68536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices 

paperwork burden for very small 

businesses affected by this collection. 

What should I consider when I 

prepare my comments for the EPA? You 

may find the following suggestions 

helpful for preparing your comments: 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible and provide specific examples. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide copies of any technical 

information and/or data you used that 

support your views. 

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at the 

estimate that you provide. 

5. Offer alternative ways to improve 

the collection activity. 

6. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the deadline identified 

under DATES. 

7. To ensure proper receipt by the 

EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID 

number assigned to this action in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

response. You may also provide the 

name, date, and Federal Register 

citation. 

What information collection activity 

or ICR does this apply to? [Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0333.] 

Affected entities: Entities potentially 

affected by this action are suppliers of 

certain products that will emit GHG 

when released, combusted, or oxidized, 

motor vehicle and engine 

manufacturers, including aircraft engine 

manufacturers; facilities in certain 

industrial categories that emit 

greenhouse gases; and facilities that 

emit 25,000 metric tons or more of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e) per 

year. 

Title: Information Collection Request 

for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program. 

ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2300.17 

ICR status: This ICR is currently 

scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016. 

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 

the EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the 

CFR, after appearing in the Federal 

Register when approved, are listed in 40 

CFR part 9, are displayed either by 

publication in the Federal Register or 

by other appropriate means, such as on 

the related collection instrument or 

form, if applicable. The display of OMB 

control numbers in certain EPA 

regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

Abstract: In response to the FY2008 

Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 

2764; Pub. L. 110–161) and under 

authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA 

finalized the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases Rule (GHG Reporting 

Rule) (74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009). 

The GHG Reporting Rule, which became 

effective on December 29, 2009, 

establishes reporting requirements for 

certain large facilities and suppliers. It 

does not require control of greenhouse 

gases. Instead, it requires that sources 

emitting above certain threshold levels 

of (CO2 e) monitor and report emissions. 

Subsequent rules have promulgated 

requirements for additional facilities, 

suppliers, and mobile sources; provided 

clarification and corrections to existing 

requirements; finalized confidentiality 

business information (CBI) 

determinations, amended recordkeeping 

requirements, and implemented an 

alternative verification approach. 

Collectively, the GHG Reporting Rule 

and its associated rulemakings are 

referred to as the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program (GHGRP). 

The purpose for this ICR is to renew 

and revise the GHG Reporting Rule ICR 

to update and consolidate the burdens 

and costs imposed by all of the current 

ICRs under the GHGRP. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 1.24 hours per 

response. 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 which have subsequently 

changed; 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. 

The ICR provides a detailed 

explanation of the EPA’s estimate, 

which is only briefly summarized here: 

1. Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: 9,899. 

2. Frequency of response: Annual, 

quarterly. 

3. Estimated total average number of 

responses for each respondent: 72. 

4. Estimated total annual burden 

hours: 903,871 hours. This includes 

estimated total respondent hours of 

878,911 hours and estimated total EPA 

hours of 24,960 hours. 

5. Estimated total annual costs: 

$113,837,441. This includes an 

estimated cost of $38,477,161 for capital 

investment as well as maintenance and 

operational costs, an estimated 

respondent burden cost of $63,360,249, 

and an estimated EPA cost of 

$12,000,030. 

Are there changes in the estimates 

from the last approval? There is a 

decrease of 102,121 hours in the total 

estimated respondent burden compared 

with that identified in the last ICR 

renewal. This change in burden reflects 

an adjustment in the number of 

respondents from projected to actual, an 

adjustment of labor rates and capital 

costs to reflect 2013 dollars, a reevaluation of the activities and costs 

associated with Subparts W and RR, and 

the addition of new segments and new 

reporters under Subpart W. 

What is the next step in the process 

for this ICR? The EPA will consider the 

comments received and amend the ICR 

as appropriate. The final ICR package 

will then be submitted to OMB for 

review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.12. At that time, the EPA will issue 

another Federal Register notice 

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to 

announce the submission of the ICR to 

OMB and the opportunity to submit 

additional comments to OMB. If you 

have any questions about this ICR or the 

approval process, please contact the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Dated: October 28, 2015. 

Paul M. Gunning, 

Director, Climate Change Division, Office of 

Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28275 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0667; FRL–9936–59– 

OW] 

National Wetland Condition 

Assessment 2011 Draft Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of EPA’s draft report on the 

National Wetland Condition Assessment 

(NWCA 2011) and opens a 30-day 

public review and comment period on 

the draft report. The NWCA 2011 is the 

first national assessment of the 

ecological condition of the nation’s 

wetlands. The NWCA 2011 draft report 

describes the results of a nationwide 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices 68537 

probabilistic survey of wetlands 

conducted in the spring and summer of 

2011 by EPA and its state and tribal 

partners. Results are based on ecological 

data collected at over 1,000 sites using 

standardized protocols and include 

estimates of wetland area in ‘‘good,’’ 

‘‘fair,’’ and ‘‘poor’’ condition, nationally 

and by ecoregion, for a biological 

indicator based on plants and key 

wetland stressors. The report also 

provides information on the design and 

implementation of the scientific 

assessment, possible implications, and 

future actions. This report completes the 

first series of probability-based surveys 

conducted under EPA’s National 

Aquatic Resource Surveys program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0667, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregg Serenbetz, Wetlands Division, 

Office of Water (4502T), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–566–1253; 

email address: serenbetz.gregg@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Wetland Condition Assessment 

2011: A Collaborative Survey of the 

Nation’s Wetlands is the first report 

assessing the condition of the nation’s 

wetlands and the fifth report in a series 

of National Aquatic Resource Surveys 

(NARS), a national-scale monitoring 

program designed to produce 

statistically-valid assessments that 

answer critical questions about the 

condition of waters in the United States. 

The key goals of the NWCA are to (1) 

describe the ecological condition of the 

nation’s wetlands and stressors 

commonly associated with poor 

condition; (2) collaborate with states 

and tribes in developing complementary 

monitoring tools, analytical approaches, 

and data management technology to aid 

wetland protection and restoration 

programs; and (3) advance the science of 

wetland monitoring and assessment to 

support wetland management needs. 

EPA began planning activities for the 

NWCA in 2006 and engaged with a 

broad group of stakeholders including 

state environmental and natural 

resource agencies, tribes, federal 

agencies, academia, and other 

organizations to help inform different 

aspects of the assessment. 

Both tidal and nontidal wetlands were 

targeted for sampling. To select wetland 

sites for sampling, EPA used the same 

digital map of wetland locations that the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses in 

their Wetland Status and Trends 

program. While not a comprehensive 

map of all wetlands throughout the U.S., 

these mapped locations are used to 

statistically represent the extent of 

wetlands nationally. Sampling sites for 

the NWCA were randomly selected from 

this digital map and distributed based 

on the prevalence of wetlands across the 

U.S. using a survey design that ensures 

the results reflect the full range of 

wetlands in the target population. Each 

wetland site was sampled using 

standardized field protocols to collect 

ecological data on plants, soil, water 

chemistry, algae, and wetland stressors. 

The use of standardized field and 

laboratory protocols is another key 

feature of the NWCA and allows the 

data to be combined to produce a 

nationally consistent assessment. The 

results presented in the NWCA 2011 

report are based on data from 1,138 

wetland sites sampled during the spring 

and summer of 2011 in the 

conterminous U.S. (41 sites sampled in 

Alaska are not included in the national 

and regional results in the report). The 

NWCA 2011 report describes the 

ecological condition of wetlands 

nationally and in four ecoregions 

(Coastal Plains, Eastern Mountains and 

Upper Midwest, Interior Plains, and 

West) using a biological indicator of 

condition and several physical, 

chemical, and biological indicators of 

stress. 

This is the first time a national 

monitoring study of the ecological 

condition of wetlands has been 

conducted. Under the NARS program, 

studies have been completed for 

wadeable streams (2004), lakes (2007), 

rivers and streams (2008–2009), and 

coastal waters (2010). The release of the 

NWCA 2011 final report will complete 

the first full cycle of NARS reports. EPA 

and our partners plan to continue to 

assess each of these water body types on 

a five year rotating basis. 

This draft report has undergone 

external peer review. States and other 

stakeholders also reviewed and 

commented on the draft report. The 

purpose of this action is to solicit public 

comment on the draft report before 

finalizing it. EPA is seeking comment on 

the information contained in the draft 

report, the reasonableness of the 

conclusions, and the clarity with which 

the information is presented. The draft 

report and other supporting materials 

may also be viewed and downloaded 

from EPA’s Web site at http://

www2.epa.gov/national-aquaticresource-surveys/national-wetlandcondition-assessment. 

Dated: October 28, 2015. 

Kenneth J. Kopocis, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Water. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28266 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–0562] 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission Under Delegated 

Authority 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520), the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC or Commission) 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collections. 

Comments are requested concerning: 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES