Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices 21793

This event is closed for the purpose

of the AO report to Congress.

* * * * *

AS 00–6 Brachytherapy

Misadministration at Aultman Hospital

in Canton, Ohio

Date and Place—August 22, 2000

through October 30, 2000; Aultman

Hospital; Canton, Ohio.

Nature and Probable Consequences—

As a result of a common error, four

patients that were prescribed manual

brachytherapy gynecological procedures

were administered doses higher than

those prescribed.

The first patient was prescribed a total

dose of 92.9 Gy (9,290 rad). This dose

included brachytherapy treatments of 20

Gy (2,000 rad) and 22.5 Gy (2,250 rad)

using Ir-192 sources and a dose of 50.4

Gy (5,040 rad) from an external beam

linear accelerator. On September 18,

2000, the patient was administered a

brachytherapy dose of 33.3 Gy (3,330

rad) Ir-192 instead of the prescribed

dose of 20 Gy (2,000 rad). On October

9, 2000, the same patient was

administered a brachytherapy dose of 35

Gy (3,500 rad) Ir-192 instead of the

prescribed dose of 22.5 Gy (2,250 rad)

Ir-192. The patient was also

administered the prescribed dose of 50.4

Gy (5,040 rad) from an external beam

linear accelerator.

The second patient was prescribed a

total dose of 90.7 Gy (9,070 rad). This

dose included brachytherapy treatments

of 19.8 Gy (1,980 rad) using Ir-192

sources and of 20.5 Gy (2,050 rad) using

a combination of Ir-192 and radium-226

(Ra-226) sources and a dose of 50.4 Gy

(5,040 rad) from an external beam linear

accelerator. On August 22, 2000, the

patient was administered a

brachytherapy dose of 35.2 Gy (3,520

rad) Ir-192 instead of the prescribed

dose of 19.8 Gy (1,980 rad) Ir-192. On

September 5, 2000, the same patient was

administered the prescribed dose of 20.5

Gy (2,050 rad) using a combination of Ir192 and Ra-226 implant sources. The

patient was also administered the

prescribed dose of 50.4 Gy (5,040 rad)

from an external beam linear

accelerator.

The third patient was prescribed a

total dose of 63.9 Gy (6,390 rad). This

dose included a brachytherapy

treatment of 18.9 Gy (1,890 rad) using Ir192 sources and a dose of 45 Gy (4,500

rad) from an external beam linear

accelerator. On October 30, 2000, the

patient was administered a

brachytherapy dose of 32.4 Gy (3,240

rad) Ir-192 instead of the prescribed

dose of 18.9 Gy (1,890 rad) Ir-192. The

patient was also administered the

prescribed dose of 45 Gy (4,500 rad)

from an external beam linear

accelerator.

The fourth patient was prescribed a

total dose of 79.3 Gy (7,925 rad). This

dose included brachytherapy treatments

of 20.3 Gy (2,025 rad) and 14 Gy (1,400

rad) using Ir-192 sources and a dose of

45 Gy (4,500 rad) from an external beam

linear accelerator. On October 23, 2000,

the patient was administered a

brachytherapy dose of 31.5 Gy (3,150

rad) Ir-192 instead of the prescribed

dose of 20.3 Gy (2,025 rad) Ir-192. On

November 6, 2000, the same patient was

administered the prescribed

brachytherapy dose of 14 Gy (1,400 rad)

Ir-192. The patient was also

administered the prescribed dose of 45

Gy (4,500 rad) from an external beam

linear accelerator.

The misadministrations were

discovered on November 3, 2000, and

November 13, 2000, during an internal

audit of the licensee’s Quality

Management Program (QMP) by the

Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and the

Radiation Protection Staff. A telephone

report by the licensee’s RSO was made

to the Ohio Department of Health,

Bureau of Radiation Protection, on

November 4, 2000, and November 13,

2000.

The first, second, and fourth patients

were notified of the misadministrations.

The notification of the third patient is

pending because the patient was

hospitalized for an unrelated infection.

The licensee stated that the clinical

treatment of these patients has not been

affected by the misadministrations.

Cause or Causes—The licensee

indicated that this event was primarily

caused by an operator error in the data

entry of the source strength in the

treatment planning computer. The

facility obtained a new computer in

August 2000, and the operator made a

mistake and entered the source

strengths in milligram-radiumequivalent instead of millicurie. Also,

the quality assurance of the treatment

planning was inadequate, and the

second checks of treatment plans, to

which the licensee committed in its

QMP were inadequate.

Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence

Licensee—As soon as the licensee’s

management determined that a

reportable event had occurred, the

licensee took action to provide

additional training to the staff involved

in brachytherapy procedures. The

licensee submitted a written report to

the Ohio Department of Health, Bureau

of Radiation Protection, within 15 days

of discovering the misadministrations.

State Agency—The Ohio Department

of Health, Bureau of Radiation

Protection, performed an onsite

investigation on November 21 and 22,

2000, to review the procedures and the

findings of the licensee’s quality

management review and to confirm that

the licensee’s corrective action proposal

is adequate to prevent recurrence.

Enforcement actions or penalties, if any,

will be determined at a later date.

This event is closed for the purpose

of the AO report to Congress.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 25th day

of April, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–10821 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Plan for Updating and Consolidating

the Decommissioning Policy and

Guidance of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s Office Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, and Notice of

Public Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Publication of plan and notice

of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)

intends to consolidate and update the

policy and guidance for NMSS’s

decommissioning program. This

endeavor is in response to the NMSS

performance goals, in the NRC’s

Strategic Plan, of: (1) Making NRC

activities and decisions more effective,

efficient, and realistic; and (2) reducing

unnecessary regulatory burden on

stakeholders.

DATES: Comments on this plan should

be submitted by June 15, 2001. The

comments will be considered by NRC in

the process of updating and

consolidating the policy and guidance

for NMSS’s decommissioning program.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: Jack D. Parrott, Project Scientist,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, Mail Stop T–7F27, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Handdeliver comments to: 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m.

and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Copies

of comments received may be examined

at the NRC Public Document Room,

11555 Rockville Pike, Room O–1F21,

Rockville, MD 20852. The NRC Public

Document Room is open from 7:45 a.m.

21794 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices

to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack

D. Parrott, Mail Stop T–7F27, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Telephone: (301) 415–6700; Internet:

JDP1@NRC.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The initial

scope of this effort covers all of the

decommissioning policies and guidance

that implement the NMSS

decommissioning regulations. Three

NUREG volumes have been identified

for development which would update/

consolidate all existing NMSS

decommissioning guidance documents

to the extent practicable. Also reviewed

will be decommissioning technical

assistance requests, decommissioning

licensing conditions, and all

decommissioning generic

communications issued over the past

several years. For the purposes of this

project, the NMSS decommissioning

policy and guidance documents will be

grouped into the functional categories

of: (1) The General Materials

Decommissioning Process, (2)

Characterization, Survey, and

Determination of Radiological Criteria,

and (3) Financial Assurance,

Recordkeeping, and Timeliness. The

three NUREG volumes will follow these

functional categories. The documents

that will be considered in this

consolidation/updating project are

identified in Table 1.

Table I.—Documents for Consideration

in the Decommissioning Guidance

Consolidation Project

Guidance Documents To Be

Consolidated

NUREG–1727, ‘‘NMSS

Decommissioning Standard Review

Plan,’’ September 2000

NUREG/BR–0241, ‘‘NMSS Handbook for

Decommissioning Fuels Cycle and

Materials Licensees,’’ March 1997

Information Notice 90–16, ‘‘Compliance

with New Decommissioning Rule,’’

March 1990

‘‘Draft Branch Technical Position on

Site Characterization for

Decommissioning,’’ November 1994

NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–

09, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for

Licensee Requests to Extend the Time

Periods Established for Initiation of

Decommissioning Activities,’’ June

2000

NRC Administrative Letter 96–05,

Revision 1, ‘‘Compliance with the

Rule ‘‘T‘Timeliness in

Decommissioning of Material

Facilities’ ’’ July 1998

Information Notice 96–47, ‘‘Recordkeeping and Decommissioning

Notifications for Disposals of

Radioactive Waste by Land Burial

Authorized under Former 10 CFR

20.304, 20.302, and Current 20.2002,’’

August 1996

Information Notice 90–38, Supplement

1, ‘‘License and Fee Requirements For

Processing Financial Assurance

Submittals for Decommissioning,’’

November 1990

Information Notice 90–38,

‘‘Requirements for Processing

Financial Assurance Submittals for

Decommissioning,’’ May 1990

Information Notice 90–16, ‘‘Compliance

with New Decommissioning Rule,’’

March 1990

Records Management Guide 93–03,

‘‘Final Criteria for Determining That

Records Should be Retained

Permanently Because of Significant

Historical Value,’’ 1993

Records Management Guide 92–01,

‘‘Plan for Decommissioning Records,’’

1992

Other Documents for Reference/

Consideration

NUREG–1575, ‘‘Multi-Agency Radiation

Survey and Site Investigation Manual

(MARSSIM), Rev. 1,’’ August 2000

NUREG/CR–5512, Volume 1, ‘‘Residual

Radioactive Contamination from

Decommissioning: Technical Basis for

Translating Contamination Levels to

Annual Total Effective Dose

Equivalent,’’ October 1992

Draft NUREG/CR–5512, Volume 2,

‘‘Residual Radioactive Contamination

from Decommissioning: User’s

Manual,’’ May 1999

Draft NUREG/CR–5512, Volume 3,

‘‘Residual Radioactive Contamination

From Decommissioning: Parameter

Analysis,’’ October 1999

Draft NUREG/CR–5512, Volume 4,

‘‘Comparison of the Models and

Assumptions used in the DandD 1.0,

RESRAD 5.61, and RESRAD-Build

Computer Codes with Respect to the

Residential Farmer and Industrial

Occupant Scenarios Provided in

NUREG/CR–5512,’’ October 1999

NUREG/CR–5621, ‘‘Groundwater

Models in Support of NUREG/CR–

5512,’’ December 1998

Draft NUREG–1549, ‘‘Decision Methods

for Dose Assessment to Comply with

Radiological Criteria for License

Termination,’’ July 1998

NUREG/CR–6692, ‘‘Probabilistic

Modules for the RESRAD and

RESRAD-Build Computer Codes,’’

November 2000

Draft NUREG–1505, Rev. 1, ‘‘A

Nonparametric Statistical

Methodology for the Design and

Analysis of Final Status

Decommissioning Surveys,’’ June

1998

NUREG–1506, ‘‘Measurement Methods

for Radiological Surveys in Support of

New Decommissioning Criteria,’’

August 1995

NUREG–1507, ‘‘Minimum Detectable

Concentrations with Typical

Radiation Survey Instruments for

Various Contaminants and Field

Conditions,’’ August 1995

Manual Chapter 2605,

‘‘Decommissioning Procedures for

Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees,’’

November 1996

Manual Chapter 2602,

‘‘Decommissioning Inspection

Program for Fuel Cycle Facilities and

Materials Licensees,’’ June 1997

Inspection Procedure 87104,

‘‘Decommissioning Inspection

Procedure for Materials Licensees,’’

June 1997

Inspection Procedure 88104,

‘‘Decommissioning Inspection

Procedure for Fuel Cycle Facilities,’’

June 1997

Inspection Procedure 83890, ‘‘Closeout

Inspection and Survey,’’ March 1994

Temporary Instruction 2800/026,

‘‘Follow-up Inspection of Formerly

Licensed Sites Identified as

Potentially Contaminated’’, July 2000

Background/Bases Documents

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

National Environmental Policy Act

10 CFR 20, Subpart E—Radiological

Criteria for License Termination

10 CFR 30.35—Financial assurance and

recordkeeping for decommissioning

10 CFR 30.36—Expiration and

termination of licenses and

decommissioning of sites and separate

buildings or outdoor areas

10 CFR part 30, Appendix A—Criteria

Relating to Use of Financial Tests and

Parent Company Guarantees for

Providing Reasonable Assurance of

Funds for Decommissioning

10 CFR part 30, Appendix C—Criteria

Relating to Use of Financial Tests and

Self Guarantees for Providing

Reasonable Assurance of Funds for

Decommissioning

10 CFR part 30, Appendix D—Criteria

Relating to Use of Financial Tests and

Self-Guarantee for Providing

Reasonable Assurance of Funds for

Decommissioning by Commercial

Companies That Have no Outstanding

Rated Bonds

10 CFR part 30, Appendix E—Criteria

Relating to Use of Financial Tests and

Self-Guarantee For Providing

Reasonable Assurance of Funds For

Decommissioning by Nonprofit

Colleges, Universities, and Hospitals

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices 21795

10 CFR 40.36—Financial assurance and

recordkeeping for decommissioning

10 CFR 40.42—Expiration and

termination of licenses and

decommissioning of sites and separate

buildings or outdoor areas

10 CFR 70.25—Financial assurance and

recordkeeping for decommissioning

10 CFR 70.38—Expiration and

termination of licenses and

decommissioning of sites and separate

buildings or outdoor areas

10 CFR 72.30—Financial assurance and

recordkeeping for decommissioning

10 CFR 72.54—Expiration and

termination of licenses and

decommissioning of sites and separate

buildings or outdoor areas

10 CFR 72.130—Criteria for

decommissioning

62 FR 39058, ‘‘Radiological Criteria for

License Termination,’’ July 1997

53 FR 24018, ‘‘General Requirements for

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities,’’

June 1988

64 FR 68395, ‘‘Supplemental

Information on the Implementation of

the Final Rule on Radiological Criteria

for License Termination,’’ December

1999

63 FR 64132, ‘‘Supplemental

Information on the Implementation of

the Final Rule on Radiological Criteria

for License Termination,’’ November

1998

62 FR 39058, ‘‘Radiological Criteria for

License Termination,’’ July 1997

53 FR 24018, ‘‘General Requirements for

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities,’’

June 1988

61 FR 24669, ‘‘Termination or Transfer

of Licensed Activities: Recordkeeping

Requirements,’’ May 1996

60 FR 38235, ‘‘Clarification of

Decommissioning Funding

Requirements,’’ July 1995

59 FR 36026, ‘‘Timeliness in

Decommissioning of Materials

Facilities,’’ July 1994

58 FR 39628, ‘‘Decommissioning

Recordkeeping and License

Termination: Documentation

Additions,’’ July 1993

53 FR 24018, ‘‘General Requirements for

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities,’’

June 1988

NUREG–1496, ‘‘Generic Environmental

Impact Statement in Support of

Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria

for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities,’’ July

1997

NUREG–0586, ‘‘Final Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on

Decommissioning of Nuclear

Facilities,’’ August 1988

NUREG/CR–1754, ‘‘Technology, Safety

and Costs of Decommissioning

Reference Non-Fuel-Cycle Nuclear

Facilities,’’ February 1981

NUREG/CR–1754, ‘‘Technology, Safety

and Costs of Decommissioning

Reference Non-Fuel Cycle Nuclear

Facilities,’’ Addendum 1, October

1989

NUREG/CR–0129, ‘‘Technology, Safety

and Costs of Decommissioning a

Reference Small Mixed Oxide Fuel

Fabrication Plant,’’ February 1979

NUREG/CR–1266, ‘‘Technology, Safety

and Costs of Decommissioning a

Reference Uranium Fuel Fabrication

Plant,’’ October 1980

NUREG/CR–1757, ‘‘Technology, Safety

and Costs of Decommissioning a

Reference Uranium Hexafluoride

Conversion Plant,’’ October 1981

NUREG/CR–2210, ‘‘Technology, Safety

and Costs of Decommissioning a

Reference Independent Spent Fuel

Storage Installation,’’ January 1984

NUREG/CR–2241, ‘‘Technology and

Costs of Termination Surveys

Associated with Decommissioning of

Nuclear Facilities,’’ February 1982

NUREG/CR–3293, ‘‘Technology, Safety

and Costs of Decommissioning

Reference Nuclear Fuel Cycle and

Non Fuel Cycle Facilities Following

Postulated Accidents,’’ May 1985

NUREG/CR–6280, ‘‘Technology, Safety,

and Costs of Decommissioning a

Reference Large Irradiator and

Reference Sealed Sources,’’ January

1996

NUREG/CR–6477, ‘‘Revised Analyses of

Decommissioning Reference NonFuel-Cycle Facilities,’’ July 1998

NUREG/CR–6656, ‘‘Information on

Hydrologic Conceptual Models,

Parameters, Uncertainty Analysis, and

Data Sources for Dose Assessments at

Decommissioning Sites,’’ November

1999

Licensing Documents To Be Considered

Post License Termination Rule

decommissioning technical assistance

requests

Post License Termination Rule license

amendments

Site specific decommissioning

Environmental Assessments/

Environmental Impact Statements

Site specific decommissioning Safety

Evaluation Reports

Results of decommissioning financial

assurance reviews

Site specific submittals of Form NRC–

314, ‘‘Certificate of Disposition of

Materials’’

Other Documents for Possible Reference

Other agencies’ documents—e.g., U.S.

Department of Energy, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

U.S. Geological Survey, Council on

Environmental Quality

Consensus standards—American

Nuclear Society, American Society of

Mechanical Engineers, American

Society for Testing and Materials,

Health Physics Society

International guidance—International

Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear

Energy Agency

The implementation of the

consolidation and updating of the

decommissioning policy and guidance

documents will be conducted using the

Business Process Reengineering (BPR)

techniques established for the NRC’s

materials licensing policy and guidance

consolidation and updating efforts

(NUREG–1556 series). The BPR

approach will be used to both develop

the product, and manage the review and

concurrence process, using selfmanaged teams consisting of NRC

headquarters and regional resources.

The goal is to produce consolidated

NMSS decommissioning guidance that

allows the NRC staff to evaluate

information submitted by licensees in a

timely, efficient, and consistent manner

that protects public health and safety.

The development of each NUREG

volume will follow a standardized BPR

team model to facilitate overall project

management. Teams will consist of a

team leader and three or four team

members, representing headquarters and

regional staff, and possibly Agreement

State participation.

The goal is to commence the first

NUREG volume project in the June/July

2001 time frame, the second NUREG

volume in the January 2002 time frame,

and the third NUREG volume in the

June/July 2002 time frame. The BPR

model uses a one year schedule that

contains two periods of document

production for each volume. The first

phase of document production lasts five

months during which the teams work

together at NRC headquarters during

much of this time to focus their efforts

on the guidance document, and to take

advantage of the facilitation services

provided by the NRC’s Regulatory

Product Development Center. At the end

of the first phase a draft NUREG volume

is produced which is released to the

public for review and to solicit public

input. After a 90-day comment period,

the teams reconvene periodically over

approximately four months to consider

public input and revise the document.

The NUREG volume is then published

in final.

The overall project is scheduled to be

completed by the end of fiscal year 2003

with the publication of the final version

of the third NUREG volume. The end

result will be a streamlined multivolume NUREG grouped into the

decommissioning functional categories

described above, with the goal of

21796 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices

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

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43680

(December 6, 2000), 65 FR 77947.

3SFA is the United Kingdom financial services

regulator.

4EMCC’s Rules define an IDB as ‘‘a broker-dealer

that conducts securities trading which matches

buyers and sellers who are banks or dealers, and

who is designated as such by the Corporation.’’

EMCC’s membership criteria for broker-dealers

acting as IDBs require an applicant to demonstrate

to the EMCC Board or Membership and Risk

Committee that: (1) The applicant has the

operational capacity to perform its membership

functions in a satisfactory manner; (2) the applicant

has an established business history of at least three

years or personnel with sufficient operational

background and experience to ensure the ability of

the applicant to conduct its business; (3) the

applicant has the financial ability to make all

anticipated payments required by EMCC; (4) the

applicant is in compliance with the capital

requirements imposed by its appropriate regulatory

authority; and (5) no adverse conditions exist which

might prohibit applicant’s membership in EMCC.

5 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).

6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

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

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43029 (July

12, 2000), 65 FR 44844.

making decommissioning activities

licensed by NRC more effective and

efficient while reducing unnecessary

regulatory burden on stakeholders.

Further ease of use will be realized by

making this a web-based document.

Note also that the BPR model

establishes a 3-year review cycle for

updating the guidance.

The updated, consolidated guidance

will be provided to all users, both NRC

and licensee, in hardcopy and/or

electronic media. Since each group will

have access to the same guidance, the

expected results are more complete

license documents that will expedite the

approval process for both applicants

and reviewers. As a result, the resource

expenditure for this project will serve to

improve the overall decommissioning

process. Successful completion of this

project is an integral component of the

effort to meet NMSS’ performance goals

in the NRC’s Strategic Plan. This will be

done by developing decommissioning

guidance that ensures that NRC’s

decommissioning activities and

decisions are more effective, efficient,

and realistic; and that they reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden on

stakeholders through, for example, the

application of risk insights and

performance-based methods, and the

use of a consistent decommissioning

regulatory basis.

Public Meeting: NRC will conduct a

public meeting in the auditorium of the

NRC’s headquarters office, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD, on June 1, 2001, to

discuss this plan for updating and

consolidating the decommissioning

policy and guidance of the NRC’s Office

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

with interested members of the public.

The meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. to

2 p.m. There will be an opportunity for

members of the public to ask questions

of NRC staff and make comments related

to the plan. The meeting will be

transcribed. For more information on

the public meeting, please contact Jack

D. Parrott, Project Scientist, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

Mail Stop T–7F27, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001; 301–415–6700;

Internet: JDP1@NRC.GOV.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 20th day of

April, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Larry W. Camper,

Chief, Decommissioning Branch Division of

Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–10823 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44217; File No. SR–EMCC–

00–04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Emerging Markets Clearing

Corporation; Order Approving a

Proposed Rule Change Relating to

Membership Criteria for Inter-Dealer

Brokers Regulated by the Securities

and Futures Authority Limited

April 24, 2001.

On July 3, 2000, the Emerging Markets

Clearing Corporation (‘‘EMCC’’) filed

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

EMCC–00–04) pursuant to Section

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 Notice of the proposal

was published in the Federal Register

on December 13, 2000.2 No comment

letters were received. For the reasons

discussed below, the Commission is

approving the proposed rule change.

I. Description

The rule change establishes admission

criteria for brokers or dealers who are

regulated by the Securities and Futures

Authority Limited (‘‘SFA’’) 3 and act as

inter-dealer brokers (‘‘IDBs’’). EMCC’s

membership criteria for IDBs that are

registered by the SFA will mirror the

requirements of U.S. registered brokerdealers acting as IDBs 4 except SFA

regulated IDBs will be required to

maintain ‘‘excess financial resources’’ of

$10,000,000 US as opposed to excess

net capital of $10,000,000.

II. Discussion

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

requires that the rules of a clearing

agency be designed to promote the

prompt and accurate clearance and

settlement of securities transactions.5

Since the Commission’s approval of

EMCC Rule 2, EMCC has been informed

that brokers or dealers who are

regulated by the SFA also act as IDBs

and, in fact, that there are broker-dealers

who are regulated by the SFA who

would like to be IDB members of EMCC.

The Commission believes it is prudent

for EMCC to establish criteria for brokerdealers that act as IDBs and that are

regulated by the SFA because it will

encourage IDBs regulated by the SFA to

become participants in EMCC and

therefore should facilitate the prompt

and accurate clearance and settlement of

emerging market securities transactions.

III. Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing, the

Commission finds that the proposal is

consistent with the requirements of the

Act and in particular with the

requirements of Section 17A of the Act

and the rules and regulations

thereunder.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

EMCC–00–04) be and hereby is

approved.

For the Commission by the Division

of Market Regulation, pursuant to

delegated authority.6

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–10748 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44219; File No. SR–OCC–

00–02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The

Options Clearing Corporation; Order

Approving a Proposed Rule Change

Relating to OCC Clearing Members

Pledging Long Options Positions

April 25, 2001.

On March 6, 2000, The Options

Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) filed with

the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

OCC–00–02) pursuant to Section

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 Notice of the proposal

was published in the Federal Register

on July 19, 2000.2 No comment letters