[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9910-9927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1902]



[[Page 9910]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Parts 174, 175, and 176

DOD-2006-OS-0020
[RIN 0790-AH91]


Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Addressing Impacts of 
Realignment

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) is amending its regulations 
governing the disposal of property at installations being closed and 
realigned and how to address the impacts of realignment at receiving 
installations. This final rule contains amendments to address changes 
in the laws governing base closure and realignment (BRAC) made since 
the current regulations were promulgated. This final rule also amends 
DoD policy and addresses various environmental requirements not 
previously addressed in the regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on February 28, 
2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven N. Kleiman at (703) 571-
9085.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Significant Changes to the Final Rule
IV. Response to Comments
    A. General
    B. Definitions
    C. Policy
    D. Responsibilities
    E. LRA and the Redevelopment Plan
    F. Retention for DoD Component Use and Transfer to Other Federal 
Agencies
    G. Screening Properties After Declaration of Surplus
    H. Economic Development Conveyances
    I. Leasing of Real Property to Non-Federal Entities
    J. Leasing of Transferred Real Property by Federal Agencies
    K. Personal Property
    L. Maintenance and Repair
    M. Indemnification Under Section 330 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
    N. Real Property Containing Explosive or Chemical Agent Hazards
    O. NEPA
    P. Historic Preservation
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    F. Environmental Justice Requirements Under Executive Order 
12898
    G. Federalism Considerations Under Executive Order 13132

I. Authority

    This action is authorized by the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 1990, Title XXIX of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. 101-510; the Base 
Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, 
Pub. L. 103-421; the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1994, Division B of Pub. L. 103-160; and 10 U.S.C. Sec.  113.

II. Background

    The Department of Defense (hereinafter the Department) developed 
the original rule, which this rule would amend, in conjunction with 
prior rounds of base closures and realignments. The Department 
published this amendment in the Federal Register as a proposed rule on 
August 9, 2005, at 70 FR 46116.
    In the preamble for the proposed rule, the Department explained 
that the rule was a counterpart to two Department issuances: DoD 
Directive 4165.66, Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community 
Assistance, and DoD Instruction 4165.67, Revitalizing Base Closure 
Communities--Base Closure Community Assistance. The Department further 
advised that these two issuances were being revised in conjunction with 
the proposed rule. During the public comment period, the Department 
further considered the need for such counterpart issuances and 
determined that there was no need for either the DoD Directive or the 
DoD Instruction. Consequently, DoD Directive 4165.66 and DoD 
Instruction 4165.67 have been canceled. For purposes of ensuring the 
necessary and appropriate delegations of authority, DoD Directive 
5134.01, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics (USD (AT&L)), has been revised to include delegation language 
specific to the base closure process. The cancellations of DoD 
Directive 4165.66 and DoD Instruction 4165.67 do not affect in any way 
the validity, applicability, or enforceability of the rule but merely 
reduces the number of additional internal publications issued by the 
Department.
    The public comment period for the proposed rule ended October 11, 
2005. Thirty-one commenters submitted comments on the proposed rule. 
Several commenters submitted comments after the close of the public 
comment period; to the extent the Department was able to respond to 
these comments without significantly interfering with the timely 
publication of this final rule, those comments were also considered. 
The preamble to this final rule consists mainly of an explanation of 
the Department's responses to these comments. Therefore, both this 
preamble and the preamble to the proposed rule should be reviewed 
should a question arise as to the meaning or intent of the final rule.
    The preamble to the final rule provides a discussion of each 
proposed rule section on which comments were received. Where changes in 
the rule are being made, specific reference is made to those changes in 
the discussion. Where no such specific reference is made in the 
discussion, no change to the rule is being made. Revisions to the 
proposed rule that are simply editorial or that do not reflect 
substantive changes are not addressed in this preamble.
    All comments the Department received are presented in a document 
available at either http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/ or http://www.oea.gov.

III. Summary of Significant Changes to the Final Rule

    The Department made a number of changes to the proposed rule that 
are reflected in this final rule. A detailed explanation of 
modifications is provided in the preamble.

IV. Response to Comments

    This section contains the Department's responses to the comments 
received on the proposed rule, organized by the structure of the 
proposed and final rules.
    The primary purpose of the rule is to bring the Department's 
regulatory framework into line with statutory enactments made 
subsequent to the promulgation of the existing regulation. Many of the 
items of concern noted by commenters are, in fact, changes made to 
comply with the base closure laws as they have been amended, and such 
changes have been incorporated into the rule whenever applicable and 
appropriate. The Department does not see the disposal process as a 
``zero-sum'' arrangement. The purpose of the implementation provisions 
of the base closure laws and associated provisions of law are to 
provide an ordered process to achieve a number of Congressional goals. 
Among these goals (and not in any order of importance) is to ensure a 
meaningful role for local communities in planning the reuse of the 
installation, ensure efficient use of excess Federal property, provide 
support to homeless

[[Page 9911]]

providers, promote job generation at closing facilities, require 
appropriate and timely environmental remediation, and recoup the 
taxpayers' investment in installations. Some of the goals may well be 
better accomplished if the local redevelopment authority (LRA) is not 
the transferee but focuses on planning redevelopment. Many of the most 
contentious provisions in the rule, judging from the comments, actually 
represent language taken almost verbatim from the base closure laws. 
The Department has carefully considered the many comments it has 
received. Its responses follow:

A. General

    Several commenters asked the Department to commit to a specific 
date for publication of the Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual 
(BRRM). As a subordinate document to this rule, the BRRM cannot be 
published in final form until after this rule is published in final 
form. The Department intends to publish the BRRM as soon as reasonably 
possible after the publication of this final rule.
    Several commenters stated that the rule was directed at maximizing 
the Department's monetary return, as opposed to promoting economic 
recovery by transfer of properties to local communities. The Department 
disagrees. Promoting monetary return to the Department for use either 
at the particular location or at other locations and rapid property 
transfer to encourage job generation are not mutually exclusive. The 
rule conforms with the base closure laws and with other applicable 
statutes and regulations such as those of the General Services 
Administration (GSA). Unlike the current regulation which it would 
replace, the rule does not give any particular preference to one form 
of disposal over another. It conforms to the base closure laws in its 
order of actions; i.e., screening with the DoD Components and the U.S. 
Coast Guard and with other Federal agencies, followed by disposal 
actions heavily influenced by the local redevelopment plan. Some 
commenters have observed that, e.g., requiring Federal agencies to pay 
fair market value for property received is an example of trying to 
maximize the Department's monetary return. The GSA regulations 
governing transfers between Federal agencies require such payments 
unless waived, and the rule complies with this standard. The Department 
believes that the most likely effect of conforming to this requirement 
is that more property will be available for transfer to non-Federal 
entities for redevelopment than would otherwise be available. The rule 
also provides, as do the base closure laws, for economic development 
conveyances (EDCs), either at fair market value or at no cost. The 
decision regarding making an EDC will normally occur before a property 
is considered for public sale, and, although this does not represent a 
preference of one type of disposal over another, it does represent the 
rules' conformance to the order of disposal actions provided for in the 
base closure laws. The rule does conform to statutory changes that 
eliminated the stated preference for no-cost or reduced-cost EDCs; but 
conforming to those statutory changes does not represent an effort by 
the Department to seek greater monetary return. It simply represents 
the Department's effort to conform its rule to the statute.
    Several commenters suggested that the Department contract with 
local entities to take advantage of their special expertise in closing 
or realigning an installation. The Department's authority to contract 
is provided for and qualified, as appropriate, in the laws governing 
the Department's procurement actions and in the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation. In addition, the Congress has provided a preference for 
local and small businesses in section 2912 of Pub. L. 103-160. Such 
preferences are properly addressed in those regulations governing 
procurement, as opposed to this rule.
    Several commenters recommended that the Department commit to adopt 
or conform to any cleanup standards or levels provided by the local 
redevelopment plan, even though they might be greater than those 
required by current use or required by law. Cleanup standards are 
established pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and its implementing 
regulation, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Those legal 
requirements provide for a thorough list of factors to be considered in 
determining the cleanup standard at each location and include, among 
many others, the reasonably anticipated future uses of the property. As 
with any private party, the Department must comply with these 
requirements in establishing a cleanup level. This process is overseen 
by Federal and state environmental regulators. Consequently, the 
cleanup levels established for any particular site will be in complete 
conformance with all legal requirements. The Congress has clearly 
directed the Department to conform to the requirements of CERCLA and 
the NCP, and the Department will do so in its cleanup program.
    Several commenters believe that the local redevelopment plan should 
be given greater weight in either the environmental analysis process or 
in the disposal plan. Some would like the local redevelopment plan to 
be a preferred alternative or the primary factor in developing the 
proposed Federal action in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
process. The base closure laws are clear on the role of the local 
redevelopment plan in the NEPA process. The plan is part of the 
proposed Federal action. This means it is a basis for developing the 
action to be analyzed. In other words, it is what is being analyzed, so 
it plays a far greater role than it would if it were merely a preferred 
alternative (one way to achieve the proposed action) or the primary 
factor in developing the proposed action. These suggestions would have 
the unintended consequence of actually diluting the role of the local 
redevelopment plan, while the governing statute clearly and explicitly 
states the role that the plan has in the NEPA process.
    Several commenters recommended that the rule describe the roles of 
environmental regulators, the LRA, and others in the restoration 
program. The roles of these entities in the restoration program are 
established in the various environmental laws, primarily CERCLA and the 
NCP. It is outside of the Department's authority to specify the roles 
of these entities under those laws.
    One commenter suggested the desirability of using fixed price 
remediation agreements with privatized financial assumption, including 
liability assumption. Agreements to have the property recipient assume 
responsibility for environmental matters are provided for in section 
2905(e) of Pub. L. 101-510. Such agreements would be fixed price with 
privatized financial assumption, including liability assumption, but 
would also be subject to the other requirements of that subsection. The 
rule does not specifically address this matter because the Department 
has no requirements to add beyond those of the statute.
    Several commenters have observed that the rule does not integrate 
environmental cleanup with property disposal and reuse planning. The 
Department recognizes the importance of integrating environmental 
cleanup with property disposal and redevelopment planning. Cleanup 
standards are tied to future land use and established pursuant to 
CERCLA and the NCP. Future land use is informed by the property 
disposal plan. As stated earlier, the local redevelopment plan is a 
basis for any proposed Federal action.

[[Page 9912]]

Therefore, the redevelopment planning, property disposal, and 
environmental cleanup are integrated. The cleanup process is overseen 
by Federal and state environmental regulators. Consequently, the 
cleanup levels established for any particular site will be in complete 
conformance with all legal requirements. In addition, the public has a 
chance to comment on proposed cleanup standards in the public 
participation venues required by CERCLA.
    Several commenters suggested that the rule address timely release 
of environmental information. The Department does not believe that 
specific regulatory requirements can or should be imposed to create 
timelines for these activities. The BRRM does provide guidance to the 
Military Departments and other interested parties as to when and how to 
release environmental information.
    One commenter suggested that the Department schedule a meeting with 
``stakeholders'' to discuss the Department's environmental policies 
before issuing final regulations. The Department has been meeting with 
various interested parties with regard to its environmental policies, 
and will continue to do so. However, it cannot delay the realignment 
and closure implementation process for this purpose.
    One commenter complained that the rule only requires the Department 
to consult with the LRA and others such as the Governor, not obtain 
their agreement, over future land uses, environmental restoration 
decisions, etc. Neither the base closure laws nor the various 
environmental statutes require obtaining agreement from the LRA. 
Likewise, section 2905(b)(2)(D) of the base closure law explicitly 
states that the Secretary shall ``consult with the Governor of the 
State and the heads of the local governments'' as opposed to obtaining 
their agreement. The Department will continue to consult with the LRA 
and other appropriate officials over future land uses, environmental 
restoration decisions, etc.
    One commenter suggested that an additional section be added to 
clarify the Department's responsibilities regarding environmental 
contamination under CERCLA. The recommendation was to add language that 
addressed the Department's continuing liability for contamination on 
the property. The Department disagrees with the suggestion to add 
language. The Department's liability under CERCLA (and other applicable 
environmental laws) will be established for each location depending on 
the law and facts of the site. This could include not only numerous 
Federal laws, but state and local laws as well. The process used to 
determine liability under CERCLA, including as between the Department 
and its contractors, is highly complex and virtually impossible to 
accurately describe in the context of this rule. Furthermore, the rules 
governing such liability are found in statutes and regulations for 
which the Department does not exercise primary authority. It would be 
inappropriate and likely to create confusion for the Department to 
attempt to define its CERCLA liability in this rule.
    One commenter observed that the rule does not address how the 
Department will mitigate or resolve effects on base closures and 
realignments on tribal nations affected by such actions. The Department 
believes the rule is consistent with the law. We have added text in 
response to another similar comment to paragraph 174.4(f). Under 
current law, an Indian tribe may acquire closed real property only 
through a request for excess property in accordance with section 
105(f)(3) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
(which must be made by the Secretary of the Interior on behalf of the 
tribe) or through the purchase of real property at a public sale. In 
addition, a tribe may seek to participate in the redevelopment planning 
process as a member of the LRA, which is primarily a local matter.

B. Definitions

    Several commenters suggested that those definitions contained in 
section 174.3 that are incorporated by reference to other sources be 
written out in full text. To ensure complete consistency, the rule will 
continue to incorporate those definitions by reference. However, the 
BRRM will contain the full text of the sources to facilitate ease of 
use.
    One commenter suggested that a definition for the National Historic 
Preservation Act be included in the rule. The National Historic 
Preservation Act is not referred to directly in the rule. The reference 
in section 174.18 is to the Act's implementing regulations in the Code 
of Federal Regulations and includes the specific citation to the 
regulations. Because the Act is not directly referred to in the rule 
and the only indirect reference is to its implementing regulations for 
which the citation is provided, there is no need to include a specific 
definition.
    One commenter requested that the term ``disposal plan'' be defined. 
The Department does not believe such a definition is necessary or 
desirable. The disposal plan can take many forms and will reflect the 
manner of implementation by each Military Department at each location. 
The term is not readily susceptible to a meaningful definition because 
of the wide variety of forms it may take.

C. Policy

    Several commenters suggested that the rule may change the focus of 
disposal actions by not placing paramount importance on economic 
recovery. The base closure law does not mention economic recovery as 
one of its goals, but does refer to ``job generation'' in the case of 
EDCs. The primary reason for proposing this revision of the rule is to 
bring it into line with amendments made to the base closure laws. Those 
amendments reflect a desire by Congress to encourage economic recovery 
by expediting the transfer (and subsequent redevelopment) of 
installations. The Department believes the current policy statements in 
section 174.4, which are taken from the Secretary of Defense's 
recommendations to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 
accurately reflect both the statutory direction provided by Congress 
and the policy determinations made by the Secretary of Defense.
    One commenter expressed concern that the statements of policy in 
section 174.4 do not adequately recognize the importance of public 
benefit conveyances. The Department does not agree. Paragraph 174.4(b) 
explicitly refers to public benefit conveyances as one of the 
appropriate means to transfer property. The need for consideration of 
public benefit conveyances is not overcome by the policy statement of 
paragraph 174.4(c) relating to reliance on market forces, which, 
incidentally, refers to ``any anticipated demand for surplus military 
land and facilities.'' [Emphasis added.]
    One commenter suggested that section 174.4(d) reflect a more 
accurate list of the entities with whom the Department must collaborate 
for successful redevelopment to occur. The Department notes that the 
intent of this paragraph is to emphasize collaboration with affected 
local communities regarding the redevelopment of the installation. 
While the Department does collaborate with the other entities, their 
role is established in other parts of the rule. The focus of this 
paragraph of the rule is on the redevelopment planning process and most 
of our collaboration in this area is with the local community.
    One commenter noted that reference to substantial growth in section 
174.4(f) is difficult to define and could lead to confusion. The 
Department agrees and

[[Page 9913]]

has struck the beginning clause of the sentence consisting of ``If 
installation growth is substantial, * * *''.
    One commenter observed that in many places an installation's growth 
due to realignment may not only affect the immediate locality but may 
also increase infrastructure demands regionally, requiring coordination 
with regional as well as local officials. The Department agrees and has 
further modified paragraph 174.4(f) to refer to regional officials, 
including, e.g., State and tribal officials, and to regional planning.

D. Responsibilities

    Several commenters suggested that the rule delegates too much 
authority to the Secretaries of the Military Departments, leaves the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) out of the process, and 
undermines the policy to ``speak with one voice.'' It is essential to 
the effective implementation of the process that appropriate 
delegations of authority be provided to the Military Departments, as 
the implementing agencies, and this is done in the rule. This rule is 
consistent with other delegations to the Military Departments as 
installation and real property managers within DoD. The current 
regulation that is being revised by this rule also delegates, and much 
more generally, implementation authority to the Military Departments. 
The delegation language in the rule is actually somewhat less broad 
than the language it will be replacing. The delegation to the 
Secretaries of the Military Departments in the rule is subject to the 
superior delegations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Environment). These OSD officials will retain their 
oversight roles and, when needed, review disputed matters and enforce 
uniformity among the Military Departments in their implementing 
activities.
    Several commenters suggested that if an LRA qualifies for a no-cost 
EDC, the Federal Government should shoulder the cost of recording deeds 
and other transfer documents as well as associated surveys. The rule in 
paragraph 174.5(e) only addresses the cost of recording deeds and other 
transfer documents, which is normally the responsibility of the 
property recipient in real estate transactions. It does not address the 
responsibility of paying for any needed surveys. The cost of surveys, 
in the case of an EDC, will be subject to agreement between the 
parties.
    One commenter suggested that the requirement of paragraph 174.5(e) 
explicitly include reference to recordation of land use restrictions 
that are part of an environmental remedy. The Department notes that the 
paragraph only addresses the cost of recording deeds and other transfer 
documents; it does not address in detail all the documents that might 
be included in that category. What documents must be recorded will be 
determined by State law and local rule and will vary accordingly. To 
the extent land use restrictions are included in a deed, which would be 
necessary for them to have meaningful effect, they will be part of the 
recorded instruments.

E. LRA and the Redevelopment Plan

    Several commenters inquired as to what would constitute 
``appropriate environmental documentation'' in section 174.6(c). This 
reference would include any NEPA environmental analyses, as well as 
associated documentation that might be required to formulate a disposal 
plan. Since we cannot predict at this time the entire universe of 
potential documents, particularly given the great variety of locations 
where they might be required, the Department chose to use as broad a 
term as possible.
    Several commenters suggested that the 12 months allotted for 
completion of an environmental impact statement may prove inadequate. 
Section 174.6(c) qualifies the 12 month requirement with the words ``to 
the extent practicable'', taken from the underlying statutory provision 
of section 2911 of Pub. L. 103-160.
    Several commenters observed that the timeframe for the production 
of the local redevelopment plan is likely to be too short. The language 
in the rule is in strict compliance and consistent with the base 
closure laws, section 2905(b)(7)(F)(iv) of Pub. L. 101-510, which also 
allows an extension of time to be granted by the Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense (Installations & Environment), section 2905(b)(7)(N). In all 
instances, the date arrived at from section 2905(b)(7)(F)(iv) will be 
after the screening of property by Federal agencies. The Department 
notes that many, if not most, LRAs begin their planning process shortly 
after the closure decisions become final, which allows for a much more 
lengthy period of time than would be available if no advance effort is 
made.
    Several commenters noted that the requirement that there be a 
single LRA for each installation may be problematic for some 
installations that have large parcels located in other jurisdictions. 
The language in the proposed rule uses the term ``generally,'' which 
provides flexibility for exceptions where geographic situations 
warrant, such as distinct, non-contiguous parcels in separate 
jurisdictions.
    Several commenters recommended that the base cleanup team 
specifically include the LRA as a member. The base cleanup team is not 
addressed by the rule, nor is it based in statute. Information on 
environmental cleanup may be found in the BRRM.

F. Retention for DoD Component Use and Transfer to Other Federal 
Agencies

    Several commenters noted that some locations such as Fort Monroe, 
Virginia, are subject to a reversionary interest in the state or local 
government and recommended specific language be inserted addressing 
this situation. The Department cannot dispose of a property interest it 
does not own. To the extent a location is subject to a reversionary 
interest, any screening or disposal action can only occur to the extent 
they are consistent with the reversionary language of the original 
deed. For instance, screening might be limited to only DoD Components 
after which the property might then have to be offered back to the 
reversionary interest holder. Because this will vary at each location 
depending on the specific provisions of the reversionary interest, it 
is neither practicable nor necessary to provide specific language 
dealing with this situation. The Military Departments are expected to 
know the nature of the real property interests they hold and to act 
accordingly with regard to any disposal actions.
    One commenter suggested that early and widespread communication 
would be beneficial and specifically objected to language in paragraph 
174.7(b) that conditioned release of some information ``upon request''. 
The Department determined that it was not going to provide to other 
Federal agencies a notice of potential availability of property upon 
submission by the President of his recommendations to the Congress. 
Consequently, those provisions of section 174.7, and particularly its 
former paragraph (b), addressing this subject have been deleted from 
the rule.
    One commenter recommended that a firm time period of 6 months be 
set for the identification of Federal property interests in real 
property. Section 174.7(m) of the proposed rule does provide a time 
period of six months from the date of approval of closure or 
realignment within which a surplus determination should be made, which 
means that Federal agency interests in

[[Page 9914]]

property must be identified prior to that time.
    Several commenters suggested that other Federal agencies seeking to 
obtain excess real property should be required, as opposed to being 
encouraged, to consult with the LRA. The statute that required 
consultation has expired [Section 2905(b)(5)(C) of Pub. L. 101-510]. 
However, because the Department believes it is to everyone's benefit, 
it encourages consultation. It is to the benefit of a Federal agency to 
consult with the LRA and any other interested entity when seeking 
excess real property. The Department believes it unnecessary to require 
such consultation. In addition, such a requirement could generate legal 
conflicts as to what constituted consultation in particular cases and 
at what specific time periods consultation was performed.
    Several commenters objected to the requirement that other Federal 
agencies accept any excess property in its existing condition, viewing 
this as a burden on their resources or an attempt by Department to 
avoid its cleanup responsibilities. This is in conformance with the 
Interdepartmental Waiver Doctrine which notes that all Federal property 
belongs to the United States and it is the determination of Congress as 
to the adequacy of funding for individual agencies to perform their 
missions. See Matter of: Use of One Agency's Real Property by Another--
Liability for Damage, B-194861, Comptroller General of the United 
States, 59 Comp. Gen. 93, November 20, 1979. The general rule is that 
an agency must have the resources to accept property it is voluntarily 
seeking or forego the opportunity. This is also indicated in other 
requirements of section 174.7(h) such as the requirement that the 
request does not establish a new program, current real property 
holdings cannot satisfy the agency's needs, and that the request be 
economically viable. The receiving agency must also pay fair market 
value, unless waived, which would potentially include a reduction of 
value because of contamination (see the discussion on appraisals and 
fair market value). Nothing in the requirement that a receiving Federal 
agency take the property in its existing condition changes the 
liability of the United States for cleanup.
    One commenter asserted that, in transfers between Federal agencies, 
in order to accurately reflect section 120 of CERCLA, a statement 
should be added in both subparagraphs (9) and (10) of paragraph 
174.7(h) that would exclude the costs for remedies needed to address 
environmental contamination present on the property at the time of 
transfer, unless an agreement has been reached with the other agency to 
take responsibility for such actions and costs. The commenter further 
asserted that a Federal agency's ultimate environmental liability 
cannot be transferred to other agencies of the Federal Government. The 
Department disagrees. The Department does not believe that section 
120(h) of CERCLA has any application to the question of responsibility 
as between Federal agencies for contamination on Federal real property 
transferred between them. There is no provision of applicable law or 
regulation preventing the Department from requiring another agency to 
accept property transferred ``as-is,'' as a mutually agreed condition 
of the transfer. If the receiving agency is unwilling to accept 
responsibility for any needed cleanup, it has no obligation to take the 
property and Department can proceed to other means of property 
disposal.

G. Screening Properties After Declaration of Surplus

    One commenter suggested specific language be added to the rule 
relating to the process after a declaration of surplus, and 
specifically relating to the process for public benefit conveyances and 
to consultation with the LRA and communities. These aspects of the 
property disposal process are governed by 32 CFR part 176, which is not 
being amended by this rulemaking (other than a ministerial change). The 
Department anticipates that it will propose amendments to part 176 in 
the future to ensure its conformance to changes in the law. At that 
time, it would be appropriate for the commenter to raise issues that 
are relevant to that regulation.

H. Economic Development Conveyances

    Several commenters are concerned that the rule requires the 
Secretary concerned to seek fair market value in an EDC. This is a 
clear change from the existing regulation which the rule would replace. 
The requirement to seek to obtain fair market value is clearly stated 
in section 2905(b)(4)(B) of Pub. L. 101-510. This is a change made by 
Congress to the law since the publication of the existing regulation. 
The changes made in the rule are in strict conformance with the 
statute.
    Several commenters noted that the rule does not provide for below-
cost EDCs (other than no-cost EDCs). Section 2905(b)(4) of Pub. L. 101-
510 addresses the nature of EDCs that can be offered by Department. 
There is no provision for a ``below-cost'' EDC. Consequently, the rule 
does not provide for such an EDC.
    Several commenters objected to the requirements imposed by the rule 
on those submitting EDC applications, and the Department's 
consideration of those applications. These, largely information, 
requirements are necessary to allow the Department to make an informed 
judgment as to whether the application can meet the statutory 
requirements for an EDC as well as whether a no-cost EDC, if sought, is 
appropriate under the circumstances. Given the potentially significant 
financial impact of EDCs on both the Department and the LRA, it is 
appropriate to require a reasonable submission of information to ensure 
the EDC's success. It is understood by the Department that some of the 
information requested may not be available or available in adequate 
time and accuracy, but the LRA should attempt to submit as much and as 
accurate information as it can to address the factors for consideration 
of an EDC. The Department will use the best information available to 
evaluate EDC applications according to the statute and rule. This is 
consistent with prior practice of the Department.
    Several commenters objected to the provisions relating to an 
appraisal of fair market value. Commenters objected to the use of the 
Uniform Appraisal Standards, to appraisals conducted under criteria set 
by the Military Department without the LRA's agreement, and to the 
application of highest and best use criteria. Additionally, it was 
suggested that an independent entity conduct the appraisal, that the 
appraisal include liabilities associated with, e.g., environmental 
contamination or demolition of buildings, that all appraisal 
information be shared with the LRA, that special consideration be given 
to rural areas, and that multiple appraisals be accomplished for EDCs 
based on differing assumptions. Although the Uniform Appraisal 
Standards were drafted primarily for the acquisition of property by the 
Federal Government, no cogent reasons have been advanced as to why they 
would not apply with equal validity to appraising lands being disposed 
of. The rule does require the Secretary concerned to consult with the 
LRA about valuation assumptions and other factors, but the base closure 
laws explicitly provide that the fair market value will be as 
determined by the Secretary, not by the LRA or an independent entity. 
The law does not provide, for instance, for multiple appraisals of fair 
market value, although an entity seeking property is certainly

[[Page 9915]]

free to conduct its own appraisal. The rule does seek an appraisal 
based on the highest and best use, as provided in the Uniform Appraisal 
Standards and the governing GSA regulations. The Uniform Appraisal 
Standards include consideration of all relevant valuation factors such 
as reduction in value due to contamination, existing land use controls 
that limit potential development, and location.
    Several commenters asserted that only by obtaining the property 
through an EDC can the LRA maintain control to provide job generation. 
According to the statute, an LRA is any entity (including an entity 
established by a State or local government) recognized by the Secretary 
of Defense as the entity responsible for developing the redevelopment 
plan with respect to the installation or for directing the 
implementation of such plan. In some instances, taking possession of 
the property may be one way of furthering this goal, but it is not the 
only means, or even necessarily the most likely to succeed. Jobs can 
often be generated by rapid conveyance to private parties at least as 
effectively as by transfer to the LRA. The statutory framework clearly 
envisions that the LRA's primary function is the redevelopment planning 
process. Seeking EDCs is a function to be performed at the LRA's 
discretion and certainly does not foreclose the LRA or other 
appropriate local agencies from exercising any necessary controls to 
ensure job generation.
    One commenter noted that subparagraph (7) of paragraph 174.9(e) 
could be interpreted as requiring an LRA to exercise more authority 
than it would normally have, e.g., zoning or other approval powers. The 
Department agrees and has added language to this subparagraph to 
clarify that the LRA need only demonstrate that it has the necessary 
approvals for items such as zoning, as opposed to actually having the 
authority to grant such approvals.

I. Leasing of Real Property to Non-Federal Entities

    Several commenters were concerned that the rule would discourage 
long-term leasing at closed installations, thereby reducing the 
likelihood of promoting new employment. As with the other provisions of 
the rule, section 174.11 is designed to expedite property transfer in 
order to encourage rapid job generation. In the past, long-term leases 
were primarily the result of difficulty in transferring property that 
still had environmental contamination. With statutory authority to 
engage in ``early transfers'' under CERCLA, it should be possible to 
avoid the need for long-term leases in most if not all situations.

J. Leasing of Transferred Real Property by Federal Agencies

    Several commenters were concerned that a ``lease-back'' would be at 
no rental cost to the Federal agency occupying the leased facility, 
thereby removing any incentive to engage in this type of transaction. 
The requirement for a no cost lease is a provision of the statute, 
section 2905(b)(4)(e)(iii) of Pub. L. 101-510.
    One commenter inquired as to how real property will be declared as 
surplus when a ``lease-back'' cannot be successfully concluded. The 
authority to lease to a Federal agency, at no cost, real property that 
has been transferred to an LRA is a unique alternative form of property 
disposal. If the process fails to result in agreement, the Department 
presumes, until shown otherwise, that the requesting Federal agency 
still requires the property, in which case it is not surplus. If the 
requesting Federal agency is only willing to accept the use of the real 
property under a lease and an agreement cannot be reached, the real 
property would be considered as surplus.

K. Personal Property

    One commenter noted the use of ``community redevelopment plan'' in 
section 174.13(a). This reference will be changed to ``redevelopment 
plan'' to conform to the usage elsewhere in the rule.
    One commenter inquired whether the personal property inventory will 
occur 6 months after the closure decision or 6 months after the actual 
closure of the installation. Section 174.13(b) provides that the 
inventory will be compiled 6 months after the date of approval of 
closure or realignment. The term ``date of approval'' is defined in 
section 174.3 and refers to the date the Commission's recommendations 
become final, as opposed to the date of actual closure of the 
installation.
    One commenter inquired as to the timelines for an LRA's submittal 
of a request for a personal property EDC as opposed to a real property 
EDC that includes personal property. The commenter was concerned that 
the local redevelopment plan might be submitted prior to the completion 
of the inventory. Since the inventory is required to be completed 
within 6 months of the date of approval of the closure, and the local 
redevelopment plan is not required until quite some time later, it 
would be very unlikely for an LRA to submit the local redevelopment 
plan prior to completion of the personal property inventory. This is in 
part due to the screening period for other Federal uses during the 
first 6 months after the date of approval.

L. Maintenance and Repair

    One commenter inquired as to the citation for the Federal 
Management Regulations of the GSA, referred to in section 174.14. The 
regulations can be found at chapter 102 of title 41, Code of Federal 
Regulations. Additional information on these regulations will be 
provided in the BRRM. The citation will be added to the rule.
    Several commenters expressed concern that the level of maintenance 
might not be adequate in relation to various locations, e.g., humidity 
levels left uncontrolled could result in damaging mold. Section 
174.14(b)(3) provides that the initial levels of maintenance cannot be 
``less than the minimum levels required to support the use of such 
facilities or equipment for nonmilitary purposes; * * *''. The 
Department believes this provision addresses the concern noted by the 
commenters.
    Several commenters noted that maintenance levels provided by 
section 174.14 should conform to appropriate requirements of the 
National Historic Preservation Act and any agreements thereunder with, 
e.g., the state historic preservation officer. Section 174.14 provides 
maintenance procedures to preserve and protect facilities located on 
closing installations needed for economical reuse. Nothing in that 
section should be interpreted as supplanting any requirement of the 
National Historic Preservation Act or its implementing regulations. The 
Department expects actions relating to historic preservation to be 
fully vetted with the interested agencies and organizations in line 
with both the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations 
and the direction of the rule to, e.g., consult with the LRA. As noted 
in previous responses to comments, it is not the purpose of this rule 
to replace other statutory or regulatory requirements. Given the 
limited purpose of section 174.14, the Department is satisfied that it 
has addressed the issue that needs to be addressed in the context of 
this rule.
    Several commenters asserted that the Department should properly 
maintain all installation assets until the time of transfer. The rule 
strictly complies with the statutory requirements for maintenance. 
Those statutory requirements include specific time limits governing the 
initial levels of maintenance. The rule provides flexibility in 
allowing the Secretary

[[Page 9916]]

concerned to extend the time period for the initial levels of 
maintenance and repair for property still under military control if the 
LRA is actively implementing its redevelopment plan.
    Several commenters objected that maintenance requirements would be 
shifted to the local community even before the installation was closed. 
This is incorrect. Section 174.14(e) provides that reductions in 
maintenance levels will not apply to facilities still being used for 
Department missions, i.e., pre-closure. After facilities are no longer 
required for Department missions, the minimum standard prescribed by 
GSA requires that the Government's value be preserved. The community 
would not be expected to maintain facilities until they have possession 
through either a deed or lease. The statutory timelines reflected in 
the rule are designed to encourage rapid transfer to effect productive 
civilian reuse.
    Several commenters suggested that the level of maintenance and 
repair be linked to the local redevelopment plan. The Department 
disagrees. Such a requirement would be contrary to the base closure 
laws' time limitations on maintenance and repair. The rule already 
provides for an appropriate level of maintenance and repair which will 
consider, to the extent it is known, the proposed reuses in the local 
redevelopment plan. The period of maintenance and repair, however, is 
set by statute.
    One commenter expressed concern that any limitations on maintenance 
and repair might apply to environmental remediation efforts underway on 
the installation. The Department categorically states that 
``Maintenance and repair'' as used in this section has no application 
to environmental remedies. An interpretation to the contrary would be 
entirely inconsistent with the base closure laws and with CERCLA.

M. Indemnification Under Section 330 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993

    Several commenters observed that requiring any documents referring 
to section 330 of Pub. L. 102-484 to be reviewed by the DoD Office of 
General Counsel would cause delay and, instead, model language should 
be provided with only deviations being reviewed by the General 
Counsel's Office. The Department disagrees. The insertion of language 
even mentioning section 330 in a deed or other transfer document 
creates a contract right that otherwise would not exist and for which 
section 330 does not provide.
    One commenter asserted that the Department does not have discretion 
with regard to insertion of language dealing with section 330 of Pub. 
L. 102-484 and suggested changes that would require ``* * * Section 330 
indemnification language under every instance specified by * * *'' 
section 330. Review of section 330 readily demonstrates that it does 
not require or even hint at the need to include language relating to 
its provisions in any document. In fact, section 330 is self-executing 
and stands alone without the need for additional discussion or 
exposition in transfer documents. It is even questionable whether such 
further discussion or exposition has any legal basis since it must, 
virtually by definition, either expand or contract the rights of a 
potential claimant under the statute and the Department has authority 
to do neither.

N. Real Property Containing Explosive or Chemical Agent Hazards

    Several commenters recommended that the requirement for review of 
explosive safety plans under section 174.16 be extended to private 
entities conducting a remediation in place of the Department. The 
Department is prepared to review, on a case-by-case basis, those 
locations where such a safety plan is likely to be required and 
determine whether the circumstances of that location should require 
plan review and approval. Such requirements, if found to be necessary, 
can be included in any contract with the entity conducting the remedial 
action.
    One commenter expressed concern that the language of the rule could 
allow the submission of an explosives safety plan but not actually 
require approval of the plan by the DoD Explosives Safety Board prior 
to transfer of the property. Although the language of the rule could be 
interpreted as requiring submission but not actual approval of the plan 
before real property transfer, the uniform practice of the Military 
Departments has been to wait on actual approval of the plan before 
proceeding to transfer property. The language of this section has been 
modified to more accurately refer to the governing DoD Directive as 
well as the documents being submitted.

O. NEPA

    One commenter suggested that the LRA be given the opportunity to 
serve as a ``cooperating agency'' during the NEPA analysis. The 
Department interprets this as a request that the LRA be guaranteed the 
right to be a cooperating agency if it so desires. (This assumption is 
based on the fact that an LRA may already qualify as a cooperating 
agency under the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 
implementing NEPA; 32 CFR 1508.5.) Being a cooperating agency in a NEPA 
analysis carries with it certain obligations and requires certain 
expertise. The Department does not believe it appropriate to mandate in 
all circumstances that an LRA be a cooperating agency and believes it 
more appropriate to allow each situation to be judged on its own merits 
under existing regulations implementing NEPA.
    Several commenters suggested that the NEPA process allow an LRA, if 
it was not satisfied with the schedule of the Military Department, to 
enter into an agreement with the Government to conduct the analysis 
itself but consistent with the Military Department's NEPA regulation. 
The cost expended by the LRA would qualify as a credit in any future 
EDC, or, in the case of a no-cost EDC, be attributable to economic 
redevelopment. This suggestion is premised on the availability, or lack 
thereof, of funds to pay for the NEPA analysis. There has been no 
demonstration that such funding has been unavailable in the past, nor 
is there any indication it will be unavailable in the future. By 
statute, the Military Departments are required to complete NEPA 
analysis within 12 months, if possible. The NEPA regulations of the 
Military Departments have sufficient flexibility to allow those 
departments to ensure prompt and compliant NEPA analyses.

P. Historic Preservation

    Several commenters raised concerns with the lack of more extensive 
discussion of historic preservation. The provisions in section 174.18 
are solely intended to clarify that the Military Departments have 
authority to engage in the types of preservation activities discussed. 
Nothing in that section should be interpreted as supplanting any 
requirement of the National Historic Preservation Act or its 
implementing regulations. The Department expects actions relating to 
historic preservation to be fully vetted with the interested agencies 
and organizations in line with both the requirements of the Act and its 
implementing regulations and the direction of the rule to, e.g., 
consult with the LRA. As noted in previous responses to comments, it is 
not the purpose of this rule to replace other statutory or regulatory 
requirements. Given the limited purpose of section 174.18, the 
Department is satisfied that it has addressed the issue that needs to 
be addressed in the context of this rule.

[[Page 9917]]

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 [October 4, 1993]) requires each 
agency taking regulatory action to determine whether that action is 
``significant.'' The agency must submit any regulatory actions that 
qualify as ``significant'' to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review, assess the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of 
the proposed action, and otherwise ensure that the action meets the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant 
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may 
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or 
adversely effect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    The Department has determined that the rule is not a significant 
rule under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to result in 
a rule that will meet any of the four prerequisites.
    (1) The rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. The major effects of base closure and 
realignment actions is the result of the decisions to close and realign 
installations. This rule does not affect those decisions to the extent 
they were made by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 
approved by the President, and not disapproved by the Congress. This 
rule only implements those decisions in accordance with applicable law. 
As such, its requirements do not create a significant economic impact.
    For these reasons, the Department has determined that the rule will 
not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or 
communities.
    (2) The rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
    Implementation of the rule will not create a serious inconsistency 
or otherwise interfere with another agency's action because the 
Department has lead authority for implementing the base closure 
statutes and because the rule's requirements do not override, but are 
in addition to, legal requirements established by other agencies. As 
discussed in more detail in the response to comments, the rule does 
not, e.g., establish requirements in place of the Historic Preservation 
Act, but provides additional authority to the Military Departments to 
implement that Act in accordance with its terms and with its 
implementing regulations. Similarly, the rule does not override or 
provide inconsistent requirements for environmental restoration, but, 
as discussed in more detail in the response to comments, is premised on 
applicability of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and the National Contingency 
Plan. Several subjects raised by commenters are not addressed in the 
rule in order to avoid the possibility of inconsistency with the 
authorities and actions of other agencies.
    (3) The rule will not materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof.
    The rule will not materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof because no entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs are invoked in the rule.
    (4) The rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues arising 
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles 
set forth in the Executive Order.
    Finally, the rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues 
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the 
principles set forth in the Executive Order. Congress has provided 
extensive and detailed guidance for implementation of the base closure 
and realignment process. The rule is merely a means for the Department 
to address some areas not addressed by Congress and provide some 
clarity in procedures to enable potential property recipients and 
others interested in the base closure and realignment process to 
harmonize their actions with those of the Department. The Department 
has identified no novel legal or policy issues that this rule will 
create on either a base closure and realignment basis or overall. Nor 
has the Department identified any novel legal or policy issues arising 
out of the President's priorities or principles set forth in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 
1996), requires that an agency conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis when publishing a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or 
final rule. The regulatory flexibility analysis determines the impact 
of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require federal agencies to state the 
factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The Department hereby certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The nature of the rule provides the factual basis for a determination 
that no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. The potential for 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities would 
result, if at all, because of the decision to close or realign an 
installation. This rule does not address those decisions. No costs are 
directly imposed on small entities nor is any action directly required 
of small entities through this rule. Since the Department will apply 
this rule for the purpose of disposing of real and personal property, 
the rule does not impose any requirements on small entities. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Department believes that the rule, if 
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their 
regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector. Section 202 of the UMRA requires that, prior to 
promulgating proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year, the agency must prepare a written

[[Page 9918]]

statement, including a cost-benefit analysis of the rule. Under Section 
205 of the UMRA, the Department must also identify and consider a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to the rule and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. Certain exceptions to Section 205 
exist. For example, when the requirements of Section 205 are 
inconsistent with applicable law, Section 205 does not apply. In 
addition, an agency may adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome in those cases where 
the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why such 
alternative was not adopted. Section 203 of the UMRA requires that the 
agency develop a small government agency plan before establishing any 
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments. The small government agency 
plan must include procedures for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, providing officials of affected small governments with the 
opportunity for meaningful and timely input in the development of 
regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The Department has determined that the rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector in any one year. The term ``federal mandate'' means any 
provision in statute or regulation or any Federal court ruling that 
imposes ``an enforceable duty'' upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, and includes any condition of federal assistance or a duty 
arising from participation in a voluntary federal program that imposes 
such a duty. The rule does not contain a Federal mandate because it 
imposes no enforceable duty upon state, tribal, or local governments. 
The base closure laws provide local governments the opportunity to 
participate in the implementation of the base closure and realignment 
process by establishing a LRA. There is no statutory requirement that 
an LRA be established; it is simply a means to allow the maximum local 
participation in the planning process for installations being closed. 
Since the establishment of an LRA and any actions taken by the LRA are 
entirely within the discretion of the local governments in the vicinity 
of a closing installation, there is no mandate involved in this rule, 
funded or unfunded. The Department does note that virtually all LRAs 
are provided planning assistance funds by the Department of Defense 
Office of Economic Adjustment to assist them in establishing and 
operating the LRA. To the extent that environmental restoration actions 
taken by the Department at an installation being closed or realigned 
are subject to state regulatory oversight, that oversight is due to 
statutory requirements outside of the base closure and realignment 
process. This rule, itself, does not require such oversight. To the 
degree such oversight is required, it is required by preexisting law on 
which the rule has no effect.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
prohibits a Federal agency from conducting or sponsoring a collection 
of information that requires OMB approval, unless such approval has 
been obtained and the collection request displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. Nor is any person required to respond to an information 
collection request that has not complied with the PRA. The term 
``collection of information'' includes collection of information from 
ten or more persons. The Department has determined that the PRA does 
not apply to this rule because the Department will not be seeking 
information from the public under the rule. The information that would 
be collected will be in the form of applications for EDCs and similar 
property transfers and will, in all instances, be entirely voluntary 
and be the result of members of the public seeking real or personal 
property under the disposal process. Therefore, the PRA does not apply 
to the rule.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs Federal agencies to use technical standards developed by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies in its regulatory activities, 
except in those cases in which using such standards would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. ``Technical 
standards'' means performance-based or design-specific technical 
specifications and related management systems practices. Voluntary 
consensus means that the technical standards are developed or adopted 
by voluntary consensus standards organizations. In those cases in which 
a Federal agency does not use voluntary consensus standards that are 
available and applicable, the agency must provide OMB with an 
explanation.
    The rule does not involve performance-based or design-specific 
technical specifications or related management systems practices. The 
rule is therefore in compliance with the NTTAA.

F. Environmental Justice Requirements Under Executive Order 12898

    Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations,'' a Federal agency must, where practicable and 
appropriate, collect, maintain, and analyze information assessing and 
comparing environmental and human health risks borne by populations 
identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent practical 
and appropriate, Federal agencies must then use this information to 
determine whether their activities have disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations 
and low-income populations.
    The Department believes that implementation of the rule does not 
implicate environmental justice concerns. As noted earlier, the 
significant impact of base closure and realignment is the decision to 
close or realign, which this rule does not address. This rule does not 
mandate environmental restoration, which is controlled by other laws 
outside of the base closure and realignment process, nor does it 
involve decisions dealing with human health. It may be that during the 
planning process for disposal and reuse, issues relating to environment 
and human health may arise, but they would do so in the context of any 
required analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and would 
be fully considered in that document.
    At this time, the Department believes that no action will directly 
result from the rule that will have a disproportionately high and 
adverse human health and environmental effect on any segment of the 
population.

G. Federalism Considerations Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), establishes certain requirements for Federal agencies 
issuing regulations, legislative comments, proposed legislation, or 
other policy statements or

[[Page 9919]]

actions that have ``federal implications.'' Under the Executive Order, 
any of these agency documents or actions have ``federal implications'' 
when they have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Section 6 of the Executive Order prohibits any agency 
from issuing a regulation that has federal implications, imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments, and 
is not required by statute. Such a regulation may be issued only if the 
Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or the agency 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. Further, a Federal agency may issue 
a regulation that has federalism implications and preempts state law 
only if the agency consults with state and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation.
    The rule does not have federalism implications because it will not 
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The only role the rule assigns to state or local government is for the 
establishment of an LRA and that action is entirely voluntary on the 
part of local government and explicitly provided for in the base 
closure laws. This rule does not change the relationship between the 
Federal Government and state or local government nor does it change the 
distribution of power between those entities. To the extent changes in 
the rule relate to the role of an LRA, those changes are mandated by 
statute and the rule only reflects the statutory provisions. The rule 
does not impose direct compliance costs on state or local governments 
and the Department actually provides grants to state and local 
governments to support their voluntary participation in the base 
closure and realignment planning process. Therefore, the requirements 
of the Executive Order, Section 6, do not apply to the rule.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Parts 174, 175, and 176

    Community development, Surplus Government property.

0
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 174 is revised, part 175 is removed, and part 
176 is amended to read as follows:
0
1. Part 174 is revised to read as follows:

PART 174--REVITALIZING BASE CLOSURE COMMUNITIES AND ADDRESSING 
IMPACTS OF REALIGNMENT

Subpart A--General
Sec.
174.1 Purpose.
174.2 Applicability.
174.3 Definitions.
Subpart B--Policy
174.4 Policy.
174.5 Responsibilities.
Subpart C--Working with Communities and States
174.6 LRA and the redevelopment plan.
Subpart D--Real Property
174.7 Retention for DoD Component use and transfers to other Federal 
agencies.
174.8 Screening for properties covered by the Base Closure Community 
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, cross-reference.
174.9 Economic development conveyances.
174.10 Consideration for economic development conveyances.
174.11 Leasing of real property to non-Federal entities.
174.12 Leasing of transferred real property by Federal agencies.
Subpart E--Personal Property
174.13 Personal property.
Subpart F--Maintenance and Repair
174.14 Maintenance and repair.
Subpart G--Environmental Matters
174.15 Indemnification under Section 330 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.
174.16 Real property containing explosive or chemical agent hazards.
174.17 NEPA.
174.18 Historic preservation.

    Authority: 10 U.S.C. 113 and 10 U.S.C. 2687 note.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  174.1  Purpose.

    This part:
    (a) Establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and implements 
base closure laws and associated provisions of law relating to the 
closure and the realignment of installations. It does not address the 
process for selecting installations for closure or realignment.
    (b) Authorizes the publication of DoD 4165.66-M, ``Base 
Redevelopment and Realignment Manual,'' in accordance with DoD 5025.1-
M\1\, ``DoD Directive System Procedures,'' March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies may be obtained at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/publ.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sec.  174.2  Applicability.

    This part applies to:
    (a) The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military 
Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint 
Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field 
Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of 
Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the ``DoD Components'').
    (b) Installations in the United States selected for closure or 
realignment under a base closure law.
    (c) Federal agencies and non-Federal entities that seek to obtain 
real or personal property on installations selected for closure or 
realignment.


Sec.  174.3  Definitions.

    (a) Base closure law. This term has the same meaning as provided in 
10 U.S.C. Sec.  101(a)(17)(B) and (C).
    (b) Closure. An action that ceases or relocates all current 
missions of an installation and eliminates or relocates all current 
personnel positions (military, civilian, and contractor), except for 
personnel required for caretaking, conducting any ongoing environmental 
cleanup, or property disposal. Retention of a small enclave, not 
associated with the main mission of the base, is still a closure.
    (c) Consultation. Explaining and discussing an issue, considering 
objections, modifications, and alternatives; but without a requirement 
to reach agreement.
    (d) Date of approval. This term has the same meaning as provided in 
section 2910(8) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
1990, Pub. L. 101-510.
    (e) Excess property. This term has the same meaning as provided in 
40 U.S.C. Sec.  102(3).
    (f) Installation. This term has the same meaning as provided in the 
definition for ``military installation'' in section 2910(4) of the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-510.
    (g) Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA). This term has the same 
meaning as provided in the definition for ``redevelopment authority'' 
in section 2910(9) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
1990, Pub. L. 101-510.

[[Page 9920]]

    (h) Military Department. This term has the same meaning as provided 
in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(8).
    (i) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq., as amended.
    (j) Realignment. This term has the same meaning as provided in 
section 2910(5) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
1990, Pub. L. 101-510.
    (k) Secretary concerned. This term has the same meaning as provided 
in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(9)(A), (B), and (C).
    (l) Surplus property. This term has the same meaning as provided in 
40 U.S.C. 102(10).
    (m) Transition coordinator. This term has the same meaning as used 
in section 2915 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1994, Public Law 103-160.

Subpart B--Policy


Sec.  174.4  Policy.

    It is DoD policy to:
    (a) Act expeditiously whether closing or realigning. Relocating 
activities from installations designated for closure will, when 
feasible, be accelerated to facilitate the transfer of real property 
for community reuse. In the case of realignments, the Department will 
pursue aggressive planning and scheduling of related facility 
improvements at the receiving location.
    (b) Fully utilize all appropriate means to transfer property. 
Federal law provides the Department with an array of legal authorities, 
including public benefit transfers, economic development conveyances at 
cost and no cost, negotiated sales to state or local government, 
conservation conveyances, and public sales, by which to transfer 
property on closed or realigned installations. Recognizing that the 
variety of types of facilities available for civilian reuse and the 
unique circumstances of the surrounding communities does not lend 
itself to a single universal solution, the Department will use this 
array of authorities in a way that considers individual circumstances.
    (c) Rely on and leverage market forces. Community redevelopment 
plans and military conveyance plans should be integrated to the extent 
practical and should take account of any anticipated demand for surplus 
military land and facilities.
    (d) Collaborate effectively. Experience suggests that collaboration 
is the linchpin to successful installation redevelopment. Only by 
collaborating with the local community can the Department close and 
transfer property in a timely manner and provide a foundation for solid 
economic redevelopment.
    (e) Speak with one voice. The Department of Defense, acting through 
the DoD Components, will provide clear and timely information and will 
encourage affected communities to do the same.
    (f) Work with communities to address growth. The Department will 
work with the surrounding community so that the public and private 
sectors can provide the services and facilities needed to accommodate 
new personnel and their families. The Department recognizes that 
installation commanders and local officials, as appropriate (e.g., 
State, county, and tribal), need to integrate and coordinate elements 
of their local and regional growth planning so that appropriate off-
base facilities and services are available for arriving personnel and 
their families.


Sec.  174.5  Responsibilities.

    (a) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics shall issue DoD Instructions as necessary to further 
implement applicable public laws affecting installation closure and 
realignment implementation and shall monitor compliance with this part. 
All authorities and responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense--
    (1) Vested in the Secretary of Defense by a base closure law, but 
excluding those provisions relating to the process for selecting 
installations for closure or realignment;
    (2) Delegated from the Administrator of General Services relating 
to base closure and realignment matters;
    (3) Vested in the Secretary of Defense by any other provision 
relating to base closure and realignment in a national defense 
authorization act, a Department of Defense appropriations act, or a 
military construction appropriations act, but excluding section 330 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993; or
    (4) Vested in the Secretary of Defense by Executive Order or 
regulation and relating to base closure and realignment, are hereby 
delegated to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics.
    (b) The authorities and responsibilities of the Secretary of 
Defense delegated to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics under paragraph (a) of this section are 
hereby re-delegated to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Environment).
    (c) The Heads of the DoD Components shall ensure compliance with 
this part and any implementing guidance.
    (d) Subject to the delegations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section, the Secretaries concerned shall exercise those authorities and 
responsibilities specified in subparts C through G of this part.
    (e) The cost of recording deeds and other transfer documents is the 
responsibility of the transferee.

Subpart C--Working with Communities and States


Sec.  174.6  LRA and the redevelopment plan.

    (a) The LRA should have broad-based membership, including, but not 
limited to, representatives from those jurisdictions with zoning 
authority over the property. Generally, there will be one recognized 
LRA per installation.
    (b) The LRA should focus primarily on developing a comprehensive 
redevelopment plan based upon local needs. The plan should recommend 
land uses based upon an exploration of feasible reuse alternatives. If 
applicable, the plan should consider notices of interest received under 
a base closure law. This section shall not be construed to require a 
plan that is enforceable under state and local land use laws, nor is it 
intended to create any exemption from such laws.
    (c)(1) The Secretary concerned will develop a disposal plan and, to 
the extent practicable, complete the appropriate environmental 
documentation no later than 12 months after receipt of the 
redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan will be used as part of the 
proposed Federal action in conducting environmental analyses required 
under NEPA.
    (2) In the event there is no LRA recognized by DoD or if a 
redevelopment plan is not received from the LRA within 9 months from 
the date referred to in section 2905(b)(7)(F)(iv) of Pub. L. 101-510, 
(unless an extension of time has been granted by the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)), the Secretary 
concerned shall, after required consultation with the governor and 
heads of local governments, proceed with the disposal of property under 
applicable property disposal and environmental laws and regulations.

Subpart D--Real Property


Sec.  174.7  Retention for DoD Component use and transfer to other 
Federal agencies.

    (a) To speed the economic recovery of communities affected by 
closures and realignments, the Department of Defense will identify DoD 
and Federal interests

[[Page 9921]]

in real property at closing and realigning installations as quickly as 
possible. The Secretary concerned shall identify such interests. The 
Secretary concerned will keep the LRA informed of these interests. This 
section establishes a uniform process, with specified timelines, for 
identifying real property that is available for use by DoD Components 
(which for purposes of this section includes the United States Coast 
Guard) or is excess to the needs of the Department of Defense and 
available for use by other Federal agencies, and for the disposal of 
surplus property for various purposes.
    (b) The Secretary concerned should consider LRA input, if provided, 
in making determinations on the retention of property (location and 
size of cantonment area).
    (c) Within one week of the date of approval of the closure or 
realignment, the Secretary concerned shall issue a notice of 
availability to the DoD Components and other Federal agencies covering 
closing and realigning installation buildings and property available 
for transfer to the DoD Components and other Federal agencies. The 
notice of availability should describe the property and buildings 
available for transfer. Withdrawn public domain lands which the 
Secretary of the Interior has determined are suitable for return to the 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior (DoI) will not be 
included in the notice of availability.
    (d) To obtain consideration of a requirement for such available 
buildings and property, a DoD Component or Federal agency is required 
to provide a written, firm expression of interest for buildings and 
property within 30 days of the date of the notice of availability. An 
expression of interest must explain the intended use and the 
corresponding requirement for the buildings and property.
    (e)(1) Within 60 days of the date of the notice of availability, 
the DoD Component or Federal agency expressing interest in buildings or 
property must submit an application for transfer of such property to a 
Military Department or Federal agency. In the case of a DoD Component 
that would normally, under the circumstances, obtain its real property 
needs from the Military Department disposing of the real property, the 
application should indicate the property would not transfer to another 
Military Department but should be retained by the current Military 
Department for the use of the DoD Component. To the extent a different 
Military Department provides real property support for the requesting 
DoD Component, the application must indicate the concurrence of the 
supporting Military Department.
    (2) Within 90 days of the notice of availability, the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) should survey the air traffic control and 
air navigation equipment at the installation to determine what is 
needed to support the air traffic control, surveillance, and 
communications functions supported by the Military Department, and to 
identify the facilities needed to support the National Airspace System. 
FAA requests for property to manage the National Airspace System will 
not be governed by paragraph (h) of this section. Instead, the FAA 
shall work directly with the Military Department to prepare an 
agreement to assume custody of the property necessary for control of 
the airspace being relinquished by the Military Department.
    (f) The Secretary concerned will keep the LRA informed of the 
progress in identifying interests. At the same time, the LRA is 
encouraged to contact Federal agencies which sponsor public benefit 
conveyances for information and technical assistance. The Secretary 
concerned will provide to the LRA points of contact at the Federal 
agencies.
    (g) DoD Components and Federal agencies are encouraged to discuss 
their plans and needs with the LRA, if an LRA exists. If an LRA does 
not exist, the consultation should be pursued with the governor or the 
heads of the local governments in whose jurisdiction the property is 
located. DoD Components and Federal agencies are encouraged to notify 
the Secretary concerned of the results of this consultation. The 
Secretary concerned, the Transition Coordinator, and the DoD Office of 
Economic Adjustment Project Manager are available to help facilitate 
communication between the DoD Components and Federal agencies, and the 
LRA, governor, and heads of local governments.
    (h) An application for property from a DoD Component or Federal 
agency must contain the following information:
    (1) A completed GSA Form 1334, Request for Transfer (for requests 
from DoD Components, a DD Form 1354 will be used). This must be signed 
by the head of the Component or agency requesting the property. If the 
authority to acquire property has been delegated, a copy of the 
delegation must accompany the form;
    (2) A statement from the head of the requesting Component or agency 
that the request does not establish a new program (i.e., one that has 
never been reflected in a previous budget submission or Congressional 
action);
    (3) A statement that the requesting Component or agency has 
reviewed its real property holdings and cannot satisfy its requirement 
with existing property. This review must include all property under the 
requester's accountability, including permits to other Federal agencies 
and outleases to other organizations;
    (4) A statement that the requested property would provide greater 
long-term economic benefits for the program than acquisition of a new 
facility or other property;
    (5) A statement that the program for which the property is 
requested has long-term viability;
    (6) A statement that considerations of design, layout, geographic 
location, age, state of repair, and expected maintenance costs of the 
requested property clearly demonstrate that the transfer will prove 
more economical over a sustained period of time than acquiring a new 
facility;
    (7) A statement that the size of the property requested is 
consistent with the actual requirement;
    (8) A statement that fair market value reimbursement to the 
Military Department will be made at the later of January of 2008, or at 
the time of transfer, unless this obligation is waived by the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Secretary concerned, or a public law 
specifically provides for a non-reimbursable transfer (this requirement 
does not apply to requests from DoD Components);
    (9) A statement that the requesting DoD Component or Federal agency 
agrees to accept the care and custody costs for the property on the 
date the property is available for transfer, as determined by the 
Secretary concerned; and
    (10) A statement that the requesting agency agrees to accept 
transfer of the property in its existing condition, unless this 
obligation is waived by the Secretary concerned.
    (i) The Secretary concerned will make a decision on an application 
from a DoD Component or Federal agency based upon the following 
factors:
    (1) The requirement must be valid and appropriate;
    (2) The proposed use is consistent with the highest and best use of 
the property;
    (3) The proposed transfer will not have an adverse impact on the 
transfer of any remaining portion of the installation;
    (4) The proposed transfer will not establish a new program or 
substantially increase the level of a Component's or agency's existing 
programs;

[[Page 9922]]

    (5) The application offers fair market value for the property, 
unless waived;
    (6) The proposed transfer addresses applicable environmental 
responsibilities to the satisfaction of the Secretary concerned; and
    (7) The proposed transfer is in the best interest of the 
Government.
    (j) When there is more than one acceptable application for the same 
building or property, the Secretary concerned shall consider, in the 
following order--
    (1) The need to perform the national defense missions of the 
Department of Defense and the Coast Guard;
    (2) The need to support the homeland defense mission; and
    (3) The LRA's comments as well as other factors in the 
determination of highest and best use.
    (k) If the Federal agency does not meet its commitment under 
paragraph (h)(8) of this section to provide the required reimbursement, 
and the requested property has not yet been transferred to the agency, 
the requested property will be declared surplus and disposed of in 
accordance with the provisions of this part.
    (l) Closing or realigning installations may contain ``public domain 
lands'' which have been withdrawn by the Secretary of the Interior from 
operation of the public land laws and reserved for use by the 
Department of Defense. Lands deemed suitable for return to the public 
domain are not real property governed by title 40, United States Code, 
and are not governed by the property management and disposal provisions 
of a base closure law. Public domain lands are under the jurisdiction 
of the Secretary of the Interior and administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) unless the Secretary of the Interior has withdrawn the 
lands and reserved them for another Federal agency's use.
    (1) The Secretary concerned will provide the BLM with information 
about which, if any, public domain lands will be affected by the 
installation's closure or realignment.
    (2) The BLM will review the information to determine if any 
installations contain withdrawn public domain lands. The BLM will 
review its land records to identify any withdrawn public domain lands 
at the closing installations. Any records discrepancies between the BLM 
and Military Departments should be resolved. The BLM will notify the 
Secretary concerned as to the final agreed upon withdrawn and reserved 
public domain lands at an installation.
    (3) Upon agreement as to what withdrawn and reserved public domain 
lands are affected at closing installations, the BLM will initiate a 
screening of DoI agencies to determine if these lands are suitable for 
programs of the Secretary of the Interior.
    (4) The Secretary concerned will transmit a Notice of Intent to 
Relinquish (see 43 CFR Part 2370) to the BLM as soon as it is known 
that there is no DoD Component interest in reusing the public domain 
lands. The BLM will complete the suitability determination screening 
process within 30 days of receipt of the Secretary's Notice of Intent 
to Relinquish. If a DoD Component is approved to reuse the public 
domain lands, the BLM will be notified and BLM will determine if the 
current authority for military use of these lands needs to be modified 
or amended.
    (5) If BLM determines the land is suitable for return, it shall 
notify the Secretary concerned that the intent of the Secretary of the 
Interior is to accept the relinquishment of the land by the Secretary 
concerned.
    (6) If BLM determines the land is not suitable for return to the 
DoI, the land should be disposed of pursuant to base closure law.
    (m) The Secretary concerned should make a surplus determination 
within six (6) months of the date of approval of closure or 
realignment, and shall inform the LRA of the determination. If 
requested by the LRA, the Secretary may postpone the surplus 
determination for a period of no more than six (6) additional months 
after the date of approval if the Secretary determines that such 
postponement is in the best interests of the communities affected by 
the closure or realignment.
    (1) In unusual circumstances, extensions beyond six months can be 
granted by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment).
    (2) Extensions of the surplus determination should be limited to 
the portions of the installation where there is an outstanding 
interest, and every effort should be made to make decisions on as much 
of the installation as possible, within the specified timeframes.
    (n) Once the surplus determination has been made, the Secretary 
concerned shall follow the procedures in part 176 of this title.
    (o) Following the surplus determination, but prior to the disposal 
of property, the Secretary concerned may, at the Secretary's 
discretion, withdraw the surplus determination and evaluate a Federal 
agency's late request for excess property.
    (1) Transfers under this paragraph shall be limited to special 
cases, as determined by the Secretary concerned.
    (2) Requests shall be made to the Secretary concerned, as specified 
under paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section, and the Secretary shall 
notify the LRA of such late request.
    (3) Comments received from the LRA and the time and effort invested 
by the LRA in the planning process should be considered when the 
Secretary concerned is reviewing a late request.


Sec.  174.8  Screening for properties covered by the Base Closure 
Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, cross-
reference.

    The Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development have 
promulgated regulations to address state and local screening and 
approval of redevelopment plans for installations covered by the Base 
Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 
(Pub. L. 103-421). The Department of Defense regulations can be found 
at part 176 of this title. The Department of Housing and Urban 
Development regulations can be found at 24 CFR part 586.


Sec.  174.9  Economic development conveyances.

    (a) The Secretary concerned may transfer real property and personal 
property to the LRA for purposes of job generation on the installation. 
Such a transfer is an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC).
    (b) For installations having a date of approval for closure after 
January 1, 2005, the Secretary concerned shall seek to obtain 
consideration in connection with any transfer under this section in an 
amount equal to the fair market value of the property.
    (c) An LRA is the only entity able to receive property under an 
EDC.
    (d) A properly completed application will be used to decide whether 
an LRA will be eligible for an EDC. An LRA may submit an EDC 
application only after it adopts a redevelopment plan. The Secretary 
concerned shall establish a reasonable time period for submission of an 
EDC application after consultation with the LRA. The Secretary will 
review the application and make a decision whether to make an EDC based 
on the criteria specified in paragraph (g) of this section; such 
decision will only be made after the Secretary has notified and 
obtained the concurrence of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
(Installations & Environment) of the proposed decision. The terms and 
conditions of the EDC will be negotiated between the Secretary and the 
LRA.

[[Page 9923]]

    (e) The application should explain why an EDC is necessary for job 
generation on the installation. In addition to the following elements, 
after the Secretary concerned reviews the application, additional 
information may be requested to allow for a better evaluation of the 
application:
    (1) A copy of the adopted redevelopment plan.
    (2) A project narrative including the following:
    (A) A general description of the property requested.
    (B) A description of the intended uses.
    (C) A description of the economic impact of closure or realignment 
on the local community.
    (D) A description of the financial condition of the community and 
the prospects for redevelopment of the property.
    (E) A statement of how the EDC is consistent with the overall 
redevelopment plan.
    (3) A description of how the EDC will contribute to short- and 
long-term job generation on the installation, including the projected 
number and type of new jobs it will assist in generating.
    (4) A business/operational plan for the EDC parcel, including such 
elements as:
    (A) A development timetable, phasing schedule, and cash flow 
analysis.
    (B) A market and financial feasibility analysis describing the 
economic viability of the project, including an estimate of net 
proceeds over a fifteen-year period, the proposed consideration or 
payment to the Department of Defense, and the estimated present fair 
market value of the property.
    (C) A cost estimate and justification for infrastructure and other 
investments needed for the development of the EDC parcel.
    (D) Local investment and proposed financing strategies for the 
development.
    (5) A statement describing why other authorities, such as public or 
negotiated sales and public benefit conveyances for education, parks, 
public health, aviation, historic monuments, prisons, and wildlife 
conservation, cannot be used to accomplish the job generation goals.
    (6) Evidence of the LRA's legal authority to acquire and dispose of 
the property.
    (7) Evidence that the LRA has full authority to perform all of the 
actions required of it pursuant to the terms of the EDC, can 
demonstrate through agreements or assurances that the LRA has the 
appropriate local government approvals to implement the approved reuse 
plan, and that the officers executing the EDC documents on behalf of 
the LRA have full authority to do so.
    (8) Proof the LRA has obtained sufficient financing for acquiring 
the EDC property and carrying out the LRA's redevelopment objectives.
    (f) Upon receipt of an application for an EDC, the Secretary 
concerned will determine whether an EDC is needed for purposes of job 
generation and examine whether the terms and conditions proposed are 
fair and reasonable. The Secretary may also consider information 
independent of the application, such as views of other Federal 
agencies, appraisals, caretaker costs, and other relevant material. The 
Secretary may propose and negotiate any alternative terms or conditions 
that the Secretary considers necessary seeking always to obtain an 
amount equal to the fair market value.
    (g) The following factors will be considered, as appropriate, in 
evaluating the application and the terms and conditions of the proposed 
transfer, including price, time of payment, and other relevant methods 
of compensation to the Federal government.
    (1) Adverse economic impact of closure or realignment on the region 
and potential for economic recovery through an EDC.
    (2) Extent of short- and long-term job generation.
    (3) Consistency with the entire redevelopment plan.
    (4) Financial feasibility of the development, including market 
analysis and need and extent of proposed infrastructure and other 
investments.
    (5) Extent of state and local investment, level of risk incurred, 
and the LRA's ability to implement the plan.
    (6) Current local and regional real estate market conditions.
    (7) Incorporation of other Federal agency interests and concerns, 
and applicability of, and conflicts with, other Federal surplus 
property disposal authorities.
    (8) Relationship to the overall Military Department disposal plan 
for the installation.
    (9) Economic benefit to the Federal Government, including 
protection and maintenance cost savings and anticipated consideration 
from the transfer.
    (10) Compliance with applicable Federal, state, interstate, and 
local laws and regulations.
    (h) Before making an EDC, the Secretary concerned shall prepare an 
estimate of the fair market value of the property.
    (1) In preparing the estimate of fair market value, the Secretary 
concerned shall use the most recent edition of the Uniform Appraisal 
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, published by the Appraisal 
Institute in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice.
    (2) The Secretary concerned shall consult with the LRA on valuation 
assumptions, guidelines, and on instructions given to the appraiser.
    (3) The Secretary concerned is fully responsible for completion of 
the valuation. The Secretary, in preparing the estimate of fair market 
value shall consider the proposed uses identified in the redevelopment 
plan to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the highest and 
best use.


Sec.  174.10  Consideration for economic development conveyances.

    (a) For conveyances made pursuant to Sec.  174.9 of this part, the 
Secretary concerned will review the application for an EDC and 
negotiate the terms and conditions of each transaction with the LRA. 
The Secretary will have the discretion and flexibility to enter into 
agreements that specify the form of payment and the schedule. The 
consideration may be in cash or in-kind and may be paid over time.
    (b) The Secretary concerned shall seek to obtain consideration at 
least equal to the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary.
    (c) Any amount paid in the future should take into account the time 
value of money and include repayment of interest.
    (d) Additional provisions may be incorporated in the conveyance 
documents to protect the Department's interest in obtaining the agreed 
upon consideration, including such items as predetermined release 
prices, or other appropriate clauses designed to ensure payment and 
protect against fraudulent transactions.
    (e)(1) An EDC without consideration may only be made if--
    (i) The LRA agrees that the proceeds from any sale or lease of the 
property (or any portion thereof) received by the LRA during at least 
the first seven years after the date of the initial transfer of 
property shall be used to support economic redevelopment of, or related 
to, the installation; and
    (ii) The LRA executes the agreement for transfer of the property 
and accepts control of the property within a reasonable time after the 
date of the property disposal record of decision.
    (2) The following purposes shall be considered a use to support 
economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation--
    (i) Road construction;
    (ii) Transportation management facilities;

[[Page 9924]]

    (iii) Storm and sanitary sewer construction;
    (iv) Police and fire protection facilities and other public 
facilities;
    (v) Utility construction;
    (vi) Building rehabilitation;
    (vii) Historic property preservation;
    (viii) Pollution prevention equipment or facilities;
    (ix) Demolition;
    (x) Disposal of hazardous materials generated by demolition;
    (xi) Landscaping, grading, and other site or public improvements; 
and
    (xii) Planning for or the marketing of the development and reuse of 
the installation.
    (f) Every agreement for an EDC without consideration shall contain 
provisions allowing the Secretary concerned to recoup from the LRA such 
portion of the proceeds from its sale or lease as the Secretary 
determines appropriate if the LRA does not use the proceeds to support 
economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation for the 
period specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.


Sec.  174.11  Leasing of real property to non-Federal entities.

    (a) Leasing of real property to non-Federal entities prior to the 
final disposition of closing and realigning installations may 
facilitate state and local economic adjustment efforts and encourage 
economic redevelopment, but the Secretary concerned will always 
concentrate on the final disposition of real and personal property.
    (b) In addition to leasing property at fair market value, to assist 
local redevelopment efforts the Secretary concerned may also lease real 
and personal property, pending final disposition, for less than fair 
market value if the Secretary determines that:
    (1) A public interest will be served as a result of the lease; and,
    (2) The fair market value of the lease is unobtainable or not 
compatible with such public benefit.
    (c) Pending final disposition of an installation, the Secretary 
concerned may grant interim leases which are short-term leases that 
make no commitment for future use or ultimate disposal. When granting 
an interim lease, the Secretary will generally lease to the LRA but can 
lease property directly to other entities. If the interim lease (after 
complying with NEPA) is entered into prior to completion of the final 
disposal decisions, the term may be for up to five years, including 
options to renew, and may contain restrictions on use. Leasing should 
not delay the final disposal of the property. After completion of the 
final disposal decisions, the term of the lease may be longer than five 
years.
    (d) If the property is leased for less than fair market value to 
the LRA and the interim lease permits the property to be subleased, the 
interim lease shall provide that rents from the subleases will be 
applied by the lessee to the protection, maintenance, repair, 
improvement, and costs related to the property at the installation 
consistent with 10 U.S.C. 2667.


Sec.  174.12  Leasing of transferred real property by Federal agencies.

    (a) The Secretary concerned may transfer real property that is 
still needed by a Federal agency (which for purposes of this section 
includes DoD Components) to an LRA provided the LRA agrees to lease the 
property to the Federal agency in accordance with all statutory and 
regulatory guidance.
    (b) The decision whether to transfer property pursuant to such a 
leasing arrangement rests with the Secretary concerned. However, a 
Secretary shall only transfer property subject to such a leasing 
arrangement if the Federal agency that needs the property agrees to the 
leasing arrangement.
    (c) If the subject property cannot be transferred pursuant to such 
a leasing arrangement (e.g., the relevant Federal agency prefers 
ownership, the LRA and the Federal agency cannot agree on terms of the 
lease, or the Secretary concerned determines that such a lease would 
not be in the Federal interest), such property shall remain in Federal 
ownership unless and until the Secretary concerned determines that it 
is surplus.
    (d) If a building or structure is proposed for transfer pursuant to 
this section, that which is leased by the Federal agency may be all or 
a portion of that building or structure.
    (e) Transfers pursuant to this section must be to an LRA.
    (f) Either existing Federal tenants or Federal agencies desiring to 
locate onto the property after operational closure may make use of such 
a leasing arrangement. The Secretary concerned may not enter into such 
a leasing arrangement unless:
    (1) In the case of a Defense Agency, the Secretary concerned is 
acting in an Executive Agent capacity on behalf of the Agency that 
certifies that such a leasing arrangement is in the interest of that 
Agency; or,
    (2) In the case of a Military Department, the Secretary concerned 
certifies that such a leasing arrangement is in the best interest of 
the Military Department and that use of the property by the Military 
Department is consistent with the obligation to close or realign the 
installation in accordance with the recommendations of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission.
    (g) Property eligible for such a leasing arrangement is not surplus 
because it is still needed by the Federal Government. Even though the 
LRA would not otherwise have to include such property in its 
redevelopment plan, it should include the property in its redevelopment 
plan anyway to take into account the planned Federal use of such 
property.
    (h) The terms of the LRA's lease to the Federal Government should 
afford the Federal agency rights as close to those associated with 
ownership of the property as is practicable. The requirements of the 
General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(48 CFR Part 570) are not applicable to the lease, but provisions in 
that regulation may be used to the extent they are consistent with this 
part. The terms of the lease are negotiable subject to the following:
    (1) The lease shall be for a term of no more than 50 years, but may 
provide for options for renewal or extension of the term at the request 
of the Federal Government. The lease term should be based on the needs 
of the Federal agency.
    (2) The lease, or any renewals or extensions thereof, shall not 
require rental payments.
    (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (h)(2) of this section, if the lease 
involves a substantial portion of the installation, the Secretary 
concerned may obtain facility services for the leased property and 
common area maintenance from the LRA or the LRA's assignee as a 
provision of the lease.
    (A) Such services and common area maintenance shall be provided at 
a rate no higher than the rate charged to non-Federal tenants of the 
transferred property.
    (B) Such services and common area maintenance shall not include--
    (i) Municipal services that a State or local government is required 
by law to provide to all landowners in its jurisdiction without direct 
charge, including police protection; or
    (ii) Firefighting or security-guard functions.
    (C) The Federal agency may be responsible for services such as 
janitorial, grounds keeping, utilities, capital maintenance, and other 
services normally provided by a landlord. Acquisition of such services 
by the Federal agency is to be accomplished through the use of Federal 
Acquisition Regulation procedures or otherwise in

[[Page 9925]]

accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
    (4) The lease shall include a provision prohibiting the LRA from 
transferring fee title to another entity during the term of the lease, 
other than one of the political jurisdictions that comprise the LRA, 
without the written consent of the Federal agency occupying the leased 
property.
    (5)(i) The lease shall include an option specifying that if the 
Federal agency no longer needs the property before the expiration of 
the term of the lease, the remainder of the lease term may be satisfied 
by the same or another Federal agency that needs property for a similar 
use. (``Similar use'' is a use that is comparable to or essentially the 
same as the use under the original lease, as determined by the 
Secretary concerned.)
    (ii)(B) If the tenant is a DoD Component, before notifying GSA of 
the availability of the leasehold, it shall determine whether any other 
DoD Component has a requirement for the leasehold; in doing so, it 
shall consult with the LRA. If another DoD Component has a requirement 
for the leasehold, that DoD Component shall be allowed to assume the 
leasehold for the remainder of its term. If no DoD Component has a 
requirement for the leasehold, the tenant shall notify GSA in 
accordance with paragraph (h)(5)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (A) The Federal tenant shall notify the GSA of the availability of 
the leasehold. GSA will then decide whether to exercise this option 
after consulting with the LRA or other property owner. The GSA shall 
have 60 days from the date of notification in which to identify a 
Federal agency to serve out the term of the lease and to notify the LRA 
or other property owner of the new tenant. If the GSA does not notify 
the LRA or other property owner of a new tenant within such 60 days, 
the leasehold shall terminate on a date agreed to by the Federal tenant 
and the LRA or other property owner.
    (B) If the GSA decides not to exercise this option after consulting 
with the LRA or other property owner, the leasehold shall terminate on 
a date agreed to by the Federal tenant and the LRA or other property 
owner.
    (6) The terms of the lease shall provide that the Federal agency 
may repair and improve the property at its expense after consultation 
with the LRA.
    (i) Property subject to such a leasing arrangement shall be 
conveyed in accordance with the existing EDC procedures. The LRA shall 
submit the following in addition to the application requirements 
outlined in Sec.  174.9(e) of this part:
    (1) A description of the parcel or parcels the LRA proposes to have 
transferred to it and then to lease to a Federal agency;
    (2) A written statement signed by an authorized representative of 
the Federal agency that it agrees to accept the lease of the property; 
and,
    (3) A statement explaining why such a leasing arrangement is 
necessary for the long-term economic redevelopment of the installation 
property.
    (j) The exact amount of consideration, or the formula to be used to 
determine that consideration, as well as the schedule for payment of 
consideration must be agreed upon in writing before transfer pursuant 
to this section.

Subpart E--Personal Property


Sec.  174.13  Personal property.

    (a) This section outlines procedures to allow transfer of personal 
property to the LRA for the effective implementation of a redevelopment 
plan. Personal property does not include fixtures.
    (b) The Secretary concerned, supported by DoD Components with 
personal property on the installation, will take an inventory of the 
personal property, including its condition, within 6 months after the 
date of approval of closure or realignment. This inventory will be 
limited to the personal property located on the real property to be 
disposed of by the Military Department. The inventory will be taken in 
consultation with LRA officials. If there is no LRA, the Secretary 
concerned shall consult with the local government in whose jurisdiction 
the installation is wholly located, or a local government agency or a 
State government agency designated for that purpose by the Governor of 
the State. Based on these consultations, the installation commander 
will determine the items or category of items that have the potential 
to enhance the reuse of the real property.
    (c) Except for property subject to the exemptions in paragraph (e) 
of this section, personal property with potential to enhance the reuse 
of the real property shall remain at an installation being closed or 
realigned until the earlier of:
    (1) One week after the Secretary concerned receives the 
redevelopment plan;
    (2) The date notified by the LRA that there will be no 
redevelopment plan;
    (3) 24 months after the date of approval of the closure or 
realignment of the installation; or
    (4) 90 days before the date of the closure or realignment of the 
installation.
    (d) National Guard property under the control of the United States 
Property and Fiscal Officer is subject to inventory and may be made 
available for redevelopment planning purposes.
    (e) Personal property may be removed upon approval of the 
installation commander or higher authority, as prescribed by the 
Secretary concerned, after the inventory required in paragraph (b) of 
this section has been sent to the LRA, when:
    (1) The property is required for the operation of a unit, function, 
component, weapon, or weapons system at another installation;
    (2) The property is uniquely military in character and is likely to 
have no civilian use (other than use for its material content or as a 
source of commonly used components). This property consists of 
classified items; nuclear, biological, and chemical items; weapons and 
munitions; museum property or items of significant historic value that 
are maintained or displayed on loan; and similar military items;
    (3) The property is not required for the reutilization or 
redevelopment of the installation (as jointly determined by the 
Secretary concerned and the LRA);
    (4) The property is stored at the installation for purposes of 
distribution (including spare parts or stock items) or redistribution 
and sale (DoD excess/surplus personal property). This property includes 
materials or parts used in a manufacturing or repair function but does 
not include maintenance spares for equipment to be left in place;
    (5) The property meets known requirements of an authorized program 
of a DoD Component or another Federal agency that would have to 
purchase similar items, and is the subject of a written request by the 
head of the DoD Component or other Federal agency. If the authority to 
acquire personal property has been delegated, a copy of the delegation 
must accompany the request. (For purposes of this paragraph, 
``purchase'' means the DoD Component or Federal agency intends to 
obligate funds in the current quarter or next six fiscal quarters.) The 
DoD Component or Federal agency must pay packing, crating, handling, 
and transportation charges associated with such transfers of personal 
property;
    (6) The property belongs to a nonappropriated fund instrumentality 
(NAFI) of the Department of Defense; separate arrangements for 
communities to purchase such property are possible

[[Page 9926]]

and may be negotiated with the Secretary concerned;
    (7) The property is not owned by the Department of Defense, i.e., 
it is owned by a Federal agency outside the Department of Defense or by 
non-Federal persons or entities such as a State, a private corporation, 
or an individual; or,
    (8) The property is needed elsewhere in the national security 
interest of the United States as determined by the Secretary concerned. 
This authority may not be re-delegated below the level of an Assistant 
Secretary. In exercising this authority, the Secretary may transfer the 
property to any DoD Component or other Federal agency.
    (f) Personal property not subject to the exemptions in paragraph 
(e) of this section may be conveyed to the LRA as part of an EDC for 
the real property if the Secretary concerned makes a finding that the 
personal property is necessary for the effective implementation of the 
redevelopment plan.
    (g) Personal property may also be conveyed separately to the LRA 
under an EDC for personal property. This type of EDC can be made if the 
Secretary concerned determines that the transfer is necessary for the 
effective implementation of a redevelopment plan with respect to the 
installation. Such determination shall be based on the LRA's timely 
application for the property, which should be submitted to the 
Secretary upon completion of the redevelopment plan. The application 
must include the LRA's agreement to accept the personal property after 
a reasonable period and will otherwise comply with the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  174.9 and 174.10 of this part. The transfer will be subject 
to reasonable limitations and conditions on use.
    (h) Personal property that is not needed by a DoD Component or a 
tenant Federal agency or conveyed to an LRA (or a state or local 
jurisdiction in lieu of an LRA), or conveyed as related personal 
property together with the real property, will be transferred to the 
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office for disposal in accordance 
with applicable regulations.
    (i) Useful personal property not needed by the Federal Government 
and not qualifying for transfer to the LRA under an EDC may be donated 
to the community or LRA through the appropriate State Agency for 
Surplus Property (SASP) under 41 CFR part 102-37 surplus program 
guidelines. Personal property donated under this procedure must meet 
the usage and control requirements of the applicable SASP.

Subpart F--Maintenance and Repair


Sec.  174.14  Maintenance and repair.

    (a) Facilities and equipment located on installations being closed 
are often important to the eventual reuse of the installation. This 
section provides maintenance procedures to preserve and protect those 
facilities and items of equipment needed for reuse in an economical 
manner that facilitates installation redevelopment.
    (b) In order to ensure quick reuse, the Secretary concerned, in 
consultation with the LRA, will establish initial levels of maintenance 
and repair needed to aid redevelopment and to protect the property for 
the time periods set forth in paragraph (c) of this section. Where 
agreement between the Secretary and the LRA cannot be reached, the 
Secretary will determine the required levels of maintenance and repair 
and its duration. In no case will these initial levels of maintenance:
    (1) Exceed the standard of maintenance and repair in effect on the 
date of approval of closure or realignment;
    (2) Be less than maintenance and repair required to be consistent 
with Federal Government standards for excess and surplus properties as 
provided in the Federal Management Regulations of the GSA, 41 CFR part 
102;
    (3) Be less than the minimum levels required to support the use of 
such facilities or equipment for nonmilitary purposes; or,
    (4) Require any property improvements, including construction, 
alteration, or demolition, except when the demolition is required for 
health, safety, or environmental purposes, or is economically justified 
in lieu of continued maintenance expenditures.
    (c) Unless the Secretary concerned determines that it is in the 
national security interest of the United States, the levels of 
maintenance and repair specified in paragraph (b) of this section shall 
not be changed until the earlier of:
    (1) One week after the Secretary concerned receives the 
redevelopment plan;
    (2) The date notified by the LRA that there will be no 
redevelopment plan;
    (3) 24 months after the date of approval of the closure or 
realignment of the installation; or
    (4) 90 days before the date of the closure or realignment of the 
installation.
    (d) The Secretary concerned may extend the time period for the 
initial levels of maintenance and repair for property still under the 
Secretary's control for an additional period, if the Secretary 
determines that the LRA is actively implementing its redevelopment 
plan, and such levels of maintenance are justified.
    (e) Once the time period for the initial or extended levels of 
maintenance and repair expires, the Secretary concerned will reduce the 
levels of maintenance and repair to levels consistent with Federal 
Government standards for excess and surplus properties as provided in 
the Federal Management Regulations of the GSA, except in the case of 
facilities still being used to perform a DoD mission.

Subpart G--Environmental Matters


Sec.  174.15  Indemnification under Section 330 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.

    Section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1993, Pub. L. 102-484, as amended, provides for indemnification of 
transferees of closing Department of Defense properties under 
circumstances specified in that statute. The authority to implement 
this provision of law has been delegated by the Secretary of Defense to 
the General Counsel of the Department of Defense; therefore, this 
provision of law shall only be referred to or recited in any deed, 
sales agreement, bill of sale, lease, license, easement, right-of-way, 
or transfer document for real or personal property after obtaining the 
written concurrence of the Deputy General Counsel (Environment and 
Installations), Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense.


Sec.  174.16  Real property containing explosive or chemical agent 
hazards.

    The DoD Component controlling real property known to contain or 
suspected of containing explosive or chemical agent hazards from past 
DoD military munitions-related or chemical warfare-related activities 
shall, prior to transfer of the property out of Department of Defense 
control, obtain the DoD Explosives Safety Board's approval of measures 
planned to ensure protectiveness from such hazards, in accordance with 
DoD Directive 6055.9E, Explosives Safety Management and the DoD 
Explosives Safety Board.


Sec.  174.17  NEPA.

    At installations subject to this part, NEPA analysis shall comply 
with the promulgated NEPA regulations of the Military Department 
exercising real property accountability for the installation, including 
any requirements relating to responsibility for funding the analysis. 
See 32 CFR parts 651 (for the Army), 775 (for the Navy), and 989 (for

[[Page 9927]]

the Air Force). Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as 
releasing a Military Department from complying with its own NEPA 
regulation.


Sec.  174.18  Historic preservation.

    (a) The transfer, lease, or sale of National Register-eligible 
historic property to a non-Federal entity at installations subject to 
this part may constitute an ``adverse effect'' under the regulations 
implementing the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 
800.5(a)(2)(vii)). One way of resolving this adverse effect is to 
restrict the use that may be made of the property subsequent to its 
transfer out of Federal ownership or control through the imposition of 
legally enforceable restrictions or conditions. The Secretary concerned 
may include such restrictions or conditions (typically a real property 
interest in the form of a restrictive covenant or preservation 
easement) in any deed or lease conveying an interest in historic 
property to a non-Federal entity. Before doing so, the Secretary should 
first consider whether the historic character of the property can be 
protected effectively through planning and zoning actions undertaken by 
units of State or local government; if so, working with such units of 
State or local government to protect the property through these means 
is preferable to encumbering the property with such a covenant or 
easement.
    (b) Before including such a covenant or easement in a deed or 
lease, the Secretary concerned shall consider--
    (1) Whether the jurisdiction that encompasses the property 
authorizes such a covenant or easement; and
    (2) Whether the Secretary can give or assign to a third party the 
responsibility for monitoring and enforcing such a covenant or 
easement.

PART 175--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
2. Part 175 is removed and reserved.

PART 176--REVITALIZING BASE CLOSURE COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITY 
ASSISTANCE--COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOMELESS ASSISTANCE

0
3. The authority citation for part 176 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2687 note.


Sec.  176.20  [AMENDED]

0
4. Section 176.20(b) is amended by revising ``32 CFR part 175'' to read 
``32 CFR part 174''.

    Dated: February 24, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 06-1902 Filed 2-24-06; 12:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P