Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70793 

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 

In addition to those disclosures 

generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 

552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records 

or information contained therein may 

specifically be disclosed outside the 

DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The 

‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the 

beginning of the Air Force’s compilation 

of record system notices apply to this 

system. 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, 

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

STORAGE: 

Maintained in file folders, note books/ 

binders, in computers and on computer 

output products. 

RETRIEVABILITY: 

Retrieved by name, Social Security 

Number and detachment number. 

SAFEGUARDS: 

Records are accessed by person(s) 

responsible for servicing the record 

system in performance of their official 

duties and by authorized personnel who 

are properly screened and cleared for 

need-to-know. records are stored in 

locked rooms and cabinets. Those in 

computer storage devices are protected 

by computer system software. 

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: 

Records at unit of assignment are 

destroyed one year after acceptance of 

commission or one year after 

disenrollment. Records at HQ AFROTC 

for disenrolled cadets are destroyed 

after three years. Computer records are 

destroyed when no longer needed. 

Records are destroyed by tearing into 

pieces, shredding, pulping, macerating 

or burning. Computer records are 

destroyed by erasing, deleting or 

overwriting. 

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 

Director of Senior Program, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110, and Commander 

of appropriate AFROTC detachment. 

Official mailing addresses are 

published as an appendix to the Air 

Force’s compilation of systems of 

records notices. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: 

Individuals seeking to determine 

whether this system of records contains 

information on them should address 

inquiries to the AFROTC Detachment 

Commander at location of assignment. 

Official mailing addresses are published 

as an appendix to the Air Force’s 

compilation of system of records 

notices. 

Request for information involving an 

investigation for disenrollment should 

be addressed to Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should 

include full name and SSN. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

Individuals seeking to access records 

about themselves contained in this 

system should address requests to the 

AFROTC Detachment Commander at 

location of assignment. Official mailing 

addresses are published as an appendix 

to the Air Force’s compilation of 

systems of records notices. 

Request for information involving an 

investigation for disenrollment should 

be addressed to Commander, Air Force 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 551 East 

Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, AL 36112–6110. Requests should 

include full name and SSN. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

The Air Force rules for accessing 

records, and for contesting contents and 

appealing initial agency determinations 

are published in Air Force Instruction 

33–332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be 

obtained from the system manager. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Sources of records in the system are 

educational institutions, secondary and 

higher learning; government agencies; 

civilian authorities; financial 

institutions; previous employer; 

individual recommendations, 

interviewing officers; and civilian 

medical authorities. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

Portions of this system may be exempt 

under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(5), as applicable, but only to the 

extent that disclosure would reveal the 

identity of a confidential source. 

Parts of this system may be exempt 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only 

to the extent that disclosure would 

reveal the identity of a confidential 

source. 

[FR Doc. 05–23131 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Intent To Prepare Environmental 

Impact Statements for Realignment 

Actions Resulting From the 2005 Base 

Closure and Realignment 

Commission’s Recommendations 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment (BRAC) Commissions were 

established by Public Law 101–510, the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

Act of 1990 (BRAC Law), to recommend 

military installations for realignment 

and closure. The 2005 Commission’s 

recommendations were included in a 

report which was presented to the 

President on September 8, 2005. The 

President approved and forwarded this 

report to Congress on September 16, 

2005. Since a joint resolution to 

disapprove these recommendations did 

not occur within the statutorily 

provided time period, these 

recommendations have become law and 

must be implemented in accordance 

with the requirements of the BRAC Law. 

The BRAC Law exempts the decisionmaking process of the Commission from 

the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Law also relieves the 

Department of Defense from the NEPA 

requirement to consider the need for 

closing, realigning, or transferring 

functions and from looking at 

alternative installations to close or 

realign. Nonetheless, the Department of 

the Army must still prepare 

environmental impact analyses during 

the process of property disposal, and 

during the process of relocating 

functions from a military installation 

being closed or realigned to another 

military installation after the receiving 

installation has been selected but before 

the functions are relocated. These 

analyses will include consideration of 

the direct and indirect environmental 

and socioeconomic effects of these 

actions and the cumulative impacts of 

other reasonably foreseeable actions 

affecting the installations. 

The Department of the Army intends 

to prepare individual Environmental 

Impact Statements (EIS) pursuant to 

section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, regulations 

of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR 1500–1508), and the 

Army NEPA regulation (32 CFR 651 et 

seq.) for each of the actions listed below. 

Opportunities for public participation 

will be announced in the respective 

local newspapers. The public will be 

70794 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 

invited to participate in scoping 

activities for each EIS and comments 

from the public will be considered 

before any action is taken to implement 

these actions. 

Environmental Impact Statements are 

planned for each of the following 

realignment actions: 

a. Fort Meade, Maryland. The BRAC 

realignment action will co-locate and 

consolidate Department of Defense 

information and information technology 

missions at Fort Meade. 

(1) EIS alternatives could include 

evaluating siting locations for structures 

and related projects within Fort Meade 

that involve new building construction 

only or new building construction 

combined with renovation of existing 

facilities. The alternatives would 

evaluate areas to provide for 

construction of, but not be limited to, 

six to eight 4-story administration 

buidlings, a full day care child 

development center, a standard-design 

Whole Barracks Complex, and a 

physical fitness center. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the infrastructure and facilities 

construction that will be required to 

accommodate an estimated increase of 

over 5,500 personnel. Significant issues 

to be analyzed in the EIS may include 

potential impacts to air quality from 

increased vehicle emissions, installation 

and regional traffic increases, land use 

changes, natural resources, water use, 

solid waste, cultural resources, and 

cumulative impacts from increased 

burdens to the facility based on 

projected growth. 

b. Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), 

Maryland. APG will be receiving 

numerous Army, Navy and Air Force 

activities to transform it into a full 

spectrum research, development, 

acquisition center for Command, 

Control, Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Defense 

Chemical and Biological Systems. The 

Army Test and Evaluation Command 

Headquarters and Civilian Personnel 

Offices will also be consolidated at 

APG. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS could include alternative 

distribution of new activities between 

APG and the Edgewood Area for 

military field training exercises; 

alternative siting schemes for placement 

of buildings and related infrastructure to 

accommodate an increase of about 

15,000 Army personnel within the APG 

and Edgewood Area. These may include 

siting schemes for new building 

construction only, or new building 

construction combined with renovation 

of existing facilities. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an increase of 

personnel and military training 

operations. Significant issues to be 

analyzed in the EIS will include on-post 

and local air quality conditions, on-post 

and regional traffic conditions, housing, 

socioeconomics, noise due to increased 

vehicle use, threatened and endangered 

species to include bald eagle habitat, 

historic buildings and archeological 

resources, wetlands, biological 

resources, land use, and community 

facilities and services. 

c. Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Fort Belvoir 

will be receiving numerous Department 

of Defense activities from leased space 

within the National Capital Region 

(NCR); National Geospatial Intelligence 

Agency units from various NCR leased 

locations and Bethesda, Maryland; 

primary and secondary medical care 

functions from Walter Reed Medical 

Center to a new, expanded DeWitt Army 

Hospital; and inventory control point 

functions for consumable items to the 

Defense Logistics Agency from the 

Naval Support Activist, Mechanisburg 

and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio. 

(1) EIS alternatives may consist of 

moving all activities to the Fort Belvoir 

Main Post, moving all activities to the 

Engineer Proving Ground (EPG), or 

moving a portion of the activities to the 

Main Point and a portion to the EPG. 

Other alternatives could include 

alternative land locations for specific 

projects within Fort Belvoir, within the 

EPG, or a combination of both; new 

construction only; new construction 

combined with renovation of existing 

facilities; alternative facility siting 

schemes, or other modifications of 

specific projects. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an estimated 

increase of over 18,000 personnel. 

Significant issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS will include potential impacts to air 

quality condition in the Northern 

Virginia region, transportation systems 

in the Northern Virginia region, traffic 

conditions with Fort Belvoir, threatened 

and endangered species, historic 

buildings and archeological resources, 

wetlands, biological resources, land use, 

and community facilities and services. 

d. Fort Lee, Virginia. Fort Lee will 

receive the Transportation Center and 

School from Fort Eustis, Virginia, and 

the Ordnance Center and School from 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 

These functions will be consolidated 

with the Quartermaster Center and 

School, the Army Logistics Management 

College, and Combined Arms Support 

Command to establish a Combat Service 

Support Center at Fort Lee. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS may include the usage of only Fort 

Lee for field training exercises, the 

usage of other military installations 

(Fort A.P. Hill) for field training 

exercises, or a combination of both; 

alternative land locations for specific 

projects with Fort Lee and Fort A.P. 

Hill; new construction only; new 

construction combined with renovation 

of existing facilities; alternative facility 

siting schemes, or other modifications of 

specific projects. 

(2) The proposed BRAC action may 

have significant environmental impacts 

due to the large amount of infrastructure 

and facilities construction that will be 

required to accommodate an estimated 

increase of over 7,000 personnel. 

Significant issues to be analyzed in the 

EIS will include air quality conditions, 

traffic conditions, noise due to 

increased training activities, threatened 

and endangered species, historic 

buildings and archeological resources, 

wetlands, biological resources, land use, 

and community facilities and services. 

e. Fort Benning, Georgia. Fort Benning 

will receive the Armor Center and 

School from Fort Knox, Kentucky; 81st 

Regional Readiness Center from Fort 

Gillem, Georgia; and the U.S. Army 

Reserve Center from Columbus, Georgia. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined by the 

EIS may consist of alternative siting 

locations with Fort Benning for facility 

construction projects, new construction 

only, renovation and use of existing 

facilities, or a combination of both new 

construction and use of existing 

facilities, and usage of alternatives land 

locations within Fort Benning for 

training activities. 

(2) As a result of new construction 

and training activities associated with 

moving nearly 10,000 personnel to Fort 

Benning, the BRAC action has the 

potential to cause significant 

environmental impacts to threatened 

and endangered species such as the redcockaded woodpecker, archeological 

sites, wetlands, soil erosion, and 

increased noise impacts to the 

surrounding public. 

f. Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Navy and 

Air Force medical training activities 

from various locations within the U.S. 

and the 59th Medical Wing from 

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will 

move to Fort Sam Houston to form a 

Department of Defense medical training 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70795 

center. The Army Installation 

Management Agency (IMA) 

Headquarters from Virginia, the 

Northwest IMA Regional office from 

Illinois, and the Army Environmental 

Center from Maryland will also move to 

Fort Sam Houston. 

(1) Alternatives to be examined in the 

EIS could consist of alternative 

locations within Fort Sam Houston for 

siting facility construction, new 

construction only, renovation and use of 

existing facilities (to include historic 

buildings), or a combination of both 

new construction and use of existing 

facilities, and usage of alternative 

locations within Camp Bullis, a sub-post 

of Fort Sam Houston, for training 

activities. 

(2) As a result of moving 

approximately 9,000 new personnel to 

Fort Sam Houston and associated new 

construction, renovation and training 

activities, implementing the proposed 

BRAC action could have potential 

significant impacts to traffic on and off 

post, air quality and historic properties, 

to include contributing elements of the 

Fort Sam Houston National Historic 

Landmark District. 

g. Fort Carson, Colorado. Fort Carson 

will receive a Heavy Brigade Combat 

team and a Unit of Employment 

Headquarters from Fort Hood, Texas, 

and the inpatient care services from the 

U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado. 

Another Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

from overseas could also be transferred 

to Fort Carson as a result of the BRAC 

recommendation. 

(1) Alternatives that may be 

considered in the Fort Carson EIS could 

include phasing movement of units to 

the fort, alternative siting locations 

within the post of placement of new 

facilities, construction of only new 

facilities, utilization and renovation of 

existing facilities, a combination of new 

construction and utilization of existing 

facilities, and utilization of alternative 

locations within Fort Carson for training 

activities. 

(2) Fort Carson will gain 

approximately 10,000 Army personnel 

as a result of the BRAC action. 

Construction of new facilities, 

renovation of existing infrastructure and 

additional training activities could have 

significant environmental impacts on 

Fort Carson and its environs. Impacts 

could concur to local air and water 

quality, archaeological resources, noise 

and traffic. 

h. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site, 

Colorado. Pinion Canyon Maneuver Site 

(PCMS) is a subpost of Fort Carson and 

a primary training area for units 

stationed at Fort Carson and other Army 

posts. The new combat units stationed 

at Fort Carson will increase the training 

tempo at the PCMS. 

(1) The EIS to be prepared for the 

PCMS will examine a number of 

implementation alternatives that could 

include alternative placement of new 

construction projects, alternative 

locations within the PCMS for training 

activities, and alternative timing for 

units to conduct training activities at the 

PCMS. 

(2) The Fort Carson BRAC action has 

the potential to significantly impact 

natural resources at the PCMS since the 

approximately 10,000 new personnel to 

be stationed there will now be training 

at the PCMS on a regular basis. New 

construction and increased training 

activities at the PCMS could have an 

impact on archaeological resources, 

natural resources, air and water quality, 

and soil erosion. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Public Affairs Office of the affected 

installations or the appropriate higher 

headquarters as indicated: (1) Fort 

Meade, MD—(301) 677–1301; (2) 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD—(410) 

278–1147; (3) Fort Belvoir, VA—(703) 

805–2583; (4) Fort Lee, VA—(804) 734–

6862; (5) Fort Benning, GA—(706) 545–

3438; (6) Fort Sam Houston, TX—(210) 

221–1099; (7) Fort Carson and Pinion 

Canyon Maneuver Site, CO—(910) 396–

2122/5600. 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

Addison D. Davis IV, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health), OASA(I&E). 

[FR Doc. 05–23162 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Logistics Agency 

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records 

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency. 

ACTION: Notice to add a system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency 

proposes to add a system of records 

notice to its inventory of record systems 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

DATES: This action will be effective 

without further notice on December 23, 

2005 unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, 

Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–6221. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Susan Salus at (703) 767–6183. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Defense Logistics Agency notices for 

systems of records subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 

have been published in the Federal 

Register and are available from the 

address above. 

The proposed system report, as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was 

submitted on October 5, 2005, to the 

House Committee on Government 

Reform, the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) pursuant to 

paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB 

Circular No. A–130, ‘Federal Agency 

Responsibilities for Maintaining 

Records About Individuals,’ dated 

February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 

FR 6427). 

Dated: November 17, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Information Technology Access and 

Control Records. 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

Director, Information Operations, 

Headquarters Defense Logistics Agency, 

ATTN: J–6, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, 

Stop 6226, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–

6221, and the Defense Logistics Agency 

field activities. Official mailing 

addresses are published as an appendix 

to DLA’s compilation of systems of 

records notices. 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM: 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

civilian and military personnel, 

contractor employees, and individuals 

requiring access to DLA-controlled 

networks, computer systems, and 

databases. 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

System contains documents relating 

to requests for and grants of access to 

DLA computer networks, systems, or 

databases. The records contain the 

individual’s name; social security 

number; citizenship; physical and 

electronic addresses; work telephone 

numbers; office symbol; contractor/ 

employee status; computer logon 

addresses, passwords, and user 

identification codes; type of access/ 

permissions required; verification of 

need to know; dates of mandatory