Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 25713 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures’’, 

paragraph 311a. This airspace action is 

not expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9P, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated September 1, 2006, and 

effective September 16, 2006, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 2006 Area Navigation Routes. 

* * * * * 

Q–35 IMB to DRK [New] 

IMB ................................................................ VORTAC ........................................................ (lat. 44°38′54′′ N., long. 119°42′42′′ W.) 

NEERO ........................................................... WP ................................................................. (lat. 41°49′03′′ N., long. 118°01′29′′ W.) 

WINEN ........................................................... WP ................................................................. (lat. 37°56′00′′ N., long. 113°30′00′′ W.) 

CORKR ........................................................... Fix .................................................................. (lat. 36°05′02′′ N., long. 112°24′01′′ W.) 

DRK ................................................................ VORTAC ........................................................ (lat. 34°42′09′′ N., long. 112°28′49′′ W.) 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 

2007. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. 

[FR Doc. E7–8603 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 216 

[DoD–2006–OS–0136] 

RIN 0790–AI15 

Military Recruiting and Reserve Officer 

Training Corps Program Access to 

Institutions of Higher Education 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

proposes to amend the current rule 

addressing military recruiting and 

Reserve Officer Training Corps program 

access at institutions of higher 

education. This proposed rule would 

implement 10 U.S.C. 983, as amended 

by the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108–375 (October 28, 

2004)). As amended, 10 U.S.C. 983 

clarifies access to campuses, access to 

students and access to directory 

information on students for the 

purposes of military recruiting, and now 

states that access to campuses and 

students on campuses shall be provided 

in a manner that is at least equal in 

quality and scope to that provided to 

any other employer. The prohibition 

against providing Federal funds when 

there is a violation of 10 U.S.C. 983 has 

an exception for any Federal funds 

provided to an institution of higher 

education, or to an individual, that are 

available solely for student financial 

assistance, related administrative costs, 

or costs associated with attendance. 

Such funds may be used for the purpose 

for which the funding is provided. A 

similar provision in section 8120 of the 

Department of Defense Appropriations 

Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–79; 113 Stat. 

1260) has been repealed. This rule also 

rescinds the previous policy that 

established an exception that would 

limit recruiting on the premises of the 

covered school only in response to an 

expression of student interest when the 

covered school certified that too few 

students had expressed interest to 

warrant accommodating military 

recruiters. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and or RIN 

number and title, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

Federal Register document. The general 

policy for comments and other 

submissions from members of the public 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing on the Internet at 

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

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda Leong, Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 

Readiness), 4000 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–4000 

(telephone: (703) 695–5529). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘Covered 

funds’’ is defined in 10 U.S.C. 983 to be 

any funds made available for the 

Departments of Defense, Transportation, 

Homeland Security, or National Nuclear 

Security Administration of the 

Department of Energy, the Central 

Intelligence Agency, or for any 

department or agency in which regular 

appropriations are made in the 

Departments of Labor, Health and 

Human Services, Education, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

None of these covered funds may be 

provided by contract or grant to a 

covered school (including any 

subelement of a covered school) that has 

a policy or practice (regardless of when 

implemented) that either prohibits, or in 

effect prevents, the Secretary of Defense 

from establishing or operating a Senior 

Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) 

at that covered school (or any 

subelement of that covered school); or 

that either prohibits, or in effect 

prevents, a student at that covered 

school (or any subelement of that 

covered school) from enrolling in a 

ROTC unit at another institution of 

higher education. The Federal law 

further provides similar sanctions 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
25714 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and 

Institutional Rights, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297 (2006): 

‘‘The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to 

compare the military’s ‘access to campuses’ and 

‘access to students’ to ‘the access to campuses and 

to students that is provided to any other employer.’ 

(Emphasis add [by Court].) * * * 

The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the 

content of a school’s recruiting policy, [but instead 

on] the result achieved by the policy and compares 

the ‘access * * * provided’ military recruiters to 

that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 

policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to 

comply with the statute if it results in a greater level 

of access for other recruiters than for the military. 

* * * 

Not only does the text of the statute support this 

view, but this interpretation is necessary to give 

effect to the Solomon Amendment’s recent 

revision.’’

against these covered funds being 

provided to a covered school (or any 

subelement of a covered school) that has 

a policy or practice (regardless of when 

implemented) that either prohibits, or in 

effect prevents, the Secretary of a 

Military Department or Secretary of 

Homeland Security from gaining access 

to campuses, or access to students (who 

are 17 years of age or older) on 

campuses, for purposes of military 

recruiting, where such policy or practice 

denies the military recruiter access that 

is at least equal in quality and scope to 

the access to campuses and students 

provided to any other employer; or 

access to student directory information 

pertaining to the students’ names, 

addresses, telephone listings, dates and 

places of birth, levels of education, 

academic majors, degrees received, and 

the most recent educational institution 

enrolled in by the student. The term 

‘‘equal in quality and scope’’ means the 

same access to campus and students 

provided by the school to the 

nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 

favorable access.1

As an exception to the above rule, any 

Federal funding provided to a covered 

school or to an individual that is 

available solely for student financial 

assistance, related administrative costs, 

or costs associated with attendance, may 

be used for the purpose for which the 

funding is provided. 

The Department of Defense drafted 

this proposed rule in consultation with 

other Federal agencies, including the 

Departments of Education, Labor, 

Transportation, Health and Human 

Services, Homeland Security, Energy, 

and the Central Intelligence Agency. 

Agencies affected by this rule will 

continue to coordinate with other 

organizations as they implement their 

provisions. 

This proposed rule defines the criteria 

for determining whether an institution 

of higher education has a policy or 

practice prohibiting or preventing the 

Secretary of Defense from maintaining, 

establishing, or efficiently operating a 

Senior ROTC unit; or has a policy of 

denying military recruiting personnel 

access that is at least equal in quality 

and scope to the access to campuses and 

students provided to any other 

employer, or access to directory 

information on students. Pursuant to 10 

U.S.C. 983 and this proposed rule, 

institutions of higher education having 

such policies or practices are ineligible 

for certain Federal funding. 

The criterion of ‘‘efficiently operating 

a Senior ROTC unit’’ refers generally to 

an expectation that the ROTC 

Department would be treated on a par 

with other academic departments; as 

such, it would not be singled out for 

unreasonable actions that would impede 

access to students (and vice versa) or 

restrict its operations. 

This proposed rule also defines the 

procedures that would be followed in 

evaluating reports that a covered school 

has not met requirements defined in this 

rule. When a component of the 

Department of Defense (DoD 

component) believes that policies or 

practices of an institution of higher 

education might require such an 

evaluation, that component is required 

to confirm the institution’s policy in 

consultation with the institution. If that 

exchange suggests that the policy or 

practice could trigger a denial of 

funding, as required by the Act, the 

supporting facts would be forwarded 

through Department of Defense 

channels to the decision authority, the 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness 

(PDUSD(P&R)). 

In evaluating whether an institution 

that provides information in response to 

a request from a military recruiter for 

military recruiting purposes would 

violate the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act of 1972, as amended, 

(FERPA; 20 U.S.C. 1232g), the 

Department of Education has informed 

the Department of Defense that it will 

not consider the act of providing 

responsive student information as 

required under the Act and this rule as 

an act that violates FERPA. Institutions 

must take care, however, to release only 

that information specifically required 

under 10 U.S.C. 983 and this proposed 

rule. 

Regarding the opportunity for a 

student to ‘‘opt-out’’ of or object to the 

release of ‘‘directory information’’ under 

FERPA, the Department of Defense 

provides the following clarification. If 

an institution receives a request for 

student-recruiting information, and that 

request seeks information that the 

institution has included in its definition 

of ‘‘directory information’’ that is 

releasable under FERPA, and a student 

has previously requested, in writing, 

that the ‘‘directory information’’ not be 

disclosed to any third party, the 

Department of Defense agrees that 

information for that student will not be 

provided to the requesting military 

recruiter or Department of Defense. If an 

institution declines to provide studentrecruiting information because a student 

has ‘‘opted-out’’ from the institution’s 

policy of disclosing ‘‘directory 

information’’ under FERPA, the 

Department of Defense will not consider 

that institution to have denied access 

under 10 U.S.C. 983. The Department of 

Defense will honor only those student 

‘‘opt-outs’’ from the disclosure of 

directory information that are evenhandedly applied to all prospective 

employers seeking information for 

recruiting purposes. In those 

circumstances where an institution’s 

‘‘directory information’’ definition does 

not include all of the student-recruiting 

information required under 10 U.S.C. 

983, the Department of Defense will also 

honor the student’s ‘‘opt-out’’ decision 

that was made regarding the release of 

the institution’s ‘‘directory 

information.’’

If an institution does not release all of 

the requested student-recruiting 

information as part of its ‘‘directory 

information’’ policy under FERPA (or 

has a policy of disclosing no ‘‘directory 

information’’), the institution must 

nevertheless honor the request from a 

military recruiter for student-recruiting 

information concerning students who 

have not ‘‘opted-out’’, even if that 

information would not be available to 

the public under FERPA. Because this 

information is requested exclusively for 

military recruiting, a special 

opportunity for a student to decline the 

release of student-recruiting information 

is not necessary or appropriate. 

Summary of Rule 

In carrying out their customary 

activities, DoD components must 

identify any covered school that, by 

policy or practice, denies military 

recruiting personnel access to its 

campus or access to its students on 

campus in a manner that is at least 

equal in quality and scope to access 

provided to any other employer, in 

effect denies students permission to 

participate, or prevents students from 

participating in recruiting activities, or 

denies military recruiters access to 

student-recruiting information. The 

term ‘‘equal in quality and scope’’

means the same access to campus and 

students provided to the nonmilitary 

recruiter receiving the most favorable 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 25715 

2Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and 

Institutional Rights, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297 (2006): 

‘‘The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to 

compare the military’s ‘access to campuses’ and 

‘access to students’ to ‘the access to campuses and 

to students that is provided to any other employer.’

(Emphasis added [by Court].) * * * 

The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the 

content of a school’s recruiting policy, [but instead 

on] the result achieved by the policy and compares 

the ‘access * * * provided’ military recruiters to 

that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 

policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to 

comply with the statute if it results in a greater level 

of access for other recruiters than for the military. 

* * * 

Not only does the text of the statute support this 

view, but this interpretation is necessary to give 

effect to the Solomon Amendment’s recent 

revision.’’

access.2 When requests to schedule 

recruiting visits or to obtain studentrecruiting information are unsuccessful, 

the DoD component concerned must 

seek written confirmation of the 

school’s present policy from the head of 

the covered school through a letter of 

inquiry, allowing 30 days for response. 

If written confirmation cannot be 

obtained, oral policy statements or 

attempts to obtain such statements from 

an appropriate official of the school 

shall be documented. A copy of the 

documentation shall be provided to the 

covered school, which shall be informed 

of its opportunity to forward clarifying 

comments within 30 days to accompany 

the DoD component’s submission to the 

PDUSD(P&R). When that 30-day period 

has elapsed, the DoD component will 

forward the case for disposition. 

Similarly, in carrying out their 

customary activities, DoD components 

also must identify any covered school 

that, by policy or practice, denies 

establishment, maintenance, or efficient 

operation of a unit of the Senior ROTC, 

or denies students permission to 

participate, or effectively prevents 

students from participating in a unit of 

the Senior ROTC at another institution 

of higher education. The DoD 

component concerned must seek written 

confirmation of the school’s policy from 

the head of the covered school through 

a letter of inquiry, allowing 30 days for 

response. If written confirmation cannot 

be obtained, oral policy statements or 

attempts to obtain such statements from 

an appropriate official of the school 

shall be documented. A copy of the 

documentation shall be provided to the 

covered school, which shall be informed 

of its opportunity to forward clarifying 

comments within 30 days to accompany 

the DoD component’s submission to the 

PDUSD(P&R). When that 30-day period 

has elapsed, the DoD component will 

forward the case for disposition. 

The recommendation of the DoD 

component then must be reviewed by 

the Secretary of the Military Department 

concerned, or designee, who shall 

evaluate responses to the letter of 

inquiry and other such information 

obtained in accordance with this part, 

and submit to the PDUSD(P&R) the 

names and addresses of covered schools 

that are believed to be in violation of 10 

U.S.C. 983. Full documentation must be 

furnished to the PDUSD(P&R) for each 

such covered school, including the 

school’s formal response to the letter of 

inquiry, documentation of any oral 

response, or evidence showing that 

attempts were made to obtain either 

written confirmation or an oral 

statement of the school’s policies. Under 

agreement with the Department of 

Homeland Security, reports of covered 

schools believed to be in violation of 10 

U.S.C. 983 with regard to the Coast 

Guard when not operating as a Service 

in the Navy shall be furnished to the 

PDUSD(P&R) for disposition. 

Following any determination by the 

PDUSD(P&R) that the policies or 

practices of an institution of higher 

education require ineligibility for 

certain Federal funding, as required by 

the Act, the PDUSD(P&R) shall: 

• Disseminate to Federal entities 

affected by the decision, including the 

DoD components and the General 

Services Administration (GSA), and to 

the Secretary of Education and the head 

of each other department and agency the 

funds of which are subject to the 

determination, the names of the affected 

institutions. The PDUSD(P&R) also shall 

notify the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives; 

• Publish in the Federal Register 

each such determination, and publish in 

the Federal Register at least once every 

6 months a list of all institutions 

currently determined to be ineligible for 

contracts and grants by reason of such 

determinations; and 

• Inform the affected institution that 

its funding eligibility may be restored if 

the school provides sufficient new 

information to establish that the basis 

for the determination no longer exists. 

This proposed rule contains 

procedures under which funding may 

be restored. Not later than 45 days after 

receipt of a school’s request to restore 

funding eligibility, the PDUSD(P&R) 

must determine whether the funding 

status of the covered school should be 

changed and notify the applicable 

school of that determination. Pursuant 

to that determination, entities of the 

Federal government affected by the 

decision, including the DoD 

components and the GSA, shall be 

notified of any change in funding status. 

Other Matters 

In the event of any determination of 

ineligibility by the PDUSD(P&R), 

Federal departments and agencies 

concerned shall determine what funds 

provided by grant or contract to the 

covered school are affected and take 

appropriate action. As a result of this 

division of responsibility and the large 

number of Federal departments and 

agencies affected, this rule does not 

detail what specific funds are affected 

by any determination of ineligibility. 

This proposed rule does not affect or 

cover any Federal funding that is 

provided to an institution of higher 

education or to an individual, to be 

available solely for student financial 

assistance, related administrative costs, 

or costs associated with attendance. 

This includes, but is not limited to, 

funds under the Federal Supplemental 

Educational Opportunity Grant Program 

(Title IV, Part A, Subpart 3 of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended), the 

Federal Work-Study Program (Title IV, 

Part C), and the Federal Perkins Loan 

Program (Title IV, Part E), the Federal 

Pell Grant Program (Title IV, Part A, 

Subpart 1), the Federal Family 

Education Loan Program (Title IV, Part 

B), and the William D. Ford Federal 

Direct Loan Program (Title IV, Part D). 

The Secretary of Education will provide 

additional information about the 

applicability of the rule to other 

Department of Education programs in 

communications to the affected 

communities. 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’

This proposed rule is a significant 

regulatory action that OMB has 

approved for publication. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601) 

The Secretary certifies that these 

proposed regulations would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

since recent history indicates that their 

provisions are not applicable to the vast 

majority of institutions of higher 

education. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Sec. 

202, Pub. L. 104–4) 

It has been certified that this rule does 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local 

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
25716 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and 

Institutional Rights, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297, 1305 

(2006): 

‘‘The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to 

compare the military’s ‘access to campuses’ and 

‘access to students’ to ‘the access to campuses and 

to students that is provided to any other employer.’

(Emphasis added [by Court].) The statute does not 

call for an inquiry into why or how the ‘other 

employer’ secured its access * * * We do not think 

that the military recruiter has received equal 

‘access’ [when a law firm is permitted on campus 

to interview students and the military is not]—

regardless of whether the disparate treatment is 

attributable to the military’s failure to comply with 

the school’s nondiscrimination policy. 

The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the 

content of a school’s recruiting policy, [but instead 

on] the result achieved by the policy and compares 

the ‘access * * * provided’ military recruiters to 

that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 

policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to 

comply with the statute if it results in a greater level 

of access for other recruiters than for the military. 

* * * 

Not only does the text support this view, but this 

interpretation is necessary to give effect to the 

Solomon Amendment’s recent revision.’’

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601) 

It has been certified that this rule is 

not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule 

establishes procedures for on-campus 

military recruiting and student access to 

Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) 

programs in implementation of 10 

U.S.C. 983. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

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

This proposed rule will not impose 

any additional reporting or record 

keeping requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Executive Order 13132 

It has been certified that this rule does 

not have federalism implications, as set 

forth in Executive Order 13132. This 

rule does not have substantial direct 

effects on: 

(1) The States; 

(2) The relationship between the 

National Government and the States; or 

(3) The distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 216 

Armed forces; Colleges and 

universities. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 216 is 

proposed to be revised to reflect the 

most recent statutory changes and to 

read as follows: 

PART 216—MILITARY RECRUITING 

AND RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING 

CORPS PROGRAM ACCESS TO 

INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

Sec. 

216.1 Purpose. 

216.2 Applicability. 

216.3 Definitions. 

216.4 Policy. 

216.5 Responsibilities. 

216.6 Information requirements. 

Appendix A of Part 216—Military Recruiting 

Sample Letter of Inquiry 

Appendix B of Part 216—ROTC Sample 

Letter of Inquiry 

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 983. 

§ 216.1 Purpose. 

This part: 

(a) Implements 10 U.S.C. 983. 

(b) Updates policy and 

responsibilities relating to the 

management of covered schools that 

have a policy of denying or effectively 

preventing military recruiting personnel 

access to their campuses or access to 

students on their campuses in a manner 

that is at least equal in quality and 

scope to the access to campuses and to 

students provided to any other 

employer, or access to studentrecruiting information. The term ‘‘equal 

in quality and scope’’ means the same 

access to campus and students provided 

to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving 

the most favorable access.1

(c) Updates policy and 

responsibilities relating to the 

management of covered schools that 

have an anti-ROTC policy. 

§ 216.2 Applicability. 

This part applies to the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, the Military 

Departments (including the Coast Guard 

when it is operating as a Military 

Service in the Navy), the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant 

Commands, the Defense Agencies, and 

the DoD Field Activities (hereafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘the DoD 

components’’). This part also applies, by 

agreement with the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), to the Coast 

Guard at all times, including when it is 

a service in the Department of 

Homeland Security. The policies herein 

also affect the Departments of 

Transportation, Homeland Security, 

Energy (National Nuclear Security 

Administration), the Central Intelligence 

Agency, and any department or agency 

in which regular appropriations are 

made in the Departments of Labor, 

Health and Human Services, Education, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act. The term ‘‘Military Services,’’ as 

used herein, refers to the Army, the 

Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, 

and the Coast Guard, including their 

Reserve or National Guard components. 

The term ‘‘Related Agencies’’ as used 

herein refers to the Armed Forces 

Retirement Home, the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, the 

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the 

Federal Mediation and Conciliation 

Service, the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission, the 

National Commission on Libraries and 

Information Science, the National 

Council on Disability, the National 

Education Goals Panel, the National 

Labor Relations Board, the National 

Mediation Board, the Occupational 

Safety and Health Review Commission, 

the Social Security Administration, the 

Railroad Retirement Board and the 

United States Institute of Peace. 

§ 216.3 Definitions. 

(a) Anti-ROTC policy. A policy or 

practice whereby a covered school 

prohibits or in effect prevents the 

Secretary of Defense from maintaining, 

establishing, or efficiently operating a 

unit of the Senior ROTC at the covered 

school, or prohibits or in effect prevents 

a student at the covered school from 

enrolling in a Senior ROTC unit at 

another institution of higher education. 

(b) Covered funds. ‘‘Covered funds’’ is 

defined in 10 U.S.C. 983 as any funds 

made available for the Departments of 

Defense, Transportation, Homeland 

Security, or National Nuclear Security 

Administration of the Department of 

Energy, the Central Intelligence Agency, 

or any department or agency in which 

regular appropriations are made in the 

Departments of Labor, Health and 

Human Services, and Education, as well 

as in Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act (excluding any Federal funds 

provided to an institution of higher 

education, or to an individual, to be 

available solely for student financial 

assistance, related administrative costs, 

or costs associated with attendance). 

(c) Covered school. An institution of 

higher education, or a subelement of an 

institution of higher education, subject 

to the following clarifications: 

(1) A determination (§ 216.5(a)) 

affecting only a subelement of a parent 

institution (see § 216.3(f)) effects a 

limitation on the use of funds 

(§ 216.4(a)) applicable to the parent 

institution as a whole, including the 

institution’s offending subelement and 

all of its subelements, if any. 

(2) When an individual institution of 

higher education that is part of a single 

university system (e.g., University of 

(State) at (City)—a part of that state’s 

university system) has a policy or 

practice that prohibits, or in effect 

prevents, access to campuses or access 

to students on campuses in a manner 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 25717 

2Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and 

Institutional Rights, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297, 1305 

(2006): 

‘‘The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to 

compare the military’s ‘access to campuses’ and 

‘access to students’ to ‘the access to campuses and 

to students that is provided to any other employer.’

(Emphasis added [by Court].) The statute does not 

call for an inquiry into why or how the ‘other 

employer’ secured its access * * * We do not think 

that the military recruiter has received equal 

‘access’ [when a law firm is permitted on campus 

to interview students and the military is not]—

regardless of whether the disparate treatment is 

attributable to the military’s failure to comply with 

the school’s nondiscrimination policy. 

The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the 

content of a school’s recruiting policy, [but instead 

on] the result achieved by the policy and compares 

the ‘access * * * provided’ military recruiters to 

that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 

policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to 

comply with the statute if it results in a greater level 

of access for other recruiters than for the military. 

* * * 

Not only does the text support this view, but this 

interpretation is necessary to give effect to the 

Solomon Amendment’s recent revision.’’

3Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and 

Institutional Rights, Inc., 126 S. Ct. at 1308. 

4 Id. at 1305. 

5 Id. at 1306. 

6 Id. at 1312. 

7 Id. at 1304. 

that is at least equal in quality and 

scope to the access to its campus and 

students as it provides to any other 

employer, or access to studentrecruiting information by military 

recruiters, or has an anti-ROTC policy, 

as defined in this rule, it is only that 

individual institution within that 

university system that is affected by the 

loss of Federal funds. This limited effect 

applies even though another campus of 

the same university system may or may 

not be affected by a separate 

determination under § 216.5(a). The 

funding of a subelement of the offending 

individual institution of a single 

university system, if any, will also be 

withheld as a result of the policies or 

practices of that offending individual 

institution. 

(d) Enrolled. Students are ‘‘enrolled’’

when registered for at least one credit 

hour of academic credit at the covered 

school during the most recent, current, 

or next term. Students who are enrolled 

during the most recent term, but who 

are no longer attending the institution, 

are included. 

(e) Equal in quality and scope. The 

same access to campus and students on 

campus provided to the nonmilitary 

recruiter receiving the most favorable 

access.2

(f) Institution of higher education. A 

domestic college, university, or other 

institution (or subelement thereof) 

providing postsecondary school courses 

of study, including foreign campuses of 

such domestic institutions. The term 

includes junior colleges, community 

colleges, and institutions providing 

courses leading to undergraduate and 

post-graduate degrees. The term does 

not include entities that operate 

exclusively outside the United States, 

its territories, and possessions. A 

subelement of an institution of higher 

education is a discrete (although not 

necessarily autonomous) organizational 

entity that may establish policies or 

practices affecting military recruiting 

and related actions (e.g., an 

undergraduate school, a law school, a 

medical school, other graduate schools, 

or a national laboratory connected or 

affiliated with that parent institution). 

For example, the School of Law of XYZ 

University is a subelement of its parent 

institution (XYZ University). 

(g) Military recruiters. Personnel of 

DoD whose current assignment or detail 

is to a recruiting activity of the DoD. 

(h) Pacifism. Opposition to war or 

violence, demonstrated by refusal to 

participate in military service. 

(i) Student. An individual who is 17 

years of age or older and is enrolled at 

a covered school. 

(j) Student-recruiting information. For 

those students currently enrolled, the 

student’s name, address, telephone 

listing, age (or year of birth), place of 

birth, level of education (e.g., freshman, 

sophomore, or degree awarded for a 

recent graduate), most recent 

educational institution attended, and 

current major(s). 

§ 216.4 Policy. 

It is DoD policy that: 

(a) Under 10 U.S.C. 983, no covered 

funds may be provided by contract or 

grant (to include payment on such 

contracts or grants previously obligated) 

to a covered school if the Secretary of 

Defense determines that the covered 

school: 

(1) Has a policy or practice (regardless 

of when implemented) that either 

prohibits or in effect prevents the 

Secretary of Defense or Secretary of 

Homeland Security from obtaining, for 

military recruiting purposes, access to 

campuses or access to students on 

campuses that is at least equal in quality 

and scope, as defined in § 216.3(d), to 

the access to campuses and to students 

provided to any other employer, or 

access to directory information on 

students; 

(2) Has failed to disseminate military 

visit information or alerts at least on par 

with nonmilitary recruiters since 

schools offering such services to 

nonmilitary recruiters must also send 

e-mails, post notices, etc., on behalf of 

military recruiters to comply with the 

Solomon Amendment; 3

(3) Has failed to schedule visits at 

times requested by military recruiters 

that coincide with nonmilitary 

recruiters’ visits to campus if this results 

in a greater level of access for other 

recruiters than for the military (e.g., 

offering non-military recruiters a choice 

of a variety of dates for on-campus 

interviews while only offering the 

military recruiters the final day of 

interviews), as schools must ensure that 

their recruiting policies operate such 

that military recruiters are given access 

to students at least equal to that 

provided to any other employer; 4

(4) Has failed to provide military 

recruiters with a mainstream recruiting 

location amidst nonmilitary employers 

to allow unfettered access to 

interviewees since military recruiters 

must be given the same access as 

recruiters who comply with a school’s 

nondiscrimination policy; 5

(5) Has failed to enforce time, place, 

and manner policies established by the 

covered school such that the military 

recruiters experience an inferior or 

unsafe recruiting climate, as schools 

must allow military recruiters on 

campus and must assist them in 

whatever way the school assists other 

employers; 6

(6) Has through policy or practice in 

effect denied students permission to 

participate, or has prevented students 

from participating, in recruiting 

activities; or 

(7) Has an anti-ROTC policy or 

practice, as defined in this rule, 

regardless of when implemented. 

(b) The limitations established in 

paragraph (a) of this section shall not 

apply to a covered school if the 

Secretary of Defense determines that the 

covered school: 

(1) Has ceased the policies or 

practices defined in paragraph (a) of this 

section; 

(2) Has a long-standing policy of 

pacifism (see § 216.3(j)) based on 

historical religious affiliation; 

(3) When not providing requested 

access to campuses or to students on 

campus, certifies that all employers are 

similarly excluded from recruiting on 

the premises of the covered school, or 

presents evidence that the degree of 

access by military recruiters is the same 

access to campuses or to students on 

campuses provided to the nonmilitary 

recruiter receiving the most favorable 

access; 7

(4) When not providing any studentrecruiting information, certifies that 

such information is not maintained by 

the covered school; or that such 

information already has been provided 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
25718 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

8 Id. at 1304. 

9 Id. at 1308. 

10 Id. at 1305. 

11 Id. at 1306. 12 Id. at 1312. 

13The Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) is the 

system that the General Services Administration 

maintains for Executive Branch agencies, with 

to the Military Service concerned for 

that current semester, trimester, quarter, 

or other academic term, or within the 

past four months (for institutions 

without academic terms); 

(5) When not providing studentrecruiting information for a specific 

student certifies that the student 

concerned has formally requested, in 

writing, that the covered school 

withhold this information from all third 

parties; 

(c) A covered school may charge 

military recruiters a fee for the costs 

incurred in providing access to studentrecruiting information when that 

institution can certify that such charges 

are the actual costs, provided that such 

charges are reasonable, customary and 

identical to fees charged to other 

employers. 

(d) An evaluation to determine 

whether a covered school maintains a 

policy or practice covered by paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (6) of this section shall be 

undertaken when: 

(1) Military recruiting personnel are 

prohibited, or in effect prevented, from 

the same access to campuses or access 

to students on campuses provided to the 

nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 

favorable access, or are denied access to 

student-recruiting information; 8

(2) Information or alerts on military 

visits are not distributed at least on par 

with nonmilitary recruiters since 

schools offering such services to 

nonmilitary recruiters must also send 

e-mails, post notices, etc., on behalf of 

the military recruiter to comply with the 

Solomon Amendment; 9

(3) Military recruiters are prohibited 

from scheduling their visits at requested 

times that coincide with nonmilitary 

recruiters’ visits to its campus if this 

results in a greater level of access for 

other recruiters than for the military as 

schools must ensure their recruiting 

policy operates in such a way that 

military recruiters are given access to 

students at least equal to that provided 

to any other employer; 10

(4) Military recruiters do not receive 

a mainstream recruiting location amidst 

nonmilitary employers to allow 

unfettered access to interviewees since 

military recruiters must be given the 

same access as recruiters who comply 

with the school’s nondiscrimination 

policy; 11

(5) The school has failed to enforce 

time, place, and manner policies 

established by that school such that 

military recruiters experience an 

inferior or unsafe recruiting climate, as 

schools must allow military recruiters 

on campus and must assist them in 

whatever way the school chooses to 

assist other employers; 12

(6) Evidence is discovered of an 

institution-sponsored policy or practice 

that in effect denied students 

permission to participate, or prevented 

students from participating in recruiting 

activities. 

(7) The costs being charged by the 

school for providing student-recruiting 

information are believed by the military 

recruiter to be excessive, and the school 

does not provide information sufficient 

to support a conclusion that such are 

the actual costs, provided that they are 

reasonable and customary, and are 

identical to those costs charged to other 

employers; or 

(8) The covered school is unwilling to 

declare in writing, in response to an 

inquiry from a representative of a DoD 

component or a representative from the 

Department of Homeland Security, that 

the covered school does not have a 

policy or practice of prohibiting, or in 

effect preventing, the Secretary of a 

Military Department or Secretary of 

Homeland Security from the same 

access to campuses or access to students 

on campuses provided to the 

nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 

favorable access, or access to studentrecruiting information by military 

recruiters for purposes of military 

recruiting. 

(e) An evaluation to determine 

whether a covered school has an antiROTC policy covered by paragraph 

(a)(7) of this section shall be undertaken 

when: 

(1) A Secretary of a Military 

Department or designee cannot obtain 

permission to establish, maintain, or 

efficiently operate a unit of the Senior 

ROTC; or 

(2) Absent a Senior ROTC unit at the 

covered school, students cannot obtain 

permission from a covered school to 

participate, or are effectively prevented 

from participating, in a unit of the 

Senior ROTC at another institution of 

higher education. 

§ 216.5 Responsibilities. 

(a) The Principal Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness (PDUSD(P&R)), under the 

Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, shall: 

(1) Not later than 45 days after receipt 

of the information described in 

paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)(1) of this 

section: 

(i) Inform the Office of Naval Research 

(ONR) and the Director, Defense 

Finance and Accounting Service that a 

final determination will be made so that 

those offices can make appropriate 

preparations to carry out their 

responsibilities should a covered school 

be determined ineligible to receive 

Federal funds. 

(ii) Make a final determination under 

10 U.S.C. 983, as implemented by this 

part, and notify any affected school of 

that determination and its basis, and 

that the school is therefore ineligible to 

receive covered funds as a result of that 

determination. 

(iii) Disseminate to Federal entities 

affected by the decision, including the 

DoD components and the General 

Services Administration (GSA), and to 

the Secretary of Education and the head 

of each other department and agency the 

funds of which are subject to the 

determination, the names of the affected 

institutions identified under paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(iv) Notify the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives of the affected 

institutions identified under paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(v) Inform the affected school 

identified under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 

this section that its funding eligibility 

may be restored if the school provides 

sufficient new information that the basis 

for the determination under paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section no longer exists. 

(2) Not later than 45 days after receipt 

of a covered school’s request to restore 

its eligibility: 

(i) Determine whether the funding 

status of the covered school should be 

changed, and notify the applicable 

school of that determination. 

(ii) Notify the parties reflected in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(iii), and 

(a)(1)(iv) of this section when a 

determination of funding ineligibility 

(paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section) has 

been rescinded. 

(3) Publish in the Federal Register 

each determination of the PDUSD(P&R) 

that a covered school is ineligible for 

contracts and grants made under 10 

U.S.C. 983, as implemented by this part. 

(4) Publish in the Federal Register 

least once every 6 months a list of 

covered schools that are ineligible for 

contracts and grants by reason of a 

determination of the Secretary of 

Defense under 10 U.S.C. 983, as 

implemented by this part. 

(5) Enter information into the 

Excluded Parties List System 13 about 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 25719 

names and other pertinent information of persons 

who are debarred, suspended, or otherwise 

ineligible for Federal procurement and/or covered 

non-procurement transactions. 

14Copies may be obtained at http://www.dtic.mil/ 

whs/directives/. 

15Student-recruiting information refers to a 

student’s name, address, telephone listing, age (or 

year of birth), level of education (e.g., freshman, 

sophomore, or degree awarded for a recent 

graduate), and major(s). 

16 10 U.S.C. 983. 

17Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and 

Institutional Rights, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297 (2006): 

‘‘The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to 

compare the military’s ‘access to campuses’ and 

‘access to students’ to ‘the access to campuses and 

to students that is provided to any other employer.’

(Emphasis add [by Court].) * * * 

Continued 

each covered school that the 

PDUSD(P&R) determines to be ineligible 

for contracts and grants under 10 U.S.C. 

983 and/or this part, generally within 5 

days of making thedetermination. 

(6) Provide ONR with an updated list 

of the names of institutions identified 

under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section 

whenever the list changes due to an 

institution being added to or dropped 

from the list, so that ONR can carry out 

its responsibilities for post-award 

administration of DoD Components’

contracts and grants with institutions of 

higher education. 

(7) Provide the Office of the Deputy 

Chief Financial Officer, DoD, and the 

Director, Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service with an updated list 

of the names of institutions identified 

under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section 

whenever the list changes due to an 

institution being added or dropped from 

the list, so that those offices can carry 

out their responsibilities related to 

cessation of payments of prior contract 

and grant obligations to institutions of 

higher education that are on the list. 

(8) Publish in the Federal Register the 

list of names of affected institutions that 

have changed their policies or practices 

such that they are determined no longer 

to be in violation of 10 U.S.C. 983 and 

this part. 

(b) The Secretaries of the Military 

Departments and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security shall: 

(1) Identify covered schools that, by 

policy or practice, prohibit, or in effect 

prevent, the same access to campuses or 

access to students on campuses 

provided to the nonmilitary recruiter 

receiving the most favorable access, or 

access to student-recruiting information 

by military recruiters for military 

recruiting purposes. 

(i) When requests by military 

recruiters to schedule recruiting visits 

are unsuccessful, the Military Service 

concerned, and the Office of the 

Secretary of Homeland Security when 

the Coast Guard is operating as a service 

in the Department of Homeland 

Security, shall seek written 

confirmation of the school’s present 

policy from the head of the school 

through a letter of inquiry. A letter 

similar to that shown in Appendix A of 

this part shall be used, but it should be 

tailored to the situation presented. If 

written confirmation cannot be 

obtained, oral policy statements or 

attempts to obtain such statements from 

an appropriate official of the school 

shall be documented. A copy of the 

documentation shall be provided to the 

covered school, which shall be informed 

of its opportunity to forward clarifying 

comments within 30 days to accompany 

the submission to the PDUSD(P&R). 

(ii) When a request for studentrecruiting information is not fulfilled 

within a reasonable period, normally 30 

days, a letter similar to that shown in 

Appendix A shall be used to 

communicate the problem to the school, 

and the inquiry shall be managed as 

described in 216.5.(b)(1)(ii). Schools 

may stipulate that requests for studentrecruiting information be in writing. 

(2) Identify covered schools that, by 

policy or practice, deny establishment, 

maintenance, or efficient operation of a 

unit of the Senior ROTC, or deny 

students permission to participate, or 

effectively prevent students from 

participating in a unit of the Senior 

ROTC at another institution of higher 

education. The Military Service 

concerned, and the Office of the 

Secretary of Homeland Security when 

the Coast Guard is operating as a service 

in the Department of Homeland 

Security, shall seek written 

confirmation of the school’s policy from 

the head of the school through a letter 

of inquiry. A letter similar to that shown 

in Appendix B of this part shall be used, 

but it should be tailored to the situation 

presented. If written confirmation 

cannot be obtained, oral policy 

statements or attempts to obtain such 

statements from an appropriate official 

of the school shall be documented. A 

copy of the documentation shall be 

provided to the covered school, which 

shall be informed of its opportunity to 

forward clarifying comments within 30 

days to accompany the submission to 

the PDUSD(P&R). 

(3) Evaluate responses to the letter of 

inquiry, and other such evidence 

obtained in accordance with this part, 

and submit to the PDUSD(P&R) the 

names and addresses of covered schools 

that are believed to be in violation of 

policies established in § 216.4. Full 

documentation shall be furnished to the 

PDUSD(P&R) for each such covered 

school, including the school’s formal 

response to the letter of inquiry, 

documentation of any oral response, or 

evidence showing that attempts were 

made to obtain either written 

confirmation or an oral statement of the 

school’s policies. 

(c) The Heads of the DoD components 

and Secretary of Homeland Security 

shall: 

(1) Provide the PDUSD(P&R) with the 

names and addresses of covered schools 

identified as a result of evaluation(s) 

required under § 216.4(d) and (e). 

(2) Take immediate action to deny 

obligations of covered funds to covered 

schools identified under paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, and to restore 

eligibility of covered schools identified 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

§ 216.6 Information requirements. 

The information requirements 

identified at § 216.5(b) and (c)(1) have 

been assigned Report Control Symbol 

DD–P&R–(AR)–2038 in accordance with 

DoD 8910.1–M.14

Appendix A of Part 216—Military 

Recruiting Sample Letter of Inquiry 

(Tailor letter to situation presented) 

Dr. John Doe 

President 

ABC University 

Anywhere, USA 12345–9876 

Dear Dr. Doe: 

I understand that military recruiting 

personnel [have been unable to recruit or 

have been refused student-recruiting 

information 15 at (subelement of) ABC 

University)] by a policy or practice of the 

school. Specifically, military recruiting 

personnel have reported [here state policy 

decisions or practices encountered]. [If 

preliminary information coming to the 

attention of a Military Service indicates that 

other Military Services’ recruiting 

representatives have been similarly informed 

of the policy or experienced a similar 

practice affecting their ability for military 

recruiting purposes to have the access or 

information require, so state.] 

Current Federal law 16 denies the use of 

certain Federal funds through grants or 

contracts, to include payment on such 

contracts or grants previously obligated, 

(excluding any Federal funding to an 

institution of higher education, or to an 

individual, to be available solely for student 

financial assistance, related administrative 

costs, or costs associated with attendance) 

from appropriations of the Departments of 

Defense, Transportation, Labor, Health and 

Human Services, Education, and related 

agencies to institutions of higher education 

(including any subelements of such 

institutions) that have a policy or practice of 

denying military recruiting personnel access 

to campuses or access to students on 

campuses, in a manner that is at least equal 

in quality and scope,17 as it provides to the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
25720 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the 

content of a school’s recruiting policy, [but instead 

on] the result achieved by the policy and compares 

the ‘access * * * provided’ military recruiters to 

that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 

policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to 

comply with the statute if it results in a greater level 

of access for other recruiters than for the military. 

* * * 

Not only does the text of the statute support this 

view, but this interpretation is necessary to give 

effect to the Solomon Amendment’s recent 

revision.’’ 18 10 U.S.C. 983. 

nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 

favorable access, or access to student 

recruiting information. Implementing 

regulations are codified at 32 Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 216. 

This letter provides you an opportunity to 

clarify your institution’s policy regarding 

military recruiting on the campus of 

[University]. In that regard, I request, within 

the next 30 days, a written policy statement 

of the institution with respect to access to 

campus and students by military recruiting 

personnel. Your response should highlight 

any difference between access for military 

recruiters and access for recruiting by other 

potential employers. 

Based on this information and any 

additional facts you can provide, Department 

of Defense officials will make a 

determination as to your institution’s 

eligibility to receive funds by grant or 

contract. That decision may affect eligibility 

for funding from appropriations of the 

Departments of Defense, Transportation, 

Labor, Health and Human Services, 

Education, and related agencies. Should it be 

determined that [University] as an institution 

of higher education (or any subelement of the 

institution) is in violation of the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations, 

such funding would be stopped, and the 

institution of higher education (including 

any subelements of the institution) would 

remain ineligible to receive such funds until 

and unless the Department of Defense 

determines that the institution has ceased the 

offending policies and practices. 

I regret that this action may have to be 

taken. Successful recruiting requires that 

Department of Defense recruiters have equal 

access to students on the campuses of 

colleges and universities [and studentrecruiting information], and at the same time, 

have effective relationships with the officials 

and student bodies of those institutions. I 

hope it will be possible to identify and 

correct any policies or practices that inhibit 

military recruiting at your school. [My 

representative, (name), is] [I am] available to 

answer any of your questions by telephone at 

[telephone number]. I look forward to your 

reply. 

Sincerely, 

Appendix B of Part 216—ROTC Sample 

Letter of Inquiry 

(Tailor letter to situation presented) 

Dr. Jane Smith 

President 

ABC University 

Anywhere, USA 12345–9876 

Dear Dr. Smith: 

I understand that ABC University has 

[refused a request from a Military Department 

to establish a Senior ROTC unit at your 

institution][refused to continue existing 

ROTC programs at your 

institution][prevented students from 

participation at a Senior ROTC program at 

another institution] by a policy or practice of 

the University. 

Current Federal law 18 denies the use of 

certain Federal funds through grants or 

contracts, to include payment on such 

contracts or grants previously obligated, 

(excluding any Federal funding to an 

institution of higher education, or to an 

individual, to be available solely for student 

financial assistance, related administrative 

costs, or costs associated with attendance) 

from appropriations of the Departments of 

Defense, Transportation, Labor, Health and 

Human Services, Education, and related 

agencies to institutions of higher education 

(including any subelements of such 

institutions) that have a policy or practice of 

prohibiting or preventing the Secretary of 

Defense from maintaining, establishing, or 

efficiently operating a Senior ROTC unit. 

Implementing regulations are codified at 32 

Code of Federal Regulations, part 216. 

This letter provides you an opportunity to 

clarify your institution’s policy regarding 

ROTC access on the campus of ABC 

University. In that regard, I request, within 

the next 30 days, a written statement of the 

institution with respect to [define the 

problem area(s)]. 

Based on this information, Department of 

Defense officials will make a determination 

as to your institution’s eligibility to receive 

the above-referenced funds by grant or 

contract. That decision may affect eligibility 

for funding from appropriations of the 

Departments of Defense, Transportation, 

Labor, Health and Human Services, 

Education, and related agencies. Should it be 

determined that [University] as an institution 

of higher education (or any subelement of the 

institution) is in violation of the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations, 

such funding would be stopped, and the 

institution of higher education (including 

any subelements of the institution) would 

remain ineligible to receive such funds until 

and unless the Department of Defense 

determines that the institution has ceased the 

offending policies and practices. 

I regret that this action may have to be 

taken. Successful officer procurement 

requires that the Department of Defense 

maintain a strong ROTC program. I hope it 

will be possible to [define the correction to 

the aforementioned problem area(s)]. [My 

representative, (name), is] [I am] available to 

answer any of your questions by telephone at 

[telephone number]. I look forward to your 

reply. 

Sincerely, 

Dated: May 1, 2007. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, DoD. 

[FR Doc. E7–8662 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD09–07–007] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy 

Pier East, Chicago, IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a Safety Zone in Chicago 

Harbor. This zone is intended to restrict 

vessels from portions of Chicago Harbor 

during fireworks displays that pose a 

hazard to public safety. This zone is 

necessary to protect the public from the 

hazards associated with fireworks 

displays. 

DATES: Comments and related materials 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

June 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 

South Lincoln Memorial Drive, 

Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector Lake 

Michigan Prevention Department 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have further questions on this rule, 

contact CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 

Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–

7154. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to submit 

comments and related materials. If you 

submit a comment, please include your 

name and address, identify the docket 

number for this rulemaking [CGD09–07–

007], indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS