68442 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Notices 

participating in the Green Power 

Partnership and CHP Partnership to 

ensure that they are meeting their 

voluntary renewable energy and CHP 

goals and to assure the credibility of 

these partnership programs. 

Organizations that join these programs 

voluntarily agree to the following 

respective actions: (1) Designating a 

Green Power or CHP Partnership 

liaison; (2) for the Green Power 

Partnership, reporting to EPA, on an 

annual basis, their progress toward their 

green power commitment via a 1-page 

Green Power Partner Yearly Report; (3) 

for the CHP Partnership, reporting to 

EPA information on their existing CHP 

projects and project development 

activity via the CHP Partner Projects 

Data Form. The EPA uses the data 

obtained from its Partners to assess the 

success of these programs in achieving 

their national energy and greenhouse 

gas reduction goals. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this three (3) year collection of 

information is estimated to equal 3980 

hours and to average 3.4 hours per year 

per respondent. The average number of 

annual burden hours per type of 

response is: 4.9 hours for a Letter of 

Intent (a one-time burden for Green 

Power and CHP Partners); for the Green 

Power Partnership, 2.4 hours for the 

Green Power Partner Yearly Report; for 

the CHP Partnership, 2.0 hours for end 

user Partners to complete the CHP 

Partner Projects Data Form report on 

completed CHP projects (a one-time 

report), or 1.7 hours per year for CHP 

project updates for Partners with 

ongoing CHP project development 

activities. Burden means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended 

by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 

or disclose or provide information to or 

for a Federal agency. This includes the 

time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 

Corporations, institutions, state, local, 

and tribal agencies that voluntarily 

agree to work with EPA to purchase or 

market green power or to support the 

use of CHP. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,164. 

Frequency of Response: Annually, 

semiannually. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

3,980 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs: 

$298,886, which includes $0 annualized 

capital/startup costs, $3,248 annual 

O&M costs, and $295,638 annual labor 

costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: This does 

not apply, as this is a new collection. 

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

Sara Hisel-McCoy, 

Acting Director, Collection Strategies 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 05–22464 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–6669–3] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

ReviewProcess (ERP), under section 309 

of the Clean Air Act and section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

202–564–7167. 

An explanation of the ratings assigned 

to draft environmental impact 

statements (EISs) was published in the 

Federal Register dated April 1, 2005 (70 

FR 16815). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20050357, ERP No. D–AFS–

J65452–UT, Lake Project, Proposal to 

Maintain Vegetative Diversity and 

Recover Economic Value of Dead, 

Dying and High Risk to Mortality 

Trees, Manti-La Sal National Forest, 

Ferron/Price Ranger District, Emery 

and Sanpete Counties, UT. 

Summary: EPA expressed concern 

about potential impacts to water quality, 

soils, and ecosystem functions 

attributed to spruce logging operations, 

and recommended including an 

alternative that focuses on sanitation 

and salvage. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20050358, ERP No. D–NPS–

D61057–VA, Great Falls Park General 

Management Plan, Implementation, 

George Washington Parkway, Fairfax 

County, VA. 

Summary: EPA has no objections to 

the proposal. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20050375, ERP No. DS–FHW–

E40818–TN, TN–397 (Mack Hatcher 

Parkway Extension) Construction 

from US–31 (TN–6, Columbia 

Avenue) South of Franklin to US–341 

(TN–106, Hillsboro Road) North of 

Franklin, Additional Information on 

the Build Alternative (Alternative G), 

Williamson County and City of 

Franklin, TN. 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns about the 

proposed project because of the 

potential for significant direct and 

indirect impacts to water quality as well 

as impacts to the Harpeth River Historic 

District and other sensitive resources as 

a result of the development of 

Alternative G. 

Rating EC2. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20050366, ERP No. F–FHW–

G40182–AR, I–69 Section of 

Independent Utility 13 El Dorado to 

McGehee, Construction of 4 Lane 

divided Access Facility, U.S. Coast 

Guard Permit, U.S. Army COE section 

404 Permit, Quachita River, Quachita, 

Union, Calhoun, Bradley, Drew, and 

Desha Counties, AR. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

EIS No. 20050393, ERP No. F–AFS–

K65269–CA, Southern California 

National Forests Land Management 

Plans, Revision of the Angeles, 

Cleveland, Los Padres, and San 

Bernardino National Forests Land 

Management Plans, Implementation, 

San Bernardino, Riverside, and San 

Diego Counties, CA. 

Summary: EPA’s previous concerns 

have been adequately addressed with 

the selection of modified alternative 4a; 

therefore EPA has no objection to the 

proposed action. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Robert W. Hargrove, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 05–22461 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P