81 FR 8021 - Agency Procedures for Responding to Adverse Court Decisions and Addressing Funding Shortfalls
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 31 (February 17, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 31 (February 17, 2016)
| Page Range | 8021-8022 | |
| FR Document | 2016-03254 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 8021-8022] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0264. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. 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 http://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 [email protected]. 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: [email protected]. For questions related to the petition for rulemaking process contact Mr. Anthony de Jes[uacute]s, Office of Administration, telephone: 301-415-1106, email: [email protected]. 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 8021
(ii) * * * may disclose information to the public email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
(A) Offer for sale and normally when a retail food store has been technical questions, contact the
display in a public area, qualifying disqualified or otherwise sanctioned for individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
staple food items on a continuous basis, violations of the Program after the time INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
evidenced by having, on any given day for administrative and judicial appeals document.
of operation, no fewer than seven has expired. This information is limited • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
different varieties of food items in each to the name and address of the store, the Access and Management System
of the staple food categories, with a owner names(s) and information about (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
minimum of six stocking units for each the sanction itself. available documents online in the
food item. * * * Dated: February 8, 2016. ADAMS Public Documents collection at
* * * * * Kevin Concannon, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
(C) Offer a variety of staple foods Under Secretary, Food Nutrition and adams.html. To begin the search, select
which means different types of foods Consumer Services. ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
within each staple food category. For [FR Doc. 2016–03006 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am] select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
example: apples, cabbage, tomatoes, Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P
bananas, melons, broccoli, and squash please contact the NRC’s Public
in the vegetables or fruits category; or Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
animal-based milk, plant-based milk, 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
hard cheese, soft cheese, butter, sour NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
cream, and yogurt in the dairy category; ADAMS accession number for each
or rice, couscous, quinoa, bread, cold 10 CFR Part 2 document referenced (if it is available in
cereals, oatmeal, and flour tortillas in ADAMS) is provided the first time that
the bread or cereals category; or [Docket No. PRM–2–15; NRC–2015–0264]
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
chicken, turkey, duck, beef, pork, INFORMATION section.
salmon, and tuna in the meat and fish Agency Procedures for Responding to
category. Variety of foods is not to be Adverse Court Decisions and • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
interpreted as different brands, nutrient Addressing Funding Shortfalls purchase copies of public documents at
values, packaging types or package sizes AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
of the same or similar foods. Similar Commission. White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
food items such as, but not limited to, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice
link sausages and sausage patties, of docketing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
different types of cold breakfast cereals, technical questions contact Mr. Ian
whole milk and skim milk, or different SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Irvin, Office of the General Counsel,
types of apples (e.g., Empire, Jonagold Commission (NRC) has received a telephone: 301–415–3138, email:
and McIntosh), shall count as depth of petition for rulemaking (PRM) Ian.Irvin@nrc.gov. For questions related
stock but shall not each be counted as requesting that the NRC amend its rules to the petition for rulemaking process
more than one staple food variety for the of practice and procedure to establish contact Mr. Anthony de Jesús, Office of
purpose of determining the number of procedures for responding to adverse Administration, telephone: 301–415–
varieties in any staple food group. court decisions and to annually report 1106, email: Anthony.deJesus@nrc.gov.
Accessory foods and processed multiple to the public each instance where the Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear
ingredient foods shall not be counted as NRC does not receive ‘‘sufficient funds Regulatory Commission, Washington,
staple foods for purposes of determining reasonably necessary to implement in DC 20555–0001.
eligibility to participate in SNAP as a good faith its statutory mandates.’’ The
retail food store. petition, dated October 22, 2015, was SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
* * * * * submitted by Mr. Jeffrey M. Skov (the I. The Petitioner
(iv) * * * Firms that do not have 85 petitioner). The petition was docketed
percent or more of their total food sales by the NRC on November 10, 2015, and The petitioner, Mr. Jeffrey M. Skov,
in items that are not cooked or heated was assigned Docket Number PRM–2– states, among other things, that his
on-site, before or after purchase, are 15. The NRC is examining the issues ‘‘interest is in securing for the NRC and
ineligible. * * * raised in this petition to determine the nation’’ benefits that would
* * * * * whether they should be considered in ‘‘[e]nhance public safety and health,’’
(6) FNS will consider whether the rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting ‘‘[r]educe costs,’’ and ‘‘[a]lign NRC’s
applicant is located in an area with public comment on PRM–2–15 at this practices with its principles.’’
significantly limited access to food. In time.
II. The Petition
determining whether an applicant is DATES: The PRM is available on
located in such an area, FNS will February 17, 2016. The petitioner requests that the NRC
consider factors such as distance from ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID amend part 2 of title 10 of the Code of
the nearest SNAP authorized retailer, NRC–2015–0264 when contacting the Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Agency
transportation options to other SNAP NRC about the availability of rules of practice and procedure,’’ to
authorized retailer locations, the gap information for this petition. You may establish procedures for (1) responding
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
between a store’s stock and SNAP obtain publicly-available information to adverse court decisions, and (2)
required stock for authorized eligibility, related to this petition by any of the annually reporting to the public each
and whether the store furthers the following methods: instance where the NRC does not
purpose of the Program. • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to receive sufficient funds reasonably
* * * * * http://www.regulations.gov and search necessary to implement in good faith its
(q) * * * for Docket ID NRC–2015–0264. Address statutory mandates. The petition is
(5) Public disclosure of firms questions about NRC dockets to Carol available in ADAMS under Accession
sanctioned for SNAP violations. FNS Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; No. ML15314A075.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:40 Feb 16, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_8052/page/1.svg)
![8022 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules
III. Discussion of the Petition or contributed to the adverse court For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The petitioner proposes that the NRC ruling.’’ The petitioner states that these Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
issue two new rules to address concerns amendments ‘‘would be effective Secretary of the Commission.
about the NRC’s actions in response to retroactively, beginning with the 08/13/ [FR Doc. 2016–03254 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am]
the August 13, 2013, decision in In re: 13 In re: Aiken County ruling—because BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Aiken County ruling 1 by the U.S. Court of the extraordinary significance of that
of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling.’’
Circuit (‘‘D.C. Circuit Court’’). The Second Proposed Rule Request DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
petitioner requests that the NRC issue a
regulation requiring prompt action ‘‘in The petitioner also requests that 10 10 CFR Part 429
response to each instance where a court CFR part 2 be amended to require that
[Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–CE–0019]
of competent jurisdiction rules that NRC the NRC annually ‘‘report to the public
violated applicable law.’’ The petitioner each instance where it does not receive RIN 1990–AA44
also requests that the NRC issue an sufficient funds reasonably necessary to
additional regulation ‘‘intended to implement in good faith its statutory Energy Conservation Program:
ensure that public safety and health, mandates. . . .’’ The petitioner states Certification and Enforcement—Import
protection of the environment, the that this report should include a Data Collection; Notice of Public
common defense and security, the discussion ‘‘of whether NRC (1) was Meeting and Reopening of Comment
reputation and credibility of the NRC as directed to request either no or Period
a ‘trusted, independent, transparent, insufficient funds, and complied with
AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel,
and effective nuclear regulator,’ and that direction; (2) did request sufficient
Department of Energy.
prudent stewardship of the national fisc funds, which were withheld by
Congress; or (3) did not request ACTION: Notice of public meeting and
all receive due consideration when the
sufficient funds.’’ The petitioner reopening of comment period.
agency does not receive sufficient
funding to implement its statutory recommends that the report also include SUMMARY: On December 29, 2015, the
mandates; and that both that ‘‘a discussion of the consequences of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
consideration and the circumstances each instance with respect to (1) public published a notice of proposed
that require it are appropriately brought safety and health; (2) environmental rulemaking in the Federal Register
into the light.’’ protection; (3) the common defense and proposing that a person importing into
security; (4) the reputation/credibility of the United States any covered product
First Proposed Rule Request the agency as a ‘trusted, independent, or equipment subject to an applicable
The petitioner requests that the NRC transparent, and effective nuclear energy conservation standard provide,
amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 2 regulator,’ and (5) collateral fiscal prior to importation, a certification of
to require that in ‘‘each instance where impacts (e.g., the ongoing Judgment admissibility to the DOE. The comment
a court of competent jurisdiction rules Fund disbursals to the nation’s nuclear period ended February 12, 2016. After
that NRC violated applicable law’’ the utilities flowing from the government’s receiving several requests for additional
NRC promptly take the following breach of the NWPA [Nuclear Waste time to prepare and submit comments,
actions: Policy Act] ‘standard contracts’).’’ DOE has decided to reopen the period
• Evaluate and determine the cause or The petitioner asserts that some of the for submitting comments. In addition,
causes for each violation; ‘‘Benefits to [the] NRC and the Nation’’ DOE announces a public meeting and
• conduct an ‘‘extent of condition’’ that would be gained as a result of webinar regarding its proposal. DOE is
evaluation to determine whether NRC’s issuing these proposed rules include: reopening the comment period until
implementation of other statutes and
regulations (i.e., statutes and regulations • Enhancing public safety and health; February 29, 2016.
beyond those identified by the court in • Reducing cost; DATES: The comment period for the
notice of proposed rulemaking
its ruling) are similarly affected; • Aligning the NRC’s practices with
• implement immediate corrective its principles;
published on December 29, 2015 (80 FR
actions to address any violations 81199), has been extended. DOE will
identified by the extent of condition • Aligning the NRC’s practices with accept comments, data, and information
evaluation; the tenets it has set out for ensuring a in response to the NOPR received no
• formulate and implement robust positive safety culture; and later than February 29, 2016. See
corrective actions to prevent recurrence • Aligning the NRC’s practices with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
that are based on the cause and extent its mission statement, vision, and meeting dates.
of condition evaluations; and organizational values. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at
• prepare and issue a report to the VI. Conclusion U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
public that documents these activities. Building, Room 8E–089, 1000
In addition, the NRC would be The NRC has determined that the Independence Avenue SW.,
required to formally ‘‘request review by petition meets the threshold sufficiency Washington, DC 20585. See the section
the U.S. Department of Justice (1) of the requirements for docketing a petition for ‘‘Public Participation’’ for details on
adequacy of NRC oversight mechanisms rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802, submitting comments.
and whether enhancements are ‘‘Petition for rulemaking—requirements
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
warranted . . . and (2) of whether for filing,’’ and the petition has been Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of
offenses proscribed by the federal docketed as PRM–2–15. The NRC will Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
criminal code . . . formed the basis of examine the issues raised in PRM–2–15, Renewable Energy, Building
to determine whether they should be Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000
1 See https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/
considered in the rulemaking process. Independence Avenue SW.,
opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11- Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day Washington, DC 20585–0121.
1271-1451347.pdf. of February, 2016. Telephone: 202–586–6590. Email:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:40 Feb 16, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_8052/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2016-02-17 01:16:25
Document Modified: 2016-02-17 01:16:25
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing. | |
| Dates | The PRM is available on February 17, 2016. | |
| Contact | For technical questions contact Mr. Ian Irvin, Office of the General Counsel, telephone: 301-415-3138, email: [email protected] For questions related to the petition for rulemaking process contact Mr. Anthony de Jes[uacute]s, Office of Administration, telephone: 301-415-1106, email: [email protected] Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 8021 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR