[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57188-57190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19462]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 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-
[[Page 57190]]
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.
0
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
0
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.
0
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.
* * * * *
0
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
0
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