24840 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

checks are intended to reveal if any key

individuals associated with the

applicant have been convicted of or are

presently facing criminal charges such

as fraud, theft, perjury or other matters

which significantly reflect on the

applicant’s management honesty or

financial integrity.

Award Termination—The

Departmental Grants Officer may

terminate any grant/cooperative

agreement in whole or in part at any

time before the date of completion

whenever it is determined that the

award recipient has failed to comply

with the conditions of the grant/

cooperative agreement. Examples of

some of the conditions which can cause

termination are failure to meet costsharing requirements; unsatisfactory

performance of the MBDC work

requirements; and reporting inaccurate

or inflated claims of client assistance.

Such inaccurate or inflated claims may

be deemed illegal and punishable by

law.

False Statements—A false statement

on an application for Federal financial

assistance is grounds for denial or

termination of funds, and grounds for

possible punishment by a fine or

imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C.

1001.

Primary Applicant Certifications—All

primary applicants must submit a

completed Form CD–511,

‘‘Certifications Regarding Debarment,

Suspension and Other Responsibility

Matters; Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements and Lobbying.’’

Nonprocurement Debarment and

Suspension—Prospective participants

(as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, § 26.105)

are subject to 15 CFR Part 26,

‘‘Nonprocurement Debarment and

Suspension’’ and the related section of

the certification form prescribed above

applies.

Drug Free Workplace—Grantees (as

defined at 15 CFR Part 26, § 26.605) are

subject to 15 CFR Part 26, Subpart F,

‘‘Governmentwide Requirements for

Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)’’ and the

related section of the certification form

prescribed above applies.

Anti-Lobbying—Persons (as defined at

15 CFR Part 28, § 28.105) are subject to

the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C.

1352, ‘‘Limitation on use of

appropriated funds to influence certain

Federal contracting and financial

transactions,’’ and the lobbying section

of the certification form prescribed

above applies to applications/bids for

grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts for more than $100,000, and

loans and loan guarantees for more than

$150,000 or the single family maximum

mortgage limit for affected programs,

whichever is greater.

Anti-Lobbying Disclosures—Any

applicant that has paid or will pay for

lobbying using any funds must submit

an SF–LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities,’’ as required under 15 CFR

Part 28, Appendix B.

Lower Tier Certifications—Recipients

shall require applications/bidders for

subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or

other lower tier covered transactions at

any tier under the award to submit, if

applicable, a completed Form CD–512,

‘‘Certifications Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary

Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered

Transactions and Lobbying’’ and

disclosure form, SF–LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities.’’ Form CD–512 is

intended for the use of recipients and

should not be transmitted to DOC. SF–

LLL submitted by any tier recipient or

subrecipient should be submitted to

DOC in accordance with the

instructions contained in the award

document.

Buy American-made Equipment or

Products—Applicants are hereby

notified that they are encouraged, to the

extent feasible, to purchase Americanmade equipment and products with

funding provided under this program in

accordance with Congressional intent as

set forth in the resolution contained in

Public Law 103–121, Sections 606 (a)

and (b).

11.800 Minority Business Development

Center

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance)

May 4, 1995.

Donald L. Powers,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Minority

Business Development Agency.

[FR Doc. 95–11461 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–21–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 050195E]

Small Takes of Marine Mammals

Incidental to Specified Activities;

Lockheed Launch Vehicles at

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application

and proposed authorization for a small

take exemption; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request

from Lockheed Environmental Systems

and Technologies Company, Las Vegas,

NV (Lockheed) for authorization to take

small numbers of harbor seals by

harassment incidental to launches of

Lockheed’s launch vehicles at Space

Launch Complex 6 (SLC–6), Vandenberg

Air Force Base, CA (Vandenberg). Under

the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments

on its proposal to authorize Lockheed to

incidentally take, by harassment, small

numbers of harbor seals in the vicinity

of Vandenberg for a period of 1 year.

DATES: Comments and information must

be received no later than June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the

application should be addressed to

Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office

of Protected Resources, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A

copy of the application and the

references used in this document may

be obtained by writing to this address or

by telephoning one of the contacts listed

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of

Protected Resources at 301–713–2055,

or Craig Wingert, Southwest Regional

Office at 310–980–4021.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary

of Commerce to allow, upon request, the

incidental, but not intentional taking of

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who

engage in a specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and regulations are issued.

Permission may be granted if NMFS

finds that the taking will have a

negligible impact on the species or

stock(s); will not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of the

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses;

and the permissible methods of taking

and requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such taking

are set forth.

On April 30, 1994, the President

signed Public Law 103–238, The Marine

Mammal Protection Act Amendments of

1994. One part of this law added a new

subsection 101(a)(5)(D) to the MMPA to

establish an expedited process by which

citizens of the United States can apply

for an authorization to incidentally take

small numbers of marine mammals by

harassment. The MMPA defines

‘‘harassment’’ as:

‘‘ * * *any act of pursuit,torment, or

annoyance which (a) has the potential to

injure a marine mammal or marine mammal

stock in the wild; or (b) has the potential to

disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24841

1 A list of references used in this document can

be obtained by writing to the address provided

above (see ADDRESSES).

stock in the wild by causing disruption of

behavioral patterns, including, but not

limited to, migration, breathing, nursing,

breeding, feeding, or sheltering.’’

New subsection 101(a)(5)(D)

establishes a 45-day time limit for

NMFS review of an application

followed by a 30-day public notice and

comment period on any proposed

authorizations for the incidental

harassment of small numbers of marine

mammals. Within 45 days of the close

of the comment period, NMFS must

either issue or deny issuance of the

authorization.

Summary of Request

On March 13, 1995, NMFS received

an application from Lockheed

requesting an authorization for the

harassment of small numbers of harbor

seals incidental to launches of

Lockheed’s launch vehicles (LLV) at

SLC–6, Vandenberg. These launches

would place commercial payloads into

low earth orbit using its family of

vehicles (LLV–1, LLV–2 and LLV–3).

Because of the requirements for

circumpolar trajectories of the LLV and

its payloads, the use of SLC–6 is the

only feasible alternative within the

United States. Lockheed intends to

launch approximately 2 LLVs during the

period of this proposed 1–yr

authorization (Air Force, 1995)1. As a

result of the noise associated with the

launch itself and the resultant sonic

boom, these noises have the potential to

cause a startle response to those harbor

seals which haul out on the coastline

south and southwest of Vandenberg and

possibly on the northern Channel

Islands. Launch noise would be

expected to occur over the coastal

habitats in the vicinity of SLC–6 while

low-level sonic booms could be heard

on the Channel Islands, specifically San

Miguel Island (SMI) and Santa Rosa

Island (SRI).

Description of Habitat and Marine

Mammal Affected by LLVs

The Southern California Bight (SCB)

including the Channel Islands, support

a diverse assemblage of pinnipeds (seals

and sea lions). California sea

lions(Zalophus californianus), northern

elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris),

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and

northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus)

breed there, with the largest rookeries

on SMI and San Nicolas Island (Stewart

et al., in press). Until 1977, a small

rookery of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias

jubatus) existed on SMI. However, there

has been no breeding there since 1981

and no sightings since 1984 (Stewart et

al., in press). Guadalupe fur seals

(Arctocephalus townsendi) breed only

on Isla de Guadalupe offshore Baja

California, Mexico, but occasionally

some are seen on the Channel Islands.

More detailed descriptions of the SCB

and its associated marine mammals can

be found elsewhere (56 FR 1606,

January 16, 1991).

Harbor Seals

The Pacific harbor seal, which ranges

from Baja California to the eastern

Aleutian Islands, is the only marine

mammal expected to be incidentally

harassed by LLV launches from

Vandenberg and therefore needs to be

discussed in some detail. Harbor seals

are considered abundant throughout

most of their range and have increased

substantially in the last 20 years. Hanan

and Beeson (1994) reported 18,099 seals

counted on the mainland coast and

islands of California during May and

June, 1993. Using that count and

Boveng’s (1988) correction factor (1.4

times the count) for animals not hauled

out, gives a best population estimate of

25,339 harbor seals in California.

On the coastlines of South

Vandenberg AFB, harbor seals are noted

near Point Arguello, at the mouth of Oil

Well Canyon, in the area surrounding

Rocky Point and near the Boathouse

Breakwater (Air Force, 1995). The

largest aggregations occur during the

spring and early summer. In 1986, 500

harbor seals were censused at these sites

(Hanan et al., 1987). In the spring,

approximately 70 harbor seals may be

found at Rocky Point, immediately

south of SLC–6 (Air Force, 1995).

On SMI during the breeding season,

the population is estimated to be about

1,000 - 1,200 harbor seals (Hanan et al.,

1993). Numbers are lowest in December,

increase gradually from February to

June, then sharply decrease again to a

minimum in December. Pups are born

from February through May. Pups nurse

for about 4 weeks; nursing extends to at

least the end of May. Breeding activities

occur from mid-April to mid-June.

Harbor seals haulout onto dry land for

various biological reasons, including

sleep (Krieber and Barrette, 1984;

Terhune, 1985), predator avoidance and

thermoregulation (Barnett, 1992). As

harbor seals spend most of the evening

and nighttime hours in the ocean

(Bowles and Stewart, 1980), hauled-out

seals spend much of their daytime hours

in apparent sleep (Krieber and Barrette,

1984; Terhune, 1985). In addition to

sleep, seals need to leave the ocean to

avoid aquatic predators and excessive

heat loss to the sea water (Barnett,

1992).

However, the advantages of hauling

out are counterbalanced by dangers of

the terrestrial environment including

predators. In general, because of these

opposing biological forces, haulout

groups are temporary, unstable

aggregations (Sullivan, 1982). The size

of the haulout group is thought to be an

anti-predator strategy (da Silva and

Terhune, 1988). By increasing their

numbers at a haulout site, harbor seals

optimize the opportunities for sleep by

minimizing the requirement for

individual vigilance against predators

(Krieber and Barrette, 1984). This

relationship between seals and their

predators is thought to have represented

a strong selection pressure for startle

behavior patterns (da Silva and

Terhune, 1988). As a result, harbor

seals, which have been subjected to

extensive predation or hunting, rush

into the water at the slightest alarm.

Startle response in harbor seals can vary

from a temporary state of agitation by a

few individuals to the complete

abandonment of the beach area by the

entire colony. Normally, when harbor

seals are frightened by noise, or the

approach of a boat, plane, human, or

other potential predator, they will move

rapidly to the relative safety of the

water. Depending upon the severity of

the disturbance, seals may return to the

original haulout site immediately, stay

in the water for some length of time

before hauling out, or haulout in a

different area. When disturbances occur

late in the day, harbor seals may not

haulout again until the next day.

Disturbances have the potential to

cause a more serious effect when herds

are pupping or nursing, when

aggregations are dense, and during the

molting season. However, evidence to

date has not indicated that

anthropogenic disturbances have

resulted in increased mortality to harbor

seals. Bowles and Stewart (1980) for

example, found that harbor seals

tendency to flee, and the length of time

before returning to the beach, decreased

during the pupping season. They also

found that maternal-pup separations in

crowded colonies are considered

frequent, natural occurrences that can

result from several causes, including

normal female-female or male-female

interactions. Both factors apparently

giving some protection to young seals

from the startle response of the herd.

Potential Effects of LLV Launches on

Marine Mammals

The effect on pinnipeds, particularly

harbor seals, would be disturbance by

sound which is anticipated to result in

a negligible short-term impact to small
24842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

numbers of harbor seals that are hauled

out at the time of LLV launches. No

impacts are anticipated to animals that

are in the water at the time of launch.

The Air Force funded several studies

in anticipation of launching the space

shuttle from Vandenberg. In addition,

monitoring studies have been conducted

on pinnipeds during launches of the

Titan IV at SLC–4 (Stewart and

Francine, 1992; Stewart et al., 1992 and

1993). On SMI, time-lapse photographic

monitoring (Jehl and Cooper, 1982)

show that in response to a specific

stimulus, large numbers of pinnipeds

move suddenly from the shoreline to the

water. These events occur at a frequency

of about 24 to 36 times per year for sea

lions and seals other than harbor seals,

and about 48 to 60 times annually for

harbor seals. Visual stimuli such as

humans and low-flying aircraft are

much more likely to elicit this response

than strictly auditory stimuli such as

boat noise or sonic booms, which

currently occur about 8 times a month.

Observations indicated that it is rare for

mass movement to take place in a panic,

and no resulting pup or adult mortality

has been observed under these

circumstances.

South Vandenberg

At South Vandenberg, launch noises

are expected to impact only harbor seals

as other marine mammals are not

known to haulout at these sites with any

frequency. The launch noise associated

with the LLV under typical conditions

would be about 93 dBA (118 dB) at the

harbor seal haul-out areas which are

about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the south and

southwest of SLC–6 (Buhaly, 1993).

This level would be much less than

anticipated launch noises of either the

Space Shuttle or Titan IV/Centaur at

similar distances (approximately 120

dBA/144 dB for Titan IV) for which

small take authorizations have been

issued in the past. In addition, the

seaward aspects of the cliffs throughout

much of the coastal area are expected to

buffer the haul-out areas from launch

noises during the earliest stages of LLV

launches (USAF, 1995).

As part of the small take authorization

for Titan IV launches at SLC–4

(approximately 4.8 mi (7.7 km) north of

Rocky Point), the U.S. Air Force has

monitored the effects of launch noises

on hauled out harbor seals (Stewart and

Francine, 1992; Stewart et al., 1992 and

1993). For four monitored launches, the

sound exposure level ranged from 98.7

- 101.8 dBA (145 dB) (Stewart et al.,

1993), a noise level that is similar to an

F–16 jet overflight, although lower in

frequency. This sound pressure level is

approximately 20 dB less than predicted

theoretically.

During the 1992 and 1993 Titan IV

launches, all or almost all, harbor seals

that were ashore (1992–23 of 28; 1993–

41 of 41) at the time fled into the water

in response to the noise. In 1993 about

75 percent of those seals returned

ashore later that day, most within 90

minutes of the disturbance (Stewart et

al., 1993). No mortalities were reported

at South Vandenberg as a result of any

of the four monitored launches. As the

LLV launches create less noise than the

Titan IV, fewer harbor seals are

expected to react to the launch noise.

Northern Channel Islands

Depending upon the intensity and

location of a sonic boom, pinnipeds on

SMI or SRI may exhibit an alert

response or stampede into the water.

However, while it is highly probable

that focused sonic booms from LLVs

would occur over the Channel Islands,

maximum overpressures of these sonic

booms are estimated to be 1.0 pound/

foot2 (psf) over the northern part of SMI

(Air Force, 1995). A sonic boom with an

overpressure of 1.0 psf or less is not

considered significant (equivalent to

hearing two hands clapped together at a

distance of one foot).

The sonic booms resulting from

launches of the LLV will vary with the

type of vehicle and the specific ground

location. For example, the sonic boom

from LLV–3 (the largest of the LLV

rockets) is not expected to intersect any

portion of the northern Channel Islands,

but instead will focus on the open water

southwest of the Islands. Also, while it

is predicted that launches of the LLV 1

and LLV 2 will produce sonic booms

over portions of the Channel Islands, the

maximum overall sound pressure levels

is not expected to exceed 80 dBA and

in most cases will not exceed 70 dBA

(Air Force, 1995). These sonic boom

levels are likely to be indistinguishable

from background noises caused by wind

and surf (Air Force, 1995).

Monitoring of the effects of noise

generated from Titan IV launches on

SMI pinnipeds in 1991 (Stewart et al.,

1992) demonstrated that noise levels

from a sonic boom of 133 dB (111.7

dBA) caused an alert response by small

numbers of California sea lions, but no

response from other pinniped species

present (including harbor seals). In

1993, an explosion of a Titan IV created

a sonic boom-like pressure wave and

caused approximately 45 percent of the

California sea lions (approximately

23,400, including 14–15,000 1-month

old pups, were hauled-out on SMI

during the launch) and 2 percent of the

northern fur seals to enter the surf zone.

Although, approximately 15 percent of

the sea lion pups were temporarily

abandoned when their mothers fled into

the surf, no injuries or mortalities were

observed. Most animals were returning

to shore within 2 hours of the

disturbance (Stewart et al., 1993).

Since the noise level from LLV

launches is expected to be well below

both these levels and the threshold

criteria of 101 dBA identified by Stewart

et al. (1993), no incidental harassment

takings are anticipated to occur on the

northern Channel Islands.

Mitigation

Unless constrained by other factors

including but not limited to, human

safety, national security or launch

trajectories, efforts to ensure minimum

negligible impacts of LLV launches on

harbor seals and other pinnipeds are

proposed for inclusion in the Incidental

Harassment Authorization. These

proposals include:

1. Avoidance whenever possible of

launches during the harbor seal pupping

season of February through May;

2. Preference for launches after June 1

and prior to December 1; and,

3. Preference for night launches

during the period when harbor seals are

hauled out in any numbers.

Monitoring

NMFS proposes that the Holder of the

Incidental Harassment Authorization

will monitor the impact of LLV

launches on the harbor seal haulouts at

Rocky Point or in the absence of harbor

seals at that location, at another South

Vandenberg location, and on the

northern part of SMI during the 1-year

period of authorization in order to verify

the assumptions made in this finding. A

report on this monitoring program will

be required to be submitted prior to next

year’s authorization request. A

determination will be made at that time

on the need to continue monitoring

future launches at these locations.

Conclusions

The short-term impact of the

launching of LLVs are expected to result

at worst, in a temporary reduction in

utilization of the haulout as seals leave

the beach for the safety of the water. The

launching is not expected to result in

any reduction in the number of seals,

and they are expected to continue to

occupy the same area. In addition, there

will not be any impact on the habitat

itself. Based upon studies conducted for

previous space vehicle launches at

Vandenberg, significant long-term

impacts on harbor seals at Vandenberg

and the northern Channel Islands are

unlikely.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24843

There is no known recent subsistence

use of harbor seals in southern

California.

Proposed Authorization

NMFS proposes to issue an incidental

harassment authorization for 1 year for

launches of the LLV at SLC–6 provided

the above mentioned monitoring and

reporting requirements are incorporated.

NMFS has preliminarily determined

that the proposed launches of the LLV

at SLC–6 would result in the harassment

taking of only small numbers of harbor

seals, will have a negligible impact on

the harbor seal stock and will not have

an unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of this stock for subsistence

uses.

Information Solicited

NMFS requests interested persons to

submit comments, information, and

suggestions concerning this request (see

ADDRESSES).

Dated: May 4, 1995.

William W. Fox, Jr.,

Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11537 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

COMMISSION ON PROTECTING AND

REDUCING GOVERNMENT SECRECY

Notice of Meeting

This notice announces the second in

a series of monthly meetings of the

Commissioners of the Commission on

Protecting and Reducing Government

Secrecy. Pursuant to Title IX of Public

Law 103–236, dated April 30, 1994, the

Commission consists of twelve

members, four appointed by the

President, two each by the Speaker of

the House and the House Minority

Leader and two each by the Senate

Majority and Minority Leaders. The

Commission will remain in effect for

two years from the date of its first

meeting.

Time and Date: 3:00 p.m., May 17, 1995.

Place: S–116, Committee on Foreign

Relations Hearing Room, The Capitol.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered: 1. The

President’s Executive Order 12958, signed

April 17, 1995, on classified national security

information, and related matters on

classification policy.

Contact Person for more Information: Eric

Biel, Staff Director, Commission on

Protecting and Reducing Government

Secrecy, (202) 857–0002; FAX (202) 457–

0128.

Eric Biel,

Staff Director, Commission on Protecting and

Reducing Government Secrecy.

[FR Doc. 95–11512 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–ER–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Army Science Board; Notice of Open

Meeting

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is

made of the following Committee

Meeting:

Name of Committee: Army Science Board

(ASB).

Date of Meeting: 23 & 24 May 1995.

Time of Meeting: 0930–1700, 23 & 24 May

1995.

Place: Pentagon and Ft. Gordon.

Agenda: The Army Science Board (ASB)

C4I Issue Group will commence an Issue

Group Study on ‘‘A Strategy for Leveraging

Commercial Technologies for Future Army

Radios.’’ These meetings will be open to the

public. Any interested person may attend,

appear before, or file statements with the

committee at the time and in the manner

permitted by the committee. The ASB

Administrative Officer, Sally Warner, may be

contacted for further information at (703)

695–0781.

Sally A. Warner,

Administrative Officer, Army Science Board.

[FR Doc. 95–11453 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

Notice

AGENCY: Board of Visitors, United States

Military Academy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

1. In accordance with section 10(a)(2)

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463) announcement is made

of the following meeting:

NAME OF COMMITTEE: Board of Visitors,

Untied States Military Academy.

DATE OF MEETING: 19 May 1995.

START TIME OF MEETING: 8:00 a.m.

PLACE: West Point, New York.

PROPOSED AGENDA: Annual Program

Review; West Point Child Development

Center and West Point School Briefing; Class

of 1999 Admission Status; Presentation on

Alternate Funding; and Selection of Dates for

Visits to Summer Training. All proceedings

are open.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT:

Lieutenant Colonel John J. Luther,

United States Military Academy, West

Point, NY 10996–5000, (914) 938–5870.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–11457 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

Extension of Comment Period

Deadline From May 12, 1995 to June

12, 1995 for Requested Comments on

MTMC’s Consideration To Employ FullService Contracts To Improve the

Department of Defense (DOD) Personal

Property Program

AGENCY: Military Traffic Management

Command, DOD.

ACTION: Extension.

SUMMARY: Reference Federal Register,

Volume 60, Number 48, page 13412,

notice of MTMC’s Consideration to

Employ Full-Service Contracts to

Improve the Department of Defense

Personal Property Program published on

March 13, 1995. The evolving Defense

environment encompasses a smaller

uniformed force, less overseas basing,

reduced funding, and diminished

staffing of support activities. These

changes will directly affect quality of

life issues for the military service

members and their families. The

Secretary of Defense has placed quality

of life as one of the highest priorities in

the Department. The intangible value of

a good standard of living sets the stage

for a high quality, well-trained and

motivated force. Therefore, an

opportunity exists for the Department to

acquire a higher standard of service in

the movement of service members’ and

their families’ household goods, which

in turn contributes to improved quality

of life. The Military Traffic Management

Command (MTMC) is engaged in an

effort to simplify current processes,

control program costs, and ensure

quality of service by performing a

reengineering of the existing DOD

Personal Property Program. This

reengineering effort will adopt, to the

fullest extent possible, commercial

business processes characteristic of

world-class customers and suppliers

and relieve carriers of DOD unique

terms and conditions. It will also focus

on the customer, reward results, foster

competition, and seek excellence of

vendor performance.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Mail comment to

Headquarters, Military Traffic

Management Command, ATTN: MTOP–

Q, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church,

VA 22041–5050.