66954 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Notices

accidents and its elimination would not

affect the probability of accidents

previously evaluated.

In the 20 years since the TMI–2

accident and the consequential

promulgation of post accident sampling

requirements, operating experience has

demonstrated that a PASS provides

little actual benefit to post accident

mitigation. Past experience has

indicated that there exists in-plant

instrumentation and methodologies

available in lieu of a PASS for collecting

and assimilating information needed to

assess core damage following an

accident. Furthermore, the

implementation of Severe Accident

Management Guidance (SAMG)

emphasizes accident management

strategies based on in-plant instruments.

These strategies provide guidance to the

plant staff for mitigation and recovery

from a severe accident. Based on current

severe accident management strategies

and guidelines, it is determined that the

PASS provides little benefit to the plant

staff in coping with an accident.

The regulatory requirements for the

PASS can be eliminated without

degrading the plant emergency

response. The emergency response, in

this sense, refers to the methodologies

used in ascertaining the condition of the

reactor core, mitigating the

consequences of an accident, assessing

and projecting offsite releases of

radioactivity, and establishing

protective action recommendations to

be communicated to offsite authorities.

The elimination of the PASS will not

prevent an accident management

strategy that meets the initial intent of

the post-TMI–2 accident guidance

through the use of the SAMGs, the

emergency plan (EP), the emergency

operating procedures (EOP), and site

survey monitoring that support

modification of emergency plan

protective action recommendations

(PARs).

Therefore, the elimination of PASS

requirements from Technical

Specifications (TS) (and other elements

of the licensing bases) does not involve

a significant increase in the

consequences of any accident

previously evaluated.

Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does

Not Create the Possibility of a New or

Different Kind of Accident from any

Previously Evaluated.

The elimination of PASS related

requirements will not result in any

failure mode not previously analyzed.

The PASS was intended to allow for

verification of the extent of reactor core

damage and also to provide an input to

offsite dose projection calculations. The

PASS is not considered an accident

precursor, nor does its existence or

elimination have any adverse impact on

the pre-accident state of the reactor core

or post accident confinement of

radioisotopes within the containment

building.

Therefore, this change does not create

the possibility of a new or different kind

of accident from any previously

evaluated.

Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does

Not Involve a Significant Reduction in

the Margin of Safety.

The elimination of the PASS, in light

of existing plant equipment,

instrumentation, procedures, and

programs that provide effective

mitigation of and recovery from reactor

accidents, results in a neutral impact to

the margin of safety. Methodologies that

are not reliant on PASS are designed to

provide rapid assessment of current

reactor core conditions and the

direction of degradation while

effectively responding to the event in

order to mitigate the consequences of

the accident. The use of a PASS is

redundant and does not provide quick

recognition of core events or rapid

response to events in progress. The

intent of the requirements established as

a result of the TMI–2 accident can be

adequately met without reliance on a

PASS.

Therefore, this change does not

involve a significant reduction in the

margin of safety.

Based upon the reasoning presented

above and the previous discussion of

the amendment request, the requested

change does not involve a significant

hazards consideration.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William D. Beckner,

Chief, Technical Specification Branch,

Division of Regulatory Improvement

Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31803 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

POSTAL SERVICE

United Postal Service Board of

Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting

TIMES AND DATES: 8 a.m., Monday,

January 7, 2002; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday,

January 8, 2002.

PLACE: Washington, D.C., at U.S. Postal

Service Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant

Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin

Room.

STATUS: January 7—8 a.m. (Closed);

January 8—8:30 a.m. (Open).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Monday, January 7—8 a.m. (Closed)

1. Personnel Matters and Compensation

Issues.

2. Management Compensation Strategy.

3. Financial Performance.

4. Strategic Planning.

Tuesday, January 8—8:30 a.m. (Open)

1. Minutes of the Previous Meetings,

December 3–4, and December 13,

2001.

2. Remarks of the Postmaster General

and CEO.

3. Consideration of Board Resolution on

Capital Funding.

4. Annual Report on Government in the

Sunshine Act Compliance.

5. Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report.

Tuesday, January 8—8:30 a.m. (Open)

[continued]

6. Semipostal Stamps.

7. Quarterly Report on Financial

Performance.

8. Quarterly Report on Service

Performance.

9. Election of Chairman and Vice

Chairman of the Board of

Governors.

10. Tentative Agenda for the February

4–5, 2002, meeting in Phoenix,

Arizona.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

David G. Hunter, Secretary of the Board,

U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza,

SW., Washington, DC 20260–1000.

Telephone (202) 268–4800.

David G. Hunter,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31965 Filed 12–21–01; 1:34 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. IC–25320; 812–12684]

Sensar Corporation; Notice of

Application

December 19, 2001.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Notice of an application for an

order under section 6(c) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the

‘‘Act’’).

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Sensar

Corporation (‘‘Applicant’’) requests an

order exempting it from all provisions of

the Act until the earlier of one year from

the date that the requested order is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Notices 66955

issued or the date that it no longer may

be deemed to be an investment

company.

FILING DATES: The application was filed

on November 13, 2001, and amended on

December 19, 2001.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the Commission orders a

hearing. Interested persons may request

a hearing by writing to the

Commission’s Secretary and serving

applicants with a copy of the request,

personally or by mail. Hearing requests

should be received by the Commission

by 5:30 p.m. on January 11, 2002, and

should be accompanied by proof of

service on applicant, in the form of an

affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of

service. Hearing requests should state

the nature of the writer’s interest, the

reason for the request, and the issues

contested. Persons who wish to be

notified of a hearing may request

notification by writing to the

Commission’s Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 450

Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC

20549–0609. Applicant, c/o Stoel Rives

LLP, 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100,

Salt Lake City, UT 84111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Stacy L. Fuller, Senior Counsel, at 202–

942–0553, or Janet M. Grossnickle,

Branch Chief, at 202–942–0564

(Division of Investment Management,

Office of Investment Company

Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following is a summary of the

application. The complete application

may be obtained for a fee at the

Commission’s Public Reference Branch,

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC

20549–0102 (telephone 202–942–8090).

Applicant’s Representations

1. Applicant is a Nevada corporation

whose principal offices are in Utah.

Prior to August 1999, Applicant was

engaged in the design, development,

manufacturing, and marketing of

analytical scientific instrumentation.

Between March and August 1999,

Applicant sold substantially all of its

assets related to such business and

began to search for an acquisition. In

September 1999, Applicant entered into

negotiations with Net2Wireless

Corporation (now known as Jigami

Corporation) (‘‘Jigami’’) to acquire

Jigami, and devoted substantial time in

the remainder of 1999 and 2000 to

completing the acquisition. On

December 1, 2000, Nasdaq informed

Applicant that it had determined to

deny the listing application for the

combined company (or initiate delisting

proceedings against Applicant if Jigami

merged into Applicant). The proposed

merger was abandoned, and on

December 4, 2000, Applicant and Jigami

entered into a settlement, whereby

Applicant received 3,000,000 shares of

Jigami stock and a warrant to acquire

another 1,000,000 shares, representing

approximately 14.1% of the outstanding

capital stock of Jigami. As a result of the

settlement, on December 4, 2000,

Applicant’s assets consisted of

approximately (a) $3.25 million of cash,

(b) $2 million of Jigami securities, and

(c) $67,000 of other assets that were not

securities.

2. In January 2001, Applicant

determined that it might be deemed to

be an investment company under

section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act as of the

date that it acquired the securities of

Jigami. Based on the information

available to Applicant at that time,

Applicant did not believe that it could

alter its investment in Jigami so as to

reduce the value of its investment

securities to less than 40% of its total

assets (exclusive of government

securities and cash). Accordingly,

Applicant determined that its best

alternative was to try to qualify, and

make election under section 54 of the

Act, to become a business development

company, as defined in section 2(a)(48)

of the Act (‘‘BDC’’). On January 22,

2001, as part of its plan to become a

BDC, Applicant purchased 3.5% of the

outstanding shares of common stock of

a privately held company (‘‘Private

Company’’) for $750,000.

3. At the end of the first quarter of

2001, Applicant wrote down the value

of the Jigami investment to zero. As of

March 31, 2001, Applicant’s assets

consisted of approximately (a) $2.35

million of cash, (b) $750,000 of Private

Company’s securities, and (c) $82,000 of

other assets that were not securities. In

light of the changes in Applicant’s

assets, Applicant then began to focus its

efforts on a revised strategy of actively

attempting to purchase an operating

business.

Applicant’s Legal Analysis

1. Under section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act,

an issuer is an investment company if

it is engaged or proposes to engage in

the business of investing, reinvesting,

owning, holding or trading in securities,

and owns or proposes to acquire

investment securities having a value

exceeding 40 percent of the value of

such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of

government securities and cash items)

on an unconsolidated basis. Section

3(a)(2) of the Act defines ‘‘investment

securities’’ to include all securities

except government securities, securities

issued by employees’ securities

companies, and securities issued by

majority-owned subsidiaries of the

owner that are not investment

companies and are not relying on the

exception from the definition of

investment company in section 3(c)(1)

or 3(c)(7) of the Act.

2. Applicant states that the Jigami

securities acquired on December 4,

2000, and the Private Company

securities acquired on January 22, 2001,

constitute ‘‘investment securities’’

within the meaning of section 3(a)(2) of

the Act. Applicant states that because

investment securities have represented

substantially all of its non-cash assets

since December 4, 2000, Applicant may

be deemed to be an investment

company within the meaning of section

3(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

3. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the

Commission to exempt any person from

any provision of the Act, if and to the

extent that the exemption is necessary

or appropriate in the public interest and

consistent with the protection of

investors and the purposes fairly

intended by the policy and provisions of

the Act.

4. Applicant requests an exemption

under section 6(c) from all provisions of

the Act until the earlier of one year from

the date that the requested order is

issued or the date that Applicant no

longer may be deemed to be an

investment company. Applicant

believes that within the period covered

by the requested order, it will be able to

complete an acquisition of or a merger

with an operating business.

5. Applicant states that its failure to

become primarily engaged in a noninvestment business or an excepted

business within the past year was due

to factors beyond its control and that,

during the period, its officers tried in

good faith to invest Applicant’s assets in

a non-investment business or excepted

business. Specifically, Applicant states

that once it realized that it might be

deemed to be an investment company

under section 3(a)(1)(C), it took steps to

comply with the Act, first by pursuing

BDC status, and later by pursuing a

merger or acquisition. Applicant states

that in its pursuit of a suitable merger

with or acquisition of an operating

business, it has actively investigated 30

companies and completed field due

diligence on four such companies.

Applicant contends that it has been

hampered in its efforts to find a suitable

partner or target by the recent economic

downturn. Applicant further states that

on or about December 13, 2001,

Applicant entered into a non-binding

letter of intent with VitalStream, Inc.

66956 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78k–1.

2 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–2.

3See Securities and Exchange Act Release No.

44177 (April 12, 2001), 66 FR 19814.

4See Securities and Exchange Act Release No.

44703 (August 15, 2001), 66 FR 43924.

5 15 U.S.C. 78k–1.

6 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–2.

7 15 U.S.C. 78k–1.

8 17 CFR 200.301⁄3(a)(16).

9 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–2.

(‘‘VitalStream’’), a California-based

digital broadcasting company, pursuant

to which VitalStream would merge with

and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Applicant. Applicant states that it

expects the proposed merger to close in

the first or second quarter of 2002.

Applicant further states that, in addition

to seeking to merge with or acquire an

operating business, it has attempted to

sell the Private Company securities by

convincing Private Company to

repurchase the securities, discussing a

sale with existing shareholders of

Private Company, and contacting other

persons who have shown an interest in

Private Company. Applicant states that

it is continuing to attempt to find a

purchaser for its block of Private

Company securities. In addition,

Applicant states that since determining

to pursue operating company status at

the end of the first quarter of 2001, it

has declined to make additional

investments in Private Company and

has not acquired any other investment

securities. Applicant also states that it

will hold its cash assets in federally

insured money market or demand

accounts. Finally, Applicant notes that

on November 7, 2001, the Board

formalized the decision to pursue

operating company status by adopting a

resolution that directs Applicant to

abandon its efforts to become a BDC and

take whatever steps are necessary to

become an operating company.

6. Applicant contends that

registration under the Act would

involve an unnecessary burden and

expense for Applicant and its

shareholders and would serve no

regulatory purpose. For the reasons

discussed above, Applicant asserts that

the requested relief is consistent with

the protection of investors and the

purposes fairly intended by the policy

and provisions of the Act.

Applicant’s Conditions

1. Applicant will not acquire

additional investment securities, as

defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act, or

engage in the trading of securities for

short-term speculative purposes.

2. Applicant will not hold itself out as

being engaged in the business of

investing, reinvesting, owning, holding

or trading in securities.

For the Commission, by the Division

of Investment Management, under

delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31740 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–45166, File No. 4–208]

Joint Industry Plan; Order Approving

Amendments To Add Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Inc. as Participant

to Joint-SRO Plan Under Rule 11Ac1–

5

December 18, 2001.

I. Introduction

On July 11, 2001, the Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’ or

‘‘Exchange’’) submitted to the Securities

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) in accordance with

section 11A of the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and rule 11Aa3–

2 thereunder,2 a proposed amendment

to the national market system plan

establishing procedures under rule

11Ac1–5 (‘‘Joint-SRO Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’).3

Under the proposed amendment, the

CBOE would be added as a participant

to the Joint-SRO Plan. Notice of filing

and an order granting temporary

effectiveness of the proposal through

December 19, 2001 was published in the

Federal Register on August 21, 2001.4

The Commission did not receive any

comments on the proposed amendment.

This order approves the amendment on

a permanent basis.

II. Discussion

The Joint-SRO Plan establishes

procedures for market centers to follow

in making their monthly reports

required pursuant to rule 11Ac1–5,

available to the public in a uniform,

readily accessible, and usable electronic

format. The current participants to the

Plan are the American Stock Exchange

LLC, Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.,

Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.,

Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc.,

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc., New York Stock Exchange,

Inc., Pacific Exchange, Inc., and

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

The amendment adds the CBOE as a

participant to the Joint-SRO Plan.

Section III(b) of the Joint-SRO Plan

provides that a national securities

exchange or national securities

association may become a party to the

Plan by: (1) Executing a copy of the

Plan, as then in effect (with the only

changes being the addition of the new

participant’s name in section II(a) of the

Plan and the new participant’s singledigit code in section VI(a)(1) of the Plan)

and (ii) submitting such executed plan

to the Commission for approval. The

CBOE submitted a signed copy of the

Joint-SRO Plan to the Commission in

accordance with the procedures set

forth in the Plan regarding new

participants.

After careful review, the Commission

finds that the amendment to the JointSRO Plan is consistent with the

requirements of the Act and the rules

and regulations thereunder.

Specifically, the Commission finds that

the proposed amendment is consistent

with the requirements of section 11A of

the Act,5 and rule 11Aa3–2 6 thereunder.

The Plan established appropriate

procedures for market centers to follow

in making their monthly reports

required pursuant to rule 11Ac1–5

available to the public in a uniform,

readily accessible, and usable electronic

format. The amendment to include the

CBOE as a participant in the Joint-SRO

Plan should contribute to the

maintenance of fair and orderly markets

and remove impediments to and perfect

the mechanisms of a national market

system by facilitating the uniform

public disclosure of order execution

information by all market centers. The

Commission believes that it is necessary

and appropriate in the public interest,

for the maintenance of fair and orderly

markets, to remove impediments to, and

perfect mechanisms of, a national

market system to allow the CBOE to

become a participant in the Joint-SRO

Plan. The Commission finds, therefore,

that approving the amendment to the

Joint-SRO Plan is appropriate and

consistent with section 11A of the Act.7

III. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act 8 and rule

11Aa3–2 thereunder,9 that the

amendment to the Joint-SRO Plan to add

the CBOE as a participant is approved

and the CBOE is authorized to act

jointly with the other participants to the

Joint-SRO Plan in planning, developing,

operating, or regulating the Plan as a

means of facilitating a national market

system.