66994 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices

1 Anderson Grain Corporation (Anderson), of

Levelland, Texas, filed an ‘‘objection’’ to this notice.

The Commission will issue a separate decision on

Anderson’s pleading.

2Legislation to sunset the commission on

December 31, 1995, and transfer remaining

functions is now under consideration in Congress.

Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings

should continue to use the current name and

address.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

It is ordered:

1. The applications, petitions, and

notices in Finance Docket No. 32760,

and in all related proceedings, are

accepted for consideration.

2. The parties shall comply with all

provisions as stated above.

3. Applicants shall submit additional

information as set forth above regarding

Docket No. AB–12 (Sub-No. 185X)

within 20 days of the effective date of

this decision.

4. Applicants are directed to provide

the Commission with a current

complete set of operating timetables for

both UP and SP within 20 days of the

effective date of this decision.

5. Any appeal to a decision issued by

the ALJ in this proceeding must be filed

within 3 working days of the date of the

decision, and any response to such an

appeal must be filed within 3 working

days of the date of filing of the appeal.

6. Replies to any procedural motion

filed with the Commission must be filed

within 3 working days.

7. This decision is effective on the

date of service.

Decided: December 21, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman Morgan,

Vice Chairman Owen, and Commissioner

Simmons.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

Procedural Schedule

November 30, 1995: Primary application

filed

December 29, 1995: Commission notice

of acceptance of primary application

and related applications published in

the Federal Register on or before this

date

January 16, 1996: Notice of intent to

participate in proceeding due

January 29, 1996: Description of

anticipated inconsistent and

responsive applications due; petitions

for waiver or clarification due

March 29, 1996: Inconsistent and

responsive applications due. All

comments, protests, requests for

conditions, and any other opposition

evidence and argument due. DOJ and

USDOT comments due

April 12, 1996: Notice of acceptance (if

required) of inconsistent and

responsive applications published in

the Federal Register

April 29, 1996: Response to inconsistent

and responsive applications due.

Response to comments, protests,

requested conditions, and other

opposition due. Rebuttal in support of

primary application and related

applications due.

May 14, 1996: Rebuttal in support of

inconsistent and responsive

applications due

June 3, 1996: Briefs due, all parties (not

to exceed 50 pages)

July 2, 1996: Oral argument (at

Commission’s discretion)

July 3, 1996: Voting Conference (at

Commission’s discretion)

August 12, 1996: Date of service of final

decision

[FR Doc. 95–31333 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32796]

West Texas and Lubbock Railroad

Company, Inc.; Purchase and

Operation Exemption; Seagraves,

Whiteface and Lubbock Railroad

Company

The West Texas and Lubbock Railroad

Company (WTLR) has filed a notice of

exemption to acquire from Seagraves,

Whiteface and Lubbock Railroad

Company (SWGR) 1 and operate the

approximately 113-mile SWGR rail

system, consisting of three connecting

branch lines as follows: (1) Between

milepost 0.0 at Lubbock, TX (Burlington

Northern and Santa Fe connection), and

milepost 63.8 at Seagraves, TX; (2)

between milepost 0.0 at Doud, TX

(connection with SWGR Lubbock to

Seagraves line), and milepost 39.2 at

Whiteface, TX; and (3) The Pan

American Spur from milepost 36.3 (at

Coble, TX) to ‘‘end of track’’

(approximately 9.3 miles). WTLR will

also obtain ancillary overhead trackage

rights currently held by SWGR over

certain lines and yard tracks of The

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

Company (‘‘ATSF’’) as follows: Milepost

88 + 0748.6 feet and Lubbock

Subdivision milepost 675 + 518.5 feet,

including tracks numbers 40, 292, 93,

92, 25, 4, 3, 90, 58, 57, 56, 36 and 2 in

ATSF’s Lubbock Yard. These incidental

trackage rights will enable WTLR to

interchange cars with connecting class I

carriers. The lines described in this

paragraph are located in Gaines, Terry,

Cochran and Hockley Counties, TX.

The proposed transaction was

expected to be consummated on October

25, 1995. WTLR certified that its

projected revenues do not exceed those

that would qualify it as a class III

carrier.

WTLR owns no railroad lines and

conducts no rail operations subject to

the Commission’s jurisdiction. Rail

America, Inc. (RAI) owns 100% of

WTLR’s stock. RAI owns or controls six

other class III shortline railroads.

This transaction is related to a notice

of exemption filed in RailAmerica,

Inc.—Continuance in Control

Exemption—West Texas and Lubbock

Railroad Company, Inc. and Plainview

Terminal Company, Finance Docket No.

32797, for RAI to continue in control of

WTLR and Plainview Terminal

Company (PTC) and five other class III

railroads upon PTC and WTLR

becoming class III rail carriers.

Any comments must be filed with the

Commission 2 and served on: Robert A.

Wimbish, Rea, Cross and Auchincloss,

1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 420,

Washington, D.C. 20036.

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1150.31. If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

Decided: December 19, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31318 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Documents Containing Reporting or

Recordkeeping Requirements; Notice

of Pending Submittal to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

Review

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to

submit an information collection

request to OMB and solicitation of

public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a

submittal to OMB for review of

continued approval of information

collections under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Information pertaining to the

requirement to be submitted:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices 66995

1. The title of the information

collection: Exercise of Discretion for an

Operating Facility, NRC Enforcement

Policy (NUREG–1600).

2. Current OMB approval number:

3150–0136.

3. How often the collection is

required: On occasion.

4. Who is required or asked to report:

Nuclear power reactor licensees.

5. The number of annual respondents:

36.

6. The number of hours needed

annually to complete the requirement or

request: 2,160.

7. Abstract: The NRC’s revised

Enforcement Policy includes the

circumstances in which the NRC may

exercise enforcement discretion. This

enforcement discretion is designated as

a Notice of Enforcement Discretion

(NOED) and relates to circumstances

which may arise where a licensee’s

compliance with a Technical

Specification Limiting Condition for

Operation or with other license

conditions would involve an

unnecessary plant transient or

performance of testing, inspection, or

system realignment that is inappropriate

for the specific plant conditions, or

unnecessary delays in plant startup

without a corresponding health and

safety benefit. A licensee seeking the

issuance of a NOED must provide a

written justification, which documents

the safety basis for the request and

provides whatever other information the

NRC staff deems necessary to decide

whether or not to exercise discretion.

Submit, by February 26, 1996,

comments that address the following

questions:

1. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the NRC to

properly perform its functions? Does the

information have practical utility?

2. Is the burden estimate accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the

information collection be minimized,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology?

A copy of the draft supporting

statement may be viewed free of charge

at the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW (lower level),

Washington, DC. Members of the public

who are in the Washington, DC, area can

access this document via modem on the

Public Document Room Bulletin Board

(NRC’s Advanced Copy Document

Library), NRC subsystem at FedWorld,

703–321–3339. Members of the public

who are located outside of the

Washington, DC, area can dial

FedWorld, 1–800–303–9672, or use the

FedWorld Internet address:

fedworld.gov (Telnet). The document

will be available on the bulletin board

for 30 days after the signature date of

this notice. If assistance is needed in

accessing the document, please contact

the FedWorld help desk at 703–487–

4608.

Comments and questions may be

directed to the NRC Clearance Officer,

Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, T–6 F33,

Washington, DC, 20555–0001, or by

telephone at (301) 415–7233, or by

Internet electronic mail at

BJS1@NRC.GOV.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of December, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 95–31302 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–285]

Omaha Public Power District Fort

Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from the requirements of 10 CFR Part

50, Section IV.F.2.c of Appendix E

regarding a biennial emergency

preparedness exercise for Facility

Operating License No. DRP–40, issued

to Omaha Public Power District, (the

licensee), for operation of the Fort

Calhoun Station, Unit 1, located in

Washington County, Nebraska.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would grant a

schedular exemption from the

requirement of Section IV.F.2.c of

Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, which

requires that each licensee perform a

biennial emergency preparedness

exercise, including offsite plans with

full participation by offsite State and

local authorities. This action would

allow the licensee to extend the biennial

interval until the first quarter of 1996.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated December 8, 1995, as

supplemented by letter dated December

15, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed

because the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) was not

able to support the licensee’s previously

scheduled biennial full exercise as

result of the federal impasse over the

1996 Federal Budget. Without the

exemption, FEMA will not be able to

complete its required biennial

assessment of the licensee’s ability to

ensure adequate protection can and will

be taken in the event of a radiological

emergency.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed exemption would not

adversely affect the response

capabilities of the licensee and State

and local authorities. The Commission

has completed its evaluation of the

proposed action and concludes that the

intent of Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c to

ensure offsite emergency preparedness

is maintained, has been met. Therefore,

the change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types or amounts of any effluents

that may be released offsite, and there

is no significant increase in the

allowable individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement (FES) for the Fort Calhoun

Station, Unit 1, dated August 1972.