Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Notices 65427 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2014–0230] 

Applications and Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses Involving 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Considerations and Containing 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Order Imposing 

Procedures for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: License amendment request; 

opportunity to comment, request a 

hearing, and petition for leave to 

intervene; order. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) received and is 

considering approval of three 

amendment requests. The amendment 

requests are for Catawba Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2; R.E. Ginna 

Nuclear Power Plant; and St. Lucie 

Plant, Units 1 and 2. For each 

amendment request, the NRC proposes 

to determine that they involve no 

significant hazards consideration. In 

addition, each amendment request 

contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI). 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

December 4, 2014. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by January 5, 

2015. Any potential party as defined in 

§ 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), who believes 

access to SUNSI is necessary to respond 

to this notice must request document 

access by November 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2014–0230. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0230 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2014–0230. 

• 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. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0230 in the subject line of your 

comment submission, in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

the comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Background 

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the NRC is publishing this 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission to publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license or combined 

license, as applicable, upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This notice includes notices of 

amendments containing SUNSI. 

III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses, 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination, and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated, or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65428 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Notices 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any person(s) 

whose interest may be affected by this 

action may file a request for a hearing 

and a petition to intervene with respect 

to issuance of the amendment to the 

subject facility operating license or 

combined license. Requests for a 

hearing and a petition for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules 

of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR 

Part 2. Interested person(s) should 

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 

which is available at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852. The 

NRC’s regulations are accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on 

the NRC’s Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 

or petition for leave to intervene is filed 

within 60 days, the Commission or a 

presiding officer designated by the 

Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will 

rule on the request and/or petition; and 

the Secretary or the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a 

notice of a hearing or an appropriate 

order. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding, and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

should specifically explain the reasons 

why intervention should be permitted 

with particular reference to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the 

nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

right under the Act to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and 

extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s 

property, financial, or other interest in 

the proceeding; and (4) the possible 

effect of any decision or order which 

may be entered in the proceeding on the 

requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also set forth the specific 

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall 

provide a brief explanation of the bases 

for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the requestor/petitioner 

intends to rely in proving the contention 

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner 

must also provide references to those 

specific sources and documents of 

which the petitioner is aware and on 

which the requestor/petitioner intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petition must include 

sufficient information to show that a 

genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the requestor/

petitioner to relief. A requestor/

petitioner who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, then any hearing held 

would take place before the issuance of 

any amendment unless the Commission 

finds an imminent danger of the health 

or safety of the public, in which case it 

will issue an appropriate order or rule 

under 10 CFR part 2. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule 

(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital 

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/

getting-started.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the 

NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,’’ which is available on the 

agency’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may 

attempt to use other software not listed 

on the Web site, but should note that the 

NRC’s E-Filing system does not support 

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta 

System Help Desk will not be able to 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Notices 65429 

offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange System, users 

will be required to install a Web 

browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 

site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC’s public Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk through 

the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Meta System Help Desk is available 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require 

a participant or party to use E-Filing if 

the presiding officer subsequently 

determines that the reason for granting 

the exemption from use of E-Filing no 

longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. However, a request to 

intervene will require including 

information on local residence in order 

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 

interest in the proceeding. With respect 

to copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

Petitions for leave to intervene must 

be filed no later than 60 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave 

to intervene, and motions for leave to 

file new or amended contentions that 

are filed after the 60-day deadline will 

not be entertained absent a 

determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). 

For further details with respect to this 

amendment action, see the application 

for amendment which is available for 

public inspection at the NRC’s PDR, 

located at One White Flint North, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852. 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are accessible 

electronically through ADAMS in the 

NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR’s 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 

2, York County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: June 23, 

2014. A redacted, publicly-available, 

version is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML14176A109. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The proposed 

amendments would implement a 

measurement uncertainty recapture 

power uprate at Catawba Unit 1 that 

would increase authorized core power 

level from 3411 megawatts thermal 

(MWt) to 3469 MWt. This is an increase 

of approximately 1.7 percent Rated 

Thermal Power (RTP). The increase in 

thermal power is based on the use of 

Cameron (a.k.a. Caldon) instrumentation 

to determine core power level with a 

power measurement uncertainty of 

approximately 0.3 percent. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment changes 

the rated thermal power from 3411 MWt 

to 3469 MWt; an increase of 

approximately 1.7% Rated Thermal 

Power. Duke Energy’s evaluations have 

shown that all structures, systems and 

components (SSCs) are capable of 

performing their design function at the 

uprated power of 3469 MWt. A review 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65430 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Notices 

of station accident analyses found that 

all acceptance criteria are still met at the 

uprated power of 3469 MWt. 

The radiological consequences of 

operation at the uprated power 

conditions have been assessed. The 

proposed power uprate does not affect 

release paths, frequency of release, or 

the analyzed reactor core fission 

product inventory for any accidents 

previously evaluated in the Updated 

Final Safety Analysis Report. Analyses 

performed to assess the effects of mass 

and energy releases remain valid. All 

acceptance criteria for radiological 

consequences continue to be met at the 

uprated power level. 

The proposed change does not 

involve any change to the design or 

functional requirements of the safety 

and support systems. That is, the 

increased power level neither degrades 

the performance of, nor increases the 

challenges to any safety systems 

assumed to function in the plant safety 

analysis. 

While power level is an input to 

accident analyses, it is not an initiator 

of accidents. The proposed change does 

not affect any accident precursors and 

does not introduce any accident 

initiators. The proposed change does 

not impact the usefulness of the 

Surveillance Requirements (SRs) in 

evaluating the operability of required 

systems and components. 

In addition, evaluation of the 

proposed TS [Technical Specification] 

changes demonstrates that the 

availability of equipment and systems 

required to prevent or mitigate the 

radiological consequences of an 

accident is not significantly affected. 

Since the impact on the systems is 

minimal, it is concluded that the overall 

impact on the plant safety analysis is 

negligible. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment 

does not significantly increase the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or single failures are 

introduced as a result of the proposed 

change. The installation of the Cameron 

LEFM [Leading Edge Flow Meter] 

CheckPlusTM System has been analyzed 

and failures of the system will have no 

adverse effect on any safety related 

system or any SSCs required for 

transient mitigation. SSCs previously 

required for the mitigation of a transient 

continue to be capable of fulfilling their 

intended design functions. The 

proposed change has no adverse effect 

on any safety related system or 

component and does not change the 

performance or integrity of any safety 

related system. 

The proposed change does not 

adversely affect any current system 

interfaces or create any new interfaces 

that could result in an accident or 

malfunction of a different kind than 

previously evaluated. Operation at the 

uprated power level does not create any 

new accident initiators or precursors. 

Credible malfunctions are bounded by 

existing accident analyses of record or 

new evaluations demonstrating that 

applicable criteria are still met with the 

proposed changes. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment 

does not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Although the proposed amendment 

increases the Catawba Unit 1 operating 

power level, the unit retains its margin 

of safety because it is only increasing 

power by the amount equal to the 

reduction in uncertainty in the heat 

balance calculation. The margins of 

safety associated with the power uprate 

are those pertaining to core thermal 

power. These include fuel cladding, 

reactor coolant system pressure 

boundary, and containment barriers. 

Analyses demonstrate that the current 

design basis continues to be met after 

the measurement uncertainty recapture 

(MUR) power uprate. Components 

associated with the reactor coolant 

system pressure boundary structural 

integrity, including pressuretemperature limits, vessel fluence, and 

pressurized thermal shock are bounded 

by the current analyses. Systems will 

continue to operate within their design 

parameters and remain capable of 

performing their intended safety 

functions. 

The current Catawba safety analyses, 

including the design basis radiological 

accident dose calculations, bound the 

power uprate. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment 

does not involve a significant reduction 

in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 

Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Corporation, 526 South Church Street— 

EC07H, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC., 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: March 

28, 2013. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML13093A064 and ML13093A065. 

Description of amendment request: 

This proposed amendment request 

contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI). The 

proposed amendment requests approval 

of a new fire protection licensing basis 

of National Fire Protection Association 

Standard 805 (NFPA 805), which 

complies with the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.48(a) and 50.48(c), and 

Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1, 

‘‘Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire 

Protection for Existing Light-Water 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ dated December 

2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML092730314). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The purpose of the proposed 

amendment is to permit Ginna to adopt 

a new fire protection licensing basis that 

complies with the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance 

in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC 

considers that NFPA 805 provides an 

acceptable methodology and 

performance criteria for licensees to 

identify fire protection requirements 

that are an acceptable alternative to the 

10 CFR 50 Appendix R required fire 

protection features (69 FR 33536, June 

16, 2004). 

Operation of Ginna in accordance 

with the proposed amendment does not 

increase the probability or consequences 

of accidents previously evaluated. 

Engineering analyses, which may 

include engineering evaluations, 

probabilistic safety assessments, and fire 

modeling calculations, have been 

performed to demonstrate that the 

performance-based requirements of 

NFPA 805 have been satisfied. The 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR) documents the analyses of 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Notices 65431 

design basis accidents at Ginna. The 

proposed amendment does not affect 

accident initiators, nor does it alter 

design assumptions, conditions, or 

configurations of the facility that would 

increase the probability of accidents 

previously evaluated. Further, the 

changes to be made for fire hazard 

protection and mitigation do not 

adversely affect the ability of structures, 

systems, or components to perform their 

design functions for accident mitigation, 

nor do they affect the postulated 

initiators or assumed failure modes for 

accidents described and evaluated in 

the UFSAR. Structures, systems, or 

components required to safely 

shutdown the reactor and to maintain it 

in a safe shutdown condition will 

remain capable of performing their 

design functions. 

NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides 

an acceptable alternative for satisfying 

General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix 

A to 10 CFR 50, meets the underlying 

intent of the NRC’s existing fire 

protection regulations and guidance, 

and provides for defense-in-depth. The 

goals, performance objectives, and 

performance criteria specified in 

Chapter 1 of the standard ensure that, if 

there are any increases in core damage 

frequency or risk, the increase will be 

small and consistent with the intent of 

the Commission’s Safety Goal Policy. 

The proposed amendment will not 

affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release 

assumptions used in evaluating the 

radiological consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated, and 

equipment required to mitigate an 

accident remains capable of performing 

the assumed function(s). The applicable 

radiological dose criteria will continue 

to be met. 

Based on the above discussion, it is 

concluded that the proposed 

amendment does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any kind 

of accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Operation of Ginna in accordance 

with the proposed amendment does not 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. The 

proposed change does not alter the 

requirements or functions for systems 

required during accident conditions. 

Implementation of the new fire 

protection licensing basis, which 

complies with the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance 

in Regulatory Guide 1.205, will not 

result in new or different accidents. 

The proposed amendment does not 

introduce new or different accident 

initiators, nor does it alter design 

assumptions, conditions, or 

configurations of the facility in such a 

manner as to introduce new or different 

accident initiators. The proposed 

amendment does not adversely affect 

the ability of structures, systems, or 

components to perform their design 

function. Structures, systems, or 

components required to safely 

shutdown the reactor and maintain it in 

a safe shutdown condition remain 

capable of performing their design 

functions. 

The requirements of NFPA 805 

address only fire protection and the 

impacts of fire on the plant that have 

previously been evaluated. Thus, 

implementation of the proposed 

amendment would not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident beyond those already analyzed 

in the UFSAR. No new accident 

scenarios, transient precursors, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures 

will be introduced, and there will be no 

adverse effect or challenges imposed on 

any safety-related system as a result of 

the proposed amendment. 

Based on the above discussion, it is 

concluded that the proposed 

amendment does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment 

involve a significant reduction in the 

margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The purpose of the proposed 

amendment is to permit Ginna to adopt 

a new fire protection licensing basis 

which complies with the requirements 

in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the 

guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. 

The NRC considers that NFPA 805 

provides an acceptable methodology 

and performance criteria for licensees to 

identify fire protection systems and 

features that are an acceptable 

alternative to the 10 CFR 50 Appendix 

R required fire protection features (69 

Fed. Reg. 33536, June 16, 2004). 

The overall approach of NFPA 805 is 

consistent with the key principles for 

evaluating license basis changes, as 

described in Regulatory Guide 1.174, is 

consistent with the defense-in-depth 

philosophy, and maintains sufficient 

safety margins. Engineering analyses, 

which may include engineering 

evaluations, probabilistic safety 

assessments, and fire modeling 

calculations, have been performed to 

demonstrate that the performance based 

methods do not result in a significant 

reduction in the margin of safety. 

Operation of Ginna in accordance 

with the proposed amendment does not 

involve a significant reduction in the 

margin of safety. The proposed 

amendment does not alter the manner in 

which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions 

for operation are determined. The safety 

analysis acceptance criteria are not 

affected by this change. The proposed 

amendment does not adversely affect 

existing plant safety margins or the 

reliability of equipment assumed to 

mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The 

proposed amendment does not 

adversely affect the ability of structures, 

systems, or components to perform their 

design function. Structures, systems, or 

components required to safely shut 

down the reactor and to maintain it in 

a safe shutdown condition remain 

capable of performing their design 

functions. 

Based on the above discussion, it is 

concluded that the proposed 

amendment does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Gautam Sen, Sr. 

Counsel—Exelon Generation Company, 

LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 17th Floor, 

Baltimore, Maryland, 21202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. 

Beasley. 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: June 30, 

2014, as supplemented by letter dated 

August 19, 2014. Publicly-available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML14192A022 and 

ML14241A422, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

This amendment request contains 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI). The amendments 

would revise the Cyber Security Plan 

(CSP) implementation schedule to 

change the completion date for 

Milestone 8. Milestone 8 pertains to the 

date that full implementation of the CSP 

for all safety, security, and emergency 

preparedness functions will be 

achieved. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65432 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Notices 

1While a request for hearing or petition to 

intervene in this proceeding must comply with the 

filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’ 

the initial request to access SUNSI under these 

procedures should be submitted as described in this 

paragraph. 

2Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must 

be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief 

Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not 

yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline 

for the receipt of the written access request. 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve 

a significant increase in the probability 

or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the Cyber 

Security Plan implementation schedule 

is administrative in nature. The change 

does not alter accident analysis 

assumptions, add any initiators or affect 

the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, tested, or inspected. The 

proposed change does not require any 

plant modifications which affect the 

performance capability or the structures, 

systems and components relied upon to 

mitigate the consequences of postulated 

accidents and has no impact on the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create 

the possibility of a new or different kind 

of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the Cyber 

Security Plan implementation schedule 

is administrative in nature. This 

proposed change does not alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any 

initiators, or affect the function of plant 

systems or the manner in which systems 

are operated, maintained, modified, 

tested, or inspected. The proposed 

change does not require any plant 

modifications which affect the 

performance capability of the structures, 

systems and a component relied upon to 

mitigate the consequences of postulated 

accidents and does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

Plant safety margins are established 

through limiting conditions of 

operation, limiting safety systems 

settings and safety limits specified in 

the technical specifications. The 

proposed change to the Cyber Security 

Plan implementation schedule is 

administrative in nature. Because there 

is no change in these established safety 

margins as result of this change, the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant reduction 

in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review; it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: William S. 

Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, 

Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe 

Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, Florida, 

33408–0420. 

Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. 

Regner. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York 

County, South Carolina 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC., 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Florida Power and Light Company, et 

al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information for Contention 

Preparation. 

A. This Order contains instructions 

regarding how potential parties to this 

proceeding may request access to 

documents containing SUNSI. 

B. Within 10 days after publication of 

this notice of hearing and opportunity to 

petition for leave to intervene, any 

potential party who believes access to 

SUNSI is necessary to respond to this 

notice may request such access. A 

‘‘potential party’’ is any person who 

intends to participate as a party by 

demonstrating standing and filing an 

admissible contention under 10 CFR 

2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI 

submitted later than 10 days after 

publication of this notice will not be 

considered absent a showing of good 

cause for the late filing, addressing why 

the request could not have been filed 

earlier. 

C. The requester shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI 

to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 

and provide a copy to the Associate 

General Counsel for Hearings, 

Enforcement and Administration, Office 

of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. The expedited delivery or 

courier mail address for both offices is: 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852. The email address for 

the Office of the Secretary and the 

Office of the General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.1

The request must include the following 

information: 

(1) A description of the licensing 

action with a citation to this Federal 

Register notice; 

(2) The name and address of the 

potential party and a description of the 

potential party’s particularized interest 

that could be harmed by the action 

identified in C.(1); and 

(3) The identity of the individual or 

entity requesting access to SUNSI and 

the requester’s basis for the need for the 

information in order to meaningfully 

participate in this adjudicatory 

proceeding. In particular, the request 

must explain why publicly-available 

versions of the information requested 

would not be sufficient to provide the 

basis and specificity for a proffered 

contention. 

D. Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted under paragraph 

C.(3) the NRC staff will determine 

within 10 days of receipt of the request 

whether: 

(1) There is a reasonable basis to 

believe the petitioner is likely to 

establish standing to participate in this 

NRC proceeding; and 

(2) The requestor has established a 

legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 

E. If the NRC staff determines that the 

requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) 

above, the NRC staff will notify the 

requestor in writing that access to 

SUNSI has been granted. The written 

notification will contain instructions on 

how the requestor may obtain copies of 

the requested documents, and any other 

conditions that may apply to access to 

those documents. These conditions may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement 

or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting 

forth terms and conditions to prevent 

the unauthorized or inadvertent 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Notices 65433 

3Requesters should note that the filing 

requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC 

staff determinations (because they must be served 

on a presiding officer or the Commission, as 

applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request 

submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 

disclosure of SUNSI by each individual 

who will be granted access to SUNSI. 

F. Filing of Contentions. Any 

contentions in these proceedings that 

are based upon the information received 

as a result of the request made for 

SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no 

later than 25 days after the requestor is 

granted access to that information. 

However, if more than 25 days remain 

between the date the petitioner is 

granted access to the information and 

the deadline for filing all other 

contentions (as established in the notice 

of hearing or opportunity for hearing), 

the petitioner may file its SUNSI 

contentions by that later deadline. This 

provision does not extend the time for 

filing a request for a hearing and 

petition to intervene, which must 

comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 

2.309. 

G. Review of Denials of Access. 

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI 

is denied by the NRC staff after a 

determination on standing and need for 

access, the NRC staff shall immediately 

notify the requestor in writing, briefly 

stating the reason or reasons for the 

denial. 

(2) The requester may challenge the 

NRC staff’s adverse determination by 

filing a challenge within five days of 

receipt of that determination with: (a) 

The presiding officer designated in this 

proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer 

has been appointed, the Chief 

Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 

unavailable, another administrative 

judge, or an administrative law judge 

with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has 

been designated to rule on information 

access issues. 

H. Review of Grants of Access. A 

party other than the requester may 

challenge an NRC staff determination 

granting access to SUNSI whose release 

would harm that party’s interest 

independent of the proceeding. Such a 

challenge must be filed with the Chief 

Administrative Judge within five days of 

the notification by the NRC staff of its 

grant of access. 

If challenges to the NRC staff 

determinations are filed, these 

procedures give way to the normal 

process for litigating disputes 

concerning access to information. The 

availability of interlocutory review by 

the Commission of orders ruling on 

such NRC staff determinations (whether 

granting or denying access) is governed 

by 10 CFR 2.311.3

The Commission expects that the NRC 

staff and presiding officers (and any 

other reviewing officers) will consider 

and resolve requests for access to 

SUNSI, and motions for protective 

orders, in a timely fashion in order to 

minimize any unnecessary delays in 

identifying those petitioners who have 

standing and who have propounded 

contentions meeting the specificity and 

basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. 

Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes 

the general target schedule for 

processing and resolving requests under 

these procedures. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 21st day of 

October, 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Richard J. Laufer, 

Acting, Secretary of the Commission. 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING

Day Event/activity 

0 ............... Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions 

for access requests. 

10 ............. Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the 

potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 

60 ............. Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) demonstration of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation 

does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 

20 ............. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for access 

provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any 

party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If 

NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation 

of redactions or review of redacted documents). 

25 ............. If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the 

proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion 

seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 

30 ............. Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 

40 ............. (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file 

motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement 

for SUNSI. 

A .............. If access granted: issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse 

determination by the NRC staff. 

A + 3 ........ Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective 

order. 

A + 28 ...... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. 

A + 53 ...... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. 

A + 60 ...... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

>A + 60 .... Decision on contention admission. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Notices 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service of 

Filing Request to Add Discover Financial Services 

Negotiated Service Agreement to the MarketDominant Product List, October 27, 2014 (Request). 

2Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(c), the Postal Service 

is required, among other things, to provide public 

notice of the rate adjustment and provide an 

opportunity for review by the Commission of at 

least 45 days before the implementation of any 

adjustment in rates under section 3622. 

Accordingly, it initially appears that the 

implementation date may be no earlier than 

December 11, 2014, provided the other conditions 

in Section I.G. of the proposed agreement are 

satisfied. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25530 Filed 11–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2015–3 and R2015–2; Order 

No. 2231] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing concerning 

an addition of Discover Financial 

Services Agreement to the marketdominant product list. This notice 

informs the public of the filing, invites 

public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: November 

17, 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 Filing 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On October 27, 2014, the Postal 

Service filed a request pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 3622 and 3641, as well as 39 CFR 

3010 and 3020, et seq., to add a Discover 

Financial Services (Discover) negotiated 

service agreement to the marketdominant product list.1

Request. In support of its Request, the 

Postal Service filed a copy of the Board 

of Governors’ Resolution No. 14–07, 

authorizing a negotiated service 

agreement with Discover; a copy of the 

contract; proposed descriptive language 

changes to the Mail Classification 

Schedule; a proposed data collection 

plan; a statement of supporting 

justification as required by 39 CFR 

3020.32, which the Postal Service also 

asserts satisfies the requirements of 39 

CFR 3010.42(b)–(e); and a financial 

model. 

The Postal Service believes that the 

Discover negotiated service agreement 

conforms to the policies of the Postal 

Accountability and Enhancement Act, 

and meets the statutory standards 

supporting the desirability of a special 

classification under 39 U.S.C. 

3622(c)(10). Id. at 3. In particular, the 

Postal Service believes the agreement 

has the potential to enhance the Postal 

Service’s long-term financial position, 

and it will not cause unreasonable harm 

to the marketplace. Id. 

Related contract. The Postal Service 

indicates that the agreement is designed 

to increase the total aggregate 

contribution that the Postal Service 

receives from mail eligible under its 

agreement with Discover. Id. at 5. The 

Postal Service states that the 

implementation date of the agreement 

will be December 1, 2014 or on a date 

mutually agreed upon by the Postal 

Service and Discover, and will expire 

three years from the implementation 

date, unless otherwise terminated 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

agreement.2 Id. at 1; Attachment B at 6. 

The Postal Service contends that the 

agreement consists of the following four 

key components: (1) Annual revenue 

growth thresholds; (2) a baseline mail 

volume; (3) tiered rebates based on 

aggregate gross revenue; and (4) a 

nonperformance penalty to be paid if 

the annual revenue growth threshold is 

not met. Id. at 6–10. 

• Discover must meet or exceed 

annual revenue growth thresholds (i.e., 

3–6%) to qualify for specific rebate 

percentages under a tiered structure. 

The baseline revenue amount to 

calculate the annual growth thresholds 

is $304,053,073. 

• Discover must also meet or exceed 

a baseline volume amount annually 

(1,256,212,059 pieces in the first year, 

subsequent contract years’ eligible 

volume depends on volume in prior 

years) in order to qualify for a rebate. 

• The agreement provides for a tiered 

rebate structure for a portion of the 

postage paid for eligible mail if such 

mail (i) meets or exceeds specified 

annual revenue thresholds, and (ii) 

exceeds the aggregate total baseline 

volume for mail eligible under the 

agreement. Id. at 5. The tier 1 and 2 

rebates are 2.25% and 2.5%, 

respectively. 

• If Discover does not meet the 

annual revenue growth thresholds 

provided for in the agreement, Discover 

must pay the Postal Service a 

nonperformance penalty of 10% of the 

difference between the annual revenue 

growth threshold and the annual 

revenue actually generated by Discover 

for mail eligible under the agreement. 

Similarly situated mailers. With 

respect to potential similarly situated 

mailers, the Postal Service states that it 

is ready to negotiate and implement 

functionally equivalent agreements with 

such mailers. Id., Attachment E at 4. It 

believes that in assessing the 

desirability of a similar agreement, the 

defining characteristics of Discover are 

its size, large aggregate Standard Mail 

and First Class postage; its expanding 

Standard Mail advertising volume; and 

its declining First Class Mail billing and 

statement volume. Id. at 13. 

Notice. The Postal Service represents 

that it will inform customers of the new 

classification changes and associated 

price effects through publication in the 

Federal Register. Id. at 2. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. MC2015–3 and R2015–2 for 

consideration of the Request pertaining 

to the proposed new product and the 

related contract, respectively. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments on whether the Postal 

Service’s filing in the captioned dockets 

are consistent with the policies of 39 

U.S.C. 3622 and 3642 as well as 39 CFR 

parts 3010 and 3020. Comments are due 

no later than November 17, 2014. The 

filing can be accessed via the 

Commission’s Web site (http://

www.prc.gov). 

The Commission appoints John P. 

Klingenberg to serve as Public 

Representative in these dockets. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. MC2015–3 and R2015–2 for 

consideration of the matters raised in 

each docket. 

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, John P. 

Klingenberg is appointed to serve as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in these 

proceedings. 

3. Comments by interested persons in 

these proceedings are due no later than 

November 17, 2014. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES