[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 86288-86295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27171]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 117

[Docket ID: DoD-2023-OS-0061]
RIN 0790-AL52


National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM); 
Amendment

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & 
Security, Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing amendments to the National Industrial 
Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) based on public comments 
received on a final rule published on December 21, 2020. The proposed 
amendments address implementation guidance and costs for the Security 
Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 3, clarifications on procedures for 
the protection and reproduction of classified information, controlled 
unclassified information (CUI), National Interest Determination (NID) 
requirements for cleared contractors operating under a Special Security 
Agreement for Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence, and eligibility 
determinations for personnel security clearance processes and 
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or 
Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following 
methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant to 
the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and 
Transparency, Regulatory Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: 
Mailbox 24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and

[[Page 86289]]

docket number or RIN for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any 
personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allyson Renzella, 703-697-9209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The NISPOM establishes requirements for the protection of 
classified information disclosed to or developed by contractors, 
licensees, grantees, or certificate holders to prevent unauthorized 
disclosure. The National Industrial Security Program (NISP) is 
established by Executive Order (E.O.) 12829 ``National Industrial 
Security Program (NISP)'' (available at https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12829-with-eo-13691-amendments.pdf) provides a 
single integrated, cohesive industrial security program to protect 
classified information to preserve our Nation's economic and 
technological interests. Under the NISP, the USG establishes 
requirements for the protection of classified information to be 
safeguarded in a manner equivalent to its protection within the 
executive branch of USG, where practicable. For industry, those 
requirements are included in the NISPOM. When bound by contract, 
license, or grant, industry must comply with the NISPOM and any 
Cognizant Security Agency (CSA)-specific supplementary guidance for 
unique CSA mission requirements. As the Executive Agent of the NISP, 
the Secretary of Defense is responsible for overall implementation of 
the program. The Department of Defense (DoD) issues and maintains the 
NISPOM with the concurrence of the other four NISP CSAs and in 
consultation with other affected Federal agencies.
    DoD codified the NISPOM in a final rule on December 21, 2020 (85 FR 
83300-83364) National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual 
(NISPOM) to add 32 CFR part 117 to the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR). The rule was effective on February 24, 2021. In addition to 
adding the NISPOM to the CFR, the final rule incorporated requirements 
of Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 3, Reporting Requirements 
for Personnel with Access to Classified Information or Who Hold a 
Sensitive Position. SEAD 3 requires reporting by all contractor cleared 
personnel who have been granted eligibility for access to classified 
information. The final rule provided a single nation-wide 
implementation plan to include SEAD 3 reporting by all contractor 
cleared personnel to report specific activities that may adversely 
impact their continued national security eligibility, such as reporting 
of foreign travel and foreign contacts. NISP CSAs are required to 
conduct an analysis of such reported activities to determine whether 
they pose a potential threat to national security and take appropriate 
action. Finally, the rule also implemented the provisions of Section 
842 of Public Law 155-232, which removed the requirement for a covered 
National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB) entity operating under a 
special security agreement pursuant to the NISP to obtain a national 
interest determination as a condition for access to proscribed 
information. The 60-day public comment period ended on February 19, 
2021.
    On August 19, 2021, DoD published a technical amendment to the 
December final rule (at 86 FR 46597-46599) to extend until August 24, 
2022, the implementation date for those contractors under DoD security 
cognizance to report and obtain pre-approval of unofficial foreign 
travel to the DoD. The technical amendment was effective on August 19, 
2021 and was done to allow DoD to make modifications to its information 
technology (IT) systems. The technical amendment addressed comments 
from regulated parties on the burdensome nature of submitting 
individual foreign travel reports for those contractors under DoD 
security cognizance. The technical amendment allowed DoD more time to 
make the necessary changes to the IT system for multiple foreign travel 
reports in a single submission.
    This proposed rule addresses the comments received on the final 
rule published in December 2020 and further amends the 32 CFR 117 to 
make the following changes as discussed below.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The December 21, 2020 final rule received nine sets of public 
comments from five individuals who provided 11 comments, two companies 
that provided 41 comments, an industry representative organization that 
provided 28 comments, and a law firm that provided four comments, for a 
total of 84 comments.

Clarification on Procedures

    The vast majority of the comments related to a request for 
clarification on procedures for those contractors under DoD security 
cognizance. Many of the comments did not result in a change to the rule 
because they related to procedures that a NISP CSA would provide to 
supplement unique CSA mission requirements. For contractors under DoD 
security cognizance, DoD provides unique CSA mission guidance via 
industrial security letters (ISLs) when applicable. ISLs are published 
on the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) website 
(https://www.dcsa.mil/) and will address the comments received and re-
issue previous NISPOM ISLs, as needed. Previous ISLs were tied to the 
content of the NISPOM when it was a DoD manual. Some of the guidance 
contained in prior ISLs has been incorporated into the rule and is no 
longer needed. Those ISLs that are still needed in order to provide 
further guidance to those contractors under DoD security cognizance 
will be re-issued in accordance with the rule.

Comments Related to SEAD 3 Implementation

    Many comments were received on Sec.  117.8, relating to 
implementation of SEAD 3, Reporting Requirements for Personnel with 
Access to Classified Information or Who Hold a Sensitive Position, 
published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 
Commenters were concerned with the lack of guidance on how information 
systems will be used to report foreign travel and when foreign travel 
reporting should be accomplished by contractors. Also, commenters 
requested more details as to who approves foreign travel requests: the 
contractor security staff, the government customer, or CSA. DoD also 
received comments from regulated parties stating it would be burdensome 
for contractors under DoD security cognizance to submit individual 
foreign travel reports. Regulated parties recommended DoD modify its 
information technology (IT) system so a contractor may submit multiple 
or batched foreign travel reports in a single submission. As discussed 
earlier, to allow time for the completion of modifications to DoD's IT 
system, DoD published an amendment on August 19, 2021, to extend until 
August 24, 2022, the implementation date for contractors under DoD 
security cognizance to report and obtain pre-approval of unofficial 
foreign travel to DoD. The IT system was modified prior to the August 
2022 implementation date and can now receive multiple foreign travel 
reports at a time.
    Additionally, one commenter opined the cost to contractors to 
implement SEAD 3 was underestimated--both in

[[Page 86290]]

the time it will take to report and the number of reports that will be 
generated. We agree with this assessment and the corrected numbers can 
be found in the cost analysis section of the preamble. Further, 
commenters asked how the CSA will analyze the reported data and if the 
analysis will be shared with the contractor or the cleared employee 
going on foreign travel. For those contractors under DoD cognizance, 
guidance was provided via an ISL (https://www.dcsa.mil/Portals/128/Documents/CTP/tools/ISL2021-02_SEAD-3.pdf) to provide supplementary 
procedures and inform industry how compliance with SEAD 3 will be 
accomplished for unique DoD mission needs.

Controlled Unclassified Information

    DoD received seven comments on CUI as it relates to the paragraphs 
on security reviews (Sec.  117.7), training (Sec.  117.12), and 
safeguarding CUI (Sec.  117.15). DoD did not make any changes to the 
rule as compliance with CUI is outside the scope of the NISP. For the 
purposes of this rule, if a contractor has a classified contract that 
also includes provisions for CUI, then, under certain circumstances, 
CUI assessments may be conducted by the CSA in conjunction with NISP 
USG reviews. The contractor must follow the requirements as stated in 
their contract concerning the safeguarding of CUI.

Security Reviews

    DoD received several comments on Sec.  117.7, to include that a 
facility security officer (FSO) should be a U.S. citizen with no 
exceptions; and the text was updated accordingly in 117.7(b). The text 
clarifies that the only exception for U.S. citizenship may apply to the 
Senior Management Official or Insider Threat Program Senior Official if 
the entity has a limited entity eligibility determination due to 
foreign ownership, control, or influence. Two commenters observed that 
Sec.  117.7(h)(1)(i) did not include the frequency of security review 
cycles. DoD is accepting this change and has modified Sec.  
117.7(h)(1)(i) to reflect security reviews will only occur once every 
12 months unless special circumstances exist, to include addressing 
security vulnerabilities found during a previous security review. 
Another commenter expressed concern the final rule allowed a CSA to 
conduct unannounced reviews at its discretion without any specific 
guidelines. Based on this comment, DoD has proposed to update Sec.  
117.7(h)(1)(ii)(A) to clarify unannounced security reviews will be 
conducted only if there is a possibility of the imminent loss or 
compromise of classified information.

Eligibility Determinations

    DoD received several comments on eligibility determinations in 
Sec.  117.10, to include a request for clarification on the system of 
record for personnel security clearances, clarification of requirements 
for current investigations, reinvestigation, and continuous evaluation 
requirements, definition of what is considered a break in access and 
break in employment, and the process for requesting and granting an 
extension if a temporary eligibility determination goes beyond a year. 
DoD is not proposing any changes based on these comments as 
clarification to contractors under DoD cognizance will be provided when 
applicable via ISLs.

National Interest Determination (NID) Requirements

    DoD received comments on the changes to the NID requirements for a 
covered National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB) entity based on 
section 842 of Public Law 115-232 included in Sec.  117.11. Commenters 
asked for clarification on which specific entities fall under section 
842 of Public Law 115-232 and recommended that NIDs be eliminated 
completely. The final NISPOM rule reflects language taken directly from 
section 842 of Public Law 115-232, which includes eliminating a NID 
requirement for U.S.-cleared companies owned by Australia, Canada, and 
the United Kingdom. DoD is not making any changes based on these 
comments as DoD is unable to eliminate NIDs, since the provisions for 
NID requirements are driven by 32 CFR part 2004, National Industrial 
Security Program, and not this rule. There has been no change to the 
NID requirements in 32 CFR part 2004 outside of section 842 Public Law 
115-232.

Safeguarding

    Eight comments were received on safeguarding, Sec.  117.15, to 
include four on open storage areas and another four on intrusion 
detection systems (IDS). Commenters also requested more guidance on 
open storage area requirements included in the previous NISPOM DoD 
Manual, to include procedures for leaving an open storage area 
unattended during business hours, whether self-approval authority can 
still be delegated to FSOs by a CSA, procedures to ensure the 
structural integrity of the space, and whether open bin and open shelf 
storage is still permitted. DoD is proposing updated text in Sec.  
117.15(a) and (c) to address several of these comments (e.g., 
procedures for leaving an open storage area unattended during business 
hours and delegation of approval authority to FSOs if agreed to by the 
CSA, respectively) and as a result added a definition for ``pedestrian 
door locks'' from the added text on security checks. DoD is also 
proposing updated text in paragraph 117.15(d) to provide more clarity 
on required investigative response to alarms for IDS. More guidance on 
safeguarding for those contractors under DoD cognizance will be 
provided via forthcoming ISLs, as appropriate. DoD is also proposing 
additional text to Sec.  117.15(e) regarding information management 
systems to more accurately reflect the terminology for classified 
information systems, and as a result added the term ``authorization to 
operate'' to the definitions section in Sec.  117.3. Finally, DoD is 
proposing additional text to Sec.  117.15(e)(6) to provide more clarity 
on the requirements for the reproduction of classified information, to 
include accountability, control, and marking requirements of the 
reproduced classified information, and procedures for waste products 
resulting from the reproduction.
    A commenter questioned the accuracy of the text in Sec.  
117.17(a)(3) which stated that if an entity eligibility determination 
could not be completed in time to qualify the prospective subcontractor 
for participation in a procurement action, that the CSA will continue 
the entity eligibility determination processing for future contract 
consideration. After review of this text, DoD has concluded this text 
provides guidance to CSAs, rather than contractors and is proposing it 
for deletion.

Joint Personnel Adjudication System

    Finally, the reference to the Joint Personnel Adjudication System 
is proposed for deletion from the list of approved information 
collections as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act section because it 
has been discontinued and replaced by the Defense Information System 
for Security. The text in Sec.  117.5(d) has also been proposed for 
updating to reflect only the Defense Information System for Security is 
used for the initiation, investigation, and adjudication of information 
relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability 
determinations.

Expected Impact of the Proposed Rule and Changes Being Proposed Based 
on Public Comment

    The proposed rule changes seek to provide clarification on 
safeguarding terminology and correct identified paragraph numbering 
errors, as well as

[[Page 86291]]

address comments from regulated parties seeking more detail or guidance 
on existing requirements from the final rule published December 21, 
2020. The proposed changes are mostly insignificant in that by 
themselves, these proposed changes create no additional requirements to 
current NISP policy. For example, a paragraph on subcontracting was 
removed because it was deemed to be guidance for the government, rather 
than contractors (i.e., the regulated parties). Also, the references to 
the Joint Personnel Adjudication System as the system of record for 
personnel security clearance processing were removed and replaced with 
the current system of record, Defense Information System for Security. 
These changes create no additional burden or cost to contractors; but 
rather seek to provide updated, accurate information. The proposed 
changes also seek to clarify terminology in relation to safeguarding 
requirements, which were initially incorporated into the final rule 
published December 21, 2020 to be in line with 32 CFR part 2001. These 
changes are not expected to result in any changes to cost estimates or 
burden on the regulated parties, but rather provide a more consistent, 
uniform means to comply with existing NISP requirements across the 
federal government.

Costs

    As stated under the Discussion of Comments and Changes section, DoD 
received one comment that the cost for implementing SEAD 3 was 
underestimated in the original rule. DoD agrees with the commenter and 
the cost estimates have been updated accordingly.
    We are including here the summary of information on the baseline 
cost from the original rule for reference. DCSA began the cost analysis 
for the baseline costs for fiscal year 2017 by randomly selecting 
active NISP contractor facilities that have existing DoD approval for 
classified storage at their own physical locations and having those 
facilities submit security costs. The randomly selected contractor 
facilities also have an active facility security clearance and a 
permanent Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code. In addition to 
the randomly selected cleared facilities having approved classified 
storage, DCSA categorizes these contractor facilities for the survey 
based on the size, scope, and complexity of each contractor's security 
program.
    The general methodology used to estimate security costs incurred by 
contractor cleared facilities with approved storage of classified 
information is based on the costs incurred by respondent contractors 
for the protection of classified information. The methodology captures 
the most significant portion of industry's costs, which is labor. 
Security labor in the survey is defined as personnel whose positions 
exist to support operations and staff in the implementation of 
government security requirements for the protection of classified 
information. Guards who are required as supplemental controls are 
included in security labor. The respondent contractors are requested to 
compile their cleared facility's current annual security labor cost in 
burdened, current year dollars with the most recent data being from the 
2017 survey. The labor cost, when identified as an estimated percent of 
each contractor's total security costs, enables the respondent 
contractors to calculate their total security costs.
    Information collected is compiled to create an aggregate estimated 
cost of NISP classification-related activities. Only the aggregate data 
is reported. The full enterprise industrial security total baseline 
cost in the December 21, 2020, rule was estimated to not exceed $1.486 
billion for fiscal year 2017. Based on the data collected from the 
survey, we can be 95% confident the true 2017 total NISP security cost 
for contractor facilities with approved classified storage is less than 
$1.486 billion.

Public Cost Analysis of the Changes to the Baseline From This Rule

    1. Cost Analysis. Throughout, labor rates are adjusted upward by 
100% to account for overhead and benefits. The following areas, 1.a and 
1.b, were re-evaluated for cost based on the public comment.
    a. Train all cleared employees on requirements to submit foreign 
travel reports. We determined that the estimate of cleared contractor 
personnel who would be required to be trained should also include TOP 
SECRET cleared employees rather than just SECRET cleared employees as 
indicated in the original rule. The FSO at each entity (small or large) 
must ensure that its cleared employees are trained on the requirements. 
Such training by the FSO is estimated to take one hour in 2021 and a 
half an hour in each of the following years up to the 20th year. Using 
the published Office of Personnel Management GS salary schedule for 
FY20, the estimated labor rate for an FSO of a small business entity 
firm is the equivalent of a GS11 step 5 and for an FSO of a large 
business entity is the equivalent of a GS13, step 5. These assumptions 
imply total costs of $0.99 million in 2021 as year one; and, $0.49 
million each year from year two through the 20th year. These estimates 
have not changed from the original baseline.
    b. We determined that the estimate of cleared contractor personnel 
who would be required to submit foreign travel reports should also 
include TOP SECRET cleared employees rather than just SECRET cleared 
employees as indicated in the original rule. As a result, the estimated 
cost has increased from $16.81 to $19.25 million. The following 
provides details on the estimated increase. All cleared employees, 
rather than only SECRET cleared employees, must submit foreign travel 
reports, and receive any pre-travel threat briefings or post travel 
briefings from the FSO based on the threat according to this rule, SEAD 
3, and CSA-provided guidance for unique mission requirements. It is 
estimated that the number of foreign travel reports submitted annually 
will increase from 483,681 as estimated in the original rule to 813,054 
to comply with the amendment. That estimate is based on analysis of 
calendar year 2019 unofficial foreign travel reported by DoD civilians 
and military in the DoD Aircraft and Personnel Automated Clearance 
System (APACS), a web-based tool for the creation, submission, and 
approval of aircraft diplomatic clearances and personnel travel 
clearances (i.e., Country, Theater, and Special Area, as applicable 
with individual DoD Foreign Clearance Guide (FCG), https://www.fcg.pentagon.mil country pages) designed to aid USG travelers on 
official government and unofficial (e.g., leave) travel. For calendar 
year 2019, there were 126,131 travelers and 113,214 travel requests 
submitted into APACS. APACS requirements are published on the DoD FCG, 
https://www.fcg.pentagon.mil. Thus, an annual estimate of .89 expected 
foreign travel trips by traveler (113,214 divided by 126,131). In the 
small business analysis, there was a total of 18,242 cleared employees 
in the 658 small entities sampled and 63,598 cleared employees in the 
remaining 356 non-small businesses. Of the total cleared employees in 
the small business analysis (as reported in the National Industrial 
Security System), approximately 22.3% were at small entities, and 77.7% 
were at non-small businesses. Known number of new travelers expected to 
be affected by this proposed rule will increase from the initial 
estimate of 543,462 to 905,818 cleared contractor personnel, an 
increase of 362,356 to include TOP

[[Page 86292]]

SECRET cleared contractor personnel under DoD security cognizance and 
the estimated trips at .89 per traveler is (905,818 x .89 = 813,054 
estimated trips). Assuming the ratio for those employees reporting 
foreign travel into APACS is the same as cleared employees would 
report, of the estimated 813,054 foreign trips by cleared employees, it 
can be estimated that approximately 181,262 (22.3% of 813,054) will be 
taken by contractors at small entities, and 631,792 (77.7% of 813,054) 
by contractors at non-small businesses. It is estimated that it will 
take a half an hour for a cleared employee to report foreign travel in 
2021 and in each of the following years up to year 20 to report foreign 
travel and receive any pre-travel or post-travel briefings. The 
estimated average labor rate for a cleared employee to report foreign 
travel is the equivalent of a GS11 step 5. These assumptions imply 
costs increasing from $16.81 to $19.25 million in each year one through 
20.
    2. Projected Public Costs. Based on the re-evaluation of the cost 
of training cleared employees on foreign travel reporting and 
submissions, the estimated public costs are present value costs of 
$267.4 million, which includes the additional foreign travel reporting 
cost.
    3. Updated Baseline Cost. With this increase for the foreign travel 
reporting, DoD's updated enterprise industrial security baseline cost 
is estimated not to exceed $1.753 billion ($1.486 billion plus $267.4 
million).

Regulatory Analysis

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive 
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''

    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, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. 
It has been determined that this rule is a significant regulatory 
action. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the requirements of these Executive 
Orders.

Congressional Review Act

    This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)

    The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, 
pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Defense, 
certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities in 
accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) 
requirements since a contractor cleared legal entity may, in entering 
into contracts requiring access to classified information, negotiate 
for security costs determined to be properly chargeable by a Government 
Contracting Activity.

Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, 
a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless 
that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This proposed rule involves 
collections previously approved by OMB under the following control 
numbers.

<bullet> OMB Control Number: 0704-0194, DD Form 441, Department of 
Defense Security Agreement
<bullet> OMB Control Number: 0704-0571, National Industrial Security 
System
<bullet> OMB Control Number: 0704-0567, DoD Contract Security 
Classification Specification
<bullet> OMB Control Number: 0704-0573, Defense Information System for 
Security (DISS)
<bullet> OMB Control Number: 0704-0579, Certificate Pertaining to 
Foreign Interests, SF 328
<bullet> OMB Control Number: 3150-0047, 10 CFR part 95, Facility 
Security Clearance and Safeguarding of National Security Information 
and Restricted Data
<bullet> OMB Control Number: 1910-1800, Security

    DoD believes the total burden hours associated with these 
collections are not expected to change based on the amendments proposed 
in this rule. Information on the current version of these collections, 
including all supporting materials, can be obtained at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and typing in the OMB control number.

Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 
U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits 
before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year 
of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This 
rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal 
governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    E.O. 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must 
meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) 
that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local 
governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism 
implications. This rule will not have a substantial effect on State and 
local governments.

Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments''

    Executive Order 13175 establishes certain requirements that an 
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent 
final rule) that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or 
more Indian tribes, preempts tribal law, or affects the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian 
tribes. This rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian tribal 
governments.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 117

    Classified information; Government contracts; USG contracts, 
National Industrial Security Program (NISP); Prime contractor, 
Subcontractor.

    Accordingly, the Department of Defense proposes to amend 32 CFR 
part 117 as follows:

PART 117--NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL 
(NISPOM)

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  32 CFR part 2004; E.O. 10865; E.O. 12333; E.O. 
12829; E.O. 12866; E.O. 12968; E.O. 13526; E.O. 13563; E.O. 13587; 
E.O. 13691; Public Law 108-458; Title 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.; Title 
50 U.S.C. Chapter 44; Title 50 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.3 in paragraph (b) by adding in alphabetical order 
the definitions of ``Authorization to operate'' and ``Pedestrian door 
locks'' to read as follows:

[[Page 86293]]

Sec.  117.3   Acronyms and definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Authorization to operate means an approval granted by an 
authorizing official for a system to process classified information.
* * * * *
    Pedestrian door locks means a series of GSA-approved (FF-L-2890C) 
preassembled locks designed, tested, and approved for security, fire 
safety, life safety, and accessibility when installed on doors located 
in the occupants anticipated path of travel to a means of egress to 
evacuate the facility in a fire emergency.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  117.5 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.5   Information collections.

* * * * *
    (d) DoD collection. ``DoD Security Agreement,'' is assigned OMB 
Control Number: 0704-0194. ``National Industrial Security System,'' a 
CSA information collection, is assigned OMB Control Number: 0704-0571, 
and is a DoD information collection used to conduct its monitoring and 
oversight of contractors. Department of Defense ``Contract Security 
Classification Specification,'' (available at: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0254.pdf and https://www.dcsa.mil/is/nccs/), is assigned OMB Control Number: 0704-0567 and used by both 
DoD and agencies which have an industrial security agreement with DoD. 
``Defense Information System for Security,'' is assigned OMB Control 
Number: 0704-0573. Defense Information System for Security is a DoD 
automated system for personnel security, providing a common, 
comprehensive medium to record, document, and identify personnel 
security actions within DoD including submitting adverse information, 
verification of security clearance status, requesting investigations, 
and supporting continuous evaluation activities. It requires personal 
data collection to facilitate the initiation, investigation and 
adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and 
employment suitability determinations for active duty military, 
civilian employees and contractors seeking such credentials.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  117.7 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. In paragraph (f) introductory text, removing the words ``official 
reviews'' and adding in their place the words ``security reviews'';
0
c. In paragraph (f)(2), adding the words ``for review'' after the word 
``Providing''; and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii)(A).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  117.7   Procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) Contractor Security Officials. Contractors will appoint 
security officials who are U.S. citizens, unless the provisions of 
Sec.  117.11(e)(1)(iii) apply for the SMO and ITPSO.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Review cycle. The CSA will determine the scope and frequency of 
security reviews, which may be increased or decreased consistent with 
risk management principles. Security reviews may be conducted not more 
often than once every 12 months unless special circumstances exist, to 
include addressing security vulnerabilities found during a previous 
security review.
    (ii) * * *
    (A) The CSA will generally provide notice to the contractor of a 
forthcoming review, but may also conduct unannounced reviews at its 
discretion, e.g., if there is possible imminent loss or compromise of 
classified information. The CSA security review may subject contractor 
employees and all areas and receptacles under the control of the 
contractor to examination.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  117.8 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (c)(7)(iii)(B), 
and (c)(14) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.8   Reporting requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Provide requested information to enable the CSA to ascertain 
whether classified information is adequately protected in accordance 
with this rule.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Whether they have been excluded from access to classified 
information in accordance with Sec.  117.7(c)(2).
* * * * *
    (14) Reporting by subcontractor. Subcontractors will also notify 
their prime contractors if they make any reports to their CSA that 
affect the status of the entity eligibility determination (e.g., FCL), 
may indicate an employee poses as an insider threat, affect the proper 
safeguarding of classified information, or indicate classified 
information has been lost or compromised.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  117.9 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (f); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(i) and (h)(ii) as paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(h)(2).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  117.9   Entity eligibility determination for access to classified 
information.

* * * * *
    (f) Exclusion procedures. If a CSA determines that certain KMP can 
be excluded from access to classified information, the contractor will 
follow the procedures in accordance with Sec.  117.7(c)(2).
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  117.11 by:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B)(4), removing the words ``SCI, RD, or 
COMSEC'' and adding in their place the words ``proscribed 
information''; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(4).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  117.11   Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI).

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Facilities location plan. When a contractor is potentially 
collocated with or in close proximity to its foreign parent or an 
affiliate, the contractor will provide a facilities location plan that 
identifies the physical locations of the contractor and its foreign 
parent(s) or affiliate(s) respectively. The facilities location plan 
will assist the CSA in determining if the contractor is collocated or 
if the close proximity can be allowed under the FOCI mitigation plan. A 
U.S. entity generally cannot be collocated with the foreign parent or 
affiliate, i.e., at the same address or in the same location.
* * * * *


Sec.  117.12   [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  117.12 in paragraph (k) by removing the words ``every 12 
months'' and adding in their place the words ``at least annually''.
0
9. Amend Sec.  117.15 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and 
(a)(4);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(2);
0
d. In the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(3), revising the heading;
0
e. In the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(4), redesignating paragraphs 
(ii), (iii), and (iv) as paragraphs (iii), (iv), and (v);
0
f. In the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(4), adding a new paragraph 
(ii);

[[Page 86294]]

0
g. In the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B), adding the word 
``effects'' after the word ``personal'';
0
h. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
i. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A);
0
j. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii) and paragraph (e)(2) introductory 
text;
0
k. Adding a new paragraph (e)(2)(viii); and
0
l. Revising paragraph (e)(6).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  117.15   Safeguarding classified information.

    (a) General safeguarding. Contractors will be responsible for 
safeguarding classified information in their custody or under their 
control, with approval for such storage of classified information by 
the applicable CSA. Individuals are responsible for safeguarding 
classified information entrusted to them. Contractors will provide the 
extent of protection to classified information in accordance with the 
provisions of this rule.
* * * * *
    (2) Restricted areas. When it is necessary to control access to 
classified material and an open storage area is not available, a 
restricted area may be established. A restricted area will normally 
become necessary when it is impractical or impossible to protect 
classified material because of its size, quantity, or other unusual 
characteristic. The restricted area shall have a clearly defined 
perimeter, but physical barriers are not required. Personnel within the 
area shall be responsible for challenging all persons who may lack 
appropriate need-to-know for the information within the restricted 
area. All classified material will be secured during non-working hours 
in approved repositories, in accordance with the provisions of this 
rule, or secured using other methods approved by the CSA.
    (3) Security checks. * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) During working hours when an open storage area is unattended, 
admittance to the area must be controlled by locked entrances and exits 
secured by GSA-approved pedestrian door locking hardware (FF-L-2890C), 
``Federal Specification Lock Extension,'' or CSA approved deadbolts or 
emergency exit hardware on any secondary doors.
* * * * *
    (c) Storage. Contractors will store classified information and 
material in General Services Administration (GSA)-approved security 
containers, vaults built to Federal Standard 832, or an open storage 
area constructed in accordance with 32 CFR 2001.53. The CSA may grant 
self-approval to the FSO for open storage area approvals, provided the 
FSO meets specified qualification criteria as determined by the CSA. In 
the instance that an open storage area has a false ceiling or raised 
floor, contractors shall develop and implement procedures to ensure 
their structural integrity in accordance with CSA provided guidance. 
Nothing in 32 CFR part 2001, should be construed to contradict or 
inhibit compliance with local laws or building codes, but the 
contractor will notify the applicable CSA if there are any conflicting 
issues that would inhibit compliance. Contractors will store classified 
material in accordance with the specific sections of 32 CFR 2001.43:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) If after a thorough inspection of the facility perimeter with 
no damage to the facility visible, the alarm system resets and remains 
in the secure condition, then entrance into the area is not required 
and an initial response team may consist of uncleared personnel.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) An information management system to protect and control the 
classified information in their possession regardless of media, to 
include information processed and stored on information systems with an 
authorization to operate by an applicable CSA, otherwise referred to as 
an authorized information system.
    (2) Top secret information. Unless otherwise directed by the 
applicable CSA, the contractor will establish the following additional 
controls:
* * * * *
    (viii) When TOP SECRET information and material is generated or 
stored on authorized information systems, contractors will establish 
controls for TOP SECRET information and material to validate procedures 
are in place to address accountability, need to know, and retention, 
e.g., demonstrating that TOP SECRET material stored in an electronic 
format on an authorized information system does not need to be 
individually numbered in series. These controls are in addition to the 
information management system and must be applied, unless otherwise 
directed by the applicable CSA, regardless of the media of the TOP 
SECRET information, to include information processed and stored on 
authorized information systems.
* * * * *
    (6) Reproduction of classified information. Contractors will 
reproduce paper copies, electronic files, and other material containing 
classified information only when necessary for accomplishing 
operational needs or for complying with contractual requirements. Use 
of technology that prevents, discourages, or detects unauthorized 
reproduction of classified information is encouraged.
    (i) Unless restricted by the GCA on behalf of the originating 
agency, TOP SECRET, SECRET, and CONFIDENTIAL information may be 
reproduced, including by emailing, scanning, and copying, to the extent 
operational needs require on authorized systems and equipment approved 
at the level of the classified material and in support of a contractual 
requirement.
    (ii) Contractors shall establish procedures that facilitate 
oversight and control of the reproduction of classified information and 
the use of equipment for such reproduction, including controls that 
ensure:
    (A) Reproduction is kept to a minimum consistent with contractual 
requirements.
    (B) Contractor personnel reproducing classified information are 
knowledgeable of the procedures for classified reproduction and aware 
of the risks involved with the specific reproduction equipment being 
used and the appropriate countermeasures they are required to take.
    (C) Reproduction limitations the GCA places on documents and 
special controls applicable to special categories of information are 
fully and carefully observed.
    (D) Reproduced material is placed under the same accountability and 
control requirements as applied to the original material. Extracts of 
documents will be marked according to content and may be treated as 
working papers if appropriate.
    (E) Reproduced material is conspicuously identified as classified 
at the applicable level and copies of classified material are reviewed 
after the reproduction process to ensure that the required markings 
exist.
    (F) Waste products generated during reproduction are protected and 
destroyed as required.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  117.17 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii); and

[[Page 86295]]

0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3)(iv) introductory text and 
(a)(3)(iv)(A) and (B) as paragraphs (a)(4) introductory text and 
(a)(4)(i) and (ii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  117.17   Subcontracting.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (3) Lead time for entity eligibility determination when awarding to 
an uncleared subcontractor. Requesting contractors will allow 
sufficient lead time in connection with the award of a classified 
subcontract to enable an uncleared bidder to be processed for the 
necessary entity eligibility determination.
* * * * *


Sec.  117.19   [Amended]

0
10. Amend Sec.  117.19 in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) by adding the words 
``(e.g., a security aspects letter)'' at the end of the paragraph.

    Dated: December 6, 2023.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2023-27171 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P