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
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:02 Nov 09, 2005 Jkt 208001
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.
PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM
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
10NON1