have 

developed non-chromate processes but 

have been hindered in their ability to 

market these processes to DoD by 

existing DoD specifications. In one 

example, a small manufacturer of 

fasteners told DoD that they can provide 

non-chromate fasteners that can meet 

DoD performance requirements but the 

DoD specification calls for chromate and 

the requiring military office sees no 

reason to change it. The rule will help 

to remedy this problem. Subpart 

223.7203 of the rule provides direction 

for DoD contracting officers. It prohibits 

contracts that include a specification or 

standard that results in a deliverable or 

construction material containing more 

than 0.1% hexavalent chromium by 

weight. In another example, a small 

family-run business has developed a 

non-chromate coating for aircraft. While 

the company has had success with 

marketing the process to commercial 

airlines and the Air Force, it has had 

limited success DoD-wide. Apparently, 

further motivation is needed for DoD 

program managers to change existing 

requirements for use of materials 

containing hexavalent chromium. The 

rule implements the DoD policy memo 

in the procurement world and will thus 

increase the adoption of this nonchromate coating and similar paints and 

coatings by small businesses DoD-wide. 

The rule will also help make businesses 

more competitive in the world market. 

Many large companies are requiring 

suppliers to provide products with a 

smaller ‘‘environmental footprint’’ by 

using lifecycle assessment of human 

health and environmental impacts. For 

example, over 1800 organizations are 

now reporting their sustainability status 

under the Global Reporting Initiative. 

(See http://www.globalreporting.org/ 

Home.) 

Non-hexavalent chromium processes 

should be less costly over the lifecycle 

of the process due to the use of less 

hazardous materials and related control 

and disposal cost. (See examples of 

documented cost savings in Section III.) 

The rule was modified so that plating 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
25572 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

and anodizing are not covered by the 

rule. Thus, capital costs for conversions 

are de minimis. For the most part, 

compliance with the rule will only 

require switching to non-chromate 

paints and primers. 

The one respondent that provided an 

estimate indicated a cost of $384,000 to 

convert to non-hexavalent processes. 

The company produces lightweight 

shelters for the military and customers 

that are primarily Government agencies. 

The company’s main processes are 

metal surface ‘‘cleaning and chemical 

conversion.’’ The rule, as revised, will 

not affect cleaning and chemical 

conversion (conversion coatings) and 

thus there will be no cost to convert 

related to these processes. However, the 

respondent’s main concern was not the 

conversion cost but the concern that one 

branch of the military will require a 

hexavalent chromium conversion 

coating and other branches will require 

non-hexavalent conversion coatings. 

The DoD policy and this rule are 

designed to reduce this problem of 

maintaining dual systems because they 

will cause DoD-wide changes in 

specifications to non-hexavalent 

processes. While this rule does not 

affect the respondent’s conversion 

coating process, DoD has other 

initiatives underway to eliminate 

inconsistent requirements by DoD 

program managers by modifying DoDwide specifications where hexavalent 

chromium has been required and 

suitable substitutes are available. As an 

example, DoD has qualified a nonhexavalent conversion coating for wide 

federal use (Reference Military Standard 

MIL–DTL–81706). 

Comment: Four respondents stated 

that the rule will increase lifecycle cost 

due to less corrosion protection. 

DoD Response: The rule does not 

necessarily require the use of substitutes 

for hexavalent chromium if lifecycle 

costs are higher. Lifecycle costs must be 

considered when deciding if proven 

substitutes exist (see factors listed in 

Section II A. above). 

Many often overlooked costs (e.g., 

costs associated with the use of 

restrictive protective equipment and 

related productivity losses, air 

monitoring, reporting, medical 

surveillance programs, collection and 

treatment systems, and hazardous waste 

disposal) can be avoided with the use of 

less toxic chemicals. 

Comment: Three respondents stated 

that the rule will decrease corrosion 

protection thereby adversely impacting 

mission readiness. 

DoD Response: This rule does not 

decrease mission readiness as this factor 

must be considered when determining if 

proven substitutes exist. To eliminate 

any confusion, the factors to be 

considered have been added to DFARS 

223.7305. 

Comment: One respondent inquired 

about the funding strategy for research 

and development. 

DoD Response: This comment is 

outside of the scope of this case. DoD 

has a robust program for developing and 

testing substitutes. (See the program 

area ‘‘Weapons Systems and Platforms’’ 

at http://www.serdp.org.) 

Comment: Two respondents 

recommended that DoD limit review 

time of the waiver to not more than 30 

days. 

DoD Response: DoD assumes the 

respondent meant ‘‘authorization’’ for 

the use of hexavalent chromium vice 

‘‘waiver.’’ DoD program managers are 

establishing efficient procedures for 

reviewing and granting authorizations 

for programs they manage. Timing for 

reviews and authorizations will depend 

on the complexity of the system but 

program managers have an incentive to 

ensure that schedules are not adversely 

affected by the review process. 

E. Legacy Systems 

Comment: Three respondents 

requested clarification of the exceptions 

at DFARS 223.7303 (now 223.7304), 

regarding the repair or replacement of 

legacy systems. 

DoD Response: The exception for 

legacy systems has been clarified. 

Legacy system is now defined and an 

exception has been added for 

sustainment related contracts (e.g., parts 

and services) for existing systems with 

hexavalent chromium. However, 

Section 223.7304(a) of the rule requires 

program managers to consider 

alternatives during system 

modifications, follow-on procurements 

of legacy systems, or maintenance 

procedure updates if it is deemed 

feasible and needed to achieve the 

objectives of the DoD policy. 

Consideration of alternatives will 

require analysis of the factors described 

in the DoD policy memo. 

Comment: One respondent requested 

that DoD clarify that there is no 

expectation to sample and analyze 

legacy systems and their related parts, 

subsystems, and components for the 

sole purpose of identifying hexavalent 

chromium. 

DoD Response: DFARS does not have 

a requirement that legacy systems and 

their related parts, subsystems, and 

components be sampled or analyzed for 

the purpose of identifying hexavalent 

chromium. Legacy systems are clearly 

excepted from the rule. 

F. Exceptions 

Comment: Four respondents 

requested clarification of the process for 

approval of exemptions. 

DoD Response: Exemption is not a 

term used in the rule. The respondent 

evidently means the process for 

obtaining authorizations to provide a 

deliverable or construction material 

with hexavalent chromium as described 

at DFARS 223.7305. Military 

departments have established or are 

establishing internal procedures for 

processing authorizations for use of 

hexavalent chromium. These 

procedures are necessitated by the 

individual needs of the Service and/or 

each program office. The approval 

process will be provided as part of the 

solicitation. It is in the best interest of 

DoD and individual program managers 

to have speedy, efficient processes for 

handling hexavalent chromium 

authorizations. 

Comment: One respondent noted that 

it would be difficult to achieve the 

specification requirement under MIL– 

DTL–38999 for circular connectors if 

hexavalent chromium is removed from 

the sealer used in manufacturing 

circular connectors, noting that current 

test data suggests that replacing 

hexavalent chromium with trivalent 

chromium is not effective for circular 

connectors with cadmium-free plating. 

DoD Response: Given the wide range 

of applications and the longstanding use 

of hexavalent chromium, DoD 

recognizes that the transition to proven 

substitutes will take time and recognizes 

that it will need to make exceptions to 

this rule while adequate alternatives 

continue to be developed. This 

amendment to the DFARS is one 

component of DoD’s overall strategy to 

minimizing the use of materials 

containing hexavalent chromium in 

Defense acquisitions. As stated in the 

DoD policy memo, to adequately 

address the environmental and health 

concerns associated with the use of 

materials containing hexavalent 

chromium, DoD is going beyond its 

established hazardous materials 

management processes. In fact, this 

change to the DFARS specifically 

acknowledges that there may be 

particular specifications, such as MIL– 

DTL–38999, that require case-by-case 

authorizations for materials that contain 

hexavalent chromium. Section 223.7305 

allows the appropriate DoD official to 

authorize the use of materials that 

contain hexavalent chromium when 

necessary, and if consistent with DoD 

policy. Any one that seeks such an 

authorization should follow the 

procedures in the DFARS Procedures, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 25573 

Guidance, and Information (PGI) at 

223.7305. 

Furthermore, DoD appreciates the 

information regarding the performance 

of circular connectors using trivalent 

chromium. DoD continues to make 

major investments to minimize the use 

of hexavalent chromium in defense 

acquisitions. DoD has sponsored efforts 

that range from fundamental research 

through advanced development to 

testing and evaluation for proven 

substitutes. As discussed earlier, the 

Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program (SERDP) and the 

Environmental Security Technology 

Certification Program (ESTCP) sponsor 

the Advanced Surface Engineering 

Technologies for a Sustainable Defense 

(ASETSDefense), which is a database 

that facilitates the implementation of 

new, environmentally friendly 

technologies for surface engineering 

(coatings and surface treatments) by 

providing ready access to background 

information and technical data from 

research, development, test, and 

evaluation efforts as well as the status 

of approvals and implementations. This 

database is continually growing as more 

documents are added, concentrating on 

coatings that avoid the use of hexavalent 

chromium. DoD will continue these 

efforts to provide proven substitutes for 

an ever increasing range of applications 

and materials to foster the widespread 

implementation of alternatives to 

hexavalent chromium. ASETSDefense’s 

relational database is designed with a 

search capability to provide access to 

the available information needed to 

make informed decisions on the use of 

alternatives to materials and 

technologies for surface engineering that 

pose environmental or health hazards. 

This information includes detailed 

engineering data, background 

documents, and information on 

processes and products that have been 

validated, authorized, or implemented. 

For more information and to access the 

database go to: http:// 

www.assetsdefense.org/ 

databasedescription.aspx. 

Comment: One respondent requested 

an exception for all commercial items. 

DoD Response: To provide an 

exception for all commercial items will 

jeopardize the intent of the rule and be 

contrary to DoD policy. It is the 

responsibility of the prime contractor to 

require suppliers to provide content 

information. There is currently a 

requirement to provide content 

information for articles that contain 

hazardous substances such as 

hexavalent chromium in Material Safety 

Data Sheets (see FAR 52.223–3, 

Hazardous Material Identification and 

Material Safety Data). 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

paragraph (d) of the clause requires that 

the prohibition will always flow down 

to the subcontractor and does not 

provide for a situation where the 

subcontractor’s items qualify for an 

exemption. 

DoD Response: Similar to change 

order requests and other types of 

approvals, subcontractors may submit 

proposals for approvals of necessary 

hexavalent chromium use through the 

prime contractor for approval. Since the 

clause flows down, the same approval 

process for exemptions applies to the 

subcontractor as well. 

Comment: One respondent asked if 

the liability language exempts legacy 

systems/or components. 

DoD Response: The paragraph on 

liability was deleted from the final text 

of the clause because existing law is 

sufficient. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

data such as cost effectiveness and 

corrosion protection be considered in 

rendering exemptions. 

DoD Response: The respondent is 

correct. The DoD policy of April 8, 

2009, contains requirements for 

weighing hexavalent chromium versus 

substitutes. The following factors, at a 

minimum, must be considered— 

• Cost effectiveness of alternative 

materials or processes; 

• Technical feasibility of alternative 

materials or processes; 

• Environment, safety, and 

occupational health risks associated 

with the use of the hexavalent 

chromium or substitute materials in 

each specific application; 

• Achieving a DoD Manufacturing 

Readiness Level of at least eight (8) for 

any qualified alternative; 

• Materiel availability of hexavalent 

chromium and the proposed alternatives 

over the projected life span of the 

system; and 

• Corrosion performance difference of 

alternative materials or processes as 

determined by agency corrosion subject 

matter experts. 

Section 223.7305 has been revised to 

include the above factors from the DoD 

policy memo. 

Comment: One respondent inquired if 

another exception is required if an 

exception has been allowed under the 

original contract. Another respondent 

asked about exemptions for follow-on 

procurements, or maintenance 

procedures. 

DoD Response: The rule has an 

exception for legacy systems, which are 

now defined. An exception has been 

added for sustainment related contracts 

(e.g., parts, services) for existing systems 

with hexavalent chromium approved. 

G. Dollar Threshold 

Comment: One respondent requested 

that a dollar threshold be established for 

waiver of the rule. 

DoD Response: Cost effectiveness will 

be considered in deciding whether to 

prohibit hexavalent chromium or 

authorize a deliverable containing 

hexavalent chromium. 

H. Statutes, Regulations, and 

Government-Wide Application 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the rule is contrary to existing statutes 

such as the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), which sets strict 

requirements for manifesting and 

disposing of hazardous waste but does 

not prohibit use of materials such as 

hexavalent chromium. 

DoD Response: The rule is not 

contrary to existing statutes. The rule is 

consistent with the 1984 Federal 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments to RCRA that focused on 

waste minimization. RCRA prescribes 

‘‘that the manifest required by 

subsection (a)(5) shall contain a 

certification by the generator that the 

generator of the hazardous waste has a 

program in place to reduce the volume 

or quantity and toxicity of such waste to 

the degree determined by the generator 

to be economically practicable.’’ 

Comment: Two respondents stated 

that the rule is not consistent with 

national and international regulations 

because laws such as the Clean Water 

Act and the Clean Air Act, and 

regulations such as OSHA and the 

European Union’s Restriction on 

Hazardous Substances control the 

release of hexavalent chromium but do 

not prohibit its use. 

DoD Response: As with the referenced 

statutes and regulations, the objective of 

this rule is the protection of human 

health and the environment while 

balancing other considerations. 

Protection of human health and the 

environment has historically been 

accomplished through the reduction of 

releases and/or managing exposure. 

This rule reduces releases and exposure 

by minimizing the incorporation of 

hexavalent chromium into products 

acquired by DoD. The DoD approach to 

minimizing hexavalent chromium does 

consider factors such as cost 

effectiveness and technical feasibility as 

described at 223.7305. Since this rule 

does not address the use of hexavalent 

chromium in the manufacturing process 

or completely ban the use of hexavalent 

chromium in end items delivered to 

DoD, other statutes and regulations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
25574 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

addressing releases and managing 

human exposure will complement this 

rule when hexavalent chromium is used 

in or is a byproduct of the 

manufacturing process or is 

incorporated into the end item. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the rule should be applicable 

Governmentwide. 

DoD Response: The rule is only 

applicable to DoD. It is based on the 

April 8, 2009, policy memorandum, 

issued by the Under Secretary of 

Defense (AT&L). 

I. Contractor Liability 

Comment: Two respondents requested 

the removal of the liability provisions of 

the clause because existing law is 

sufficient. These respondents stated that 

the proposed paragraph (c) of 252.223– 

7XXX poses an unreasonable legal and 

financial risk. 

DoD Response: DoD agrees with the 

respondents. Existing law is sufficient to 

address any issues regarding 

deliverables with hexavalent chromium. 

Paragraph (c) of the clause was removed 

from the final rule. 

J. Alternatives, List of Preapproved 

Products, and Government or ThirdParty Furnished Components 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

where there are ‘‘viable and effective 

alternatives available,’’ the respondent 

encourages the use of such alternatives. 

The respondent provided trivalent 

chromium processes as an example. 

Another respondent stated that the 

prohibition clause will ‘‘inadvertently 

prohibit the use of hexavalent 

chromium solutions that convert to 

trivalent chromium or other 

environmentally friendly compounds.’’ 

DoD Response: The rule does not 

prohibit the use of trivalent chromium. 

The rule is designed to encourage the 

use of environmentally friendly 

alternatives as authorization is required 

to use hexavalent chromium. 

Comment: Two respondents requested 

a list or matrix of preapproved 

hexavalent chromium products. One 

respondent recommended that the 

Government and the contractor manage 

a list of classes of exemptions based on 

the current state of the art. 

DoD Response: A comprehensive list 

of applications that are approved for the 

use of hexavalent chromium is not 

feasible for the rule. Such a list will be 

outdated immediately. However, 

individual solicitations will contain preapproved uses of hexavalent chromium 

for specific applications where its use is 

deemed necessary to meet performance 

requirements and/or proven substitutes, 

considering relevant factors, do not 

exist. DoD program managers will 

maintain lists of pre-approved 

applications based on the criteria for 

approving substitutes pursuant to the 

April 8, 2009, memorandum, while 

taking into consideration the current 

state of art. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

contractors may be required to 

incorporate Government-furnished 

components or equipment in the final 

products assembled. Therefore, the 

contractor should not be held liable or 

responsible for screening such items if 

the finished product contains 

hexavalent chromium content in the 

supplied items from a third party or 

Government. 

DoD Response: If any Governmentfurnished component contains 

hexavalent chromium, the use will be 

authorized by the Government. With 

regard to components supplied by a 

third party to a prime contractor, it is 

the responsibility of the prime 

contractor to know what subcontractors 

and suppliers provide and comply with 

the rule. The prime contractor should 

require subcontractors and suppliers to 

provide information regarding the 

content of hazardous and toxic 

materials. In most cases, Material Safety 

Data Sheets can be used to provide such 

information. 

K. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Comment: Two respondents stated 

that the rule will have significant 

impact on small entities. 

DoD Response: As mentioned above, 

since the rule was modified such that 

plating and anodizing are not covered 

by the rule, capital costs for conversions 

are de minimis. For the most part, 

compliance with the rule will only 

require switching to non-chromate 

paints and primers. As noted and 

described more thoroughly in section 

II.C. of this preamble, based on 

conversations with industry and small 

businesses, DoD believes that the rule 

will have a positive impact on industry 

and small business profits and at worst, 

be revenue neutral over time. A number 

of small businesses have developed 

non-chromate processes but have been 

hindered in their ability to market these 

processes to DoD by existing DoD 

specifications. The rule will also help 

make businesses more competitive in 

the world market. Non-hexavalent 

chromium processes should be less 

costly over the lifecycle of the process 

due to the use of less hazardous 

materials and related control and 

disposal costs. 

Comment: Four respondents stated 

that the rule will increase lifecycle cost 

due to less corrosion protection. 

DoD Response: The rule does not 

necessarily require the use of substitutes 

for hexavalent chromium if lifecycle 

costs are higher or if performance 

requirements for corrosion control are 

not met. As described in Section II.E of 

this preamble, the DoD policy of April 

8, 2009, contains factors for considering 

substitutes. These factors include 

lifecycle costs. 

L. Meeting With Industry and 

Stakeholders 

Comment: Two respondents 

recommended that DoD should meet 

with industry and stakeholders prior to 

proceeding with proposed rule. 

DoD Response: The DoD Strategic 

Environmental Research and 

Development Program (SERDP) has held 

and participated in several workshops 

with industry related to the use of 

hexavalent chromium and substitutes. 

The results of these workshops and 

related research are available on the 

SERDP Web site at http://www.serdp.org 

and asetsdefense.org). In addition, DoD 

representatives briefed attendees at the 

2010 meeting of the National 

Association for Surface Finishing 

(NASF). DoD also provided a worldwide 

briefing concerning the rule on a Webcast hosted by the NASF. During the 

Webcast, no negative comments were 

received (A transcript of the Webcast is 

available at a cost at http:// 

www.nasf.org/staticcontent/ 

Dec14Recording.pdf). 

III. Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 

Executive Orders 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). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule 

has been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ although not 

economically significant under section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. This rule is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 804. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD certifies that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 25575 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

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

The rule has been revised to minimize 

effects on small businesses in particular. 

The rule only affects deliverables that 

contain greater than 0.1% hexavalent 

chromium, not in-plant hexavalent 

chromium processes or deliverables 

containing the metal chromium. The 

rule is primarily aimed at coatings. 

Consequently, the rule has no effect 

on— 

• Conversion coatings; 

• Hard chrome plating; 

• Chromic acid anodizing; 

• Most chromated metallic ceramics; 

and 

• Chromate washes, etches, pickling, 

etc. 

The primary coatings used by DoD 

affected by the rule are— 

• Chromated primers (for aircraft 

skins); 

• Chromated primers (for 

components); 

• Aircraft fuel tank internal coatings; 

• Wet install fastener sealants (used 

on Naval aircraft); 

• Other chromated sealants (used to 

seal panels, covers, electronics, etc.); 

and 

• Chromated metallic-ceramic paints 

used in turbine engines. 

With respect to deliverables provided 

to DoD, the above materials are used 

primarily by the large aerospace 

companies such as— 

• Airframe manufacturers; 

• Engine manufacturers; and 

• Missile and spacecraft 

manufacturers. 

The suppliers to these large 

manufacturers will be affected primarily 

by the requirement to supply 

components painted with non-chrome 

primers and chrome-free sealants. Some 

of these suppliers are large corporations 

but many are small businesses. 

However, the substitution of nonchromated products does not require a 

capital investment but rather a 

substitution of one coating formulation 

for another. For the most part, the same 

coating application equipment can be 

used and, as stated earlier, the rule will 

be positive for many of the small 

businesses that have developed nonhexavalent products. 

Some commercial aerospace 

companies have already adopted 

chromate-free finish systems. This is 

being accomplished to meet commercial 

client desires for more sustainable 

products, but it also results in a 

reduction in operating costs. A Boeing 

press release on the initial testing of 

non-chromate primers on commercial 

aircraft states: 

‘‘In addition to simplified health and safety 

monitoring requirements, a chrome-free 

primer reduces the environmental impact of 

the paint and stripping process. Removing 

chrome from the paint and primer eliminates 

the need for special handling of paint waste, 

clean up and designated offsite disposal 

areas.’’ 

(Reference http://www.boeing.com/ 

apachenews/2009/issue_01/ 

news_s7_p2.html). 

In one military example, significant 

cost avoidance was achieved by 

eliminating the extensive chromate 

control requirements involved in 

bonding attach points for wiring on the 

production line. Meeting the federal 

Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) 

requirements when using chromated 

primers requires blocking off the area 

during sanding operations, which 

interferes with all other work and 

reduces the efficiency of the production 

process. 

The examples below provide evidence 

that in most cases, companies will 

achieve savings when replacing 

hexavalent chromium with an 

alternative. 

At one maintenance facility, a sideby-side cost comparison was developed 

for a hexavalent chromium process and 

a non-hexavalent chromium process 

developed by a small business. The 

report shows that— 

• The non-chromate process replaced 

three steps which dramatically reduced 

labor costs and also eliminated the need 

to purchase three other chemicals; 

• The non-chromate process used 2⁄3

less rinse water resulting in water and 

wastewater cost savings and 

environmental benefit; 

• There was a significant reduction in 

hazardous waste disposal costs; 

• The equipment used for the nonchromate product was the same as the 

standard process (with hexavalent 

chromium); therefore there were no 

capital costs for the conversion; and 

• Less personal protection equipment 

(PPE) was required when converting to 

the non-chromate process (e.g., full 

mask, hazardous materials suit, 

respirator cartridges, etc.). 

At another facility, there was a 

savings of $6,000 per aircraft with $1.3 

million in documented operational 

savings at the time of the report due to 

switching to a non-chromate process. 

The process also eliminated 500,000 

gallons of wastewater per year. 

A large maintenance facility in Ohio 

switched to a non-chromate process and 

significantly reduced pollutant 

discharges, improved worker safety, cut 

process time, and reported savings in 

excess of $200,000 just due to reduction 

in state and federal compliance 

requirements. 

Another facility reported a savings of 

approximately $120,000 per year in 

water consumption and treatment costs 

alone and reduced production times by 

4,400 man-hours per year. 

Fact sheets and detailed cost and 

performance reports for numerous nonhexavalent chromium processes can be 

found by searching for ‘‘hexavalent 

chromium’’ at http://www.serdpestcp.org. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 223 and 

252 

Government procurement. 

Mary Overstreet, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 223 and 252 

are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 223 and 252 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

chapter 1. 

PART 223—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY 

AND WATER EFFICIENCY, 

RENEWABLE ENERGY 

TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE 

WORKPLACE 

■ 2. Add subpart 223.73 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 223.73—Minimizing the Use of 

Materials Containing Hexavalent Chromium 

Sec. 

223.7300 Definition. 

223.7301 Policy. 

223.7302 Authorities. 

223.7303 Prohibition. 

223.7304 Exceptions. 

223.7305 Authorization and approval. 

223.7306 Contract clause. 

Subpart 223.73—Minimizing the Use of 

Materials Containing Hexavalent 

Chromium 

223.7300 Definition. 

Legacy system, as used in this subpart, 

means any program that has passed 

Milestone A in the defense acquisition 

management system, as defined in DoD 

Instruction 5000.02. 

223.7301 Policy. 

It is DoD policy to minimize 

hexavalent chromium (an anticorrosive) in items acquired by DoD 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
25576 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(deliverables and construction material), 

due to the serious human health and 

environmental risks related to its use. 

Executive Order 13423, section 3, 

paragraph (a) requires that the heads of 

agencies reduce or eliminate the 

acquisition and use of toxic or 

hazardous chemicals. Executive Order 

13514 requires that the heads of 

agencies are responsible for ‘‘reducing 

and minimizing the quantity of toxic 

and hazardous chemicals and materials 

acquired, used, or disposed of.’’ 

223.7302 Authorities. 

(a) Executive Order 13423 of January 

24, 2007, Strengthening Federal 

Environmental, Energy, and 

Transportation Management. 

(b) Executive Order 13514 of October 

5, 2009, Federal Leadership in 

Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance. 

223.7303 Prohibition. 

(a) Except as provided in 223.7304 

and 223.7305, no contract may include 

a specification or standard that results 

in a deliverable or construction material 

containing more than 0.1 percent 

hexavalent chromium by weight in any 

homogeneous material in the 

deliverable or construction material 

where proven substitutes are available 

that provide acceptable performance for 

the application. 

(b) This prohibition is in addition to 

any imposed by the Clean Air Act 

regardless of the place of performance. 

223.7304 Exceptions. 

The prohibition in 223.7303 does not 

apply to— 

(a) Legacy systems and their related 

parts, subsystems, and components that 

already contain hexavalent chromium. 

However, alternatives to hexavalent 

chromium shall be considered by the 

appropriate official during system 

modifications, follow-on procurements 

of legacy systems, or maintenance 

procedure updates; and 

(b) Additional sustainment related 

contracts (e.g., parts, services) for a 

system in which use of hexavalent 

chromium was previously approved. 

223.7305 Authorization and approval. 

(a) The prohibition in 223.7303 does 

not apply to critical defense 

applications if no substitute can meet 

performance requirements. The DoD 

policy of April 8, 2009, ‘‘Minimizing the 

Use of Hexavalent Chromium,’’ contains 

requirements for weighing hexavalent 

chromium versus substitutes. DoD 

Program Managers must consider the 

following factors— 

(1) Cost effectiveness of alternative 

materials or processes; 

(2) Technical feasibility of alternative 

materials or processes; 

(3) Environment, safety, and 

occupational health risks associated 

with the use of the hexavalent 

chromium or substitute materials in 

each specific application; 

(4) Achieving a DoD Manufacturing 

Readiness Level of at least eight for any 

qualified alternative; 

(5) Materiel availability of hexavalent 

chromium and the proposed alternatives 

over the projected life span of the 

system; and 

(6) Corrosion performance difference 

of alternative materials or processes as 

determined by agency corrosion subject 

matter experts. 

(b) However, unless an exception in 

223.7304 applies, the incorporation of 

hexavalent chromium in items acquired 

by DoD shall be specifically authorized 

at a level no lower than a general or flag 

officer or a member of the Senior 

Executive Service from the Program 

Executive Office or equivalent level, in 

coordination with the component 

Corrosion Control and Prevention 

Executive. Follow the procedures in PGI 

223.7305. 

223.7306 Contract clause. 

Unless an exception in 223.7304 

applies, or use has been authorized in 

accordance with 223.7305, use the 

clause at 252.223–7008, Prohibition of 

Hexavalent Chromium, in solicitations 

and contracts for supplies, maintenance 

and repair services, or construction. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 3. Add section 252.223–7008 as 

follows: 

252.223–7008 Prohibition of Hexavalent 

Chromium. 

As prescribed in 223.7306, use the 

following clause: 

Prohibition of Hexavalent Chromium 

(MAY 2011) 

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause— 

Homogeneous material means a material 

that cannot be mechanically disjointed into 

different materials and is of uniform 

composition throughout. 

(1) Examples of homogeneous materials 

include individual types of plastics, 

ceramics, glass, metals, alloys, paper, board, 

resins, and surface coatings. 

(2) Homogeneous material does not include 

conversion coatings that chemically modify 

the substrate. Mechanically disjointed means 

that the materials can, in principle, be 

separated by mechanical actions such as 

unscrewing, cutting, crushing, grinding, and 

abrasive processes. 

(b) Prohibition. (1) Unless otherwise 

specified by the Contracting Officer, the 

Contractor shall not provide any deliverable 

or construction material under this contract 

that— 

(i) Contains hexavalent chromium in a 

concentration greater than 0.1 percent by 

weight in any homogenous material; or 

(ii) Requires the removal or reapplication 

of hexavalent chromium materials during 

subsequent sustainment phases of the 

deliverable or construction material. 

(2) This prohibition does not apply to 

hexavalent chromium produced as a byproduct of manufacturing processes. 

(c) If authorization for incorporation of 

hexavalent chromium in a deliverable or 

construction material is required, the 

Contractor shall submit a request to the 

Contracting Officer. 

(d) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall 

include the substance of this clause, 

including this paragraph (d), in all 

subcontracts for supplies, maintenance and 

repair services, or construction materials. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2011–10882 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 195 

[Docket PHMSA–2008–0186; Amdt. 195–96] 

RIN 2137–AE36 

Pipeline Safety: Applying Safety 

Regulations to All Rural Onshore 

Hazardous Liquid Low-Stress Lines 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending its 

pipeline safety regulations to apply 

safety regulation to rural low-stress 

hazardous liquid pipelines that were not 

covered previously by safety 

regulations. This change complies with 

a mandate in the Pipeline Inspection, 

Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act 

of 2006 (PIPES Act). 

DATES: This final rule takes effect 

October 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical contents of the final rule 

contact Mike Israni by phone at 202– 

366–4571 or by e-mail at 

Mike.Israni@dot.gov. For all other 

information contact Tewabe Asebe by 

phone at 202–366–4595 or by e-mail at 

tewabe.asebe@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES