37858 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices

(3) Other arrangements satisfactory to

DoC are made.

Indirect Costs

No Federal funds will be authorized

for Indirect Costs (IDC); however, an

applicant may provide for IDC under

their portion of Cost Sharing.

The total dollar amount of the indirect

costs proposed in an application under

this program must not exceed the

indirect cost rate negotiated and

approved by a cognizant Federal agency

prior to the proposed effective date of

the award or 100 percent of the total

proposed direct costs dollar amount in

the application, whichever is less.

Purchase of American-Made Equipment

and Products

Applicants are hereby notified that

they are encouraged, to the greatest

practicable extent, to purchase

American-made equipment and

products with funding provided under

this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This notice involves collections of

information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), which have been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control

Numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 0348–

0040 and 0348–0046. Notwithstanding

any other provision of law no person is

required to respond to nor shall a

person be subject to a penalty for failure

to comply with a collection of

information subject to the requirements

of the PRA unless that collection

displays a current valid OMB control

number.

Federal Policies and Procedures

Recipients and subrecipients under

the Experimental Program to Stimulate

Competitive Technology (EPSoT) shall

be subject to all Federal laws and

Federal and Departmental regulations,

policies, and procedures applicable to

financial assistance awards.

Intergovernmenal Review

Applicants are reminded of the

applicability of Executive Order 12372,

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs.’’

Executive Order Statement

This funding notice was determined

to be ‘‘significant’’ for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

Gary R. Bachula,

Acting Under Secretary for Technology.

[FR Doc. 98–18660 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–18–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Proposed Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI) for the M1 Abrams

Main Battle Tank Heavy Armor System

AGENCY: U.S. Army Program Executive

Office, Ground Combat & Support

Systems, Warren, MI.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 and Army Regulation

(AR) 200–2, the proposed FONSI for the

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank Heavy

Armor System is being published for

comment.

The U.S. Army Program Executive

Office, Ground Combat & Support

Systems (PEO–GCSS) has prepared a

draft Environmental Assessment for the

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Heavy Armor System. The current use

of the depleted uranium (DU) armor

package on the Abrams MBT has been

re-evaluated to determine whether the

environmental impacts of its continued

use remain insignificant, taking into

consideration the current use of the tank

and the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s (NRC’s) reduction in

allowable radiation exposure from 500

mrem/year to 100 mrem/year for tank

and maintenance crews (individual

members of the public).

As in already-fielded weapon system,

M1 MBTs have been in production and

in the field since the early 1980s. During

that time, many technical,

environmental and health assessments

have been completed. These documents

have addressed and minimized

environmental impacts. As part of the

continuing analysis effort, this EA

focuses specifically on the assembly,

use, repair and disposal of the heavy

armor package.

DATES: Comments must be received not

later than August 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions concerning this proposed

action should be submitted within 45

days of the date of this publication and

directed to Mr. Dennis Sweers, Abrams

Program Management Office, Program

Executive Office, Ground Combat and

Support Systems, ATTN: SFAE–GCSS–

W–AB–SM, Warren, MI 48397–5000.

Telephone number: (810) 574–7895, Email address:

sweersd@cc.tacom.army.mil

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Purpose and Need for Proposed

Action

The Abrams Tank System Program

(Abrams), administered by the Project

Manager, Abrams Tank System (PM

Abrams) with support from the U.S.

Army Tank-automotive and Armaments

Command (TACOM), has been using

Depleted Uranium (DU) armor on the

Abrams Tank since 1988. In 1996, a

design change to the armor package was

made by the Army and cut-in to

production by General Dynamics Land

Systems (GDLS) via Change Request

XMPP–2083 in Oct 96 and effective

with Job #1 M1A2 Phase II AUT. The

purpose of this revision to the

Environmental Assessment (EA) is to

assess the environmental impact of the

change from the original DU armor

design to this modified design.

Additionally, although unrelated to this

armor design change, since the last EA,

the NRC’s maximum radiation dose

limits for individual members of the

public has been change from 500 mrem

per year to 100 mrem per year. This

revision assesses the new design against

these new dose limits.

B. The findings of the draft EA of the

M1 Abrams MBT Heavy Army System

support this FONSI. The assessment

was conducted in keeping with the

Army’s environmental stewardship

policy, to ensure that any potential

environmental impacts are fully

mitigated. The EA supports all related

M1 Abrams MBT programs reviewed by

the Defense Acquisition Board.

2. General Description of Action

A. Under the proposed action, the use

of the current depleted uranium (DU)

armor package on the Abrams tank

would be evaluated to determine

whether the environmental impacts of

its continued use remain insignificant,

taking into consideration the current use

of the tank, the armor package design

change instituted in 1996 and changes

in the NRC’s radiation dose limits for

individual members of the public. If it

is determined that the environmental

impacts of use of the DU armor package

remain insignificant, PM Abrams will

continue to produce the armor package

through 2005.

B. The draft Heavy Armor System EA

evaluates the following: tank assembly

activities at Lima Army Tank Plant

(LATP); field operations including crew

maintenance, field support maintenance

and depot maintenance; and

demilitarization. All DU issues which

are not the direct responsibility of PM

Abrams are not covered in the EA, but

have been covered in previous

assessments.

C. In summary, the DU is fabricated

into armor packages by a contractor to

the Department of Energy. The

contractor ships the assembled armor

packages to LATP for installation in the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Notices 37859

tanks. At LATP, the armor packages

remain in the transportation containers

until they are ready to be inserted into

the tank. Following installation of the

armor package and other tank

components, the completed tanks are

transported to military units as required

for field use. Field use consists

primarily of training exercises and

varying levels of maintenance

performed either by the tank operating

crew or a field maintenance crew. Some

maintenance, including major repairs, is

conducted at maintenance depots by

dedicated crews. At some point in the

future, the tanks will be removed from

service, demilitarized, and

dispositioned.

D. The impacts of the use of DU armor

are central to the question of whether

the impacts of continued use of the M1

Abrams MBT remains insignificant. The

sue of DU armor is the primary feature

that distinguishes the Abrams tank from

numerous other commonly accepted

equipment employed by the military

and industry. Conventionally-armored

military vehicles and heavy equipment,

similar to tanks, are commonly operated

by the Army and industry in a manner

that is considered by the public to be

acceptable and with insignificant

impact on the human environment.

Consequently, in conformance with the

procedural requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) this

Environmental Assessment (EA) has

focused strictly on the use of DU armor.

3. Anticipated Environmental Effects

A. The MI Abrams MBT Heavy Armor

System will be assembled, transported,

maintained, and disposed of in

accordance with applicable

environmental protection regulations.

The PM Abrams has performed an indepth study of exposure scenarios for

affected personnel and has found that,

in all instances, the maximum potential

exposure to radiation from the Heavy

Armor System will fall well under the

100 mrem/year NRC limit.

B. The PM Abrams has determined

that the potential for adverse

environmental impacts of the use and

disposal of the Heavy Armor package

occur only if the outer armor integrity

has been compromised or if a large

number of rounds are fired into the

tank. In this instance, however,

decontamination measures can be

limited to a 76-meter area downwind of

the impact site (for a worst-case

scenario). The concentration of the

aerosol in the passing cloud does not

exceed the guidelines for the general

population as set forth in 10 CFR Part

20.

C. The PM Abrams will continue to

assess alternative procedures and

materials for opportunities to replace

the DU used for the Heavy Armor

System and to proactively implement

environmental improvements to the

program in other areas.

4. Facts and Conclusions

A. Operations at LATP are conducted

in accordance with their Radiation

Protection Plan and personnel

exposures are controlled within the

regulatory limits. Potential hazards have

been identified and evaluated and

appropriate preventive measures have

been taken. Efforts have been made to

reduce radiation exposures below the

limits and to minimize the number of

personnel subjected to radiation

exposure.

B. Transportation of completed tanks

from LATP to field organizations for use

is conducted in compliance with

Department of Transportation

requirements for the transportation of

articles containing depleted uranium.

Compliance with Department of

Transportation requirements assures

appropriate protection of the involved

personnel and members of the general

public from the potential radiation and

other hazards associated with

transportation.

C. Storage and Parking of tanks at

field installations has been evaluated

and it has been determined that there is

no reasonable potential for exposure of

personnel or the general public to

radiation exposures exceeding the limits

allowed for members of the general

public.

D. Fields use of the Abrams Tank with

Heavy Armor has been evaluated and it

has been determined that appropriate

controls exist in the form of vehicle

design, vehicle use, and vehicle

maintenance to assure that radiation

exposure to involved personnel and the

general public is maintained within the

required regulatory limits and that

efforts have been made to reduce

radiation exposures below the limits.

E. The environmental effects of

accidents involving the release of DU

have been evaluated and appropriate

actions have been identified to assure

mitigation and minimize the potential

for environmental damage.

F. Means have been identified and

agreements have been made that assure

that the DU is properly managed and

controlled during and following

demilitarization.

G. Means have been identified and

agreements have been made that assure

that all DU wastes generated by the

Abrams Heavy Armor System are

properly managed and disposed.

5. Determination

Based on the analyses of the draft EA,

the use of DU armor from its receipt by

the Abrams program through

disposition of the material following

future demilitarization of the Abrams

tanks, including reasonably foreseeable

accidents, do not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment

within the meaning of the NEPA.

Therefore, an Environmental Impact

Statement for the proposed action is not

required.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–18674 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Intelligence Agency, Science

and Technology Advisory Board

Closed Panel Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense

Intelligence Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

Subsection (d) of Section 10 of Pub. L.

92–463, as amended by Section 5 of

Pub. L. 94–409, notice is hereby given

that a closed meeting of the DIA Science

and Technology Advisory Board has

been scheduled as follows:

DATES: 24 July 1998 (800am to 1600pm).

ADDRESSES: The Defense Intelligence

Agency, Bolling AFB, Washington, DC

20340–5100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maj Michael W. Lamb, USAF, Executive

Secretary, DIA Science and Technology

Advisory Board, Washington, DC

20340–1328 (202) 231–4930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire

meeting is devoted to the discussion of

classified information as defined in

Section 552b(c)(I), Title 5 of the U.S.

Code and therefore will be closed to the

public. The Board will receive briefings

on and discuss several current critical

intelligence issues and advised the

Director, DIA, on related scientific and

technical matters.

Dated: July 8, 1998.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 98–18618 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M