Attachment D SNAP 2008 Farm Bill Provisions Clarification, Dely of Implementation

40763

Rules and Regulations

Federal Register
Vol. 86, No. 143
Thursday, July 29, 2021

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Part 274
[FNS 2016–0074]
RIN 0584–AE02

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP): 2008 Farm Bill
Provisions on Clarification of Split
Issuance; Accrual of Benefits and
Definition Changes: Delay of
Implementation Date for Certain
Provisions
Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:17 Jul 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

intended to result in more effective and
efficient implementation of the new
requirements for offline storage and
expungement, and enable State agencies
to better manage any cost adjustments
arising from the changes.

ADDRESSES:

Administrative Procedure Act
Statement

The final
rule, in part, amended SNAP regulations
at 7 CFR 274.2(h) and 274.2(i)(1)–(3) to
implement provisions of the Food,
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008
(Pub. L. 110–234) (2008 Farm Bill) and
the Agriculture Improvement Act of
2018 (Pub. L. 115–334) (2018 Farm Bill)
regarding storage of benefits off-line and
permanent expungement of unused
benefits. Due to the extenuating
circumstances of COVID–19, State
agencies have been focusing efforts on
the programming necessary for the 15
percent Thrifty Food Plan increase
authorized by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L 116–
133), Pandemic EBT (P–EBT) authorized
by the Families First Coronavirus
Response Act (FFCRA, Pub. L. 116–
127), and Emergency Allotments
authorized by FFCRA, which have been
essential to providing households
additional support during the COVID–
19 pandemic. As such, the September
24, 2021 implementation date poses
administrative and management
information system challenges for State
agencies, and efforts to meet it would
divert resources from other, more
pressing programs and the nutrition
assistance that they provide at this
critical time. The new implementation
date of September 24, 2022, as
established by this interim final rule, is

Pursuant to the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), notice and
comment are not required prior to the
issuance of a rule if an agency, for good
cause, finds that ‘‘notice and public
procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). USDA
recognizes that courts have held that the
good cause exception to notice and
comment rulemaking is to be narrowly
construed and only reluctantly
countenanced.
Following these principles, the
Department finds for good cause that
notice and public comment is
impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to the public interest for this
rule. Due to the extenuating
circumstances of the COVID–19
pandemic, State agencies have intently
been working to meet multiple essential
pandemic-related requirements. This
has limited their ability to implement
the final rule, necessitating an
implementation date change for certain
provisions of the final rule. A notice and
public comment period would be
impracticable because it would
consume time before certainty about the
implementation date could be achieved,
when State agencies need to know
immediately whether the September 24,
2021 implementation date still stands,
as it is fast approaching. During a notice
and comment period, States would face
challenges regarding how best to use
their resources. States likely would
divert resources from other pandemicrelated requirements to ensure they can
meet an implementation date that
might, after the notice and comment
period, not be sustained. Accordingly,
the purpose of delaying the
implementation date—averting the
States’ diversion of resources—would be
impeded by waiting until after a notice
and comment period to determine if the
implementation date would be delayed.
In addition, being informed of the
implementation date change is critical
to State agency planning and allocation
of resources, and having to divide those

Comments may be
submitted through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions for submitting comments
electronically. Comments may be
submitted via email to Shanta.Swezy@
usda.gov. You may also mail comments
to: Shanta Swezy, Chief, Issuance
Support Branch, Retailer and Issuance
Policy and Innovation Division, Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA),
1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shanta Swezy at the address above or
(703) 305–2238, Shanta.Swezy@
usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This interim final rule delays
from September 24, 2021, until
September 24, 2022, the implementation
date of certain provisions of the final
rule entitled, ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP): 2008 Farm
Bill Provisions on Clarification of Split
Issuance; Accrual of Benefits and
Definition Changes’’ (‘‘the Final Rule’’),
which was published in the Federal
Register on August 24, 2020 and became
effective on September 23, 2020. The
original implementation date for the
final rule was September 24, 2021. For
reasons explained below, mostly arising
from the burden on State agency
resources caused by the COVID–19
pandemic, FNS is changing the
implementation date for certain
provisions of the final rule to September
24, 2022, effective immediately.
DATES:
Effective date: This interim final
regulation regarding the delay of the
implementation date is effective July 29,
2021.
Comments due date: To be
considered, written comments on this
interim final rule must be received on
or before August 30, 2021.
SUMMARY:

Implementation date: State agencies
must fully implement the requirements
at 7 CFR parts 274.2(h) and 274.2(i)(1)–
(3) as established by the final rule
published August 24, 2020 (85 FR
52025), no later than September 24,
2022.

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM

29JYR1

40764

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 143 / Thursday, July 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

resources between COVID–19 needs and
implementation of this final rule could
potentially compromise important State
efforts related to COVID–19. Thus, it is
in the best interest of the public to
proceed to change the implementation
date immediately without notice-andcomment rulemaking.
Timothy English,
Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–16123 Filed 7–28–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 70
[NRC–2015–0016]
RIN 3150–AJ53

Spent Fuel Reprocessing
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Discontinuation of rulemaking
activity.
AGENCY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is discontinuing a
rulemaking activity that would have
amended the NRC’s regulations to add
a new part to the existing regulatory
framework specific to nuclear spent fuel
reprocessing facilities. The purpose of
this action is to inform members of the
public that this rulemaking activity is
being discontinued and to provide a
brief discussion of the NRC’s decision.
This rulemaking activity will no longer
be reported in the NRC’s portion of the
Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions (the Unified
Agenda).

SUMMARY:

As of July 29, 2021 the
rulemaking activity discussed in this
document is discontinued.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2015–0016 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information for this action. You may
obtain publicly-available information
related to this action by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0016. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Dawn
Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407;
email: [email protected]. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

DATES:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:17 Jul 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

(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
‘‘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. For the convenience of the
reader, instructions about obtaining
materials referenced in this document
are provided in the ‘‘Availability of
Documents’’ section.
• Attention: The PDR, where you may
examine and order copies of public
documents, is currently closed. You
may submit your request to the PDR via
email at [email protected] or call 1–
800–397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. Easter Standard Time (EST),
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Boyce, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, telephone: 301–415–
7335; email: [email protected]; U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Industry interest was the primary
impetus for the NRC to update the
regulatory framework for reprocessing
light-water reactor spent fuel. In Staff
Requirements Memorandum (SRM)—
SECY–13–0093, ‘‘Staff Requirements—
SECY–13–0093—Reprocessing
Regulatory Framework—Status and
Next Steps,’’ the Commission approved
the NRC staff’s recommendation to
develop a reprocessing-specific rule. It
directed the staff’s ‘‘continued
development of the regulatory
framework should be limited in scope—
for the time being—to the resolution of
Gap 5, ‘Safety and Risk Assessment
Methodologies and Considerations for a
Reprocessing Facility.’ ’’ Gap 5 focused
on the development of analytical
methods for the quantitative assessment
of risks associated with reprocessing
facility accidents to inform the basis for
the development of regulatory
requirements and regulatory guidance.
From 2013 to 2016 the staff focused
its efforts on assessing the quantitative
risk associated with reprocessing facility
accidents (i.e., Gap 5). In 2016, the staff
found that industry interest in
constructing and operating a
commercial light-water reactor spent
fuel reprocessing facility had declined.
As a result, in 2016, the NRC suspended
work on the spent fuel reprocessing
regulatory framework because of other

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

higher priorities related to spent fuel
storage and transportation, as well as
budgetary constraints.
II. Discussion
To inform its decision making, the
NRC reached out to stakeholders to
determine the degree of stakeholder
interest in constructing, operating, and
licensing a spent fuel reprocessing
facility. Specifically, the NRC held a
Category 3 public meeting on March 4,
2020; participating stakeholders
included the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI), the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS), industry
representatives, environmental groups,
and private citizens. The NEI and
industry representatives voiced their
support for continuing the rulemaking
primarily on the basis of a need for a
clear and stable regulatory framework
for reprocessing and to support
advanced reactor licensing. However, no
industry stakeholders indicated that
they plan to submit an application to
the NRC for a reprocessing facility in the
foreseeable future. Other stakeholders,
such as UCS and members of the public,
indicated they do not support the
continuation of the rulemaking because
of proliferation and other concerns.
In May 2020, after the public meeting,
the NEI and the American Nuclear
Society (ANS) sent letters to the NRC
with further feedback on the need for
rulemaking. The NEI stated that
developers with advanced reactor
designs that may eventually source their
fuel from the spent fuel of other reactors
are generally not planning to do so in
the near future. The NEI encouraged the
NRC to assess the technologies for
advanced reactors before making any
decisions on the reprocessing
rulemaking. It also suggested that the
NRC should not charge existing
facilities with fees for work on a
reprocessing rule. ANS encouraged the
NRC to continue with the rulemaking
and stated that the lack of an efficient,
technically robust, and technologyinclusive regulatory foundation for
reprocessing and recycling is a barrier to
innovation in advanced reactor designs.
The NRC also engaged organizations
and vendors in the advanced reactor
community to assess their interest in
and specific needs for reprocessing,
such as the use of fuel recovered from
the existing spent fuel feedstock. Based
on these interactions, the NRC
concluded that, in addition to using
fresh fuel obtained from enrichment and
fabrication, some advanced reactor
designs have the capability to
eventually source their fuel from the
spent fuel of other reactors, but there

E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM

29JYR1