### DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Background

The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department consisting of three
Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), nine Unified Combatant Commands, 17
Defense Agencies, and ten DoD Field Activities. It has 1,412,674 military personnel and 886,975
civilians assigned as of June 30, 2013, and over 200 large and medium installations in the
continental United States, U. S. territories, and foreign countries. The overall size, composition,
and dispersion of DoD, coupled with an innovative regulatory program, presents a challenge to
the management of the Defense regulatory efforts under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
"Regulatory Planning and Review" of September 30, 1993.

Because of its diversified nature, DoD is affected by the regulations issued by regulatory
agencies such as the Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Labor, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In order to
develop the best possible regulations that embody the principles and objectives embedded in
E.O. 12866, there must be coordination of proposed regulations among the regulatory agencies
and the affected DoD components. Coordinating the proposed regulations in advance throughout
an organization as large as DoD is a straightforward, yet formidable undertaking.

DoD issues regulations that have an effect on the public and can be significant as defined in
E.O. 12866. In addition, some of DoD's regulations may affect other agencies. DoD, as an
integral part of its program, not only receives coordinating actions from other agencies, but
coordinates with the agencies that are affected by its regulations as well.

International Regulatory Cooperation

As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, "international regulatory cooperation,
consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means
of promoting" public health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in EO 13609, the President requires

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

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

The Department of Defense, along with the Department of State and Department of
Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, through which the
international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export

controls.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review (January 18, 2011), the following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been
identified as associated with retrospective review and analysis in the Department’s final
retrospective review of regulations plan. All are of particular interest to small businesses. Some of
these entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan.
However, more information can be found about these completed rulemakings in past publications
of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These
rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found at:
http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/eo-13563

RI N Rule Title (*expected to significantly reduce burdens on small businesses)
0701-AA76 Air Force Freedom of Information Act Program 0701-AA77 Air Force Privacy Act Program 0703-AA87 United States Navy Regulations and Official Records 0703-AA90 Guidelines for Archaeological Investigation Permits and Other Research on

Sunken Military Craft and Terrestrial Military Craft Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy 0703-AA91 Unofficial Use of the Seal, Emblem, Names, or Initials of the Marine Corps 0703-AA92 Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and

Supervision of the Judge Advocate General 0750-AG47 Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information (DFARS Case

2011-D039) 0750-AG62 Patents, Data, and Copyrights (DFARS Case 2010-D001) 0750-AH11 Only One Offer - Further Implementation (DFARS Case 2013-D001) 0750-AH54 Performance-Based Payments (DFARS Case 2011-D045) 0750-AH86 Forward Pricing Rate Proposal Adequacy Checklist (DFARS Case 2012-D035) 0750-AI03 Approval of Rental Waiver Requests (DFARS Case 2013-D006) 0790-AI24 DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program Regulation 0790-AI30 Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Privacy Program 0790-AI42 Personnel Security Program 0790-AI51 DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program; Amendment

### 0790-AI63 Alternative Dispute Resolution

0790-AI71 National Industrial Security Program (NISP): Procedures for Government

Activities Relating to Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) 0790-AI73 Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data from Public Disclosure 0790-AI75 Presentation of DoD-Related Scientific and Technical Papers at Meetings 0790-AI77 Provision of Early Intervention and Special Education Services to Eligible DoD

Dependents 0790-AI80 National Industrial Security Program: Industrial Security Procedures for

Government Activities 0790-AI84 National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowships 0790-AI87 Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of Information Act Program 0790-AI88 Shelter for the Homeless 0790-AI92 Inspector General; Privacy Act; Implementation 0790-AJ03 DoD Privacy Program 0790-AJ04 Unlawful Discrimination (On the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, or Age in

Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance From the DoD) 0790-AJ05 End Use Certificates (EUCs) 0790-AJ06 Voluntary Education Programs 0790-AJ07 Historical Research in the Files of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 0790-AJ10 Enhancement of Protections on Consumer Credit for Members of the Armed

Forces and Their Dependents COMPLETED RULES 0710-AA66 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule 0710-AA60 Nationwide Permit Program Regulations* 0750-AH19 Accelerated Payments to Small Business (DFARS Case 2011-D008) 0750-AH70 Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty With Australia and the United Kingdom

(DFARS Case 2012-D034) 0750-AH87 System for Award Management Name Changes, Phase 1 Implementation

(DFARS Case 2012-D053) 0790-AI54 Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies 0790-AI86 Defense Logistics Agency Privacy Program

DoD also removed 32 CFR part 513, “Indebtedness of Military Personnel,” because the part is obsolete and the governing policy is now codified at 32 CFR part 112.

Administration Priorities:

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

The Department plans to—

• Finalize the rule to implement section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011), as amended by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013.
Section 806 requires the evaluation of offeror’s supply chain risks for information technology
purchases relating to national security systems. This rule enables agencies to exclude
sources that are identified as having a supply chain risk in order to minimize the potential risk

### for purchased supplies and services to maliciously introduce unwanted functions and
degrade the integrity and operation of sensitive information technology systems.

• Revise the DFARS to improve awareness, compliance, and enforcement of DoD policies
on combating trafficking in persons. The rule will further improve stability, productivity, and
certainty in the contingency operations that DoD supports and ensure that DoD contractors

do not benefit from the use of coerced labor.

• Finalize the rule to implement section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012 relating to the
detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts. The rule would address contractor
responsibilities for detecting and avoiding the use or inclusion of counterfeit electronic parts
or suspect counterfeit electronic parts, the use of trusted suppliers, and requirements for
contractors to report counterfeit electronic parts and suspect counterfeit electronic parts. The
rule seeks to preclude the introduction of counterfeit material that could compromise DoD
weapon and information systems.

2. Rulemakings of particular interest to small businesses.

The Department plans to—

• Revise the DFARS to implement new prescriptions and clause formats for part 219,
Small Business Programs, clauses with alternates. This proposed rule, with its unique
prescriptions for the basic version and each alternate for solicitation provisions and clauses,
will facilitate the use of automated contract writing systems. The inclusion of the full text of
the alternate clause in the regulation should make the terms of the alternate clearer to the
offerors and contractors by clarifying paragraph substitutions. As a result, inapplicable
paragraphs from the basic clause that are superseded by the alternate will not be included in
solicitations or contracts, reducing the potential for confusion.

• Finalize the DFARS rule to delete text in DFARS Part 219 that implemented 10 U.S.C.
2323 because 10 U.S.C. 2323 has expired. Removal of the obsolete implementing coverage
for 10 U.S.C. 2323 will bring DFARS up to date and provide accurate and indisputable
regulations affecting the small business and vendor communities.

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

burdens on small businesses.

The Department plans to—

• Finalize the rule for DFARS to implement section 803 of the NDAA for FY 2011 to allow a
covered litigation support contractor access to technical, proprietary, or confidential data for
the sole purpose of providing litigation support.

• Revise the DFARS to standardize solicitation provisions and contract clauses relating to
information technology Cloud Services.

• Revise the DFARS to reduce the frequency of submission of subcontracting reports.

4. Rules to be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency’s
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory
objectives.

• DFARS Cases 2012-D057, 2013-D005, 2013-D014, 2013-D025; and 2013-D026; –
Propose a new convention for prescribing clauses with alternates to provide alternate clauses
in full text. This will facilitate selection of alternate clauses using automated contract writing
systems. The inclusion of the full text of the alternate clauses in the regulation for use in

solicitations and contracts should make the terms of the alternate clauses clearer to offerors
and contractors by clarifying paragraph substitutions. As a result, inapplicable paragraphs
from the basic clause that are superseded by the alternate will not be included in solicitations
or contracts, reducing the potential for confusion.

• DFARS Case 2013-D037—removes redundant DFARS coverage on contractors
performing private security functions under a contract that requires performance during
contingency operations, in an area of combat operations, or in an area of other significant
military operations. These requirements have been incorporated into the FAR, so the DFARS
coverage is no longer required.

• DFARS 2013-D033—deletes unnecessary text from the DFARS to increase clarity of the
proposal adequacy checklist. Item 19 on the checklist is being deleted as it overlaps and
duplicates other information addressed by other items on the checklist.

### Specific DoD Priorities:

For this regulatory plan, there are six specific DoD priorities, all of which reflect the established
regulatory principles. DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious
environmental, health, and safety risks. Perhaps most significant is that each of the priorities
described below promulgates regulations to offset the resource impacts of Federal decisions on
the public or to improve the quality of public life, such as those regulations concerning acquisition,
security, energy projects, education, and health affairs.

1. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy

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

Government efforts to—

• Revise the DFARS to provide detailed guidance and instruction to DoD contracting
officers for the use of DoD's performance based payments analysis tool when contemplating
the use of performance based payments on new fixed-price type contracts.

• Revise the DFARS to improve information security controls by addressing the
requirements for safeguarding unclassified controlled technical information. This rule
implements security measures to safeguard unclassified DoD information within contractor
information systems from unauthorized access and disclosure and to prescribe reporting to
DoD certain cyber intrusion events that affect DoD information resident on or transiting
through contractor unclassified information systems.

2. Logistics and Material Readiness, Department of Defense

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

• Final Rule: Operational Contract Support. This rule incorporates the latest changes and
lessons learned into policy and procedures for operational contract support (OCS), including
OCS program management, contract support integration, and the integration of DoD
contractor personnel into contingency operations outside the United States. It was required to
procedurally close gaps and ensure the correct planning, oversight and management of DoD

### contractors supporting contingency operations, by updating outdated policy. DoD published
an interim final rule on December 29, 2011 (32 CFR part 158, 76 FR 81807-81825) The final
rule is expected to be published the first quarter of FY 2014.

3. Installations and Environment, Department of Defense

The Department of Defense plans to finalize a rule regarding the process for evaluating the
impact of certain types of structures on military operations and readiness:

• Final Rule: Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process. This rule implements policy,
assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the establishment and operation of a
process for evaluation of proposed projects submitted to the Secretary of Transportation
under section 44718 of title 49, United States Code. The evaluation process is established for
the purpose of identifying any adverse impact of proposed projects on military operations and
readiness, minimizing or mitigating such adverse impacts, and determining if any such
projects pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. The rule also
includes procedures for the operation of a central DoD siting clearinghouse to facilitate both
informal and formal reviews of proposed projects. This rule is required by section 358 of
Public Law 111-383. An interim final rule was published on October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65112).
DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the first quarter of FY 2014.

4. Military Community and Family Policy, Department of Defense

The Department of Defense proposes new policies, responsibilities, and procedures for the
operation of voluntary education programs within DoD. Additionally, the Department plans to
publish a rule regarding child development programs:

• Proposed Rule: Voluntary Education Programs. In this proposed rule, the Department of
Defense (DoD) discusses new policy, responsibilities, and procedures for the operation of
voluntary education programs within DoD. The new policies discussed in the rule include the
following. All educational institutions providing education programs through the DoD Tuition
Assistance (TA) Program will provide meaningful information to students about the financial

### cost and attendance at an institution so military students can make informed decisions on
where to attend school; not use unfair, deceptive, and abusive recruiting practices; and
provide academic and student support services to Service members and their families. New
criteria are created to strengthen existing procedures for access to military installations by
educational institutions. An annual review and notification process is required if there are
changes made to the uniform semester-hour (or equivalent) TA caps and annual TA ceilings.
Military Departments will be required to provide their Service members with a joint services
transcript (JST). The DoD Postsecondary Education Complaint System is implemented for
Service members, spouses, and adult family members to register student complaints. The
Military Departments are authorized to establish Service-specific TA eligibility criteria and
management controls. DoD anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY

2014.

• Interim Final Rule: Child Development Programs (CDPs) : In this interim final rule, the
Department of Defense updates policy, responsibilities, and procedures for providing care to
minor children birth through age 12 of individuals eligible for care in DoD CDPs to include
center-based care, family child care (FCC), school-age care (SAC), supplemental child care,
and community based care. The subject areas in this rule include authorizing the publication
of supporting guidance for the implementation of CDP policies and responsibilities (including
child development training modules, program aids, and other management tools) and
establishment of the DoD Effectiveness Rating and Improvement System (ERIS). DoD
anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.

5. Health Affairs, Department of Defense

The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of wartime readiness and
peacetime health care by operating an extensive network of medical treatment facilities. This
network includes DoD’s own military treatment facilities supplemented by civilian health care
providers, facilities, and services under contract to DoD through the TRICARE program.

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

of DoD’s health care delivery system. The program’s goal is to increase access to health care
services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs.

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

• Proposed Rule: TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals. The proposed
rule implements the statutory provision in 10 United States Code 1079(j)(2) that TRICARE
payment methods for institutional care shall be determined to the extent practicable in
accordance with the same reimbursement rules as those that apply to payments to providers
of services of the same type under Medicare. This proposed rule implements a
reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for services
provided by long term care hospitals. DoD anticipates publishing a proposed rule in the
second quarter of FY 2014.

• Interim Final Rule: CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance
Medications for TRICARE Life Beneficiaries through the TRICARE Mail Order Program. This
interim final rule implements section 716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), which establishes a 5-year pilot program that would generally
require TRICARE for Life beneficiaries to obtain all refill prescriptions for covered
maintenance medications from the TRICARE mail order program or military treatment facility
pharmacies. Covered maintenance medications are those that involve recurring prescriptions
for chronic conditions, but do not include medications to treat acute conditions. Beneficiaries
may opt out of the pilot program after 1 year of participation. This rule includes procedures to
assist beneficiaries in transferring covered prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program.
This regulation is being issued as an interim final rule in order to comply with the express
statutory intent that the program begin in calendar year 2013. DoD anticipates publishing an
interim final rule in the first quarter of FY 2014.

• Final Rule: TRICARE: Certified Mental Health Counselors. This rule was published as an
interim final rule on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80741), in order to meet the congressional
requirement set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY)

### 2011, section 724, which required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations by
June 20, 2011, to establish the criteria, as had previously been studied in accordance with
section 717 of the NDAA 2008, that would allow licensed or certified mental health
counselors (MHCs) to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and
receive payment for those services. Under current TRICARE requirements, MHCs are
authorized to practice only with physician referral and supervision. This IFR establishes a
transition period to allow MHCs to gain the requisite education, examination, and postmaster's clinical experience for the new category of qualified mental health professionals,
"TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselors," who will be authorized to practice
independently under TRICARE, as well as phase out the category of MHC who require
referral and supervision from TRICARE authorized physicians. DoD anticipates finalizing this
rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.

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

The Department of Defense plans to publish a final rule regarding Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures:

• Final Rule: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures. This
part implements Department of Defense (DoD) policy and assigns responsibilities for the
SAPR Program on prevention, response, and oversight to sexual assault. It is DoD policy to
establish a culture free of sexual assault by providing an environment of prevention,
education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and
accountability that enhances the safety and wellbeing of all persons covered by the
regulation. An interim final rule was published on April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21715). DoD
anticipates publishing a final rule in the second quarter of FY 2014.

7. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense

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

• Final Rule: Service Academies. This rule establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and
prescribes procedures for Department of Defense oversight of the Service Academies. The

### proposed rule was published October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59053), and included policy that has
since changed. The final rule, particularly the explanation of separation policy, will reflect
recent changes in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. It will also incorporate changes resulting
from interagency coordination. DoD anticipates publishing the final rule in the first or second
quarter of FY 2014.

8. Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense

The Department of Defense plans to amend the voluntary cyber security information sharing
program between DoD and eligible cleared defense contractors:

• Proposed Rule: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Voluntary Cyber Security/Information
Assurance (CS/IA) Activities. The Department proposes to amend the DoD-DIB CS/IA
Voluntary Activities regulation (32 CFR part 236) in response to Section 941 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 which requires the Secretary of
Defense to establish procedures that require each cleared defense contractor (CDC) to report
when a network or information system that meets the criteria reports cyber intrusions. DoD
anticipates publishing a proposed rule in the second or third quarter of FY 2014.

BILLING CODEThe 14 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title Regulation Identifier Number Rulemaking Stage

TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals 0720-AB47 Proposed Rule Stage
TRICARE: Certified Mental Health Counselors 0720-AB55 Final Rule Stage
CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance Medications for TRICARE For Life Beneficiaries Through the TRICARE Mail Order Program 0720-AB60 Final Rule Stage
Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information (DFARS Case 2011-D039) 0750-AG47 Final Rule Stage Requirements Relating to Supply Chain Risk (DFARS Case 2012-D050) 0750-AH96 Final Rule Stage
Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections (DFARS Case 2013- D010) 0750-AH97 Final Rule Stage
Allowability of Legal Costs for Whistleblower Proceedings (DFARS Case 2013-D022) 0750-AI04 Final Rule Stage
Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities; Amendment 0790-AJ14 Proposed Rule Stage

Service Academies 0790-AI19 Final Rule Stage
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures 0790-AI36 Final Rule Stage Operational Contract Support 0790-AI48 Final Rule Stage Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process 0790-AI69 Final Rule Stage Child Development Programs (CDPs) 0790-AI81 Final Rule Stage Voluntary Education Programs 0790-AJ06 Final Rule Stage

Department of Defense (DOD) Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs ( DODOASHA ) RIN: 0720- AB47

View Related Documents

Title: TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals Abstract: The proposed rule implements the statutory provision in 10 United States Code 1079(j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care shall be determined to the extent practicable in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as those that apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. This proposed rule implements a reimbursement methodology similar to that furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for services provided by long-term care hospitals.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 10 USC 1079(j)(2) Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The rule is necessary to meet the statutory provision to use Medicare reimbursement rules to the extent practicable.
Legal Basis: Congress established enabling legislation under section 707 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal year 2002 (NDAA-02), Public Law 107-107 (December 28, 2001) changing the statutory authorization in 10 U.S.C. 1079 (j)(2) that TRICARE payment methods for institutional care shall be determined to the extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules used by Medicare

Alternatives: This rule implements statutorily required provisions for adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement rules which are consistent with well established congressional objectives. No other alternative is applicable.

Costs and Benefits: It is projected that implementation of this rule will result in a health care savings of $71 million in year one of implementation.

Risks: The proposed rule implements statutorily required provisions for adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement systems which are consistent with well established congressional objectives. No risk to the public is applicable. Timetable:
Action Date FR CiteNPRM 02/00/2014

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Ann N. Fazzini Department of Defense Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs 1200 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301 Washington , DC 20301 Phone: 303 676 -3803

Department of Defense (DOD) Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs ( DODOASHA ) RIN: 0720- AB55

View Related Documents

Title: TRICARE: Certified Mental Health Counselors Abstract: This rule was published as an interim final rule (IFR) in order to meet the congressional requirement set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, section 724, which required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations by June 20, 2011, to establish the criteria, as had previously been studied in accordance with section 717 of the NDAA 2008, that would allow licensed or certified mental health counselors (MHCs) to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment for those services. Under current TRICARE requirements, MHCs are authorized to practice only with physician referral and supervision. This IFR establishes a transition period to allow MHCs to gain the requisite education, examination, and post-master's clinical experience for the new category of qualified mental health professionals, "TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselors," who will be authorized to practice independently under TRICARE, as well as phase out the category of MHC who require referral and supervision from TRICARE authorized physicians.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55 Legal Deadline: Congressional requirement set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, section 724, which required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations by June 20, 2011, to establish the criteria, as had previously been studied in accordance with section 717 of the NDAA 2008, that would allow licensed or certified mental health counselors to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment for those services.
Action Source Description Date Other Statutory section 724 of NDAA 2011 06/20/2011

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The Interim Final Rule provides 9.6 million TRICARE beneficiaries access to a new category of qualified mental health professionals whose qualifications confirm their ability to diagnose and treat mental health disorders found in the military population, as well as the psychosocial issues experienced by military members, retirees, and family members. During the transition period of the IFR, the criteria for the MHCs have not changed and will allow continuity of care for beneficiaries who are receiving services from supervised MHCs under the current system. A continued robust, quality provider pool is available for TRICARE beneficiaries to access when seeking medically necessary and appropriate mental health counseling services in the MHS purchased care system.
Legal Basis: The legal authority for this interim final rule is section 724 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383, which required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations to establish the criteria that would allow licensed or certified mental health counselors to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment for those services.

Alternatives: This action is required by statute, therefore, there are no alternatives.

Costs and Benefits: The anticipated cost associated with this rule is under $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. The benefits are that TRICARE will be in compliance with its statutory provisions, and mental health of beneficiaries who receive services from TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselors will be improved.

Risks: Failure to implement this will mean that TRICARE regulations are not most appropriately implementing the changes legislated by TRICARE statutory provisions. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 12/27/2011 76 FR 80741Interim Final Rule Effective 12/27/2011 Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 02/27/2012 Final Action 11/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Patricia Moseley Department of Defense Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 22301 Washington , DC 22301 Phone: 703 681 -0064

Department of Defense (DOD) Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs ( DODOASHA ) RIN: 0720- AB60

View Related Documents

Title: CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance Medications for TRICARE For Life Beneficiaries Through the TRICARE Mail Order Program Abstract: This interim final rule implements section 716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), which establishes a 5-year pilot program that would generally require TRICARE for Life beneficiaries to obtain all refill prescriptions for covered maintenance medications from the TRICARE mail order program or military treatment facility pharmacies. Covered maintenance medications are those that involve recurring prescriptions for chronic conditions, but do not include medications to treat acute conditions. Beneficiaries may opt out of the pilot program after 1 year of participation. This rule includes procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring covered prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program. This regulation is being issued as an interim final rule in order to comply with the express statutory intent that the program begin in calendar year 2013.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) proposed rule establishes processes for the new program of refills of maintenance medications for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries through military treatment facility pharmacies and the mail order pharmacy program.
Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under 5 USC 301; 10 USC ch 55; 32 CFR section 199.21.

Alternatives: The rule fulfills a statutory requirement, therefore, there are no alternatives.

Costs and Benefits: The effect of the statutory requirement, implemented by this rule, is to shift a volume of prescriptions from retail pharmacies to the most cost effective points-of-service venues of military treatment facility pharmacies and the mail order pharmacy program. This will produce savings to the Department of approximately $104 million per year and savings to beneficiaries of approximately $34 million per year in reduced copayments.

Risks: Loss of savings to both the Department and beneficiaries. No risk to the public. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 11/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: RADM Thomas McGinnis Department of Defense Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs 1200 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1200 Washington , DC 20301- 1200 Phone: 703 681 -2890Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Acquisition Regulations Council ( DARC ) RIN: 0750- AG47

View Related Documents

Title: Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information (DFARS Case 2011-D039) Abstract: DoD is issuing an interim rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add a DFARS subpart and associated contract clauses to address requirements for the safeguarding of unclassified information within contractor information systems as specified in Executive Order 13556, Controlled Unclassified Information. DoD published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), and notice of public meeting in the Federal Register at 75 FR 9563 on March 3, 2010, to provide the public an opportunity for input into the initial rulemaking process. A proposed DFARS rule was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 38089 on June 29, 2011, to implement adequate security measures to safeguard unclassified DoD information within contractor information systems from unauthorized access and disclosure, and to prescribe reporting to DoD with regard to certain cyber intrusion events that affect DoD information resident on or transiting through contractor unclassified information systems. After comments were received on the proposed rule it was decided that the scope of the rule would be modified to reduce the information covered. This interim rule addresses safeguarding requirements that cover only unclassified controlled technical information, and reporting the compromise of unclassified controlled technical information. DoD anticipates this rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 48 CFR 204; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 252 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 41 USC 1303; PL 112-239 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) interim rule is in support of existing DoD information policy in DoD 5200.1-R, Information Security Program Regulation; Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) Directive Type Memorandum (DTM), April 17, 2004; DTM 08-027, entitled Security of Unclassified DoD Information on Non-DoD Information Systems, September 16, 2010, and other applicable DoD issuances. DoD requires this amendment to the DFARS to accomplish the following: a. Avoid compromise of unclassified computer networks on which controlled technical information is resident on or transiting through contractor information systems, and prevent the exfiltration of controlled technical information. b. Improve the protection of controlled technical information by employing enhanced security measures, as identified in the clause, to appropriately protect controlled technical information from unauthorized disclosure, loss, or exfiltration. c. Implement tracking and reporting of controlled technical information incursions to (1) assess the impact of loss; and (2) better understand methods of loss. d. Standardize procedures for tracking and reporting intrusions. Additionally, this interim rule is part of DoD's effort to enhance the protection of DoD information, and it also partially implements the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 section 941 requirement to mandate contractor reporting of information created by or for DoD that has been potentially compromised by a penetration of a contractor network.
Legal Basis: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013.

Alternatives: There are no significant alternatives to accomplish the stated objectives of this rule. DoD considered regulatory requirements that were deemed to be complementary, but not adequate as an alternative to this rule.

Costs and Benefits: This rule improves national security by implementing safeguards that strengthen information security controls to unclassified controlled technical information within contractor information systems from unauthorized access and disclosure. This rule benefits both the Government and contractors.

Risks: None. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite ANPRM 03/03/2010 75 FR 9563 ANPRM Comment Period End 05/03/2010 NPRM 06/29/2011 76 FR 38089 NPRM Comment Period End 08/29/2011 NPRM Comment Period Extended 10/28/2011 76 FR 66889 NPRM Comment Period Extended 12/16/2011 76 FR 55297 NPRM Comment Period End 12/16/2011 Final Action 11/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: Federal Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones Department of Defense Defense Acquisition Regulations Council4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2, Alexandria, VA 22350 Alexandria , VA 22350 Phone: 571 372 -6088 E- Mail: manuel.quinones@osd.mil

Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Acquisition Regulations Council ( DARC ) RIN: 0750- AH96

View Related Documents

Title: Requirements Relating to Supply Chain Risk (DFARS Case 2012-D050) Abstract: DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, as amended by the NDAA for FY 2013. This interim rule revises the DFARS to implement section 806 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383; entitled "Enhancement of Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees," made extensive changes to 10 U.S.C. 2409, entitled "Contractor employees: protection from reprisal or disclosure.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 48 CFR 208; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 215; 48 CFR 233; ... (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 41 USC 1303; PL 111-383, sec 806; PL 112-239, sec 806 Legal Deadline: Within 180 days from enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, which was enacted on January 7, 2011.
Action Source Description Date
Other Statutory section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, as amended by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013 07/07/2011

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The Department of Defense is required to implement in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation protection against risks to the supply chain affecting National Security Systems (NSSs). Additionally, DOD Instruction (DODI) 5200.44 (November 5, 2012) Protection of Mission Critical Functions to Achieve Trusted Systems and Networks (TSN), recognizes the need to improve supply chain risk management.
Legal Basis: This interim rule is required under the authorities of section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383), as amended by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239).

Alternatives: DoD considered two possible alternatives to protect against risks to the National Security Systems. However, consistent with the stated objectives of Section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2011, as amended, and Department of Defense Instruction 5200.44 (November 5, 2012), no viable alternatives exist. The first possible alternative included having all contractors report, on all contracts, the nature of the supply chain risk mitigation efforts they have applied to their manufacturing processes. This alternative would be unduly burdensome for both contractors and the government and was therefore rejected. The second alternative is not to have section 806 clauses applicable to commercial and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items and purchases below the simplified acquisition threshold. However, the requirements of section 806 should apply to the procurement of commercial items (including COTS items); because the intent of the statute is to protect the supply chain, which in turn protects all NSSs. Commercial and commercial off-the-shelf information technology supplies and services often become parts of the NSSs. To protect the NSSs, using the authority of Public Law 111-383, as amended by Public Law 112-239, requires application in all information technology supply and services contacts. Therefore, exempting commercial (including COTS) items from application of the statute would negate the intended effect of the statute. This second alternative was also rejected as a viable alternative.

Costs and Benefits: This interim rule will mitigate the risk and potential harm to the National Security Systems (NSS) and protect the integrity of the supply chain to NSS by avoiding sabotage, maliciously introducing unwanted functions, or other subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, installation, operation or maintenance of systems. Ultimately, DoD anticipates significant savings to taxpayers by reducing the risk of unsafe products entering our supply chain, which pose serious threats or risks to sensitive government information technology systems.

Risks: There is risk to the National Security Systems if unwanted functions are allowed to penetrate the DoD supply chain. This risk to NSS, if left unmitigated, threatens the security of sensitive information technology systems and puts in jeopardy the safety of our military forces. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 11/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: NoFederalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones Department of Defense Defense Acquisition Regulations Council 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2, Alexandria, VA 22350 Alexandria , VA 22350 Phone: 571 372 -6088 E- Mail: manuel.quinones@osd.mil

Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Acquisition Regulations Council ( DARC ) RIN: 0750- AH97

View Related Documents

Title: Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections (DFARS Case 2013-D010) Abstract: DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement statutory amendments to whistleblower protections for contractor employees. DoD is revising the DFARS to implement a policy enhancing the whistleblower protections for contractor employees as modified by section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013). Section 827, entitled "Requirements for Information Relating to Supply Chain Risk," as amended by section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), and allows the DoD to consider the impact of supply chain risk in specified types of procurements related to National Security Systems (NSS). Section 806 defines supply chain risk as "the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system."

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 48 CFR 203; 48 CFR 252 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 41 USC 1303; PL 112-239, sec 827 Legal Deadline: July 2, 2013 or within 180 days from enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), which was enacted on Jan 2, 2013.
Action Source Description Date Other Statutory section 827 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) 01/02/2013

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement amendments made by section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Section 827 amends 10 U.S.C. 2409 and 10 U.S.C. 2324(k), making the changes applicable to DoD and NASA. Each agency is amending its FAR supplement.
Legal Basis: Public Law 112-239, section 827 and 41 U.S.C. 1303.

Alternatives: There are no significant alternatives to accomplish the stated objectives of this rule. DoD considered several alternatives with emphasis on reducing the burden on small entities. Because of the terms used in the statute, DoD is unable to exempt small entities or to establish a dollar threshold for coverage. Regardless of the size of the business, a whistleblower employee must be protected from retaliation by his/her employer.

Costs and Benefits: The costs associated with implanting the amendments to existing protections for contractor whistleblower employees, as a result of changes to the law, are minimal. Benefit: The rule proposes to strengthen protections for contractor personnel who disclose incidents of fraud, waste, and abuse of DoD contracts.

Risks: There is potential risk to the public on cases involving fraud, waste, and abuse of DoD contracts going unreported for fear of inadequate protections for whistleblowers under the law. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 11/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones Department of Defense Defense Acquisition Regulations Council 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2, Alexandria, VA 22350Alexandria , VA 22350 Phone: 571 372 -6088 E- Mail: manuel.quinones@osd.mil

Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Acquisition Regulations Council ( DARC ) RIN: 0750- AI04

View Related Documents

Title: Allowability of Legal Costs for Whistleblower Proceedings (DFARS Case 2013-D022) Abstract: DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 that amends the allowability of legal costs incurred by a contractor related to whistleblower proceedings. This interim rule is to implement paragraphs 827(g) and (i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 113-239). Section 827(g) expands the cost principle at 10 U.S.C. 2324(k) to apply the cost principle on allowability of costs related to legal and other proceedings to costs incurred by contractors in proceedings commenced by a contractor employee submitting a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 2409 (whistleblowing), and include as specifically unallowable, legal costs of a proceeding that results in an order to take corrective action under 10 U.S.C. 2409.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 48 CFR 216; 48 CFR 231; 48 CFR 252 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 41 USC 1303; PL 112-239, sec 827; 10 USC 2324(k) Legal Deadline:
Action Source Description Date
Other Statutory section 827(g) and (i) of the NDAA for fiscal year 2013 (Pub. L. 113- 239) 01/02/2013

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: DoD requires this action to implement paragraphs 827(g) and (i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 113-239). Section 827(g) expands the cost principle at 10 U.S.C. 2324(k) to apply the cost principle on allowability of costs related to legal and other proceedings to costs incurred by contractors in proceedings commenced by a contractor employee submitting a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 2409 (whistleblowing), and include as specifically unallowable, legal costs of a proceeding that results in an order to take corrective action under 10 U.S.C. 2409. This interim rule revises the DFARS subparts 216.3 and 231.2 and adds a new clause at 252.216 to implement paragraphs (g) and (i) of section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 113-239).
Legal Basis: The legal basis for this rule is section 827(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), enacted on January 2, 2013.

Alternatives: DoD was unable to identify any alternatives to the rule that would reduce the impact on the public, particularly on small entities, and still meet the requirements of the statute.

Costs and Benefits: There is no significant cost to the Government; however, there is potential cost to a contractor involved in the submission of a whistleblower complaint that results in a monetary penalty to the contractor or an order for the contractor to take corrective measures. Benefits include potential savings to taxpayers, since costs incurred by the contractor are disallowed as a result of one of its employee's filing a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 2409.

Risks: There is risk to a contractor if a contractor employee commenced a proceeding by submitting a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 2409, and if that proceeding resulted in imposition of a monetary penalty or an order to take corrective action under 10 U.S.C. 2409. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 11/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones Department of Defense Defense Acquisition Regulations Council 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite15D07-2, Alexandria, VA 22350 Alexandria , VA 22350 Phone: 571 372 -6088 E- Mail: manuel.quinones@osd.milDepartment of Defense (DOD) Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790- AJ14

View Related Documents

Title: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities; Amendment Abstract: This rule amends the DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities regulation in response to section 941 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 which requires the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures that require each cleared defense contractor (CDC) to report when a network or information system that meets the criteria reports cyber intrusions.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 236 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: EO 12829 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) will amend the DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities (32 CFR part 236) regulation to incorporate changes as required by section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 to include mandated cyber intrusion incident reporting by all cleared defense contractors (CDCs).
Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the authorities of section 941 NDAA for FY 2013.

Alternatives: DoD analyzed the requirements in section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 and determined that implementation must be accomplished through the rulemaking process. This will allow the public to comment on the implementation strategy.

Costs and Benefits: Implementing the amended rule to meet the requirements of section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 affects approximately 8,700 CDCs. Each company will require DoD approved medium assured certificates to submit the mandatory cyber incident reporting to the DoD access controlled website. The cost per certificate is $175. In addition, it is estimated that the average burden per reported incident is 7 hours which includes identifying the cyber incident details, gathering and maintaining the data needed, reviewing the collection of information to be reported, and completing the report. Note, these costs are the same as those associated with 32 CFR part 236 (DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities), but are now applicable across a larger population of defense contractors. The benefit of this amended rule is satisfying the legal mandate from section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 as well as informing the Department of incidents that impact DoD programs and information. DoD needs to have the ability to assess the strategic and operational impacts of cyber incidents and determine appropriate mitigation activities.

Risks: There will likely be significant public interest in DoD's implementation of section 941 NDAA for FY2013. DoD will need to assure the public that DoD will provide for the reasonable protection of trade secrets, commercial or financial information, and information that can be used to identify a specific person that may be evident through the cyber incident reporting and media analysis. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite NPRM 04/00/2014

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Federalism: No Agency Contact: Vicki Michetti Department of Defense Office of the Secretary 6000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-6000 Washington , DC 20301- 6000 Phone: 703 604 -3177 E- Mail: vicki.d.michetti.civ@mail.mil

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

View Related Documents

Title: Service Academies Abstract: The Department is revising and updating policy guidance and oversight of the military service academies. This rule implements 10 U.S.C. 403, 603, and 903 for the establishment and operation of the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy. The proposed rule was published October 18, 2007 (72 FR59053), and included policy that has since changed. The final rule, particularly the explanation of separation policy, will reflect recent changes in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 217 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 10 USC 301 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The Department of Defense revises and updates the current rule providing the policy guidance and oversight of the military service academies. This rule implements 10 U.S.C. 403, 603, and 903 for the establishment and operation of the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy.
Legal Basis: 10 U.S.C. chapters 403, 603, 903.

Alternatives: None. The Federal statute directs the Department of Defense to develop policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe procedures for operations and oversight of the service academies.

Costs and Benefits: Administrative costs are negligible and benefits would be clear, concise rules that enable the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the service academies are efficiently operated and meet the needs of the Armed Forces.

Risks: None. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite NPRM 10/18/2007 72 FR 59053 NPRM Comment Period End 12/17/2007 Final Action 02/00/2014

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1322.22

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Paul Nosek Department of Defense Office of the Secretary 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000 Washington , DC 20301- 4000 Phone: 703 695 -5529

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

View Related Documents

Title: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures Abstract: This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, provides guidance and procedures, and establishes the Sexual Assault Advisory Council for the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program consistent with the Task Force Report on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault, and pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 113 and 32 CFR part 103. The intent of the program is to prevent and eliminate sexual assault within the Department by providing comprehensive procedures to better establish a culture of prevention, response, and accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all DoD members.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 105 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 10 USC ch 47 sec 113 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance and procedures for the SAPR program. It establishes the processes and procedures for the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) kit; the multidisciplinary Case Management Group to include guidance for the group on how to handle sexual assault; SAPR minimum program standards; SAPR training requirements; and SAPR requirements for the DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.Legal Basis: Section 113 of title 10, United States Code; and Public Laws 109-364, 109-163, 108-375, 106-65, 110-417, and 111-84.

Alternatives: The Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) will lack updated and revised rules for implementing DoD policy on prevention and response to sexual assaults involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces if this rule is not implemented.

Costs and Benefits: The preliminary estimate of the anticipated cost associated with this rule for the current fiscal year (2011) is approximately $14.819 million. Additionally, each of the military services establishes its own SAPR budget for the programmatic costs arising from the implementation of the training, prevention, reporting, response, and oversight requirements established by this rule. The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include: (1) Guidance with which the Department may establish a culture free of sexual assault by providing an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons covered by this rule; (2) Treatment of sexual assault patients as emergency cases, which prevents loss of life or suffering resulting from physical injuries (internal or external), sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and psychological distress; (3) The availability of two reporting options for servicemembers and their dependents who are 18 years of age or older covered by this rule who are victims of sexual assault. The two reporting options are as follows: (a) Unrestricted reporting allows an eligible person who is sexually assaulted to access medical treatment and counseling and request an official investigation of the allegation using existing reporting channels (e.g., chain of command, law enforcement, health care personnel, the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator [SARC]). When a sexual assault is reported through unrestricted reporting, a SARC shall be notified as soon as possible, respond, assign a SAPR Victim Advocate (VA), and offer the victim medical care and a sexual assault forensic examination (SAFE); and (b) Restricted reporting allows sexual assault victims to confidentially disclose the assault to specified individuals (i.e., SARC, SAPR VA, or health care personnel), in accordance with DoD Directive (DoDD) 5400.11, and receive medical treatment, including emergency care, counseling, and assignment of a SARC and SAPR VA, without triggering an official investigation. The victim's report to health care personnel (including the information acquired from a SAFE kit), SARCs, or SAPR VAs will not be reported to law enforcement, or to the victim's command to initiate the official investigative process, unless the victim consents or an established exception applies in accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02. The Department's preference is for complete unrestricted reporting of sexual assaults to allow for the provision of victims' services and to pursue accountability. However, unrestricted reporting may represent a barrier for victims to access services, when the victim desires no command or law enforcement involvement. Consequently, the Department recognizes a fundamental need to provide a confidential disclosure vehicle via the restricted reporting option. (4) Service members who are on active duty but were victims of sexual assault prior to enlistment or commissioning are eligible to receive SAPR services and utilize either reporting option. The focus of this rule and DoDI 6495.02 is on the victim of sexual assault. The DoD shall provide support to an active duty Service member regardless of when or where the sexual assault took place; and (5) Guidance for the development of response capabilities that will enable sexual assault victims to recover, and, if servicemembers, to be fully mission capable and engaged.

Risks: The rule intends to enable military readiness by establishing a culture free of sexual assault. Sexual assault poses a serious threat to military readiness because the potential costs and consequences are extremely high: Chronic psychological consequences may include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse. In the U.S. Armed Forces, sexual assault not only degrades individual resilience but also may erode unit integrity. An effective fighting force cannot tolerate sexual assault within its ranks. Sexual assault is incompatible with military culture and mission readiness, and risks to mission accomplishment. This rule aims to mitigate this risk to mission readiness. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 04/11/2013 78 FR 21715 Interim Final Rule Effective 04/11/2013 Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 06/10/2013 Final Action 11/00/2013

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 6495.02

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Teresa Scalzo Department of Defense Office of the Secretary 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155 Washington , DC 20301- 1155 Phone: 703 696 -8977

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

View Related DocumentsTitle: Operational Contract Support Abstract: In accordance with Public Law 110-181 and Public Law 110-417, DoD is revising policy and assigning responsibilities for program management of operational contract support (OCS) in contingency operations and integration of DoD contractor personnel into military contingency operations outside the United States. An interim final rule is required to procedurally close gaps and ensure the correct planning, oversight, and management of DoD contractors supporting contingency operations, by updating the existing outdated policy. The existing policies are causing significant confusion, as they do not reflect current practices and legislative mandates. The apparent mismatch between local Geographic Command guidance and the DoD-wide policies and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement is confusing for those in the field--in particular policy with regard to accountability and visibility requirements. Since the Presidential decision to expand the number of troops in Afghanistan and the subsequent increase of troops and contractors in theater, this issue has become so significant that DoD needs to revise the DoD-wide policies as a matter of urgency.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 158 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: PL 110 -181 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: This rule revises policy and assigns responsibilities for program management of operational contract support (OCS) in contingency operations and integration of DoD contractor personnel into military contingency operations outside the United States. GAO, the Commission on Wartime Contracting, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction/Afghanistan Reconstruction are among those who have highlighted the urgent requirement to update the policy.
Legal Basis: Parts of the rule are required by section 861 of the 2008 NDAA, Public Law 110-181 and Public Law 110-417.

Alternatives: Given the legal requirement to revise this regulation and separately publish a corresponding revision to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, we did not consider any alternatives.

Costs and Benefits: This regulation establishes policies and procedures for the oversight and management of contractors supporting contingency operations outside the United States; therefore, there is no cost to public. Updated and refined policy regarding contractors supporting contingency operations will result in improved management, oversight and efficiency.

Risks: This rule represents an update to the existing DoD Instruction and incorporates the latest changes in policy and procedures. This revision is required to integrate lessons learned and improvements in practices gleaned from 5 years of operational experience. The risk of not publishing this rule is that there would be outdated policy which doesn't reflect practices in the field. This will lead to inefficient and ineffective management of the contractor workforce supporting contingency operations. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 12/29/2011 76 FR 81807 Interim Final Rule Effective 12/29/2011 Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 02/27/2012 Final Action 03/00/2014

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 3020.41

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Kerry Powell Department of Defense Office of the Secretary 3500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20201-3500 Washington , DC 20201- 3500 Phone: 703 614 -1944 FAX: 703 697 -4942 E-Mail: kerry.powell@osd.mil

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

View Related Documents

Title: Mission Compatibility Evaluation ProcessAbstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing this interim final rule to implement section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383. That section requires that the DoD issue procedures addressing the impacts upon military operations of certain types of structures if they pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. The structures addressed are those for which an application is required to be filed with the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of title 49, United States Code. Section 358 also requires the designation of a lead organization to coordinate DoD review of applications for projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718, and received by the Department of Defense from the Secretary of Transportation. Section 358 also requires the designation of certain officials by the Secretary of Defense to perform functions pursuant to the section and this implementing rule. Section 358 also requires the establishment of a comprehensive strategy for addressing military impacts of renewable energy projects and other energy projects, with the objective of ensuring that the robust development of renewable energy sources and the expansion of the commercial electrical grid may move forward in the United States, while minimizing or mitigating any adverse impacts on military operations and readiness. Implementing that requirement, however, is not required at this time and is not part of this rule. Other aspects of section 358 not required at this time, such as annual reports to Congress, are also not addressed in this rule. Nor does this rule deal with other clearance processes not included in section 358, such as those applied by the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 211 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: PL 111 -383, sec 358 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the establishment and operation of a process for evaluation of proposed projects submitted to the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of title 49, United States Code. The evaluation process is established for the purpose of identifying any adverse impact of proposed projects on military operations and readiness, minimizing or mitigating such adverse impacts, and determining if any such projects pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. The rule also includes procedures for the operation of a central DoD siting clearinghouse to facilitate both informal and formal reviews of proposed projects.
Legal Basis: Public Law 111-383, section 358

Alternatives: The requirement to have a rule and the policies, responsibilities, and procedures contained in the rule were prescribed by section 358 of Public Law 111-383. In the areas where DoD has discretion, e.g., the internal procedures used within DoD to comply with the law, alternative arrangements would have no impact on the net economic effects of the rule.

Costs and Benefits: The Department of Defense has long participated in the Department of Transportation review process, interacting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Prior to section 358 of Public Law 111-383, DoD's engagement was decentralized--each military service participated separately working with FAA representatives at the regional level. In addition, each service set its own standards for challenging a project application. Section 358 directed that DoD develop a single DoD point of contact for responses, established the threshold level of harm that must be reached before DoD could object to a project application on the basis of national security, and directed that DoD negotiate mitigation with project developers if potential harm is identified. The directed threshold level of harm, identified as "unacceptable risk to national security," is higher than the standard previously used. This will result in DoD objecting to fewer project applications than before, reducing the impact of DoD reviews on non-DoD economic activity. The requirement to engage in mitigation negotiations may delay some projects (which has a negative impact on non-DoD economic activity), but it may result in still fewer DoD objections (which has a positive impact on non-DoD economic activity). DoD estimates that the net effect of these factors on non-DoD economic activity will be a benefit of approximately $70 million. The higher standard for objection imposed by section 358 of Public Law 111-383 may allow projects that conflict with military activity, but do not achieve the high level of conflict required by law to object, to proceed. This may impose costs on DoD, e.g., systems testing may have to be moved to alternative test ranges, training, and readiness activities may be curtailed or moved, and changes to operations may have to be implemented to overcome interference with coastal, border, and interior homeland surveillance. The early outreach and negotiation over mitigation required by section 358 may allow modification of some projects to reduce or eliminate their conflict with military activities in cases where the absence of early outreach and negotiation would result in the project proceeding without mitigation. This would provide a benefit to DoD. The net effect of these costs and benefits on DoD has not been quantitatively estimated.

Risks: The higher standard for a DoD objection to a project and the requirement to allow early consultation by developers with DoD will reduce the risk to both developers and to industry of planning a project that is unacceptable to DoD. Per the discussion above, there is a risk to DoD that projects in conflict with military activity, but that do not achieve the high level of conflict required by law to object, will proceed and impair DoD's test and evaluation; training and readiness; and coastal, border, and interior homeland surveillance capabilities. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 10/20/2011 76 FR 65112 Interim Final Rule Effective 10/20/2011 Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 12/19/2011 Final Action 01/00/2014Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State; Tribal Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Agency Contact: David Belote Department of Defense Office of the Secretary 3400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3400 Washington , DC 20301- 3400 Phone: 703 697 -7301 E- Mail: david.belote@osd.smil.mil

Department of Defense (DOD) Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790- AI81

View Related Documents

Title: Child Development Programs (CDPs) Abstract: This interim final rule revises 32 CFR part 79 to: (a) update policy, responsibilities, and procedures for providing care to minor children birth through age 12 of individuals eligible for care in DoD Child Development Programs (CDPs) to include center-based care, family child care (FCC), school-age care (SAC), supplemental child care, and community based care; (b) authorize the publication of supporting guidance for the implementation of CDP policies and responsibilities, including child development training modules, program aids, and other management tools; and (c) establish the DoD Effectiveness Rating and Improvement System (ERIS). This rule is being published as an interim final rule to extend child care benefits to same-sex spouses of military service members and DoD civilian employees.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 79 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 10 USC 1783, 10 USC 1791 through 1800, 10 USC 2809, and USC 2812 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: This interim final rule revises 32 CFR part 79 to update policy, responsibilities, and procedures for providing care to minor children birth through age 12 of individuals eligible for care in DoD CDPs to include center-based care, family child care (FCC), school-age care (SAC), supplemental child care, and community based care
Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authorities of sections 1783, 1791 through 1800, 2809 and 2812 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Alternatives: Without this rule, the Department of Defense's Child Development Programs (CDPs) would be operating according to guidance that is 20 years old and does not take into account necessary critical procedures and policies to ensure that children within DoD CDPs are cared for in a safe and developmentally appropriate setting.

Costs and Benefits: The preliminary estimate of the anticipated cost associated with this rule for the fiscal year is approximately $980,000.00. This estimated cost is for the operation of the entire DoD CDP and includes funding from the DoD (from the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as the military services) and fees paid by parents. These funds provide care to more than 200,000 children and youth in a variety of settings to include child development centers, family child care homes, school age care programs, and community based care. The operation of these programs is a key workforce issue for military members and families. The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include: (1) The streamlining and consolidating of two outdated instructions into a single instruction providing policy for the DoD CDP. (2) Guidance and procedures which will provide a safe and secure environment for military children to grow. (3) Establishment of a more standardized approach to each military services CDP, still allowing for the variances dictated by the unique mission of specific branches and installations. (4) Clarification of the benefits provided to military members with same sex spouses.

Risks: The degree of risk to the public is minimal. There are no anticipated negative effects of the rule on any entity. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite Interim Final Rule 02/00/2014

Additional Information: DoD Instruction 6060.02

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Eddy Mentzer Department of Defense Office of the Secretary4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03G15, Alexandria, VA 22350 Alexandria , VA 22350 Phone: 571 372 -0857

Department of Defense (DOD) Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 0790- AJ06

View Related Documents

Title: Voluntary Education Programs Abstract: In this proposed rule, the Department of Defense (DoD) discusses new policy, responsibilities, and procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within DoD. The new policies discussed in the rule include the following: All educational institutions providing education programs through the DoD Tuition Assistance (TA) Program will provide meaningful information to students about the financial cost and attendance at an institution so military students can make informed decisions on where to attend school; not use unfair, deceptive, and abusive recruiting practices; and provide academic and student support services to servicemembers and their families. New criteria are created to strengthen existing procedures for access to military installations by educational institutions. An annual review and notification process is required if there are changes made to the uniform semester-hour (or equivalent) TA caps and annual TA ceilings. Military Departments will be required to provide their servicemembers with a joint services transcript (JST). The DoD Postsecondary Education Complaint System is implemented for servicemembers, spouses, and adult family members to register student complaints. The Military Departments are authorized to establish service-specific TA eligibility criteria and management controls.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 32 CFR 68 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 10 USC 2005; 10 USC 2007; EO 13607 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan: Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) proposed rule identifies programs that provide active duty Service members with quality educational opportunities to enhance their academic achievement which in turn improves job performance and promotion potential. The overall outcome goal of these programs is to ensure the DoD has the best educated and best military force possible. In the proposed rule, DoD implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the operation of voluntary education programs within DoD.
Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the authorities of sections 2007 and 2005 of title 10, United States Code

Alternatives: No alternatives are possible.

Costs and Benefits: Costs are controlled through limitations emplaced in the DoD Uniform Tuition Assistance policy with course and yearly caps. Subject to appropriations, each servicemember pays no more than $250.00 per semester-unit for tuition and fees combined. Each servicemember participating in off-duty, voluntary education is eligible for up to $4,500.00, in aggregate, for each fiscal year. This limitation allows all servicemembers that voluntarily participate to continue their education. Voluntary education programs include: High School Completion/Diploma; Military Tuition Assistance (TA); Postsecondary Degree Programs; Independent Study and Distance Learning Programs; College Credit Examination Program; Academic Skills Program; and Certification/Licensure Programs. Funding for voluntary education programs during 2012 was $660.5 million, which included tuition assistance and operational costs. This funding provided approximately 539,000 individuals (servicemembers and their adult family members) the opportunity to participate in voluntary education programs around the world. Voluntary education programs have a positive effect on our servicemembers and their adult family members, providing ways to advance their personal education, career aspirations, and prepare them for future vocational pursuits. Additionally, partnerships with educational institutions also have a positive effect on the global economy. The services have worked with approximately 3,500 colleges and universities worldwide (both regionally and nationally accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education) in reference to TA.

Risks: There are no risks. Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite NPRM 08/14/2013 78 FR 49382 Correction 08/21/2013 78 FR 51678 NPRM Comment Period End 09/30/2013 Final Action 02/00/2014

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: NoAgency Contact: Carolyn Baker Department of Defense Office of the Secretary 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350 Alexandria , VA 22350 Phone: 571 372 -5355