Record of Decision To Develop, Test, Deploy, and Plan for Decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, 21921-21924 [E8-8800]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Notices
21921
GSA’s FACA Database—https://
www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.
Written statements that do not pertain
to a scheduled meeting of the
Committee may be submitted at any
time. However, if individual comments
pertain to a specific topic being
discussed at a planned meeting then
these statements must be submitted no
later than five business days prior to the
meeting in question. The Designated
Federal Officer will review all
submitted written statements and
provide copies to all committee
members.
written statements to
UFVARR@tma.osd.mil at any time or in
response to the stated agenda of a
planned meeting.
• Arlington County Public Library,
Central Branch (Arlington, VA).
• District of Columbia Public Library,
Central Branch (Washington, DC).
Dated: April 16, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E8–8802 Filed 4–22–08; 8:45 am]
Dated: April 11, 2008.
Patricia Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
Dated: April 16, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E8–8804 Filed 4–22–08; 8:45 am]
Record of Decision To Develop, Test,
Deploy, and Plan for Decommissioning
of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
A. MDA Decision
The MDA is issuing this ROD,
selecting Alternative 1 as described in
the BMDS PEIS, to develop, test, deploy,
and plan for decommissioning of the
BMDS. This decision includes the
development, testing, deployment, and
planning for decommissioning of
land-, sea-, and air-based platforms for
BMDS weapons components.
Alternative 1 also includes space-based
sensors. MDA is deferring a decision on
the development, testing, and
deployment of space-based interceptors
(Alternative 2) pending further concept
development and policy discussion.
Missile Defense Agency,
Department of Defense.
ACTION: Notice.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Meeting To Discuss the TRICARE
Voluntary Agreements for Retail
Refunds (VARRs) Program
Department of Defense,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health
Affairs).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In response to pharmaceutical
industry interest in the TRICARE
VARRs Program, Department of Defense
will host a meeting to discuss policies
and procedures for VARRs.
DATES: Thursday, May 1, 2008 (8 a.m.–
12 p.m.).
ADDRESSES: Marriott Wardman Park,
2600 Woodley Road, NW., Washington,
DC 20008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTC
Travis Watson, Deputy Director, Skyline
5, Suite 810, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, Virginia 22041–3206,
Telephone: (703) 681–2890; Fax: (703)
681–1940, E-mail Address:
UFVARR@tma.osd.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Meeting: To provide
pharmaceutical manufacturers the
policies and procedures TRICARE
Management Activity uses under the
VARRs Program.
Meeting Agenda: Sign-in; welcome
and opening remarks; review of
program; discussion of reporting;
questions and answers; closing remarks.
Meeting Accessibility: The availability
of space in this meeting is open to the
public. Seating is limited and all
persons must sign in legibly.
Written Statements: The public or
interested organizations may submit
16:58 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Office of the Secretary
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SUMMARY: The Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) is issuing this Record of Decision
(ROD) to develop, test, deploy, and plan
for decommissioning of the Ballistic
Missile Defense System (BMDS). This
decision includes the development,
testing, deployment, and planning for
decommissioning of land-, sea- and airbased platforms for BMDS weapons
components and space-based sensors.
This action will enable MDA to develop
and field an integrated, layered, BMDS
to defend the United States (U.S.), its
deployed forces, allies, and friends
against all ranges of enemy ballistic
missiles in all phases of flight. The
BMDS is a key component of U.S. policy
for addressing ballistic missile threats
worldwide.
For
further information on the BMDS
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) or this ROD please
contact Mr. Rick Lehner, MDA Director
of Public Affairs at (703) 697–8997.
Downloadable electronic versions of the
Final PEIS and ROD are available on the
MDA public access Internet Web site
https://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/
enviro.html. Public reading copies of the
Final PEIS and the ROD are available for
review at the following public libraries:
• Anchorage Municipal Library
(Anchorage, AK).
• Mountain View Branch Library
(Anchorage, AK).
• California State Library
(Sacramento, CA).
• Sacramento Public Library
(Sacramento, CA).
• Hawaii State Library (Honolulu,
HI).
• University of Hawaii at Manoa
(Honolulu, HI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
B. Background
The MDA has a requirement to
develop, test, deploy, and prepare for
decommissioning the BMDS to protect
the U.S., its deployed forces, friends,
and allies from ballistic missile threats.
The proposed action would provide an
integrated BMDS using existing
infrastructure and capabilities, when
feasible, as well as emerging and new
technologies, to meet current and
evolving threats in support of the
MDA’s mission. Consequently, the
BMDS would be a layered system of
defensive weapons, sensors, command
and control, battle management, and
communications (C2BMC), and support
assets; each with specific functional
capabilities, working together to defend
against all classes and ranges of ballistic
missile threats in all phases of flight.
Multiple defensive weapons would be
used to create a layered defense
comprised of multiple intercept
opportunities along the trajectory of the
incoming ballistic missiles. This would
provide a layered defensive system of
capabilities designed to back up one
another.
On December 17, 2002, the President
announced his decision to field an
initial defensive operation capability.
The initial fielding would provide a
modest protection of the U.S. and would
be improved over time. Prior to the
initiation of the BMDS PEIS, MDA and
its predecessor agencies prepared
several programmatic National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documents regarding ballistic missile
defense. In addition, each program
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
21922
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
element prepared extensive NEPA
documentation to cover its own specific
test and development activities. Ballistic
missile defense has evolved to the point
that the BMDS PEIS was prepared to
consider the integrated BMDS as
envisioned in the evolution of the MDA.
A Programmatic EIS, or PEIS,
analyzes the broad envelope of
environmental consequences in a wideranging Federal program like the BMDS.
A PEIS addresses the overall issues in
a proposed program and considers
related actions together in order to
review the program comprehensively. A
PEIS is appropriate for projects that are
broad in scope, are implemented in
phases, and are widely dispersed
geographically. A PEIS creates a
comprehensive, global analytical
framework that supports subsequent
analysis of specific activities at specific
locations, which could then be tiered
from the PEIS.
The BMDS PEIS is intended to serve
as a tiering document for subsequent
specific BMDS NEPA analyses and
includes a roadmap for considering
environmental impacts and resource
areas in developing future documents.
This roadmap identifies how a specific
resource area can be analyzed and also
includes thresholds for considering the
significance of environmental impacts
to specific resource areas. This means
that ranges, installations, and facilities
at which specific BMDS activities may
occur in the future could tier their
documents from the PEIS and have
some reference point from which to start
their site-specific analyses.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Process
The MDA prepared the BMDS PEIS
pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations implementing the NEPA (40
CFR Parts 1500–1508); Department of
Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.9,
Environmental Planning and Analysis;
the applicable service environmental
regulations that implement these laws
and regulations; and Executive Order
(EO) 12114, Environmental Effects
Abroad of Major Federal Actions (whose
implementation is guided by NEPA and
the CEQ implementing regulations).
On April 11, 2003, MDA initiated the
public scoping process by publishing
the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the
PEIS for the BMDS in the Federal
Register. MDA held public scoping
meetings in Arlington, Virginia;
Sacramento, California; Anchorage,
Alaska; and Honolulu, Hawaii. The
Notice of Availability (NOA) of the
MDA BMDS Draft PEIS was published
in the Federal Register on September
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
17, 2004. This initiated a public review
and comment period for the Draft PEIS.
MDA held public hearings in Arlington,
Virginia; Sacramento, California;
Anchorage, Alaska; and Honolulu,
Hawaii. MDA received approximately
8,500 comments on the Draft PEIS; MDA
considered all of these comments in
preparing the Final PEIS. Responses to
all of the in-scope comments can be
found in Appendix K of the PEIS. Three
recurring issues of public concern—
orbital debris, perchlorate, and radar
impacts to wildlife—were addressed in
more technical detail in Appendices L,
M, and N, respectively, of the PEIS.
The NOA for the Final PEIS was
published in the Federal Register on
February 16, 2007. This ROD is the
culmination of the NEPA process.
D. Alternatives Considered
In developing the alternatives, MDA
reviewed the various components of the
BMDS (i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC,
and support assets) and the acquisition
process common to all components (i.e.,
development, testing, deployment, and
planning for decommissioning). The
components are the systems and
subsystems of logically grouped
hardware and software that perform
interrelated tasks to provide the BMDS
functional capabilities. The acquisition
process is capability driven and
component-based. Capability-based
planning allows MDA to develop
capabilities and system performance
objectives based on technological
feasibility, engineering analyses, and the
potential capability of the threat. Spiral
development is an iterative process for
developing the BMDS by refining
program objectives as technology
becomes available through research and
testing with continuous feedback among
MDA, the test community, and the
military operators. Each new technology
goes through development; promising
technologies go through testing and
demonstration; and proven technologies
are incorporated into the BMDS.
• Development. Development
includes the various activities that
support research and development of
the BMDS components and overall
systems. This includes planning,
budgeting, research and development,
systems engineering, site preparation
and construction, repair, maintenance
and sustainment, manufacture of test
articles and initial testing, including
modeling, simulation, and tabletop
exercises.
• Testing. Testing of the BMDS
involves demonstration of BMDS
elements and components through test
and evaluation. The successful
demonstration of the BMDS would rely
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on a robust testing program aimed at
producing credible system
characterization, verification, and
assessment data. To confirm these
capabilities, MDA would continue to
develop test beds using existing and
new land-, sea-, air-, and space-based
assets. Some construction at various
geographic locations would be required
to support infrastructure and assets
where BMDS components and the
overall system would be tested. Testing
of the BMDS includes ongoing and
planned tests (e.g., ground tests, flight
tests) of components that might be
incorporated into the BMDS, as well as
tests of the layered, integrated BMDS
through increasingly realistic system
integration tests through 2012 and
beyond.
• Deployment. Deployment of the
BMDS refers to the fielding (including
the manufacture, site preparation,
construction, and transport of systems)
and sustainment (including operations
and maintenance, training, upgrades,
and service life extension) of the BMDS.
The evolving BMDS is intended to have
the capability over time to deploy
different combinations of interoperable
components. Deployment also would
involve the transfer of facilities,
elements, and programs to the military
services.
• Decommissioning.
Decommissioning would involve the
demilitarization and final removal and
disposal of the BMDS components and
assets. Plans would be made for
decommissioning BMDS components by
either demolition or transfer to other
uses or owners.
The following presents a discussion of
the alternatives considered by MDA and
presents and contrasts the components
and acquisition phases that are unique
to each alternative.
No Action Alternative: Under the No
Action Alternative, the MDA would not
develop, test, deploy, or plan for
decommissioning activities for an
integrated BMDS. Instead, the MDA
would continue existing development
and testing of discrete systems as standalone ballistic missile defense
capabilities. Individual systems would
continue to be tested but would not be
subjected to System Integration Tests.
Alternative 1 (selected alternative):
Under Alternative 1, the MDA will
develop, test, deploy, and plan to
decommission an integrated BMDS,
composed of land-, sea-, and air-based
components. Alternative 1 also includes
space-based sensors, but does not
include space-based interceptors.
Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, the
MDA would develop, test, deploy, and
plan to decommission an integrated
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
BMDS, composed of land-, sea-, air-,
and space-based components.
Alternative 2 would be identical to
Alternative 1, with the addition of
space-based interceptors. A space-based
test bed would be considered and
evaluated to determine the feasibility of
using kinetic energy interceptors on
space platforms to intercept threat
missiles.
E. Environmental Impacts of
Alternatives
The PEIS evaluated potential impacts
associated with each alternative for each
acquisition life cycle phase (i.e.,
development, testing, deployment, and
planning for decommissioning) by
component (i.e., weapons, sensors,
C2BMC, and support assets). To
evaluate the potential impacts of
implementing one of the alternatives
(i.e., No Action Alternative, Alternative
1, or Alternative 2) considered for the
BMDS, the MDA characterized the
existing condition of the affected
environment in the locations where
various BMDS implementation activities
would occur. The affected environment
includes all land, air, water, and
atmospheric environments where
proposed activities are reasonably
foreseeable. For this PEIS, the affected
environment includes all locations,
ranges, installations, and facilities that
the MDA has used, uses, or proposes to
use for the BMDS both within and
outside the U.S. The MDA determined
that activities associated with the
proposed BMDS might occur in
locations around the world. Therefore,
the affected environment has been
considered in terms of global biomes,
broad ocean areas, and the atmosphere.
Each biome covers a broad region,
both geographically and ecologically for
both domestic and international
locations where components of the
proposed BMDS may be located or
operated. Climate, geography, geology,
and distribution and abundance of
vegetation and wildlife determine the
range of the biomes. Using biomes as
affected environmental designations
facilitates future site-specific
environmental documentation to tier
from the BMDS PEIS. Further, BMDS
test activities would often occur over
broad ocean areas, and the necessity of
launching targets and interceptors to
support testing would indicate that
consideration of the atmosphere and
broad ocean areas as parts of the
affected environment was appropriate.
To evaluate the potential
environmental consequences of the
alternatives, the components of the
BMDS (i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC,
and support assets) were evaluated as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
they proceed through acquisition life
cycle phases. MDA evaluated each of
the BMDS acquisition phases including
development, testing, deployment, and
decommissioning. Not all activities
associated with the BMDS are expected
to produce environmental impacts. Only
those activities with expected impacts
during one or more acquisition phases
were identified in the PEIS. Further,
only those activities that are considered
reasonably foreseeable were analyzed in
the PEIS. Four steps were used to
analyze impacts in the BMDS PEIS. Step
1 included the identification and
characterization of BMDS activities.
Step 2 included the identification of
activities with no potential for impact.
Step 3 included the identification of
similar activities occurring across
acquisition life cycle phases. Step 4
included the conduct of environmental
analyses. The analyses for each
alternative are specific to each resource
area based on the impacts from the
activities associated with the BMDS
components.
The potential impacts of the various
alternatives are summarized in Exhibits
ES–7 through ES–13 in the Final BMDS
PEIS (available on the MDA Web site
https://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/
enviro.html and are as discussed in the
Final BMDS PEIS. This ROD presents a
brief discussion that highlights the
differences between the alternatives.
Alternative 1 would result in the
potential for increased environmental
consequences over the No Action
Alternative due to the additional
integrated test events and the
development and testing of an
integrated C2BMC. The additional
potential for environmental
consequences associated with the
development, testing, deployment, and
planning for decommissioning of the
space-based interceptors in Alternative
2 could result in environmental
consequences that would be in addition
to those associated with Alternative 1.
The increase in potential impacts
associated with the development and
acquisition phases of Alternatives 1 and
2 over the No Action Alternative would
result from increased testing and the site
preparation and development of new
facilities or the refurbishment of
existing facilities for C2BMC, or to
develop space-based missile defense
technologies. The site preparation may
result in additional impacts on the landbased resources (i.e., biological, geology
and soils, noise, water), but would not
impact non-land based resources (i.e.,
airspace or orbital debris).
The increase in potential impacts
associated with the testing acquisition
phase of Alternatives 1 and 2 over the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21923
No Action Alternative would result
from an increased number of test events,
specifically, system integration tests.
The increase in the number of test
events would result in additional
impacts on all resource areas, and based
on the specific activities and objectives
of an individual test event, impacts on
some resources might be insignificant as
demonstrated in the PEIS, while
impacts to other resources would be
more substantial.
The increase in potential impacts
associated with the deployment
acquisition phase of Alternative 2 over
Alternative 1 and the No Action
Alternative would result from the site
preparation, development, and
emplacement of new facilities or the
refurbishment of existing facilities for
deployment of space-based interceptors.
The site preparation may result in
additional impacts on the land-based
resources (e.g., biological, geology and
soils, noise, water), and placing
interceptors into space could produce
impacts on non-land based resources
(e.g., airspace or orbital debris).
The increase in potential impacts
associated with the planning for
decommissioning of Alternative 2 over
Alternative 1 and the No Action
Alternative would result from the
additional BMDS components that
would require decommissioning.
No significant environmental impacts
or cumulative impacts on resource areas
addressed for any activity considered in
implementing the BMDS were found in
this programmatic impact analysis.
There could be impacts associated with
the specific BMDS program activities at
specific locations; however, as stated in
the PEIS they would be addressed, as
appropriate, in subsequent NEPA
analyses that would tier from the PEIS.
As appropriate, mitigation measures
would be developed to address any sitespecific significant impacts.
F. Mitigation Monitoring
MDA did not identify any significant
programmatic environmental impacts
arising from the proposed action and
therefore, is not identifying specific
mitigation measures. However, as
discussed above, there is the potential
for specific BMDS activities at specific
locations to impact the environment,
and mitigation measures would be
identified, as appropriate, in future
NEPA analyses tiered from this PEIS.
MDA uses a mitigation monitoring
database to track the implementation of
mitigation measures identified in
previous NEPA analyses and will
continue to follow its mitigation
monitoring process (EMP–3–62,
Mitigation Monitoring) to both track and
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
21924
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 23, 2008 / Notices
monitor the effectiveness of MDA’s
mitigation measures, including those
identified in future, site-specific NEPA
analyses tiered from this PEIS.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
G. Environmentally Preferred
Alternative
AGENCY:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
H. Conclusion
I have considered potential
environmental impacts as defined in the
PEIS, cost, technical requirements,
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements, Presidential direction (the
December 17, 2002, Presidential
announcement to field an initial
defensive operation capability), MDA’s
mandate and mission, and public
comments in arriving at my decision.
I select Alternative 1 over the other
alternatives for implementation of the
proposed action. Although the No
Action Alternative has been identified
as the environmentally-preferred
alternative, it does not support the
Agency’s mandate or mission.
Alternative 1 has fewer environmental
consequences than Alternative 2, as
described above.
I have selected Alternative 1 because
integration of missile defense
capabilities as opposed to single
element development, testing, and
deployment is essential to an effective
BMDS that can provide a layered
defense of the United States, its
deployed troops, and its friends and
allies. Any decision to deploy a BMDS
capability will be subject to Presidential
and Congressional authorization and
funding.
[FR Doc. E8–8800 Filed 4–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Apr 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review;
comment request
ACTION:
The findings of the PEIS indicate that
the No Action Alternative, the
continuation of existing program
element-based testing and development
activities with no integration testing,
would be the environmentally-preferred
alternative. As a conservative estimate,
MDA assumed that stand-alone element
component testing as well as system
integration testing would occur under
Alternatives 1 and 2, which would
result in potentially more adverse
effects than the No Action Alternative.
However, MDA believes that
consolidation of stand-alone component
tests associated with Alternative 1 into
the system integration tests to the extent
practicable could serve to reduce the
overall environmental consequences as
the total number of tests conducted by
MDA could fall.
Date: April 8, 2008.
Henry A. Obering III,
Lieutenant General, USAF, Director.
Agency Information Collection
Extension
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE) has submitted an information
collection request to the OMB for
extension under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
information collection requests a threeyear extension of its 2008 Procurement
Package, OMB Control Number 1910–
4100. This information collection
request covers information necessary to
evaluate proposals and administer
contracts related to management
contractors managing the Department’s
major facilities and other contractors
furnishing goods and services.
DATES: Comments regarding this
collection must be received on or before
May 23, 2008. If you anticipate that you
will be submitting comments, but find
it difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, please
advise the OMB Desk Officer of your
intention to make a submission as soon
as possible. The OMB Desk Officer for
DOE may be telephoned at 202–395–
4650.
Written comments should
be sent to:
DOE Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Room 10102,
735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503; and to:
U.S. Department of Energy, MA–61,
Attn: Richard Langston, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Langston, Procurement Policy
Analyst, at
Richard.langston@hq.doe.gov or (202)
287–1339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
information collection request contains:
(1) OMB No. 1910–4100; (2) Information
Collection Request Title: DOE 2008
Procurement Package; (3) Purpose: This
information collection request covers
information necessary to evaluate
proposals and administer contracts
related to management contractors
managing the Department’s major
facilities and other contractors
furnishing goods and services; (4)
Estimated Number of Respondents:
7,539; (5) Estimated Total Burden
Hours: 896,209; (6) Number of
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Collections: The information collection
request contains 47 information and/or
recordkeeping requirements. A notice
and request for comment was previously
published concerning this collection at
73 FR 7538 on February 8, 2008. No
comments were received.
Statutory Authority: Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act, as amended
(41 U.S.C. 405).
Issued in Washington, DC on April 17,
2008.
Edward R. Simpson,
Director, Office of Procurement and
Assistance Management.
[FR Doc. E8–8768 Filed 4–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Electricity Advisory Committee
Department of Energy, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
first meeting of the Electricity Advisory
Committee. The Federal Advisory
Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as
amended, requires that public notice of
these meetings be announced in the
Federal Register.
Date and Time: Tuesday, May 20,
2008, 8:30 a.m.—12:30 p.m. EDT.
Location: The meeting will be held at
the Sheraton National Hotel located at
900 South Orme Street, Arlington,
Virginia 22204.
Agenda: See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The Electricity Advisory
Committee (EAC) was established in
2008 by DOE to provide expert advice
on complex scientific, technical, and
policy issues that arise in the planning,
managing, and implementation of DOE’s
electricity programs. The committee is
composed of approximately 30
individuals of diverse backgrounds
selected for their technical expertise and
experience, established records of
distinguished professional service, and
their knowledge of issues that pertain to
electricity.
Purpose of the Meeting: The first
meeting of the Electricity Advisory
Committee is expected to include
discussion of the first year objectives of
the Committee, introductions of
Committee Members and a discussion of
establishing subcommittees on specific
subjects.
Tentative Agenda: The meeting will
host a discussion on advice to the
Department of Energy on matters related
E:\FR\FM\23APN1.SGM
23APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21921-21924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8800]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Record of Decision To Develop, Test, Deploy, and Plan for
Decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is issuing this Record of
Decision (ROD) to develop, test, deploy, and plan for decommissioning
of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This decision includes
the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning
of land-, sea- and air-based platforms for BMDS weapons components and
space-based sensors. This action will enable MDA to develop and field
an integrated, layered, BMDS to defend the United States (U.S.), its
deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy
ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. The BMDS is a key component
of U.S. policy for addressing ballistic missile threats worldwide.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the BMDS
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) or this ROD please
contact Mr. Rick Lehner, MDA Director of Public Affairs at (703) 697-
8997. Downloadable electronic versions of the Final PEIS and ROD are
available on the MDA public access Internet Web site https://
www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/enviro.html. Public reading copies of the
Final PEIS and the ROD are available for review at the following public
libraries:
Anchorage Municipal Library (Anchorage, AK).
Mountain View Branch Library (Anchorage, AK).
California State Library (Sacramento, CA).
Sacramento Public Library (Sacramento, CA).
Hawaii State Library (Honolulu, HI).
University of Hawaii at Manoa (Honolulu, HI).
Arlington County Public Library, Central Branch
(Arlington, VA).
District of Columbia Public Library, Central Branch
(Washington, DC).
Dated: April 11, 2008.
Patricia Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. MDA Decision
The MDA is issuing this ROD, selecting Alternative 1 as described
in the BMDS PEIS, to develop, test, deploy, and plan for
decommissioning of the BMDS. This decision includes the development,
testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of land-, sea-,
and air-based platforms for BMDS weapons components. Alternative 1 also
includes space-based sensors. MDA is deferring a decision on the
development, testing, and deployment of space-based interceptors
(Alternative 2) pending further concept development and policy
discussion.
B. Background
The MDA has a requirement to develop, test, deploy, and prepare for
decommissioning the BMDS to protect the U.S., its deployed forces,
friends, and allies from ballistic missile threats. The proposed action
would provide an integrated BMDS using existing infrastructure and
capabilities, when feasible, as well as emerging and new technologies,
to meet current and evolving threats in support of the MDA's mission.
Consequently, the BMDS would be a layered system of defensive weapons,
sensors, command and control, battle management, and communications
(C2BMC), and support assets; each with specific functional
capabilities, working together to defend against all classes and ranges
of ballistic missile threats in all phases of flight. Multiple
defensive weapons would be used to create a layered defense comprised
of multiple intercept opportunities along the trajectory of the
incoming ballistic missiles. This would provide a layered defensive
system of capabilities designed to back up one another.
On December 17, 2002, the President announced his decision to field
an initial defensive operation capability. The initial fielding would
provide a modest protection of the U.S. and would be improved over
time. Prior to the initiation of the BMDS PEIS, MDA and its predecessor
agencies prepared several programmatic National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) documents regarding ballistic missile defense. In addition,
each program
[[Page 21922]]
element prepared extensive NEPA documentation to cover its own specific
test and development activities. Ballistic missile defense has evolved
to the point that the BMDS PEIS was prepared to consider the integrated
BMDS as envisioned in the evolution of the MDA.
A Programmatic EIS, or PEIS, analyzes the broad envelope of
environmental consequences in a wide-ranging Federal program like the
BMDS. A PEIS addresses the overall issues in a proposed program and
considers related actions together in order to review the program
comprehensively. A PEIS is appropriate for projects that are broad in
scope, are implemented in phases, and are widely dispersed
geographically. A PEIS creates a comprehensive, global analytical
framework that supports subsequent analysis of specific activities at
specific locations, which could then be tiered from the PEIS.
The BMDS PEIS is intended to serve as a tiering document for
subsequent specific BMDS NEPA analyses and includes a roadmap for
considering environmental impacts and resource areas in developing
future documents. This roadmap identifies how a specific resource area
can be analyzed and also includes thresholds for considering the
significance of environmental impacts to specific resource areas. This
means that ranges, installations, and facilities at which specific BMDS
activities may occur in the future could tier their documents from the
PEIS and have some reference point from which to start their site-
specific analyses.
C. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process
The MDA prepared the BMDS PEIS pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the NEPA (40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508); Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.9,
Environmental Planning and Analysis; the applicable service
environmental regulations that implement these laws and regulations;
and Executive Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions (whose implementation is guided by NEPA and the CEQ
implementing regulations).
On April 11, 2003, MDA initiated the public scoping process by
publishing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the PEIS for the BMDS
in the Federal Register. MDA held public scoping meetings in Arlington,
Virginia; Sacramento, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Honolulu,
Hawaii. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the MDA BMDS Draft PEIS was
published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2004. This initiated
a public review and comment period for the Draft PEIS. MDA held public
hearings in Arlington, Virginia; Sacramento, California; Anchorage,
Alaska; and Honolulu, Hawaii. MDA received approximately 8,500 comments
on the Draft PEIS; MDA considered all of these comments in preparing
the Final PEIS. Responses to all of the in-scope comments can be found
in Appendix K of the PEIS. Three recurring issues of public concern--
orbital debris, perchlorate, and radar impacts to wildlife--were
addressed in more technical detail in Appendices L, M, and N,
respectively, of the PEIS.
The NOA for the Final PEIS was published in the Federal Register on
February 16, 2007. This ROD is the culmination of the NEPA process.
D. Alternatives Considered
In developing the alternatives, MDA reviewed the various components
of the BMDS (i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC, and support assets) and the
acquisition process common to all components (i.e., development,
testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning). The components
are the systems and subsystems of logically grouped hardware and
software that perform interrelated tasks to provide the BMDS functional
capabilities. The acquisition process is capability driven and
component-based. Capability-based planning allows MDA to develop
capabilities and system performance objectives based on technological
feasibility, engineering analyses, and the potential capability of the
threat. Spiral development is an iterative process for developing the
BMDS by refining program objectives as technology becomes available
through research and testing with continuous feedback among MDA, the
test community, and the military operators. Each new technology goes
through development; promising technologies go through testing and
demonstration; and proven technologies are incorporated into the BMDS.
Development. Development includes the various activities
that support research and development of the BMDS components and
overall systems. This includes planning, budgeting, research and
development, systems engineering, site preparation and construction,
repair, maintenance and sustainment, manufacture of test articles and
initial testing, including modeling, simulation, and tabletop
exercises.
Testing. Testing of the BMDS involves demonstration of
BMDS elements and components through test and evaluation. The
successful demonstration of the BMDS would rely on a robust testing
program aimed at producing credible system characterization,
verification, and assessment data. To confirm these capabilities, MDA
would continue to develop test beds using existing and new land-, sea-,
air-, and space-based assets. Some construction at various geographic
locations would be required to support infrastructure and assets where
BMDS components and the overall system would be tested. Testing of the
BMDS includes ongoing and planned tests (e.g., ground tests, flight
tests) of components that might be incorporated into the BMDS, as well
as tests of the layered, integrated BMDS through increasingly realistic
system integration tests through 2012 and beyond.
Deployment. Deployment of the BMDS refers to the fielding
(including the manufacture, site preparation, construction, and
transport of systems) and sustainment (including operations and
maintenance, training, upgrades, and service life extension) of the
BMDS. The evolving BMDS is intended to have the capability over time to
deploy different combinations of interoperable components. Deployment
also would involve the transfer of facilities, elements, and programs
to the military services.
Decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve the
demilitarization and final removal and disposal of the BMDS components
and assets. Plans would be made for decommissioning BMDS components by
either demolition or transfer to other uses or owners.
The following presents a discussion of the alternatives considered
by MDA and presents and contrasts the components and acquisition phases
that are unique to each alternative.
No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, the MDA
would not develop, test, deploy, or plan for decommissioning activities
for an integrated BMDS. Instead, the MDA would continue existing
development and testing of discrete systems as stand-alone ballistic
missile defense capabilities. Individual systems would continue to be
tested but would not be subjected to System Integration Tests.
Alternative 1 (selected alternative): Under Alternative 1, the MDA
will develop, test, deploy, and plan to decommission an integrated
BMDS, composed of land-, sea-, and air-based components. Alternative 1
also includes space-based sensors, but does not include space-based
interceptors.
Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, the MDA would develop, test,
deploy, and plan to decommission an integrated
[[Page 21923]]
BMDS, composed of land-, sea-, air-, and space-based components.
Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1, with the addition of
space-based interceptors. A space-based test bed would be considered
and evaluated to determine the feasibility of using kinetic energy
interceptors on space platforms to intercept threat missiles.
E. Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
The PEIS evaluated potential impacts associated with each
alternative for each acquisition life cycle phase (i.e., development,
testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning) by component
(i.e., weapons, sensors, C2BMC, and support assets). To evaluate the
potential impacts of implementing one of the alternatives (i.e., No
Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2) considered for the
BMDS, the MDA characterized the existing condition of the affected
environment in the locations where various BMDS implementation
activities would occur. The affected environment includes all land,
air, water, and atmospheric environments where proposed activities are
reasonably foreseeable. For this PEIS, the affected environment
includes all locations, ranges, installations, and facilities that the
MDA has used, uses, or proposes to use for the BMDS both within and
outside the U.S. The MDA determined that activities associated with the
proposed BMDS might occur in locations around the world. Therefore, the
affected environment has been considered in terms of global biomes,
broad ocean areas, and the atmosphere.
Each biome covers a broad region, both geographically and
ecologically for both domestic and international locations where
components of the proposed BMDS may be located or operated. Climate,
geography, geology, and distribution and abundance of vegetation and
wildlife determine the range of the biomes. Using biomes as affected
environmental designations facilitates future site-specific
environmental documentation to tier from the BMDS PEIS. Further, BMDS
test activities would often occur over broad ocean areas, and the
necessity of launching targets and interceptors to support testing
would indicate that consideration of the atmosphere and broad ocean
areas as parts of the affected environment was appropriate.
To evaluate the potential environmental consequences of the
alternatives, the components of the BMDS (i.e., weapons, sensors,
C2BMC, and support assets) were evaluated as they proceed through
acquisition life cycle phases. MDA evaluated each of the BMDS
acquisition phases including development, testing, deployment, and
decommissioning. Not all activities associated with the BMDS are
expected to produce environmental impacts. Only those activities with
expected impacts during one or more acquisition phases were identified
in the PEIS. Further, only those activities that are considered
reasonably foreseeable were analyzed in the PEIS. Four steps were used
to analyze impacts in the BMDS PEIS. Step 1 included the identification
and characterization of BMDS activities. Step 2 included the
identification of activities with no potential for impact. Step 3
included the identification of similar activities occurring across
acquisition life cycle phases. Step 4 included the conduct of
environmental analyses. The analyses for each alternative are specific
to each resource area based on the impacts from the activities
associated with the BMDS components.
The potential impacts of the various alternatives are summarized in
Exhibits ES-7 through ES-13 in the Final BMDS PEIS (available on the
MDA Web site https://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/enviro.html and are as
discussed in the Final BMDS PEIS. This ROD presents a brief discussion
that highlights the differences between the alternatives.
Alternative 1 would result in the potential for increased
environmental consequences over the No Action Alternative due to the
additional integrated test events and the development and testing of an
integrated C2BMC. The additional potential for environmental
consequences associated with the development, testing, deployment, and
planning for decommissioning of the space-based interceptors in
Alternative 2 could result in environmental consequences that would be
in addition to those associated with Alternative 1.
The increase in potential impacts associated with the development
and acquisition phases of Alternatives 1 and 2 over the No Action
Alternative would result from increased testing and the site
preparation and development of new facilities or the refurbishment of
existing facilities for C2BMC, or to develop space-based missile
defense technologies. The site preparation may result in additional
impacts on the land-based resources (i.e., biological, geology and
soils, noise, water), but would not impact non-land based resources
(i.e., airspace or orbital debris).
The increase in potential impacts associated with the testing
acquisition phase of Alternatives 1 and 2 over the No Action
Alternative would result from an increased number of test events,
specifically, system integration tests. The increase in the number of
test events would result in additional impacts on all resource areas,
and based on the specific activities and objectives of an individual
test event, impacts on some resources might be insignificant as
demonstrated in the PEIS, while impacts to other resources would be
more substantial.
The increase in potential impacts associated with the deployment
acquisition phase of Alternative 2 over Alternative 1 and the No Action
Alternative would result from the site preparation, development, and
emplacement of new facilities or the refurbishment of existing
facilities for deployment of space-based interceptors. The site
preparation may result in additional impacts on the land-based
resources (e.g., biological, geology and soils, noise, water), and
placing interceptors into space could produce impacts on non-land based
resources (e.g., airspace or orbital debris).
The increase in potential impacts associated with the planning for
decommissioning of Alternative 2 over Alternative 1 and the No Action
Alternative would result from the additional BMDS components that would
require decommissioning.
No significant environmental impacts or cumulative impacts on
resource areas addressed for any activity considered in implementing
the BMDS were found in this programmatic impact analysis. There could
be impacts associated with the specific BMDS program activities at
specific locations; however, as stated in the PEIS they would be
addressed, as appropriate, in subsequent NEPA analyses that would tier
from the PEIS. As appropriate, mitigation measures would be developed
to address any site-specific significant impacts.
F. Mitigation Monitoring
MDA did not identify any significant programmatic environmental
impacts arising from the proposed action and therefore, is not
identifying specific mitigation measures. However, as discussed above,
there is the potential for specific BMDS activities at specific
locations to impact the environment, and mitigation measures would be
identified, as appropriate, in future NEPA analyses tiered from this
PEIS. MDA uses a mitigation monitoring database to track the
implementation of mitigation measures identified in previous NEPA
analyses and will continue to follow its mitigation monitoring process
(EMP-3-62, Mitigation Monitoring) to both track and
[[Page 21924]]
monitor the effectiveness of MDA's mitigation measures, including those
identified in future, site-specific NEPA analyses tiered from this
PEIS.
G. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The findings of the PEIS indicate that the No Action Alternative,
the continuation of existing program element-based testing and
development activities with no integration testing, would be the
environmentally-preferred alternative. As a conservative estimate, MDA
assumed that stand-alone element component testing as well as system
integration testing would occur under Alternatives 1 and 2, which would
result in potentially more adverse effects than the No Action
Alternative. However, MDA believes that consolidation of stand-alone
component tests associated with Alternative 1 into the system
integration tests to the extent practicable could serve to reduce the
overall environmental consequences as the total number of tests
conducted by MDA could fall.
H. Conclusion
I have considered potential environmental impacts as defined in the
PEIS, cost, technical requirements, applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements, Presidential direction (the December 17, 2002,
Presidential announcement to field an initial defensive operation
capability), MDA's mandate and mission, and public comments in arriving
at my decision.
I select Alternative 1 over the other alternatives for
implementation of the proposed action. Although the No Action
Alternative has been identified as the environmentally-preferred
alternative, it does not support the Agency's mandate or mission.
Alternative 1 has fewer environmental consequences than Alternative 2,
as described above.
I have selected Alternative 1 because integration of missile
defense capabilities as opposed to single element development, testing,
and deployment is essential to an effective BMDS that can provide a
layered defense of the United States, its deployed troops, and its
friends and allies. Any decision to deploy a BMDS capability will be
subject to Presidential and Congressional authorization and funding.
Date: April 8, 2008.
Henry A. Obering III,
Lieutenant General, USAF, Director.
[FR Doc. E8-8800 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P