```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13547-13548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Part 252

[DFARS Case 2012-D006]
RIN 0750-AH57

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Alleged Crimes 
By or Against Contractor Personnel

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 and 
expand coverage on contractor requirements and responsibilities 
relating to alleged crimes by or against contractor personnel.

DATES: Effective February 28, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Meredith Murphy, telephone 571-
372-6098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 77 FR 
14490 on March 12, 2012, to revise paragraph (d) of the clause at DFARS 
252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed 
Forces Deployed Outside the United States, to require contractors to 
provide information to their employees on how and where to report 
alleged crimes and where to seek assistance or whistleblower 
protection. These requirements apply to all DoD contracts that 
authorize contractor personnel to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed 
outside the United States in contingency operations, humanitarian or 
peacekeeping operations, or other military operations when the latter 
are designated by the combatant commander. Section 854 of the NDAA for 
FY 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417) applied this requirement just to contracts 
performed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Four respondents submitted public 
comments in response to the proposed rule.

II. Discussion and Analysis of the Public Comments

    DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final 
rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as 
a result of those comments is provided, as follows:

A. Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    The Defense Criminal Investigative Service was added to the list at 
paragraph (d)(6) of the clause, and the title for the U.S. Army 
Criminal Investigation Command was corrected. In addition, the 
explanation of the impact of the changes was clarified in Section I, 
Background, of this notice.

B. Analysis of Public Comments

1. Add the Defense Criminal Investigative Service to the List of 
Appropriate Investigative Agencies
    Comment: One respondent requested the addition of the Defense 
Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) to the list of appropriate 
criminal investigative agencies to which suspected crimes should be 
reported. DCIS is the criminal investigative arm of the DoD Office of 
the Inspector General, and it also investigates alleged crimes 
involving contractor personnel.
    Response: The requested change has been made.
2. Update the Information on the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 
Command
    Comment: One respondent stated that the U.S. Army's criminal 
investigative unit was established as a major command on September 17, 
1971, and renamed the ``U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.''
    Response: The requested change has been made.
3. Clarify the Impact of the Change on Applicability of These 
Requirements
    Comment: A respondent stated that the explanation of the proposed 
change and its impact in the proposed rule (77 FR 14490) were not clear 
and implied that the applicability of the clause at DFARS 252.225-7040 
was proposed for revision, without, however, actually amending the 
clause prescription.
    Response: The ``Background'' section of the proposed rule could 
have been interpreted more than one way. However, the preamble to this 
final rule makes clear that there is no change to the applicability of 
DFARS clause 252.225-7040.
4. Consider Imposing a Range of Penalties in the Event of Noncompliance
    Comment: A respondent expressed support for ``these relatively 
modest requirements on contractors.'' In addition, the respondent 
suggested that, to strengthen accountability, DoD should consider 
imposing a range of penalties in the event of noncompliance, ``much 
like non-compliance with the trafficking in persons provision in the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subjects contractors to the 
following remedies:
    (1) Requiring the contractor to remove a contractor employee or 
employees from the performance of the contract;
    (2) Requiring the contractor to terminate a subcontract;
    (3) Suspension of contract payments;
    (4) Loss of award fee, consistent with the award fee plan, for the 
performance period in which the government determined contractor non-
compliance;
    (5) Termination of the contract for default or cause, in accordance 
with the termination clause of this contract; or
    (6) Suspension or debarment.''

The respondent cited FAR 52.222-50(e) as the source for the above list.
    Response: Most or all of the remedies that are cited by the 
respondent are already available to the Government in the event of 
noncompliance by a contractor with the requirements of a clause that is 
included in its contract. It is not necessary to cite them in each 
individual contract clause to which they may be applied.

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

[[Page 13548]]

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. The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this is not a 
significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not 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

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared 
consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 
and is summarized as follows:
    DoD is expanding coverage on contractor requirements and 
responsibilities relating to alleged crimes by or against contractor 
personnel. These requirements will be included in any contract that 
authorizes contractor personnel to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed 
outside the United States in (1) Contingency operations; (2) 
humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; or (3) other military 
operations or military exercises, when designated by the combatant 
commander. DoD is accomplishing this change by modifying the clause at 
DFARS 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. 
Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States.
    The two key requirements are for the contractor to (a) report any 
alleged offenses against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to appropriate investigative 
authorities and (b) give contractor personnel who work in covered areas 
information on how and where to report an alleged Uniform Code of 
Military Justice or Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act offense. 
The clause also provides contact information for the four criminal 
investigative agencies in the DoD.
    No significant issues were raised in the public comments received 
in response to the proposed rule. No comments were filed by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    The rule will apply equally to all contractors, large and small, 
performing in deployed areas. Approximately 184 small businesses may be 
impacted by these changes annually. However, there are no projected 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements associated 
with the proposed rule. The points of contact for reporting alleged 
crimes and/or seeking whistleblower protection are listed in the 
clause. Contractor compliance requirements have been limited to passing 
this clear, available information to their personnel. Because the 
burdens associated with these requirements have already been minimized, 
there are no significant alternatives that could further minimize the 
already minimal impact on businesses, small or large.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252

    Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, DoD amends 48 CFR part 252 as follows:

PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 252 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 252.225-7040 is amended by--
0
a. Removing the clause date ``(JUN 2011)'' and adding ``(FEB 2013) in 
its place;
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(ii); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d)(4) through (7).
    The revision and addition read as follows:

252.225-7040  Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed 
Forces Deployed Outside the United States.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) That many of the offenses addressed by the definition are 
covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see paragraph 
(e)(2)(iv) of this clause). Other sexual misconduct may constitute 
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Federal law, such 
as the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or host nation laws;
    (4) The Contractor shall report to the appropriate investigative 
authorities, identified in paragraph (d)(6) of this clause, any alleged 
offenses under--
    (i) The Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10, 
United States Code) (applicable to contractors serving with or 
accompanying an armed force in the field during a declared war or 
contingency operations); or
    (ii) The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (chapter 212 of 
title 18, United States Code).
    (5) The Contractor shall provide to all contractor personnel who 
will perform work on a contract in the deployed area, before beginning 
such work, information on the following:
    (i) How and where to report an alleged crime described in paragraph 
(d)(4) of this clause.
    (ii) Where to seek victim and witness protection and assistance 
available to contractor personnel in connection with an alleged offense 
described in paragraph (d)(4) of this clause.
    (6) The appropriate investigative authorities to which suspected 
crimes shall be reported include the following--
    (i) US Army Criminal Investigation Command at http://www.cid.army.mil/reportacrime.html;
    (ii) Air Force Office of Special Investigations at http://www.osi.andrews.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=14522;
    (iii) Navy Criminal Investigative Service at http://www.ncis.navy.mil/Pages/publicdefault.aspx;
    (iv) Defense Criminal Investigative Service at http://www.dodig.mil/HOTLINE/index.html;
    (v) To any command of any supported military element or the command 
of any base.
    (7) Personnel seeking whistleblower protection from reprisals for 
reporting criminal acts shall seek guidance through the DoD Inspector 
General hotline at 800-424-9098 or www.dodig.mil/HOTLINE/index.html. 
Personnel seeking other forms of victim or witness protections should 
contact the nearest military law enforcement office.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-04363 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```