Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Release of Fundamental Research Information (DFARS Case 2012-D054), 48331-48333 [2013-18960]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
The comment period originally closed
on August 29th, 2011, and was extended
to December 16th, 2011. DoD received
comments on the proposed rule from
forty-nine respondents; however, only
fourteen (14) of the respondents
addressed the changes contained within
this final rule.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Part 252
RIN 0750–AH92
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Release of
Fundamental Research Information
(DFARS Case 2012–D054)
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 are provided as
follows:
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is issuing a final rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to provide guidance relating to
the release of fundamental research
information. This rule was previously
published as part of the proposed rule
2011–D039, Safeguarding Unclassified
DoD Information.
DATES: Effective: August 8, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Dustin Pitsch, 571–372–6090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background
DoD published a proposed rule,
DFARS case 2011–D039, in the Federal
Register at 76 FR 38089 on June 29,
2011, to address requirements for
safeguarding unclassified information.
The scope of this final rule is limited to
only the modifications contained within
the proposed rule to DFARS 252.204–
7000, Disclosure of Information. This
text was separated from the proposed
rule, and is being published separately
as a final rule, because the changes in
this DFARS clause deal with the release
of information on fundamental research
projects and not safeguarding. This rule
was initiated to implement guidance
provided by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics (AT&L) in a memorandum
on Fundamental Research dated May
24, 2010, and a memorandum on
Contracted Fundamental Research dated
June 26, 2008. The memoranda
provided additional clarifying guidance
to ensure that DoD does not restrict
disclosure of the results of fundamental
research, as defined by the National
Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189,
National Policy on the Transfer of
Scientific, Technical and Engineering
Information, unless such research efforts
are classified for reasons of national
security or otherwise restricted by
applicable Federal statutes, regulations,
or executive orders.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Aug 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
A. Summary of Significant Changes
From the Proposed Rule
1. Subparagraph 252.204–7000(a)(1) is
no longer being modified and will
remain essentially intact.
2. Paragraph 252.204–7000(a)(3) is
revised to no longer require a
certification by the contracting
component. Instead, the fundamental
research determination must be made in
writing.
3. Subparagraph 252.204–7000(b) is
revised to modify the time period that
requests for approval must be submitted
to the contracting officer from 45 days
to 10 business days. It also clarifies that
the paragraph refers to the exception
provided at subparagraph (a)(1).
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. Clarification of Certification Process
Comment: Two respondents stated
that the negotiation and determination
of whether fundamental research is
being performed should occur at the
proposal stage whenever universities
will be performing research services.
Response: Consistent with the text
added at 252.204–7000(a)(3),
fundamental research projects should be
scoped and negotiated during the
proposal stage and the written
determination of fundamental research
should be prepared prior to the research
performer commencing work on the
project.
Comment: Two respondents requested
that definitions be provided for the
following terms: ‘‘prime contractor,’’
‘‘research performer,’’ and ‘‘contracting
component.’’ An additional respondent
requested that DoD define the terms
‘‘project’’ and ‘‘certified.’’
Response: The term ‘‘contracting
component’’ was used in the proposed
rule but was changed to ‘‘contracting
activity,’’ which is defined in the FAR
and supplemented within the DFARS.
The meanings of the other terms in this
rule do not vary from their usage in the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48331
commercial marketplace; therefore,
explicit definitions will not be
provided.
Comment: One respondent stated that
the proposed rule does not allow for all
circumstances in which contractors may
be required to release unclassified
information, e.g., compelled discovery
during litigation. The respondent
recommended that paragraph 252.204–
7000(a)(1) of the DFARS text remain
unchanged to allow the contracting
officer to approve requests for
disclosure in instances not outlined in
the proposed rule.
Response: DoD has revised the final
rule to keep the current text at DFARS
252.204–7000(a)(1) intact.
Comment: Two respondents
expressed concern with the requirement
that the contractor submit its request for
approval at least 45 days before the
proposed date for release of unclassified
information. One respondent stated that
there is no requirement in the NISPOM
requiring the contractor to submit a
request for information release to the
contracting officer at least 45 days
before the proposed date of the release.
The respondent requested that DoD
ensure that the requirements in the rule
do not impact existing documents in an
unintended way. Another respondent
stated that when proposals are being
prepared for new efforts, there is often
insufficient time to provide a 45-day
advance notice.
Response: The National Industrial
Security Program Operating Manual
(NISPOM) provides baseline standards
for the protection of classified
information in connection with
classified contracts. The scope of
DFARS 252.204–7000 is limited to the
release of unclassified information;
therefore, the requirements of this rule
and NISPOM are mutually exclusive.
However, due to advances in
communication technology, since the
clause was first added to the DFARS,
DoD has revised the final rule to reduce
the requirement to 10 business days, to
alleviate burden on contractors.
Comment: One respondent stated that
a presumption should exist that all
funded research projects are
fundamental research and that the
information may be published without
prior restriction unless an affirmative
determination has been made by DoD
that it is not fundamental research.
Response: The fundamental research
presumption may be appropriate in
instances when the research is funded
through use of grants. However, the
research performed in support of DoD
contracts often falls in the categories of
applied or advanced research and has
the possibility of producing the seed for
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
48332
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
future defense technologies and
therefore needs restrictions in place.
Comment: Several respondents stated
that the prime contractor should not be
involved in the determination and/or
certification that a project is
fundamental research. Some stated that
the determination should be limited to
the research performer and the
contracting component. Others stated
that the prime contractor should be
required to submit any subcontractor’s
request for fundamental research
certification to the contracting officer.
Response: There was no certification
requirement in the proposed rule. The
final rule allows for the contracting
activity to coordinate with both the
prime contractor and the research
performer when making a fundamental
research determination. It is not
appropriate for subcontractors to
circumvent the prime contractor,
because there is no privity of contract
between the Government and the
subcontractor.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2. National Security Decision Directive
189 (NSDD 189)
Comment: One respondent stated that
the rule contradicts with NSDD 189,
which requires that agencies determine
classification requirements prior to
award, while the proposed rule allows
the determination to be made after
award.
Response: The purpose of DFARS
252.204–7000 is to provide direction to
contractors regarding when it is
permissible for them to release
unclassified information relating to DoD
contracts. Instructions to the contracting
activity concerning when classification
determinations should be made fall
under the National Industrial Security
Program (NISP), which is outside of the
scope of the clause and this rule.
3. Clarify/Expand Release Categories
Comment: One respondent stated that
further clarification was needed to
expressly permit release of unclassified
information without the contracting
officer’s approval for reporting
obligations included elsewhere in the
contract and/or required by applicable
law.
Response: DoD has revised the
proposed rule to revert to the current
DFARS text at 252.204–7000(a)(1)
which contemplates all circumstances
in which contractors may be required to
release unclassified information.
However, the contracting officer must be
involved in the decision to release
information pertaining to DoD contracts
because of the potential security risks.
Comment: One respondent stated that
the proposed rule should provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Aug 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
guidance on whether the restriction of
unclassified information ‘‘to anyone
outside the contractor’s organization’’
applies to outsourced IT.
Response: Contractors should have
controls in place that prevent the release
of information by their subcontractors or
outsourced IT through either flow-down
of the clause at DFARS 252.204–7000 or
obtaining nondisclosure agreements.
4. DoD Contact
Comment: One respondent stated that
a post-contract DoD-wide point of
contact should be contained in the rule
to account for instances when the need
for the release of information occurs
after contract completion and the
contracting officer is not reachable.
Response: The scope of DFARS
252.204–7000 is limited to the
permissibility of the release of
unclassified information relating to DoD
contracts. In circumstances where the
contracting officer cannot be reached,
the applicable contracting activity
should be contacted.
5. Prescription
Comment: One respondent stated that
the proposed rule should make clear
that it is not authorized for use in
university-based Budget Activity 1 or 2
contracts, absent exceptional
circumstances justifying extremely rare
exceptions made only with the approval
of high-level component management.
Another respondent stated that the
proposed clause should not be adopted
without emphasizing the inapplicability
of the rule to contracts for fundamental
research.
Response: The prescription requires
that the clause be used when the
contractor will have access to or
generate unclassified information that
may be sensitive and inappropriate for
release to the public. The contracting
officer has the discretion to not include
the clause in any solicitation or contract
when a judgment has been reached that
the information may be freely released
to the public.
6. Grants/Cooperative Agreements
Comment: One respondent stated that
the proposed rule does not give any
indication of its applicability to grants
and/or cooperative agreements.
Response: The DFARS applies to
purchases and contracts by DoD
contracting activities. The Department
of Defense Grant and Agreement
Regulatory System (DODGARS) is the
system of regulatory policies and
procedures for the award and
administration of grants and cooperative
agreements.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7. Scope of Fundamental Research
Exemption
Comment: One respondent stated that
the scope of the fundamental research
exemption is not clear since it is not
explicit in the DoD information
definition.
Response: According to the NSDD
189, ‘‘fundamental research’’ means
basic and applied research in science
and engineering, the results of which
ordinarily are published and shared
broadly within the scientific
community, as distinguished from
proprietary research and from industrial
development, design, production, and
product utilization, the results of which
ordinarily are restricted for proprietary
or national security reasons.’’ The
exemption will apply when the nature
of the research has been determined to
meet this definition.
8. Flowdown
Comment: One respondent stated that
the proposed rule contradicts
USD(AT&L) memorandum dated May
24, 2010, stating that ‘‘Provisions shall
be made to accommodate such
subcontracts for fundamental research
and to ensure DoD restrictions on the
prime contract do not flow down to the
performer(s) of such research,’’ by
requiring the contractor to include a
similar requirement in each subcontract.
The respondent recommended that the
paragraph be revised to state that the
similar requirement is not required in
subcontracts if any of the exemptions
apply.
Response: In circumstances where a
project is determined to be fundamental
research in accordance with the final
rule, the prime contractor will not be
restricted on the release of information
resulting from or arising during that
project. Therefore, the determination
will flow down to subcontractors for
portions of the work determined to be
fundamental research.
Comment: One respondent stated that
significant outreach is needed to DoD
firms to ensure they understand what
constitutes fundamental research and
that specific contracting terms are
available that should be used in those
instances.
Response: This rule aims to clarify
issues surrounding restrictions currently
being placed on the release of
unclassified information arising from
fundamental research projects.
Developing a formal outreach program
is outside of the scope of this rule,
however the publication of this final
rule serves as outreach for rulemaking
action.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
C. Other Changes
1. Subparagraph 252.204–7000(b)(1)
of the proposed rule, which provided
exceptions for information required as
part of an official Defense Contract
Audit Agency audit or DoD Inspector
General investigation, or by a
Congressional or Federal subpoena, is
removed, because the clause did not
previously protect the information from
release under these circumstances.
2. Subparagraph 252.204–7000(b)(3)
of the proposed rule is revised to delete
‘‘except as otherwise provided by
applicable Federal statutes regulations,
or Executive orders.’’ Subparagraph
252.204–7000(d) of the proposed rule is
revised to clarify that the paragraph
requiring the flowdown of the contract
clause should also be included in any
subcontracts, in order to provide
flowdown to lower tier subcontracts.
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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:
This final rule implements guidance
provided by the Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics (AT&L) in a memorandum
dated May 24, 2010, by providing a
fundamental research exception to the
general rule against disclosure of
unclassified information. The subject
matter of this final rule was previously
included in proposed rule 2011–D039,
which was published in the Federal
Register on June 29, 2011 (76 FR 38089);
however, the text was deemed more
appropriate for a stand-alone case
because this subject matter deals with
the release of information and not the
safeguarding of information. An initial
regulatory flexibility analysis was
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Aug 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
prepared, and no public comments were
received. Also, DoD received no
comments by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in response to the
proposed rule.
This final rule applies to all Federal
contractors, regardless of size or
business ownership, when responding
to solicitations or being awarded
contracts that include requirements that
meet the definition of fundamental
research as contained within NSDD 189.
The final rule is not expected to have a
significant impact on small entities,
because the rule aims to implement
policy guidance that is already being
followed within DoD regarding
restrictions on the disclosure of
fundamental research.
The rule does not contain any
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
and does not require contractors to
expend significant cost or effort. There
are no known significant alternatives to
the rule that would further minimize
any economic impact of the rule on
small entities.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not add any new
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, 48 CFR part 252 is
amended as follows:
PART 252—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
1. The authority citation for part 252
continue to read as follows:
■
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
Chapter 1.
2. Revise section 252.204–7000 to
read as follows:
■
252.204–7000
Disclosure of information.
As prescribed in 204.404–70(a), use
the following clause:
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION (AUG
2013)
(a) The Contractor shall not release to
anyone outside the Contractor’s organization
any unclassified information, regardless of
medium (e.g., film, tape, document),
pertaining to any part of this contract or any
program related to this contract, unless—
(1) The Contracting Officer has given prior
written approval;
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48333
(2) The information is otherwise in the
public domain before the date of release; or
(3) The information results from or arises
during the performance of a project that has
been scoped and negotiated by the
contracting activity with the Contractor and
research performer and determined in
writing by the Contracting Officer to be
fundamental research in accordance with
National Security Decision Directive 189,
National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific,
Technical and Engineering Information, in
effect on the date of contract award and the
USD (AT&L) memoranda on Fundamental
Research, dated May 24, 2010, and on
Contracted Fundamental Research, dated
June 26, 2008, (available at DFARS PGI
204.4).
(b) Requests for approval under paragraph
(a)(1) shall identify the specific information
to be released, the medium to be used, and
the purpose for the release. The Contractor
shall submit its request to the Contracting
Officer at least 10 business days before the
proposed date for release.
(c) The Contractor agrees to include a
similar requirement, including this paragraph
(c), in each subcontract under this contract.
Subcontractors shall submit requests for
authorization to release through the prime
contractor to the Contracting Officer.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2013–18960 Filed 8–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Part 252
RIN 0750–AI00
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Least
Developed Countries That Are
Designated Countries (DFARS Case
2013–D019)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is issuing a final rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to implement a revision by the
United States Trade Representative
(USTR) to the list of least developed
countries that are designated countries
under the Trade Agreements Act of
1979.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective: August 8, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372–
6106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48331-48333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18960]
[[Page 48331]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Part 252
RIN 0750-AH92
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Release of
Fundamental Research Information (DFARS Case 2012-D054)
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 provide guidance relating
to the release of fundamental research information. This rule was
previously published as part of the proposed rule 2011-D039,
Safeguarding Unclassified DoD Information.
DATES: Effective: August 8, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dustin Pitsch, 571-372-6090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD published a proposed rule, DFARS case 2011-D039, in the Federal
Register at 76 FR 38089 on June 29, 2011, to address requirements for
safeguarding unclassified information. The scope of this final rule is
limited to only the modifications contained within the proposed rule to
DFARS 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information. This text was separated
from the proposed rule, and is being published separately as a final
rule, because the changes in this DFARS clause deal with the release of
information on fundamental research projects and not safeguarding. This
rule was initiated to implement guidance provided by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L)
in a memorandum on Fundamental Research dated May 24, 2010, and a
memorandum on Contracted Fundamental Research dated June 26, 2008. The
memoranda provided additional clarifying guidance to ensure that DoD
does not restrict disclosure of the results of fundamental research, as
defined by the National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189,
National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and
Engineering Information, unless such research efforts are classified
for reasons of national security or otherwise restricted by applicable
Federal statutes, regulations, or executive orders.
The comment period originally closed on August 29th, 2011, and was
extended to December 16th, 2011. DoD received comments on the proposed
rule from forty-nine respondents; however, only fourteen (14) of the
respondents addressed the changes contained within this final 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 are provided as follows:
A. Summary of Significant Changes From the Proposed Rule
1. Subparagraph 252.204-7000(a)(1) is no longer being modified and
will remain essentially intact.
2. Paragraph 252.204-7000(a)(3) is revised to no longer require a
certification by the contracting component. Instead, the fundamental
research determination must be made in writing.
3. Subparagraph 252.204-7000(b) is revised to modify the time
period that requests for approval must be submitted to the contracting
officer from 45 days to 10 business days. It also clarifies that the
paragraph refers to the exception provided at subparagraph (a)(1).
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. Clarification of Certification Process
Comment: Two respondents stated that the negotiation and
determination of whether fundamental research is being performed should
occur at the proposal stage whenever universities will be performing
research services.
Response: Consistent with the text added at 252.204-7000(a)(3),
fundamental research projects should be scoped and negotiated during
the proposal stage and the written determination of fundamental
research should be prepared prior to the research performer commencing
work on the project.
Comment: Two respondents requested that definitions be provided for
the following terms: ``prime contractor,'' ``research performer,'' and
``contracting component.'' An additional respondent requested that DoD
define the terms ``project'' and ``certified.''
Response: The term ``contracting component'' was used in the
proposed rule but was changed to ``contracting activity,'' which is
defined in the FAR and supplemented within the DFARS. The meanings of
the other terms in this rule do not vary from their usage in the
commercial marketplace; therefore, explicit definitions will not be
provided.
Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule does not
allow for all circumstances in which contractors may be required to
release unclassified information, e.g., compelled discovery during
litigation. The respondent recommended that paragraph 252.204-
7000(a)(1) of the DFARS text remain unchanged to allow the contracting
officer to approve requests for disclosure in instances not outlined in
the proposed rule.
Response: DoD has revised the final rule to keep the current text
at DFARS 252.204-7000(a)(1) intact.
Comment: Two respondents expressed concern with the requirement
that the contractor submit its request for approval at least 45 days
before the proposed date for release of unclassified information. One
respondent stated that there is no requirement in the NISPOM requiring
the contractor to submit a request for information release to the
contracting officer at least 45 days before the proposed date of the
release. The respondent requested that DoD ensure that the requirements
in the rule do not impact existing documents in an unintended way.
Another respondent stated that when proposals are being prepared for
new efforts, there is often insufficient time to provide a 45-day
advance notice.
Response: The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual
(NISPOM) provides baseline standards for the protection of classified
information in connection with classified contracts. The scope of DFARS
252.204-7000 is limited to the release of unclassified information;
therefore, the requirements of this rule and NISPOM are mutually
exclusive. However, due to advances in communication technology, since
the clause was first added to the DFARS, DoD has revised the final rule
to reduce the requirement to 10 business days, to alleviate burden on
contractors.
Comment: One respondent stated that a presumption should exist that
all funded research projects are fundamental research and that the
information may be published without prior restriction unless an
affirmative determination has been made by DoD that it is not
fundamental research.
Response: The fundamental research presumption may be appropriate
in instances when the research is funded through use of grants.
However, the research performed in support of DoD contracts often falls
in the categories of applied or advanced research and has the
possibility of producing the seed for
[[Page 48332]]
future defense technologies and therefore needs restrictions in place.
Comment: Several respondents stated that the prime contractor
should not be involved in the determination and/or certification that a
project is fundamental research. Some stated that the determination
should be limited to the research performer and the contracting
component. Others stated that the prime contractor should be required
to submit any subcontractor's request for fundamental research
certification to the contracting officer.
Response: There was no certification requirement in the proposed
rule. The final rule allows for the contracting activity to coordinate
with both the prime contractor and the research performer when making a
fundamental research determination. It is not appropriate for
subcontractors to circumvent the prime contractor, because there is no
privity of contract between the Government and the subcontractor.
2. National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD 189)
Comment: One respondent stated that the rule contradicts with NSDD
189, which requires that agencies determine classification requirements
prior to award, while the proposed rule allows the determination to be
made after award.
Response: The purpose of DFARS 252.204-7000 is to provide direction
to contractors regarding when it is permissible for them to release
unclassified information relating to DoD contracts. Instructions to the
contracting activity concerning when classification determinations
should be made fall under the National Industrial Security Program
(NISP), which is outside of the scope of the clause and this rule.
3. Clarify/Expand Release Categories
Comment: One respondent stated that further clarification was
needed to expressly permit release of unclassified information without
the contracting officer's approval for reporting obligations included
elsewhere in the contract and/or required by applicable law.
Response: DoD has revised the proposed rule to revert to the
current DFARS text at 252.204-7000(a)(1) which contemplates all
circumstances in which contractors may be required to release
unclassified information. However, the contracting officer must be
involved in the decision to release information pertaining to DoD
contracts because of the potential security risks.
Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule should
provide guidance on whether the restriction of unclassified information
``to anyone outside the contractor's organization'' applies to
outsourced IT.
Response: Contractors should have controls in place that prevent
the release of information by their subcontractors or outsourced IT
through either flow-down of the clause at DFARS 252.204-7000 or
obtaining nondisclosure agreements.
4. DoD Contact
Comment: One respondent stated that a post-contract DoD-wide point
of contact should be contained in the rule to account for instances
when the need for the release of information occurs after contract
completion and the contracting officer is not reachable.
Response: The scope of DFARS 252.204-7000 is limited to the
permissibility of the release of unclassified information relating to
DoD contracts. In circumstances where the contracting officer cannot be
reached, the applicable contracting activity should be contacted.
5. Prescription
Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule should make
clear that it is not authorized for use in university-based Budget
Activity 1 or 2 contracts, absent exceptional circumstances justifying
extremely rare exceptions made only with the approval of high-level
component management. Another respondent stated that the proposed
clause should not be adopted without emphasizing the inapplicability of
the rule to contracts for fundamental research.
Response: The prescription requires that the clause be used when
the contractor will have access to or generate unclassified information
that may be sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public. The
contracting officer has the discretion to not include the clause in any
solicitation or contract when a judgment has been reached that the
information may be freely released to the public.
6. Grants/Cooperative Agreements
Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule does not give
any indication of its applicability to grants and/or cooperative
agreements.
Response: The DFARS applies to purchases and contracts by DoD
contracting activities. The Department of Defense Grant and Agreement
Regulatory System (DODGARS) is the system of regulatory policies and
procedures for the award and administration of grants and cooperative
agreements.
7. Scope of Fundamental Research Exemption
Comment: One respondent stated that the scope of the fundamental
research exemption is not clear since it is not explicit in the DoD
information definition.
Response: According to the NSDD 189, ``fundamental research'' means
basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of
which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific
community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from
industrial development, design, production, and product utilization,
the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or
national security reasons.'' The exemption will apply when the nature
of the research has been determined to meet this definition.
8. Flowdown
Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule contradicts
USD(AT&L) memorandum dated May 24, 2010, stating that ``Provisions
shall be made to accommodate such subcontracts for fundamental research
and to ensure DoD restrictions on the prime contract do not flow down
to the performer(s) of such research,'' by requiring the contractor to
include a similar requirement in each subcontract. The respondent
recommended that the paragraph be revised to state that the similar
requirement is not required in subcontracts if any of the exemptions
apply.
Response: In circumstances where a project is determined to be
fundamental research in accordance with the final rule, the prime
contractor will not be restricted on the release of information
resulting from or arising during that project. Therefore, the
determination will flow down to subcontractors for portions of the work
determined to be fundamental research.
Comment: One respondent stated that significant outreach is needed
to DoD firms to ensure they understand what constitutes fundamental
research and that specific contracting terms are available that should
be used in those instances.
Response: This rule aims to clarify issues surrounding restrictions
currently being placed on the release of unclassified information
arising from fundamental research projects. Developing a formal
outreach program is outside of the scope of this rule, however the
publication of this final rule serves as outreach for rulemaking
action.
[[Page 48333]]
C. Other Changes
1. Subparagraph 252.204-7000(b)(1) of the proposed rule, which
provided exceptions for information required as part of an official
Defense Contract Audit Agency audit or DoD Inspector General
investigation, or by a Congressional or Federal subpoena, is removed,
because the clause did not previously protect the information from
release under these circumstances.
2. Subparagraph 252.204-7000(b)(3) of the proposed rule is revised
to delete ``except as otherwise provided by applicable Federal statutes
regulations, or Executive orders.'' Subparagraph 252.204-7000(d) of the
proposed rule is revised to clarify that the paragraph requiring the
flowdown of the contract clause should also be included in any
subcontracts, in order to provide flowdown to lower tier subcontracts.
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
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:
This final rule implements guidance provided by the Undersecretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) in a
memorandum dated May 24, 2010, by providing a fundamental research
exception to the general rule against disclosure of unclassified
information. The subject matter of this final rule was previously
included in proposed rule 2011-D039, which was published in the Federal
Register on June 29, 2011 (76 FR 38089); however, the text was deemed
more appropriate for a stand-alone case because this subject matter
deals with the release of information and not the safeguarding of
information. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared,
and no public comments were received. Also, DoD received no comments by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
response to the proposed rule.
This final rule applies to all Federal contractors, regardless of
size or business ownership, when responding to solicitations or being
awarded contracts that include requirements that meet the definition of
fundamental research as contained within NSDD 189. The final rule is
not expected to have a significant impact on small entities, because
the rule aims to implement policy guidance that is already being
followed within DoD regarding restrictions on the disclosure of
fundamental research.
The rule does not contain any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements and does not require contractors to expend significant
cost or effort. There are no known significant alternatives to the rule
that would further minimize any economic impact of the rule on small
entities.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not add any new 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, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
0
1. The authority citation for part 252 continue to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
0
2. Revise section 252.204-7000 to read as follows:
252.204-7000 Disclosure of information.
As prescribed in 204.404-70(a), use the following clause:
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION (AUG 2013)
(a) The Contractor shall not release to anyone outside the
Contractor's organization any unclassified information, regardless
of medium (e.g., film, tape, document), pertaining to any part of
this contract or any program related to this contract, unless--
(1) The Contracting Officer has given prior written approval;
(2) The information is otherwise in the public domain before the
date of release; or
(3) The information results from or arises during the
performance of a project that has been scoped and negotiated by the
contracting activity with the Contractor and research performer and
determined in writing by the Contracting Officer to be fundamental
research in accordance with National Security Decision Directive
189, National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and
Engineering Information, in effect on the date of contract award and
the USD (AT&L) memoranda on Fundamental Research, dated May 24,
2010, and on Contracted Fundamental Research, dated June 26, 2008,
(available at DFARS PGI 204.4).
(b) Requests for approval under paragraph (a)(1) shall identify
the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and
the purpose for the release. The Contractor shall submit its request
to the Contracting Officer at least 10 business days before the
proposed date for release.
(c) The Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement,
including this paragraph (c), in each subcontract under this
contract. Subcontractors shall submit requests for authorization to
release through the prime contractor to the Contracting Officer.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2013-18960 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P