57188 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(vi) List and summarize, if seeking the 

exemption for rural telephone 

cooperatives pursuant to § 1.2110, all 

documentation to establish eligibility 

pursuant to the factors listed under 

§ 1.2110(b)(3)(iii)(A). 

[FR Doc. 05–19519 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Parts 204, 212, 213, and 252 

[DFARS Case 2003–D040] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Central 

Contractor Registration 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, 

with changes, an interim rule amending 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

remove policy on Central Contractor 

Registration (CCR) that duplicated 

policy found in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR). The rule also 

addresses requirements for use of 

Commercial and Government Entity 

(CAGE) codes in DoD contracts. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Tronic, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations Council, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0289; 

facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2003–D040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DoD published an interim rule at 68 

FR 64557 on November 14, 2003, to 

remove DFARS requirements for 

contractors to register in the CCR 

database, since policy on this subject 

had been added to the FAR. The interim 

rule also addressed requirements for 

inclusion of CAGE codes on contracts 

and in the CCR database to 

accommodate DoD payment systems. 

Three sources submitted comments 

on the interim DFARS rule. A 

discussion of the comments is provided 

below. 

1. Comment: Provision of DUNS 

numbers and CAGE codes. One 

respondent stated that the interim rule 

appeared to require contracting officers 

to provide both a DUNS number and a 

CAGE code on contractual documents 

submitted to the payment office, 

whereas the previous DFARS coverage 

required either a DUNS number or a 

CAGE code. 

DoD Response: The final rule revises 

DFARS 204.1103(e) to clarify that 

contracting officers must include the 

contractor’s CAGE code on contractual 

documents transmitted to the payment 

office, instead of the DUNS number. 

2. Comment: Timely assignment of 

CAGE codes. One respondent 

recommended adding a statement to the 

rule to address the need for the Defense 

Logistics Information Service to assign 

CAGE codes in a timely manner, to 

avoid payment delays and payment of 

interest. 

DoD Response: DoD agrees that timely 

assignment of CAGE codes is important. 

However, such a statement is 

considered unnecessary for inclusion in 

the DFARS. 

3. Comment: Contractor failure to 

provide correct or current CCR 

information. One respondent provided 

an example of a contractor’s failure to 

maintain current information in the CCR 

database. 

DoD Response: Contractors are 

responsible for maintaining CCR 

information and are required to review 

and update their information annually 

to ensure it is current, accurate, and 

complete. 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD certifies that this final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

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

because the rule adds no new 

requirements for contractors. The rule 

removes DFARS text on Central 

Contractor Registration that has become 

obsolete as a result of policy that was 

added to the FAR, and retains existing 

requirements for use of Commercial and 

Government Entity codes in DoD 

contracts. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the rule does not 

impose any information collection 

requirements that require the approval 

of the Office of Management and Budget 

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 204, 212, 

213, and 252 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 48 CFR parts 204, 212, 213, 

and 252, which was published at 68 FR 

64557 on November 14, 2003, is 

adopted as a final rule with the 

following change: 

PART 204–ADMINISTRATIVE 

MATTERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 204 continues to read as follows: 

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

Chapter 1. 

■ 2. Section 204.1103 is revised to read 

as follows: 

204.1103 Procedures. 

■ (e) On contractual documents 

transmitted to the payment office, 

provide the Commercial and 

Government Entity code, instead of the 

DUNS number or DUNS+4 number, in 

accordance with agency procedures. 

[FR Doc. 05–19464 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Parts 209, 217, and 246 

[DFARS Case 2003–D101] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Quality 

Control of Aviation Critical Safety 

Items and Related Services 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, 

with changes, an interim rule amending 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

implement Section 802 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004. Section 802 requires DoD to 

establish a quality control policy for the 

procurement of aviation critical safety 

items and the modification, repair, and 

overhaul of those items. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

Telephone (703) 602–0326; facsimile 

(703) 602–0350. Please cite DFARS Case 

2003–D101. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57189 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

DoD published an interim rule at 69 

FR 55987 on September 17, 2004, to 

implement Section 802 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–136). Section 

802 requires DoD to prescribe in 

regulations a quality control policy for 

the procurement of aviation critical 

safety items and the modification, 

repair, and overhaul of those items. The 

interim rule identified the 

responsibilities of the head of the design 

control activity with regard to quality 

control of aviation critical safety items 

and related services. 

Six respondents submitted comments 

on the interim rule. A discussion of the 

comments is provided below. 

1. Comment: One respondent 

suggested there might be confusion 

between the head of the contracting 

activity for the procuring activity of an 

aviation critical safety item and the 

head of the contracting activity for the 

design control activity. A proposed 

change was suggested to clarify this 

issue. 

DoD Response: The final rule amends 

DFARS 209.270–3(a) to clarify that the 

policy in that paragraph applies to the 

head of the contracting activity 

responsible for procuring an aviation 

critical safety item. 

2. Comment: Two respondents 

recommended clarification as to who 

has responsibility for identifying and 

determining aviation critical safety 

items. 

DoD Response: The final rule adds a 

paragraph at DFARS 209.270–4(a)(1) to 

clarify that the head of the design 

control activity is responsible for 

identifying items that meet the criteria 

for designation as aviation critical safety 

items. 

3. Comment: Six respondents 

requested clarification as to whether the 

authority to disposition minor 

nonconformances in aviation critical 

safety items can be delegated, and 

recommended that the DFARS state that 

delegation can be authorized. 

DoD Response: The final rule amends 

DFARS 246.407(S–70) to state that 

acceptance of minor nonconformances 

in aviation critical safety items may be 

delegated as determined appropriate by 

the design control activity. 

4. Comment: Two respondents 

requested clarification as to whether the 

rule applies only to Government 

contract awards or if prime contractors 

must obtain design control activity 

approval of subcontracts for aviation 

critical safety items. 

DoD Response: Clarification of this 

issue in the DFARS rule is considered 

unnecessary. Unless otherwise stated, 

DFARS policy applies to contracts 

awarded by the Government. 

5. Comment: One respondent 

recommended clarification of the 

connection between the DFARS rule 

and qualified products list policies. 

DoD Response: Clarification of this 

issue in the DFARS rule is considered 

unnecessary. However, DoD is presently 

drafting a joint service/agency 

instruction that will address this issue. 

6. Comment: One respondent asked 

whether the rule would apply to 

commercial items acquired under FAR 

Part 12 or commercial aviation systems 

and components governed by Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) 

regulations. 

DoD Response: The draft joint service/ 

agency instruction will make it clear 

that aviation critical safety item policies 

do not apply to commercial aircraft or 

subsystems purchased and maintained 

in accordance with FAA regulations 

unless specifically required by the 

military department. 

7. Comment: Three respondents 

questioned whether there would be 

drawing changes and new reporting 

requirements as a result of the rule and 

how the costs associated with these 

changes would be reimbursed. 

DoD Response: The rule contains no 

requirements for drawing changes or 

new reporting. Such changes would be 

determined on a case-by-case basis or 

would be addressed in policy issued by 

the requirements community. 

8. Comment: Two respondents 

expressed concern that the rule would 

result in changes to approved quality 

systems, additional requirements for 

disposal of critical safety items, and 

additional acceptance testing. 

DoD Response: The rule does not 

address these issues. Such changes 

would be determined on a case-by-case 

basis or would be addressed in policy 

issued by the requirements community. 

9. Comment: One respondent 

recommended that DoD look for synergy 

between the unique item identification 

policy and aviation critical safety item 

policy. 

DoD Response: DoD is looking at 

unique item identification as a 

facilitator for product identification, 

serialization, and tracking. 

10. Comment: Two respondents 

expressed concern that the rule could 

have a significant economic impact on 

small businesses due to (1) new 

qualification standards established by 

the heads of the design control 

activities, and (2) significant differences 

that exist between contractor/original 

equipment manufacturer critical 

component designations and DoD 

critical safety item designations. 

DoD Response: These issues are 

addressed in the final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD has prepared a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis consistent with 5 

U.S.C. 604. The analysis is summarized 

below. A copy of the analysis may be 

obtained from the point of contact 

specified herein. 

The objective of the rule is to give the 

head of the design control activity 

responsibility for the quality control of 

aviation critical safety items, including 

identifying and designating these items, 

and approval of sources, products, and 

offerors prior to contract award. Two 

respondents expressed concern that 

there could be significant economic 

impact on small businesses or original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) due 

to (1) new qualification standards 

established by the heads of design 

control activities, and (2) significant 

differences that exist between 

contractor/OEM critical component 

designations and DoD critical safety 

item designations. If a small business 

has previously been approved to furnish 

an aviation critical safety item, has 

furnished the item within the past 3 

years, and has a good quality track 

record, there should be no impact on 

that business. Many small businesses 

fall into this category. If a small 

business did not go through the 

approval process but furnished the 

aviation critical safety item within the 

past 3 years, the Government will check 

the company’s quality track record and 

test samples from DoD inventory to 

ensure conformity. When the company 

next receives a contract for the aviation 

critical safety item, the Government will 

request commonly generated 

manufacturing, quality, and inspection 

information. The 3-year timeframe is 

consistent with established Government 

and nongovernment qualification 

requirements, particularly those relating 

to the aerospace sector. DoD Qualified 

Products List and Qualified 

Manufacturers List procedures require 

revalidation every 2 years. The Society 

of Automotive Engineers standard 

AS9102 on Aerospace First Article 

Inspection requires reinspection of an 

aerospace part if there has been a lapse 

in production for 2 years or as specified 

by the customer. The Federal Aviation 

Administration’s Advisory Circular 00–

57190 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

56A, Voluntary Industry Distributor 

Accreditation Program, establishes that 

civil aerospace parts distributors may 

not exceed the 24-month requirement if 

they were accredited prior to revision of 

the circular and that accredited 

distributors shall be audited at least 

once every 36 months. The Aviation 

Suppliers Association Quality System 

Standard ASA–100 requires an 

accreditation audit every 36 months and 

a surveillance audit during the 36- 

month period. The National Aerospace 

and Defense Contractors Accreditation 

Program (NADCAP)—Performance 

Review Institute (PRI) establishes 

product qualification to be generally 

valid for 3 years or as determined by the 

specific Qualified Products Group. 

In calendar year 2003, the year before 

the interim rule took effect, 62.8% of 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

contracts for currently identified 

aviation critical safety items were 

awarded to small businesses. During the 

first 8 months of calendar year 2005 (the 

year after the interim rule became 

effective), 62.9% of DLA contracts for 

critical safety items were awarded to 

small businesses. There has been no 

significant impact on contract awards to 

small businesses as a result of the 

DFARS rule. 

Regardless of whether the contractor 

or DoD designates an item as a critical 

safety item, the contractor is required to 

deliver conforming products. This is 

especially important when the 

consequences of item failure could be 

catastrophic. Small businesses that 

understand the design intent of a critical 

safety item, and the item’s application 

in the weapon system, its critical 

attributes, and its failure implications, 

should have high-performing 

manufacturing, supplier management, 

and quality control processes. While the 

contractor/OEM and DoD may have 

different methods of categorizing parts, 

the critical safety item designation is not 

expected to have a significant cost 

impact on small businesses with 

approved quality systems. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the rule does not 

impose any information collection 

requirements that require the approval 

of the Office of Management and Budget 

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 209, 

217, and 246 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 48 CFR parts 209, 217, and 

246, which was published at 69 FR 

55987 on September 17, 2004, is 

adopted as a final rule with the 

following changes: 

PART 209—CONTRACTOR 

QUALIFICATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 209 and 246 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Chapter 1. 

■ 2. Section 209.270–3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

209.270–3 Policy. 

(a) The head of the contracting 

activity responsible for procuring an 

aviation critical safety item may enter 

into a contract for the procurement, 

modification, repair, or overhaul of such 

an item only with a source approved by 

the head of the design control activity. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 209.270–4 is amended by 

removing the introductory text and 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

209.270–4 Procedures. 

(a) The head of the design control 

activity shall—

(1) Identify items that meet the 

criteria for designation as aviation 

critical safety items. See additional 

information at PGI 209.270–4; 

(2) Approve qualification 

requirements in accordance with 

procedures established by the design 

control activity; and 

(3) Qualify and identify aviation 

critical safety item suppliers and 

products. 

* * * * * 

PART 246—QUALITY ASSURANCE 

■ 4. Section 246.407 is amended by 

revising paragraph (S–70) to read as 

follows: 

246.407 Nonconforming supplies or 

services. 

* * * * * 

(S–70) The head of the design 

control activity is the approval authority 

for acceptance of any nonconforming 

aviation critical safety items or 

nonconforming modification, repair, or 

overhaul of such items (see 209.270). 

Authority for acceptance of minor 

nonconformances in aviation critical 

safety items may be delegated as 

determined appropriate by the design 

control activity. See additional 

information at PGI 246.407. 

[FR Doc. 05–19462 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Part 219 

[DFARS Case 2005–D020] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Extension of 

Partnership Agreement—8(a) Program 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to reflect an extension in the 

expiration date of a partnership 

agreement between DoD and the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). The 

partnership agreement permits DoD to 

award contracts to 8(a) Program 

participants on behalf of SBA. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Tronic, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

Telephone (703) 602–0289; facsimile 

(703) 602–0350. Please cite DFARS Case 

2005–D020. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

By partnership agreement dated 

February 1, 2002, between the SBA and 

DoD, the SBA delegated to DoD its 

authority to enter into contracts under 

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act 

(15 U.S.C. 637(a)). The expiration date 

of the partnership agreement has been 

extended from September 30, 2005, to 

September 30, 2006. This final rule 

amends DFARS 219.800 to reflect the 

extension. 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule will not have a significant 

cost or administrative impact on 

contractors or offerors, or a significant 

effect beyond the internal operating 

procedures of DoD. Therefore, 

publication for public comment is not