Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Notices 64233 

1Based on the current staff review schedule for 

the CBR application that calls for issuance of the 

staff’s final environmental document on or about 

July 31, 2015, an evidentiary hearing regarding OST 

contention 2 is scheduled for May/June 2016. See 

Revised General Schedule app. A, at 1, 3. 

2Having filed a notice of appearance, see Notice 

of Appearance (Jan. 29, 2013), and apparently not 

having submitted a notice of withdrawal, as far as 

the Board is aware Ms. Waonsilawin Cindy Gillis 

remains OST’s attorney of record for this 

proceeding. 

3As the Commission noted in its ruling affirming 

the Board’s standing and contention admissibility 

rulings, pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.320, ‘‘the Tribe’s 

failure to pursue a contention in the future could 

result in (among other things) dismissal of the 

contention.’’ CLI–14–2, 79 NRC at 14 & n.10. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 40–8943–MLA–2; ASLBP No. 

13–926–01–MLA–BD01] 

Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (Marsland 

Expansion Area); Memorandum and 

Order (Order to Show Cause) 

October 22, 2014. 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel 

Before the Licensing Board: G. Paul 

Bollwerk, III, Chairman, Dr. Richard E. 

Wardwell, Dr. Thomas J. Hirons. 

The Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board hereby directs intervenor Oglala 

Sioux Tribe (OST) to show cause as to 

why this litigation should not be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. 

The locus of this case is a challenge 

by OST to a May 2012 application by 

Crow Butte Resources, Inc., (CBR) to 

amend CBR’s existing 10 CFR part 40 

source materials license to operate a 

satellite in situ uranium recovery 

facility on the Marsland Expansion Area 

(MEA) site. OST was admitted as an 

intervenor to this proceeding in May 

2013, with the Licensing Board finding 

that OST had established standing and 

submitted two admissible contentions. 

See LBP–13–6, 77 NRC 253, 304–05 

(2013), aff’d, CLI–14–02, 79 NRC 11, 14 

(2014). Thereafter, in June 2013 CBR 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff lodged appeals with the 

Commission contesting the Board’s 

standing and contention admissibility 

determinations. See [CBR] Notice of 

Appeal of LBP–13–06 (June 4, 2013); 

NRC Staff’s Notice of Appeal of LBP– 

13–6, Licensing Board’s Order of May 

10, 2013, and Accompanying Brief (June 

4, 2013). Although OST filed no answer 

in response to the staff and CBR 

appeals, the Commission upheld the 

Board’s standing and contention 

admissibility rulings. See CLI–14–02, 79 

NRC at 14. 

OST’s two admitted contentions 

challenged information provided by 

CBR in its environmental report (ER) 

document submitted in support of 

CBR’s license amendment application. 

OST contention 1, which is entitled 

‘‘Failure to Meet Applicable Legal 

Requirements Regarding Protection of 

Historical and Cultural Resources,’’ 

seeks to challenge the discussion of 

affected historic and cultural resources 

in the CBR ER. See LBP–13–6, 77 NRC 

at 306. On June 30, 2014, the staff issued 

its draft environmental assessment (EA) 

regarding potential impacts to cultural 

resources in the MEA site. See [CBR] 

Proposed [MEA] NRC Documentation of 

the NHPA Section 106 Review (Draft 

Cultural Resources Sections of [EA]) 1 

(June 30, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14176B129). With the issuance of 

this document, the schedule previously 

established by the Board for filing any 

new or amended contentions relative to 

that document was activated. See 

Licensing Board Memorandum and 

Order (Revised General Schedule) (Aug. 

8, 2014) at 1–2 (unpublished) 

[hereinafter Revised General Schedule]. 

OST, however, failed to submit any new 

or amended contentions relative to the 

draft EA, after which the Board outlined 

the schedule for party dispositive 

motions and responsive pleadings 

regarding OST contention 1. See id. at 

2. 

In accord with that filing schedule, 

the staff submitted a motion for 

summary disposition of OST contention 

1, and CBR filed a response in support 

of the staff’s motion. See NRC Staff’s 

Motion for Summary Disposition of 

Contention 1 (Aug. 6, 2014) [hereinafter 

Staff Contention 1 Dispositive Motion]; 

[CBR] Response in Support of NRC Staff 

Motion for Summary Disposition of 

Contention 1 (Aug. 18, 2014). OST, 

however, failed to answer either filing. 

On October XX, 2014, the Board granted 

the staff’s summary disposition request 

and dismissed OST contention 1. See 

Licensing Board Memorandum and 

Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary 

Disposition Regarding Oglala Sioux 

Tribe Contention 1) (Oct. 22, 2014) at 2 

(unpublished). As a consequence, only 

one issue statement, OST contention 2, 

which bears the title ‘‘Failure to Include 

Adequate Hydrogeological Information 

to Demonstrate Ability to Contain Fluid 

Migration,’’ see LBP–13–6, 77 NRC at 

306, remains active in this case.1

OST last submitted a filing in this 

proceeding on September 10, 2013. See 

[OST’s] Initial Mandatory Disclosures 

(Sept. 10, 2013). As far as the Board is 

aware, the most recent contact with OST 

counsel came in the context of the 

recent summary disposition filings. 

According to the staff, in seeking to 

fulfill the staff’s responsibility under 10 

CFR 2.323(b) to consult with OST before 

filing its dispositive motion regarding 

OST contention 1, the staff was able to 

reach Ms. Cindy Gillis, counsel for 

OST,2 but she informed the staff that 

they ‘‘should contact the in-house 

counsel for the Tribe.’’ Staff Contention 

1 Dispositive Motion at 1 n.2. The staff 

reports it made several attempts to reach 

OST in-house counsel, albeit without 

success, and that a further email to Ms. 

Gillis went unanswered. See id. 

Despite the opportunity to make a 

filing before the Commission regarding 

the CBR and staff standing and 

contention admissibility appeals and 

before the Board in response to the 

staff’s draft EA cultural resources 

sections or the staff’s motion for 

summary disposition of OST contention 

1, all arguably significant matters in this 

proceeding, OST failed to provide a 

submission of any kind. Indeed, OST 

has made no filing in this proceeding in 

over a year. It thus appears to the Board 

that OST does not have any interest in 

further pursuing this litigation. 

As a consequence, the Board hereby 

gives notice that, absent some response 

from OST within thirty days of the date 

of publication of this issuance in the 

Federal Register that demonstrates a 

continued interest in this cause, the 

Board will dismiss OST contention 2 

and terminate this proceeding.3

Applicant CBR and the staff likewise are 

permitted to file a response to this 

issuance within that time frame if either 

wishes to do so. 

It is so ordered. 

For the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board. 

Dated: Rockville, Maryland, October 22, 

2014. 

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, 

Chairman, Administrative Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25643 Filed 10–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2015–2 and CP2015–4; 

Order No. 2221] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing concerning 

an addition of Priority Mail Express and 

Priority Mail Contract 16 to the 

competitive product list. This notice 

informs the public of the filing, invites 

public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 


asabaliauskas on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64234 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Notices 

1Request of the United States Postal Service to 

Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 

16 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing 

(Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors’ Decision, 

Contract, and Supporting Data, October 21, 2014 

(Request). 

1Notice of United States Postal Service of Change 

in Prices Pursuant to Amendment to Parcel Select 

& Parcel Return Service Contract 3, October 20, 

2014 (Notice). 

DATES: Comments are due: October 29, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Notice of Commission Action 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 

and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal 

Service filed a formal request and 

associated supporting information to 

add Priority Mail Express & Priority 

Mail Contract 16 to the competitive 

product list.1

The Postal Service 

contemporaneously filed a redacted 

contract related to the proposed new 

product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 

39 CFR 3015.5. Id. Attachment B. 

To support its Request, the Postal 

Service filed a copy of the contract, a 

copy of the Governors’ Decision 

authorizing the product, proposed 

changes to the Mail Classification 

Schedule, a Statement of Supporting 

Justification, a certification of 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and 

an application for non-public treatment 

of certain materials. It also filed 

supporting financial workpapers. 

II. Notice of Commission Action 

The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. MC2015–2 and CP2015–4 to 

consider the Request pertaining to the 

proposed Priority Mail Express & 

Priority Mail Contract 16 product and 

the related contract, respectively. 

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s filings in 

the captioned dockets are consistent 

with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 

3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 

CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are 

due no later than October 29, 2014. The 

public portions of these filings can be 

accessed via the Commission’s Web site 

(http://www.prc.gov). 

The Commission appoints Curtis E. 

Kidd to serve as Public Representative 

in these dockets. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. MC2015–2 and CP2015–4 to 

consider the matters raised in each 

docket. 

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. 

Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer 

of the Commission to represent the 

interests of the general public in these 

proceedings (Public Representative). 

3. Comments are due no later than 

October 29, 2014. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25496 Filed 10–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. CP2012–22; Order No. 2219] 

Amendment to Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing concerning 

amending the existing Parcel Select & 

Parcel Return Service Contract 3 

negotiated service agreement. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: October 29, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Notice of Filings 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On October 20, 2014, the Postal 

Service filed notice that it has agreed to 

an Amendment to the existing Parcel 

Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 

3 negotiated service agreement 

approved in this docket.1 In support of 

its Notice, the Postal Service includes a 

redacted copy of the Amendment and a 

certification of compliance with 39 

U.S.C. 3633(a), as required by 39 CFR 

3015.5. 

The Postal Service also filed the 

unredacted Amendment and supporting 

financial information under seal. The 

Postal Service seeks to incorporate by 

reference the Application for NonPublic Treatment originally filed in this 

docket for the protection of information 

that it has filed under seal. Id. 

The Amendment seeks to adjust 

prices and terms contained in the Parcel 

Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 

3 in a manner contemplated in and 

consistent with the original contract’s 

terms, which account for changes in 

costs while maintaining the contract’s 

ability to meet the requirements of 39 

U.S.C. 3633(a). Specifically, the 

Amendment revises the contract terms 

to include certain Parcel Select Service 

destination sectional center facility 

(DSCF) 3-digit and other pieces, 

resulting in a modification of contract 

rates in accordance with the annual 

adjustment calculations (of Table 1a in 

section I.D., and section I.E.). Id. 

Attachment A at 1–3. 

The Postal Service intends for the 

Amendment to become effective one 

business day after the date that the 

Commission completes its review of the 

Notice. Id. The Postal Service asserts 

that the Amendment will not impair the 

ability of the contract to comply with 39 

U.S.C. 3633. Id. Attachment B. 

II. Notice of Filings 

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the changes presented in the 

Postal Service’s Notice are consistent 

with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 

3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 

CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are 

due no later than October 29, 2014. The 

public portions of these filings can be 

accessed via the Commission’s Web site 

(http://www.prc.gov). 

The Commission appoints James F. 

Callow to represent the interests of the 

general public (Public Representative) 

in this docket. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission reopens Docket 

No. CP2012–22 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Postal Service’s 

Notice. 


asabaliauskas on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES