11624 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices

6Telephone conversation between Alden S.

Adkins, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,

NASD Regulation, and Katherine A. England,

Assistant Director, Commission (October 27, 2000).

7See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.

8 In approving the proposal, the Commission has

considered its impact on efficiency, competition,

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

9 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).

10 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).

11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

13 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43505

(November 1, 2000), 65 FR 67030.

4 In approving this rule, the Commission has

considered the proposed rule’s impact on

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15

U.S.C. 78c(f).

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

that act as investment advisers to share

in customer account profits and gains

subject to the provisions of Rule 205–3

under the Advisers Act. The NASD

amended Rule 2330(f)(2), to eliminate

the conditions set forth in the rule and

to incorporate the terms of Rule 205–3,

as may be amended from time to time.

The NASD stated that this approach

represents a decision by the Board to

incorporate whatever performancebased standard the Commission may

adopt from time to time.6 Thus, in the

future, the proposed rule will conform

to any subsequent amendments by the

Commission to Rule 205–3. NASD

Regulation will notify its members of

any subsequent amendments to Rule

205–3 in a Notice to Members within 90

days of the amendment.7

III. Discussion

The Commission finds that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the requirements of the Act and the

rules and regulations thereunder

applicable to a national securities

association,8 and, in particular, the

requirements of Section 15A(b)(6) of the

Act.9 The Commission believes that

proposed rule change should continue

to ensure that NASD members enter into

performance fee arrangements only with

clients who are financially sophisticated

or have the resources to obtain

sophisticated financial advice regarding

performance fee arrangements. The

Commission also believes that crossreferencing Advisers Act Rule 205–3,

rather than duplicating the specific

provisions of Rule 205–3 in NASD Rule

2330(f)(2), will ensure that NASD Rule

2330(f)(2) remains consistent with

Advisers Act Rule 205–3. The

Commission notes that otherwise,

NASD members acting as investment

advisers might be subject to conflicting

rules on the same subject. Finally, the

Commission believes that NASD

Regulation’s commitment to issue a

Notice to Members within 90 days of

any amendments to Advisers Act Rule

205–3 should ensure that members

remain aware of the requirements for

performance fee arrangements.

The Commission finds good cause for

approving Amendment No. 1 to the

proposed rule change prior to the

thirtieth day after publication in the

Federal Register. The Commission notes

that Amendment No. 1 clarifies that the

proposal applies to members acting as

investment advisers and crossreferences Advisers Act Rule 205–3. The

Commission believes that Amendment

No. 1 will make the requirements of

NASD Rule 2330(f)(2) more clear and,

therefore, should help to ensure that

members comply with the rule.

Accordingly, the Commission finds

good cause to accelerate approval of

Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule

change, consistent with Sections

15A(b)(6) 10 and 19(b) 11 of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether Amendment No. 1 is

consistent with the Act. Persons making

written submissions should file six

copies thereof with the Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC

20549–0609. Copies of the submission,

all subsequent amendments, all written

statements with respect to the proposed

rule change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the NASD. All

submissions should refer to the File No.

SR–NASD–99–42 and should be

submitted by March 19, 2001.

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the

Commission finds that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

requirements of the Act and the rules

and regulations thereunder.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,12 that the

amended proposed rule change (SR–

NASD–99–42) is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.13

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–4594 Filed 2–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–43975; File No. SR–PCX–

00–27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order

Approving a Proposed Rule Change by

the Pacific Exchange, Inc. Relating to

Options Trade Reporting

February 16, 2001.

I. Introduction

On August 5, 2000, the Pacific

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘PCX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)

filed with 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 relating to the reporting of

options transactions. The proposed rule

change was published for comment in

the Federal Register on November 8,

2000.3 The Commission received no

comments on the proposal. This order

approves the proposal.

II. Description of the Proposal

The PCX proposes to adopt new PCX

Rule 6.69(a) to require all Exchange

members and member organizations

who are required to report trades either

directly to the Options Price Reporting

Authority (‘‘OPRA’’) or to another party

responsible for reporting trades to

OPRA, to immediately report all trades

to the Exchange for dissemination to

OPRA within 90 seconds.

Currently, Commentary .01 to

Exchange Rule 6.69 states that trades

must be immediately reported at the

time of execution. The Exchange

proposes to require immediate trade

reporting, and in any event, no later

than 90 seconds following execution.

The Exchange also proposes to amend

PCX Rule 10.13 to include violations of

proposed Rule 6.69(a) in the Exchange’s

minor Rule Plan.

III. Discussion

The Commission finds that the

proposal is consistent with the

requirements of the Act.4 In particular,

the Commission finds that the proposed

rule change furthers the objectives of

Section 6(b)(5),5 in that it is designed to

prevent fraudulent and manipulative

acts and practices, to promote just and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices 11625

6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

equitable principles of trade, to foster

cooperation and coordination with

persons engaged in facilitating

transactions in securities, and to remove

impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system.

The Commission believes that the

proposal, which requires the reporting

of all options transactions immediately,

and in any event, within 90 seconds of

execution, should help to prevent

fraudulent and manipulative acts and

practices, as well as to promote just and

equitable principles of trade. The

Commission believes that the proposed

rule change should enable the Exchange

to provide timely trade information to

investors more efficiently. The

enhanced transparency associated with

timely trade reporting should facilitate

price discovery for investors and assist

the Exchange’s surveillance of its

members’ trading in listed options.

IV. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 that the

proposed rule change (SR–PCX–00–27)

is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.7

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–4595 Filed 2–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3567]

Bureau of European Affairs; US

Bilateral Assistance to Bosnia and

Serbia

The Secretary of State issued on

March 15, 2000, a waiver of restrictions

under Section 566 of the Foreign

Operations, Export Financing and

Related Programs Appropriations Act,

2000, for bilateral assistance to the

Republika Srpska (RS) and Serbia

(excluding Kosovo), as follows:

(1) In the Republika Srpska: Support

for civilian police restructuring; USAID

and State public diplomacy programs

promoting democratization,

reconciliation, and free and

independent media; the Community

Reintegration and Stabilization Project

of USAID, as well as its Bosnia Business

Development, Economic Reform and

Democratic Reform Programs; OSCEsupervised elections and human rights

activities; and Trade and Development

Agency (TDA) activities designed to

assist U.S. businesses in Bosnia. The

municipalities of Foca, Pale, and

Prijedor are excluded from this waiver,

because competent authorities have

failed to take necessary and significant

steps to apprehend and transfer war

crimes indictees to the International

Criminal Tribunal for the Former

Yugoslavia. These municipalities will

not be eligible for new U.S. assistance.

(2) In Serbia: State public diplomacy

and USAID programs to support

democratic reform, including free and

independent media and labor; economic

reform and other advisory assistance to

the democratic FRY opposition;

developing programs with NGOs for the

delivery of humanitarian assistance

through new distribution mechanisms

that are independent of Belgrade regime

control; and technical assistance,

training grants, and exchanges designed

to benefit opposition-controlled

municipalities.

The Secretary noted that:

Our bilateral assistance promotes Dayton

and an integrated Bosnia. Recipients of U.S.

assistance must state in writing their support

for Dayton and then act accordingly. Our

assistance has promoted the growth of proDayton parties in the RS, development of

independent media, minority returns,

privatization and market-oriented reform,

increased minority representation in the RS

police force, and efforts to investigate

corruption and curb police abuse.

The promotion of independent media and

pro-democracy NGOs has a special

significance in the aftermath of the Kosovo

conflict. The Milosevic regime in Belgrade

has an interest in ensuring that no proWestern governments can survive in areas of

predominantly Serb population. RS

authorities have demonstrated their readiness

to ensure freedom of movement for members

of opposition political parties and the

independent media from Serbia. The

response from the Belgrade regime has been

to curb dissemination of democraticallyoriented media from the RS into Serbia and

to issue threats against representatives of the

RS government.

Section 566 requires publication of a

listing and justification of any assistance

that is obligated for any country, entity,

or canton to which assistance

restrictions apply, including a

description of the purpose of the

assistance project and its location, by

municipality.

The following data are for funds

obligated during April–July 2000.

Locality data are provided where

feasible. However, U.S. assistance in

Bosnia, including Republika Srpska has

largely shifted from physical

reconstruction projects to provision of

technical assistance and promotion of

political and economic reform. As

indicated below, assistance in Serbia is

geared toward increasing capabilities of

political opposition parties and the

independent media. U.S. bilateral aid

implementers apply strict screening

procedures to ensure that aid

beneficiaries, whether of business

credits or technical assistance, are firms

or organizations in which war crimes

indictees have no material influence or

interest.

USAID: Bosnia/Republika Srpska

The following list gives, in order, Date

of Obligation, Amount of Obligation,

Project Number, Project Title,

Description of Activity, Justification of

Assistance and Location.

8/1/00. $489,957. 180–0019. Democratic

Governance. TA and training for

managers and administrators of Brcko

District. Brcko District (Federation

and RS).

8/1/00. $1,425,000. 180–0019.

Democratic Governance. Fund team of

international experts to provide TA to

Brcko District (includes RS).

8/1/00. $1,704,087. 180–0014. Business

Development Program. TA for reform

of commercial, non-banking laws and

financial activities, as well as of

accounting and auditing standards.

Throughout BiH.

8/2/00. $403,262. 180–0022. Media

Training. TA and training to

independent electronic and print

media in Federation and RS.

8/7/00. $167,000. 180–0021. Political

and Social Process. TA and training to

local civic organizations to target

voter constituencies. Throughout BiH.

8/7/00. $170,000. 180–0021. Political

and Social Process. Polling to enable

political parties to utilize data to

develop election messages.

Throughout BiH.

8/24/00. $21,1290. 180–0249. Corporate

Governance. Provide TA to develop

an employers confederation to

address legal and regulatory needs of

private firms. Throughout BiH.

9/1/00. $4,778,166. 180–0056. Business

Development Program. TA for

Business Finance portion of the BDP.

Throughout BiH.

9/1/00. $3,150,000. 180–0056. Business

Development Program. Provide

Business Consulting services,

including training and TA, to

enterprises seeking loan funds.

Throughout BiH.

9/1/00. $59,712. 180–0249. Assessment

and Evaluation. Conduct survey to

assess impact of USAID-funded civic

participation and organizing

programs. Throughout BiH.

9/29/00. $2,000,000. 180–021. Political

and Social Process. Provide assistance

in voter education and civic