81544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–132554–08) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 (75 FR 

64197) providing guidance relating to 

certain provisions of the Internal 

Revenue Code that apply to hybrid 

defined benefit pension plans. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil 

S. Sandhu, Lauson C. Green, or Linda S. 

F. Marshall at (202) 622–6090 (not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The correction notice that is the 

subject of this document is under 

section 411 of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–132554–08) contains 

an error that may prove to be misleading 

and is in need of clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– 

132554–08), which was the subject of 

FR Doc. 2010–25942, is corrected as 

follows: 

§ 1.411(b)(5)–1 [Corrected] 

On page 64214, column 3, 

§ 1.411(b)(5)–1(e)(2)(iii)(A), line 19, the 

language ‘‘change the rate of interest 

crediting’’ is corrected to read ‘‘change 

the interest crediting rate’’. 

Guy R. Traynor, 

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel, Procedure and 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32538 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 54 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 2590 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Part 147 

Request for Information Regarding 

Value-Based Insurance Design in 

Connection With Preventive Care 

Benefits 

AGENCIES: Internal Revenue Service, 

Department of the Treasury; Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, 

Department of Labor; Office of 

Consumer Information and Insurance 

Oversight, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

request for information on how group 

health plans and health insurance 

issuers can employ value-based 

insurance design in the coverage of 

recommended preventive services. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted to any of the addresses 

specified below. Any comment that is 

submitted to any Department will be 

shared with the other Departments. 

Please do not submit duplicates. 

All comments will be made available 

to the public. Warning: Do not include 

any personally identifiable information 

(such as name, address, or other contact 

information) or confidential business 

information that you do not want 

publicly disclosed. All comments may 

be posted on the Internet and can be 

retrieved by most Internet search 

engines. Comments may be submitted 

anonymously. 

Department of Labor. Comments to 

the Department of Labor, identified by 

VBID, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: E–OHPSCA– 

VBID.EBSA@dol.gov. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Office of 

Health Plan Standards and Compliance 

Assistance, Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Room N–5653, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

Attention: VBID. 

Comments received by the 

Department of Labor will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.dol.gov/ebsa, and available for 

public inspection at the Public 

Disclosure Room, N–1513, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. In commenting, please refer to 

file code HHS–OS–2010–002. Because 

of staff and resource limitations, we 

cannot accept comments by facsimile 

(FAX) transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

• Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the instructions under the ‘‘More Search 

Options’’ tab. 

• By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: Office of Consumer 

Information and Insurance Oversight, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Attention: HHS–OS–2010– 

002, Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey 

Building, 200 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20201. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

• By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

following address ONLY: Office of 

Consumer Information and Insurance 

Oversight, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Attention: HHS–OS– 

2010–002, Room 445–G, Hubert H. 

Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. 

• By hand or courier. If you prefer, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments before the close 

of the comment period to the following 

address: Office of Consumer Information 

and Insurance Oversight, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Attention: 

HHS–OS–2010–002, Room 445–G, 

Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

(Because access to the interior of the 

Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not 

readily available to persons without 

Federal government identification, 

commenters are encouraged to leave 

their comments in the OCIIO drop slots 

located in the main lobby of the 

building. A stamp-in clock is available 

for persons wishing to retain a proof of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81545 

1For information on whether a particular group 

health plan or health insurance coverage is a 

grandfathered plan, see Affordable Care Act section 

1251 and the Departments’ implementing 

regulations at 75 FR 34538 (as amended by 75 FR 

70114). 

2 In general, the recommended preventive 

services are: (1) Evidence-based items or services 

that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current 

recommendations of the United States Preventive 

Services Task Force (Task Force) with respect to the 

individual involved; (2) immunizations for routine 

use in children, adolescents, and adults that have 

in effect a recommendation from the Advisory 

Committee on Immunization Practices of the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with 

respect to the individual involved; (3) with respect 

to infants, children, and adolescents, evidenceinformed preventive care and screenings provided 

for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by 

the Health Resources and Services Administration 

(HRSA); and (4) with respect to women, evidenceinformed preventive care and screening provided 

for in comprehensive guidelines supported by 

HRSA (not otherwise addressed by the 

recommendations of the Task Force). 

filing by stamping in and retaining an 

extra copy of the comments being filed.) 

Comments mailed to the address 

indicated as appropriate for hand or 

courier delivery may be delayed and 

received after the comment period. 

Comments received timely will also 

be available for public inspection as 

they are received, generally beginning 

approximately three weeks after 

publication of a document, at the 

headquarters of the Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, 

Monday through Friday of each week 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. EST. To 

schedule an appointment to view public 

comments, phone 1–800–743–3951. 

Internal Revenue Service. Comments 

to the IRS, identified by REG–120391– 

10 VBID, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–120391– 

10 VBID), Room 5205, Internal Revenue 

Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin 

Station, Washington, DC 20044. 

• Hand or courier delivery: Monday 

through Friday between the hours of 8 

a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR 

(REG–120391–10 VBID), Courier’s Desk, 

Internal Revenue Service, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington 

DC 20224. 

All submissions to the IRS will be 

open to public inspection and copying 

in Room 1621, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC from 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Turner or Beth Baum, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, 

Department of Labor, at (202) 693–8335; 

Karen Levin, Internal Revenue Service, 

Department of the Treasury, at (202) 

622–6080; Lisa Campbell, Office of 

Consumer Information and Insurance 

Oversight, Department of Health and 

Human Services, at (301) 492–4100. 

Customer Service Information: 

Individuals interested in obtaining 

information from the Department of 

Labor concerning employment-based 

health coverage laws may call the EBSA 

Toll-Free Hotline at 1–866–444–EBSA 

(3272) or visit the Department of Labor’s 

Web site (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa). In 

addition, information from HHS on 

private health insurance for consumers 

can be found on the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

Web site (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ 

HealthInsReformforConsume/ 

01_Overview.asp) and the Office of 

Consumer Information & Insurance 

Oversight (OCIIO) Web site (http:// 

www.hhs.gov/OCIIO). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 1001 of the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable 

Care Act) added a new section 2713 to 

the Public Health Service Act (the PHS 

Act), relating to preventive care. The 

Affordable Care Act also added a new 

section 715(a)(1) to the Employee 

Retirement Income Security (ERISA) 

and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal 

Revenue Code (the Code) incorporating 

the provisions of part A of title XXVII 

of the PHS Act (including PHS Act 

section 2713) into ERISA and the Code, 

making section 2713 applicable to group 

health plans and health insurance 

coverage in connection with group 

health plans. The Departments of the 

Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human 

Services (the Departments) published 

interim final regulations implementing 

the provisions of PHS Act section 2713 

on July 19, 2010, at 75 FR 41726. 

Section 2713 of the PHS Act and the 

Departments’ implementing regulations 

apply to group health plans and health 

insurance issuers offering group or 

individual health insurance coverage 

that is not grandfathered.1 These 

provisions require such plans and 

issuers to provide coverage for 

recommended preventive services, 

without imposing cost-sharing 

requirements.2 The complete list of 

items and services that are required to 

be covered under these interim final 

regulations can be found at http:// 

www.HealthCare.gov/center/ 

regulations/prevention.html. 

The interim final regulations clarify 

that, with respect to a plan or health 

insurance coverage that has a network of 

providers, a plan or issuer is not 

required to provide coverage for 

recommended preventive services 

delivered by an out-of-network 

provider. Such a plan or issuer may also 

impose cost-sharing requirements for 

recommended preventive services 

delivered by an out-of-network 

provider. 

The interim final regulations also 

provide that if a recommendation or 

guideline for a recommended preventive 

service does not specify the frequency, 

method, treatment, or setting for the 

provision of that service, the plan or 

issuer may use reasonable medical 

management techniques to determine 

any coverage limitations. The use of 

reasonable medical management 

techniques allows plans and issuers to 

adapt these recommendations and 

guidelines for coverage of specific items 

and services where cost sharing must be 

waived. Thus, a plan or issuer may rely 

on established techniques and the 

relevant evidence base to determine the 

frequency, method, treatment, or setting 

for which a recommended preventive 

service will be available without costsharing requirements to the extent not 

specified in a recommendation or 

guideline. 

The preamble to the interim final 

regulations also invited comments on 

value-based insurance designs (VBID). 

In general, VBID includes the provision 

of information and incentives for 

consumers that promote access to and 

use of higher value providers, 

treatments, and services. The preamble 

stated: 

The Departments recognize the important 

role that value-based insurance design can 

play in promoting the use of appropriate 

preventive services. These interim final 

regulations, for example, permit plans and 

issuers to implement designs that seek to 

foster better quality and efficiency by 

allowing cost-sharing for recommended 

preventive services delivered on an out-ofnetwork basis while eliminating cost-sharing 

for recommended preventive health services 

delivered on an in-network basis. The 

Departments are developing additional 

guidelines regarding the utilization of valuebased insurance designs by group health 

plans and health insurance issuers with 

respect to preventive benefits. The 

Departments are seeking comments related to 

the development of such guidelines for 

value-based insurance designs that promote 

consumer choice of providers or services that 

offer the best value and quality, while 

ensuring access to critical, evidence-based 

preventive services. 

In response to the solicitation of 

comments, the Departments received 

about 25 comment letters regarding 

VBID. Many commenters cited the 

importance of using VBID to help 

control rising health care costs and 

promote better health care outcomes. A 

number of other commenters raised 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
81546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

concerns about VBID becoming a barrier 

to access to services. Some also 

questioned how value would be 

assessed and whether that assessment 

would include measures such as quality 

and effectiveness, not solely measures of 

cost. 

The Departments remain interested in 

promoting high-value, clinically 

effective, evidence-based preventive 

care. (Outside the context of preventive 

care, the coverage requirements and 

cost-sharing prohibition of PHS Act 

section 2713 are not applicable.) The 

Departments are issuing the fifth in a 

series of Affordable Care Act 

Implementation Frequently Asked 

Questions (FAQs), which identifies 

certain health plan design elements that 

are considered to comply with PHS Act 

section 2713. To inform future 

guidance, this RFI solicits additional 

information on specific examples and 

best practices of VBID for recommended 

preventive services, as well as data used 

to support and inform VBID benefit 

design, measurement, and evaluation in 

the context of recommended preventive 

services. 

II. Solicitation of Comments 

A. Comments Regarding Regulatory 

Guidance 

This RFI requests comments generally 

on VBID in the context of recommended 

preventive services, as well as 

specifically on the following questions: 

1. What specific plan design tools do 

plans and issuers currently use to 

incentivize patient behavior, and which 

tools are perceived as most effective (for 

example, specific network design 

features, targeted cost-sharing 

mechanisms)? How is effective defined? 

2. Do these tools apply to all types of 

benefits for preventive care, or are they 

targeted towards specific types of 

conditions (for example, diabetes) or 

preventive services treatments (for 

example, colonoscopies, scans)? 

3. What considerations do plans and 

issuers give to what constitutes a highvalue or low-value treatment setting, 

provider, or delivery mechanism? What 

is the threshold of acceptable value? 

What factors impact how this threshold 

varies between services? What data are 

used? How is quality measured as part 

of this analysis? What time frame is 

used for assessing value? Are the data 

readily available from public sources, or 

are they internal and/or considered 

proprietary? 

4. What data do plans and issuers use 

to determine appropriate incentive 

models and/or amounts in steering 

patients towards high-value and/or 

away from low-value mechanisms for 

delivery of a given recommended 

preventive service? 

5. How often do plans and issuers reevaluate data and plan design features? 

What is the process for re-evaluation? 

Specifically: 

a. How is the impact of VBID on 

patient utilization monitored? 

b. How is the impact of VBID on 

patient out-of-pocket costs monitored? 

c. How is the impact of VBID on 

health plan costs monitored? 

d. What factors are considered in 

evaluating effectiveness (for example, 

cost, quality, utilization)? 

6. Are there particular instances in 

which a plan or issuer has decided not 

to adopt or continue a particular VBID 

method? If so, what factors did they 

consider in reaching that decision? 

7. What are the criteria for adopting 

VBID for new or additional preventive 

care benefits or treatments? 

8. Do plans or issuers currently 

implement VBIDs that have different 

cost-sharing requirements for the same 

service based on population 

characteristics (for example, high vs. 

low risk populations based on 

evidence)? 

9. What would be the data 

requirements and other administrative 

costs associated with implementing 

VBIDs based on population 

characteristics across a wide range of 

preventive services? 

10. What mechanisms and/or safety 

valves, if any, do plans and issuers put 

in place or what data are used to ensure 

that patients with particular comorbidities or special circumstances, 

such as risk factors or the accessibility 

of services, receive the medically 

appropriate level of care? For example, 

to the extent a low-cost alternative 

treatment is reasonable for some or the 

majority of patients, what happens to 

the minority of patients for whom a 

higher-cost service may be the only 

medically appropriate one? 

11. What other factors, such as 

ensuring adequate access to preventive 

services, are considered as part of a plan 

or issuer’s VBID strategy? 

12. How are consumers informed 

about VBID features in their health 

coverage? 

13. How are prescribing physicians/ 

other network providers informed of 

VBID features and/or encouraged to 

steer patients to value based services 

and settings? 

14. What consumer protections, if 

any, need to be in place to ensure 

adequate access to preventive care 

without cost sharing, as required under 

PHS Act section 2713? 

B. Comments Regarding Economic 

Analysis, Paperwork Reduction Act, and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Executive Order 12866 (EO 12866) 

requires an assessment of the 

anticipated costs and benefits of a 

significant rulemaking action and the 

alternatives considered, using the 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget. These costs 

and benefits are not limited to the 

Federal government, but pertain to the 

affected public as a whole. Under 

Executive Order 12866, a determination 

must be made whether implementation 

of this rule will be economically 

significant. A rule that has an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more is considered economically 

significant. 

In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) may require the preparation 

of an analysis of the impact on small 

entities of proposed rules and regulatory 

alternatives. An analysis under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act must 

generally include, among other things, 

an estimate of the number of small 

entities subject to the regulations (for 

this purpose, plans, employers, and 

issuers and, in some contexts small 

governmental entities), the expense of 

the reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements (including the 

expense of using professional expertise), 

and a description of any significant 

regulatory alternatives considered that 

would accomplish the stated objectives 

of the statute and minimize the impact 

on small entities. For this purpose, the 

Departments consider a small entity to 

be an employee benefit plan with fewer 

than 100 participants. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

requires an estimate of how many 

respondents will be required to comply 

with any ‘‘collection of information’’ 

requirements contained in regulations 

and how much time and cost will be 

incurred as a result. A collection of 

information includes recordkeeping, 

reporting to governmental agencies, and 

third-party disclosures. 

The Departments are requesting 

comments that may contribute to the 

analyses that will be performed under 

these requirements, both generally and 

with respect to the following specific 

areas: 

1. What costs and benefits are 

associated with expanded use of VBID 

methods? How do costs and benefits 

vary among different types of preventive 

screenings, lifestyle interventions, 

medications, immunizations, and 

diagnostic tests? 

2. What policies, procedures, 

practices and disclosures of group 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81547 

health plans and health insurance 

issuers would be impacted by expanded 

use of VBID methods? What direct or 

indirect costs and benefits would result? 

Which stakeholders will be impacted by 

such benefits and costs? 

3. What impact would expanded use 

of VBID methods have on small 

employers or small plans? Are there 

unique costs or benefits for small plans? 

What special considerations, if any, 

should the Departments take into 

account for small employers or small 

plans? 

Signed at Washington, DC on December 20, 

2010. 

Nancy J. Marks, 

Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, 

Tax Exempt and Government Entities, 

Internal Revenue Service, Department of the 

Treasury. 

Signed at Washington, DC on December 21, 

2010. 

George H. Bostick 

Benefits Tax Counsel, Department of the 

Treasury. 

Signed at Washington, DC on December 16, 

2010. 

Phyllis C. Borzi 

Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor. 

Dated: December 21, 2010. 

Jay Angoff 

Director, Office of Consumer Information and 

Insurance Oversight. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32612 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P; 4510–29–P; 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 182 

[DOD–2009–OS–0038; RIN 0790–AI54] 

Defense Support of Civilian Law 

Enforcement Agencies 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule 

implements 32 CFR part 185 and 

legislation concerning restriction on 

direct participation by DoD personnel. It 

provides specific policy direction and 

assigns responsibilities with respect to 

DoD support provided to Federal, State, 

and local civilian law enforcement 

efforts, including responses to civil 

disturbances. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and or RIN 

number and title, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

OSD Mailroom 3C843, Washington, DC 

20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (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 on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Tom LaCrosse, 703–697–5822. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ 

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 

182 does not: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy; a section of the economy; 

productivity; competition; jobs; the 

environment; public health or safety; or 

State, local, or tribunal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another Agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in this Executive Order. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 

182 does not contain a Federal mandate 

that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and tribunal governments, 

in aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any 1 year. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601) 

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 

182 is not subject to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it 

would not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule establishes procedures and 

assigns responsibilities within DoD for 

assisting civilian law enforcement 

agencies, therefore, it is not expected 

that small entities will be affected 

because there will be no economically 

significant regulatory requirements 

placed upon them. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 

182 does not impose reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 

182 does not have federalism 

implications, as set forth in Executive 

Order 13132. This rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on: 

(1) The States; 

(2) The relationship between the 

National Government and the States; or 

(3) The distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of Government. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 182 

Armed forces, Law enforcement. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 182 is 

proposed to be added to read as follows: 

PART 182—DEFENSE SUPPORT OF 

CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT 

AGENCIES 

Sec. 

182.1 Purpose. 

182.2 Applicability and scope. 

182.3 Definitions. 

182.4 Policy. 

182.5 Responsibilities. 

182.6 Procedures. 

Authority: Legal authorities include title 

10 U.S.C. 113, 331–334, 371–382, 2576, and 

2667; title 14 U.S.C. 141; title 16 U.S.C. 23, 

78, 593, and 1861; title 18 U.S.C. 112, 351, 

831, 1116, 1385, and 1751; title 22 U.S.C. 

408, 461–462; title 25 U.S.C. 180; title 31 

U.S.C. 1535; title 42 U.S.C. 97, 1989, and 

5121–5207 (Stafford Act); title 50 U.S.C. 

1621–1622; Public Law 94–524, and 

Executive Order 12656. 

§ 182.1. Purpose. 

This part implements 32 CFR part 185 

and title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) 

375 concerning restriction on direct 

participation by DoD personnel. It 

provides specific policy direction and 

assigns responsibilities with respect to 

DoD support provided to Federal, State, 

and local civilian law enforcement 

efforts, including responses to civil 

disturbances. 

§ 182.2. Applicability and scope. 

This part: 

(a) Applies to the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS