Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 8021 

(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 

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 

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: 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 

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 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 Jesu ́ 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. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8022 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1See https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/

opinions.nsf/

BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11- 

1271-1451347.pdf. 

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 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 429 

[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 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: 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: 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS