Source: https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2011/07/25/2011-18381.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-03 18:02:19
Document Index: 180515949

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 237', 'arts 237', 'arts 237', 'art 679', 'arts 237', 'arts 237']

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Prohibition on Interrogation of Detainees by Contractor Personnel (DFARS Case 2010-D027), 44282-44283 [2011-18381] :: Defense Acquisition Regulations System :: Department Of Defense :: Regulation Tracker :: Justia
Justia Regulation Tracker Department Of Defense Defense Acquisition Regulations System Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Prohibition on Interrogation of Detainees by Contractor Personnel (DFARS Case 2010-D027), 44282-44283 [2011-18381]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Prohibition on Interrogation of Detainees by Contractor Personnel (DFARS Case 2010-D027), 44282-44283 [2011-18381]
Download as PDF 44282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 237 and 252 RIN 0750–AG88 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Prohibition on Interrogation of Detainees by Contractor Personnel (DFARS Case 2010–D027) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. II. Discussion and Analysis A summary of the comments received and their analysis grouped by category follows. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) is adopting as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 1038 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010. Section 1038 prohibits contractor personnel from interrogating detainees under the control of DoD. DATES: Effective Date: July 25, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Meredith Murphy, 703–602–1302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES I. Background DoD published an interim rule at 75 FR 67632 on November 3, 2010, to implement section 1038 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111–84). Section 1038 prohibits contractor personnel from interrogating detainees under the control of the Department of Defense. It also allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the prohibition for a limited period of time, with limited redelegation authority, if determined necessary to the national security interests of the United States. The interim rule added coverage at DFARS 237.173 and a new clause at DFARS 252.237–7010 that prescribes policies prohibiting interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel, as required by section 1038 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010. The DFARS also covers permissible support roles for contractors by providing that contractor personnel with proper training and security clearances may be used as linguists, interpreters, report writers, information technology technicians, and other employees filling ancillary positions, including as trainers of, and advisors to, interrogations, if the contractor personnel meet the criteria provided by DoD Instruction 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:55 Jul 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 Mix (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/ directives/corres/pdf/110022p.pdf); DoD Directive 2310.01E, The Department of Defense Detainee Program (http:// www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/ 231001p.pdf); and DoD Directive 3115.09, DoD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning http:// www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/ 311509p.pdf. The public comment period closed on January 3, 2011. Three respondents provided comments on the interim rule. A. Eliminate Waiver Authority Comment: Three respondents provided comments supporting the idea that establishing an effective system of managing and overseeing contractors supporting interrogations must be accorded the highest priority. However, the respondents did not support the provision at DFARS 237.173–4 that allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the prohibition on contractor interrogations for up to 60 days on the grounds of national security interests. The respondents considered the function to be inherently governmental, and one that should never be performed by contractor personnel. Response: Section 1038 of the statute specifically provides the Secretary of Defense authority to waive, for a limited time, the prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel. Contractor personnel with proper training and security clearances may be used as linguists, interpreters, report writers, information technology technicians, and other employees filling ancillary positions, including as trainers of and advisors to interrogators, in interrogations of detainees, provided that appropriately qualified and trained DoD personnel (military or civilian) are available to oversee the contractor’s performance and to ensure that contractor personnel do not perform activities that are prohibited under DoD policy. Such personnel are subject to the same laws, rules, procedures, and policies pertaining to detainee operations and interrogations as those that apply to Government personnel in such positions in such interrogations (DFARS 237.173–3). Accordingly, no change has been made to the DFARS in response to these comments. B. Penalties and Compliance Comment: One respondent stated that DoD must prescribe a clear set of PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 penalties for any violation of the new policy and recommended civil and criminal fines, imprisonment, the withholding of contract award fees, contract termination, and/or suspension and debarment. Response: DoD has no authority to write civil or criminal penalties into the DFARS. Contracting officers have considerable discretion to exercise the usual broad range of contractual remedies, e.g., withholding contract award fees, contract termination, or suspension and/or debarment. Accordingly, no change has been made to the DFARS in response to this comment. Comment: One respondent expressed concern that there would be attempts to evade the new policy by transferring detainees to the custody of non-DoD agencies or foreign governments that are not governed by the DFARS limitations. The respondent also suggested that similar coverage at FAR 7.503(c)(8) should be considered. Response: The acquisition regulations are written based on the presumption that Government employees act in good faith and in accordance with acquisition regulations and the law. Further, since the coverage at FAR 7.503(c)(8) lists ‘‘the direction and control of intelligence and counter-intelligence operations’’ as an example of an inherently governmental function, there would be no value added by reiterating this language in the DFARS. C. Clarity of Definitions Comment: One respondent recommended clarification of the definition of ‘‘detainee’’ in 237.173–2, which the respondent considered to be silent on the matter of whether the term ‘‘hostilities’’ (which is included in the definition of ‘‘detainee’’) includes situations in which there has not been a formally declared war (e.g., the detainee is classified as an unlawful combatant rather than a prisoner of war). The respondent noted that the definition’s qualifier, ‘‘this includes but is not limited to,’’ suggests a broad definition for ‘‘hostilities.’’ Response: The term ‘‘detainee’’ is defined at 237.173–2 as ‘‘any person captured, detained, held, or otherwise under the effective control of DoD personnel (military or civilian) in connection with hostilities. This includes, but is not limited to, enemy prisoners of war, civilian internees, and retained personnel. This does not include DoD personnel or DoD contractor personnel being held for law enforcement purposes.’’ This definition was derived from the ‘‘detainee’’ definition in the governing directive, E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM 25JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES DoDI 2310.01E, The Department of Defense Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006. Paragraph 2.2 of the directive notes ‘‘This Directive applies during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all other military operations.’’ In addition, paragraph E.2.1. of DoDI 2310.01E notes that the definition of ‘‘detainee’’ includes ‘‘unlawful enemy combatants.’’ Accordingly, DoD has determined that clarification is not necessary, and no change has been made to the DFARS definition in response to this comment. Comment: One respondent recommended clarifying the definition of ‘‘interrogation of detainees’’ in 237.173–2 by adding the same qualifer, i.e., ‘‘this includes, but is not limited to,’’ as is found in the definition of ‘‘detainee.’’ The respondent stated that a difference between the two definitions could lead to confusion over whether this includes any other sort of non‘‘systematic,’’ ‘‘formal,’’ or ‘‘official’’ process of ‘‘questioning,’’ or questioning not done ‘‘for the purpose of obtaining reliable information to satisfy foreign intelligence collection requirements’’ (see 237.173–2). Response: The definition of ‘‘interrogation of detainees’’ was derived from the definition for ‘‘intelligence interrogations’’ in DoDD 3115.09, DoD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning. This directive consolidates existing DoD policies, including the requirement for humane treatment during all intelligence interrogations, and speaks of interrogations exlusively in terms of the purpose of ‘‘obtaining reliable information to satisfy foreign intelligence collection requirements.’’ Accordingly, any questioning done for a purpose other than ‘‘obtaining reliable information to satisfy foreign intelligence collection requirements’’ is outside the scope of allowable activities under DoD policy. Accordingly, no change has been made to the DFARS definition in response to this comment. D. Prohibition on Specific Type of Torture Comment: One respondent proposed that water torture be banned. The respondent also proposed to make the Federal Government responsible when violations of human rights occur and recommended banning all torture and procedures that allow torture to occur. Response: As noted previously, DoDD 3115.09 consolidates existing DoD policies, including the requirement for humane treatment during all intelligence interrogations for the purpose of gaining intelligence from VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:55 Jul 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 captured or detained personnel. It is DoD policy that no person in the custody or physical control of DoD or detained in a DoD facility shall be subject to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment as defined in Title XIV of Public Law 109–163, also known as ‘‘The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.’’ Accordingly, no change has been made to the DFARS in response to this comment. 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 The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., applies to this rule. DoD prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) that is summarized as follows: The objective of this rule is to implement section 1038 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111–84). This statute provides that no enemy prisoner of war, civilian internee, retained personnel, other detainee, or any other individual who is in the custody or under the effective control of DoD, or otherwise under detention in a DoD facility in connection with hostilities, may be interrogated by contractor personnel. It also allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the prohibition for a limited period of time, with limited redelegation authority, if determined necessary to the national security interests of the United States. In Fiscal Year 2009, the latest year for which complete information is available, DoD awarded contracts for intelligence-related requirements to only 255 unique Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) numbers. Of this total, there were 143 unique DUNS numbers for small business concerns. This rule only prescribes policies that prohibit interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel. DoD anticipates PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 44283 that there will be no additional costs imposed on small businesses. There is no reporting or recordkeeping requirement established by this rule. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the point of contact named herein. A copy of the FRFA has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. V. Paperwork Reduction Act The rule does not impose 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 Parts 237 and 252 Government procurement. Ynette R. Shelkin, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 237 and 252, which was published at 75 FR 67632 on November 3, 2010, is adopted as a final rule without change. ■ [FR Doc. 2011–18381 Filed 7–22–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–08–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 101126522–0640–02] RIN 0648–XA594 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Northern Rockfish for Catcher/Processors Participating in the Rockfish Limited Access Fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish by catcher/ processors participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM 25JYR1
[Pages 44282-44283]
48 CFR Parts 237 and 252
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Prohibition on
Interrogation of Detainees by Contractor Personnel (DFARS Case 2010-
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) is adopting as final, without
change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 1038 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010. Section 1038
prohibits contractor personnel from interrogating detainees under the
control of DoD.
DoD published an interim rule at 75 FR 67632 on November 3, 2010,
to implement section 1038 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84). Section 1038 prohibits contractor
personnel from interrogating detainees under the control of the
Department of Defense. It also allows the Secretary of Defense to waive
the prohibition for a limited period of time, with limited redelegation
authority, if determined necessary to the national security interests
of the United States. The interim rule added coverage at DFARS 237.173
and a new clause at DFARS 252.237-7010 that prescribes policies
prohibiting interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel, as
required by section 1038 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010. The DFARS
also covers permissible support roles for contractors by providing that
contractor personnel with proper training and security clearances may
be used as linguists, interpreters, report writers, information
technology technicians, and other employees filling ancillary
positions, including as trainers of, and advisors to, interrogations,
if the contractor personnel meet the criteria provided by DoD
Instruction 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce
Mix (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/110022p.pdf); DoD
Directive 2310.01E, The Department of Defense Detainee Program (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/231001p.pdf); and DoD Directive
3115.09, DoD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and
Tactical Questioning http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/311509p.pdf.
The public comment period closed on January 3, 2011. Three
respondents provided comments on the interim rule.
A summary of the comments received and their analysis grouped by
category follows.
Comment: Three respondents provided comments supporting the idea
that establishing an effective system of managing and overseeing
contractors supporting interrogations must be accorded the highest
priority. However, the respondents did not support the provision at
DFARS 237.173-4 that allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the
prohibition on contractor interrogations for up to 60 days on the
grounds of national security interests. The respondents considered the
function to be inherently governmental, and one that should never be
performed by contractor personnel.
Response: Section 1038 of the statute specifically provides the
Secretary of Defense authority to waive, for a limited time, the
positions, including as trainers of and advisors to interrogators, in
interrogations of detainees, provided that appropriately qualified and
trained DoD personnel (military or civilian) are available to oversee
the contractor's performance and to ensure that contractor personnel do
not perform activities that are prohibited under DoD policy. Such
personnel are subject to the same laws, rules, procedures, and policies
pertaining to detainee operations and interrogations as those that
apply to Government personnel in such positions in such interrogations
(DFARS 237.173-3). Accordingly, no change has been made to the DFARS in
Comment: One respondent stated that DoD must prescribe a clear set
of penalties for any violation of the new policy and recommended civil
and criminal fines, imprisonment, the withholding of contract award
fees, contract termination, and/or suspension and debarment.
Response: DoD has no authority to write civil or criminal penalties
into the DFARS. Contracting officers have considerable discretion to
exercise the usual broad range of contractual remedies, e.g.,
withholding contract award fees, contract termination, or suspension
and/or debarment. Accordingly, no change has been made to the DFARS in
response to this comment.
Comment: One respondent expressed concern that there would be
attempts to evade the new policy by transferring detainees to the
custody of non-DoD agencies or foreign governments that are not
governed by the DFARS limitations. The respondent also suggested that
similar coverage at FAR 7.503(c)(8) should be considered.
Response: The acquisition regulations are written based on the
presumption that Government employees act in good faith and in
accordance with acquisition regulations and the law. Further, since the
coverage at FAR 7.503(c)(8) lists ``the direction and control of
intelligence and counter-intelligence operations'' as an example of an
inherently governmental function, there would be no value added by
reiterating this language in the DFARS.
Comment: One respondent recommended clarification of the definition
of ``detainee'' in 237.173-2, which the respondent considered to be
silent on the matter of whether the term ``hostilities'' (which is
included in the definition of ``detainee'') includes situations in
which there has not been a formally declared war (e.g., the detainee is
classified as an unlawful combatant rather than a prisoner of war). The
respondent noted that the definition's qualifier, ``this includes but
is not limited to,'' suggests a broad definition for ``hostilities.''
Response: The term ``detainee'' is defined at 237.173-2 as ``any
person captured, detained, held, or otherwise under the effective
control of DoD personnel (military or civilian) in connection with
hostilities. This includes, but is not limited to, enemy prisoners of
war, civilian internees, and retained personnel. This does not include
DoD personnel or DoD contractor personnel being held for law
enforcement purposes.'' This definition was derived from the
``detainee'' definition in the governing directive,
DoDI 2310.01E, The Department of Defense Detainee Program, dated
September 5, 2006. Paragraph 2.2 of the directive notes ``This
Directive applies during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts
are characterized, and in all other military operations.'' In addition,
paragraph E.2.1. of DoDI 2310.01E notes that the definition of
``detainee'' includes ``unlawful enemy combatants.'' Accordingly, DoD
has determined that clarification is not necessary, and no change has
been made to the DFARS definition in response to this comment.
Comment: One respondent recommended clarifying the definition of
``interrogation of detainees'' in 237.173-2 by adding the same
qualifer, i.e., ``this includes, but is not limited to,'' as is found
in the definition of ``detainee.'' The respondent stated that a
difference between the two definitions could lead to confusion over
whether this includes any other sort of non-``systematic,'' ``formal,''
or ``official'' process of ``questioning,'' or questioning not done
``for the purpose of obtaining reliable information to satisfy foreign
intelligence collection requirements'' (see 237.173-2).
Response: The definition of ``interrogation of detainees'' was
derived from the definition for ``intelligence interrogations'' in DoDD
Tactical Questioning. This directive consolidates existing DoD
policies, including the requirement for humane treatment during all
intelligence interrogations, and speaks of interrogations exlusively in
terms of the purpose of ``obtaining reliable information to satisfy
foreign intelligence collection requirements.'' Accordingly, any
questioning done for a purpose other than ``obtaining reliable
information to satisfy foreign intelligence collection requirements''
is outside the scope of allowable activities under DoD policy.
Accordingly, no change has been made to the DFARS definition in
Comment: One respondent proposed that water torture be banned. The
respondent also proposed to make the Federal Government responsible
when violations of human rights occur and recommended banning all
torture and procedures that allow torture to occur.
Response: As noted previously, DoDD 3115.09 consolidates existing
DoD policies, including the requirement for humane treatment during all
intelligence interrogations for the purpose of gaining intelligence
from captured or detained personnel. It is DoD policy that no person in
the custody or physical control of DoD or detained in a DoD facility
shall be subject to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or
punishment as defined in Title XIV of Public Law 109-163, also known as
``The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.'' Accordingly, no change has been
made to the DFARS in response to this comment.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., applies to
this rule. DoD prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA)
that is summarized as follows:
The objective of this rule is to implement section 1038 of the
84). This statute provides that no enemy prisoner of war, civilian
internee, retained personnel, other detainee, or any other individual
who is in the custody or under the effective control of DoD, or
otherwise under detention in a DoD facility in connection with
hostilities, may be interrogated by contractor personnel. It also
allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the prohibition for a limited
period of time, with limited redelegation authority, if determined
necessary to the national security interests of the United States.
In Fiscal Year 2009, the latest year for which complete information
is available, DoD awarded contracts for intelligence-related
requirements to only 255 unique Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)
numbers. Of this total, there were 143 unique DUNS numbers for small
This rule only prescribes policies that prohibit interrogation of
detainees by contractor personnel. DoD anticipates that there will be
no additional costs imposed on small businesses.
There is no reporting or recordkeeping requirement established by
this rule. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the point of
contact named herein. A copy of the FRFA has been submitted to the
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 237 and 252, which
was published at 75 FR 67632 on November 3, 2010, is adopted as a final