This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

28488

Vol. 63, No. 100

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency

7 CFR Part 735

RIN 0560–AF13

Amendment to Cotton Warehouse

Regulations for the Purpose of

Defining ‘‘Unnecessary Delay’’

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Farm Service Agency

(FSA) of the United States Department

of Agriculture (USDA) gives notice that,

as a result of two Federal District Court

Orders and the cotton industry’s

continued encouragement, it is

presently contemplating the issuance of

a proposed rule that would address the

statutory phrase ‘‘without unnecessary

delay’’ contained in sections 17 and 21

of the United States Warehouse Act

(USWA) (7 U.S.C. 259 and 262). In

developing the proposed rule, FSA

would consider all distinct options that

would satisfy and complement the

cotton industry’s diverse segments in

forging a national weekly minimum

cotton flow standard. FSA requests

comments and suggestions from the

public on the issues and alternatives

that would be addressed in developing

such a proposal, including, but not

limited to those issues specifically

mentioned in this notice. Upon receipt

and review of all comments timely

received in response to this advance

notice of proposed rulemaking, FSA

will develop a proposed rule regarding

the implementation and administration

of a national cotton flow standard,

which provides yet another opportunity

for the public to comment before the

USDA would implement a final cotton

flow standard.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before July 27, 1998 to be assured

of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments on

this advance notice of proposed

rulemaking to: Steve Gill, Director,

Warehouse and Inventory Division, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm

Service Agency, Stop 0553, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250–0553; telephone

(202) 720-2121; fax (202) 690–3123; also

E-mail comments may be sent to:

HELENlLINDEN@wdc.fsa.usda.gov.

Additionally, comments may be sent via

the Internet through the National Cotton

Flow’s (NCF) homepage at: http://

www.fsa.usda.gov/ncf.

All written comments received in

response to this advance notice will be

available for public inspection in Room

5968, South Agriculture Building, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC, between 8:00 a.m. and

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

except holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Mikkelsen, Deputy Director,

Warehouse and Inventory Division, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm

Service Agency, Stop 0553, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250–0553; telephone

(202) 720–2121, fax (202) 690–3123.

Background

Since the early 1960’s, the timely

delivery of stored cotton has been an

issue throughout the cotton industry.

While cotton shippers and cotton

merchants required timely delivery to

meet the demands of the marketplace,

warehousemen contended that the

delivery demands placed on them by

shippers and merchants were

unreasonable and exceeded warehouse

capabilities. Over the last 30 years, the

cotton industry has made two valid

attempts to address the cotton flow

issue, and in 1969, USDA issued a

proposed rule concerning cotton flow

for warehouses licensed under the

USWA. Comments received in response

to that proposed rule discouraged USDA

from implementing a cotton flow

standard through its regulatory process

and, as a result, a final rule was never

issued. Continued discussions

throughout the various segments of the

cotton industry also have failed to bring

about an endorsement of a single

standard that was acceptable throughout

the cotton industry.

During the 1995/96 cotton season, the

Coalition for Cotton Flow Standards

(CCFS), an organization created by the

National Cotton Council (NCC) with the

approval of all segments of the cotton

industry, instituted a one-year voluntary

cotton flow standard. Initially, this

standard appeared acceptable to all

segments of the cotton industry. The

voluntary standard (1) contained weekly

minimum flow requirements for

warehousemen; (2) levied penalties for

nonperformance by either the

warehouseman or shipper; and (3)

incorporated an arbitration system to

settle disputes that arose over cotton

flow issues. Approximately 90 percent

of all cotton shippers and 52 percent of

all cotton warehousemen agreed to

comply with this voluntary, one-year

standard. However, many

warehousemen agreed to abide by the

standard only if at least 90 percent of all

cotton shippers and warehousemen also

agreed to comply.

When shipment delays began to occur

during the 1995/96 crop year, rather

than exercising the arbitration rights

incorporated in the voluntary standard

implemented by the CCFS, several

cotton shippers filed complaints with

FSA. These shippers requested FSA to

investigate the cotton flow situation,

and suspend the federal license of those

warehouses that had not delivered

cotton without unnecessary delay

pursuant to the USWA.

FSA personnel contacted and made

several on-site visits to warehouses

about which FSA had received

complaints. FSA reached no ultimate

conclusion, but the findings suggested

that the unacceptable delays

experienced by the cotton shippers and

merchants may have been due, in part,

to the lack of a standard method for

requesting services and a lack of

uniform definitions for common terms

used to request these services

throughout the cotton industry. For

example, it appears that shippers and

warehousemen begin recording time

from different starting points, and there

may be several days difference between

a shipper’s ‘‘request date’’ and

warehouseman’s ‘‘confirm date.’’ The

lack of a standard method for requesting

services and of uniform common terms

may have led to an appearance of a

longer delivery delay than actually

existed.

In addition to filing complaints with

FSA, several shippers also filed lawsuits

in United States District Court against
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28489

two cotton warehousemen, alleging that

these warehousemen were delaying

cotton deliveries to increase storage

earnings. In each of these cases, lack of

determination by USDA in the use and

meaning of the USWA statutory phrase

‘‘without unnecessary delay’’ was a key

issue for the courts. Ultimately, the

shippers elected to dismiss their suits

after the warehousemen agreed to join

them in requesting that the cases be

remanded to USDA to determine the

definition of the statutory phrase

‘‘without unnecessary delay.’’ The

Courts agreed and remanded the matter

of defining ‘‘without unnecessary

delay’’ to USDA.

In June 1997, the Cotton Warehouse

Association of America (CWAA) and the

American Cotton Service Warehouse

Association (ACSWA) reached an

unprecedented mutual agreement for a

cotton flow standard that would

expedite the shipment of U.S. cotton

into marketing trade channels and

enhance the prices received by

producers while reducing the cost of

handling cotton. These two associations,

along with the American Cotton

Shippers Association (ACSA) and

textile mill segments, petitioned USDA

requesting that FSA facilitate the needs

of the entire cotton industry through an

expeditious establishment and

implementation of a uniform cotton

flow standard. These associations

recommended to USDA that a weekly

minimum flow standard should be as

follows:

Except when prevented from doing so by Act

of God or force majeure, a mandatory, noncumulative, weekly minimum standard for

bales to be shipped or made ready for

scheduled delivery that week would be not

less than 4.5% of CCC licensed capacity of

a warehouse in effect during the week of

shipment.

As a result of these events, USDA has

decided to define, through the

rulemaking process, the statutory phrase

‘‘without unnecessary delay’’ and

establish a weekly minimum cotton

flow standard that would be national in

scope.

Using the USWA as the Tool for

Implementing the Cotton Flow Standard

Section 21 of the USWA (7 U.S.C.

262) mandates that federally licensed

warehousemen, ‘‘in the absence of some

lawful excuse, shall, without

unnecessary delay, deliver the

agricultural products stored therein

upon a demand made by either the

holder * * * or depositor. * * *’’ In

addition, section 17 of the USWA (7

U.S.C. 259) mandates that all nonfederally licensed warehousemen who

issue electronic warehouse receipts, ‘‘in

the absence of a lawful excuse, shall,

without unnecessary delay, deliver the

cotton stored in the warehouse on

demand made by the person named in

the record in the central filing system as

holder of the receipt.’’

USDA believes that the standard

should be based on the USWA rather

than the Cotton Storage Agreement

(CSA). For the 1997 crop, more than

15.5 million bales of cotton were

receipted with electronic warehouse

receipts under the USWA through its

federally licensed warehouse system

and its approved electronic receipt

providers that service non-federally

licensed warehousemen, shippers,

merchants, receipt holders, and other

segments of the cotton industry. This

represented more than 80 percent of the

total 1997 cotton production. In

contrast, less than 20 percent of the

1997 cotton production was associated

with CCC’s Cotton Storage Agreement

(CSA) during this period. In addition, a

standard based on the CSA would apply

only to CCC-owned or loan bales and

not to another storage bale, warehouse,

or industry segment. Given CSA’s

applicability to CCC-interest cotton

only, USDA perceives that the USWA’s

influence would embody the bulk of

cotton handled and merchandised.

General Provision and Options

FSA is seeking comments from the

public regarding a weekly minimum

cotton flow standard that would address

the statutory phrase ‘‘without

unnecessary delay.’’ While the public is

free to comment on all aspects of this

notice, two options for administering

the cotton flow standard are being

presented in this notice. The two

options differ in the level of USDA

involvement in ensuring compliance

with the standard and in regulating the

cotton industry regarding the standard.

FSA is considering the following

cotton flow standard that would apply

to the statutory phrase ‘‘without

unnecessary delay.’’ For the purpose of

this advance notice of proposed

rulemaking, this standard would be

applicable to both options:

Cotton Flow Standard

Except when prevented from doing so by

force majeure, a mandatory, non-cumulative,

weekly minimum shipping standard for bales

delivered or staged for a scheduled delivery

during that week shall be not less than 4.5%

of the licensed or approved storage capacity

of a warehouse in effect during the week of

shipment, or as determined by the Secretary.

Option I. Under Option I, USDA

would establish a cotton flow standard

to address the statutory phrase ‘‘without

unnecessary delay’’, but would have

minimal involvement in administering

and ensuring compliance with the

established standard. Option I would

include provisions for private nongovernmental dispute resolution and

would define USDA’s limited regulatory

role in administering the cotton flow

standard.

(a) Cotton Flow Standard. As stated

above.

(b) Dispute Resolution. Unresolved

claims for noncompliance with the

national cotton flow standard would be

resolved through arbitration

administered by the cotton industry.

(1) Arbitration.

(i) Disputes between warehousemen,

merchants, receipt holders, and

shippers, who are members of the same

trade association with an established

arbitration system, would resolve their

disputes through that association.

(ii) Parties that are members of

different trade associations each with

established arbitration systems would

mutually negotiate about which

association’s arbitration system would

be utilized. No split arbitrations would

be allowed, only one association’s

arbitration system could be used.

(iii) When the parties cannot mutually

agree upon, which association’s

arbitration system to utilize in resolving

the dispute, they would enter into a

contract a with private arbitrator

adhering to the American Arbitration

Association’s (AAA) Standards and

Procedures.

(iv) Private arbitrators following

AAA’s Standards and Procedures would

resolve those disputes between parties

belonging to trade associations without

an established arbitration system, or

who are not members of any trade

association, and/or with a party who is

a member of a trade association with an

established arbitration system when the

other party does not agree to use that

association’s arbitration system.

(v) The noncomplying party would be

responsible for all costs and expenses

associated with the arbitration.

(c) USDA’s Regulatory Role.

(1) USDA would not hear complaints

or settle unresolved disputes between a

shipper and a warehouseman involving

a national cotton flow standard

violation or associated damages.

(2) No arbitrator’s rendered

determination or award would affect,

obligate, or restrict USDA’s authority to

administer and regulate the issuance of

USWA licenses, USWA receipts,

contractual agreements, or the electronic

warehouse receipt provider system.

Option II. Under Option II, USDA

would establish a cotton flow standard

to address the statutory phrase ‘‘without
28490 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules

unnecessary delay’’ and would be

involved in the daily administration of

the cotton flow standard. Option II

includes regulatory definitions and

procedures for the timely delivery and

acceptance of cotton that are applicable

to cotton flow standard compliance

determination, dispute resolution, and

reporting requirements.

(a) Definitions and Terms. The

definitions and terms stated in this

section are applicable for the purposes

of administering the regulation under

Option II. The following definitions are

proposed. The public is free to comment

on these definitions, including their

inclusion or exclusion in the regulation:

(1) Confirmed Shipment Date. A

warehouseman’s scheduled delivery

date for a specific bale, confirmed in

writing or by any other rapid written

communication method physically

notifying the receipt holder.

(2) Delivery. A warehouseman’s

physical act placing a scheduled bale in

some type of conveyance or otherwise

making the bale available according to

the receipt holder’s instructions.

(3) Force majeure. Severe weather

conditions, fire, explosion, flood,

earthquake, insurrection, riot, strike,

labor dispute, act of civil or military

authority, non-availability of

transportation facilities, or any other

cause beyond the control of the

warehouseman or receipt holder, which

renders performance impossible.

(4) Scheduled Bales. Specific bales

that a warehouseman schedules with

written confirmation for delivery on a

specified date.

(5) Shipping Order. A

warehouseman’s unique document that

identifies and confirms each specific

bale scheduled for delivery and

references a receipt holder’s original

delivery request.

(6) Timely Delivery. An act by which

a warehouseman makes available to the

receipt holder a scheduled bale on or

before the ‘‘confirmed shipment date’’,

or within fourteen (14) calendar days

after receiving the receipt holder’s

written delivery request.

(7) Timely Acceptance. An act by

which a receipt holder takes possession

and removes scheduled bales from a

warehouse on or before the ‘‘confirmed

shipment date.’’

(8) Unnecessary Delay. A receipt

holder’s failure to take ‘‘timely

acceptance’’ or a warehouseman’s

failure to make ‘‘timely delivery’’ of a

scheduled bale on or before the

‘‘confirmed shipment date’’ in absence

of force majeure. Also, a

warehouseman’s failure to meet or

exceed the weekly minimum cotton

flow standard.

(9) Week. Seven (7) consecutive

calendar days, beginning 12:00 a.m.

Saturday morning and ending 11:59

p.m. Friday night, or as determined by

the Secretary.

(b) Cotton Flow Standard. As stated

above.

(c) Delivery of Cotton from Storage.

(1) The Secretary expects cotton

warehousemen who issue electronic

warehouse receipts and/or who are

USWA licensed to schedule delivery as

close as possible to a receipt holder’s

requested delivery date for cotton stored

in their warehouse.

(2) Warehouseman must schedule

delivery of all bales at the request of the

receipt holder.

(3) A scheduled bale not delivered

during any week would be the first bale

delivered the following week. When

delivered, this bale would count

towards the weekly minimum cotton

flow standard during the week

delivered.

(4) Each individual bale within a nonsegregated lot, that a warehouseman

receives, stores, and redelivers under a

multiple bale warehouse receipt, such

bales would count toward the weekly

minimum cotton flow standard upon

delivery.

(5) When a warehouseman receives,

stores, and redelivers bales as an

unbroken non-segregated lot, without

receipting them under a multiple bale or

as a single warehouse receipt(s), such

bales would not count toward the

weekly minimum cotton flow standard

upon delivery.

(6) In the absence of force majeure,

warehousemen that fail to ‘‘timely

deliver’’ scheduled bales and receipt

holders that fail to ‘‘timely accept’’

scheduled cotton will be deemed as not

complying with the weekly minimum

cotton flow standard.

(d) Dispute Resolution. Unresolved

claims for noncompliance with the

national cotton flow standard would be

first resolved by mediation and finally

by arbitration.

(1) Mediation. Disputes in which one

or more of the affected parties belong to

a trade association(s) without an

established arbitration system, or who

are not members of any trade

association, or who are members of

separate associations and cannot agree

on which association’s arbitration

system to utilize, would be resolved

through the following alternative

dispute resolution process:

(i) The parties would, in good faith,

attempt to resolve the dispute through a

mediation process administered by an

independent mediator recommended by

AAA and conducted in accordance with

current AAA Mediation Rules and

Procedures before resorting to binding

arbitration.

(ii) The parties would faithfully

observe all applicable AAA rules,

procedures, and abide by and execute

any agreement or determination

recommended by the mediator.

(iii) When good faith mediation fails

to resolve the dispute, both parties

would submit their dispute to binding

arbitration administered by an

independent arbitrator recommended by

AAA.

(2) Arbitration.

(i) Disputes between warehousemen,

merchants, receipt holders, and

shippers, who are members of the same

trade association with an established

arbitration system, would resolve their

disputes through that association.

(ii) The parties would mutually

negotiate about which association’s

arbitration system would be utilized,

when the parties are members of

different trade associations with

established arbitration systems. No split

arbitrations would be allowed, only one

association’s can be used.

(iii) When parties cannot mutually

agree, which association’s arbitration

system to utilize in resolving the

dispute, they would enter into a

contract with private arbitrators

adhering to AAA’s standards and

procedures.

(iv) Private arbitrators who follow

AAA’s standards and procedures would

resolve those disputes between parties

who belong to trade associations

without an established arbitration

system, or who are not members of any

trade association, and/or with a party

who is a member of a trade association

with an established arbitration system

when the other party does not agree to

use that association’s arbitration system.

(v) In the event a party refuses to

submit to arbitration or fails to abide by

any determination or award rendered by

the arbitrators, the party desiring

arbitration or enforcement of the

determination or award may notify

USDA of the party’s unwillingness to

resolve a cotton flow standard dispute

or comply with an arbitrator’s rendered

determination or award.

(vi) The noncomplying party would

be responsible for all costs and expenses

associated with the arbitration and any

costs incurred by USDA.

(vii) Any controversy or claim arising

from or related to the arbitrator’s

rendered determination or award may

be enforced by any federal or state court

having jurisdiction thereof.

(e) USDA’s Regulatory Role.

(1) USDA would not hear complaints

or settle unresolved disputes between a

shipper and a warehouseman involving
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28491

a national cotton flow standard

violation or associated damages.

(2) No arbitrator’s rendered

determination or award would affect,

obligate, or restrict USDA’s authority to

administer and regulate the issuance of

USWA licenses, USWA receipts,

contractual agreements, or the electronic

warehouse receipt provider system.

(3) Under the authority of the USWA

and its regulations, USDA may

independently administer all regulatory

actions, arbitration proceeding

determinations, and rendered awards

when such action is necessary for the

effective administration of the national

cotton flow standard.

(4) USDA will require USWA licensed

warehousemen and non-federally

licensed warehousemen, receipt

holders, and shippers who utilize the

electronic warehouse receipt system to:

(i) Meet the weekly minimum cotton

flow standard.

(ii) ‘‘Timely deliver’’ and ‘‘timely

accept’’ scheduled bales.

(5) USDA would reserve the right to

take action against the noncomplying

party, including:

(i) Suspension or termination of

licenses issued in accordance with the

USWA.

(ii) Suspension or termination of

access to the electronic receipt provider

system.

(f) Program Operations and

Maintenance. Congress requires USDA

to collect sufficient fees for the

operation and maintenance of all USWA

related operations. USDA is considering

funding the cost of administering a

national cotton flow standard through

an assessment on each bale of cotton.

(1) Warehousemen would collect an

assessment on each individually

receipted bale and each individual bale

represented by a multiple bale receipt

that is delivered or redelivered for

shipment.

(2) The assessment would be collected

along with other warehouseman’s tariff

charges in the final settlement of each

shipping order.

(3) The warehouseman would forward

the collected assessments to USDA

quarterly.

(g) Reports and Reporting. Each week,

warehousemen would electronically

transmit a report to USDA that would be

comprised of warehouse information

that the cotton industry considers

essential for improving global marketing

opportunities, enhancing cotton values,

and encouraging timely delivery and

acceptance of stored cotton. USDA

would collectively merge this

information into a ‘‘National Cotton

Flow Standard Status Report’’ that

USDA would publish electronically on

the Internet.

Comments

The information collected in response

to this advance notice of proposed

rulemaking will be used to determine

the cotton industry’s overall needs

regarding a ‘‘National Cotton Flow

Standard’’. Appendix I provides

interested parties an opportunity to

respond to specific questions on the

issue of a national cotton flow standard.

Respondents may simply cut out or

duplicate the stated issues/questions

furnished in Appendix I of this notice.

Respondents may submit their

comments to the address shown above.

Respondents may also access these same

issues/questions and submit comments

via the Internet through the NCF

homepage address at: http://

www.fsa.usda.gov/ncf.

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
28492 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28493
28494 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3410–05–C
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28495

Alternative suggestions, ideas and

comments will be considered fully.

When providing comments regarding

this advance notice of proposed

rulemaking, the respondent should

provide the FSA with a complete

description of the details of the

alternative method or issue, along with

supporting data.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on May 19,

1998.

Keith Kelly,

Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 98–13819 Filed 5–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 835

[Docket No. EH–RM–96–835]

RIN 1901–AA59

Occupational Radiation Protection

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

and comment request.

SUMMARY: On December 23, 1996, the

Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) published a notice of

proposed rulemaking to amend the

Department’s primary standards for

occupational radiation protection

during the conduct of DOE activities.

This notice advises the public that DOE

has submitted for review a Paperwork

Reduction Act Submission for the

proposed rule to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review and invites interested persons to

submit written comments and

recommendations to OMB concerning

the proposed collection of information.

DATES: Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

collections of information must be

mailed by June 25, 1998 directly to the

OMB desk officer at the address below.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, please

advise the OMB Desk Officer of your

intention to make a submission as soon

as possible. The Desk Officer may be

contacted at telephone number (202)

395–3084.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the Department of Energy

Desk Officer, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.

(Persons submitting comments to OMB

also are requested to send a copy to Dr.

Joel Rabovsky, U.S. Department of

Energy, EH–52, ‘‘EH-RM–96–835

Rulemaking,’’ 1000 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for copies of the Department’s

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

and other information should be

directed to Dr. Joel Rabovsky, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Worker

Protection Programs and Hazards

Management, 1000 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585,

(301) 903–2135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has

submitted a Paperwork Reduction Act

Submission for a proposed rule on

occupational radiation protection to

OMB for review under section 3507(d)

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The proposed rule was published in the

Federal Register on December 23, 1996

(61 FR 67600). This notice invites

interested persons to submit written

comments and recommendations to

OMB concerning the proposed

collections of information described

below. Comments should address: (1)

whether the proposed collections of

information are necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of DOE,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of

the Department’s burden estimates,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (3)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; (4) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

OMB Approval Number: 1910–xxxx.

Title: Occupational Radiation

Protection.

Abstract: Under section 161 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.

2201), DOE is authorized to adopt rules

governing DOE activities undertaken in

the performance of its functions. Part

835 of title 10 CFR establishes radiation

protection limits and controls to protect

DOE employees, contractor and

subcontractor employees, and visiting

workers who use DOE facilities from

occupational exposure to radiation or

radioactive materials. Part 835 contains

the following information collection

requirements, all of which would be

modified by the Department’s December

23, 1996, rulemaking proposal:

1. Radiation Protection Program

Submissions. Part 835 requires

contractors performing DOE activities to

prepare and submit a radiation

protection program (RPP) to DOE for

approval, and to submit updates of the

RPP to DOE for approval. 10 CFR

§ 835.101.

2. Recordkeeping requirements. Part

835 requires contractors to keep

individual monitoring records

(§ 835.702); certain workplace

monitoring records (§ 835.703); training

and other administrative records

(§ 835.704); records of release of

materials and equipment from

radiological areas (§ 835.1101); and

records of planned special exposures to

radiation (§ 835.204).

3. Reporting requirements. Part 835

requires contractors to provide radiation

dose reports to monitored individuals

and to report other information to

individuals upon termination of

employment and on other occasions. 10

CFR § 835.801.

Need and Uses: The information that

part 835 requires DOE major facilities

management contractors to produce,

maintain and/or report are necessary to

permit the Department to manage and

oversee health and safety programs that

control worker (i.e., DOE employees,

contractor and sub-contractor

employees, and visiting workers)

exposure to radiation.

Frequency: (1) The initial RPP

Submission is a one-time requirement;

updates are required on occasion; (2)

recordkeeping requirements include

planned special exposure records from

time to time, as well as individual and

workplace monitoring records; (3)

reporting of radiation doses to

monitored individuals is required

annually; other information is reported

to individuals upon termination of

employment and on other occasions.

Number of Respondents: 50. This

number reflects the number of radiation

protection programs for part 835

implemented to date.

Estimated Annual Burden: 50,000 hrs.

This burden estimate consists of DOE’s

estimates of the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

information to or for DOE. In developing

these burden estimates, DOE has

estimated the total cost of complying

with the information collection

requirements in 10 CFR 835.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 1998.

Peter N. Brush,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment,

Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 98–13849 Filed 5–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P