Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 Thereto, Relating to Section 31 Related Fees, 30173-30174 [E8-11522]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
medicine technologist assigned to the
patient failed to recognize that the
number of counts obtained from the
neck phantom used for the uptake scan
baseline was unusually high for the
quantity of radioactive material
prescribed for the patient.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence
Licensee—The licensee ceased
purchasing radiopharmaceuticals from
the radiopharmacy that provided the
incorrect and mislabeled dose. The
licensee set aside a designated area for
receiving shipments of
radiopharmaceuticals and posted a list
of expected dose rates per shipment
(based upon contents of the shipment).
The licensee redesigned the patient
administration log to serve as a check
list for QA, instituted procedural
changes to include a one-meter survey
of each diagnostic capsule while it is
being counted in the neck phantom
prior to administration, and
implemented updated training to
acquaint all nuclear medicine
technologists with these new policies.
State—The State radiation control
agency conducted an investigation into
this incident assisted by the State board
of pharmacy. The licensee’s actions to
prevent recurrence will be inspected at
their next regularly scheduled
inspection.
AS07–05 Medical Event at University
of Washington Harborview Gamma
Knife of Seattle, Washington
Date and Place—November 16, 2006,
Seattle, Washington.
Nature and Probable Consequences—
University of Washington Harborview
Gamma Knife (the licensee) reported
that a patient who was prescribed to
receive 18 Gy (1,800 rad) during a
gamma knife treatment actually received
28 Gy (2,800 rad). The gamma knife
contained 267.7 TBq (7,236 Ci) of
cobalt-60. The patient and the referring
physician were informed of this event.
The licensee concluded that no
significant adverse health effect to the
patient is expected.
Cause(s)—The cause of the incident
was determined to be human error. The
prescribing physician prescribed 18 Gy
(1,800 rad) and erroneously entered 28
Gy (2,800 rad). The physician entered
the prescribed value into the computer
treatment planning system, rather than
having the medical physicist enter the
value as is the usual procedure,
resulting in a failure to follow an
established procedure.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence
Licensee—Corrective actions taken by
the licensee included a verification
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
process to ensure that the prescribed
treatment value is transferred from the
treatment planning computer to the
gamma knife computer prior to patient
therapy. Also, a treatment plan signed
by the treating oncologist, physicist, and
neurosurgeon is now required. In
addition, the treating oncologist and
physicist will verify and initial the
prescribed dose and isodose treatment
parameters prior to patient therapy.
State—The State reviewed the
licensee’s corrective actions and
determined that the procedures were
adequate to ensure that this type of
event should not happen in the future.
AS07–06 Medical Event at Physician
Reliance of Fort Worth, Texas
Date and Place—August 22, 2007,
Fort Worth, Texas.
Nature and Probable Consequences—
Physician Reliance (the licensee, dba
Texas Oncology at Klabzuba) reported
that a patient who was being treated for
lung cancer, with a high dose-rate (HDR)
afterloader and an iridium-192 source,
received 2,500 cGy (2,500 rad) during
the first fraction, instead of the
prescribed dose of 500 cGy (500 rad).
The patient was prescribed to receive
five fractions with 500 cGy (500 rad) per
fraction over five weeks. The incident
was discovered following an
independent physicist’s review of the
treatment plan. The patient and the
referring physician were informed of
this event. The patient’s pulmonologist
concluded that no significant adverse
health effect to the patient is expected.
Cause(s)—The incident occurred as a
result of the incorrect isodose line being
chosen and entered into the treatment
planning system. The oncologist signed
and approved the treatment plan and
the radiation safety office performed a
second calculation to check the
treatment plan. The treatment planning
system then normalized the calculations
to the incorrect isodose line and
delivered the resulting treatment. The
calculation error was identified by an
independent physicist prior to
administration of the second fraction.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence
Licensee—The licensee’s corrective
action was to change their procedure to
include a second check by a licensed
medical physicist of all treatment plans.
State—The State issued two
violations related to this event: (1) A
violation of 25 Texas Administrative
Code (TAC) 289.256(p)(4)(A) and (B)
was cited because the procedure as
implemented was insufficient to ensure
that a second check of the printed
output of the treatment plan was
performed to verify the accuracy of the
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30173
planned treatment factors prior to
treatment; and (2) a violation of 25 TAC
289.256(o)(1) and 289.256(p)(1) was
cited because the instructions of
obtaining the authorized physician’s
signed and dated written directive for
each therapeutic administration were
not followed. In addition, the State
reviewed the licensee’s corrective action
of changing their procedures to include
a second check by a licensed medical
physicist of all treatment plans.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of May 2008.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–11666 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–57829; File No. SR–Amex–
2007–107]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4
Thereto, Relating to Section 31 Related
Fees
May 16, 2008.
On October 2, 2007, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or
‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule
19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposal to allow
member firms to voluntarily submit,
during a six-month period after the
effective date of this proposal, funds
previously accumulated by the member
firms pursuant to Rule 393. In addition,
the proposed rule change would allow
the Exchange to use accumulated funds
to pay its current section 31 fees or, to
the extent of any surplus, offset other
Exchange regulatory costs. The Amex
filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change on March 19, 2008.3 The
Amex filed Amendment No. 3 to the
proposed rule change on April 7, 2008.4
The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 The Amex previously filed and withdrew
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.
4 Amendment No. 3 replaced all previous
amendments in their entirety, added new effective
dates of the proposed rule change, would eliminate
non-substantive and extraneous text from proposed
Commentary .01 to Rule 393.
2 17
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
30174
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Register on April 16, 2008.5 The Amex
filed Amendment No. 4 to the proposed
rule change on May 15, 2008.6 The
Commission received no comment
letters regarding the proposed rule
change. This order approves the
proposed rule change, as modified.
Pursuant to section 31 of the Act 7 and
Rule 31 thereunder,8 national securities
exchanges and associations (collectively
‘‘SROs’’) are required to pay a
transaction fee to the Commission that
is designed to recover the costs related
to the government’s supervision and
regulation of the securities markets and
securities professionals. To offset this
obligation, the Amex assesses its
clearing and self-clearing members a
regulatory fee in accordance with Rule
393, which mirrors section 31 in both
scope and amount. Clearing members
may in turn seek to charge a fee to their
customers or correspondent firms. Any
allocation of the fee between a clearing
member and its correspondent firm or
customer is the responsibility of the
clearing member.
Reconciling the amounts reported to
the Amex and the amounts collected
from the customers historically had
been difficult for member firms, causing
surpluses to accumulate at some
member firms (referred to as
‘‘accumulated funds’’). These
accumulated funds were not remitted to
the Amex by certain members, despite
the fact that these charges may have
been previously identified as ‘‘Section
31 Fees’’ or ‘‘SEC Fees’’ by the firms.9
In addition, since the Amex uses a ‘‘selfreporting’’ methodology for its members
to report and remit amounts payable
pursuant to Rule 393, the Amex has and
continues to accumulate amounts in
excess of the amounts paid by the Amex
to the Commission pursuant to section
5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57641
(April 9, 2008), 73 FR 20724.
6 Amendment No. 4 makes minor changes,
discussed in Amendment No. 3, to the proposed
rule text to reflect that the date of effectiveness of
the proposed rule change would be the date the
Commission order approving the proposed rule
change is published in the Federal Register and
that the effectiveness of Commentary .01 to Rule
393, once approved, would be for a period of six
months. Amendment No. 4 is a technical
amendment not subject to notice and comment.
7 15 U.S.C. 78ee.
8 17 CFR 240.31.
9 The Commission stated in its release adopting
new Rule 31 and Rule 31T that ‘‘it is misleading
to suggest that a customer or [SRO] member incurs
an obligation to the Commission under section 31.’’
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49928 (June
28, 2004), 69 FR 41060, 41072 (July 7, 2004). In
response to this statement, the Exchange issued a
notice to members regarding its Rule 393 Fee and
the Commission’s ‘‘Section 31 Fee,’’ and provided
guidance for members and member organizations
that choose to charge their customers fees. See
Amex Notice REG 2004–42 Finance (October 29,
2004).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
31 and Rule 31 (‘‘Exchange accumulated
funds’’).
The Exchange is proposing a new
Commentary to Rule 393 that will allow
firms, on a one-time-only basis,
voluntarily to remit historically
accumulated funds to the Exchange.
These funds then would be used to pay
the Exchange’s current Section 31 fees
in conformity with prior representations
made by member firms. In addition, a
member or member organization may
designate all or part of the Exchangeaccumulated excess held by the
Exchange and allocated to such member
be used by the Exchange in accordance
with the new Commentary to Rule 393.
Finally, to the extent the payment of
these historically accumulated funds or
Exchange accumulated funds is in
excess of the Section 31 fees due the
Commission from the Amex, such
surplus shall be used by the Exchange
to offset regulatory costs.
The Amex proposes that the effective
date of the proposed rule change would
be the date the Commission Order
approving the proposed rule filing is
published in the Federal Register and
the effectiveness of Commentary .01 to
Rule 393, once approved, would be for
a period of six months.
After carefully considering the
proposal, 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
exchange.10 The Commission previously
found a similar proposal from another
SRO to be consistent with the Act.11 The
Commission is not aware of any issue
that should cause it to revisit that
finding or preclude the Commission
from approving the Amex proposal on
the same basis. The Commission notes
that, because the program is voluntary,
it imposes no obligation on any Amex
member that believes that accumulated
funds should be retained or disposed of
in another manner.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
section 19(b)(2) of the Act,12 that the
proposed rule change (File No. SR–
AMEX–2007–107), as modified by
Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 thereto, be,
and hereby is, approved.
10 In approving this proposal, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule’s impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See
15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
11 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55886
(June 8, 2007), 72 FR 32935 (SR–NASD–2007–027).
12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.13
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–11522 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Release No. 34–57820; File No. SR–FINRA–
2008–017]
Self-Regulatory Organizations:
Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Section 1(a) of Article III of the FINRA
By-Laws
May 15, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on May 7,
2008, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) (f/k/a
National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’)) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by FINRA. This
order provides notice of the proposed
rule change and approves the proposed
rule change on an accelerated basis.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
FINRA is proposing to amend Section
1(a) of Article III of the FINRA By-Laws,
to interpret the reference to a ‘‘registered
broker’’ in Section 1(a) of Article III of
the FINRA By-Laws to include any bank
exempted from the definition of
‘‘broker’’ under Section 3(a)(4)(E) of the
Act 3 as of the date of filing of the
proposed rule change. The proposed
rule change is submitted in furtherance
of the consolidation of the member firm
regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE
Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Regulation’’).
There are no changes to the text of
FINRA rules as a result of the proposed
rule change.
13 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)(E).
1 15
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 101 (Friday, May 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30173-30174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11522]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-57829; File No. SR-Amex-2007-107]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4
Thereto, Relating to Section 31 Related Fees
May 16, 2008.
On October 2, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to allow member firms to voluntarily submit,
during a six-month period after the effective date of this proposal,
funds previously accumulated by the member firms pursuant to Rule 393.
In addition, the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to use
accumulated funds to pay its current section 31 fees or, to the extent
of any surplus, offset other Exchange regulatory costs. The Amex filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on March 19, 2008.\3\ The
Amex filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change on April 7,
2008.\4\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal
[[Page 30174]]
Register on April 16, 2008.\5\ The Amex filed Amendment No. 4 to the
proposed rule change on May 15, 2008.\6\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposed rule change. This order approves
the proposed rule change, as modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ The Amex previously filed and withdrew Amendment No. 1 sto
the proposed rule change.
\4\ Amendment No. 3 replaced all previous amendments in their
entirety, added new effective dates of the proposed rule change,
would eliminate non-substantive and extraneous text from proposed
Commentary .01 to Rule 393.
\5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57641 (April 9, 2008),
73 FR 20724.
\6\ Amendment No. 4 makes minor changes, discussed in Amendment
No. 3, to the proposed rule text to reflect that the date of
effectiveness of the proposed rule change would be the date the
Commission order approving the proposed rule change is published in
the Federal Register and that the effectiveness of Commentary .01 to
Rule 393, once approved, would be for a period of six months.
Amendment No. 4 is a technical amendment not subject to notice and
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 31 of the Act \7\ and Rule 31 thereunder,\8\
national securities exchanges and associations (collectively ``SROs'')
are required to pay a transaction fee to the Commission that is
designed to recover the costs related to the government's supervision
and regulation of the securities markets and securities professionals.
To offset this obligation, the Amex assesses its clearing and self-
clearing members a regulatory fee in accordance with Rule 393, which
mirrors section 31 in both scope and amount. Clearing members may in
turn seek to charge a fee to their customers or correspondent firms.
Any allocation of the fee between a clearing member and its
correspondent firm or customer is the responsibility of the clearing
member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee.
\8\ 17 CFR 240.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconciling the amounts reported to the Amex and the amounts
collected from the customers historically had been difficult for member
firms, causing surpluses to accumulate at some member firms (referred
to as ``accumulated funds''). These accumulated funds were not remitted
to the Amex by certain members, despite the fact that these charges may
have been previously identified as ``Section 31 Fees'' or ``SEC Fees''
by the firms.\9\ In addition, since the Amex uses a ``self-reporting''
methodology for its members to report and remit amounts payable
pursuant to Rule 393, the Amex has and continues to accumulate amounts
in excess of the amounts paid by the Amex to the Commission pursuant to
section 31 and Rule 31 (``Exchange accumulated funds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Commission stated in its release adopting new Rule 31
and Rule 31T that ``it is misleading to suggest that a customer or
[SRO] member incurs an obligation to the Commission under section
31.'' Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49928 (June 28, 2004), 69
FR 41060, 41072 (July 7, 2004). In response to this statement, the
Exchange issued a notice to members regarding its Rule 393 Fee and
the Commission's ``Section 31 Fee,'' and provided guidance for
members and member organizations that choose to charge their
customers fees. See Amex Notice REG 2004-42 Finance (October 29,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange is proposing a new Commentary to Rule 393 that will
allow firms, on a one-time-only basis, voluntarily to remit
historically accumulated funds to the Exchange. These funds then would
be used to pay the Exchange's current Section 31 fees in conformity
with prior representations made by member firms. In addition, a member
or member organization may designate all or part of the Exchange-
accumulated excess held by the Exchange and allocated to such member be
used by the Exchange in accordance with the new Commentary to Rule 393.
Finally, to the extent the payment of these historically accumulated
funds or Exchange accumulated funds is in excess of the Section 31 fees
due the Commission from the Amex, such surplus shall be used by the
Exchange to offset regulatory costs.
The Amex proposes that the effective date of the proposed rule
change would be the date the Commission Order approving the proposed
rule filing is published in the Federal Register and the effectiveness
of Commentary .01 to Rule 393, once approved, would be for a period of
six months.
After carefully considering the proposal, 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 exchange.\10\ The Commission previously found a similar
proposal from another SRO to be consistent with the Act.\11\ The
Commission is not aware of any issue that should cause it to revisit
that finding or preclude the Commission from approving the Amex
proposal on the same basis. The Commission notes that, because the
program is voluntary, it imposes no obligation on any Amex member that
believes that accumulated funds should be retained or disposed of in
another manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55886 (June 8,
2007), 72 FR 32935 (SR-NASD-2007-027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-AMEX-2007-107), as
modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 thereto, be, and hereby is,
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11522 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
