374 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

In addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Barry D. Wood, Esq., Mark A.

Brinton, Esq., Jones, Waldo, Holbrook &

McDonough, P.C., 2300 M Street NW.,

Suite 900, Washington, DC 20037

(Counsel to petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

96–257, adopted December 20, 1996,

and released December 27, 1996. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–40 Filed 1–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 225, 231, and 242

[DFARS Case 95–D040]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Independent

Research and Development/Bid and

Proposal Costs for FY96 and Beyond

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

proposing to amend the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) to reflect proposed changes to

the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) to treat Independent Research

and Development and Bid and Proposal

cost for fiscal year 1996 and beyond as

fully allowable, subject only to the FAR

normal standards of reasonableness and

allocability.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

should be submitted in writing to the

address shown below on or before

March 4, 1997, to be considered in the

formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to, Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn:

Ms. Sandra G. Haberlin, PDUSD (A&T)

DP (DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062,

telefax number (703) 602–0350. Please

cite DFARS Case 95–D040 in all

correspondence related to this issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Sandra Haberlin, at (703) 602–0131.

Please cite DFARS Case 95–D040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The current Independent Research

and Development (IR&D)/Bid and

Proposal (B&P) cost principle at DFARS

231.205–18 covers the limited

allowability of IR&D/B&P costs for major

contractors through a 3-year transition

period (fiscal years 1993–1995), based

on the requirements of section 802 of

the National Defense Authorization Act

for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 (Pub. L.

102–190). Section 802 does not address

the allowability of IR&D/B&P costs after

fiscal year 1995. This proposed DFARS

rule supplements a proposed FAR rule

(FAR Case 95–032), which treats IR&D/

B&P costs for fiscal year 1996 and

beyond as 100 percent allowable for all

contractors, subject only to the FAR

normal standards of reasonableness and

allocability. The proposed FAR rule was

published in the Federal Register on

November 14, 1996 (61 FR 58452). In

addition, this DFARS rule continues to

require, in accordance with 10 U.S.C.

2372, that IR&D/B&P activities of major

contractors have a potential interest to

DoD for the costs to be allowable.

The proposed DFARS rule revises

231.205–18 and 242.771 to delete (1) the

requirement for advance agreement

negotiations or formal IR&D technical

reviews and evaluations after

contractors’ fiscal year 1992; and (2) the

limited allowability restriction of IR&D/

B&P costs for fiscal years 1993–1995.

Also, the rule revises 225.7303–2(c) to

indicate that the ‘‘potential interest to

DoD’’ requirement of DFARS 231.205–

18(c)(3) does not apply to contracts for

foreign military sales.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed rule is not expected to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

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

because most contracts awarded to

small entities use simplified acquisition

procedures or are awarded on a

competitive fixed-price basis and do not

require application of the cost principle

contained in this rule. An initial

regulatory flexibility analysis, therefore,

has not been performed. Comments are

invited from small businesses and other

interested parties. Comments from small

entities concerning the affected DFARS

subparts also will be considered in

accordance with Section 610 of the Act.

Such comments must be submitted

separately and cite DFARS Case 95–

D040 in correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because the proposed rule

does not impose any new

recordkeeping, information collection

requirements, or collections of

information from offerors, contractors,

or members of the public which 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 225,

231, and 242

Government procurement

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR

Parts 225, 231, and 242 be amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Parts 225, 231, and 242 continues to

read as follows:

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

Chapter 1.

PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

2. Section 225.7303–2 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

225.7303–2 Cost of doing business with a

foreign government or an international

organization.

* * * * *

(c) The cost limitation for major

contractors on independent research

and development and bid and proposal

(IR&D/B&P) costs for projects which are

of potential interest to DoD, in 231.205–

18(c)(iii), does not apply to foreign

military sale contracts, except as

provided in 225.7303–5. The
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 375

allowability of IR&D/B&P costs on

contracts for foreign military sales not

wholly paid for from funds made

available on a nonrepayable basis shall

be limited to the contract’s allocable

share of the contractor’s total IR&D/B&P

expenditures. In pricing contracts for

such foreign military sales—

(1) Use the best estimate of reasonable

costs in forward pricing.

(2) Use actual expenditures, to the

extent that they are reasonable, in

determining final cost.

* * * * *

PART 231—CONTRACT COST

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

3. Section 231.205–18 is revised to

read as follows:

231.205–18 Independent research and

development and bid and proposal costs.

(a) Definition. Major contractor, as

used in this subsection, means a

contractor with more than $11,000,000

in IR&D/B&P costs in the preceding

fiscal year allocated to DoD prime

contracts and subcontracts whose values

exceed the simplified acquisition

threshold, except for fixed-price

contracts and subcontracts without cost

incentives.

(c) Allowability. (i) Departments/

agencies shall not supplement this

regulation in any way that limits IR&D/

B&P cost allowability.

(ii) See 225.7303–2(c) for allowability

provisions affecting foreign military sale

contracts.

(iii) For major contractors (see

paragraph (a) of this subsection), the

following limitation applies—

(A) The amount of IR&D/B&P costs

allowable under DoD contracts shall not

exceed the lesser of—

(1) Such contracts’ allocable share of

total incurred IR&D/B&P costs; or

(2) The amount of incurred IR&D/B&P

costs for projects having potential

interest to DoD.

(B) Allowable IR&D/B&P costs are

limited to those for projects which are

of potential interest to the DoD,

including activities intended to

accomplish any of the following—

(1) Enable superior performance of

future U.S. weapon systems and

components;

(2) Reduce acquisition costs and lifecycle costs of military systems;

(3) Strengthen the defense industrial

and technology base of the United

States;

(4) Enhance the industrial

competitiveness of the United States;

(5) Promote the development of

technologies identified as critical under

10 U.S.C. 2522;

(6) Increase the development and

promotion of efficient and effective

applications of dual-use technologies;

(7) Provide efficient and effective

technologies for achieving such

environmental benefits as: improved

environmental data gathering,

environmental cleanup and restoration,

pollution reduction in manufacturing,

environmental conservation, and

environmentally safe management of

facilities.

(iv) For major contractors, the

contracting officer will—

(i) Determine whether IR&D/B&P

projects are of potential interest to DoD;

and

(ii) Provide the results of the

determination to the contractor.

(v) The cognizant contract

administration office shall furnish

contractors with guidance on financial

information needed to support IR&D/

B&P costs and on technical information

needed from major contractors to

support the potential interest to DoD

determination (see also 242.771–3(a)).

PART 242—CONTRACT

ADMINISTRATION

4. Sections 242.771 through 242.771–

3 are revised to read as follows:

242.771 Independent research and

development/bid and proposal.

242.771–1 Scope of subpart.

This section implements 10 U.S.C.

2372, Independent research and

development and bid and proposal

costs: payments to contractors.

242.771–2 Policy.

Defense contractors are encouraged to

engage in IR&D/B&P activities of

potential interest to DoD, including

activities cited in 231.205–18(c)(iii)(B).

242.771–3 Responsibilities.

(a) The cognizant administrative

contracting officer (ACO) or corporate

ACO shall—

(1) Determine cost allowability of

IR&D/B&P costs as set forth in 231.205–

18 and FAR 31.205–18.

(2) Determine whether IR&D/B&P

projects performed by major contractors

(see 231.205–18(a)) are of potential

interest to DoD. Notify the contractor

promptly of any IR&D/B&P activities

which are not of potential interest to

DoD.

(b) The Defense Contract Management

Command of the Defense Logistics

Agency or the Military Department

responsible for performing contract

administration functions is responsible

for—

(1) Providing contractors with

guidance on financial information

needed to support IR&D/B&P costs.

(2) Providing Defense Contract Audit

Agency (DCAA) with IR&D/B&P

statistical information, as necessary, to

assist DCAA in its annual reporting

requirement (see paragraph (c) of this

subsection).

(c) The Defense Contract Audit

Agency is responsible for submitting an

annual report to the Director of Defense

Procurement (USD (A&T) DP) setting

forth required statistical information

relating to the DoD-wide IR&D/B&P

program.

(d) The Director, Defense Research

and Engineering (USD (A&T) DDR&E), is

responsible for establishing a regular

method for communication—

(1) From DoD to contractors, of timely

and comprehensive information

regarding planned or expected DoD

future needs; and

(2) From contractors to DoD, of brief

technical descriptions of contractor

IR&D projects.

[FR Doc. 97–43 Filed 1–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 538

[Docket No. 94–35; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF37

Minimum Driving Range for Dual

Fueled Electric Passenger

Automobiles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA

proposes to set the minimum driving

range only for dual fueled electric

passenger automobiles, otherwise

known as hybrid electric vehicles

(HEVs), at 17.7 miles when operating on

electricity alone. The purpose of

establishing the range is to meet a

statutory requirement intended to

encourage the production of HEVs. An

HEV which meets the range requirement

would qualify to have its fuel economy

calculated according to a special

procedure that would facilitate the

efforts of its manufacturer to comply

with the corporate average fuel economy

standards. NHTSA is also proposing to