Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property, 72524-72525 [2016-25275]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72524
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
This final rule removes DoD’s
regulation concerning the management
and mobilization of regular and reserve
retired military members. This rule does
not create the DoD’s authority to recall
retired members, but it directs how DoD
can deploy those members once recalled
into active service. Accordingly, the
codified rule deals with agency
management/personnel, and has been
determined to not require rulemaking.
Alternatively, this rule is covered by the
notice-and-comment exception for
military affairs, because the rule governs
the uniquely military decision of how
best to employ and deploy assets.
Therefore, this CFR part can be
removed.
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective on October
20, 2016.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Toppings at 571–372–0485.
Once
signed, a copy of DoD’s internal
guidance contained in DoD Instruction
1352.01 will be made available on the
DoD Directives Web site at https://
www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/
135201p.pdf.
It has been determined that
publication of this CFR part removal for
public comment is impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to public
interest since it is based on removing
DoD internal policies and procedures
that are publically available on the
Department’s issuance Web site.
The removal of this rule will be
reported in future status updates of
DoD’s retrospective review plan in
accordance with the requirements in
Executive Order 13563. DoD’s full plan
can be accessed at: https://
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 64
Military personnel.
PART 64—[REMOVED]
Accordingly, by the authority of 5
U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 64 is removed.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
Dated: October 14, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2016–25260 Filed 10–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Oct 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 235
[Docket ID: DOD–2016–OS–0098]
RIN 0790–AJ15
Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit
Material on DoD Property
Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule removes DoD’s
regulation concerning sale or rental of
sexually explicit material on
Department of Defense (DoD) property.
The codified rule does not impose any
duty or obligation on the public that is
not already imposed by statute. The rule
paraphrases and does not substantially
deviate from 10 U.S.C. 2495b, which
establishes the prohibition on selling or
renting sexually explicit material on
DoD property. Also, the codified rule
delegates internal authorities and
establishes procedures for administering
the statute, neither of which have public
impact. Consequently, Federal Register
rulemaking is not necessary under the
Administrative Procedure Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on October
20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Toppings at 571–372–0485.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department of Defense published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register
titled ‘‘Prohibition of the Sale or Rental
of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD
Property’’ on December 22, 2015 (80 FR
79526–79528) for a 60-day public
comment period. The Department of
Defense received five public comments.
After publishing the proposed rule,
DoD began a review of all rules
currently being processed to determine
if publication in the Federal Register is
required. After reconsidering
publication of the proposed rule against
Administrative Procedure Act criteria
and exceptions, DoD decided not to
publish a final rule and to remove the
previously-codified rule from the CFR.
Although DoD has decided to remove
the previously-codified rule, we are
addressing the public comments
received on the proposed rule that
published in the Federal Register on
December 22, 2015.
Comment 1: I believe this proposed
rule is not only an excellent example of
agency waste, but a direct infringement
of Constitutional Rights that
employment by the DoD in any manner
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
cannot supersede. It would appear there
are some great ambiguities associated
with the definitions that structure this
rule. The definition of Lascivious,
‘‘lewd and intended or designed to elicit
a sexual response,’’ which also
controlling in the definition of sexual
elicit material is too ambiguous. If an
employee or citizen acting as a
representative of the DoD has a foot
fetish, will all magazines depicting bare
feet be banned? Then the word lewd
within the definition, what qualifies as
lewd? Is it more or less lewd if in a
novel the author describes an intimate
evening between a hetero couple or
homosexual couple?
Comment 2: So not only can a man or
woman be sent into harm’s way without
questioning the reasons for being sent,
but they can’t even purchase from the
exchange or PX material that is deemed
‘‘. . . Lascivious. Lewd and intended or
designed to elicit a sexual response.’’?
And who deems material to be
considered prohibited for sale or rent on
DoD property? A board of censors. Yes
this is censorship, plain and simple.
This is an end around the First
Amendment of the Constitution. Why?
Will this regulation improve our
readiness or war fighting capability? No.
Will this regulation reduce our
readiness or war fighting capability? No.
Is there solid, objective science showing
that availability of this sort of deemed
material leads to other behavior or
effects that reduces our readiness or war
fighting capability to a greater extent
than other products or services offered
for sale on DoD property such as
alcoholic beverages, tobacco products,
sugar-laden pop and greasy carbs-loaded
prepared food? Hence making the
reason for this regulation by reference to
other directives spurious. Will this
regulation reduce revenue generated by
the retail sales operations of the various
branches of our military services? Yes.
If so, has this cost been included in the
calculation of the cost of compliance
with this regulation? No. Is the cost of
the time of the members of the board
and of the various submissions of
material for review and judgement of
the board been included in calculating
the cost of this regulation? No. What
objective criteria is used to determine if
material should be submitted for review
or upon which a determination be made
to offer for sale or not? Not specified.
For instance, under the authority of
regulation, the purchase of the right to
play a song by the DoD said to contain
lyrics deemed lascivious, lewd and
intended or designed to elicit a sexual
response could be prohibited. This
would make virtually the entire book of
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Cole Porter and Frank Sinatra songs
subject to possible prohibition under a
reasonable understanding of the words
lascivious, lewd and the process of
eliciting a sexual response. To whom
can an appeal be made regarding the
decision or judgement of material under
this regulation? Re-submission to the
same board after 5 years? That’s not an
appeal, that’s a sentence longer than
what is typically given to criminals who
cause effects of far greater cost in terms
of readiness and manpower to our
military forces. I am quite certain we
can certainly find better things to decide
when offering products and services for
sale on DoD property? How about lower
prices and better quality products?
Comment 3: I am having trouble
understanding reasoning and purpose
for this rule. This rule would cost
‘‘$5,500 annually for the life of the rule
to manage the Board.’’ It seems as if
nearly 6 grand annually could be saved
and spent on something else that would
have greater effects. I do not believe that
it is the government’s place to say what
a person may or may not do within the
comfort and privacy of their own home.
And by doing so becomes dangerously
close to interfering with fundamental
liberties that we, as Americans, enjoy. I
believe the deterring effects of this rule
would do little good. Because those in
the military are specifically trained to
deal with instances of sexual
harassment, military members are
already equipped with the information
they need to deal with these unique
situations. This rule, which would ban
the sale or rental of sexually explicit
material on property under DoD
jurisdiction, in my opinion, could have
the opposite intended affect. Just think
back to when you were a kid, and your
parents told you that you were not
allowed to eat ice cream after 9 p.m.
What is the one single thing you wanted
to do after 9 p.m.? I do not know about
you, but I would want to eat ice cream.
If you do not draw attention to
something in the first place, then it is
more likely to go unnoticed. Therefore,
I see little persuasive reasoning for the
passage of this rule. Not only does it
waste money, but also it is also a waste
of time and valuable resources that
could be better spent elsewhere.
Comment 4: This proposed rule seems
to be a waste of money, no matter how
small the amount in controversy is.
With a growing budget deficit, and no
end in sight, all possible means should
be taken to tighten the purse strings and
prevent excess spending. Furthermore, I
am troubled by any proposal which
cannot state for certainty that the cost
will not go up in the future. Second,
there does not seem to be any identified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:55 Oct 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
criteria for determining what can and
can’t be sold. It seems to be what is
considered prohibited will turn on
whoever is making the decision at that
time. This will lead to inconsistent
enforcement and a regulation that
changes over time.
Comment 5: This rule is just plain
silly. Aside from wasting money I don’t
see any value this rule would have. Just
because military members have access
to sexually explicit material does not
mean they will turn into sexual
predators. I believe the opposite is true.
Military members have extensive
training on sexual harassment, and have
an effective method to report sexual
misconduct. As stated above, this rule
would be a waste of money.
Response: DoD thanks each
commenter for their comments.
However, no changes will be made to
DoD’s policy because it has been
mandated by Congress through 10
U.S.C. 2495b. Based upon the
information in the SUMMARY and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of
this rule, we are removing the rule from
the Code of Federal Regulations.
Nevertheless, DoD’s initial guidance
contained in DoD Instruction 4105.70,
which may be updated from time to
time, remains in effect and is available
at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/
corres/pdf/410570p.pdf.
DoD has determined that publication
for public comment of this CFR part
removal is impracticable, unnecessary,
and contrary to public interest, since
removal from the CFR will remove DoD
internal policies and procedures that are
publically available on the DoD
issuance Web site.
The removal of this rule will be
reported in future status updates of
DoD’s retrospective review in
accordance with Executive Order 13563,
‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review.’’ DoD’s full plan can be
accessed at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 235
Business and industry, Concessions,
Government contracts, Military
personnel.
PART 235—[REMOVED]
Accordingly, by the authority of 5
U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 235 is removed.
■
Dated: October 14, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2016–25275 Filed 10–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72525
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 249
[Docket ID: DOD–2016–OS–0097]
RIN 0790–AI75
Presentation of DoD-Related Scientific
and Technical Papers at Meetings
Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule removes DoD’s
regulation concerning the presentation
of DoD-related scientific and technical
papers at meetings. The codified rule is
outdated and no longer accurate or
applicable as written. The codified rule
contains internal guidance relating to
how and when DoD scientific and
technical papers in the possession or
under the control of DoD can be
presented at meetings. The rule does not
impose obligations on members of the
public. Therefore, 32 CFR part 249 can
be removed from the CFR.
DATES: This rule is effective on October
20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Toppings at 571–372–0485.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD
internal guidance concerning the
presentation of DoD-related scientific
and technical papers at meetings will
continue to be published in DoD
Instruction 5230.27. Once the revision
of DoD Instruction 5230.27 is signed, a
copy will be made available at https://
www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/
523027p.pdf.
It has been determined that
publication of this CFR part removal for
public comment is impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to public
interest since it is based on removing
DoD internal policies and procedures
that are publically available on the
Department’s issuance Web site.
The removal of this rule will be
reported in future status updates of
DoD’s retrospective review plan in
accordance with the requirements in
Executive Order 13563. DoD’s full plan
can be accessed at: https://
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 249
Armed forces, Classified information,
Science and technology.
PART 249—[REMOVED]
Accordingly, by the authority of 5
U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 249 is removed.
■
E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM
20OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72524-72525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25275]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 235
[Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0098]
RIN 0790-AJ15
Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property
AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning sale or
rental of sexually explicit material on Department of Defense (DoD)
property. The codified rule does not impose any duty or obligation on
the public that is not already imposed by statute. The rule paraphrases
and does not substantially deviate from 10 U.S.C. 2495b, which
establishes the prohibition on selling or renting sexually explicit
material on DoD property. Also, the codified rule delegates internal
authorities and establishes procedures for administering the statute,
neither of which have public impact. Consequently, Federal Register
rulemaking is not necessary under the Administrative Procedure Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Toppings at 571-372-0485.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Defense published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register titled ``Prohibition of the Sale
or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property'' on December
22, 2015 (80 FR 79526-79528) for a 60-day public comment period. The
Department of Defense received five public comments.
After publishing the proposed rule, DoD began a review of all rules
currently being processed to determine if publication in the Federal
Register is required. After reconsidering publication of the proposed
rule against Administrative Procedure Act criteria and exceptions, DoD
decided not to publish a final rule and to remove the previously-
codified rule from the CFR. Although DoD has decided to remove the
previously-codified rule, we are addressing the public comments
received on the proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on
December 22, 2015.
Comment 1: I believe this proposed rule is not only an excellent
example of agency waste, but a direct infringement of Constitutional
Rights that employment by the DoD in any manner cannot supersede. It
would appear there are some great ambiguities associated with the
definitions that structure this rule. The definition of Lascivious,
``lewd and intended or designed to elicit a sexual response,'' which
also controlling in the definition of sexual elicit material is too
ambiguous. If an employee or citizen acting as a representative of the
DoD has a foot fetish, will all magazines depicting bare feet be
banned? Then the word lewd within the definition, what qualifies as
lewd? Is it more or less lewd if in a novel the author describes an
intimate evening between a hetero couple or homosexual couple?
Comment 2: So not only can a man or woman be sent into harm's way
without questioning the reasons for being sent, but they can't even
purchase from the exchange or PX material that is deemed ``. . .
Lascivious. Lewd and intended or designed to elicit a sexual
response.''? And who deems material to be considered prohibited for
sale or rent on DoD property? A board of censors. Yes this is
censorship, plain and simple. This is an end around the First Amendment
of the Constitution. Why? Will this regulation improve our readiness or
war fighting capability? No. Will this regulation reduce our readiness
or war fighting capability? No. Is there solid, objective science
showing that availability of this sort of deemed material leads to
other behavior or effects that reduces our readiness or war fighting
capability to a greater extent than other products or services offered
for sale on DoD property such as alcoholic beverages, tobacco products,
sugar-laden pop and greasy carbs-loaded prepared food? Hence making the
reason for this regulation by reference to other directives spurious.
Will this regulation reduce revenue generated by the retail sales
operations of the various branches of our military services? Yes. If
so, has this cost been included in the calculation of the cost of
compliance with this regulation? No. Is the cost of the time of the
members of the board and of the various submissions of material for
review and judgement of the board been included in calculating the cost
of this regulation? No. What objective criteria is used to determine if
material should be submitted for review or upon which a determination
be made to offer for sale or not? Not specified. For instance, under
the authority of regulation, the purchase of the right to play a song
by the DoD said to contain lyrics deemed lascivious, lewd and intended
or designed to elicit a sexual response could be prohibited. This would
make virtually the entire book of
[[Page 72525]]
Cole Porter and Frank Sinatra songs subject to possible prohibition
under a reasonable understanding of the words lascivious, lewd and the
process of eliciting a sexual response. To whom can an appeal be made
regarding the decision or judgement of material under this regulation?
Re-submission to the same board after 5 years? That's not an appeal,
that's a sentence longer than what is typically given to criminals who
cause effects of far greater cost in terms of readiness and manpower to
our military forces. I am quite certain we can certainly find better
things to decide when offering products and services for sale on DoD
property? How about lower prices and better quality products?
Comment 3: I am having trouble understanding reasoning and purpose
for this rule. This rule would cost ``$5,500 annually for the life of
the rule to manage the Board.'' It seems as if nearly 6 grand annually
could be saved and spent on something else that would have greater
effects. I do not believe that it is the government's place to say what
a person may or may not do within the comfort and privacy of their own
home. And by doing so becomes dangerously close to interfering with
fundamental liberties that we, as Americans, enjoy. I believe the
deterring effects of this rule would do little good. Because those in
the military are specifically trained to deal with instances of sexual
harassment, military members are already equipped with the information
they need to deal with these unique situations. This rule, which would
ban the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under
DoD jurisdiction, in my opinion, could have the opposite intended
affect. Just think back to when you were a kid, and your parents told
you that you were not allowed to eat ice cream after 9 p.m. What is the
one single thing you wanted to do after 9 p.m.? I do not know about
you, but I would want to eat ice cream. If you do not draw attention to
something in the first place, then it is more likely to go unnoticed.
Therefore, I see little persuasive reasoning for the passage of this
rule. Not only does it waste money, but also it is also a waste of time
and valuable resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
Comment 4: This proposed rule seems to be a waste of money, no
matter how small the amount in controversy is. With a growing budget
deficit, and no end in sight, all possible means should be taken to
tighten the purse strings and prevent excess spending. Furthermore, I
am troubled by any proposal which cannot state for certainty that the
cost will not go up in the future. Second, there does not seem to be
any identified criteria for determining what can and can't be sold. It
seems to be what is considered prohibited will turn on whoever is
making the decision at that time. This will lead to inconsistent
enforcement and a regulation that changes over time.
Comment 5: This rule is just plain silly. Aside from wasting money
I don't see any value this rule would have. Just because military
members have access to sexually explicit material does not mean they
will turn into sexual predators. I believe the opposite is true.
Military members have extensive training on sexual harassment, and have
an effective method to report sexual misconduct. As stated above, this
rule would be a waste of money.
Response: DoD thanks each commenter for their comments. However, no
changes will be made to DoD's policy because it has been mandated by
Congress through 10 U.S.C. 2495b. Based upon the information in the
SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this rule, we are
removing the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. Nevertheless,
DoD's initial guidance contained in DoD Instruction 4105.70, which may
be updated from time to time, remains in effect and is available at
https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/410570p.pdf.
DoD has determined that publication for public comment of this CFR
part removal is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public
interest, since removal from the CFR will remove DoD internal policies
and procedures that are publically available on the DoD issuance Web
site.
The removal of this rule will be reported in future status updates
of DoD's retrospective review in accordance with Executive Order 13563,
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' DoD's full plan can be
accessed at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-
0036.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 235
Business and industry, Concessions, Government contracts, Military
personnel.
PART 235--[REMOVED]
0
Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 235 is
removed.
Dated: October 14, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2016-25275 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
