[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 50923]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16397]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34966; File No. 812-15423]

Alpha Alternative Assets Fund and Alpha Growth Management LLC

July 27, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice of an application for an order pursuant to section 6(c) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) of the Act, pursuant to sections
6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for certain exemptions from rule 23c-3 under
the Act, and pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1
thereunder.
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue
multiple classes of common shares of beneficial interest with varying
sales loads and asset-based service and/or distribution fees and to
impose early withdrawal charges.
    Applicants: Alpha Alternative Assets Fund and Alpha Growth
Management LLC.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 17, 2023, and
amended on May 25, 2023.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August
21, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Gobind Sahney, Alpha Growth Management LLC, 500 Newport Center Drive,
Ste. 680, Newport Beach, CA 92660; Andrew Davalla, Thompson Hine LLP,
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior
Counsel, or Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division
of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended and
restated application, dated May 25, 2023, which may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of
this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field,
on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may
also call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16397 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA; Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 0 4 6 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the Environment under TSCA Section 8( e)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 0794.10 9. Keywords Environmental Protection; Chemicals; Hazardous Substances; Reporting Requirements; Substantial Risk 10. Abstract TSCA section 8( e) is a self implementing statutory reporting provision to ensure that any new information that reasonably supports a conclusion that a TSCA covered chemical or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment is brought to the attention of EPA immediately upon discovery by any person who manufactures, imports, processes or distributes that substance or mixture.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 218 b. Total annual responses 327 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 6,431 d. Current OMB inventory 8,209 e. Difference  1,778 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment  1,778 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 3 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 3 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference $ 3 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment $ 3 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. _ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. G Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 564 0258 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


November 1, 1999 4APT ARB Howard L. Rhodes, Director Air Resources Management Division Florida Department of Environmental Management Mail Station 5500 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 SUBJ: EPA's Review of Proposed Title V Permit No. 0170004 004 AV Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Plant Dear Mr. Rhodes:

The purpose of this letter is to notify the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( FDEP) that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) formally objects to the issuance of the above referenced proposed title V operating permit for the Florida Power Corporation ( FPC) Crystal River Plant in Citrus County, Florida, which was received by EPA, via e mail notification and FDEP's web site, on September 17, 1999. This letter also provides our general comments on the proposed permit.

Based on EPA's review of the proposed permit and the supporting information received for this facility, EPA objects, under the authority of Section 505( b) of the Clean Air Act (" the Act") and 40 C. F. R. § 70.8( c) ( see also Florida Regulation 62 213.450), to the issuance of the proposed title V permit for this facility. The basis for EPA's objection is that the permit does not assure compliance with all applicable requirements as required by 40 C. F. R. § 70.1( b) and 40 C. F. R. § 70.6( a)( 1). Specifically, the permit does not contain terms or conditions assuring compliance with Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements applicable to this facility under the Clean Air Act, the Florida State Implementation Plan, and 40 C. F. R. part 70. In addition, the permit does not fully meet the periodic monitoring requirements of 40 C. F. R. § 70.6( a)( 3)( i), and the permit does not assure compliance with the requirements of 40 C. F. R. § 70.6( a)( 1). Pursuant to 40 C. F. R. § 70.8( c), this letter and its enclosure contain a detailed explanation of the objection issues and the changes necessary to make the permit consistent with the requirements of 40 C. F. R. part 70 and assure compliance with applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act. The enclosure also contains general comments applicable to the permit.

Section 70.8( c) requires EPA to object to the issuance of a proposed permit in writing within 45 days of receipt of the proposed permit ( and all necessary supporting information) if EPA determines that the permit is not in compliance with the applicable requirements under the Act or the requirements of 40 C. F. R. Part 70. Section 70.8( c)( 4) of the title V regulations and Section 505( c) of the Act further provide that if the State fails to revise and resubmit a proposed permit within 90 days to satisfy the objection, the authority to issue or deny the permit passes to EPA, and EPA will act accordingly. Because the objection issues must be fully addressed within the 90 days, we suggest that the revised permit be submitted in advance in order that any outstanding issues may be resolved prior to the expiration of the 90 day period.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please contact Mr. Gregg Worley, Chief, Operating Source Section at ( 404) 562 9141. Should your staff need additional information, they may contact Ms. Kelly Fortin, Environmental Engineer, at ( 404) 562 9117 or Ms. Lynda Crum, Associate Regional Counsel, at ( 404) 562 9524.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by: James S. Kutzman for Winston A. Smith Director Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division Enclosure cc: Joseph H. Richardson, President & CEO, FPC W. Jeffery Pardue, Director Env. Services, FPC Clair Fancy, P. E., FDEP A. A. Linero, FDEP


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41097-41098]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13382]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP23-498-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Millennium Pipeline
Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Joint Application of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC,
and Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC to Amend Certificates of Public
Convenience and Necessity and Authorization to Abandon by Lease.
    Filed Date: 6/15/23.
    Accession Number: 20230615-5123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: PR23-56-000.
    Applicants: The Narragansett Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: RIE_284 Certification
Periodic Rate Review_Amended SOC to be effective 6/16/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/16/23.
    Accession Number: 20230616-5015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/23.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: June 16, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13382 Filed 6-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5313-5316]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01638]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0857; Product Identifier 2019-NM-124-AD; Amendment
39-19819; AD 2020-01-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-19-
26, which applied to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200
airplanes. AD 2018-19-26 required revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.
This AD continues to require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a
determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations
are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 5, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 5,
2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
November 5, 2018 (83 FR 49275, October 1, 2018).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet
https://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des

Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0857.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0857; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2019-0153, dated July 3, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0153'') (also
referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation
Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0857.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-19-26, Amendment 39-19427 (83 FR
49275, October 1, 2018) (``AD 2018-19-26''). AD 2018-19-26 applied to
all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2019 (84 FR 58070).
The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and
corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking,
damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 18, dated January 15, 2019, of the Dassault
Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual. This service information describes
mandatory maintenance tasks that operators must perform at specified
intervals.
    This AD also requires Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 200
Maintenance Manual, which the Director of the Federal Register approved
for incorporation by reference as of November 5, 2018 (83 FR 49275,
October 1, 2018).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2018-19-26 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to
operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1
work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2018-19-26, Amendment 39-19427 (83 FR 49275, October 1, 2018), and
adding the following new AD:

2020-01-13 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19819; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0857; Product Identifier 2019-NM-124-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 5, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2018-19-26, Amendment 39-19427 (83 FR
49275, October 1, 2018) (``AD 2018-19-26'').
    (2) This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR
79952, December 21, 2010) (``AD 2010-26-05'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON
200 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion
in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and
corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2018-19-26, with no changes. Within 90 days after November 5, 2018
(the effective date of AD 2018-19-26), revise the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated
December 20, 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual.
The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the
applicable time specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017, of the Dassault
Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual; or within 90 days after November 5,
2018; whichever occurs later.

(h) Retained No Alternative Actions or Intervals, With a New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2018-19-26, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program
has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used
unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40-00,
Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated January 15, 2019, of
the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance
time for doing the tasks is at the time specified in Chapter 5-40-
00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated January 15, 2019,
of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, or within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(j) New No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(k) Terminating Action for Certain Actions in AD 2010-26-05

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) or (i) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-
26-05, for Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2018-19-26, are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2019-0153, dated July 3, 2019, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2019-0857.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 5, 2020.
    (i) Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18,
dated January 15, 2019, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance
Manual.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 5, 2018 (83 FR 49275, October 1, 2018).
    (i) Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17,
dated December 20, 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance
Manual.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 15, 2020.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-01638 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 44224]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18402]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9706-2]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Eastern Research
Group, Incorporated

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of access to data and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA will authorize its contractor Eastern Research Group,
Incorporated (ERG) to access Confidential Business Information (CBI)
which has been submitted to EPA under the authority of all sections of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended.
EPA has issued regulations that outline business confidentiality
provisions for the Agency and require all EPA Offices that receive
information designated by the submitter, as CBI to abide by these
provisions.

DATES: Access to confidential data submitted to EPA will occur no
sooner than August 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaShan Haynes, Document Control
Officer, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (5305P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Access to Confidential Business Information

    Under EPA Contract No. EP-W-10-055, ERG, Incorporated will assist
the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), Resource
Conservation and Sustainability Division (RCSD) in developing the
Municipal Solid Waste Characterization Report to analyze the
composition and amounts of the United State's Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW), and how these materials are recycled, combusted, and landfilled.
The methodology used in this report is a ``top-down'' materials flow
approach to estimate the size of the waste stream data. This report may
typically involve one or more of the following statutes: CAA, CWA,
RCRA, TSCA, FIFRA, EPCRA and the SDWA. Some of the data collected
voluntarily from industry, may be claimed by industry to contain trade
secrets or CBI. In accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B, ORCR has established policies and procedures for handling
information collected from industry, under the authority of RCRA,
including RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manuals.
    ERG, Incorporated shall protect from unauthorized disclosure all
information designated as confidential and shall abide by all RCRA CBI
requirements, including procedures outlined in the RCRA CBI Security
Manual.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulations (40
CFR part 2, subpart B) that outline business confidentiality provisions
for the Agency and require all EPA Offices that receive information
designated by the submitter as CBI to abide by these provisions. ERG,
Incorporated will be authorized to have access to RCRA CBI under the
EPA ``Contractor Requirements for the Control and Security of RCRA
Confidential Business Information Security Manual.''
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all sections of RCRA that ERG, Incorporated under the contract
may have access to RCRA CBI. Access to RCRA CBI under this contract
will take place at ERG's Chantilly, Virginia and Prairie View, Kansas
offices, and when necessary, EPA Headquarters only. Contractor
personnel at each location will be required to sign non-disclosure
agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures
before they are permitted access to confidential information.

    Dated: June 28, 2012.
Sandra L. Connors,
Acting Director, Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2012-18402 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 September 30, 2002 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: EPA Should Require Program Results Data Fields For the Effluent Guidelines Program in the Modernized Permit Compliance System Memo Report No. 2002 M 000052 FROM: Dan Engelberg / s/ Director for Program Evaluation, Water Issues TO: John Peter Suarez Assistant Administrator for Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Tracy Mehan Assistant Administrator for Office of Water In connection with our ongoing evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA's) Effluent Guidelines Program, we have noted an issue related to the capability of current systems to provide adequate performance information about this program. We are reporting this issue to you at this time because the current efforts by your offices to re design the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) provide an excellent opportunity to address the issues. We have included our observations and two recommendations in this area.

As the regulatory program that develops technology based standards to limit point source pollution, the Effluent Guidelines Program is a critical element of EPA's clean water program. However, we found that EPA does not collect the necessary data to assess the performance of this important program. As a result, EPA cannot determine the number of facilities covered by each effluent guideline or how often effluent guidelines are used as the basis of pollutant limits for each pollutant in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit. This appears to be counter to the emphasis placed on EPA goals as well as the President's Management Agenda for agencies to monitor their performance data to ensure that intended results are being achieved.

During our preliminary research, we interviewed officials from EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Office of Water to determine whether EPA could identify the permitted facilities that are covered by each effluent guideline. We also interviewed EPA officials to determine whether they had information about how often effluent guidelines were used as the 2 basis of pollutant limits in NPDES permits. In addition, we interviewed several state officials responsible for the PCS in their state to determine the burden to their states in adding data fields to the modernized PCS. We are performing our evaluation in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our evaluation is not completed and is currently moving into the fieldwork phase.

Background EPA, through the Office of Water, administers the Effluent Guidelines Program as part of its work to protect the nation's waters. EPA invested almost $ 23 million in fiscal year 2002 in the Program, which issues national technology based standards to reduce pollutant discharges from industrial facilities to surface waters and publicly owned treatment works ( municipal sewage treatment plants). Effluent guidelines, water quality standards, and best professional judgment are the basis of all pollutant limits in NPDES permits. These limits reduce point source discharges from industrial facilities into surface waters, thereby protecting human health and safeguarding the waters of the United States.

Effluent guidelines are issued for categories of existing sources and new sources of pollution under Title III of the Clean Water Act. The process for developing an effluent guideline results in the promulgation and publication of an effluent guideline pertaining to a particular industrial category or industrial process. An effluent guideline may take up to 8 years to complete.

Effluent guidelines are implemented through the NPDES permit program, which is administered by authorized states and EPA. The NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources through the issuance of permits. Permit writers, generally at the state level, determine limits for each pollutant in an NPDES permit based on the more stringent of effluent guidelines or water quality standards. If needed, limits can also be based on the permit writer's best professional judgment.

EPA uses PCS, a national information system that contains data supporting the NPDES program. PCS is managed by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, but it is also a critical information system for the Office of Water. PCS tracks permit issuance, permit limits, self monitoring data, and enforcement and inspection activity for more than 64,000 facilities regulated under the Clean Water Act. EPA is currently in the process of modernizing PCS. EPA is working with state, regional, and headquarters office staff through committees and workgroups to determine what data fields in PCS should remain, be changed, or be eliminated. These committees and workgroups will also determine whether states will be required to complete certain PCS data fields.

EPA Cannot Assess the Performance of the Effluent Guidelines Program Without Program Results Data 3 EPA cannot assess the performance of the Effluent Guidelines Program without data to measure program results. In the course of our ongoing work, we found that EPA does not have the data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Effluent Guidelines Program. EPA needs information such as ( 1) the universe of facilities covered by each effluent guideline; and ( 2) whether pollutants in NPDES permits are limited by effluent guidelines, water quality standards, or the permit writer's best professional judgment. Without this data, EPA cannot determine that effluent guidelines are even being used, much less reducing point source discharges and improving water quality. EPA needs data to measure program results in order to perform its mission of protecting human health and safeguarding the environment.

EPA Needs to Capture Data on Facilities Covered by Each Effluent Guideline in Modernized PCS One of EPA's basic responsibilities is to keep track of the regulated community. EPA currently cannot track the facilities covered by each effluent guideline. If this data were captured in the modernized PCS, EPA could quickly determine the universe of facilities covered by each effluent guideline instead of having to do extensive and costly research years after an effluent guideline has been developed. This type of research is currently done when EPA considers revising an effluent guideline. The state officials told us that they believe that this data field could be added with minimal burden.

EPA Needs to Capture Data on the Basis of Pollutant Limits in Modernized PCS Additionally, EPA does not have data on the extent effluent guidelines are being used as a basis of pollutant limits in permits. Determining effluent guideline usage is important in evaluating the overall effectiveness of the Effluent Guidelines Program in reducing point source discharges. If effluent guidelines are not being used, they cannot be effective. Additionally, this information would be useful to the Water Quality Criteria and Standards Program, since it would enable EPA to obtain data on the usage of water quality standards as the basis of pollutant limits in NPDES permits. State permit writers are already required to obtain information on the basis of pollutant limits in the NPDES permit fact sheet. Therefore, states should have the capability to collect this information in their data systems without incurring significant increases in burden.

Conclusion EPA currently lacks the information needed to assess the performance of the Effluent Guidelines Program. PCS does not contain a mechanism in which the agency can track ( 1) the facilities covered by each effluent guideline; and ( 2) the basis of pollutant limits for each pollutant limited in an NPDES permit. An opportunity now exists with the PCS modernization effort to gather the necessary information to better manage the Effluent Guidelines Program so that EPA's goals of protecting human health and safeguarding the environment can be achieved. 4 Recommendations We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:

1. Develop a required data field in the modernized PCS to capture the effluent guideline or guidelines that apply to each permitted facility.

2. Develop a required data field in the modernized PCS to capture the basis of pollutant limits ( effluent guidelines, water quality standards, or best professional judgment) for each pollutant limited in an NPDES permit.

We are requesting that you, as the action official, provide this office with a written response to our recommendations. Due to the time constraints in selecting the data fields that will be included in the modernization of PCS, we would appreciate a written response within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. _____________________

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at ( 202) 566 0830, or Renee McGhee Lenart, Project Manager, at ( 913) 551 7534. 5 REPORT DISTRIBUTION Office of Inspector General Inspector General Headquarters Office Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Assistant Administrator, Office of Water Audit Liaison, Office of Water Audit Liaison, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Director, Office of Science and Technology Director, Office of Waste Management Director, Engineering and Analysis Division Director, Water Permits Division


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23040-23042]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10542]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0050]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under the procedures established by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies
must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information,
including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved
collections. This document describes one collection of information for
which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2018-0050 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic Submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Each submission must include the agency name and the docket number for

this Notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without
changes to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Sifrit, Ph.D., Contracting
Officer's Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NPD-
320), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's phone number is 202-366-
0868, and her email address is [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: In-Vehicle Drowsiness Detection and Alerting.
    Type of Request: New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number: None.
    Form Number: NHTSA Forms 1441 through 1449.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is seeking approval to collect
information from licensed young drivers for a one-time voluntary
driving simulator study of the effectiveness of in-vehicle drowsiness
detection and alerting systems that aim to reduce drowsy driving. NHTSA
proposes to collect information from licensed young drivers to
determine (1) their eligibility to participate in a study evaluating
systems designed to detect and mitigate drowsy driving, (2) their
driving performance during a simulated driving task to measure
drowsiness mitigation system effectiveness, and (3) their opinions
about the safety systems and their perceptions of the benefits. NHTSA
will collect information about age, sex, driver license status, sleep
and caffeine habits, and driving habits from an estimated 120 young
drivers who previously indicated interest in participating in simulator
studies through a one-time, voluntary telephone interview to determine
their eligibility for this study. NHTSA will then invite 85 qualified
young drivers to report to the simulator to complete an informed
consent form and other screening activities including a ten-minute
practice drive in the simulator and an assessment of the propensity for
simulator sickness. NHTSA expects that 75 young drivers will pass the
screening and will report for the overnight study, which includes a
four-hour drive in the simulator. This collection is solely reporting,
and there are no record-keeping costs to the respondents. NHTSA will
use the information to produce a technical report that presents the
results of the study. The technical report will provide aggregate
(summary) statistics and tables as well as the results of statistical
analysis of the information, but it will not include any personal
information. The technical report will be shared with vehicle
manufacturers and suppliers as well as other stakeholders interested in
improving traffic safety by decreasing drowsy driving.
    Background: The mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce
economic costs due to motor vehicle crashes. In support of this
mission, NHTSA's Office of Behavioral Safety Research studies behaviors
and attitudes in highway safety, focusing on drivers, passengers,
pedestrians, and motorcyclists, and it uses the results to develop and
refine countermeasures to deter unsafe behaviors and promote safe
alternatives. One of the unsafe behaviors we aim to prevent is drowsy
driving. NHTSA estimates that drowsy driving is involved in 2.4% of
fatal crashes resulting in 824 fatalities per year from 2011 through
2015, but the agency also acknowledges that drowsy driving is likely to
be underreported in police reports and investigations. A 2012 study by
Tefft published in Accident Analysis and Prevention used a multiple
imputation methodology to analyze NHTSA's crash data and estimated
16.5% of fatal crashes involved drowsy driving. If this estimate is
accurate, it suggests that more than 6,000 people die in drowsy-
driving-related motor vehicle crashes each year. Furthermore, a
significant proportion of drivers report drowsy driving. According to
the 2017 AAA Foundation Traffic Safety Culture Index survey, 31% of
drivers reported driving ``when they were so tired they had a hard time
keeping their eyes open'' in the previous month, and the Centers for
Disease Control's 2009 through 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System surveys found that 4% admitted falling asleep at the wheel
within the past 30 days.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: Given the significant safety risk posed by drowsy driving,
NHTSA released its Drowsy Driving Research and Program Plan in 2016.
The document outlines a comprehensive program that involves six broad
focus areas, and one of these areas is vehicle technology. The
development and refinement of driver state detection systems promises
the ability to detect drowsiness and prevent crashes, and previous
NHTSA research has demonstrated that various approaches to driver state
detection show promise. However, the problem of how the vehicle should
respond when drowsy driving is detected remains unanswered. To assess
the efficacy of different vehicle-based countermeasures, it is
necessary to develop experimental methods that replicate the
motivational conditions associated with drowsy driving while keeping
drivers in a controlled and safe environment. The objective of this
study is to determine the effect of in-vehicle drowsiness
countermeasures on driver behavior. Drivers will be randomly assigned
to one of three experimental groups: No warnings or mitigation
(baseline), lane departure warning, and drowsiness mitigation, which
includes a warning as well as a navigation aid that appears to inform
the driver of the distance to the next rest area. The study will
compare driver performance and behavior under the two countermeasures
with baseline drowsy driving. The results will add to the state of
knowledge by systematically comparing the effect of different in-
vehicle drowsiness countermeasures on

driver performance and decision-making in a high-fidelity driving
simulator. The results will be disseminated through a technical report
that will be shared with vehicle manufacturers and suppliers as well as
other stakeholders interested in improving traffic safety by decreasing
drowsy driving.
    Data Collection Plan: The University of Iowa will solicit drivers
between the ages of 21 and 30 to participate in a driver simulator
study from a registry of approximately 7,000 individuals who have
already expressed interest in participating in driving research
studies. Respondent are likely to be from Eastern Iowa because they
must drive to the National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) at the
University of Iowa Research Park to participate. The agency proposes to
conduct one-time voluntary 15-minute phone surveys with up to 120
potential subjects to collect information about driving experience,
sleeping and circadian rhythm, and general health to determine
eligibility. The expected burden of qualifying 120 participants is 30
hours. Based upon past studies, the agency expects that 85 potential
subjects will be eligible and will report to the NADS for the study.
The 85 potential subjects will spend up to one hour reading and signing
a consent form, watching a simulator training presentation, completing
a short driving task in the simulator to screen for simulator sickness,
complete a brief wellness survey to screen for simulator sickness, and,
if appropriate, schedule a future study drive session. The expected
burden of screening 85 potential subjects is about 85 hours. It is
expected that of the 85 screened, 75 will pass the simulator screening
and opt to participate in the study. The study participants will spend
up to nine hours providing information about activities, including
sleeping, in the previous 24 hours, waiting to begin the simulator
drive, completing the four-hour drive and completing a post-drive
questionnaire about the experience. During the waiting period and
immediately after the simulator drive, study participants will complete
the Stanford Sleepiness Scale ten times. During the simulator drive,
participants may take breaks. Participants will complete a brief
questionnaire during the expected two (voluntary) breaks in the drive
to evaluate participants' rationale for resting. In addition to the
nine hours for the study, participants also will complete an activity
log covering the 24 hours before study, which will take an estimated 30
minutes to complete. The expected burden of 75 participants completing
the study is about 713 hours.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: The total estimated
burden for qualifying 120 participants (30 hours), for screening 85
participants (85 hours) and for 75 participants to complete the study
(713 hours) is 828 total hours.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 14, 2018.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2018-10542 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P