Agency Procedures for Responding to Adverse Court Decisions and Addressing Funding Shortfalls, 8021-8022 [2016-03254]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(ii) * * *
(A) Offer for sale and normally
display in a public area, qualifying
staple food items on a continuous basis,
evidenced by having, on any given day
of operation, no fewer than seven
different varieties of food items in each
of the staple food categories, with a
minimum of six stocking units for each
food item. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(C) Offer a variety of staple foods
which means different types of foods
within each staple food category. For
example: apples, cabbage, tomatoes,
bananas, melons, broccoli, and squash
in the vegetables or fruits category; or
animal-based milk, plant-based milk,
hard cheese, soft cheese, butter, sour
cream, and yogurt in the dairy category;
or rice, couscous, quinoa, bread, cold
cereals, oatmeal, and flour tortillas in
the bread or cereals category; or
chicken, turkey, duck, beef, pork,
salmon, and tuna in the meat and fish
category. Variety of foods is not to be
interpreted as different brands, nutrient
values, packaging types or package sizes
of the same or similar foods. Similar
food items such as, but not limited to,
link sausages and sausage patties,
different types of cold breakfast cereals,
whole milk and skim milk, or different
types of apples (e.g., Empire, Jonagold
and McIntosh), shall count as depth of
stock but shall not each be counted as
more than one staple food variety for the
purpose of determining the number of
varieties in any staple food group.
Accessory foods and processed multiple
ingredient foods shall not be counted as
staple foods for purposes of determining
eligibility to participate in SNAP as a
retail food store.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) * * * Firms that do not have 85
percent or more of their total food sales
in items that are not cooked or heated
on-site, before or after purchase, are
ineligible. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(6) FNS will consider whether the
applicant is located in an area with
significantly limited access to food. In
determining whether an applicant is
located in such an area, FNS will
consider factors such as distance from
the nearest SNAP authorized retailer,
transportation options to other SNAP
authorized retailer locations, the gap
between a store’s stock and SNAP
required stock for authorized eligibility,
and whether the store furthers the
purpose of the Program.
*
*
*
*
*
(q) * * *
(5) Public disclosure of firms
sanctioned for SNAP violations. FNS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:40 Feb 16, 2016
Jkt 238001
may disclose information to the public
when a retail food store has been
disqualified or otherwise sanctioned for
violations of the Program after the time
for administrative and judicial appeals
has expired. This information is limited
to the name and address of the store, the
owner names(s) and information about
the sanction itself.
Dated: February 8, 2016.
Kevin Concannon,
Under Secretary, Food Nutrition and
Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2016–03006 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. PRM–2–15; NRC–2015–0264]
Agency Procedures for Responding to
Adverse Court Decisions and
Addressing Funding Shortfalls
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice
of docketing.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has received a
petition for rulemaking (PRM)
requesting that the NRC amend its rules
of practice and procedure to establish
procedures for responding to adverse
court decisions and to annually report
to the public each instance where the
NRC does not receive ‘‘sufficient funds
reasonably necessary to implement in
good faith its statutory mandates.’’ The
petition, dated October 22, 2015, was
submitted by Mr. Jeffrey M. Skov (the
petitioner). The petition was docketed
by the NRC on November 10, 2015, and
was assigned Docket Number PRM–2–
15. The NRC is examining the issues
raised in this petition to determine
whether they should be considered in
rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting
public comment on PRM–2–15 at this
time.
DATES: The PRM is available on
February 17, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2015–0264 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information for this petition. You may
obtain publicly-available information
related to this petition by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0264. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8021
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
For
technical questions contact Mr. Ian
Irvin, Office of the General Counsel,
telephone: 301–415–3138, email:
Ian.Irvin@nrc.gov. For questions related
to the petition for rulemaking process
´
contact Mr. Anthony de Jesus, Office of
Administration, telephone: 301–415–
1106, email: Anthony.deJesus@nrc.gov.
Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Petitioner
The petitioner, Mr. Jeffrey M. Skov,
states, among other things, that his
‘‘interest is in securing for the NRC and
the nation’’ benefits that would
‘‘[e]nhance public safety and health,’’
‘‘[r]educe costs,’’ and ‘‘[a]lign NRC’s
practices with its principles.’’
II. The Petition
The petitioner requests that the NRC
amend part 2 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Agency
rules of practice and procedure,’’ to
establish procedures for (1) responding
to adverse court decisions, and (2)
annually reporting to the public each
instance where the NRC does not
receive sufficient funds reasonably
necessary to implement in good faith its
statutory mandates. The petition is
available in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML15314A075.
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
8022
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner proposes that the NRC
issue two new rules to address concerns
about the NRC’s actions in response to
the August 13, 2013, decision in In re:
Aiken County ruling 1 by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (‘‘D.C. Circuit Court’’). The
petitioner requests that the NRC issue a
regulation requiring prompt action ‘‘in
response to each instance where a court
of competent jurisdiction rules that NRC
violated applicable law.’’ The petitioner
also requests that the NRC issue an
additional regulation ‘‘intended to
ensure that public safety and health,
protection of the environment, the
common defense and security, the
reputation and credibility of the NRC as
a ‘trusted, independent, transparent,
and effective nuclear regulator,’ and
prudent stewardship of the national fisc
all receive due consideration when the
agency does not receive sufficient
funding to implement its statutory
mandates; and that both that
consideration and the circumstances
that require it are appropriately brought
into the light.’’
First Proposed Rule Request
The petitioner requests that the NRC
amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 2
to require that in ‘‘each instance where
a court of competent jurisdiction rules
that NRC violated applicable law’’ the
NRC promptly take the following
actions:
• Evaluate and determine the cause or
causes for each violation;
• conduct an ‘‘extent of condition’’
evaluation to determine whether NRC’s
implementation of other statutes and
regulations (i.e., statutes and regulations
beyond those identified by the court in
its ruling) are similarly affected;
• implement immediate corrective
actions to address any violations
identified by the extent of condition
evaluation;
• formulate and implement robust
corrective actions to prevent recurrence
that are based on the cause and extent
of condition evaluations; and
• prepare and issue a report to the
public that documents these activities.
In addition, the NRC would be
required to formally ‘‘request review by
the U.S. Department of Justice (1) of the
adequacy of NRC oversight mechanisms
and whether enhancements are
warranted . . . and (2) of whether
offenses proscribed by the federal
criminal code . . . formed the basis of
1 See https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/
opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/111271-1451347.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:40 Feb 16, 2016
Jkt 238001
or contributed to the adverse court
ruling.’’ The petitioner states that these
amendments ‘‘would be effective
retroactively, beginning with the 08/13/
13 In re: Aiken County ruling—because
of the extraordinary significance of that
ruling.’’
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
Second Proposed Rule Request
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The petitioner also requests that 10
CFR part 2 be amended to require that
the NRC annually ‘‘report to the public
each instance where it does not receive
sufficient funds reasonably necessary to
implement in good faith its statutory
mandates. . . .’’ The petitioner states
that this report should include a
discussion ‘‘of whether NRC (1) was
directed to request either no or
insufficient funds, and complied with
that direction; (2) did request sufficient
funds, which were withheld by
Congress; or (3) did not request
sufficient funds.’’ The petitioner
recommends that the report also include
‘‘a discussion of the consequences of
each instance with respect to (1) public
safety and health; (2) environmental
protection; (3) the common defense and
security; (4) the reputation/credibility of
the agency as a ‘trusted, independent,
transparent, and effective nuclear
regulator,’ and (5) collateral fiscal
impacts (e.g., the ongoing Judgment
Fund disbursals to the nation’s nuclear
utilities flowing from the government’s
breach of the NWPA [Nuclear Waste
Policy Act] ‘standard contracts’).’’
The petitioner asserts that some of the
‘‘Benefits to [the] NRC and the Nation’’
that would be gained as a result of
issuing these proposed rules include:
• Enhancing public safety and health;
• Reducing cost;
• Aligning the NRC’s practices with
its principles;
• Aligning the NRC’s practices with
the tenets it has set out for ensuring a
positive safety culture; and
• Aligning the NRC’s practices with
its mission statement, vision, and
organizational values.
10 CFR Part 429
VI. Conclusion
The NRC has determined that the
petition meets the threshold sufficiency
requirements for docketing a petition for
rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802,
‘‘Petition for rulemaking—requirements
for filing,’’ and the petition has been
docketed as PRM–2–15. The NRC will
examine the issues raised in PRM–2–15,
to determine whether they should be
considered in the rulemaking process.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day
of February, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[FR Doc. 2016–03254 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
[Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–CE–0019]
RIN 1990–AA44
Energy Conservation Program:
Certification and Enforcement—Import
Data Collection; Notice of Public
Meeting and Reopening of Comment
Period
Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting and
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
On December 29, 2015, the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register
proposing that a person importing into
the United States any covered product
or equipment subject to an applicable
energy conservation standard provide,
prior to importation, a certification of
admissibility to the DOE. The comment
period ended February 12, 2016. After
receiving several requests for additional
time to prepare and submit comments,
DOE has decided to reopen the period
for submitting comments. In addition,
DOE announces a public meeting and
webinar regarding its proposal. DOE is
reopening the comment period until
February 29, 2016.
DATES: The comment period for the
notice of proposed rulemaking
published on December 29, 2015 (80 FR
81199), has been extended. DOE will
accept comments, data, and information
in response to the NOPR received no
later than February 29, 2016. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
meeting dates.
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 8E–089, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. See the section
‘‘Public Participation’’ for details on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: 202–586–6590. Email:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8021-8022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03254]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. PRM-2-15; NRC-2015-0264]
Agency Procedures for Responding to Adverse Court Decisions and
Addressing Funding Shortfalls
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a
petition for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its rules
of practice and procedure to establish procedures for responding to
adverse court decisions and to annually report to the public each
instance where the NRC does not receive ``sufficient funds reasonably
necessary to implement in good faith its statutory mandates.'' The
petition, dated October 22, 2015, was submitted by Mr. Jeffrey M. Skov
(the petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on November 10,
2015, and was assigned Docket Number PRM-2-15. The NRC is examining the
issues raised in this petition to determine whether they should be
considered in rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting public comment on
PRM-2-15 at this time.
DATES: The PRM is available on February 17, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0264 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this petition. You may
obtain publicly-available information related to this petition by any
of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0264. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions contact Mr.
Ian Irvin, Office of the General Counsel, telephone: 301-415-3138,
email: Ian.Irvin@nrc.gov. For questions related to the petition for
rulemaking process contact Mr. Anthony de Jes[uacute]s, Office of
Administration, telephone: 301-415-1106, email:
Anthony.deJesus@nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Petitioner
The petitioner, Mr. Jeffrey M. Skov, states, among other things,
that his ``interest is in securing for the NRC and the nation''
benefits that would ``[e]nhance public safety and health,'' ``[r]educe
costs,'' and ``[a]lign NRC's practices with its principles.''
II. The Petition
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend part 2 of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Agency rules of practice
and procedure,'' to establish procedures for (1) responding to adverse
court decisions, and (2) annually reporting to the public each instance
where the NRC does not receive sufficient funds reasonably necessary to
implement in good faith its statutory mandates. The petition is
available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15314A075.
[[Page 8022]]
III. Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner proposes that the NRC issue two new rules to address
concerns about the NRC's actions in response to the August 13, 2013,
decision in In re: Aiken County ruling \1\ by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit Court''). The
petitioner requests that the NRC issue a regulation requiring prompt
action ``in response to each instance where a court of competent
jurisdiction rules that NRC violated applicable law.'' The petitioner
also requests that the NRC issue an additional regulation ``intended to
ensure that public safety and health, protection of the environment,
the common defense and security, the reputation and credibility of the
NRC as a `trusted, independent, transparent, and effective nuclear
regulator,' and prudent stewardship of the national fisc all receive
due consideration when the agency does not receive sufficient funding
to implement its statutory mandates; and that both that consideration
and the circumstances that require it are appropriately brought into
the light.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Proposed Rule Request
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10
CFR part 2 to require that in ``each instance where a court of
competent jurisdiction rules that NRC violated applicable law'' the NRC
promptly take the following actions:
Evaluate and determine the cause or causes for each
violation;
conduct an ``extent of condition'' evaluation to determine
whether NRC's implementation of other statutes and regulations (i.e.,
statutes and regulations beyond those identified by the court in its
ruling) are similarly affected;
implement immediate corrective actions to address any
violations identified by the extent of condition evaluation;
formulate and implement robust corrective actions to
prevent recurrence that are based on the cause and extent of condition
evaluations; and
prepare and issue a report to the public that documents
these activities.
In addition, the NRC would be required to formally ``request review
by the U.S. Department of Justice (1) of the adequacy of NRC oversight
mechanisms and whether enhancements are warranted . . . and (2) of
whether offenses proscribed by the federal criminal code . . . formed
the basis of or contributed to the adverse court ruling.'' The
petitioner states that these amendments ``would be effective
retroactively, beginning with the 08/13/13 In re: Aiken County ruling--
because of the extraordinary significance of that ruling.''
Second Proposed Rule Request
The petitioner also requests that 10 CFR part 2 be amended to
require that the NRC annually ``report to the public each instance
where it does not receive sufficient funds reasonably necessary to
implement in good faith its statutory mandates. . . .'' The petitioner
states that this report should include a discussion ``of whether NRC
(1) was directed to request either no or insufficient funds, and
complied with that direction; (2) did request sufficient funds, which
were withheld by Congress; or (3) did not request sufficient funds.''
The petitioner recommends that the report also include ``a discussion
of the consequences of each instance with respect to (1) public safety
and health; (2) environmental protection; (3) the common defense and
security; (4) the reputation/credibility of the agency as a `trusted,
independent, transparent, and effective nuclear regulator,' and (5)
collateral fiscal impacts (e.g., the ongoing Judgment Fund disbursals
to the nation's nuclear utilities flowing from the government's breach
of the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] `standard contracts').''
The petitioner asserts that some of the ``Benefits to [the] NRC and
the Nation'' that would be gained as a result of issuing these proposed
rules include:
Enhancing public safety and health;
Reducing cost;
Aligning the NRC's practices with its principles;
Aligning the NRC's practices with the tenets it has set
out for ensuring a positive safety culture; and
Aligning the NRC's practices with its mission statement,
vision, and organizational values.
VI. Conclusion
The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold
sufficiency requirements for docketing a petition for rulemaking under
10 CFR 2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking--requirements for filing,'' and
the petition has been docketed as PRM-2-15. The NRC will examine the
issues raised in PRM-2-15, to determine whether they should be
considered in the rulemaking process.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of February, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-03254 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
