60796 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 

scoping process for subsequent 

environmental review, such as if NMFS 

later issues an NOI to prepare an EIS for 

a proposed action related to the 

Convention. 

In the event of ratification of the 

Convention(in which case the United 

States would become a member of the 

Commission) and legislation the need 

for action would be limited to fulfilling 

the obligations of the United States with 

respect to the Convention provisions 

that are ready for decision-making. 

Examples of such provisions are in the 

articles of the Convention relating to: 

flag state duties; compliance and 

enforcement; boarding and inspection; 

port state measures; the implementation 

of a regional vessel observer program; 

and regulation and monitoring of 

transshipments. 

Commission’s Second Annual Session, 

December 2005, Pohnpei, Federated 

States of Micronesia 

The United States has not ratified the 

Convention as of this date and thus will 

participate in the second session of the 

Commission in December 2005 as a 

cooperating non-member. Anticipated 

items of interest at the December 2005 

Commission session include the status 

of bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks and 

consideration of conservation and 

management measures to ensure 

sustainable use of those stocks, the 

establishment of the Northern 

Committee (NC), and the first meeting of 

the Technical and Compliance 

Committee (TCC). 

The first meeting of the Commission’s 

Scientific Committee (SC), held in 

Noumea, New Caledonia, in August 

2005, resulted in updated stock 

assessments for the four primary tuna 

species in the Convention Area. The 

most recent results for bigeye tuna 

confirm previous analyses that the 

current level of fishing mortality is 

likely greater than the level associated 

with maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 

In addition the most recent yellowfin 

tuna assessment is more pessimistic 

than previous analyses, and suggests 

this stock is also subject to a fishing 

mortality rate greater than the level 

associated with MSY. As the 

Commission previously resolved (2004) 

to adopt conservation and management 

measures at the 2005 annual session and 

the SC’s latest assessments suggest 

overfishing is occurring for two 

principal tuna stocks in the region, there 

will be considerable attention given to 

potential conservation and management 

measures for these stocks. 

The NC is to be established as a 

subsidiary body of the Commission with 

responsibility to develop 

recommendations for conservation and 

management measures for those stocks 

primarily located and fished north of 

the 20° parallel N. lat. Actions of the 

NC, once established, may include, in 

addition to establishing institutional 

processes for itself, proposing a 

Memorandum of Understanding 

between the International Scientific 

Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like 

Species in the North Pacific Ocean and 

the Commission, and recommending 

that the Commission adopt a resolution 

to address the sustainable use of 

albacore tuna in the north Pacific. 

The first meeting of the Commission’s 

TCC is to be held immediately prior to 

the Commission session, and will likely 

focus on establishing a work plan for 

future action by the Committee. Other 

matters of priority will be the 

development of standards, 

specifications and procedures for the 

Commission’s vessel monitoring system, 

the regional vessel observer program 

and the United Nations Food and 

Agricultural Organization Port State 

Model Scheme. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Rhea Moss, 

NMFS, 808–944–2153(voice) or 808–

973–2941 (fax), at least 5 working days 

prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and 16 

U.S.C. 5501 et seq. 

Dated: October 14, 2005. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20940 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 101305A] 

Endangered Species; File No. 1552 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach 

Drive, Miami, Florida 33149, has 

applied in due form for a permit to take 

green (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta), Kemp’s ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii), hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), and olive ridley 

(Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles for 

purposes of scientific research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

November 18, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; 

andSoutheast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; 

phone (727)824–5312; fax (727)824–

5309. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 

hearing on this particular request would 

be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at (301)427–2521, provided 

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

e-mail. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the following document 

identifier: File No. 1552. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Opay or Kate Swails, (301)713–

2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) and the regulations 

governing the taking, importing, and 

exporting of endangered and threatened 

species (50 CFR 222–226). 

The applicant proposes to handle, 

measure, weigh, photograph, flipper tag, 

passive integrated transponder tag, skin 

biopsy, and release up to 110 green, 550 

loggerhead, 195 Kemp’s ridley, 110 

hawksbill, 235 leatherback, 110 olive 

ridley, and 145 unidentified hardshell 

(combination of green, loggerhead, 

Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

or hybrids that would not be able to be 

identified at the time of capture) sea 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 60797 

turtles annually. The applicant would 

sample turtles captured incidentally 

during other activities including the 

shark gillnet fishery, longline fisheries, 

the shrimp trawl fishery, and surveys 

during oil/gas platform removal. The 

capture would be authorized by the 

incidental take statements of the 

biological opinions that cover these 

activities. The research would provide 

data on the turtles that interact with 

these activities and provide data useful 

to better understanding turtle migration, 

habitat use, genetics, and population 

dynamics. The information would be 

used to develop, implement, and 

evaluate conservation recovery efforts 

for sea turtles. The research would take 

place in Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea, and tributaries. The 

permit would be issued for 5 years. 

Dated: October 13, 2005. 

Carrie W. Hubard, 

Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20894 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Publication of Families First Business 

Rules 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD. 

ACTION: Final notice. 

SUMMARY: The Military Surface 

Deployment and Distribution Command 

(SDDC), as the Department of Defense 

(DoD) Traffic Manager for the Personal 

Property Program published the Defense 

Personal Property System (DPS) Phase II 

Business Rules for Industry comment. 

These rules were posted to the Families 

First Web Site located at http:// 

www.sddc.army.mil under Families 

First. 

This announcement is being made to 

provide an overview of the comments 

received by SDDC from the Federal 

Register notice published on April 26, 

2005 (70 FR 21401). All stakeholders 

were given 30 days to review these draft 

business rules and provide SDDC their 

comments. Responses were returned in 

several ways, including letters, 

spreadsheets and the Frequently Asked 

Question process. 

SDDC received approximately 1300 

comments from the industry. Some of 

the comments were unique, but there 

were many duplicates. 

After the initial review of the 

comments and identification of 

duplicates, the comments were assigned 

to SDDC Subject Matter Experts (SME) 

in each of the associated Functional 

Areas related to the development of 

DPS. These SME’s performed a detailed 

review of these comments to determine 

if revision to the business rules were 

appropriate. 

Our review indicated that there were 

approximately 800 duplicates and 500 

unique comments. Some of industries 

major concerns were: the new best value 

traffic distribution methodology, 

establishment of minimum performance 

score, claims metrics, issues with CWA/ 

invoicing, prompt payment, hard copy 

documentation, low response customer 

survey response rate, lack of statistically 

valid number of Transportation Service 

Providers (TSPs), non-availability of 

interface with TSP systems, 13% cost 

growth limitation on the new program, 

access to rate filing instructions, tools 

required to perform rate filing, 

inadequate time to test the new system, 

shipment management, TSP/agent 

relationship and access to multiple 

SCACs. 

Our review indicated that all the 

comments required clarification to the 

business rules. SDDC is currently in the 

process of providing these clarifications 

in the business rules and will publish 

the Final Business Rule when 

incorporation of these changes is 

completed. In the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section, SDDC has 

identified Industry’s major concerns. 

ADDRESSES: Surface Deployment and 

Distribution Command, ATTN: SDPP, 

Room 10N35–29 (Judith Tarbox), 

Hoffman Building II, 200 Stovall Street, 

Alexandria, VA 22332–5000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Judith Tarbox at (703) 428–3004. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Industry’s 

comments ranged from questions, 

suggestions, rewording of business rules 

and requesting of additional 

information. SDDC will continue to 

work with Industry to clarify 

interpretations of the program and 

develop the understanding necessary to 

make the implementation of DPS a 

success. During the review of these 

comments, several consistent themes 

emerged, including: 

1. Requests for the release of SDDC 

proprietary information. As part of 

developing rules/logic for DPS; SDDC 

has developed several DoD specific 

logic, formulas, and additional 

information to assist our System 

Integrator (SI) to implement our new 

Personal Property System. For example, 

some of the logic involves computation 

of targets per market to keep the 

program cost growth under 13% etc. 

This is DoD specific proprietary 

information and is therefore acquisition 

sensitive thus cannot be released 

outside DoD. 

2. Questions that SDDC believes have 

already been addressed. Many of the 

industry’s comments are addressed in 

other sections of the business rules or 

other business rules documents. For 

example, distribution of shipments, 

spread and blackout dates, filing and 

settlement of claims, new rate filing 

process and timeline etc. 

3. Recurring questions. Several unique 

questions were asked by Industry, but 

most of these questions were recurring 

questions from the past two years that 

have been previously responded to by 

SDDC. SDDC believes that these 

questions reveal areas where Industry 

may need more information, and SDDC 

will provide responses as part of the 

FAQ section of the Families First Web 

site. Additionally, topics of some of 

these questions will be considered for 

future Families First info-grams. 

4. Documentation Edits and Changes. 

Industry identified areas in the 

documentation where editorial changes 

or updates to the documentation are 

necessary that are not related to the 

content of the Business Rules. Where 

applicable, SDDC will make all 

appropriate updates to the 

documentation to correct these items. 

For example: mileage guide reference in 

the new domestic 400NG tariff, business 

rules and international tender language 

changes for clarity and some changes to 

footnotes in the business rules and cross 

referencing of business rules etc. 

5. Industry opinion. In many cases 

Industry reiterated opinions and 

concerns with regards to the Families 

First Program. SDDC continues to 

provide a monthly In-Process Review 

(IPR) to the Industry to discuss these 

concerns and work towards a better 

understanding and resolution of issues. 

6. Business Rules Changes. In some 

cases, Industry identified perceived 

gaps in the business rules or divergent 

business rule explanations in the 

documentation. In such cases SDDC will 

work to provide clarification to the 

business rule document. For example: 

Historical tonnage will be provided to 

all DoD qualified TSPs per market. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action is not considered rule 

making within the meaning of 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–

612. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3051 et seq., does not apply 

because no information collection or 

record keeping requirements are