46290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 2, 2011 / Notices 

PM10 Attainment/Maintenance Plan 

Telluride Attainment/Maintenance 

Area’’ for adequacy review on EPA’s 

transportation conformity Web site on 

November 22, 2010. The public 

comment period closed on December 

22, 2010, and we did not receive any 

comments in response to the adequacy 

review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/stateresources/transconf/ 

currsips.htm#telluride). 

The MVEBs we found adequate are 

presented in the following table: 

Area of applicability CO emissions 

(tons per day) 

2020 PM10

emissions 

(pounds per day) 

2021 PM10

emissions 

(pounds per day) 

Colorado Springs (CO) ......................................................................... N/A1 .............................................. ............................ ............................

Greeley (CO) ........................................................................................ N/A1 .............................................. ............................ ............................

Can ̃on City (PM10) ................................................................................ ....................................................... 1613 ............................

Pagosa Springs (PM10) ........................................................................ ....................................................... ............................ 946 

Telluride (PM10) .................................................................................... ....................................................... ............................ 1108 

1 LMP area—no MVEB required. Prior MVEBs may apply, as described in our adequacy letters to the State. 

Please note that our adequacy review 

described above is separate from our 

rulemaking action on the five 

maintenance plans discussed above and 

should not be used to prejudge our 

ultimate approval or disapproval of each 

of the SIP revisions. Even if we find a 

maintenance plan or a maintenance 

plan and its MVEB adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, we 

may later disapprove the SIP revision. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 25, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19524 Filed 8–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2011–0178; FRL–9446–9] 

EPA Seeking Input Materials 

Measurement; Municipal Solid Waste 

(MSW), Recycling, and Source 

Reduction Measurement in the U.S. 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting stakeholder 

input regarding the efficacy and scope 

of the MSW Characterization Report 

called ‘‘Municipal Solid Waste in the 

United States’’ as part of a broader 

discussion about sustainable materials 

management. This information will be 

used to develop new measurement 

definitions and protocols for 

measurement of these materials, as well 

as the possible addition of construction 

and demolition (C&D) materials and 

non-hazardous industrial materials to 

the list of materials addressed in future 

efforts. This effort could lead to the 

creation of a new measurement report 

that the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) will make 

publicly available. 

DATES: All written comments must be 

received on or before August 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2011–0178 by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments using the Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–RCRA–2011–0178. 

• E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: RCRA Docket (28221T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA West Building 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays) and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2011– 

0178. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 

566–0270. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hope Pillsbury, Mail Code (5306P), 

Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–7258; 

pillsbury.hope@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

For decades, EPA has been providing 

information on the recycling, reuse and 

generation of municipal solid waste 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 2, 2011 / Notices 46291 

(MSW) in its regularly published MSW 

Characterization Report called 

‘‘Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States.’’ Our trash or MSW is made up 

of the things we commonly use and then 

throw away. These materials include 

items, such as packaging, food scraps, 

grass clippings, sofas, computers, and 

refrigerators. EPA has used this report to 

provide a consistent view of MSW in 

the US over time and for internal 

performance measures, deliberations 

and programmatic assessments; 

however questions are being raised 

about its scope, the data sources used, 

the assumptions made, as well as its 

transparency. There is also a growing 

need for a more holistic assessment of 

how materials are generated, used and 

managed in the U.S. economy. 

While the structure, content and 

methodology of the MSW 

Characterization Report has remained 

essentially unchanged, the manner in 

which the report is used has changed 

dramatically, and it is now used as the 

basis for decisions that were 

unanticipated when the report was first 

conceived. Many believe that the data 

and conclusions provided in the MSW 

Characterization Report do not 

adequately support this expanded scope 

of use. 

EPA is interested in obtaining 

stakeholder input regarding the 

Agency’s methods of measuring 

materials in the following waste 

streams: MSW (which can include 

items, such as packaging, food scraps, 

grass clippings, sofas, computers, and 

refrigerators), construction and 

demolition (C&D) materials, and nonhazardous industrial materials (such as 

iron and steel slags, spent foundry 

sands, and pulp and paper residues); 

and the sustainable management of 

these materials through safe recycling 

and source reduction. The Agency will 

consider the information gathered from 

this notice and other sources as it works 

to create a new national measurement 

approach and report. Our goal is to 

produce a measurement approach and 

resulting report that provides 

appropriate data to support a broad 

array of uses, including recycling, 

source reduction and waste prevention, 

and disposal. 

EPA’s MSW Characterization Report, 

‘‘Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States,’’ analyzes, among other things, 

the amounts of MSW recycled, 

incinerated and landfilled. This 

document can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/ 

municipal/msw99.htm. This report has 

been based on a materials flow 

approach, which is a top-down 

approach to measurement. It 

characterizes the MSW stream of the 

nation as a whole. The report is the 

result of modeling that uses data 

gathered from a wide variety of public 

and private sources, such as the 

Department of Commerce, the U.S. 

Census Bureau, and trade associations. 

This method, however, has limitations, 

including the fairly narrow scope of 

materials it covers and inherent 

limitations due to a modeling approach. 

For example, at present, it does not 

include other types of non-hazardous 

waste, such as C&D materials, industrial 

materials and automotive waste. 

Other measurement efforts in the 

solid waste area that EPA has 

undertaken involved electronics and 

C&D materials. The electronics study 

(with a more detailed assessment of 

used and end of life of electronics) 

called ‘‘Electronics Waste Management 

in the United States: Approach One,’’ 

can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/ 

manage.htm. EPA conducted two C&D 

studies. The most recent study was 

‘‘Building-Related Construction and 

Demolition Materials Amounts,’’ to 

determine the amount of buildingrelated C&D materials generated and 

recovered in the U.S. during 2003. That 

study can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/imr/ 

cdm/pubs/cd-meas.pdf. 

EPA also issued a report in 1997 that 

established voluntary recycling 

measurement standards with an 

extensive list of definitions. It can be 

found at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/ 

conserve/tools/recmeas/. 

Furthermore, State and local 

communities have also developed ways 

of measuring their recycling rates based 

on a somewhat different scope of 

materials included, and occasionally, 

different definitions of recycling so that 

they could meet their own legislatively 

mandated recycling or diversion goals. 

As the Agency considers a broader and 

more comprehensive view of 

sustainable materials management, EPA 

seeks input on how these other nonhazardous wastes and materials should 

be measured and characterized, as well 

as input on what definitions should be 

used. 

The Agency is considering various 

approaches to data gathering and 

reporting and seeks stakeholder input 

on the following topics: 

Topic 1: Usage of EPA’s 

Characterization Report 

If you use EPA’s MSW 

Characterization Report: 

• How do you use it? 

• What decisions or actions have you 

taken or plan to take based upon this 

report? 

• What do you like and dislike? 

• How would you improve it? 

• Recognizing that data gathering is 

crucial to any characterization report, 

do you have suggestions, based on 

experience with similar data gathering 

efforts, on what has worked, and what 

has not, in those efforts? 

Topic 2: Scope of EPA’s MSW 

Characterization Report 

The current MSW Characterization 

Report shows what products and 

materials are commonly collected and 

disposed of by households. Examples of 

this include paper, glass, metal, plastic, 

textiles and wood plus organics (food, 

leaves and grass). All these materials are 

generated by residential and commercial 

sectors and are presently recycled, 

reused, combusted or landfilled. In 

considering the scope of the report and 

possible improvements, please consider 

the following questions: 

• What materials should be included 

in the report (in particular, should it 

include other types of non-hazardous 

waste, such as C&D materials, industrial 

materials, and/or automotive waste)? 

• What are the most useful sources of 

data? 

• Who should provide this data? 

• Consistent terminology is crucial 

for successful measurement and 

reporting. Thus, please list primary 

materials terms used in your field. For 

purposes of measuring, what terms are 

most important, and how would you 

define them? Examples of terms to be 

considered include: Reuse; source 

reduction; recycling; pre-consumer 

recycling; post-consumer recycling; 

disposal; biomass; organics; municipal 

solid waste; industrial (nonhazardous) 

solid waste; recycled material terms 

(e.g., iron and steel scrap, other metals, 

paper fiber) sustainability; C&D 

materials; and zero waste. 

Topic 3: Measurement Methodology 

In making assessments on the 

methods to be used for measurement, 

please provide your insights to the 

following questions. 

• What types of data gathering and 

analyses are likely to be most accurate 

and lead to clearly understandable 

results? 

• Are the voluntary recycling 

standards and definitions EPA 

established in 1997 applicable or useful 

today? Please explain why or why not. 

• If an open source, transparent Webbased data collection and measurement 

tool could be created, would you use it? 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
46292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 2, 2011 / Notices 

How practical and economical would 

such a system be? 

• In determining the measurement of 

materials throughout their entire life 

cycle from resource extraction; material 

processing; product design and 

manufacturing; product use; collection 

and processing; to disposal: 

Æ What data collection would be 

needed? 

Æ What kind of measurement 

methodology and tools are necessary? 

Æ What reporting framework would 

support your programmatic efforts? 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, municipal 

solid waste (MSW) characterization, 

MSW management, recycling, 

measurement, data, data collection, 

construction and demolition (C&D) 

recycling, source reduction, life cycle, 

life cycle systems approach, sustainable 

materials management. 

Dated: July 27, 2011. 

Suzanne Rudzinski, 

Director, Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19515 Filed 8–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Information Collections Being 

Reviewed by the Federal 

Communications Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are 

requested concerning (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of 

the Commission’s burden estimate; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (e) ways to further reduce the 

information collection burden on small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

PRA that does not display a valid Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

control number. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before October 3, 

2011. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov 

and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection, contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0906. 

Title: 47 CFR 73.624(g), FCC Form 

317. 

Form Number: FCC Form 317. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit entities; not for profit institutions; 

State, local or Tribal government. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 9,391 respondents; 18,782 

responses. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 2–4 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: 

Recordkeeping requirement; annual 

reporting requirement; one time 

reporting requirement. 

Total Annual Burden: 56,346 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $1,408,650. 

Obligation To Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in Sections 154(i), 301, 303, 

336 and 403 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality with 

this collection of information. 

Privacy Act Assessment: No impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: On July 15, 2011, the 

Commission adopted the Second Report 

and Order, In the Matter of Amendment 

of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s 

Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low 

Power Television Translator, and 

Television Booster Stations and to 

Amend Rules for Digital Class A 

Television Stations, MB Docket No. 03– 

185, FCC 11–110 (‘‘LPTV Digital Second 

Report and Order’’). The LPTV Digital 

Second Report and Order contains rules 

and policies for low power stations 

(‘‘LPTV’’) to transition from analog to 

digital broadcasting and states that low 

power television, TV translator, and 

Class A television stations operating 

pursuant to Special Temporary 

Authority (STA) must comply with the 

requirements for feeable ancillary or 

supplementary services in Section 

73.624(g) (using FCC Form 317). This 

requirement is being submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0386. 

Title: Special Temporary 

Authorization (STA) Requests; 

Notifications; and Informal Filings; 

Sections 1.5, 73.1615, 73.1635, 73.1740, 

and 73.3598; CDBS Informal Forms; 

Section 74.788; Low Power Television, 

TV Translator and Class A Television 

Digital Transition Notifications; FCC 

Form 337. 

Form Number: FCC Form 337. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit entities; not for profit institutions; 

State, local or Tribal government. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 6,509 respondents; 6,509 

responses. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.5 to 

4 hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement; one time 

reporting requirement. 

Total Annual Burden: 5,325 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $2,126,510. 

Obligation To Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 

7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 

318, 319, 324, 325, 336 and 337 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality with 

this collection of information. 

Privacy Act Assessment: No impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: On July 15, 2011, the 

Commission adopted the Second Report 

and Order, In the Matter of Amendment 

of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s 

Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low 

Power Television Translator, and 

Television Booster Stations and to 

Amend Rules for Digital Class A 

Television Stations, MB Docket No. 03– 

185, FCC 11–110 (‘‘LPTV Digital Second 

Report and Order’’). The LPTV Digital 

Second Report and Order contains rules 

and policies for low power stations 

(‘‘LPTV’’) to transition from analog to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES