61590 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

beyond the Department of Defense and 

that the information collected within 

the Department of Defense is necessary 

and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

known as the Privacy Act of 1974. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rulemaking for the Department of 

Defense does not involve a Federal 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

and that such rulemaking will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

do not have federalism implications. 

The rules do not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 505 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 505 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 505—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 505 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 

U.S.C. 552a). 

2. Section 505.5 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e)(34) as follows: 

§ 505.5 Exemptions. 

(e) * * * 

(34) System identifier and name: 

A0600–20 DCS, G–1, Sexual Assault 

Data Management System (SADMS) 

Files. 

(i) Exemptions: This system of records 

is a compilation of information from 

other Department of Defense and U.S. 

Government systems of records. To the 

extent that copies of exempt records 

from those ‘‘other’’ systems of records 

are entered into this system, OSD 

hereby claims the same exemptions for 

the records from those ‘‘other’’ systems 

that are entered into this system, as 

claimed for the original primary system 

of which they are a part. 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), 

(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), 

and (k)(7). 

(iii) Records are only exempt from 

pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to 

the extent (A) such provisions have 

been identified and an exemption 

claimed for the original record and (B) 

the purpose underlying the exemption 

for the original record still pertain to the 

record which is now contained in this 

system of records. In general, the 

exemptions are claimed in order to 

protect properly classified information 

relating to national defense and foreign 

policy, to avoid interference during the 

conduct of criminal, civil, or 

administrative actions or investigations, 

to ensure protective services provided 

the President and others are not 

compromised, to protect the identity of 

confidential sources incident to Federal 

employment, military service, contract, 

and security clearance determinations, 

and to preserve the confidentiality and 

integrity of Federal evaluation materials. 

The exemption rule for the original 

records will identify the specific reasons 

why the records are exempt from 

specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

Dated: October 17, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 05–21113 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R09–OAR–2005–CA–0005; FRL–7986–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

surface cleaning operations. We are 

proposing to approve local rules to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by November 25, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number R09–OAR–

2005–CA–0005, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

3. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ 

, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in 

hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4120, allen.cynthia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: VCAPCD Rules 74.6, 74.6.1, 

74.12, 74.13, 74.19, 74.19.1, 74.24, and 

74.30. In the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

approving these local rules in a direct 

final action without prior proposal 

because we believe these SIP revisions 

are not controversial. If we receive 

adverse comments, however, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61591 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: August 31, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–21265 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Distinct Population 

Segment of the California Tiger 

Salamander in Sonoma County 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period and notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the comment period on the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the distinct population segment 

(DPS) of the California tiger salamander 

in Sonoma County and the availability 

of the draft economic analysis of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

The draft economic analysis identifies 

potential costs of approximately $336 

million over a 20-year period or 

approximately $17 million per year as a 

result of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat, including those costs 

coextensive with listing. We are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

all interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the 

proposed rule and the associated draft 

economic analysis. Comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted as they will be incorporated 

into the public record as part of this 

comment period, and will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

until November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

materials may be submitted to us by any 

one of the following methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 

Cottage Way, Suite W–2605, 

Sacramento, CA 95825; 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at 

the above address, or fax your 

comments to 916/414–6713; or 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to: 

fw1sonoma_tiger_salamander@fws.gov. 

For directions on how to file comments 

electronically, see the ‘‘Public 

Comments Solicited’’ section. In the 

event that our Internet connection is not 

functional, please submit your 

comments by the alternate methods 

mentioned above. 

Copies of the draft economic analysis 

and the proposed rule for critical habitat 

designation are available on the Internet 

at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ 

sacramento or from the Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office at the address and 

contact numbers above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office, at the address above 

(telephone 916/414–6600; facsimile 

916/414–6713). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period. We solicit comments 

on the original proposed critical habitat 

designation (70 FR 44301; August 2, 

2005) and on our draft economic 

analysis of the proposed designation. 

We will consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We are particularly interested in 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why any habitat 

should or should not be determined to 

be critical habitat, as provided by 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), including whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of including such area as part 

of critical habitat; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of California 

tiger salamander (CTS) habitat in 

Sonoma County, and what habitat is 

essential to the conservation of this 

species and why; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject area 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

habitat; 

(4) Information on whether, and if so, 

how many of the State and local 

environmental protection measures 

referenced in the draft economic 

analysis were adopted largely as a result 

of the listing of the Sonoma County 

population of the CTS, and how many 

were either already in place or enacted 

for other reasons; 

(5) Whether the draft economic 

analysis identifies all State and local 

costs attributable to the proposed 

critical habitat designation, and 

information on any costs that have been 

inadvertently overlooked; 

(6) Whether the draft economic 

analysis makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat; 

(7) Whether the draft economic 

analysis correctly assesses the effect on 

regional costs associated with any land 

use controls that may derive from the 

designation of critical habitat; 

(8) The draft economic analysis 

indicates potentially disproportionate 

impacts to areas within Sonoma County. 

Based on this information, we are 

considering excluding portions of these 

areas from the final designation per our 

discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. We are specifically seeking 

comment and additional information on 

areas within Sonoma County that could 

be potentially be disproportionately 

impacted by a CTS critical habitat 

designation; 

(9) Any foreseeable economic or other 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation of critical habitat, and in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families; does our conclusion that the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

will not result in a disproportionate 

effect to small businesses warrant 

further consideration, and other 

information that would indicate that the 

designation of critical habitat would or 

would not have any impacts on small 

entities or families; 

(10) Whether the draft economic 

analysis appropriately identifies all 

costs that could result from the 

designation; and 

(11) Whether our approach to critical 

habitat designation could be improved 

or modified in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concern and 

comments. 

An area may be excluded from critical 

habitat if it is determined that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the