Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices 33983

In addition, distribution of this meeting

notice over the Internet system is

available. If you are interested in

receiving this Commission meeting

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov..

Dated: June 21, 2001.

David Louis Gamberoni,

Technical Coordinator, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–16088 Filed 6–22–01; 11:08 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Cumulative Report on Rescissions and

Deferrals

June 1, 2001.

Section 1014(e) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act

of 1974 (Public Law 93–344) requires a

monthly report listing all budget

authority for the current fiscal year for

which, as of the first day of the month,

a special message had been transmitted

to Congress.

This report gives the status, as of June

1, 2001, of two deferrals contained in

one special message for FY 2001. The

message was transmitted to Congress on

January 18, 2001.

Deferrals (Attachments A and B)

As of June 1, 2001, $1.4 billion in

budget authority was being deferred

from obligation. Attachment B shows

the status of each deferral reported

during FY 2001.

Information From Special Message

The special message containing

information on the deferrals that are

covered by this cumulative report is

printed in the edition of the Federal

Register cited below:

66 FR 8985, Monday, February 5, 2001

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,

Director.

ATTACHMENT A—STATUS OF FY 2001

DEFERRALS

[In millions of dollars]

Budgetary resources

Deferrals proposed by the

President ........................... 1,946.7

Routine Executive releases

through June 1, 2001 ........ ¥551.8

Overturned by the Congress ........................

Currently before the Congress ................................. 1,394.9

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

33984 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices 33985

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

2 17 CFR 240.12d2–2(d).

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

4 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(1).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Letter dated October 28, 1999, from Alden

S. Adkins, Senior Vice President and General

Counsel, NASD Regulation, to Katherine A.

England, Assistant Director, Divisions of Market

Regulation (‘‘Division’’), Commission

(‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Amendment No. 1 clarifies

that if a person becomes a chief compliance officer

for the first time after the effective date of the

proposed rule change for a dual New York Stock

Exchange and NASD member, that person may elect

to take the New York Stock Exchange Series 14

exam, and would not be required to take the NASD

Series 24 exam.

4See Letter dated December 1, 2000, from Alden

S. Adkins, Senior Vice President and General

Counsel, NASD Regulation, to Jack Drogin,

Assistant Director, Division, Commission

(‘‘Amendment No. 2’’). Amendment No. 2 limits the

grandfathering provision of the proposed rule

change to individuals who have been designated as

chief compliance officers on Schedule A of Form

BD for at least two years immediately prior to the

effective date of the proposed rule change and who

have not been subject within the previous ten years

to: (1) Any statutory disqualification as defined in

section 3(a)(39) of the Act; (2) a suspension; or (3)

the imposition of a fine of $5,000 or more for a

violation of any provision of any securities law or

regulation, or any agreement with or rule or

standard of conduct of any securities governmental

agency, securities self-regulatory organization, or as

imposed by any such regulatory or self-regulatory

organization in connection with a disciplinary

proceeding.

5Amendment No. 1 is dated October 28, 1999,

but was not received by the Commission until

December 11, 2000.

6Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43765

(December 21, 2000), 66 FR 830.

7See Letter dated January 29, 2001, from Richard

B. Levin, Assistant General Counsel and Regulatory

Affairs Officer, Knight Securities, to Jonathan G.

Katz, Secretary, Commission; and Letter dated

January 30, 2001, from Michael T. Dorsey, Senior

Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary,

Knight Trading Group, to Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary, Commission. Both comment letters were

from different entities within the Knight Trading

Group Inc. group of companies but were

substantively identical. Therefore, for purposes of

this order, the Commission will refer to these letters

as the ‘‘Knight’’ letters.

8See Letter dated June 14, 2001, from Patrice M.

Gliniecki, Vice President and Deputy General

Counsel, NASD Regulation, to Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary, Commission (‘‘Amendment No. 3’’).

Amendment No. 3 completely replaced an earlier

version of Amendment No. 3 that was filed with the

Commission on May 10, 2001. Amendment No. 3

addresses three issued: First, NASD Regulation

responds to Knight’s comments (discussed infra.).

Second, Amendment No. 3 revises the proposed

rule change to clarify that a chief compliance officer

for a member whose business is limited to the

solicitation, purchase and/or sale of government

securities may register as a government securities

principal, instead of a general securities principal,

and clarifies that because there is no qualifying

exam for government securities principals, these

individuals only must register as such. Amendment

No. 3 therefore also makes corresponding changes

to the rule language originally proposed to delete

references to the Series 73 exam, which does not

exist. Third, Amendment No. 3 clarifies that chief

compliance officers for member firms limited to

options activities cannot take the Series 4 exam

(Registered Options Principal) in order to satisfy the

registration requirement of this proposed rule

change. Finally, Amendment No. 3 clarifies that

chief compliance officers that have been employed

by more than one firm during the grandfathering

period will only be eligible for the grandfathering

provision if the chief compliance officer has been

working for firms conducting the same type of

business. See discussion of the grandfathering

provision, infra.

[FR Doc. 01–15916 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–C

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

To Withdraw From Listing and

Registration; (Texas Biotechnology

Corporation, Common Stock, $.005 Par

Value, Per Share) File No. 1–12574

June 20, 2001.

Texas Biotechnology Corporation, a

Delaware corporation (‘‘Company’’), 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, $.005 par value (‘‘Security’’),

from listing and registration on the

American Stock Exchange (‘‘Amex’’).

The Company represents that trading

in the Security began on the Nasdaq

National Market, and ceased

concurrently on the Amex, at the

opening of business on June 19, 2001. In

making the decision to withdraw the

Security from listing on the Exchange,

the Company considered the liquidity to

be provided by its inclusion on the

Nasdaq National Market and the cost of

maintaining the Amex listing.

The Company stated in its application

that it 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 Company’s application relates

solely to the Security’s withdrawal from

l listing on the Amex and shall affect

neither its approval for listing on the

Nasdaq National Market nor its

obligation to be registered under section

12(g) of the Act.3

Any interested person may, on or

before July 10, 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

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15979 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44451; File No. SR–NASD–

99–46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order

Approving Proposed Rule Change, and

Notice of Filing and Order Granting

Accelerated Approval of Amendment

No. 3 to the Proposed Rule Change,

Filed by the National Association of

Securities Dealers, Inc. Requiring

Registration of Chief Compliance

Officers

June 19, 2001.

I. Introduction

On November 22, 1999, the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’), through its

wholly-owned subsidiary, NASD

Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NASD Regulation’’),

submitted to the Securities and

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’),

pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a

proposed rule change requiring

registration of chief compliance officers.

NASD Regulation filed Amendment

Nos. 1 3 and 2 4 to the proposed rule

change on December 11, 2000 and

December 6, 2000, respectively.5 The

proposed rule change was published for

comment in the Federal Register on

January 4, 2001.6 The Commission

received two comment letters.7 NASD

Regulation filed Amendment No. 3 to

the proposed rule change on June 15,

2001.8 This order approves the

proposed rule change, as amended, and

grants accelerated approval to

Amendment No. 3 The Commission is

also soliciting comment on Amendment

No. 3 to the proposed rule change.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule

Change

The proposed rule change would

require the chief compliance officer

designated on Schedule A of a member’s