Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Independent Research and Development (DFARS Case 2016-D002), 7721-7723 [2016-03039]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0840; FRL–9942–38– Region 7] Approval of Iowa’s Air State Implementation Plan (SIP); Electronic Reporting Consistent With the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Iowa. The revision pertains to the approval of Iowa’s CROMERR submission which was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2015, and will revise the Iowa SIP to provide for electronic submittal of emission inventory data. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by March 17, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– OAR–2015–0840, to http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913–551–7039, or by email at Hamilton.heather@epa.gov. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:46 Feb 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state’s SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: February 1, 2016. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. 2016–02958 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 231 [Docket DARS–2015–0070] RIN 0750–AI81 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Independent Research and Development (DFARS Case 2016– D002) Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 ACTION: 7721 Proposed rule. DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to improve the effectiveness of independent research and development investments by the defense industrial base that are reimbursed as allowable costs. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before April 18, 2016, to be considered in the formation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2016–D002, using any of the following methods: • Regulations.gov: http:// www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2016–D002’’ under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2016– D002.’’ Follow the instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2016– D002’’ on your attached document. • Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2016–D002 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: 571–372–6094. • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gomersall, telephone 571–372– 6099. SUMMARY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Better Buying Power (BBP) is the implementation of best practices to strengthen DoD’s buying power, improve industry productivity, and provide an affordable, value-added military capability to the warfighter (see http://bbp.dau.mil/.) Launched in 2010, BBP encompasses a set of fundamental acquisition principles to achieve greater efficiencies through affordability, cost control, elimination of unproductive processes and bureaucracy, and E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM 16FEP1 7722 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS promotion of competition. BBP initiatives also incentivize productivity and innovation in industry and Government, and improve tradecraft in the acquisition of services. The Independent Research and Development (IR&D) initiative outlined in BBP 3.0 is intended to improve the effectiveness of IR&D investments by the defense industrial base that are reimbursed as allowable costs. As stated in the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics BBP 3.0 Implementation Memorandum, dated April 9, 2015 (see http:// bbp.dau.mil/references.html), IR&D investments need to meet the complementary goals of providing defense companies an opportunity to exercise independent judgement on investments in promising technologies that will provide a competitive advantage, including the creation of intellectual property, while at the same time pursuing technologies that may improve the military capability of the United States. To achieve this goal, both DoD and the industrial base need to work together to ensure that DoD has visibility into the opportunity created by Government-reimbursed IR&D efforts performed by defense contractors. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2372(f), contractor IR&D investments are not directed by the Government—they are identified by individual companies and are intended to advance a particular company’s ability to develop and deliver superior and more competitive products to the warfighter. However, these efforts can have the best payoff, both for DoD and for individual performing companies, when the Government is well informed of the investments that companies are making, and when companies are well informed about related investments being made elsewhere in the Government’s research and development portfolios and about Government plans for potential future acquisitions where this IR&D may be relevant. II. Discussion and Analysis DoD is proposing to revise DFARS 231.205–18, Independent Research and Development and Bid and Proposal Costs, to require that proposed new IR&D efforts be communicated to appropriate DoD personnel prior to the initiation of these investments, and that results from these investments should also be shared with appropriate DoD personnel. The intent of such engagement is not to reduce the independence of IR&D investment selection, nor to establish a bureaucratic requirement for Government approval prior to initiating an IR&D project. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:46 Feb 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 Instead, the objective of this engagement is to ensure that both IR&D performers and their potential DoD customers have sufficient awareness of each other’s efforts and to provide industry with some feedback on the relevance of proposed and completed IR&D work. III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this proposed rule 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. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared and is summarized as follows: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to improve the effectiveness of independent research and development (IR&D) investments by the defense industrial base that are reimbursed as allowable costs in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 31.205–18(c). The IR&D initiative outlined in Better Buying Power 3.0 is intended to improve the effectiveness of IR&D investments by the defense industrial base that are reimbursed as allowable costs. To achieve this goal, both DoD and the industrial base need to work together to ensure the Department has visibility into the opportunity created by Government-reimbursed IR&D efforts performed by defense contractors. The rule proposes to revise DFARS 231.205– 18, Independent Research and Development and Bid and Proposal Costs, to require that proposed new IR&D efforts be communicated to appropriate DoD personnel prior to the initiation of these investments, and that results from these investments should also be shared with appropriate DoD personnel. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 At this time DoD is unable to estimate the number of small entities to which this rule will apply. However, DoD does not expect the rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because DFARS 231.205–18(c)(iii) applies only to major contractors, which are defined as those whose covered segments allocated a total of more than $11,000,000 in independent research and development and bid and proposal costs to covered contracts during the preceding fiscal year. There is no change to reporting and recordkeeping as a result of this rule. The recordkeeping is limited to that required to properly record and report IR&D projects to the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) using DTIC’s online IR&D database. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no known significant alternative approaches to the rule that would meet the requirements. DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2016–D002), in correspondence. V. Paperwork Reduction Act The rule affects the information collection requirements at Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 231.205–18, currently approved under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0704–0483, entitled, ‘‘Independent Research and Development Technical Descriptions,’’ in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35); however, the impact of this rule is negligible. Currently, contractors are required to (1) report Independent Research and Development (IR&D) projects to the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) using the DTIC’s on-line IR&D database and (2) update these inputs at least annually and when the project is completed. This rule merely changes the web address for submission of this report and requires major contractors to include in the report the name of the Government employee with which a technical interchange was held prior to initiation of the IR&D effort and the date of such interchange. E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM 16FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules Government employee and the date the technical interchange occurred. * * * * * List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 231 Government procurement. Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. [FR Doc. 2016–03039 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Therefore, 48 CFR part 231 is proposed to be amended as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service PART 231—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 50 CFR Part 17 1. The authority citation for part 231 continues to read as follows: ■ [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170; FFXES11130000–156–FF08E00000] Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1. RIN 1018–BA71 2. In section 231.205–18, revise paragraph (c)(iii)(C) to read as follows: ■ 231.205–18 Independent research and development and bid and proposal costs. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS * * * * * (c) * * * (iii) * * * (C) For annual IR&D costs to be allowable— (1) The IR&D projects generating the costs must be reported to the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) using the DTIC’s on-line input form and instructions at http://www.defense innovationmarketplace.mil/; (2) The inputs must be updated with a summary of results at least annually and when the project is completed; (3) Copies of the input and updates must be made available for review by the cognizant administrative contracting officer (ACO) and the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency auditor to support the allowability of the costs; (4) Contractors that do not meet the threshold as a major contractor are encouraged to use the DTIC on-line input form to report IR&D projects to provide DoD with visibility into the technical content of the contractors’ IR&D activities; and (5) For IR&D projects initiated in the contractor’s fiscal year 2017 and later, as a prerequisite for the subsequent determination of allowability, major contractors must— (i) Engage in a technical interchange with a technical or operational DoD Government employee before IR&D costs are generated so that contractor plans and goals for IR&D projects benefit from the awareness of and feedback by a DoD employee who is informed of related ongoing and future potential interest opportunities; and (ii) Use the online input form for IR&D projects reported to DTIC to document the technical interchange, which includes the name of the DoD VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:46 Feb 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the San Miguel Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, and Santa Cruz Island Fox From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and Reclassifying the Santa Catalina Island Fox From Endangered to Threatened Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring plan. AGENCY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), propose to remove the San Miguel Island fox (Urocyon littoralis littoralis), Santa Rosa Island fox (U. l. santarosae), and Santa Cruz Island fox (U. l. santacruzae) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and to reclassify the Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l. catalinae) from an endangered species to a threatened species. This determination is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the threats to the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox have been eliminated or reduced to the point that each of the subspecies no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and that the threats to the Santa Catalina Island fox have been reduced to the point that the subspecies can be reclassified as a threatened species. We are seeking information and comments from the public regarding this proposed rule and the draft postdelisting monitoring plan for the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before April 18, 2016. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 INFORMATION CONTACT 7723 section by April 1, 2016. Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-deliver to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2015– 0170; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 3803. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http:// www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section, below, for more information). Document availability: A copy of the Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) referenced throughout this document can be viewed at http://ecos.fws.gov/ speciesProfile/profile/ speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170, or at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office’s Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ Ventura/. The post-delisting monitoring plan for the northern Channel Island fox subspecies (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island foxes) consists of two documents: the epidemic response plan for northern Channel Island foxes (Hudgens et al. 2013, entire) and the golden eagle management strategy (NPS 2015a, entire). These documents will also be posted on http://ecos.fws.gov/ speciesProfile/profile/ speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08I, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2015–0170, and the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office’s Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ Ventura/. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; by telephone 805–644–1766; or by facsimile 805–644–3958. If you use a ADDRESSES: E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM 16FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7721-7723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03039]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 231

[Docket DARS-2015-0070]
RIN 0750-AI81


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Enhancing the 
Effectiveness of Independent Research and Development (DFARS Case 2016-
D002)

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to improve the effectiveness of 
independent research and development investments by the defense 
industrial base that are reimbursed as allowable costs.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to 
the address shown below on or before April 18, 2016, to be considered 
in the formation of a final rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2016-D002, using 
any of the following methods:
     Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering ``DFARS Case 
2016-D002'' under the heading ``Enter keyword or ID'' and selecting 
``Search.'' Select the link ``Submit a Comment'' that corresponds with 
``DFARS Case 2016-D002.'' Follow the instructions provided at the 
``Submit a Comment'' screen. Please include your name, company name (if 
any), and ``DFARS Case 2016-D002'' on your attached document.
     Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2016-D002 in 
the subject line of the message.
     Fax: 571-372-6094.
     Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. 
Mark Gomersall, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-3060.
    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To 
confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, 
approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting 
(except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gomersall, telephone 571-372-
6099.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Better Buying Power (BBP) is the implementation of best practices 
to strengthen DoD's buying power, improve industry productivity, and 
provide an affordable, value-added military capability to the 
warfighter (see http://bbp.dau.mil/.) Launched in 2010, BBP encompasses 
a set of fundamental acquisition principles to achieve greater 
efficiencies through affordability, cost control, elimination of 
unproductive processes and bureaucracy, and

[[Page 7722]]

promotion of competition. BBP initiatives also incentivize productivity 
and innovation in industry and Government, and improve tradecraft in 
the acquisition of services.
    The Independent Research and Development (IR&D) initiative outlined 
in BBP 3.0 is intended to improve the effectiveness of IR&D investments 
by the defense industrial base that are reimbursed as allowable costs. 
As stated in the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics BBP 3.0 Implementation Memorandum, dated 
April 9, 2015 (see http://bbp.dau.mil/references.html), IR&D 
investments need to meet the complementary goals of providing defense 
companies an opportunity to exercise independent judgement on 
investments in promising technologies that will provide a competitive 
advantage, including the creation of intellectual property, while at 
the same time pursuing technologies that may improve the military 
capability of the United States. To achieve this goal, both DoD and the 
industrial base need to work together to ensure that DoD has visibility 
into the opportunity created by Government-reimbursed IR&D efforts 
performed by defense contractors.
    In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2372(f), contractor IR&D investments 
are not directed by the Government--they are identified by individual 
companies and are intended to advance a particular company's ability to 
develop and deliver superior and more competitive products to the 
warfighter. However, these efforts can have the best payoff, both for 
DoD and for individual performing companies, when the Government is 
well informed of the investments that companies are making, and when 
companies are well informed about related investments being made 
elsewhere in the Government's research and development portfolios and 
about Government plans for potential future acquisitions where this 
IR&D may be relevant.

II. Discussion and Analysis

    DoD is proposing to revise DFARS 231.205-18, Independent Research 
and Development and Bid and Proposal Costs, to require that proposed 
new IR&D efforts be communicated to appropriate DoD personnel prior to 
the initiation of these investments, and that results from these 
investments should also be shared with appropriate DoD personnel. The 
intent of such engagement is not to reduce the independence of IR&D 
investment selection, nor to establish a bureaucratic requirement for 
Government approval prior to initiating an IR&D project. Instead, the 
objective of this engagement is to ensure that both IR&D performers and 
their potential DoD customers have sufficient awareness of each other's 
efforts and to provide industry with some feedback on the relevance of 
proposed and completed IR&D work.

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to 
review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 
U.S.C. 804.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this proposed rule 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. 
However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared 
and is summarized as follows:
    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to improve the effectiveness of 
independent research and development (IR&D) investments by the defense 
industrial base that are reimbursed as allowable costs in accordance 
with Federal Acquisition Regulation 31.205-18(c). The IR&D initiative 
outlined in Better Buying Power 3.0 is intended to improve the 
effectiveness of IR&D investments by the defense industrial base that 
are reimbursed as allowable costs. To achieve this goal, both DoD and 
the industrial base need to work together to ensure the Department has 
visibility into the opportunity created by Government-reimbursed IR&D 
efforts performed by defense contractors. The rule proposes to revise 
DFARS 231.205-18, Independent Research and Development and Bid and 
Proposal Costs, to require that proposed new IR&D efforts be 
communicated to appropriate DoD personnel prior to the initiation of 
these investments, and that results from these investments should also 
be shared with appropriate DoD personnel.
    At this time DoD is unable to estimate the number of small entities 
to which this rule will apply. However, DoD does not expect the rule to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, because DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii) applies only to major 
contractors, which are defined as those whose covered segments 
allocated a total of more than $11,000,000 in independent research and 
development and bid and proposal costs to covered contracts during the 
preceding fiscal year.
    There is no change to reporting and recordkeeping as a result of 
this rule. The recordkeeping is limited to that required to properly 
record and report IR&D projects to the Defense Technical Information 
Center (DTIC) using DTIC's online IR&D database.
    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other 
Federal rules. There are no known significant alternative approaches to 
the rule that would meet the requirements.
    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other 
interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small 
entities.
    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the 
existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments 
separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2016-D002), in 
correspondence.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule affects the information collection requirements at Defense 
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 231.205-18, currently 
approved under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 
0704-0483, entitled, ``Independent Research and Development Technical 
Descriptions,'' in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35); however, the impact of this rule is negligible. 
Currently, contractors are required to (1) report Independent Research 
and Development (IR&D) projects to the Defense Technical Information 
Center (DTIC) using the DTIC's on-line IR&D database and (2) update 
these inputs at least annually and when the project is completed. This 
rule merely changes the web address for submission of this report and 
requires major contractors to include in the report the name of the 
Government employee with which a technical interchange was held prior 
to initiation of the IR&D effort and the date of such interchange.

[[Page 7723]]

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 231

    Government procurement.

Jennifer L. Hawes,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR part 231 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 231--CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 231 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

0
2. In section 231.205-18, revise paragraph (c)(iii)(C) to read as 
follows:


231.205-18  Independent research and development and bid and proposal 
costs.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) For annual IR&D costs to be allowable--
    (1) The IR&D projects generating the costs must be reported to the 
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) using the DTIC's on-line 
input form and instructions at http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/;
    (2) The inputs must be updated with a summary of results at least 
annually and when the project is completed;
    (3) Copies of the input and updates must be made available for 
review by the cognizant administrative contracting officer (ACO) and 
the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency auditor to support the 
allowability of the costs;
    (4) Contractors that do not meet the threshold as a major 
contractor are encouraged to use the DTIC on-line input form to report 
IR&D projects to provide DoD with visibility into the technical content 
of the contractors' IR&D activities; and
    (5) For IR&D projects initiated in the contractor's fiscal year 
2017 and later, as a prerequisite for the subsequent determination of 
allowability, major contractors must--
    (i) Engage in a technical interchange with a technical or 
operational DoD Government employee before IR&D costs are generated so 
that contractor plans and goals for IR&D projects benefit from the 
awareness of and feedback by a DoD employee who is informed of related 
ongoing and future potential interest opportunities; and
    (ii) Use the online input form for IR&D projects reported to DTIC 
to document the technical interchange, which includes the name of the 
DoD Government employee and the date the technical interchange 
occurred.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-03039 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P