DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

Background 

 The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department consisting of 3 Military 

departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), 9 Unified Combatant Commands, 13 Defense 

Agencies, and 10 DoD Field Activities. It has 1,409,877 military personnel and 766,425 civilians 

assigned as of March 31, 2012, and over 200 large and medium installations in the continental 

United States, U. S. territories, and foreign countries. The overall size, composition, and 

dispersion of DoD, coupled with an innovative regulatory program, presents a challenge to the 

management of the Defense regulatory efforts under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 "Regulatory 

Planning and Review" of September 30, 1993. 

 Because of its diversified nature, DoD is affected by the regulations issued by regulatory 

agencies such as the Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, Labor, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In order to 

develop the best possible regulations that embody the principles and objectives embedded in 

E.O. 12866, there must be coordination of proposed regulations among the regulatory agencies 

and the affected DoD components. Coordinating the proposed regulations in advance throughout 

an organization as large as DoD is a straightforward, yet formidable undertaking. 

 DoD occasionally issues regulations that have an effect on the public and can be significant as 

defined in E.O. 12866. In addition, some of DoD's regulations may affect other agencies. DoD, as 

an integral part of its program, not only receives coordinating actions from other agencies, but 

coordinates with the agencies that are affected by its regulations as well. 

Overall Priorities 

 The Department needs to function at a reasonable cost, while ensuring that it does not impose 

ineffective and unnecessarily burdensome regulations on the public. The rulemaking process 

should be responsive, efficient, cost-effective, and both fair and perceived as fair. This is being 

done in DoD while reacting to the contradictory pressures of providing more services with fewer 
resources. The Department of Defense, as a matter of overall priority for its regulatory program, 

fully incorporates the provisions of the President's priorities and objectives under Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866. 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

 As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, "international regulatory cooperation, 

consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means 

of promoting" public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in EO 13609, the President requires 

each executive agency to include in its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory 

cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations. 

The Department of Defense, along with the Department of State and Department of 

Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, through which the 

international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export 

controls. 

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations 

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review (January 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been 

identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department’s final 

retrospective review of regulations plan. All are of particular interest to small businesses. Some of 

these entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. 

 However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications 

of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These 

rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found at:

http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/eo-13563 

RIN Rule Title (*expected to significantly reduce burdens on small businesses) 

0790-AI73 Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data From Public Disclosure 
0790-AI75 Presentation of DoD-Related Scientific and Technical Papers at Meetings 

0790-AI77 Provision of Early Intervention and Special Education Services to Eligible DoD 

Dependents 

0790-AI84 National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowships 

0790-AI54 Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies 

0790-AI88 Shelter for the Homeless 

0710-AA66 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule 

0710-AA60 Nationwide Permit Program Regulations* 

0703-AA91 Unofficial Use of the Seal, Emblem, Names, or Initials of the Marine Corps 

0703-AA92 Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and 

Supervision of the Judge Advocate General 

0703-AA88 Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and 

Supervision of the Judge Advocate General 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13563, DoD also plans to finalize the DFARS rule to delete 

text in DFARS part 219 that implemented 10 U.S.C. 2323 because 10 U.S.C. 2323 has 

expired. 

Administration Priorities: 

1. Rulemakings that are expected to have high net benefits well in excess of costs. 

 The Department plans to— 

• Revise the DFARS to implement section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, which requires the evaluation of offeror’s supply chain 

risks for information technology purchases relating to national security systems. This rule 
enables agencies to exclude sources that are identified as having a supply chain risk. 

• Revise the DFARS to use Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) codes and 

NCAGE (if foreign) for awards greater than the micropurchase threshold to identify the 

immediate corporate parent. This rule will provide standardization across the Federal 

government to facilitate data collection and support anti-counterfeiting efforts by uniquely 

identifying vendors. 

• Revise the DFARS to use Activity Address Codes as the unique identifier for contracting 

offices and other offices, as well as the use of standard procurement instrument identification 

numbers. This will provide for standardization across the Federal government to facilitate 

data tracking and collection. 

2. Rulemakings that promote Open Government and use disclosure as a regulatory tool. 

 The Department plans to— 

• Finalize the DFARS rule, which revises reporting requirements for Government-furnished 

property to include items uniquely and non-uniquely identified, which will permit enterprisewide visibility thereby enhancing DoD’s ability to reutilize items. The data will be available to 

users in the logistics, financial, and property accountability arenas. 

3. Rulemakings that streamline regulations, reduce unjustified burdens, and minimize 

burdens on small businesses. 

 The Department plans to— 

• Finalize the rule for DFARS coverage of patents, data, and copyrights, which significantly 

reduces the amount of regulatory text and the number of required clauses. 

4. Rules to be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency’s 

regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory 

objectives. 

• DFARS Case 2012-D022 – Provides guidance relating to rights in technical data under 

contracts for production and sustainment of systems or subsystems. 
• DFARS Case 2012-D008 – Proposes a new convention for prescribing clauses with 

alternates to provide alternate clauses in full text. This will facilitate selection of alternate 

clauses using automated contract writing systems. 

• DFARS Case 2011-D056 – Provides a new approach to identifying required provisions 

and clauses for the acquisition of commercial items, by replacing the omnibus contract clause 

at DFARS 252.212-7001 with an amplified list in part 212 of required provisions and clauses. 

This supports simplified clause prescriptions and facilitates commercial item clause 

selections using automated contract writing systems. 

• DFARS Case 2010-D001 – Finalizes the rule for DFARS coverage of patents, data, and 

copyrights, which significantly reduces the amount of regulatory text and the number of 

required clauses. 

Specific DoD Priorities:

 For this regulatory plan, there are six specific DoD priorities, all of which reflect the established 

regulatory principles. DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious 

environmental, health, and safety risks. Perhaps most significant is that each of the priorities 

described below promulgates regulations to offset the resource impacts of Federal decisions on 

the public or to improve the quality of public life, such as those regulations concerning acquisition, 

security, energy projects, education, and health affairs. 

1. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy 

 The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and continues to lead 

Government efforts to— 

• Revise the DFARS to provide detailed guidance and instruction to DoD contracting 

officers for the use of DoD's performance based payments analysis tool when contemplating 

the use of performance based payments on new fixed-price type contracts. 

• Revise the DFARS to implement a DoD Better Buying Power initiative by providing a 

proposal-adequacy checklist in a provision to ensure offerors take responsibility for providing 
thorough, accurate, and complete proposals. 

• Revise the DFARS to implement a DoD Better Buying Power initiative by providing a 

forward-pricing-rate-agreement checklist in a provision to ensure offerors take responsibility 

for providing thorough, accurate, and complete proposals. 

• Revise the DFARS to address standards and structures for the safeguarding of 

unclassified DoD information. 

• Revise the DFARS to include contractor reporting and documentation requirements 

regarding contractor compliance with the DFARS business systems’ criteria. 

2. Logistics and Material Readiness, Department of Defense 

 The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule on contractors supporting the military in 

contingency operations: 

• Final Rule: Operational Contract Support. This rule incorporates the latest changes and 

lessons learned into policy and procedures for operational contract support (OCS), including 

OCS program management, contract support integration, and the integration of DoD 

contractor personnel into contingency operations outside the United States. It was required to 

procedurally close gaps and ensure the correct planning, oversight and management of DoD 

contractors supporting contingency operations, by updating outdated policy. DoD published 

an interim final rule on December 29, 2011 (32 CFR part 158, 76 FR 81807-81825) with an 

effective date of December 29, 2011. The comment period ended February 27, 2012. DoD is 

preparing a final rule, which includes the responses to the public comments. The final rule is 

expected to be published the second quarter of FY 2013. 

3. Installations and Environment, Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule regarding the process for evaluating the 

impact of certain types of structures on military operations and readiness: 

• Final Rule: This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes 

procedures for the establishment and operation of a process for evaluation of proposed 

projects submitted to the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of title 49, United 
States Code. The evaluation process is established for the purpose of identifying any adverse 

impact of proposed projects on military operations and readiness, minimizing or mitigating 

such adverse impacts, and determining if any such projects pose an unacceptable risk to the 

national security of the United States. The rule also includes procedures for the operation of a 

central DoD siting clearinghouse to facilitate both informal and formal reviews of proposed 

projects. This rule is required by section 358 of Public Law 111-383. An interim final rule was 

published on October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65112). DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the 

second quarter of FY 2013. 

4. Military Community and Family Policy, Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule to implement policy, assign responsibilities, 

and prescribe procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within DoD: 

• Final Rule: In this final rule, the Department of Defense (DoD) plans to implement policy, 

assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the operation of voluntary education 

programs within DoD. Several of the subject areas in this final rule include: procedures for 

Service members participating in education programs; guidelines for establishing, 

maintaining, and operating voluntary education programs including, but not limited to, 

instructor-led courses offered on-installation and off-installation, as well as via distance 

learning; procedures for obtaining on-base voluntary education programs and services; 

minimum criteria for selecting institutions to deliver higher education programs and services 

on military installations; the establishment of a DoD Voluntary Education Partnership 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DoD and educational institutions receiving 

tuition assistance payments; and procedures for other education programs for Service 

members and their adult family members. 

 The new DoD MOU policy was scheduled to commence in early 2012; however, due to 

concerns received by DoD from several institutions of higher learning (IHLs) involving the 

language in the DoD Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU), commencement was put on-hold. DoD extended the deadline to work with the 

stakeholders (American Council on Education, IHLs, and key veteran and military service 
organizations) to address these concerns by clarifying the terminology contained in the DoD 

MOU. One change was informally coordinated with all key stakeholders (Congress, the White 

House, American Council on Education and select IHL) and now captures the agreed upon 

MOU policy. The new deadline to implement the policy requiring participating IHLs to sign the 

MOU is sixty days following the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A 

proposed rule was published on August 6, 2010 (75 FR 47504). DoD anticipates publishing a 

final rule in the second quarter of FY2013. 

 Earlier this year, the White House worked with an interagency group, including the 

Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Justice, and Defense, on the development of an 

Executive Order establishing the Principles of Excellence for educational institutions servicing 

Service members, Veterans, spouses, and other family members. The President signed 

Executive Order 13607 on April 27, 2012. Implementation of the protections stated in E.O. 

13607 will require developing and coordinating an amendment to the rule, Voluntary 

Education Programs. The White House guidance states DoD will implement these new 

student protections by the start of academic year 2013-2014. DoD anticipates publishing a 

final rule the third quarter of FY 2013. 

5. Health Affairs, Department of Defense 

 The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of wartime readiness and 

peacetime health care by operating an extensive network of medical treatment facilities. This 

network includes DoD’s own military treatment facilities supplemented by civilian health care 

providers, facilities, and services under contract to DoD through the TRICARE program. 

TRICARE is a major health care program designed to improve the management and integration 

of DoD’s health care delivery system. The program’s goal is to increase access to health care 

services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs. 

 The TRICARE Management Activity has published or plans to publish the following rules: 

• Final rule on TRICARE: Reimbursement of Sole Community Hospitals and Adjustment to 

Reimbursement of Critical Access Hospitals. The rule implements the statutory provision in 

10 United States Code 1079(j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care shall 
be determined to the extent practicable in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as 

those that apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. This 

rule implements a reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare 

beneficiaries for services provided by sole community hospitals. It is projected that 

implementation of this rule will result in health care savings of $36.5 million per year with 

proposed phase-in period and an estimated initial startup cost of $200,000. Any ongoing 

administrative costs would be minimal and there do not appear to be any applicable risks to 

the public. The proposed rule was published July 5, 2011 (76 FR 39043). The comment 

period ended on September 6, 2011. DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the second 

quarter of FY 2013. 

• Final rule on TRICARE: TRICARE Young Adult. The purpose of this interim final rule is to 

establish the TRICARE Young Adult program implementing section 702 of the Ike Skelton 

NDAA for FY 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383) to provide medical coverage to unmarried children 

under the age of 26 who no longer meet the age requirements for TRICARE eligibility (age 

21, or 23 if enrolled in a full-time course of study at an institution of higher learning approved 

by the Secretary of Defense) and who are not eligible for medical coverage from an eligible 

employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986). If qualified, they can purchase TRICARE Standard/Extra or TRICARE Prime benefits 

coverage. The particular TRICARE plan available depends on the military sponsor's eligibility 

and the availability of the TRICARE plan in the dependent's geographic location. It is 

projected that implementation of this rule will result in an estimated initial start-up cost of 

$3,000,000. Premiums are designed to cover the anticipated health care costs, as well as 

ongoing administrative costs. The interim final rule was published April 27, 2011 (76 FR 

23479), with an immediate effective date. The comment period ended June 27, 2011. DoD 

anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2013. 

6. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense plans to publish an interim final rule regarding Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures: 
• Interim Final Rule: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program 

Procedures. This part implements Department of Defense (DoD) policy and assigns 

responsibilities for the SAPR Program on prevention, response, and oversight to sexual 

assault. It is DoD policy to establish a culture free of sexual assault by providing an 

environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, 

reporting procedures, and accountability that enhances the safety and well being of all 

persons covered by the regulation. DoD anticipates publishing the interim final rule in the first 

or second quarter of FY 2013. 

7. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense plans to publish a rule regarding Service Academies: 

• Final Rule: Service Academies. This rule establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and 

prescribes procedures for Department of Defense oversight of the Service Academies. 

Administrative costs are negligible and benefits are clear, concise rules that enable the 

Secretary of Defense to insure that the Service Academies are efficiently operated and meet 

the needs of the armed forces. The proposed rule was published October 18, 2007 (72 FR 

59053), and included policy that has since changed. The final rule, particularly the 

explanation of separation policy, will reflect recent changes in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. 

It will also incorporate changes resulting from interagency coordination. DoD anticipates 

publishing the final rule in the first or second quarter of FY 2013. 

8. Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense plans to publish a final rule to establish the voluntary cyber 

security information sharing program between DoD and eligible cleared defense contractors: 

• Final Rule: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Voluntary Cyber Security/Information 

Assurance (CS/IA) Activities. The DIB CS/IA program enhances and supplements DIB 

participant's capabilities to safeguard DoD information that resides on, or transits, DIB 
unclassified information systems. At the core of this voluntary program is a bilateral cyber 

security information sharing activity, in which DoD provides cyber threat information and 

information assurance best practices to DIB companies, and in return, DIB companies report 

certain types of cyber intrusion incidents to the DoD-DIB Collaborative Information Sharing 

Environment (DCISE), located at the DoD Cyber Crime Center. The information sharing 

arrangements between DoD and each participating DIB company are memoralized in a 

standardized bilateral Framework Agreement. The interim final rule was published on May 

11, 2012 (77 FR 27615). The comment period on the interim final rule ended on July 11, 

2012. Once adjudication of the comments is complete, DoD anticipates publishing a final rule 

in the second quarter of FY 2013. 

 
The 8 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title

Regulation 

Identifier 

Number

Rulemaking 

Stage

TRICARE; Reimbursement of Sole Community Hospitals 0720-AB41 Final Rule Stage

Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); TRICARE

Young Adult 0720-AB48 Final Rule Stage

Service Academies 0790-AI19 Final Rule Stage

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures 0790-AI36 Final Rule Stage

Operational Contract Support 0790-AI48 Final Rule Stage

Voluntary Education Programs 0790-AI50 Final Rule Stage

Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities 0790-AI60 Final Rule Stage

Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process 0790-AI69 Final Rule Stage

Department of Defense (DOD) 

Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs ( DODOASHA ) RIN: 0720-AB41

 View Related Documents

Title: TRICARE; Reimbursement of Sole Community Hospitals

Abstract: This proposed rule would implement the statutory provision at 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods

for institutional care be determined, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as those that

apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. This proposed rule implements a reimbursement

methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for inpatient services provided by Sole Community Hospitals

(SCHs). It will be phased in over a several-year period.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule is being published to implement the statutory provision in 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), that TRICARE

payment methods for institutional care be determined, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement

rules as apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. This proposed rule implements a

reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for inpatient services provided by Sole

Community Hospitals.

Legal Basis: There is a statutory basis for this proposed rule: 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2).

Alternatives: Alternatives were considered for phasing in the needed reform and an alternative was selected for a gradual,

smooth transition.

Costs and Benefits: We estimate the total reduction (from the proposed changes in this rule) in hospital revenues under the

SCH reform for its first year of implementation (assumed for purposes of this RIA to be FY 2011), compared to expenditures in

that same period without the proposed SCH changes, to be approximately $190 million. The estimated impact for FYs 2012

through 2015 (in $ millions) is $208, $229, $252, and $278 respectively.

Risks: Failure to publish this proposed rule would result in noncompliance with a statutory provision.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 07/05/2011 76 FR 39043 

NPRM Comment Period End 09/06/2011 

Final Action 12/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business;

Organizations Government Levels Affected: No
Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Marty Maxey Department of Defense

Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs

1200 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301

Washington , DC 20301 

Phone: 303 676-3627 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs ( DODOASHA ) RIN: 0720-AB48

 View Related Documents

Title: Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); TRICARE Young Adult

Abstract: This interim final rule implements section 702 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2011 (NDAA for FY11). It establishes the TRICARE Young Adult (TYA) program to provide an extended medical coverage

opportunity to most unmarried children under the age of 26 of uniformed services sponsors. The TRICARE Young Adult

program is a premium-based program.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 10 USC ch 55; 5 USC 301

Legal Deadline: The amendments by this section took effect on January 1, 2011. The statute provided that the Secretary of

Defense would prescribe an interim final rule with respect to such amendments, effective not later than January 1, 2011.

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Public Law 111-383, section 702 01/01/2011 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule executes section 1110b of title 10, United States Code, "TRICARE Young Adult," as mandated

by section 702 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Section 702 authorizes the Department of Defense

to provide an unmarried child under the age of 26 who is not otherwise eligible for TRICARE medical coverage at age 21 (23 if

enrolled in a full-time course of study at an institution of higher learning approved by the Secretary of Defense) unless the

dependent is enrolled in or eligible for medical coverage with an employer-sponsored plan as defined by section 5000A(f)(2) of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If qualified, the dependent can purchase TRICARE Standard / Extra or TRICARE Prime

benefits depending on the military sponsor's eligibility and the availability of the TRICARE plan in the dependent's geographic

location.

Legal Basis: Title 10, U.S.C., section 1110b and section 702 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2011.

Alternatives: None.

Costs and Benefits: There are no anticipated budgetary health care or administrative cost increases.

Risks: Failure to publish this rule would result in certain former Military Health System beneficiaries being denied the

opportunity to purchase extended dependent medical coverage (similar to one of the significant benefit provisions of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act) when they are not longer eligible for care at age 21 (age 23 if enrolled in a full-time course

of study at an institution of higher learning approved by the Secretary of Defense) and are under the age of 26.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 04/27/2011 76 FR 23479 

Interim Final Rule Effective 04/27/2011 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 06/27/2011 

Final Action 02/00/2013 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Mark Ellis Department of Defense

Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs

5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810A, Falls Church, VA 22041

Falls Church , VA 22041 

Phone: 703 681-0039 
Department of Defense (DOD) 

Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790-AI19

 View Related Documents

Title: Service Academies

Abstract: The Department is revising and updating policy guidance and oversight of the Military Service Academies. This rule

implements 10 U.S.C. 403, 603, and 903 for the establishment and operation of the United States Military Academy, the United

States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy. Administrative costs are negligible and benefits are clear,

concise rules that enable the Secretary of Defense to insure that the Service Academies are efficiently operated and meet the

needs of the armed forces. The proposed rule was published October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59053), and included policy that has

since changed. The final rule, particularly the explanation of separation policy, will reflect recent changes in the Don't Ask, Don't

Tell policy.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 217 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 10 USC 301

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The Department of Defense revises and updates the current rule providing the policy guidance and

oversight of the Military Service Academies. This rule implements 10 U.S.C. 403, 603, and 903 for the establishment and

operation of the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy.

Legal Basis: 10 U.S.C. Chapters 403, 603, 903.

Alternatives: None. The Federal statute directs the Department of Defense to develop policy, assign responsibilities, and

prescribe procedures for operations and oversight of the Service academies.

Costs and Benefits: Administrative costs are negligible and benefits would be clear, concise rules that enable the Secretary

of Defense to ensure that the Service Academies are efficiently operated and meet the needs of the armed forces.

Risks: None.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 10/18/2007 72 FR 59053 

NPRM Comment Period End 12/17/2007 

Final Action 03/00/2013 

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1322.22

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Paul Nosek Department of Defense

Office of the Secretary

4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000

Washington , DC 20301-4000 

Phone: 703 695-5529 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790-AI36

 View Related Documents

Title: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures

Abstract: This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, provides guidance and procedures, and establishes the Sexual

Assault Advisory Council for the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program consistent with the Task Force Report

on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault, and pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 113 and 32 CFR part 103. The intent of the program is to

prevent and eliminate sexual assault within the Department by providing comprehensive procedures to better establish a culture

of prevention, response, and accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all DoD members.
Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 105 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 10 USC ch 47 sec 113

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance and procedures for the

SAPR Program. It establishes the processes and procedures for the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) Kit; the

multidisciplinary Case Management Group to include guidance for the group on how to handle sexual assault; SAPR minimum

program standards; SAPR training requirements; and SAPR requirements for the DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the

Military.

Legal Basis: Section 113 of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.); and Public Laws 109-364, 109-163, 108-375, 106-65,

110-417, and 111-84.

Alternatives: The Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) will lack updated and revised rules for

implementing DoD policy on prevention and response to sexual assaults involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces if this

rule is not implemented.

Costs and Benefits: The preliminary estimate of the anticipated cost associated with this rule for the current fiscal year

(2011) is approximately $14.819 million. Additionally, each of the Military Services establishes its own SAPR budget for the

programmatic costs arising from the implementation of the training, prevention, reporting, response, and oversight requirements

established by this rule. The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include: (1) Guidance with which the Department may

establish a culture free of sexual assault by providing an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability,

victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and well being of all persons

covered by this rule; (2) Treatment of sexual assault patients as emergency cases, which prevents loss of life or suffering

resulting from physical injuries (internal or external), sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and psychological distress; (3)

The availability of two reporting options for Service members and their dependents who are 18 years of age or older covered by

this rule who are victims of sexual assault. The two reporting options are as follows: (a) Unrestricted Reporting allows an eligible

person who is sexually assaulted to access medical treatment and counseling and request an official investigation of the

allegation using existing reporting channels (e.g., chain of command, law enforcement, healthcare personnel, the Sexual

Assault Response Coordinator [SARC]). When a sexual assault is reported through Unrestricted Reporting, a SARC shall be

notified as soon as possible, respond, assign a SAPR Victim Advocate (VA), and offer the victim medical care and a sexual

assault forensic examination (SAFE); and (b) Restricted Reporting allows sexual assault victims to confidentially disclose the

assault to specified individuals (i.e., SARC, SAPR VA, or healthcare personnel), in accordance with DoD Directive (DoDD)

5400.11, and receive medical treatment, including emergency care, counseling, and assignment of a SARC and SAPR VA,

without triggering an official investigation. The victim's report to healthcare personnel (including the information acquired from a

SAFE Kit), SARCs, or SAPR VAs will not be reported to law enforcement, or to the victim's command to initiate the official

investigative process, unless the victim consents or an established exception applies in accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI)

6495.02. The Department's preference is for complete Unrestricted Reporting of sexual assaults to allow for the provision of

victims' services and to pursue accountability. However, Unrestricted Reporting may represent a barrier for victims to access

services, when the victim desires no command or law enforcement involvement. Consequently, the Department recognizes a

fundamental need to provide a confidential disclosure vehicle via the Restricted Reporting option. (4) Service members who are

on active duty but were victims of sexual assault prior to enlistment or commissioning are eligible to receive SAPR services and

utilize either reporting option. The focus of this rule and DoDI 6495.02 is on the victim of sexual assault. The DoD shall provide

support to an active duty Service member regardless of when or where the sexual assault took place; and (5) Guidance for the

development of response capabilities that will enable sexual assault victims to recover, and, if Service members, to be fully

mission capable and engaged.

Risks: The rule intends to enable military readiness by establishing a culture free of sexual assault. Sexual assault poses a

serious threat to military readiness because the potential costs and consequences are extremely high: chronic psychological

consequences may include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse. In the U.S. Armed Forces, sexual

assault not only degrades individual resilience but also may erode unit integrity. An effective fighting force cannot tolerate sexual

assault within its ranks. Sexual assault is incompatible with military culture and mission readiness, and risks to mission

accomplishment. This rule aims to mitigate this risk to mission readiness.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 12/00/2012 

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 6495.02

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Teresa Scalzo Department of Defense

Office of the Secretary
4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155

Washington , DC 20301-1155 

Phone: 703 696-8977 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790-AI48

 View Related Documents

Title: Operational Contract Support

Abstract: In accordance with Public Law 110-181 and Public Law 110-417, DoD is revising policy and assigning

responsibilities for program management of operational contract support (OCS) in contingency operations and integration of

DoD contractor personnel into military contingency operations outside the United States. An interim final rule is required to

procedurally close gaps and ensure the correct planning, oversight and management of DoD contractors supporting contingency

operations, by updating the existing outdated policy. The existing policies are causing significant confusion, as they do not reflect

current practices and legislative mandates. The apparent mismatch between local Geographic Command guidance and the

DoD-wide policies and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement is confusing for those in the field--in particular

policy with regard to accountability and visibility requirements. Since the Presidential decision to expand the number of troops in

Afghanistan and the subsequent increase of troops and contractors in theater, this issue has become so significant that DoD

needs to revise the DoD-wide policies as a matter of urgency.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 158 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: PL 110-181

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule revises policy and assigns responsibilities for program management of operational contract

support (OCS) in contingency operations and integration of DoD contractor personnel into military contingency operations

outside the United States. GAO, the Commission on Wartime Contracting, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq

Reconstruction / Afghanistan Reconstruction are among those who have highlighted the urgent requirement to update the

policy.

Legal Basis: Parts of the rule are required by section 861 of the 2008 NDAA, Public Law 110-181 and Public Law 110-417.

Alternatives: Given the legal requirement to revise this regulation and separately publish a corresponding revision to the

Federal Acquisition Regulation, we did not consider any alternatives.

Costs and Benefits: This regulation establishes policies and procedures for the oversight and management of contractors

supporting contingency operations outside the United States; therefore, there is no cost to public. Updated and refined policy

regarding contractors supporting contingency operations will result in improved management, oversight and efficiency.

Risks: This rule represents an update to the existing DoD Instruction and incorporates the latest changes in policy and

procedures. This revision is required to integrate lessons learned and improvements in practices gleaned from five years of

operational experience. The risk of not publishing this rule is that there would be outdated policy which doesn't reflect practices

in the field. This will lead to inefficient and ineffective management of the contractor workforce supporting contingency

operations.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 12/29/2011 76 FR 81807 

Interim Final Rule Effective 12/29/2011 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 02/27/2012 

Final Action 01/00/2013 

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 3020.41

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Kerry Powell Department of Defense

Office of the Secretary

3500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20201-3500

Washington , DC 20201-3500 

Phone: 703 614-1944 
FAX: 703 697-4942

E-Mail: kerry.powell@osd.mil

Department of Defense (DOD) 

Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790-AI50

 View Related Documents

Title: Voluntary Education Programs

Abstract: This rule will implement policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe procedures for the operation of voluntary

education programs within DoD. Included are: procedures for Service members participating in education programs; guidelines

for establishing, maintaining, and operating voluntary education programs, including but not limited to, instructor-led courses

offered on-installation and off-installation, as well as via distance learning; procedures for obtaining on-base voluntary education

programs and services; minimum criteria for selecting institutions to deliver higher education programs and services on military

installations; the establishment of a DoD Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding between DoD and

educational institutions receiving tuition assistance payments; and procedures for other education programs for Service

members and their adult family members.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 32 CFR 68 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 10 USC 2005; 10 USC 2007

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: A March 2011 Government Accountability Office report on the DoD TA program recommended the

Department take steps to enhance its oversight of schools receiving TA funds. As a result, a DoD Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) requirement was included in this rule, which is designated not only to improve Departmental oversight but

also to account for our Service members' unique lifestyle requirements. The purpose of the DoD MOU is to establish a

partnership between the Department and institutions to improve educational opportunities while protecting the integrity of each

institution's core educational values. This partnership serves to ensure a quality, viable program exists that provides for our

Service members to realize their educational goals, while allowing for judicious oversight of taxpayer dollars.

Legal Basis: Sections 2005 and 2007 of title 10, United States Code.

Alternatives: None.

Costs and Benefits: Voluntary Education Programs include: High School Completion /Diploma; Military Tuition Assistance

(TA); Postsecondary Degree Programs; Independent Study and Distance Learning Programs; College Credit Examination

Program; Academic Skills Program; and Certification/Licensure Programs. Funding for Voluntary Education Programs during

2009 was $800 million, which included tuition assistance and operational costs. This funding provided more than 650,000

individuals (Service members and their adult family members) with the opportunity to participate in Voluntary Education

Programs around the world.

Risks: None.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 08/06/2010 75 FR 47504 

NPRM Comment Period End 10/05/2010 

Final Action 12/00/2012 

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1322.25

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Kerrie Tucker Department of Defense

Office of the Secretary

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301

Washington , DC 20301 

Phone: 703 602-4949 Extension: 117 

Department of Defense (DOD) 
Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790-AI60

 View Related Documents

Title: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities

Abstract: In accordance with Executive Order 12829, this rule will establish policy, assign responsibilities, and delegate

authority for directing the conduct of Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) activities to

protect unclassified DoD information that transits or resides on unclassified DIB information systems and networks.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: EO 12829

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Adversaries target Defense Industrial Base (DIB) unclassified networks daily. Unauthorized access and

compromise of DoD unclassified information poses an unacceptable risk and imminent threat to U.S. national and economic

security. DoD's voluntary DIB Cyber Security and Information Assurance (CS/IA) program enhances and supplements DIB

participants' capabilities to safeguard DoD information on DIB unclassified information systems.

Legal Basis: Government and private sector information assurance, which includes cyber threat information sharing, is an

urgent U.S. national and economic security priority. The following authorities and policy guidance identify government-industry

partnerships as necessary to contend with advanced cyber threats and support the collection of cyber incident information from

the DIB. DoD Information Assurance (IA): DoD is required by statute to establish programs and activities to protect DoD

information and DoD information systems, including information and information systems operated and maintained by

contractors or others in support of DoD activities. Section 2224 of title 10, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), requires DoD to establish a

Defense IA Program to protect and defend DoD information, information systems, and information networks that are critical to

the Department during day to day operations and operations in times of crisis. (10 U.S.C. section 2224(a)). The program must

provide continuously for the availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality, non-repudiation, and rapid restitution of

information and information systems that are essential elements of the Defense information infrastructure. (10 U.S.C. section

2224(b)). The program strategy also must include vulnerability and threat assessments for defense and supporting non-defense

information infrastructures, joint activities with elements of the national information infrastructure, and coordination with

representatives of those national critical infrastructure systems that are essential to DoD operations. (10 U.S.C. section

2224(c)). The program must provide for coordination, as appropriate, with the heads of any relevant federal agency and with

representatives of those national critical information infrastructure systems that are essential to the operations of the

Department regarding information assurance measures necessary to the protection of these systems. (10 U.S.C. section

2224(d)). Federal Information Security: The Defense IA Program also must ensure compliance with Federal information security

requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), 44 U.S.C. section 3541 et seq. FISMA requires all

federal agencies to provide information security protections for information collected or maintained by, or on behalf of, the

agency. Information systems used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of

an agency must be in accordance with 44 U.S.C. section 3544(a)(1)(A). Agencies are expressly required to develop, document,

and implement programs to provide information security for information and information systems that support the operations and

assets of the agency, including those provided by another agency, contractor, or other source in accordance with 44 U.S.C.

section 3544(b). Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP): Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7), "Critical

Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection," the Department of Defense is the Sector Specific Agency (SSA) for

the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) sector (HSPD-7), (18)(g)), and thus engages with the DIB on a wide range of CIP matters,

including but not limited to cyber security. HSPD-7 charges the SSAs to: collaborate with all relevant Federal departments and

agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector, including with key persons and entities in their infrastructure

sector; conduct or facilitate vulnerability assessments of the sector; and encourage risk management strategies to protect

against and mitigate the effects of attacks against critical infrastructure and key resources. (HSPD-7), (19)). The Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) leads the national effort to protect public and private critical infrastructure. (HSPD-7), (7)). This

includes coordinating implementation activities between federal agencies, state and local authorities, and the private sector.

Regarding cyber security, these efforts are to include analysis, warning, information sharing, vulnerability reduction, mitigation,

and aiding national recovery efforts for critical infrastructure information systems. (HSPD-7), (12)) More specifically, regarding

coordination with the private sector, HSPD-7 provides that DHS and the SSAs "will collaborate with appropriate private sector

entities and continue to encourage the development of information sharing and analysis mechanisms [to] identify, prioritize, and

coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; and to facilitate sharing of information about physical and

cyber threats, vulnerabilities, incidents, potential protective measures, and best practices." (HSPD-7), (25)).

Alternatives: Private sector DIB company participation in the DIB CS/IA program is completely voluntary, allowing DIB

companies to elect whether to participate in the program, or to choose from any other available alternatives, based on their

individual approaches to cyber security and information security. The DIB CS/IA bilateral information sharing activities are a core

element of the DoD's multi-pronged approach to fulfill its information assurance responsibilities and cyber security. The program

enhances and supplements DIB participants' capabilities to safeguard DoD information that resides on, or transits, DIB

unclassified information systems.

Costs and Benefits: Participation in the DIB CS/IA program is voluntary and does not obligate the DIB participant to use
government furnished information (GFI) in, or otherwise to implement any changes to, its information systems. Any action taken

by the DIB participant based on GFI or other participation in this program is taken on the DIB participant's own volition and at

the participant's own risk and expense. As a voluntary program in which the DIB participants and the Government each bear

independent responsibility for their own activities, the costs to both the private sector and to the government are minimized.

This voluntary participation will not create an inconsistency or otherwise interfere with any action taken or planned by another

Agency. We do not believe that it raises novel legal policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or

principles set forth in Executive Orders. All DIB participants must have or obtain DoD-approved, medium assurance certificates

to enable encrypted unclassified information sharing between DoD and DIB participants. Cost of the DoD approved medium

assurance certificates is approximately $175 for each individual identified by the DIB participant. See http://iase.disa.mil/pki/eca/

for more information about DoD-approved certificates. For classified information sharing, each DIB participant will have start up

costs of approximately $3,000 per DIBNet-Secret terminal installed in their cleared facility(ies). An estimate of $1,000 per year

is projected as sustainment costs for each classified DIBNet-Secret terminal, including associated personnel costs for

maintaining software updates for each stand-alone terminal. There is an estimated annual burden for DIB participants projected

at $1,367 for incident reporting. This is based on a DIB participant reporting average of 5 cyber incidents a year affecting DoD

information, with 7 hours of labor per incident, at a cost of $39.06 per man hour. These man hour costs are according to the

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2010, and depending upon the number of cyber

incidents experienced and their severity, the annual burden could increase. These costs provide beneficial capabilities to

enhance and supplement DIB participants' capabilities to safeguard DoD information that resides on, or transits, DIB

unclassified information systems.

Risks: Cyber threats to DIB unclassified information systems represent an unacceptable risk of compromise of DoD

information and pose an imminent threat to U.S. national security and economic security interests. DoD's voluntary DIB CS/IA

program enhances and supplements DIB participant's capabilities to safeguard DIB information that resides on, or transits, DIB

unclassified information systems.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 05/11/2012 77 FR 27615 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 06/10/2012 

Final Action 02/00/2013 

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 5205.ff

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Brian Fredericks Department of Defense

Office of the Secretary

1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301

Washington , DC 20301 

Phone: 703 604-5522 

E-Mail: brian.fredericks2@osd.mil

Department of Defense (DOD) 

Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790-AI69

 View Related Documents

Title: Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process

Abstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing this interim final rule to implement section 358 of the Ike Skelton

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383. That section requires that the DoD issue

procedures addressing the impacts upon military operations of certain types of structures if they pose an unacceptable risk to

the national security of the United States. The structures addressed are those for which an application is required to be filed with

the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of title 49, United States Code. Section 358 also requires the designation

of a lead organization to coordinate DoD review of applications for projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to

section 44718, and received by the Department of Defense from the Secretary of Transportation. Section 358 also requires the

designation of certain officials by the Secretary of Defense to perform functions pursuant to the section and this implementing

rule. Section 358 also requires the establishment of a comprehensive strategy for addressing military impacts of renewable

energy projects and other energy projects, with the objective of ensuring that the robust development of renewable energy

sources and the expansion of the commercial electrical grid may move forward in the United States, while minimizing or

mitigating any adverse impacts on military operations and readiness. Implementing that requirement, however, is not required at

this time and is not part of this rule. Other aspects of section 358 not required at this time, such as annual reports to Congress,

are also not addressed in this rule. Nor does this rule deal with other clearance processes not included in section 358, such as

those applied by the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 32 CFR 211 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: PL 111-383, sec 358

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the establishment

and operation of a process for evaluation of proposed projects submitted to the Secretary of Transportation under section

44718 of title 49, United States Code. The evaluation process is established for the purpose of identifying any adverse impact

of proposed projects on military operations and readiness, minimizing or mitigating such adverse impacts, and determining if

any such projects pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. The rule also includes procedures for

the operation of a central DoD siting clearinghouse to facilitate both informal and formal reviews of proposed projects.

Legal Basis: Public Law 111-383, Section 358

Alternatives: The requirement to have a rule and the policies, responsibilities, and procedures contained in the rule were

prescribed by section 358 of Public Law 111-383. In the areas where DoD has discretion, e.g., the internal procedures used

within DoD to comply with the law, alternative arrangements would have no impact on the net economic effects of the rule.

Costs and Benefits: The Department of Defense has long participated in the Department of Transportation review process,

interacting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Prior to Section 358 of Public Law 111-383, DoD's engagement was

decentralized - each Military Service participated separately working with FAA representatives at the regional level. In addition,

each Service set its own standards for challenging a project application. Section 358 directed that DoD develop a single DoD

point of contact for responses, established the threshold level of harm that must be reached before DoD could object to a

project application on the basis of national security, and directed that DoD negotiate mitigation with project developers if

potential harm is identified. The directed threshold level of harm, identified as "unacceptable risk to national security," is higher

than the standard previously used. This will result in DoD objecting to fewer project applications than before, reducing the

impact of DoD reviews on non-DoD economic activity. The requirement to engage in mitigation negotiations may delay some

projects (which has a negative impact on non-DoD economic activity), but it may result in still fewer DoD objections (which has

a positive impact on non-DoD economic activity). DoD estimates that the net effect of these factors on non-DoD economic

activity will be a benefit of approximately $70 million. The higher standard for objection imposed by section 358 of Public Law

111-383 may allow projects that conflict with military activity, but do not achieve the high level of conflict required by law to

object, to proceed. This may impose costs on DoD, e.g., systems testing may have to be moved to alternative test ranges,

training and readiness activities may be curtailed or moved, and changes to operations may have to be implemented to

overcome interference with coastal, border, and interior homeland surveillance. The early outreach and negotiation over

mitigation required by section 358 may allow modification of some projects to reduce or eliminate their conflict with military

activities in cases where the absence of early outreach and negotiation would result in the project proceeding without mitigation.

This would provide a benefit to DoD. The net effect of these costs and benefits on DoD has not been quantitatively estimated.

Risks: The higher standard for a DoD objection to a project and the requirement to allow early consultation by developers with

DoD will reduce the risk to both developers and to industry of planning a project that is unacceptable to DoD. Per the

discussion above, there is a risk to DoD that projects in conflict with military activity, but that do not achieve the high level of

conflict required by law to object, will proceed and impair DoD's test and evaluation; training and readiness; and coastal, border,

and interior homeland surveillance capabilities.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 10/20/2011 76 FR 65112 

Interim Final Rule Effective 10/20/2011 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 12/19/2011 

Final Action 02/00/2013 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State; Tribal

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No

Agency Contact: David Belote Department of Defense

Office of the Secretary

3400 Defense Pentagon, Washington , DC 20301-3400

Washington , DC 20301-3400 

Phone: 703 697-7301 

E-Mail: david.belote@osd.smil.mil