6948 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2004 / Notices
Dated: February 5, 2004. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Closure Office, ODUSD(I&E), (703) 614–
L.M. Bynum, 5356.
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Office of the Secretary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04–3017 Filed 2–11–04; 8:45 am] Notice of Meeting A. Final Selection Criteria
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M AGENCY: DoD Medicare-Eligible Retiree The final criteria to be used by the
Health Care Board of Actuaries. Department of Defense to make
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
recommendations for the closure or
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE realignment of military installations
SUMMARY: A meeting of the Board has inside the United States under the
Office of the Secretary of Defense; been scheduled to execute the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on provisions of Chapter 56, Title 10, Act of 1990, Public Law 101–510, as
Electron Devices United States Code (10 U.S.C. 1114). amended, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, are as
AGENCY: Department of Defense, The Board shall review DoD actuarial follows:
Advisory Group on Electron Devices. methods and assumptions to be used in In selecting military installations for
the valuation of benefits under DoD closure or realignment, the Department
retiree health care programs for of Defense, giving priority consideration
SUMMARY: The DoD Advisory Group on Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Persons to military value (the first four criteria
Electron Devices (AGED) announces a desiring to: (1) Attend the DoD below), will consider:
closed session meeting. Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Military Value
DATES: The meeting will be held at Board of Actuaries meeting, or (2) make
1300, Thursday, February 26, 2004 and an oral presentation or submit a written 1. The current and future mission
0800 Friday February 27, 2004. statement for consideration at the capabilities and the impact on
meeting, must notify Bill Klunk at (703) operational readiness of the Department
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
696–7404 by May 3, 2004. of Defense’s total force, including the
Palisades Institute for Research
Notice of this meeting is required impact on joint warfighting, training,
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway,
under the Federal Advisory Committee and readiness.
Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202. 2. The availability and condition of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
DATES: May 26, 2004, 1:30 p.m.–5 p.m.
land, facilities and associated airspace
Eric Carr, AGED Secretariat, 1745 (including training areas suitable for
Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square ADDRESSES: 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite
maneuver by ground, naval, or air forces
Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 270, Arlington, VA 22203. throughout a diversity of climate and
22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill terrain areas and staging areas for the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Klunk, DoD Office of the Actuary, 4040 use of the Armed Forces in homeland
mission of the Advisory Group is to N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 308, Arlington, defense missions) at both existing and
provide advice to the Under Secretary of VA 22203, (703) 696–7404. potential receiving locations.
Defense for Acquisition, Technology Dated: February 6, 2004. 3. The ability to accommodate
and Logistics to the Director of Defense L.M. Bynum, contingency, mobilization, and future
Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison total force requirements at both existing
through the DDR&E to the Director, Officer, Department of Defense. and potential receiving locations to
Defense Advanced Research Projects [FR Doc. 04–3016 Filed 2–11–04; 8:45 am] support operations and training.
Agency and the Military Departments in BILLING CODE 5001–06–M
4. The cost of operations and the
planning and managing an effective and manpower implications.
economical research and development Other Considerations
program in the area of electron devices. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The AGED meeting will be limited to 5. The extent and timing of potential
review of research and development Office of the Secretary costs and savings, including the number
programs which the Military of years, beginning with the date of
Departments propose to initiate with Department of Defense Selection completion of the closure or
industry, universities or in their Criteria for Closing and Realigning realignment, for the savings to exceed
laboratories. The agenda for this Military Installations Inside the United the costs.
meeting will include programs on States 6. The economic impact on existing
microwave technology, communities in the vicinity of military
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). installations.
microelectronics, electro-optics, and
ACTION: Final selection criteria. 7. The ability of both the existing and
In accordance with section 10(d) of potential receiving communities’
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Defense, in
Pub. L. 92–463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. infrastructure to support forces,
accordance with section 2913(a) of the
App. 10(d)), it has been determined that missions, and personnel.
Defense Base Closure and Realignment
this Advisory Group meeting concerns 8. The environmental impact,
Act of 1990, Public Law 101–510, as
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and including the impact of costs related to
amended, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, is
that accordingly, this meeting will be potential environmental restoration,
required to publish the final selection
closed to the public. waste management, and environmental
criteria to be used by the Department of
Dated: February 6, 2004. Defense in making recommendations for
L.M. Bynum, the closure or realignment of military B. Analysis of Public Comments
Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison installations inside the United States. The Department of Defense (DoD)
Officer, Department of Defense. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2004. received a variety of comments from the
[FR Doc. 04–3037 Filed 2–11–04; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. public, members of Congress, and other
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M Mike McAndrew, Base Realignment and elected officials in response to the
VerDate jul<14>2003 15:32 Feb 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2004 / Notices 6949
proposed DoD selection criteria for (d) The Department did not receive door’’ method of privatizing civilian
closing and realigning military any requests from local governments positions. DoD’s civil service employees
installations inside the United States. that a particular installation be closed or are an integral part of successful
The Department also received a number realigned pursuant to section 2914(b)(2) accomplishment of defense missions.
of letters from members of Congress of Public Law 101–510, which states Section 2904 specifically limits the
regarding BRAC selection criteria before that the Secretary shall consider any ability of the Secretary of Defense to
publication of the draft criteria for notice received from a local government carry out a privatization in place of a
comment. The Department has treated in the vicinity of a military installation military installation recommended for
those letters as comments on the draft that the local government would closure or realignment to situations
criteria and included the points raised approve of the closure or realignment of where that option is specified in the
therein in our assessment of public the installation. A few private citizens, recommendations of the Commission
comments. The comments can be however, asked that a particular and determined by the Commission to
grouped into three categories: general, installation be closed or that operations be the most cost-effective method of
military value, and other considerations. be restricted to limit noise or other implementation of the recommendation.
The following is an analysis of these community impacts. Therefore, if any closure or realignment
comments. (e) A few commentors expressed recommendation includes privatization,
concern over the broad nature of the it will be clearly stated in the
(1) General Comments criteria and requested greater detail, recommendation.
(a) Numerous commentors expressed including in some cases requests for (i) One commentor suggested that the
support for the draft criteria without definitions, specificity regarding select Department needed to conduct a
suggesting changes and used the functions, and explanations of when a comprehensive study of U.S. military
opportunity to provide information on closure as opposed to a realignment was installations abroad and assess whether
their particular installations. DoD appropriate. While the Department the existing U.S. base infrastructure
understands and greatly appreciates the appreciates a desire for detail, the meets the needs of current and future
high value that communities place on inherent mission diversity of the missions. The BRAC statute applies to
the installations in their area and the Military Departments and Defense military installations inside the United
relationships that have emerged Agencies makes it impossible for DoD to States, the District of Columbia, the
between the Department and local specify detailed criteria that could be Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
communities. Both the BRAC legislation applied to all installations and functions the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and DoD’s implementation of it ensure within the Department. Broad criteria
and any other commonwealth, territory,
that all installations will be treated allow flexibility of application across a
or possession of the United States. As a
equally in the base realignment and wide range of functions within the
parallel action, the Secretary of Defense
closure process. Department.
(f) A few commentors recommended has already undertaken a
(b) Several commentors gave various assigning specific weights to individual comprehensive study of global basing
reasons why a particular installation, criteria and applying those criteria and presence—the Integrated Global
type of installation, or installations uniformly across the Department. It Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS).
designated by Congress as unique assets would be impossible for DoD to specify BRAC will accommodate any decisions
or strategic ports, should be eliminated weights for each criterion that could be from that study that relocate forces to
from any closure or realignment applied uniformly to all installations the U.S. DoD will incorporate our global
evaluation. Public Law 101–510 directs and functions because of the inherent basing strategy into a comprehensive
DoD to evaluate all installations equally. mission diversity within the BRAC analysis, thereby ensuring that
The Department has issued guidance to Department. Other than the requirement any overseas redeployment decisions
all DoD Components instructing them to to give the military value criteria inform our recommendations to the
treat all installations equally. priority consideration, the numbering BRAC Commission.
(c) Some commentors indicated the reflected in the listing of the criteria are (j) A few commentors cautioned the
selection criteria should reflect the not intended to assign an order of Department against using the authority
statutory requirement of section 2464 of precedence to an individual criterion. provided by section 2914(c) to close and
title 10, United States Code, to maintain (g) One commentor suggested that retain installations in inactive status
a core logistics capability, and the section 2687 of title 10, United States because of the negative effect such
statutory limitation of Section 2466 that Code, requires the Department to action might have on the relevant local
the Department spend no more than exclude military installations with less community. The Department recognizes
50% of its depot-level maintenance and than 300 authorized civilian positions that job creation gained through the
repair funds to contract for the from consideration for closure or economic reuse of facilities is critically
performance of such workload. realignment under BRAC. While section important to mitigate the negative
Consistent with the development and 2687 allows the Department to close or impact of BRAC recommendations. As
application of the criteria used in all realign such installations outside the such, the Department will exercise the
previous rounds, it is inappropriate to BRAC process, it does not preclude their utmost caution and consideration when
include any statutory constraints in the consideration within BRAC. In order for exercising its authority to retain
selection criteria because they are too the Department to reconfigure its installations in an inactive status. It
varied and numerous and could current infrastructure into one in which should be noted that the Department has
preclude evaluation of all installations operational capacity maximizes both always had this authority, even though
equally. The absence of these warfighting capability and efficiency, it its appearance in the authorizing
requirements in the text of the criteria, must undertake an analysis of the legislation for the 2005 round would
however, should not be construed as an totality of its infrastructure, not just indicate it is a new authority. As such,
indication that the Department will those with 300 or more authorized the Department’s actions in the four
ignore these or any other statutory civilian positions. previous base closure rounds
requirements or limitations in making (h) Some commentors were concerned demonstrate that it will be exercised
its final recommendations. that BRAC would be used as a ‘‘back judiciously.
VerDate jul<14>2003 14:33 Feb 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1
6950 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2004 / Notices
(k) A few commentors asked the how an installation ‘‘preserves’’ ‘‘potential, prudent, surge requirements
Department to give priority to relocating something rather than whether an to meet those threats.’’
activities within the same state or local installation possesses the assets worthy (e) Numerous commentors stated that
community. The Department recognizes of preservation, potentially undercutting previous BRAC rounds failed to
that the economic impact of BRAC the statutory factors rather than evaluate research, development, test and
reductions can be lessened by moving furthering those factors. While the evaluation, engineering, procurement,
functions to geographically proximate criteria proposed by the Secretary do and technical facilities accurately,
locations. As specified in the BRAC not recite the statutory language because of the lack of effective criteria
legislation, however, military value verbatim, they do fully reflect the nine to consider the features essential to their
must be the primary consideration when factors set out in the statute, and as such performance. They noted that the
making these decisions. Specifically, are legally sufficient. Additionally, the criteria applied to such facilities in
those factors that are set out in criteria Department does not agree with the previous rounds were largely the same
one through four are the most important assertion that the criteria must contain criteria that were applied to operations,
considerations when selecting receiving the word ‘‘preservation’’ in order to training and maintenance facilities
locations. comply with congressional intent. The serving very different functions. DoD
report of the Committee of Conference highly values its research, development,
(2) Military Value Comments test and evaluation, engineering,
to accompany S. 1438, the National
(a) A majority of comments received Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal procurement, and technical facilities.
dealt with the military value criteria. In Year 2002, refers to the preceding list of Research, development, engineering,
the aggregate, military value refers to the requirements as ‘‘factors that must be procurement and other technical
collection of attributes that determine evaluated and incorporated in the capabilities are elements of military
how well an installation supports force Secretary’s final list of criteria.’’ The value captured within criteria one
structure, functions, and or missions. BRAC statute does not require, as a through four. The Department will
(b) One commentor was concerned consider military value in a way that
matter of law, a verbatim recitation of
that the Department would lose sight of incorporates these elements.
the factors set out in Section 2913. On
the value of service-unique functions (f) Several commentors also raised
the contrary, a requirement for a
when applying criteria that include concerns that the criteria did not take
verbatim recitation is inconsistent with
reference to jointness. The Department into account the availability of
the requirements for publication of draft
recognizes the distinct military value intellectual capital, critical trade skills,
criteria, an extensive public comment
provided by both service-unique a highly trained work force, allied
period, and finalization of criteria only
functions and those functions that are presence, and the synergy among nearby
after reviewing public comments. If the
performed by more than one service. installations and between DoD facilities
Accordingly, the Secretary established a Secretary were bound to adopt the
and nearby industrial clusters and
process wherein the Military statutory language as his criteria, the
academic institutions. DoD appreciates
Departments are responsible for detailed publication process required by
the importance of having an available
analyzing their service-unique Congress would be meaningless.
pool of intellectual capital and critical
functions, while Joint Cross-Service (d) A few commentors stressed the trade skills that make up, and allow us
Groups, which include representatives importance of maintaining a surge to recruit and retain, a highly trained
from each of the military services, capacity. Surge requirements can arise and experienced work force, as well as
analyze the common business-oriented for any number of reasons, including the synergy provided by nearby
support functions. contingencies, mobilizations, or facilities. To the extent that the
(c) A few commentors were concerned extended changes in force levels. availability of highly skilled civilian or
that criterion two, which captures the Criteria one and three capture the contractor work forces and relationships
legislative requirements set out in concept of surge capacity as they are with local institutions and other
Section 2913(b)(1)–(3), did not recite currently drafted. As was the case with installations influence our ability to
verbatim the language in the BRAC the criteria used in the past three rounds accomplish the mission, they are
statute. They urged incorporation of of BRAC, criterion one requires the captured in criteria one, three and
‘‘Preservation of’’ into the final criteria Department to consider ‘‘current and seven.
to ensure that the 2005 BRAC round future’’ mission capabilities and (g) Some commentors urged DoD to
preserve the infrastructure necessary to criterion three assesses the ‘‘ability to consider strategic location and
support future military requirements. accommodate contingency, mobilization irreplaceable properties and facilities as
Selection criteria must facilitate and future total force requirements’’. In part of military value. The availability
discriminating among various military 1999, after three rounds of BRAC using and condition of land and facilities are
installations, assessing the value of each these criteria (and similar criteria used an integral part of military value,
and comparing them against each other in the first round of BRAC), the specifically covered under criterion two.
to see which installations offer the Department looked closely at its ability Furthermore, the strategic location of
greatest value to the Department. to accommodate increased requirements DoD facilities informs criteria one and
Criteria one through three compare the and found that even after four rounds of three.
respective assets of different military base realignments and closures it could (h) Some commentors said that an
installations against each other, valuing accommodate the reconstitution of 1987 installation’s demonstrated ability to
those with more of those assets more force structure—a significantly more transform, streamline business
highly than those without those assets. robust force than exists today—which is operations, and manage successful
By valuing the installations with more a more demanding scenario than a short programs should be considered as part
of these assets higher, the Department term mobilization. Further, as required of military value. In some instances
‘‘preserves’’ these valuable assets set out by Section 2822 of the National Defense commentors praised the outstanding
in the criteria. If the Department were to Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 work of a particular installation or
modify the criteria to include (Pub. L. 108–136), the Secretary, as part group of installations. DoD recognizes
‘‘preservation,’’ as suggested in the of his assessment of probable threats to and appreciates the outstanding work
comment, we would be forced to assess national security, will determine the done by its installations. Criteria one
VerDate jul<14>2003 14:33 Feb 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2004 / Notices 6951
and three capture both the ability to (l) A few commentors were concerned Federal Government and reflect both
perform a mission and the quality of that the ‘‘cost of operations’’ language in costs and savings. The Department
that work—both of which, in turn, criterion four would not be a understands the decision making value
capture the willingness to transform and meaningful measure of military value of comprehensive consideration of
streamline. because it would appear to encourage costs. In accordance with Section
(i) Some commentors recommended the closure or realignment of an 2913(d), the Department’s application of
that DoD consider an installation’s role installation in a high cost of living area, its cost and savings criterion will ‘‘take
in homeland defense, security, domestic despite important strategic reasons for into account the effect of the proposed
preparedness, and the war on terrorism retaining that installation. Because DoD closure or realignment on the costs of
as a part of military value. Some operates in a resource constrained any other activity of the Department of
suggested that an installation’s environment, all resources—land, Defense or any other Federal agency that
proximity to and ability to protect vital facilities, personnel, and financial— may be required to assume
national assets, transportation facilities, have value. Monetary resources are an responsibility for activities at the
major urban centers and international inextricable component of military military installations.’’ The Department
borders was a key consideration, while value because all equipment, services, will issue guidance to the Military
others indicated that geographic and military salaries are dependent on Departments and the Joint Cross Service
diversity or complete isolation should the availability of this resource. Groups that incorporates this
be the real objective in order to enhance Therefore, the extent to which one requirement in the application of
security. The security of our nation, installation can be operated at less cost criterion five.
whether expressed as homeland than another is worthy of consideration, (e) Some commentors asked that DoD
defense, domestic preparedness, or particularly for business operations, consider the impact of closing or
fighting the war on terrorism, is an although the importance of this will realigning an installation on the local
important DoD mission. Both the BRAC vary depending on the function community and on military retirees in
legislation and DoD’s implementation of involved. the area who rely on the installation’s
it ensure that homeland defense and medical facilities, commissary, and
security are considered in the BRAC (3) Other Considerations
other activities. While military value
process. Specifically, criterion two (a) Criteria five through eight deal
criteria must be the primary
requires DoD Components to consider with other considerations, such as costs
consideration, the impact of a closure or
‘‘[t]he availability and condition of land, and savings and economic, community,
and environmental impacts. realignment on the local community,
facilities and associated airspace * * *
(b) Some commentors recommended a including military retirees residing
as staging areas for the use of the Armed
standardized interpretation of the cost therein, will be considered through
Forces in homeland defense missions.’’
criteria. The Department agrees that criteria five, six, and seven. The DoD
Additionally, as a mission of DoD, all of
costs and savings must be calculated Components will calculate economic
these issues are captured by the
uniformly. To that end, we are impact on existing communities by
requirements of criteria one and three.
(j) Some commentors noted that, in improving the Cost of Base Realignment measuring the effects on direct and
some areas of the country, expanding Actions (COBRA) model used indirect employment for each
civilian use of adjacent lands is successfully in previous BRAC rounds recommended closure or realignment.
encroaching upon military properties to address issues of uniformity and will These effects will be determined by
and has impacted critical training provide it to the Military Departments using statistical information obtained
requirements and preparations for and the Joint Cross-Service Groups for from the Departments of Labor and
deployments. Some said that calculation of costs, savings, and return Commerce. This is consistent with the
installations located in rural regions on investment in accordance with methodology used in prior BRAC
with access to large areas of operational criterion five. rounds to measure economic impact.
airspace over land and water as well as (c) Several commentors stated that (f) Some commentors asked that DoD
direct ingress/egress routes from water total mission support costs associated recognize that their state, facility or
to land will be key to future military with reestablishing or realigning a community was affected by closures and
operational and training requirements. military activity should be considered, realignments in prior BRAC rounds and
The issue of encroachment is captured including such things as the costs of that it, therefore, be protected in this
by criterion two which requires the reestablishing intellectual capital and round. These and other commentors
Department to consider the availability relationships with nearby businesses suggested that the Department view
and condition of land, facilities and and academic institutions, the costs economic impact cumulatively or take
associated airspace. associated with mission disruption, the into account the need of a community
(k) Some commentors recommended costs of contractor relocations, and the for an economic boost. Still others
that DoD consider the difficulty of availability and reliability of raw suggested that the current BRAC round
relocating missions and functions materials and supplies. DoD has respect decisions made in prior BRAC
requiring federal nuclear licenses or improved the Cost of Base Realignment rounds—and not take any action
environmental permits, as part of Actions (COBRA) model used in prior inconsistent with a prior
military value. DoD recognizes the BRAC rounds to more accurately and recommendation. DoD recognizes the
importance of federal licenses and appropriately reflect the variety of costs impact that BRAC can have on local
permits. The ability to accommodate of base realignment and closure actions. communities, and makes every effort in
current and future force requirements, DoD will provide it to the Military the implementation phase of BRAC to
which includes Federal licensing and Departments and the Joint Cross-Service soften the effect of closures and
permitting requirements, is covered Groups for calculation of costs, savings, realignments on local communities. The
under criteria one, two and three. and return on investment in accordance BRAC statute, however, specifically
Furthermore, the impact of with criterion five. requires the Secretary to consider all
environmental compliance activities (d) A few commentors stated DoD military installations in the United
(i.e., permits and licenses) is also should consider the total resource States equally, without regard to
specifically captured in criterion eight. impact of a recommendation to the whether that installation has previously
VerDate jul<14>2003 14:33 Feb 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1
6952 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2004 / Notices
been considered for closure or criteria if they directly relate to the C. Previous Federal Register References
realignment. elements of criteria one through four.
(g) The United States General (i) A few commentors asked the 1. 55 FR 49678, November 30, 1990: Draft
Accounting Office (GAO) stated that the Department to consider the social as selection criteria and request for comments.
2. 55 FR 53586, December 31, 1990: Extend
draft criteria, if adopted, would add an well as the economic impact on existing
comment period on draft selection criteria.
element of consistency and continuity communities. The Department 3. 56 FR 6374, February 15, 1991: Final
in approach with those of the past three recognizes that its installations can be selection criteria and analysis of comments.
BRAC rounds. It noted that its analysis key components of the social fabric of 4. 57 FR 59334, December 15, 1992: Final
of lessons learned from prior BRAC the communities in which they are selection criteria.
rounds affirmed the soundness of these located, in both a positive or negative 5. 59 FR 63769, December 9, 1994: Final
basic criteria and generally endorsed sense. For instance, the BRAC statute selection criteria
their retention for the future, while requires that the Department consider 6. 68 FR 74221, December 23, 2003: Draft
recognizing the potential for improving any notice received from a local selection criteria and request for comments.
7. 69 FR 3335, January 23, 2004: Extend
the process by which the criteria are government in the vicinity of a military
comment period on draft selection criteria.
used in decision-making. It suggested installation that it would approve of the
that DoD clarify two issues: (1) The closure or realignment of the Dated: February 10, 2004.
Department’s intention to consider installation. Additionally, because L.M. Bynum,
potential costs to other DoD activities or social impact is an intangible factor that Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison
federal agencies that may be affected by would be difficult for the Department to Officer, Department of Defense.
a proposed closure or realignment quantify and measure fairly, issues of [FR Doc. 04–3247 Filed 2–10–04; 2:04 pm]
recommendation under the criterion social impact are best addressed to the
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
related to cost and savings, and (2) the BRAC Commission during its process of
extent to which the impact of costs receiving public input.
related to potential environmental (j) A few commentors wanted to
restoration, waste management, and ensure that, as the Department considers DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
environmental compliance activities the ability of community infrastructure
will be included in cost and savings to support the military, DoD view that Office of Elementary and Secondary
analyses of individual BRAC ability as evolving, and consider the Education; Overview Information;
recommendations. willingness and capacity of the William F. Goodling Even Start Family
As discussed above, DoD recognizes community to make additional Literacy Programs: Grants for Indian
that the BRAC legislation required it to investments. The infrastructure Tribes and Tribal Organizations; Notice
consider cost impacts to other DoD provided by the communities Inviting Applications for New Awards
entities and Federal agencies in its surrounding our installations is a key for Fiscal Years (FY) 2003 and 2004
BRAC decision-making and will issue component in their efficient and
implementing guidance to ensure that effective operation. As the BRAC Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
such costs are considered under legislation has established a stringent (CFDA) Number: 84.258.
criterion five. timetable for the Secretary to arrive at DATES: Applications Available: February
On the second point raised by GAO, recommendations, the Department must 12, 2004.
which was echoed by a few other focus on the existing, demonstrated Deadline for Transmittal of
commentors, DoD policy guidance has ability of a community to support its Applications: April 2, 2004.
historically stipulated that installation, especially as potential
investment actions may not translate Eligible Applicants: Federally
environmental restoration costs were
into reality. recognized Indian tribes and tribal
not to be factored into analyses of costs
organizations. Applicable definitions of
and savings when examining potential (k) One commentor requested
the terms ‘‘Indian tribe’’ and ‘‘tribal
installations for realignment and clarification that criterion eight ‘‘
organization’’ are in section 4 of the
closure, since DoD was obligated to environmental impact ‘‘includes
Indian Self-Determination and
restore contaminated sites on military consideration of the impact of the
Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C.
installations regardless of whether or closure or realignment on historic
not they were closed. DoD concurs with properties. As has been the case in prior
GAO that determining such costs could rounds of base closure, the Department Estimated Available Funds:
be problematic in advance of a closure will consider historic properties as a $4,370,000. This is the combined
decision, since reuse plans for BRAC part of criterion eight. estimate from both FY 2003 and FY
properties would not yet be determined (l) Several commentors stated that the 2004 funds. We are inviting applications
and studies to identify restoration criteria should consider the effect of at this time for new awards for both FY
requirements would not yet be closures and realignments on the quality 2003 and for FY 2004 to make the most
completed. As suggested, DoD will issue of life and morale of military personnel efficient use of competition resources.
guidance to clarify consideration of and their families. The Department The Department may use the funding
environmental costs. agrees that the quality of life provided slate resulting from this competition as
(h) A few commentors suggested that to its military personnel and their the basis for future years’ awards.
criterion seven—the ability of both the families significantly contributes to the Estimated Range of Awards:
existing and potential receiving Department’s ability to recruit and $150,000–$250,000 per year.
communities’’ infrastructure to support retain quality personnel. Military Estimated Average Size of Awards:
forces, missions, and personnel ‘‘be personnel are better able to perform $200,000 per year.
included in military value and receive their missions when they feel Estimated Number of Awards: 17–29.
priority consideration. DoD has comfortable that their needs and those Note: The Department is not bound by any
demonstrated in previous BRAC rounds of their families are taken care of. estimates in this notice.
that factors falling within this criterion Quality of life is captured throughout
can be applied within the military value the criteria, particularly criterion seven. Project Period: Up to 48 months.
VerDate jul<14>2003 14:33 Feb 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1