1 Department of Defense (DoD)

Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules

May 18 , 2011

I. Executive Summary of Preliminary Plan and Compliance with Executive Order
13563

Executive Order 13563 recognizes the importance of maintaining a consist ent culture of retrospective review and analysis throughout the executive branch. Before a rule has been tested, it is difficult to be certain of its consequences, including its costs and
benefits. The Department of Defense’s plan is designed to create a defined method and
schedule for identifying certain significant rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensom e, or counterproductive. Its review processes are intended to facilitate the identification of rules that warrant repea l or modification, or strengthening, complementing, or modernizing rules where necessary or appropriate.

The Department of Defense is committed to the principles of retrospective analysis in order to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of its r egulations, improve transparency in the regulatory process through public participation, and to provide transparent documentation of its analysis.

The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country. It is the largest Federal Department consisting of: three Military Departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force; the
Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy); ten Unified Combatant Commands; and, over 1.4 million men an d women on active duty, and over 700,000 civilian personnel. Another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces.

The Department of Defense is not fundamentally a public regulatory agency. Because of its nature, composition, and size, Do D is affected by the regulations issued by other agencies, such as the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In turn, DoD’s regulations frequently have at least an i ndirect effect on other agencies, the general public, and the national economy. Its regulations address: personnel policy and benefits; the military health care program for active duty and retired members and others entitled by law to DoD medical care; e nvironmental and navigation activities of the Army Corps of Engineers; and

, acquisition policy and guidance to facilitate the acquisition workforce in acquiring the equipment and services to support the warfighter and DoD’s mission worldwide. DoD’s regula tions appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under: title 32, National Defense; title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; title 36,2

Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Chapter III; and title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter I I.

II. Scope of Plan

a. S ubagencies within the Department which are included in this plan:

This plan applies to the Office of the Secretary ( OSD ) , the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Co mbatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Compo nents”).

The mission of the Department of Defense (DoD) is to ensure the security of the United States and areas of vital interest and to uphold and advance national policies and interests of the United States. The Department of Defense is not
fundamental ly a regulatory agency and it is not an agency having broad regulatory compliance and administrative enforcement responsibilities. DoD occasionally issues regulations that affect the public, but reserves the right to exercise the exemptions and flexibilit y permitted in its rulemaking process in order to proceed
with its overall defense

- oriented mission, according to the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of
Executive Order 1 2866, Regulatory Planni ng and Review

. The Department issues regulatory actions addressing statutory mandates affecting DoD policy and implementing issuances resulting from our national security mission, the Military Health System, the acquisition system, environmental protectio n, and the activities of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Department codifies its final rules in the code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under: title 32, National Defense; title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; title 36, Parks, Forests, and Publi c Property, Chapter III; and, title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System , Chapter II . Th e Department does not issue many economically significant regulations.

The majority of the Department’s regulatory actions codified in title 32 of the CFR, resul t from DoD issuances originating within the Office of the Secretary (OSD), the principal staff used by the Secretary of Defense to exercise authority, direction, and control over the Department. Issuances range from DoD Directives, reflecting departmental policy that direct and limit DoD actions in3 pursuit of its objectives, operations, and plans, to instructions and manuals that provide detailed procedures for implementing policy. [DoD Instruction 5025.01, DoD Directives Program 1 , describes the issuance types and their purposes.] All types of issuances may result in a regulatory action. An issuance is required to be reviewed and published as a rulemaking as defined in DoD Administrative Instruction 102, Office of the Secretary of Defense Federal Registe r System 2 . For example, a rule is required if the issuance: grants a right or privilege to the public; requires a course of conduct that must be followed; imposes an obligation on the general public; or, describes proc edures by which a DoD Component
cond ucts its business with the public. These parame ters uniformly do not result in economically significant regulations.

b. Check all the types of documents covered under this plan:

__ X _ Existing regulations

____Significant guidance documents

____Existing information collections

____ Unfinished proposed rules

____ Other (Specify________)

III. Public Access and Participation

On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 Federal Regist er 3821). In response to the Executive Order and the resultant implementation guidance from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to as “the Department”) engaged in the development of a preliminary plan for the retrospective analysis of regulations. On Friday, March 25, 2011 (76 Federal Register 16700) 3 , the Department published a request for suggestions on how it might change, streamline, or

1 Available online at: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/502501p.pdf

2 Available online at: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/a102p.pdf

3 Available online at: http://frwebgate2.a ccess.gpo.gov/cgi

bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=RnMqC0/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve4

repeal its regulations. Two comments were received in r esponse to the request for
information . The first

— an internal comment regarding the consolidation of Departmental procurement guidance

— was forwarded to the Defense Acquisition Regulations Directorate for consideration. The commenter recommended integrat ing the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and its companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), in order to increase visibility of
current P GI information and requirements, and simplify and streamline use of the

r egulations.

The second submission came from the Institute for Pol icy Integrity, New York
Universi ty School of Law, a self

- described “non

- partisan think tank dedicated to improving the quality of government decisionmaking through advocacy and scholarship
i n the fields of administrative law, economics, and public policy.” The organization offered several recommendations for the Department to consider in developing procedural and substantive policies for conducting re strospective regulatory reviews:

 Retrosp ect reviews should avoid both deregulatory and pro

‐ regulatory biases and should instead calibrate regulatory programs for improved efficiency and
effectiveness.

 Agencies should use retrospective analysis to improve the quality of their prospective regulatory reviews.

 Agencies should adopt clear and publ icly available guidelines for selecting
rules to review.

 Retrospective analysis should include a thorough and balanced review of a rule’s impacts, such as costs and benefits, distributional consequences, and other empirical effects.

 Agencies should desig n rules ex

‐ ante so that they can be easily and effectively
monitored and evaluated.

 Retrospective review should be transparent and actively seek public participation.

 Agencies should foster independent and ubiased retrospective analysis of existing rules by appoin ting a review team of personnel separate from the
authors of the initial rule.

The Department accepts the broad suggestions on how to approach regulatory review and maximize its benefits. Included is the recommendation that retrospective
reviews be cond ucted free of both deregulatory and pro

- regulatory biases. This will ensure that the review is not centered on a binary determination of whether or not the regulation should be in place, and that a full

- range of options will be considered including the ad aptation of regulations to meet statutory obligations in cost

- effective,5

unitrusive ways. Other general recommendations include building accounting mechanisms into new regulations to facilitate retrospective review and using the empirical data gleaned fr om these reviews to more accurately conduct prospective regulatory reviews in the future.

Specific recommendations made by the Institute for Policy Integrity will be adopted by the Department as it implements its restrospective review program. Rather
th an create a fixed timetable mandating the review of certain regulations, the Department
will es tablish guidelines for identify ing and prioritizing regulations for which retrospective analysis would be most valuable. The criteria used in the discretionary approach to review will be communicated to stakeholders in order to increase transparency and allow for anticipation of future reviews. They will include identifying regulations that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or

counte rproductive. Also, parts that warrant strengthening, complementing, or modernizing will be candidates for retrospective review.

The Department’s restrospective review plan will provide for both quantitative and qualitative assessments of the regulatio n. In addition to a traditional cost

- benefit analysis, the Department will consider the distributional impact of the regulation in order to better understand how the regulation functions in its broader environment and improve upon that relationship. In o rder for these conclusions to be unbiased, the teams conducting the retrospective analyses shall be insulated from political pressures. They shall also be separate from those who initially promulgated the rule. This will eliminate the potential for a sub

jective review in favor of the regulation as it was originally written.

Stakeholders will also be notified when the Department is considering a rule for restrospective review and if/when that review is initiated. The notification will take place throug h the regulatory docket as it appears on Regulations.gov. For a period following the initiation of the review, the public will be invited to comment on the existing regulation and its application. Upon completion of the review, the Department will post
i ts evaluations to the docket in order to foster transparency and enhance the credibility of the review process.

The Department will continue to seek public input on the retrospective regulatory review process by publishing similar solicitations for commen t in the Federal Register

. These requests will publish concurrently with the annual Spring Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Department will invite the public to recommend changes to the review process and will seek consu ltation about existing rules. A minimum of 60 days will be used for the comment period. All suggestions will be considered and improvements shall be implemented when possible. The Department will6

also continue to work with the public and business commun ity to determine how its regulations can increase efficiency, transparency, and provide accountability.

The Department did not employ other means to reach out to the public for this
initial effort. In the future we will use the E

. O

. 13563 Exchange on Reg ulations. gov to

po st information and seek comment , as well as DoD’s Open Government Webpage

.

IV. Current Agency Efforts Already Underway Independent of E

. O

. 13563

a. Summary of pre

- existing agency efforts (independent of E.O. 13563)

.

In accordance with E. O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review , the Department developed a plan for the periodic review of its economically significant rules. The chronological parameters for the review were as follows:

1. Existing significant regulations would be reviewed at the rate of three per quarter, beginning with the second quarter in Fiscal Year 1994, and until such time as all existing significant regulations were reviewed;

2. Existing significant regulations having been initially reviewed in accordance with the plan would be subsequently reviewed at three yea r intervals thereafter; and,

3. Subsequently published significant regulations would be reviewed three years after their publication date and at three year intervals thereafter

.

The review criteria used mirrored elements c ontained in Section 1 (b) of E.O. 12866. After the initial review the Department’s regulatory entities scheduled reviews on an ad hoc basis consistent with program priorities.

b. S pecific rules under considera tion for retrospective analysis.

A list of specific rules subject to retrospective analysis will be developed with input f

rom the DoD Components. Currently, the title 32 regulations coupled
to DoD issuances that will be reviewed are identified in Attachment 1. The attached list of the Departmen t’s regulatory actions codified in title 32 of the CFR, result from DoD issuances originating within the Office of the Secretary (OSD), the principal staff used by the Secretary of Defense to exercise authority, direction, and control over the Department. Issuances range from DoD7 Directives, reflecting departmental policy that direct and limit DoD actions in pursuit of its objectives, operations, and plans, to instructions and manuals that provide detailed procedures for implementing policy. An issuance i s required to be reviewed and published as a rulemaking as defined in DoD Administrative Instruction 102, Office of the Secretary of Defense Federal Register System . For example, a rul e is required if the issuance: grants a right or privilege to the publi c; requires a course of conduct that must be followed; imposes an obligation on the general public; or, describes procedures by which a DoD Component conducts its business with the public.

The review of these parts of title 32 will mirror the established s chedule of the DoD Directives Program. An issuance is considered current when stated policies and information is current with Administration policy and has been revised or certified as current by the Head of the DoD Component within five years of the publ ication date. The parts identified in Attachment 1 fall outside of the established timeframe and must be reviewed. The issuance review is a special focus of interest from the Director, Administration and Management and the Office of the Secretary.

Rules already under consideration for retrospective analysis in title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter II , are identified in Attachment 2. The criteria used to select regulations for review identify rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjus tified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive.
Parts that that warrant strengthening, complementing, or modernizing are also
slated for review

. Particular attention is paid as to whether these rules create barriers to entry or drive up the length o r cost of the contracting process.

c. Regulatory burden reduction.

In an effort to reduce the burden on entities regulated under title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter II , the following rules are either forthcoming or have recently b een implemented :

1. DFARS Case 2011

- D028, “Definition of ‘Qualifying Country End
Product’”

- This rule will remove component test for COTS items that are qualifying country end products. It will require only the determination of country of origin of the C OTS item, not the origin and value components
of the COTS item. The Government

- unique requirement to track where components are being manufactured imposes a severe administrative burden, especially on small business. It requires contractors to establish and maintain costly and labor intensive management systems. Tracking8 the place of manufacture and component value is not necessary for the general origin labeling requirements generally applicable in the commercial marketplace. Tracking components adds c omplexity and cost to the delivery of goods to the Government.

2. DFARS Case 2011

- D008, “ Accelerate Small Business Payments ” 4

- Currently, DoD assists small disadvantaged business concerns by paying them as quickly as possible after invoices are received a nd before the normal payment due dates established in the contract. This rule remove s the term "disadvantaged" from the language at DFARS 232.903 and DFARS 232.906(a)(ii), thereby extending this payment policy uniformly to all small business concerns, not just small disadvantaged businesses. Accelerating payments to all small businesses improves their cash flow and removes some of the burden of obtaining extra financing to maintain cash flow until payment is received from the Government. DoD estimates
tha t approximately 60,000 small businesses will be positively affected by the use of accelerated payment procedures.

3. DFARS Case 2009

- D037, “ Electronic Ordering Procedures ” 5

- This rule

ma k e s electronic distribution procedures a routine part of order issu ance and establish a standard method for issuance of orders by electronic means. DoD currently has the capability to distribute orders electronically on a routine basis, and can post those orders centrally to a site any
contractor can access. This rule en able s DoD to further the goals of the E

Government Act of 2002, and make it easier for o fferors/contractors to
receive electronic orders. The benefit of this rule to small business is that
it make s electronic distribution procedures a routine part of orde r issuance. This change will ultimately help improve the management and promotion
of electronic Go vernment services and processes and establish a framework to improve public access to Government information and
services.

V. Elements of Preliminary Plan/Compl iance with E.O. 13563

a. How does the agency plan to develop a strong , ongoing culture of retrospective analysis?

4 Interim Final Rule published on April 27, 2011 (76 FR 23505) with an immediate effective date and is available
online at: http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi

- bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=yX3ch2/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve

5 Direct Final Rule published on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25566) with an immediate effective date and is a vailable
online at: http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi

- bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=z7MIi0/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve9 A new Department of Defense Instruction establishing policies and procedures addressing regulatory review and approval will be issued by
Se ptember 30, 2011 . This issuance will incorporate the principles of E.O. 13653 and guidance from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As the proponent for this issuance, the Director, Administration and M anagement, will encourage the use of r etrospective analysis to improve the effectiveness of the Department’s regulatory program and the efficacy of its regulatory actions. The Director hosts a senior administrative forum that provides a structured environment to coordinate and integrate OSD

- w ide administrative and management issues. The purpose of the forum is to improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency in common operational practices and areas of shared interest to the senior OSD staff, such as the regulatory process.

Retrospective analysis represents a collaborative effort of individuals and organizations within the Department of Defense. To that end, the Department’s regulatory focal points will be tasked to appoint a senior analyst to participate in a working group responsible f or coordinating their Component’s retrospective analysis. This group will identify and formalize processes and tools to accomplish the analysis, including how best to engage the public in partnering in improving our regulation s. A first step for this gro up, would define a prioritization process to review Departmental regulations that effectively manages resources and ensures independence.

b. Prioritization. What factors and process es will the agency use in setting priorities?

The Department will not use a mandatory timetable for review, but instead utilize a discretionary approach in selection determined by the functional programs issuing regulations. A General Accountability Office report, GAO

- 07

- 791, Reexamining Regulations: Opportunities Exist t o Improve Effectiveness and Transparency of Retrospective Reviews, reported that agencies employing discretionary reviews were more productive and more likely to result in further action. Discretionary reviews are more likely to be responsive to current i ssues and public interest. The DoD Components will establish their own priorities and guidelines, as appropriate to the functional program and available resources

. Component guidelines will be supplemented by guidelines developed from a working group tha t has yet to be formed. A focus on existing regulations that were considered economically significant at the time they were initially promulg ated is one consideration , as are regulations that are of particular interest to the public

. C riteria used to sel ect regulations for review will identify rules that10 are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive. Regulations that warrant strengthening, complementing, or modernizing will also be slated for review

.

c. Initial list of candidate rules for review over the next two years.

See Attachment 1 for parts identified for review in title 32. See Attachment 2 for parts identified for review in title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter II

. The Army Corps of E ngineers will revise its nationwide permits, a rule that authorizes approximately 35,000 activities annually. Under law, the nationwide permits can be issued for a period of no more than five years, and
must be reissued in order to continue to authorize a ctivities with minimal
individual and cumulative environ mental effects. The Corps is curren tly working
with the U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency to revise the agencies’ regulations defining the term “waters of the United States,” a critical term used to identify activit ies that require Clean Water Act permits.

d. Structure and Staffing.

The General Counsel of the Department of Defense, as the Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) , is responsible for monitoring regulatory activities within
DoD to ensure uniform compliance with the implementation of executive and legislative requirements and priorities, to include the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. All regulatory actions are approved by the RPO prior to any review by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Director, Administration and Management (DA&M) , as the functional proponent for the Regulatory Program and the Plan, manages the operational requirements of the regulatory process. The Chief, Information Management Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, administers the program on behalf of the DA&M.

Name /Position Title : Robert L. Cushing, Jr., Ch ief, Information Management Division; 703

- 696

- 5282 ; Email address: Robert.Cushing@whs.mil11

e. How does the agency plan to ensure that agency’s retrospective team and process
maintain s sufficient independence from the offices responsible for writing and implementing regulations?

The Director, Administration and Management

, is responsible for regulatory process compliance. The DoD Components responsible for writing the individual regulatory actions must obtain approval prior to submission for OMB review and publication from the RPO through the DA&M. As such, the Director acts as an independe nt advocate for the process.

f. Describe agency actions , if any, to stren gthen intern al review expertise. This
could include training staff, regrouping staff, hiring new staff

, or other methods.

Staff within the Director, Administration and Managem ent will maintain a close relationship with the DoD Components to ensure retrospective analysis is
used. The Director administers the Department’s Federal Docket Management System component of the Regulation.gov portal, as well as the functions of the
OS D Federal Register Liaison, to ensure public participation in how best to promote retrospective analysis.

g. How will the agency plan for retrospective analysis over the next two years , and beyond ?

The Department will institutionalize retrospective an alysis within its regulatory program in policie s and procedural guidance with publication of a DoD policy instruction and the formation of a working group of senior analysts

.

h. How will the agency decide what to do with analysis?

DoD Components Heads will decide to amend existing regulations in order to improve implementation or eliminate the regulation based on the analysis.12

i. P lans for revising rules and schedules for periodically revisit ing rules

.

Rulemaking in the Department of Defense is d ecentralized to functional programs of the DoD Components.

The majority of the Department’s regulatory actions codified in title 32 of the CFR, result from DoD issuances originating within the Office of the Secretary (OSD), the principal staff used by the Secretary of Defense to exercise authority, direction, and control over the Department. The review of these regulatory actions will mirror the established schedule of the DoD Directives Program. The action is considered current when stated policies and i nformation contained is current with Administration policy and has been revised or certified as current by the Head of the DoD Component having cognizance, within five years of the publication date. The issuance review is a special focus of interest from the Director, Administration and Management.

TRICARE comprises the DoD medical a nd dental programs pursuant to chapter 55 of 10 U.S.C. under which medical and dental services are provided to
DoD health care beneficiaries. Health Affairs/TRICARE Manage ment Activity ( TMA) keeps Part 199 up

- to

- date by reviewing legislative changes in the National
Defense A uthorization Act (NDAA). When the NDAA includes a new benefit, a new reimbursement system, or another provision that TRICARE must implement,
Part 199 i s amended by writing the proposed and final rules necessary to do so. For all new TRICARE benefits and modifications of existing benefits, TRICARE conducts formal, documented, independent Government cost estimating. These estimates are provided to Senior Health Affairs leaders in conjunction with requests for their decisions concerning whether to implement the new or modified
benefits. Upon determination by these decision authorities t hat the new or
modified benefit is cost

- effective and should be implem ented, TRICARE
commences the formal rulemaki ng process. If after actual implementa tion occurs and the anticipated effectiveness of the new or modified benefit is not achi eved,
TRICARE considers whether amendment of the rule is warranted.

The Defense Acqui sition Regulations System (DARS) develops and maintains acquisition rules codified in title 48, Chapter II. The DARS accomplishes an on

- going regulatory review each time it publishes a proposed or interim Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Defense Fe deral Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rule, requesting comments on any other regulations in the subpart affected by the rule. In addition, DARS plans to publish a notice every five years, requesting comments on those sections of the DFARS13 that w ere not affected by a proposed or interim rule during the preceding five

years.

To comply with E

. O

. 13563, the Army Corps of Engineers’s preliminary plan is to publish in October 201 1 , a Federal Register notice to solicit comment on which of its regulation s should be evaluated for modification, streamlining, expansion, or repeal to make the Regulatory Program more effective or less burdensome. The comment period will be 60 days. To facilitate public comment, the Federal Register notice will include the URL for a website that has all of the Corps Regulatory Program's current regulations, as well as supporting program
data and information. To solicit input from as many interested parties as possible, each of the 38 Corps districts will issue local public notic es announcing the publication of the Federal Register notice and the request for comments. The Corps will evaluate all comments received to develop its list of review priorities, and will publish a notice in the Federal Register that summarizes the comment s received and lists the review priorities. The website will be updated as proposal revisions and final revisions to its regulations occur

. The Corps is in the process of revising its nationwide permits, a rule that authorizes approximately 35,000 ac tivities each year. Under law, the nationwide permits can be issued for a period of no more than five years, and must be
reissued in order to continue to authorize activities with minimal individual and
cumulative environmental effects. The Cor ps is also working with the U.S. EPA to revise the agencies' regulations defining the term "waters of the United States," a critical term used to identify activities that require Clean Water Act permits.
The se two rulemaking activities, in additi on to the day

- to

- day management of the Regulatory Program, will take up most of the Headquarters Regulatory staff time
and r esources for the next year

.

VI. C oordinat ion with other federal agencies

.

The Department coordinates its developing rules with ot her agencies having equity. Additionally, it addresses other agency interests during interagency review under E.O. 12866. The Depar tment will apply this standard during any retrospective review.

VII. P eer review in conducting analyses

.

Peer review will be co nsidered based on availability of resources . It will not generally be used since the Department’s regulatory actions address Defense policy and14

procedures affecting the public, rather than parameters of science and technology applied to regulated parties

.

VIII. Components of Retrospective Cost

- Benefit Analysis

When appropriate , the Department will assess the potential costs and benefits of its regulatory actions according to guidance found in the Office of Management and Budget Circular A

- 4, Regulatory Analysis , and best practices. The app lication of cost

benefit analysis retro spectively will update ex

- ante information regarding the

e ffectiveness of the regulatory scheme and its current costs and benefits on the regulated parties. Ex

- ante data used initially a t the proposed stage, when updated, can serve to strengthen ex

- ante decisions or form the basis for amendment. Currently, cost

- benefit analysis is conducted somewhat independent of the rule writers. For example, TRICARE Management Activity conducts form al, documented, and independent cost estimating when new health benefits are proposed or modifications of existing benefits are required. The Army Corps of Engineers relies on the economists and staff at their Institute for
Water Resources whenever an eco nomic analysis is required. Generally, due to the nature of the Department’s regulatory actions, the incorporation of experimental design is
not warranted.

IX. Publishing the Department of Defense ’s Plan Online

The Department of Defense, as a n eRulemaking p artner agency
, will use the E

. O

. 13563 Exchange to publish its retrospective review plan and available data. We will develop an agency information page to post specific E

. O

. 13563 information and seek

comments. The Department is committed to supporting t he Open Government Initiative to improve transparency, participation, and collaboration. To further promote public participation, DoD’s Plan will be made available online on our Open Government Webpage ( http://ww w.defense.gov/open ) for comment and suggestions.