Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Notices 2951

validate system design and operational

effectiveness.

The Final EIS addresses the potential

environmental impacts that would

result from test site modifications,

launch preparation requirements,

missile flights along the proposed flight

paths, and intercepts of targets over

existing ranges or open sea areas. It also

identifies mitigation measures that

would lessen the impacts.

Environmental resource topics

evaluated include: health and safety, air

quality, airspace, noise, geology and

soils, water resources, socieconomics,

hazardous materials and waste, land

use, infrastructure and transportation,

and biological and cultural resource

stewardship.

EIS LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Army Space and

Strategic Defense Command.

COOPERATING AGENCIES: Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization, United States Air

Force, United States Navy, and Federal

Aviation Administration.

PROPOSED ACTION: The action is to

conduct defensive missile tests and

associated sensor tests at one or more of

four extended test ranges. The tests

involve target missile launches and

defensive missile launches from existing

test ranges and from off-range locations.

Potential off-range launch locations

included land areas and sea-based

platforms. Missile-to-missile intercepts

will occur over existing test range areas

or over open sea areas. Up to

approximately 100 flight tests could

occur during the period 1995 to 2000,

from more than one off-range location,

and potentially from more than one test

range area. These test may continue well

beyond 2000.

Alternatives for conducting these

missile flight tests and intercepts,

evaluated in the TMD Extended Test

Range EIS, are:

1. White Sands Missile Range

(WSMR), NM. This alternative includes

defensive missile launches and

associated sensor testing at WSMR and

Fort Bliss, TX, with off-range target

missile launches from Fort Wingate

Depot Activity, NM, and the Green

River Launch Complex, UT.

2. Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), FL.

This alternative includes defensive

missile launches and associated sensor

testing at Eglin AFB on Santa Rosa

Island and at Cape San Blas, with offrange target missile launches from a seabased platform in the Gulf of Mexico.

3. The Western Range, CA. This

alternative includes defensive missile

launches and associated sensor testing

at Vandenberg AFB, San Nicholas

Island, and San Clemente Island, with

off-range target missile launches from a

sea-based platform in the Pacific Ocean.

4. Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR),

U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of

the Marshall Islands. This alternative

includes defensive missile launches and

associated sensor testing at KMR and

Wake Island with off-range target

missile launches from a sea-based

platform in the Pacific Ocean.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Major Thomas LaRock, OATSD/PA,

Washington, DC 20301–1400, (703) 697–

5131.

Dated: January 9, 1995.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–842 Filed 1–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers

Availability of Guidance on DesignBuild for Military Construction

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Interested individuals may

obtain copies of the Design-Build

Instructions (DBI) For Military

Construction, dated 29 October 1994.

The purpose of the DBI is to serve as a

practical guide for U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers offices to consistently and

efficiently plan, develop, and execute

design-build contracts.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the DBI may be

obtained from two sources; printed

copies (as quantities last) from the

Huntsville Division Engineer Office

(CEHND–ED–ES), P.O. Box 1600,

Huntsville, AL 35807–4301; or

automated copies on the compact disk

(CD–ROM), January 1995 issue of the

Construction Criteria Base (CCB), from

the National Institute of Building

Sciences (NIBS), 1201 L Street, N.W.

Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20005–

4024, (202) 289–7800, FAX (202) 289–

1092. Written suggestions for improving

the DBI may be submitted before 30

June 1995 to HQUSACE, ATTN: CEMP–

EA, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20314–1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Daniel W. Duncan, Architectural

and Planning Branch, Directorate of

Military Programs, (202) 272–0437.

Kenneth L. Denton,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–772 Filed 1–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

Resolution of Potential Conflict of

Interest

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board (Board) has identified and

resolved a potential conflict of interest

situation related to its contractor, Dr.

Sol Pearlstein. This Notice satisfies the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 1706.8(e)

with respect to publication in the

Federal Register. Under the Board’s

Organizational and Consultant Conflicts

of Interests Regulations, 10 CFR Part

1706 (OCI Regulations), an

organizational or consultant conflict of

interest (OCI) means that because of

other past, present, or future planned

activities or relationships, a contractor

or consultant is unable, or potentially

unable, to render impartial assistance or

advice to the Board, or the objectivity of

such offeror or contractor in performing

work for the Board is or might be

otherwise impaired, or such offeror or

contractor has or would have an unfair

competitive advantage. While the OCI

Regulations provide that contracts shall

generally not be awarded to an

organization where the Board has

determined that an actual or potential

OCI exists and cannot be avoided, the

Board may waive this requirement in

certain circumstances.

The Board’s mission is to provide

advice and recommendations to the

Department of Energy (DOE) regarding

public health and safety matters related

to DOE’s defense nuclear facilities. This

includes the review and evacuation of

the content and implementation of

health and safety standards including

DOE orders, rules, and other safety

requirements, relating to the design,

construction, operation, and

decommissioning of DOE defense

nuclear facilities.

In the Fall of 1992, the Board

recognized an urgent need for technical

expertise in evaluating nuclear physics

data, particularly in the area of nuclear

applications. While the Board had been

engaged in extensive recruiting efforts,

it had been unsuccessful in identifying

an individual with the required

expertise, experience, and knowledge to

satisfy this need. Consequently, the

Board offered Dr. Sol Pearlstein, an

employee of Brookhaven National

Laboratory (BNL) a full-time two year

appointment as Physicist on its staff.

Following BNL’s agreement to grant Dr.

Pearlstein a twenty-four month unpaid

leave of absence, he accepted the

Board’s offer and began work on

October 1, 1992. Additionally,

recognizing that a potential conflict of