## 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

RI N 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-furnishedproperty 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: NoFederalism: 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: 703 681-0039Department 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 Secretary4000 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: 703 614-1944FAX: 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 usegovernment 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: NoCFR 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