Military Recruiting and Reserve Officer Training Corps Program Access to Institutions of Higher Education, 25713-25720 [E7-8662]

Agencies

• Office of the Secretary
• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25713-25720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8662]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 216

[DoD-2006-OS-0136]
RIN 0790-AI15


Military Recruiting and Reserve Officer Training Corps Program 
Access to Institutions of Higher Education

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense proposes to amend the current rule 
addressing military recruiting and Reserve Officer Training Corps 
program access at institutions of higher education. This proposed rule 
would implement 10 U.S.C. 983, as amended by the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-
375 (October 28, 2004)). As amended, 10 U.S.C. 983 clarifies access to 
campuses, access to students and access to directory information on 
students for the purposes of military recruiting, and now states that 
access to campuses and students on campuses shall be provided in a 
manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to 
any other employer. The prohibition against providing Federal funds 
when there is a violation of 10 U.S.C. 983 has an exception for any 
Federal funds provided to an institution of higher education, or to an 
individual, that are available solely for student financial assistance, 
related administrative costs, or costs associated with attendance. Such 
funds may be used for the purpose for which the funding is provided. A 
similar provision in section 8120 of the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-79; 113 Stat. 1260) has been 
repealed. This rule also rescinds the previous policy that established 
an exception that would limit recruiting on the premises of the covered 
school only in response to an expression of student interest when the 
covered school certified that too few students had expressed interest 
to warrant accommodating military recruiters.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or 
RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other 
submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions 
available for public viewing on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any 
personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Leong, Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), 4000 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-4000 (telephone: (703) 695-5529).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ``Covered funds'' is defined in 10 U.S.C. 
983 to be any funds made available for the Departments of Defense, 
Transportation, Homeland Security, or National Nuclear Security 
Administration of the Department of Energy, the Central Intelligence 
Agency, or for any department or agency in which regular appropriations 
are made in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. None of these 
covered funds may be provided by contract or grant to a covered school 
(including any subelement of a covered school) that has a policy or 
practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in 
effect prevents, the Secretary of Defense from establishing or 
operating a Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) at that 
covered school (or any subelement of that covered school); or that 
either prohibits, or in effect prevents, a student at that covered 
school (or any subelement of that covered school) from enrolling in a 
ROTC unit at another institution of higher education. The Federal law 
further provides similar sanctions

[[Page 25714]]

against these covered funds being provided to a covered school (or any 
subelement of a covered school) that has a policy or practice 
(regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect 
prevents, the Secretary of a Military Department or Secretary of 
Homeland Security from gaining access to campuses, or access to 
students (who are 17 years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes 
of military recruiting, where such policy or practice denies the 
military recruiter access that is at least equal in quality and scope 
to the access to campuses and students provided to any other employer; 
or access to student directory information pertaining to the students' 
names, addresses, telephone listings, dates and places of birth, levels 
of education, academic majors, degrees received, and the most recent 
educational institution enrolled in by the student. The term ``equal in 
quality and scope'' means the same access to campus and students 
provided by the school to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 
favorable access.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 
Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297 (2006):
    ``The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to compare the 
military's `access to campuses' and `access to students' to `the 
access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other 
employer.' (Emphasis add [by Court].) * * *
    The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the content of a 
school's recruiting policy, [but instead on] the result achieved by 
the policy and compares the `access * * * provided' military 
recruiters to that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 
policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to comply with 
the statute if it results in a greater level of access for other 
recruiters than for the military. * * *
    Not only does the text of the statute support this view, but 
this interpretation is necessary to give effect to the Solomon 
Amendment's recent revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an exception to the above rule, any Federal funding provided to 
a covered school or to an individual that is available solely for 
student financial assistance, related administrative costs, or costs 
associated with attendance, may be used for the purpose for which the 
funding is provided.
    The Department of Defense drafted this proposed rule in 
consultation with other Federal agencies, including the Departments of 
Education, Labor, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Homeland 
Security, Energy, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Agencies 
affected by this rule will continue to coordinate with other 
organizations as they implement their provisions.
    This proposed rule defines the criteria for determining whether an 
institution of higher education has a policy or practice prohibiting or 
preventing the Secretary of Defense from maintaining, establishing, or 
efficiently operating a Senior ROTC unit; or has a policy of denying 
military recruiting personnel access that is at least equal in quality 
and scope to the access to campuses and students provided to any other 
employer, or access to directory information on students. Pursuant to 
10 U.S.C. 983 and this proposed rule, institutions of higher education 
having such policies or practices are ineligible for certain Federal 
funding.
    The criterion of ``efficiently operating a Senior ROTC unit'' 
refers generally to an expectation that the ROTC Department would be 
treated on a par with other academic departments; as such, it would not 
be singled out for unreasonable actions that would impede access to 
students (and vice versa) or restrict its operations.
    This proposed rule also defines the procedures that would be 
followed in evaluating reports that a covered school has not met 
requirements defined in this rule. When a component of the Department 
of Defense (DoD component) believes that policies or practices of an 
institution of higher education might require such an evaluation, that 
component is required to confirm the institution's policy in 
consultation with the institution. If that exchange suggests that the 
policy or practice could trigger a denial of funding, as required by 
the Act, the supporting facts would be forwarded through Department of 
Defense channels to the decision authority, the Principal Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (PDUSD(P&R)).
    In evaluating whether an institution that provides information in 
response to a request from a military recruiter for military recruiting 
purposes would violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 
1972, as amended, (FERPA; 20 U.S.C. 1232g), the Department of Education 
has informed the Department of Defense that it will not consider the 
act of providing responsive student information as required under the 
Act and this rule as an act that violates FERPA. Institutions must take 
care, however, to release only that information specifically required 
under 10 U.S.C. 983 and this proposed rule.
    Regarding the opportunity for a student to ``opt-out'' of or object 
to the release of ``directory information'' under FERPA, the Department 
of Defense provides the following clarification. If an institution 
receives a request for student-recruiting information, and that request 
seeks information that the institution has included in its definition 
of ``directory information'' that is releasable under FERPA, and a 
student has previously requested, in writing, that the ``directory 
information'' not be disclosed to any third party, the Department of 
Defense agrees that information for that student will not be provided 
to the requesting military recruiter or Department of Defense. If an 
institution declines to provide student-recruiting information because 
a student has ``opted-out'' from the institution's policy of disclosing 
``directory information'' under FERPA, the Department of Defense will 
not consider that institution to have denied access under 10 U.S.C. 
983. The Department of Defense will honor only those student ``opt-
outs'' from the disclosure of directory information that are even-
handedly applied to all prospective employers seeking information for 
recruiting purposes. In those circumstances where an institution's 
``directory information'' definition does not include all of the 
student-recruiting information required under 10 U.S.C. 983, the 
Department of Defense will also honor the student's ``opt-out'' 
decision that was made regarding the release of the institution's 
``directory information.''
    If an institution does not release all of the requested student-
recruiting information as part of its ``directory information'' policy 
under FERPA (or has a policy of disclosing no ``directory 
information''), the institution must nevertheless honor the request 
from a military recruiter for student-recruiting information concerning 
students who have not ``opted-out'', even if that information would not 
be available to the public under FERPA. Because this information is 
requested exclusively for military recruiting, a special opportunity 
for a student to decline the release of student-recruiting information 
is not necessary or appropriate.

Summary of Rule

    In carrying out their customary activities, DoD components must 
identify any covered school that, by policy or practice, denies 
military recruiting personnel access to its campus or access to its 
students on campus in a manner that is at least equal in quality and 
scope to access provided to any other employer, in effect denies 
students permission to participate, or prevents students from 
participating in recruiting activities, or denies military recruiters 
access to student-recruiting information. The term ``equal in quality 
and scope'' means the same access to campus and students provided to 
the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable

[[Page 25715]]

access.\2\ When requests to schedule recruiting visits or to obtain 
student-recruiting information are unsuccessful, the DoD component 
concerned must seek written confirmation of the school's present policy 
from the head of the covered school through a letter of inquiry, 
allowing 30 days for response. If written confirmation cannot be 
obtained, oral policy statements or attempts to obtain such statements 
from an appropriate official of the school shall be documented. A copy 
of the documentation shall be provided to the covered school, which 
shall be informed of its opportunity to forward clarifying comments 
within 30 days to accompany the DoD component's submission to the 
PDUSD(P&R). When that 30-day period has elapsed, the DoD component will 
forward the case for disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 
Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297 (2006):
    ``The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to compare the 
military's `access to campuses' and `access to students' to `the 
access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other 
employer.' (Emphasis added [by Court].) * * *
    The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the content of a 
school's recruiting policy, [but instead on] the result achieved by 
the policy and compares the `access * * * provided' military 
recruiters to that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 
policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to comply with 
the statute if it results in a greater level of access for other 
recruiters than for the military. * * *
    Not only does the text of the statute support this view, but 
this interpretation is necessary to give effect to the Solomon 
Amendment's recent revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in carrying out their customary activities, DoD 
components also must identify any covered school that, by policy or 
practice, denies establishment, maintenance, or efficient operation of 
a unit of the Senior ROTC, or denies students permission to 
participate, or effectively prevents students from participating in a 
unit of the Senior ROTC at another institution of higher education. The 
DoD component concerned must seek written confirmation of the school's 
policy from the head of the covered school through a letter of inquiry, 
allowing 30 days for response. If written confirmation cannot be 
obtained, oral policy statements or attempts to obtain such statements 
from an appropriate official of the school shall be documented. A copy 
of the documentation shall be provided to the covered school, which 
shall be informed of its opportunity to forward clarifying comments 
within 30 days to accompany the DoD component's submission to the 
PDUSD(P&R). When that 30-day period has elapsed, the DoD component will 
forward the case for disposition.
    The recommendation of the DoD component then must be reviewed by 
the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, or designee, who 
shall evaluate responses to the letter of inquiry and other such 
information obtained in accordance with this part, and submit to the 
PDUSD(P&R) the names and addresses of covered schools that are believed 
to be in violation of 10 U.S.C. 983. Full documentation must be 
furnished to the PDUSD(P&R) for each such covered school, including the 
school's formal response to the letter of inquiry, documentation of any 
oral response, or evidence showing that attempts were made to obtain 
either written confirmation or an oral statement of the school's 
policies. Under agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, 
reports of covered schools believed to be in violation of 10 U.S.C. 983 
with regard to the Coast Guard when not operating as a Service in the 
Navy shall be furnished to the PDUSD(P&R) for disposition.
    Following any determination by the PDUSD(P&R) that the policies or 
practices of an institution of higher education require ineligibility 
for certain Federal funding, as required by the Act, the PDUSD(P&R) 
shall:
     Disseminate to Federal entities affected by the decision, 
including the DoD components and the General Services Administration 
(GSA), and to the Secretary of Education and the head of each other 
department and agency the funds of which are subject to the 
determination, the names of the affected institutions. The PDUSD(P&R) 
also shall notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives;
     Publish in the Federal Register each such determination, 
and publish in the Federal Register at least once every 6 months a list 
of all institutions currently determined to be ineligible for contracts 
and grants by reason of such determinations; and
     Inform the affected institution that its funding 
eligibility may be restored if the school provides sufficient new 
information to establish that the basis for the determination no longer 
exists.
    This proposed rule contains procedures under which funding may be 
restored. Not later than 45 days after receipt of a school's request to 
restore funding eligibility, the PDUSD(P&R) must determine whether the 
funding status of the covered school should be changed and notify the 
applicable school of that determination. Pursuant to that 
determination, entities of the Federal government affected by the 
decision, including the DoD components and the GSA, shall be notified 
of any change in funding status.

Other Matters

    In the event of any determination of ineligibility by the 
PDUSD(P&R), Federal departments and agencies concerned shall determine 
what funds provided by grant or contract to the covered school are 
affected and take appropriate action. As a result of this division of 
responsibility and the large number of Federal departments and agencies 
affected, this rule does not detail what specific funds are affected by 
any determination of ineligibility.
    This proposed rule does not affect or cover any Federal funding 
that is provided to an institution of higher education or to an 
individual, to be available solely for student financial assistance, 
related administrative costs, or costs associated with attendance. This 
includes, but is not limited to, funds under the Federal Supplemental 
Educational Opportunity Grant Program (Title IV, Part A, Subpart 3 of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended), the Federal Work-Study 
Program (Title IV, Part C), and the Federal Perkins Loan Program (Title 
IV, Part E), the Federal Pell Grant Program (Title IV, Part A, Subpart 
1), the Federal Family Education Loan Program (Title IV, Part B), and 
the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Title IV, Part D). The 
Secretary of Education will provide additional information about the 
applicability of the rule to other Department of Education programs in 
communications to the affected communities.

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''

    This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action that OMB has 
approved for publication.

Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601)

    The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities since recent history indicates that their provisions are not 
applicable to the vast majority of institutions of higher education.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Sec. 202, Pub. L. 104-4)

    It has been certified that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any one year.

[[Page 25716]]

Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601)

    It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. This rule establishes procedures for on-campus 
military recruiting and student access to Reserve Officer Training 
Corps (ROTC) programs in implementation of 10 U.S.C. 983.

Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    This proposed rule will not impose any additional reporting or 
record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Executive Order 13132

    It has been certified that this rule does not have federalism 
implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not 
have substantial direct effects on:
    (1) The States;
    (2) The relationship between the National Government and the 
States; or
    (3) The distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 216

    Armed forces; Colleges and universities.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 216 is proposed to be revised to reflect 
the most recent statutory changes and to read as follows:

PART 216--MILITARY RECRUITING AND RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS 
PROGRAM ACCESS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Sec.
216.1 Purpose.
216.2 Applicability.
216.3 Definitions.
216.4 Policy.
216.5 Responsibilities.
216.6 Information requirements.
Appendix A of Part 216--Military Recruiting Sample Letter of Inquiry
Appendix B of Part 216--ROTC Sample Letter of Inquiry

    Authority: 10 U.S.C. 983.


Sec.  216.1  Purpose.

This part:

    (a) Implements 10 U.S.C. 983.
    (b) Updates policy and responsibilities relating to the management 
of covered schools that have a policy of denying or effectively 
preventing military recruiting personnel access to their campuses or 
access to students on their campuses in a manner that is at least equal 
in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students provided 
to any other employer, or access to student-recruiting information. The 
term ``equal in quality and scope'' means the same access to campus and 
students provided to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 
favorable access.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 
Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297, 1305 (2006):
    ``The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to compare the 
military's `access to campuses' and `access to students' to `the 
access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other 
employer.' (Emphasis added [by Court].) The statute does not call 
for an inquiry into why or how the `other employer' secured its 
access * * * We do not think that the military recruiter has 
received equal `access' [when a law firm is permitted on campus to 
interview students and the military is not]--regardless of whether 
the disparate treatment is attributable to the military's failure to 
comply with the school's nondiscrimination policy.
    The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the content of a 
school's recruiting policy, [but instead on] the result achieved by 
the policy and compares the `access * * * provided' military 
recruiters to that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 
policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to comply with 
the statute if it results in a greater level of access for other 
recruiters than for the military. * * *
    Not only does the text support this view, but this 
interpretation is necessary to give effect to the Solomon 
Amendment's recent revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Updates policy and responsibilities relating to the management 
of covered schools that have an anti-ROTC policy.


Sec.  216.2  Applicability.

    This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 
Military Departments (including the Coast Guard when it is operating as 
a Military Service in the Navy), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field 
Activities (hereafter referred to collectively as ``the DoD 
components''). This part also applies, by agreement with the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS), to the Coast Guard at all times, including 
when it is a service in the Department of Homeland Security. The 
policies herein also affect the Departments of Transportation, Homeland 
Security, Energy (National Nuclear Security Administration), the 
Central Intelligence Agency, and any department or agency in which 
regular appropriations are made in the Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The 
term ``Military Services,'' as used herein, refers to the Army, the 
Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard, including 
their Reserve or National Guard components. The term ``Related 
Agencies'' as used herein refers to the Armed Forces Retirement Home, 
the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the National 
Commission on Libraries and Information Science, the National Council 
on Disability, the National Education Goals Panel, the National Labor 
Relations Board, the National Mediation Board, the Occupational Safety 
and Health Review Commission, the Social Security Administration, the 
Railroad Retirement Board and the United States Institute of Peace.


Sec.  216.3  Definitions.

    (a) Anti-ROTC policy. A policy or practice whereby a covered school 
prohibits or in effect prevents the Secretary of Defense from 
maintaining, establishing, or efficiently operating a unit of the 
Senior ROTC at the covered school, or prohibits or in effect prevents a 
student at the covered school from enrolling in a Senior ROTC unit at 
another institution of higher education.
    (b) Covered funds. ``Covered funds'' is defined in 10 U.S.C. 983 as 
any funds made available for the Departments of Defense, 
Transportation, Homeland Security, or National Nuclear Security 
Administration of the Department of Energy, the Central Intelligence 
Agency, or any department or agency in which regular appropriations are 
made in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, as well as in Related Agencies Appropriations Act (excluding 
any Federal funds provided to an institution of higher education, or to 
an individual, to be available solely for student financial assistance, 
related administrative costs, or costs associated with attendance).
    (c) Covered school. An institution of higher education, or a 
subelement of an institution of higher education, subject to the 
following clarifications:
    (1) A determination (Sec.  216.5(a)) affecting only a subelement of 
a parent institution (see Sec.  216.3(f)) effects a limitation on the 
use of funds (Sec.  216.4(a)) applicable to the parent institution as a 
whole, including the institution's offending subelement and all of its 
subelements, if any.
    (2) When an individual institution of higher education that is part 
of a single university system (e.g., University of (State) at (City)--a 
part of that state's university system) has a policy or practice that 
prohibits, or in effect prevents, access to campuses or access to 
students on campuses in a manner

[[Page 25717]]

that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to its campus 
and students as it provides to any other employer, or access to 
student-recruiting information by military recruiters, or has an anti-
ROTC policy, as defined in this rule, it is only that individual 
institution within that university system that is affected by the loss 
of Federal funds. This limited effect applies even though another 
campus of the same university system may or may not be affected by a 
separate determination under Sec.  216.5(a). The funding of a 
subelement of the offending individual institution of a single 
university system, if any, will also be withheld as a result of the 
policies or practices of that offending individual institution.
    (d) Enrolled. Students are ``enrolled'' when registered for at 
least one credit hour of academic credit at the covered school during 
the most recent, current, or next term. Students who are enrolled 
during the most recent term, but who are no longer attending the 
institution, are included.
    (e) Equal in quality and scope. The same access to campus and 
students on campus provided to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the 
most favorable access.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 
Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297, 1305 (2006):
    ``The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to compare the 
military's `access to campuses' and `access to students' to `the 
access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other 
employer.' (Emphasis added [by Court].) The statute does not call 
for an inquiry into why or how the `other employer' secured its 
access * * * We do not think that the military recruiter has 
received equal `access' [when a law firm is permitted on campus to 
interview students and the military is not]--regardless of whether 
the disparate treatment is attributable to the military's failure to 
comply with the school's nondiscrimination policy.
    The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the content of a 
school's recruiting policy, [but instead on] the result achieved by 
the policy and compares the `access * * * provided' military 
recruiters to that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 
policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to comply with 
the statute if it results in a greater level of access for other 
recruiters than for the military. * * *
    Not only does the text support this view, but this 
interpretation is necessary to give effect to the Solomon 
Amendment's recent revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Institution of higher education. A domestic college, 
university, or other institution (or subelement thereof) providing 
postsecondary school courses of study, including foreign campuses of 
such domestic institutions. The term includes junior colleges, 
community colleges, and institutions providing courses leading to 
undergraduate and post-graduate degrees. The term does not include 
entities that operate exclusively outside the United States, its 
territories, and possessions. A subelement of an institution of higher 
education is a discrete (although not necessarily autonomous) 
organizational entity that may establish policies or practices 
affecting military recruiting and related actions (e.g., an 
undergraduate school, a law school, a medical school, other graduate 
schools, or a national laboratory connected or affiliated with that 
parent institution). For example, the School of Law of XYZ University 
is a subelement of its parent institution (XYZ University).
    (g) Military recruiters. Personnel of DoD whose current assignment 
or detail is to a recruiting activity of the DoD.
    (h) Pacifism. Opposition to war or violence, demonstrated by 
refusal to participate in military service.
    (i) Student. An individual who is 17 years of age or older and is 
enrolled at a covered school.
    (j) Student-recruiting information. For those students currently 
enrolled, the student's name, address, telephone listing, age (or year 
of birth), place of birth, level of education (e.g., freshman, 
sophomore, or degree awarded for a recent graduate), most recent 
educational institution attended, and current major(s).


Sec.  216.4  Policy.

It is DoD policy that:

    (a) Under 10 U.S.C. 983, no covered funds may be provided by 
contract or grant (to include payment on such contracts or grants 
previously obligated) to a covered school if the Secretary of Defense 
determines that the covered school:
    (1) Has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that 
either prohibits or in effect prevents the Secretary of Defense or 
Secretary of Homeland Security from obtaining, for military recruiting 
purposes, access to campuses or access to students on campuses that is 
at least equal in quality and scope, as defined in Sec.  216.3(d), to 
the access to campuses and to students provided to any other employer, 
or access to directory information on students;
    (2) Has failed to disseminate military visit information or alerts 
at least on par with nonmilitary recruiters since schools offering such 
services to nonmilitary recruiters must also send e-mails, post 
notices, etc., on behalf of military recruiters to comply with the 
Solomon Amendment; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 
Inc., 126 S. Ct. at 1308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Has failed to schedule visits at times requested by military 
recruiters that coincide with nonmilitary recruiters' visits to campus 
if this results in a greater level of access for other recruiters than 
for the military (e.g., offering non-military recruiters a choice of a 
variety of dates for on-campus interviews while only offering the 
military recruiters the final day of interviews), as schools must 
ensure that their recruiting policies operate such that military 
recruiters are given access to students at least equal to that provided 
to any other employer; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. at 1305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Has failed to provide military recruiters with a mainstream 
recruiting location amidst nonmilitary employers to allow unfettered 
access to interviewees since military recruiters must be given the same 
access as recruiters who comply with a school's nondiscrimination 
policy; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. at 1306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Has failed to enforce time, place, and manner policies 
established by the covered school such that the military recruiters 
experience an inferior or unsafe recruiting climate, as schools must 
allow military recruiters on campus and must assist them in whatever 
way the school assists other employers; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 1312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Has through policy or practice in effect denied students 
permission to participate, or has prevented students from 
participating, in recruiting activities; or
    (7) Has an anti-ROTC policy or practice, as defined in this rule, 
regardless of when implemented.
    (b) The limitations established in paragraph (a) of this section 
shall not apply to a covered school if the Secretary of Defense 
determines that the covered school:
    (1) Has ceased the policies or practices defined in paragraph (a) 
of this section;
    (2) Has a long-standing policy of pacifism (see Sec.  216.3(j)) 
based on historical religious affiliation;
    (3) When not providing requested access to campuses or to students 
on campus, certifies that all employers are similarly excluded from 
recruiting on the premises of the covered school, or presents evidence 
that the degree of access by military recruiters is the same access to 
campuses or to students on campuses provided to the nonmilitary 
recruiter receiving the most favorable access; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 1304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) When not providing any student-recruiting information, 
certifies that such information is not maintained by the covered 
school; or that such information already has been provided

[[Page 25718]]

to the Military Service concerned for that current semester, trimester, 
quarter, or other academic term, or within the past four months (for 
institutions without academic terms);
    (5) When not providing student-recruiting information for a 
specific student certifies that the student concerned has formally 
requested, in writing, that the covered school withhold this 
information from all third parties;
    (c) A covered school may charge military recruiters a fee for the 
costs incurred in providing access to student-recruiting information 
when that institution can certify that such charges are the actual 
costs, provided that such charges are reasonable, customary and 
identical to fees charged to other employers.
    (d) An evaluation to determine whether a covered school maintains a 
policy or practice covered by paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section shall be undertaken when:
    (1) Military recruiting personnel are prohibited, or in effect 
prevented, from the same access to campuses or access to students on 
campuses provided to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 
favorable access, or are denied access to student-recruiting 
information; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 1304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Information or alerts on military visits are not distributed at 
least on par with nonmilitary recruiters since schools offering such 
services to nonmilitary recruiters must also send e-mails, post 
notices, etc., on behalf of the military recruiter to comply with the 
Solomon Amendment; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 1308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Military recruiters are prohibited from scheduling their visits 
at requested times that coincide with nonmilitary recruiters' visits to 
its campus if this results in a greater level of access for other 
recruiters than for the military as schools must ensure their 
recruiting policy operates in such a way that military recruiters are 
given access to students at least equal to that provided to any other 
employer; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 1305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Military recruiters do not receive a mainstream recruiting 
location amidst nonmilitary employers to allow unfettered access to 
interviewees since military recruiters must be given the same access as 
recruiters who comply with the school's nondiscrimination policy; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 1306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The school has failed to enforce time, place, and manner 
policies established by that school such that military recruiters 
experience an inferior or unsafe recruiting climate, as schools must 
allow military recruiters on campus and must assist them in whatever 
way the school chooses to assist other employers; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 1312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Evidence is discovered of an institution-sponsored policy or 
practice that in effect denied students permission to participate, or 
prevented students from participating in recruiting activities.
    (7) The costs being charged by the school for providing student-
recruiting information are believed by the military recruiter to be 
excessive, and the school does not provide information sufficient to 
support a conclusion that such are the actual costs, provided that they 
are reasonable and customary, and are identical to those costs charged 
to other employers; or
    (8) The covered school is unwilling to declare in writing, in 
response to an inquiry from a representative of a DoD component or a 
representative from the Department of Homeland Security, that the 
covered school does not have a policy or practice of prohibiting, or in 
effect preventing, the Secretary of a Military Department or Secretary 
of Homeland Security from the same access to campuses or access to 
students on campuses provided to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving 
the most favorable access, or access to student-recruiting information 
by military recruiters for purposes of military recruiting.
    (e) An evaluation to determine whether a covered school has an 
anti-ROTC policy covered by paragraph (a)(7) of this section shall be 
undertaken when:
    (1) A Secretary of a Military Department or designee cannot obtain 
permission to establish, maintain, or efficiently operate a unit of the 
Senior ROTC; or
    (2) Absent a Senior ROTC unit at the covered school, students 
cannot obtain permission from a covered school to participate, or are 
effectively prevented from participating, in a unit of the Senior ROTC 
at another institution of higher education.


Sec.  216.5  Responsibilities.

    (a) The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness (PDUSD(P&R)), under the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness, shall:
    (1) Not later than 45 days after receipt of the information 
described in paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)(1) of this section:
    (i) Inform the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Director, 
Defense Finance and Accounting Service that a final determination will 
be made so that those offices can make appropriate preparations to 
carry out their responsibilities should a covered school be determined 
ineligible to receive Federal funds.
    (ii) Make a final determination under 10 U.S.C. 983, as implemented 
by this part, and notify any affected school of that determination and 
its basis, and that the school is therefore ineligible to receive 
covered funds as a result of that determination.
    (iii) Disseminate to Federal entities affected by the decision, 
including the DoD components and the General Services Administration 
(GSA), and to the Secretary of Education and the head of each other 
department and agency the funds of which are subject to the 
determination, the names of the affected institutions identified under 
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (iv) Notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives of the affected institutions identified under 
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (v) Inform the affected school identified under paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section that its funding eligibility may be restored 
if the school provides sufficient new information that the basis for 
the determination under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section no longer 
exists.
    (2) Not later than 45 days after receipt of a covered school's 
request to restore its eligibility:
    (i) Determine whether the funding status of the covered school 
should be changed, and notify the applicable school of that 
determination.
    (ii) Notify the parties reflected in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), 
(a)(1)(iii), and (a)(1)(iv) of this section when a determination of 
funding ineligibility (paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section) has been 
rescinded.
    (3) Publish in the Federal Register each determination of the 
PDUSD(P&R) that a covered school is ineligible for contracts and grants 
made under 10 U.S.C. 983, as implemented by this part.
    (4) Publish in the Federal Register least once every 6 months a 
list of covered schools that are ineligible for contracts and grants by 
reason of a determination of the Secretary of Defense under 10 U.S.C. 
983, as implemented by this part.
    (5) Enter information into the Excluded Parties List System \13\ 
about

[[Page 25719]]

each covered school that the PDUSD(P&R) determines to be ineligible for 
contracts and grants under 10 U.S.C. 983 and/or this part, generally 
within 5 days of making thedetermination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) is the system that 
the General Services Administration maintains for Executive Branch 
agencies, with names and other pertinent information of persons who 
are debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for Federal 
procurement and/or covered non-procurement transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Provide ONR with an updated list of the names of institutions 
identified under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section whenever the list 
changes due to an institution being added to or dropped from the list, 
so that ONR can carry out its responsibilities for post-award 
administration of DoD Components' contracts and grants with 
institutions of higher education.
    (7) Provide the Office of the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, DoD, 
and the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service with an 
updated list of the names of institutions identified under paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section whenever the list changes due to an 
institution being added or dropped from the list, so that those offices 
can carry out their responsibilities related to cessation of payments 
of prior contract and grant obligations to institutions of higher 
education that are on the list.
    (8) Publish in the Federal Register the list of names of affected 
institutions that have changed their policies or practices such that 
they are determined no longer to be in violation of 10 U.S.C. 983 and 
this part.
    (b) The Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Secretary 
of Homeland Security shall:
    (1) Identify covered schools that, by policy or practice, prohibit, 
or in effect prevent, the same access to campuses or access to students 
on campuses provided to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 
favorable access, or access to student-recruiting information by 
military recruiters for military recruiting purposes.
    (i) When requests by military recruiters to schedule recruiting 
visits are unsuccessful, the Military Service concerned, and the Office 
of the Secretary of Homeland Security when the Coast Guard is operating 
as a service in the Department of Homeland Security, shall seek written 
confirmation of the school's present policy from the head of the school 
through a letter of inquiry. A letter similar to that shown in Appendix 
A of this part shall be used, but it should be tailored to the 
situation presented. If written confirmation cannot be obtained, oral 
policy statements or attempts to obtain such statements from an 
appropriate official of the school shall be documented. A copy of the 
documentation shall be provided to the covered school, which shall be 
informed of its opportunity to forward clarifying comments within 30 
days to accompany the submission to the PDUSD(P&R).
    (ii) When a request for student-recruiting information is not 
fulfilled within a reasonable period, normally 30 days, a letter 
similar to that shown in Appendix A shall be used to communicate the 
problem to the school, and the inquiry shall be managed as described in 
216.5.(b)(1)(ii). Schools may stipulate that requests for student-
recruiting information be in writing.
    (2) Identify covered schools that, by policy or practice, deny 
establishment, maintenance, or efficient operation of a unit of the 
Senior ROTC, or deny students permission to participate, or effectively 
prevent students from participating in a unit of the Senior ROTC at 
another institution of higher education. The Military Service 
concerned, and the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security when 
the Coast Guard is operating as a service in the Department of Homeland 
Security, shall seek written confirmation of the school's policy from 
the head of the school through a letter of inquiry. A letter similar to 
that shown in Appendix B of this part shall be used, but it should be 
tailored to the situation presented. If written confirmation cannot be 
obtained, oral policy statements or attempts to obtain such statements 
from an appropriate official of the school shall be documented. A copy 
of the documentation shall be provided to the covered school, which 
shall be informed of its opportunity to forward clarifying comments 
within 30 days to accompany the submission to the PDUSD(P&R).
    (3) Evaluate responses to the letter of inquiry, and other such 
evidence obtained in accordance with this part, and submit to the 
PDUSD(P&R) the names and addresses of covered schools that are believed 
to be in violation of policies established in Sec.  216.4. Full 
documentation shall be furnished to the PDUSD(P&R) for each such 
covered school, including the school's formal response to the letter of 
inquiry, documentation of any oral response, or evidence showing that 
attempts were made to obtain either written confirmation or an oral 
statement of the school's policies.
    (c) The Heads of the DoD components and Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall:
    (1) Provide the PDUSD(P&R) with the names and addresses of covered 
schools identified as a result of evaluation(s) required under Sec.  
216.4(d) and (e).
    (2) Take immediate action to deny obligations of covered funds to 
covered schools identified under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, 
and to restore eligibility of covered schools identified under 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.


Sec.  216.6  Information requirements.

    The information requirements identified at Sec.  216.5(b) and 
(c)(1) have been assigned Report Control Symbol DD-P&R-(AR)-2038 in 
accordance with DoD 8910.1-M.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\Copies may be obtained at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/
directives/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A of Part 216--Military Recruiting Sample Letter of Inquiry

(Tailor letter to situation presented)

Dr. John Doe
President
ABC University
Anywhere, USA 12345-9876

Dear Dr. Doe:

    I understand that military recruiting personnel [have been 
unable to recruit or have been refused student-recruiting 
information \15\ at (subelement of) ABC University)] by a policy or 
practice of the school. Specifically, military recruiting personnel 
have reported [here state policy decisions or practices 
encountered]. [If preliminary information coming to the attention of 
a Military Service indicates that other Military Services' 
recruiting representatives have been similarly informed of the 
policy or experienced a similar practice affecting their ability for 
military recruiting purposes to have the access or information 
require, so state.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Student-recruiting information refers to a student's name, 
address, telephone listing, age (or year of birth), level of 
education (e.g., freshman, sophomore, or degree awarded for a recent 
graduate), and major(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Federal law \16\ denies the use of certain Federal funds 
through grants or contracts, to include payment on such contracts or 
grants previously obligated, (excluding any Federal funding to an 
institution of higher education, or to an individual, to be 
available solely for student financial assistance, related 
administrative costs, or costs associated with attendance) from 
appropriations of the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies to 
institutions of higher education (including any subelements of such 
institutions) that have a policy or practice of denying military 
recruiting personnel access to campuses or access to students on 
campuses, in a manner that is at least equal in quality and 
scope,\17\ as it provides to the

[[Page 25720]]

nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable access, or access 
to student recruiting information. Implementing regulations are 
codified at 32 Code of Federal Regulations, part 216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 10 U.S.C. 983.
    \17\ Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 
Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1297 (2006):
    ``The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to compare the 
military's `access to campuses' and `access to students' to `the 
access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other 
employer.' (Emphasis add [by Court].) * * *
    The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the content of a 
school's recruiting policy, [but instead on] the result achieved by 
the policy and compares the `access * * * provided' military 
recruiters to that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 
policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to comply with 
the statute if it results in a greater level of access for other 
recruiters than for the military. * * *
    Not only does the text of the statute support this view, but 
this interpretation is necessary to give effect to the Solomon 
Amendment's recent revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This letter provides you an opportunity to clarify your 
institution's policy regarding military recruiting on the campus of 
[University]. In that regard, I request, within the next 30 days, a 
written policy statement of the institution with respect to access 
to campus and students by military recruiting personnel. Your 
response should highlight any difference between access for military 
recruiters and access for recruiting by other potential employers.
    Based on this information and any additional facts you can 
provide, Department of Defense officials will make a determination 
as to your institution's eligibility to receive funds by grant or 
contract. That decision may affect eligibility for funding from 
appropriations of the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. Should 
it be determined that [University] as an institution of higher 
education (or any subelement of the institution) is in violation of 
the aforementioned statutes and regulations, such funding would be 
stopped, and the institution of higher education (including any 
subelements of the institution) would remain ineligible to receive 
such funds until and unless the Department of Defense determines 
that the institution has ceased the offending policies and 
practices.
    I regret that this action may have to be taken. Successful 
recruiting requires that Department of Defense recruiters have equal 
access to students on the campuses of colleges and universities [and 
student-recruiting information], and at the same time, have 
effective relationships with the officials and student bodies of 
those institutions. I hope it will be possible to identify and 
correct any policies or practices that inhibit military recruiting 
at your school. [My representative, (name), is] [I am] available to 
answer any of your questions by telephone at [telephone number]. I 
look forward to your reply.

 Sincerely,

Appendix B of Part 216--ROTC Sample Letter of Inquiry

(Tailor letter to situation presented)

Dr. Jane Smith
President
ABC University
Anywhere, USA 12345-9876

Dear Dr. Smith:

    I understand that ABC University has [refused a request from a 
Military Department to establish a Senior ROTC unit at your 
institution][refused to continue existing ROTC programs at your 
institution][prevented students from participation at a Senior ROTC 
program at another institution] by a policy or practice of the 
University.
    Current Federal law \18\ denies the use of certain Federal funds 
through grants or contracts, to include payment on such contracts or 
grants previously obligated, (excluding any Federal funding to an 
institution of higher education, or to an individual, to be 
available solely for student financial assistance, related 
administrative costs, or costs associated with attendance) from 
appropriations of the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies to 
institutions of higher education (including any subelements of such 
institutions) that have a policy or practice of prohibiting or 
preventing the Secretary of Defense from maintaining, establishing, 
or efficiently operating a Senior ROTC unit. Implementing 
regulations are codified at 32 Code of Federal Regulations, part 
216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 10 U.S.C. 983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This letter provides you an opportunity to clarify your 
institution's policy regarding ROTC access on the campus of ABC 
University. In that regard, I request, within the next 30 days, a 
written statement of the institution with respect to [define the 
problem area(s)].
    Based on this information, Department of Defense officials will 
make a determination as to your institution's eligibility to receive 
the above-referenced funds by grant or contract. That decision may 
affect eligibility for funding from appropriations of the 
Departments of Defense, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and related agencies. Should it be determined 
that [University] as an institution of higher education (or any 
subelement of the institution) is in violation of the aforementioned 
statutes and regulations, such funding would be stopped, and the 
institution of higher education (including any subelements of the 
institution) would remain ineligible to receive such funds until and 
unless the Department of Defense determines that the institution has 
ceased the offending policies and practices.
    I regret that this action may have to be taken. Successful 
officer procurement requires that the Department of Defense maintain 
a strong ROTC program. I hope it will be possible to [define the 
correction to the aforementioned problem area(s)]. [My 
representative, (name), is] [I am] available to answer any of your 
questions by telephone at [telephone number]. I look forward to your 
reply.

 Sincerely,


    Dated: May 1, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.

 [FR Doc. E7-8662 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P