DOE considers the best approach to convert all terminology and methodology, including the appendix A, B and E to part 835 values, to reflect ICRP Publications 60 and 68. However, DOE solicits comments on these different options.

DOE recognizes that the dosimetric changes will result in the need to update numerous site documents and proposes a three year implementation schedule to alleviate the burden of making the changes (i.e., many of the changes can be made during the regularly scheduled document updating processing). An extended implementation date also would recognize that the benefit of updating documents to reflect the dosimetric changes may not justify the cost at sites nearing closure. For closure sites which are scheduled to continue operation beyond the implementation date for the proposed changes, the exemption process in 10 CFR part 820 may be used to request relief, if appropriate. DOE requests input on any other constructive ways to reduce the costs of implementing this proposed change.

As discussed in other sections of this preamble, the definitions of ``authorized limit'' and ``real property'' would be added and the definition of ``radioactive material transportation'' would be revised. C. What Is the Proposed Change to Radiological Units in 10 CFR Part 835?

DOE proposes to revise the text of Sec. 835.4 to allow use of additional units, such as dpm, mass units, uCi/cc, and dpm/ 100cm², in records required by this part. The original intent of this provision was to preclude the exclusive use of the SI units of becquerel, gray and sievert. The intent was not to preclude use of other conventional units, such as the ones previously listed. This
[[Page 46000]]
proposed change would achieve the original intent.
D. What Is the Effect of the Proposed Change on Radiation Protection Programs?

DOE is proposing to add a new sentence at the end of Sec. 835.101(f) that would read ``Unless otherwise specified in this part, compliance with the amendment to this part published on August 10, 2006, [DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FR] shall be achieved no later than [DATE 3 YEARS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].'' DOE is proposing to require compliance with the amended requirements of this part to be achieved no later than three years after the effective date of this amendment. The reasons for an extended implementation date are the same as those discussed in connection with the proposed changes to the dosimetric terms.
E. What Is the Proposed Change in the General Requirements for Monitoring Individuals and Areas in 10 CFR Part 835?

DOE proposes to amend Sec. 835.401(a)(5) by revising the text ``engineering and process controls'' to read ``engineering and administrative controls''. This change is proposed in order to make the use of the terms consistent with DOE Policy 450.4 ``Safety Management System Policy''. DOE considers the terms to be equivalent.
F. What Is the Proposed Change in the Monitoring of Packages Containing Radioactive Material in 10 CFR Part 835?

Certain DOE sites have stated that the requirement in Sec. 835.405(c)(2) to perform a measurement of radiation levels was unclear. Under this provision, a measurement of radiation levels is required for receipt of packages of radioactive material ``unless the package contains less than a Type A quantity (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4) of radioactive material''. The definition of a Type A quantity in 10 CFR 71.4 is a quantity of radioactive material which does not exceed a value provided in a specified table. Any quantity of radioactive material less than or equal to the value provided in the table is a Type A quantity. For example, if the table lists a quantity of 16 Curies (Ci) for an isotope, any quantity of that isotope up to and including 16 Ci is a Type A quantity. DOE received statements that the only quantity less than a Type A quantity would be a zero quantity or a negative quantity.

The intent of the requirement has always been that a measurement of the radiation level is required for receipt of packages containing more than a Type A quantity. Title 10 CFR 71.4 defines a Type B quantity as a quantity of radioactive material which exceeds a Type A quantity. Accordingly, to clarify the requirement, DOE proposes to amend Sec. 835.405(c)(2) by changing ``unless the package contains less than a Type A quantity'' to ``if the package contains a Type B quantity''. G. What Is the Proposed Change in the Exception for Labeling Requirements in 10 CFR Part 835?

DOE proposes to establish an upper limit of 0.1 Ci for a quantity of radioactive material which would be excepted from the labeling requirement in Sec. 835.606(a)(2). After the establishment of the radioactive material labeling requirements in the 1998 amendment to 10 CFR part 835, it was noted that the exception to labeling requirements for radioactive materials appeared excessive for certain isotopes. DOE exempts from labeling items and containers if a quantity of radioactive material is less than one tenth of the values specified in appendix E of 10 CFR part 835. For some isotopes this quantity is significant. For example, a container of tritiated water does not need to be labeled ``Caution, Radioactive Material'' as long as there is less than 16 Ci of tritiated water in the container. While the basis for this exception, as discussed in the preamble to the 1998 amendment to 10 CFR part 835, is technically defensible, DOE believes that it is prudent to establish an upper limit for the labeling exception. The approach DOE is proposing is similar to that taken by the NRC, with the exception that the NRC upper limit is 0.001 Ci. DOE believes that the 0.1 Ci upper limit would provide an acceptable level of protection, based on the exposure scenario discussed in the preamble to the 1998 amendment (63 FR 59662), and still provides for sufficient operational flexibility in not being overly restrictive in the labeling requirements.
H. What Are the Proposed Changes in the Individual Monitoring Records Requirements in 10 CFR Part 835?

DOE proposes to revise Sec. 835.702(b) to give sites the option of not assessing and recording any internal dose monitoring result estimated to be less than 10 millirem committed equivalent dose. This change is proposed in response to concerns that, under the current requirements, there is no threshold of positive internal dose monitoring result which need not be assessed and a dose recorded. DOE believes that this flexibility will be of most benefit for routine bioassay results from tritium and uranium operations. In particular for tritium, current requirements for recording internal doses may be considered to be overly burdensome. For tritium, positive bioassay results could result in needing to determine and record doses that are less than one millirem. The proposed revision allows some relief from needing to perform a dose assessment and to record these very small doses. This may most easily be achieved through the development and use of default values, below which no further dose assessment or recording is required. Establishing a dose threshold for any single bioassay and/ or air monitoring result makes the DOE requirements consistent with nationally accepted standards as discussed in American National Standard for Design of Internal Dosimetry Programs (ANSI/HPS N13.39 2000). The provision still requires the maintenance of bioassay and/or air monitoring results in case they are needed by DOE in the future.

DOE's policy has been that the current monitoring threshold of 100 millirem should not be interpreted as an objective for internal dose monitoring (i.e., DOE fully recognizes that routine internal dose monitoring is not capable of detecting doses at the monitoring threshold for some radionuclides). Consistent with that policy, these proposed threshold values for assessing internal dose should not be construed as the establishment of thresholds for internal dose monitoring.

The proposed revision would provide flexibility for assessing and recording doses for any single bioassay and/or air monitoring result and also includes an annual limit for doses that need not be assessed or recorded based on 50 percent of the applicable monitoring threshold at Sec. Sec. 835.402(c)(1) through (4). DOE recognizes that sites wishing to invoke the flexibility offered by this proposed change would need to develop and implement a program to track bioassay results to ensure that dose constraints are not exceeded without recording the doses. DOE will provide guidance on acceptable implementation methods. I. What Are the Proposed Changes to Radiation Safety Training?

DOE proposes to amend Sec. 835.901(b) by adding the text ``applied training,'' after ``by successful completion of.'' The training and applied training is to be commensurate with the hazards in the area and the required controls. DOE already requires, in Sec. 835.901(c), that [[Page 46001]]
each individual demonstrate knowledge of the radiation safety training topics by successful completion of an examination and performance demonstrations. The current requirement for performance demonstration implies that the training will include practical factors or ``applied training''. Accordingly, DOE considers the proposed change to be only editorial.

DOE is considering options for adding a provision for retention testing. DOE has provided, and still maintains several guidance documents which address retention testing. These include:

In particular, DOEHDBK113198 includes an attachment ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Radiological Training.'' This attachment discusses a recommended approach to implementing a retention testing program. DOE is soliciting comments on including, in 10 CFR part 835, a requirement for retention testing.

In addition, DOE is soliciting comments on adding a provision, in subpart J, for radiological control technician (RCT) training. Currently, 10 CFR part 835 requires individuals responsible for developing and implementing measures necessary for ensuring compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 835 to have the appropriate education, training, and skills. This provision applies to RCTs. To assist sites in meeting this requirement, DOE has provided, and continues to maintain, several guidance documents discussing the training, retraining and qualifications of RCTs. These include:

All of the above provide guidance on DOE's expectations for the appropriate level of training, retraining, testing and qualification of RCTs. DOE is soliciting comments on including, in 10 CFR part 835, requirements for RCT of training, retraining, testing and
qualification.
J. What Are the Proposed Changes in the Design and Control Requirements in 10 CFR Part 835?

DOE proposes to amend Sec. 835.1001(a) by replacing the text ``physical design features and administrative control'' with ``engineering and administrative controls''. DOE also proposes to amend Sec. 835.1001(b) by replacing the text ``physical design features'' with ``engineering controls'' and proposes to amend Sec. 835.1003 by replacing the text ``physical design features and administrative controls'' with ``engineering and administrative controls''. These changes are proposed in order to make the use of the terms consistent with DOE Policy 450.4 ``Safety Management System Policy''. DOE considers the terms to be equivalent.
K. What Are the Proposed Changes in the General Provisions to Emergency Exposure Situations in 10 CFR Part 835?

DOE proposes to amend the general provisions to emergency exposure situations to clarify that the resumption of operations, pursuant to Sec. 835.1301(d), only applies to operations which have been suspended as a result of a dose in excess of the limits specified in section Sec. 835.202. DOE considers the proposed change to be only editorial. L. What Are the Changes to the DAC Values, Introductory Paragraph, and Footnotes in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 835?

One of the options discussed earlier in this preamble is the adoption of the system of dosimetry for intake of radioactive materials set forth in more recent ICRP Publications. Because provisions pertaining to the control of internal dose reference appendix A, DOE proposes to modify the derived air concentration values contained in appendix A to reflect the previously mentioned ICRP publications. The salient changes would be:

These proposed changes are explained in the introduction to appendix A.

In addition to the changes in the dosimetric models used to calculate the DACs in appendix A, several other changes to this appendix are proposed. One proposed change is to establish derived air concentration values for tritiated particulate aerosols, insoluble organically bound tritium and default values for radionuclides not listed in the appendix.

Subsequent to the November 4, 1998, amendment to 10 CFR part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection (63 FR 59662), the Department and its contractors have been researching and developing appropriate guidance for individual exposure to tritiated particulate aerosols and insoluble organically bound tritium. In 1999, the DOE Office of Worker Protection Policy and Programs (EH52) issued Radiological Control Technical Position RCTP 9902, Acceptable Approach for Developing Air Concentration Values for Controlling Exposures to Tritiated Particulate Aerosols and OrganicallyBound Tritium, which provided guidance on use of acceptable air concentration values. In 2004 EH52 also published a technical standard, Radiological Control Programs for Special Tritium Compounds, DOEHDBK11842004, which provides additional guidance on use of acceptable air concentration values. The ICRP publications do not list dose coefficients for tritiated particulate aerosols and do not specifically address insoluble organically bound tritium. Therefore, DOE proposes including derived air concentration values for these substances based on the methodology described in DOEHDBK1184 2004, adjusted to use the ICRP 60 dosimetric quantities. This handbook [[Page 46002]]
http://www.eh.doe.gov/radiation/ts.html and the Freedom of Information Reading Room.

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 835 does not include default values for radionuclides not listed in the appendices. Consistent with the NRC practice, DOE proposes to establish default values for radionuclides not listed in appendix A. One default value would apply for any isotope not already listed with a decay mode other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission and with a radioactive halflife greater than two hours. The default value would be the most restrictive applicable derived air concentration value already listed in appendix A for that type of decay, i.e., 1.E10 [mu]Ci/ml (4 Bq/m³). The second default value would apply for any isotope not already listed with a decay mode of alpha emission or spontaneous fission, or any mixture for which the identity or the concentration of any radionuclide in the mixture is not known. The default value would likewise be the most restrictive applicable derived air concentration value already listed in appendix A, i.e., 2.E13 [mu]Ci/ml (8.E03 Bq/m³). M. What Are the Proposed Changes to the DAC Values, Introductory Paragraph, and Footnotes in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 835?

DOE proposes to amend appendix C to 10 CFR part 835 by changing the term ``contaminated atmospheric cloud'' to ``cloud of airborne radioactive material''. DOE considers this change to be only editorial. Consistent with DOE's proposal to adopt the system of dosimetry for intake of radioactive materials set forth in more recent ICRP publications, DOE proposes to replace the air immersion derived air concentration values in appendix C with new values which were determined using ICRP Publication 68 methodology. Specifically, the proposed values are derived from the dose conversion factors in Annex D of ICRP publication 68 and assumes 250 days (50 weeks times 5 days per week) exposure per year to get an effective dose of 5 rem in a year. Consistent with the NRC, DOE also proposes to establish a default value for any single radionuclide not listed in the appendix. The default value would apply for any isotope not already listed with a decay mode other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission and with a radioactive halflife less than two hours. The derived air concentration would be the most restrictive value already listed, i.e., 6.E06 [mu]Ci/ml (2.E+04 Bq/m³).
N. What Are the Proposed Changes to the Text and Footnotes in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 835?

Several changes to appendix D are proposed in order to codify guidance issued by the Department in Radiological Control Technical Positions (RCTP) and to enhance the clarity of this section. In 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 835 Appendix DSurface Radioactivity Values, RCTP 9602, DOE provided guidance on the application of footnote 5 to this appendix that addresses surface contamination values for mixed fission products containing Sr90. Based on this guidance, DOE proposes to revise appendix D as follows: In the second group of nuclides (total surface radioactivity value1000 dpm/100
cm²; removable surface radioactivity value200 dpm/100 cm²) the parenthetical phrase ``including mixed fission products where the Sr90 fraction is 90 percent or more of the total activity'' would be inserted. A new group would be added to appendix D (between the existing second and third groups) that consists of mixed fission products where the Sr90 fraction is more than 50 percent but less than 90 percent of the total activity. For this new group, the total surface radioactivity value would be 3000 dpm/100 cm<sup>2</sup> and the removable surface radioactivity value would be 600 dpm/100 cm<sup>2</sup>. In the group of betagamma emitters (total surface radioactivity value5000 dpm/100 cm<sup>2</sup>; removable surface radioactivity value1000 dpm/100 cm<sup>2</sup>) the term ``Sr90 and others'' would be replaced by the word ``those''.

In addition, DOE proposes to clarify footnote seven to Appendix D by replacing the term ``(alpha)'' with the sentence ``These limits only apply to the alpha emitters within the respective decay series.

DOE is not proposing changes to the surface radioactivity values in Appendix D at this time. DOE is aware of newly developed surface radioactivity criteria (see American National StandardSurface and Volume Radioactivity Standards for Clearance (ANSI/HPS N13.121999)), for the release of property and other items, which are more clearly based on potential risks than the surface contamination values in appendix D. However, to maintain a consistent application in the use of surface radioactivity values for both protection of workers and for protection of the public and the environment, DOE intends to continue evaluation of appendix D surface contamination values as a coordinated project that addresses both occupational and environmental aspects of this topic.

DOEHDBK11842004 recommends applying the 10 CFR part 835 subpart L provisions when the contamination levels from insoluble tritiated particles fixed to a surface exceed the removable tritium limit. DOE is soliciting comments on the need to revise the rule to reflect this recommendation.
O. What Are the Proposed Changes to the Text and Footnote in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 835?

As discussed earlier, DOE proposes to adopt the system of dosimetry for intake of radioactive materials set forth in more recent ICRP Publications. The appendix E values would be revised using the ICRP 60 methodology and using the same exposure scenarios as were discussed in the 1998 amendment to 10 CFR part 835. In summary, the values would be based on the more limiting of the quantity of radioactive material which results in either an external or internal whole body dose, from either inhalation or ingestion, of 100 millirem. The external exposure scenario assumes a photon exposure for 12 hours a day for 365 days with the source distance being at 1 meter. The internal exposure scenario assumes an instantaneous intake of 0.001% of the material by an individual. Consistent with the other proposed changes, appendix E values have been recalculated to reflect the previously mentioned ICRP publications.

DOE also proposes to add a footnote to appendix E that any type of tritiated particulate aerosol or organicallybound tritiated compound has a value of 10 Ci. This proposed change would be made to keep appendix E consistent with the proposed change to appendix A which includes the addition of tritiated compounds. The value of 10 Ci was derived using the same method as the other proposed values in appendix E, i.e., they are based on the exposure scenario discussed in the preamble to the 1998 amendment. Specifically, the inhalation exposure scenario used to derive the 10 Ci value assumes a 100 mrem dose from a Type S hafnium tritide particle (the most restrictive tritiated particulate aerosol or organicallybound tritiated compound) with a release fraction to be inhaled of 0.001%. A dose conversion value of 2.6 E10 Sv/Bq, using the methodology from Radiological Control Programs for Special Tritium Compounds, DOEHDBK11842004, adjusted to using the ICRP 60 dosimetric quantities, was used.

In addition, the appendix E value for Californium252, which decays by
[[Page 46003]]
spontaneous fission emitting neutrons, would be lower if the external exposure assumption was for neutron instead of photon exposure. Accordingly, DOE calculated the proposed appendix E value for Californium252 by substituting a neutron exposure for the photon exposure in the external exposure scenario using values from Reference Neutron RadiationsPart 1: Characteristics and Methods of Production, ISO/CD, 85291.
P. For These Proposed Changes in 10 CFR Part 835, Does DOE Plan To Issue Guidance Documents?

The primary implementation guides which define DOE's expectations for the existing rule are the DOE G 441.1 series of 13 Implementation Guides for use with 10 CFR part 835. All of these guides are available through the DOE directives Web page on ``http://www.directives.doe.gov/serieslist.html ''.

DOE plans on updating these 13 guides to reflect the amended requirements. DOE also plans to review and, as necessary, incorporate the DOE Radiological Control Technical Positions issued by the DOE Office of Worker Protection Policy and Programs into the Implementation Guides. DOE Technical Standards developed by the DOE Office of Worker Protection Policy and Programs will be updated as part of their routine five year reaffirmation process. In particular, these Technical Standards include: DOESTD109899 Radiological Control, DOESTD1121 98 Internal Dosimetry and the series of handbook relating to radiation protection training.
Q. Would a Contractor Need To Submit Any Documents for DOE Approval?

Section 835.101(g) requires contractors to update their Radiation Protection Program (RPP) and submit it to the DOE within 180 days of the effective date of any modifications to part 835. In accordance with 10 CFR 835.101(f), the RPP shall include plans, schedules, and other measures for achieving compliance no later than three years following the effective date of the amendment. DOE has issued guidance on submittal of RPPs in DOE G 441.11A, Management and Administration of Radiation Protection Programs.
V. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

DOE has reviewed these proposed amendments to 10 CFR parts 820 and 835 under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 150008), and DOE's implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). Categorical Exclusion A5 in Appendix A to Subpart D of 10 CFR part 1021 (rulemaking that amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of the amended rule) applies to this rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been determined not to be a ``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993. Accordingly, this proposed rule was not reviewed under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.

C. Review Under Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that a Federal agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule for which the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The requirement to prepare an analysis does not apply, however, if the agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.

The impact of the changes to 10 CFR part 820 are primarily for DOE's administration of its enforcement program. The impact of the changes to 10 CFR part 835 are primarily with respect to large management and operating contractors. Subcontractors and suppliers are expected to satisfy the provisions of 10 CFR part 835 primarily through the programs and procedures established by prime contractors. The impacts to small entities with respect to changes to 10 CFR parts 820 and 835 are expected to be minor and the costs of compliance are reimbursable under contracts with DOE. On this basis, DOE certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, no analysis has been prepared.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The information collection provisions of this proposed rule are not substantially different from those contained in DOE contracts with DOE prime contractors covered by this proposed rule. The information collection was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB Control No. 19100300. Accordingly, no additional Office of Management and Budget clearance is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have ``federalism implications.'' Policies that have federalism implications are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have substantial direct effects 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. DOE has examined the proposed changes to 10 CFR parts 820 and 835 and determined that they do 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 various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in an agency rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.

This proposed rule would amend 10 CFR parts 820 and 835. The 10 CFR part 835 changes would apply only to activities conducted by or for DOE [[Page 46004]]
involving individual exposure to ionizing radiation. Any costs resulting from implementation of DOE's management, operation, and enforcement of its nuclear safety program are ultimately borne by the Federal Government. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, write regulations to minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 10 CFR parts 820 and 835 meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect family wellbeing. The proposed amendments to 10 CFR parts 820 and 835 would not impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Statement.

I. Review under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. Today's proposed rule is not a significant energy action, as that term is defined in the Executive Order. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act, 2001 (44 U.S. C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most dissemination of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB'S guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. K. Approval of the Office of the Secretary of Energy

The Office of the Secretary has approved the issuance of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
VI. Opportunity for Public Comment

A. Written Comments

Interested persons are invited to participate in this proceeding by submitting data, views, or comments on this proposed rule. Three copies of written comments should be submitted to the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments should be identified on the outside of the envelope and on the comments themselves with the designated ``Docket No. EHRM02835'' or ``RIN 1901AA95.'' All comments received on or before the date specified at the beginning of this notice will be considered before final action is taken in this rulemaking. Because of recent delays in the delivery of mail to DOE, we recommend that comments also be sent by email to the address given at the beginning of this notice of proposed rulemaking.

All submitted comments will be available for public inspection as part of the administrative record for this rulemaking in the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, anyone submitting information or data that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit one complete copy of the document, as well as two copies, if possible, from which the information has been deleted. DOE will make its determination as to the confidentiality of the information and treat it accordingly. B. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held at the time, date, and location indicated in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice. DOE invites any person who has an interest in the proposed rule, or who is a representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest, to make a request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the hearing. Requests to speak should be sent to the mailing address or email address or made by calling the telephone number given in the DATES section of this notice. Requests must be received by the time specified in the DATES section of this notice. The person making the request should provide a daytime telephone number. Each person selected to speak at a public hearing will be notified as to his or her approximate speaking time. DOE reserves the right to select persons to be heard at each hearing, to schedule their presentations, and to establish procedures governing the conduct of the hearing. The length of each presentation will be limited to 10 minutes, unless the hearing officer determines that the number of persons requesting to speak permits longer presentation times.

A departmental official will be designated to preside at the hearing. The hearing will not be a judicial or a trialtype hearing but will be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and section 501 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7191. Only those persons conducting the hearing may ask questions. At the conclusion of all initial oral statements, each person will be given the opportunity to make a rebuttal statement. The rebuttal statements will be given in the same order as the initial statements. Any further procedural rules needed for the proper conduct of the hearing will be announced by the Presiding Officer at the hearing.

DOE will retain the record of the full hearing, including the transcript, and make it available for inspection and copying in the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address provided in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Transcripts may be purchased from the court reporter.

If DOE must cancel the hearing, every effort will be made to publish an advance notice of such cancellation in the Federal Register. Notice of cancellation also will be given to all persons scheduled to speak at the hearing. The hearing date may be canceled in the event no public testimony has been scheduled in advance.
[[Page 46005]]
List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 820

Administrative practice and procedure, Federal buildings and facilities, Government contracts, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Nuclear safety, Penalties, Public health, and Radiation protection.

10 CFR Part 835

Federal buildings and facilities, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Nuclear safety, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 6, 2006.
C. Russell H. Shearer,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Parts 820 and 835 of Chapter III, Title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as set forth below.

PART 820PROCEDURAL RULES FOR DOE NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES

1. The authority citation for part 820 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282(a); 7191; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 50 U.S.C. 2410.

2. In Sec. 820.1 paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 820.1 Purpose and Scope.
* * * * *
(c) Exclusion. Activities and facilities covered under E.O. 12344, 42 U.S.C. 7158 note, pertaining to Naval nuclear propulsion are excluded from the requirements of subparts D and E of this part regarding interpretations and exemptions related to this part. The Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors or his designee will be responsible for formulating, issuing, and maintaining appropriate records of interpretations and exemptions for these facilities and activities.

3. In Sec. 820.2 revise the definitions for ``Director'', and ``Secretarial Officer'', and add a new definition for ``NNSA'', in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 820.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Director means a DOE Official to whom the Secretary has assigned the authority to investigate the nature and extent of compliance with the requirements of this part. With regard to activities and facilities covered under E.O. 12344, 42 U.S.C. 7158 note, pertaining to Naval nuclear propulsion, the Director shall mean the Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors or his designee.

* * * * *

NNSA means the National Nuclear Security Administration. * * * * *

Secretarial Officer means the Assistant Secretary, NNSA Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Program Office Director, or equivalent DOE official who has primary line management responsibility for a contractor.
* * * * *

4. Section 820.13 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 820.13 Direction to NNSA contractors.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, and pursuant to section 3220 of Public Law 10665, as amended, the NNSA
Administrator, rather than the Director, signs, issues and serves the following actions that direct NNSA contractors:
(1) Subpoenas;
(2) Orders to compel attendance;
(3) Disclosures of information or documents obtained during an investigation or inspection;
(4) Preliminary notices of violations; and
(5) Final notices of violations.
(b) The NNSA Administrator shall act after consideration of the Director's recommendation.

5. In Sec. 820.21, paragraphs (g) and (h) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 820.21 Investigations.
* * * * *
(g) The Director may issue enforcement letters that communicate DOE's expectations with respect to any aspect of the requirements of DOE's Nuclear Safety Requirements, including identification and reporting of issues, corrective actions, and implementation of the DOE's Nuclear Safety Requirements, provided that an enforcement letter may not create the basis for any legally enforceable requirement

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For further information concerning public participation in this rulemaking proceeding, see Section VI of this notice of proposed rulemaking (Opportunity for Public Comment).