33584 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).

2 17 CFR 240.12d2–2(d).

3 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).

4 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(1).

above, the staff concludes that there are

no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. With regard to other nonradiological impacts, the licensee

performed an environmental evaluation,

as documented in the submittal dated

May 14, 2001, that considered thermal

effects, consumptive uses, and

particulate emissions. This evaluation

was performed assuming a 1.5-percent

uprated power value, thus bounding the

proposed 1.4-percent power uprate. The

evaluation was performed as required

by the Environmental Protection Plan

(EPP) for HCGS (Appendix B to FOL No.

NPF–57). The EPP states that

‘‘[e]nvironmental concerns identified in

the FES–OL [Final Environmental

Statement—Operating Licensing Stage

(NUREG–1074, dated December 1984)]

which relate to water quality matters are

regulated by way of the licensee’s

NPDES [New Jersey Pollution Discharge

Elimination System] permit.’’ The

NJDES permit imposes limits on plant

effluents that are discharged to the

Delaware River estuary. The licensee’s

environmental evaluation concluded

that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed power

uprate and that the current NJDES

permit limits would not require any

changes. The proposed editorial changes

to the TSs are administrative in nature

and would have no non-radiological

impact. Based on the above, the staff

concludes that there are no significant

non-radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that

there are no significant environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). 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 for the HCGS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on June 7, 2001, the staff consulted with

the New Jersey State official, Mr. Dennis

Zannoni, of the New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection, regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated December 1, 2000, as

supplemented by letter dated February

12, May 7, and May 14, 2001.

Documents may be examined, and/or

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly

available records will be accessible

electronically from the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic

Reading Room on the Internet at the

NRC web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have

access to ADAMS or if there are

problems in accessing the documents

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC

Public Document Room (PDR) Reference

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737

or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard B. Ennis,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–15707 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (Stillwater Mining,

Common Stock, $.01 Par Value) File

No. 1–13053

June 15, 2001.

Stillwater Mining Company, a

Delaware corporation (‘‘Issuer’’), has

filed an application with the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section

12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 12d2–2(d)

thereunder,2 to withdraw its Common

Stock, $.01 par value (‘‘Security’’), from

listing and registration on the American

Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’).

The Board of Directors (‘‘Board’’) of

the Issuer approved a resolution on

January 9, 2001 to withdraw the

Security from listing on the Exchange

and to list the Security on the New York

Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’). The Issuer

represents that on June 26, 2001 the

Security will begin trading on the

NYSE. The Issuer stated that the Board

took such action in order to avoid the

direct and indirect costs and the

division of the market resulting from

dual listing on the Amex and NYSE.

The Issuer stated in its application

that is has met the requirements of

Amex Rule 18 by complying with all

applicable laws in effect in the State of

Delaware, in which it is incorporated,

and with the Amex’s rules governing an

issuer’s voluntary withdrawal of a

security from listing and registration.

The Issuer’s application relates solely to

the withdrawal of the Security from

listing on the Amex and shall have no

affect upon its listing on the NYSE or its

registration under Section 12(b) of the

Act.3

Any interested person may, on or

before July 9, 2001 submit by letter to

the Secretary of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20549–0609, facts

bearing upon whether the application

has been made in accordance with the

rules of the Amex and what terms, if

any, should be imposed by the

Commission for the protection of

investors. The Commission, based on

the information submitted to it, will

issue an order granting the application

after the date mentioned above, unless

the Commission determines to order a

hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.4

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15681 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M