Notices. Notice of Intent; notice of scoping meetings

9,315 words·~42 min read·/register/2006/05/01/06-4037·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53702; File No. SR-NSX-2005-09] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto to Amend Exchange Delisting Rules to Conform to Recent Amendments to Commission Rules Regarding Removal from Listing and Withdrawal from Registration April 21, 2006. I. Introduction On October 24, 2005, the National Stock Exchange (“NSX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “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 to amend Exchange delisting rules to conform to recent amendments to Commission rules regarding removal from listing and withdrawal from registration.

The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 22, 2006. 3 No comments were received regarding the proposal. On March 23, 2006, NSX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 4 On April 12, 2006, NSX filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 5 This order approves the proposed rule change, publishes notice of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change, and grants accelerated approval to Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53508 (March 17, 2006), 71 FR 14562. 4 In Amendment No. 1, NSX added an interpretation and policy to Section 3.2A to Article IV of the NSX Bylaws to:

(i)Clarify the effective date of the proposal;

(ii)clarify the use of Form 25 as a delisting application; and

(iii)state that an issuer that is below the continued listing policies and standards of the Exchange and seeks to voluntarily apply to withdraw a class of securities from listing must disclose that it is no longer eligible for continued listing in its statement of material facts relating to the reason for withdrawal from listing, its public press release, and its Web site notice. 5 In Amendment No. 2, NSX made technical changes to its Form 19b-4, Exhibit 1, and Exhibits that clarify the changes proposed in Amendment No. 1. II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change Section 12 of the Act 6 and SEC Rule 12d2-2 govern the process for the delisting and deregistration of securities listed on national securities exchanges. Recent amendments to SEC Rule 12d2-2 (“amended SEC Rule 12d2-2”) and other Commission rules require the electronic filing of revised Form 25 7 on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system by exchanges and issuers for all delistings, other than delistings of standardized options and securities futures, which are exempted. 8 6 15 U.S.C. 78l. 7 17 CFR 249.25. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14, 2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005) (“SEC Rule 12d2-2 Approval Order”). In the case of exchange-initiated delistings, amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b) states that a national securities exchange may file an application on Form 25 to strike a class of securities from listing and/or withdraw the registration of such securities, in accordance with its rules, if the rules of such exchange, at a minimum, provide for:

(i)Notice to the issuer of the exchange's decision to delist its securities;

(ii)An opportunity for appeal to the exchange's board of directors, or to a committee designated by the board; and

(iii)Public notice of the national securities exchange's final determination to remove the security from listing and/or registration, by issuing a press release and posting notice on its Web site. Public notice must be disseminated no fewer than 10 days before the delisting becomes effective pursuant to amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(d)(1), and must remain posted on its Web site until the delisting is effective. The Exchange's current provisions with respect to the delisting of securities are contained in Article IV, Section 3 of the NSX Bylaws. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.1(b) of the Bylaws to comply with new requirements set forth in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b). The provisions set forth in current Section 3 of the Bylaws, which provide for notification to the issuer in the event that the Exchange determines to delist the issuer's securities and the right to appeal the Exchange's determination, satisfy the minimum provisions set forth in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b)(1)(i)-(ii). NSX rules do not currently provide for public notice of the delisting, as mandated by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b)(1)(iii). Therefore, proposed Section 3.1(b) of the Bylaws would require the Exchange to provide public notice, in accordance with amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b)(1)(iii), of a final determination by the Exchange to strike an issuer's securities from listing and/or withdraw the registration of such securities on the Exchange. The criteria the Exchange would employ for issuers that desire to delist their security from the Exchange are contained in Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws. Currently, Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws requires that an issuer seeking to voluntarily delist its security submit a certified copy of the issuer's board resolution authorizing withdrawal from listing and registration and a statement of the reasons for the withdrawal and supporting facts. NSX is retaining these provisions. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws to add new requirements that an issuer certify that it is in compliance with the Exchange's rules for delisting and applicable state law (in conformity with amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(i)) and certify that the issuer is in compliance with the public notice requirements under amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii). The proposed rule filing sets forth a new requirement separate from those set forth in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c) that would require the issuer to notify the Exchange in writing that it has filed Form 25 with the SEC simultaneously with such filing. Such notification would include the date the issuer expects the delisting to become effective. In addition, NSX proposes to amend Section 3.2 of the Bylaws to add provisions requiring the issuer to submit written notice that is in conformity with the requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(ii) to the Exchange no fewer than ten days before the issuer files its application to delist with the Commission and another notice when such application becomes effective. The proposal would also eliminate the provision in Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws that requires the issuer to submit the proposed voluntary delisting of its security to the security holders for their vote in a meeting for which proxies are submitted. The Exchange also proposes in Interpretations and Policies .01 to new Section 3.2A to the NSX Bylaws to require any issuer seeking to voluntarily apply to withdraw a class of securities from listing on the Exchange pursuant to Section 3.2A that has received notice from the Exchange, pursuant to Section 3.1A or otherwise, that it is below the Exchange's continued listing policies and standards, or that is aware that it is below such continued listing policies and standards notwithstanding that it has not received such notice from the Exchange, must disclose that it is no longer eligible for continued listing (including the specific continued listing policies and standards that the issue is below) in:

(i)Its statement of all material facts (pursuant to Section 3.2A(d)) relating to the reasons for withdrawal from listing provided to the Exchange along with written notice of its determination to withdraw from listing required by amended SEC Rule12d2-2(c)(2)(ii) under the Act and;

(ii)its public press release and web site notice required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii) under the Act. 9 9 *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. Finally, the Exchange has made changes in its rules to clarify that the Form 25 serves as the application to remove a security from listing and/or registration and to specify that the proposed changes will be effective as of April 24, 2006 as required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2. III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 10 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act. 11 Specifically, as discussed below, the Commission finds that the proposal, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 12 which requires, in part, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, and processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Further, as noted in more detail below, the changes being adopted by the NSX meet the requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2. 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 15 U.S.C. 78f. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). A. Exchange Delisting Amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b) states that a national securities exchange may file an application on Form 25 to strike a class of securities from listing and/or withdraw the registration of such securities, in accordance with its rules, if the rules of such exchange, at a minimum, provide for notice to the issuer of the exchange's decision to delist, opportunity for appeal, and public notice of the exchange's final determination to delist. The Commission believes that NSX's current rules and proposal comply with the dictates of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b). NSX rules currently provide the requisite issuer notice as well as an opportunity to appeal such action by following Chapter X of the Exchange Rules governing adverse actions. 13 Specifically, a person who is or will be aggrieved by any action of the Exchange can submit an application for hearing and review to the Secretary of the Exchange, who promptly forwards such request to the Appeals Committee. 14 The decision of the Appeals Committee is subject to further review by the Board of Directors upon its own motion or upon written request by the aggrieved party. 15 Finally, the proposed rule change will provide for public notice of the Exchange's final determination to remove the security from listing and/or registration. This should ensure that investors have adequate notice of an exchange delisting and is consistent with the protection of investors under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 16 13 *See* Section 3.1 of the NSX By-Laws. 14 NSX Rule 10.3. 15 NSX Rule 10.5. 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Issuer Voluntary Delisting The Exchange proposes to set forth in its Exchange rules the general requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c) regarding issuer voluntary delisting. In addition, new Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws would require the issuer to certify its compliance with Exchange rules for delisting and other applicable laws. Further, the Commission notes that NSX also proposes to amend Section 3.2 of the Bylaws to conform to amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c) which requires issuers to notify the Exchange in case it elects to delist its securities from the Exchange, and upon such notification, the Exchange would be required to issue a public notice of such determination. The Commission believes that these provisions will inform issuers of the requirements for voluntary delisting of their securities under Exchange rules and federal securities laws and ensure the Exchange and shareholders are adequately notified of an issuer delisting. The proposal also sets forth a new requirement not in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2 that would require an issuer seeking to voluntarily delist its security to notify the Exchange in writing that it has filed Form 25 with the Commission simultaneously with such filing. The issuer would also be required to notify the Exchange in writing immediately after the delisting actually becomes effective. The Commission believes that this requirement will allow the Exchange to be fully informed of the filing of a Form 25 and be prepared to take timely action to delist the security in accordance with the filing of the Form. The Exchange also proposes to add an interpretation and policy to Section 3.2A to the Bylaws to require any issuer seeking to voluntarily apply to withdraw a class of securities from listing on the Exchange pursuant to Section 3.2A that has received notice from the Exchange, pursuant to Section 3.1A or otherwise, that it is below the Exchange's continued listing policies and standards, or that is aware that it is below such continued listing policies and standards notwithstanding that it has not received such notice from the Exchange, must disclose that it is no longer eligible for continued listing (including the specific continued listing policies and standards that the issue is below) in:

(i)Its statement of all material facts (pursuant to Section 3.2A (d)) relating to the reasons for withdrawal from listing provided to the Exchange along with written notice of its determination to withdraw from listing required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(ii) under the Act and;

(ii)its public press release and web site notice required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii) under the Act. 17 The Commission believes that this requirement will allow shareholders to be informed and aware that the issuer has failed to meet Exchange listing standards and is voluntarily delisting with the consent of the Exchange. Issuers will therefore not be permitted to delist voluntarily without public disclosure of their noncompliance with Exchange listing standards. 17 *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4. C. Accelerated Approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 18 the Commission may not approve any proposed rule change, or amendment thereto, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of the filing thereof, unless the Commission finds good cause for so doing and publishes its reasons for so finding. The Commission hereby finds good cause for approving Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposal, prior to the 30th day after publishing notice of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 in the **Federal Register** . 18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). As previously discussed, the revisions made to the proposal in Amendment No. 1 19 will allow shareholders to be informed and aware that the issuer has failed to meet Exchange listing standards and is voluntarily delisting with the consent of the Exchange. The other revisions in Amendment No. 1 are clarifications. In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange made technical changes that clarify the revisions set forth in Amendment No. 1. The Commission believes that granting accelerated approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 will permit the Exchange to implement these new provisions as expeditiously as possible, to the benefit of investors. Further, no comments were received on the original proposal, as published. 20 The Commission also believes that accelerating approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 is appropriate because these revisions do not raise new regulatory issues. 19 *See* Amendment No. 1, *supra* note 4 and Section III.B herein. 20 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53508, *supra* note 3. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 21 the Commission finds good cause to approve Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 prior to the thirtieth day after notice of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are published in the **Federal Register** . 21 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, including whether Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include* File No. SR-NSX-2005-09 *on the subject line.* Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2005-09. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). 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 also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2005-09 and should be submitted on or before May 22, 2006. V. Conclusion It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 22 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSX-2005-09) is approved, and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change are approved on an accelerated basis. 22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 23 23 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6503 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [License No. 09/79-0456] Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest Notice is hereby given that Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P., 4 Main Street, Suite 50, Los Altos, CA 94022, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to Venturi Wireless, Inc., Sunnyvale Research Plaza, 555 N. Mathilda Avenue, Suite 100, Sunnyvale, California 94085. The financing is contemplated for working capital and general corporate purposes. The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Horizons Ventures Fund I, L.P. and Horizons Ventures Advisors Fund I, L.P., all Associates of Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P., own more than ten percent of Venturi Wireless, Inc., and therefore Venturi Wireless, Inc. is considered an Associate of Horizon Ventures Fund II as detailed in § 107.50 of the Regulations. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. Dated: April 3, 2006. Jaime Guzmán-Fournier, Associate Administrator for Investment. [FR Doc. E6-6488 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [License No. 09/79-0456] Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest Notice is hereby given that Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P., 4 Main Street, Suite 50, Los Altos, CA 94022, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to Invivodata, Inc. 2100 Wharton Street, Suite 505, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203. The financing is contemplated for working capital and general corporate purposes. The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Horizons Ventures Fund I, L.P. and Horizons Ventures Advisors Fund I, L.P., all Associates of Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P., own more than ten percent of Invivodata, Inc., and therefore Invivodata is considered an Associate of Horizon Ventures Fund II as detailed in § 107.50 of the Regulations. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. April 3, 2006. Jaime Guzma n-Fournier, Associate Administrator for Investment. [FR Doc. E6-6489 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SBA Lender Risk Rating System Notice and Request for Comments SUMMARY: SBA is proposing for comment a lender risk rating system. The lender risk rating system is an internal tool to assist SBA in assessing the risk of each active 7(a) Lender and Certified Development Company's (“SBA Lender”) SBA loan operations, and loan portfolio, on a uniform basis and for identifying those institutions whose SBA loan operations and portfolio require additional SBA monitoring or other action. It is also a vehicle for assessing the aggregate strength of SBA's 7(a) and 504 portfolios. Under the lender risk rating system, SBA would assign each Lender a composite rating based on certain portfolio performance factors, which may be overridden in some cases due to Lender specific factors that may be indicative of a higher or lower level of risk. SBA Lenders would have access to their own ratings through SBA's Lender Portal. DATES: SBA must receive comments on or before June 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods

(1)E-mail *proposedriskrating@sba.gov* ;

(2)Fax:

(202)205-6831;

(3)Mail: John M. White, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Lender Oversight, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416;

(4)Hand Delivery/Courier: 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, c/o John M. White. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John M. White, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Lender Oversight, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416,

(202)205-3049. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background SBA is developing an internal risk rating system for assessing an SBA Lender's 7(a) or 504 loan portfolio (i.e., loan portfolio performance). The risk rating system will be an internal tool that will assist SBA in assessing the risk of a Lender's 7(a) and 504 loan performance on a uniform basis and identify those Lenders whose portfolio performance demonstrates the need for additional SBA monitoring or other action. It is not intended to be a Lender grading system. The lender risk rating system will also serve as a vehicle to measure the aggregate strength of SBA's overall 7(a) and 504 loan portfolios and to assist SBA in managing the related risk. SBA will use Lender risk ratings to make more effective use of its on-site and off-site lender review and assessments resources. The proposed risk rating methodology is set forth below. SBA is soliciting comments on the risk rating methodology. During the comment period, SBA will provide Lenders access to their own preliminary risk ratings through SBA's Lender Portal. A more detailed discussion of the risk rating proposal and portal access follows. Risk Rating Proposal Overview Under SBA's proposed risk rating system, SBA would assign all Lenders a composite rating. The composite rating would reflect SBA's assessment of the potential risk to the government of that Lender's SBA portfolio performance. For 7(a) Lenders, SBA would base the composite rating on four common components or factors. The common factors for 7(a) Lenders would be as follows:

(i)12 month actual purchase rate;

(ii)problem loan rate;

(iii)three month change in the small business predictive score (SBPS), which is a small business credit score on loans in the 7(a) Lender's portfolio; and

(iv)projected purchase rate derived from the SBPS. For CDCs, SBA would base the composite rating on three common components or factors. The common factors for CDCs would be as follows:

(i)12 month actual purchase rate;

(ii)problem loan rate; and

(iii)average SBPS on loans in the 504 Lender's portfolio. The third factor replaces the third and fourth factors used for 7(a) Lenders because it was found, during the testing process, to be more predictive of SBA purchases for 504 Lenders. In general, these factors reflect both historical lender performance and projected future performance. The factors are derived through formulas developed using regression analysis validated and tested by industry experts. SBA would perform quarterly calculations on the common factors for each Lender, so that Lenders' composite risk ratings would be updated on a quarterly basis. Each of the factors is described in more detail in the Rating Components section below. The composite risk rating is a measure of how each Lender's loan performance compares to the loan performance of its peers. Thus, an individual Lender's overall loan performance (using all common factors) would be compared to its peers to derive that Lender's composite risk rating. Lenders whose overall portfolio performance (using all of the common factors) is worse than their peers will receive a worse, or higher score, while Lenders whose overall portfolio performance is better than their peers will receive a better, or lower, score. SBA recognizes that it may be inequitable to compare all Lenders in a risk rating system, without separating them into peer groups, because changes in loan performance would have dramatically different impacts on the portfolio performance of Lenders of different sizes. For example, the purchase of one loan from a Lender would have a much higher impact on the actual purchase rate component of a Lender with a small portfolio than it would on the actual purchase rate of a Lender with a large portfolio. Therefore, SBA has established peer groups to minimize the differences that could result from changes in loan performance for portfolios of different sizes. The peer groups are as follows (based on outstanding SBA guaranteed dollars): 7(a) Lender Peer Groups CDC Peer Groups $100,000,000 or more $100,000,000 or more. $10,000,000-$99,999,999 $30,000,000-$99,999,999. $4,000,000-$9,999,999 $10,000,000-$29,999,999. $1,000,000-$3,999,999 $5,000,000-$9,999,999. $0-$999,999 (lenders disbursed at least one loan in past 12 months) Less than $5,000,000. $0-$999,999 (lenders did not disburse at least one loan in past 12 months) As noted above, the common components would be used to derive a composite risk rating for each 7(a) and 504 Lender. Under the proposal, no single component factor would normally decide the Lender's composite rating. However, depending upon the size of the peer group, and the variation between a Lender's performance and that of its peers, a single factor could carry a disproportionate weight among the three or four components. Composite Rating SBA would assign a composite rating of 1 to 5 to each Lender based upon their portfolio performance. A rating of 1 would indicate strong portfolio performance, least risk, and the least degree of SBA management oversight is needed (relative to other Lenders in their peer group), while a 5 rating would indicate weak portfolio performance, highest risk, and therefore, the highest degree of SBA management oversight. SBA proposes the following definitions for the composite ratings. Composite 1—The SBA operations of a Lender rated 1 would be considered strong in every respect, and would likely score much better than SBA averages in all or nearly all of the rating components described in this notice. A Lender rated 1 would have relatively stable component factors and overall composite rating from one quarter to the next. Since the component factors measure previous performance, and also attempt to predict future performance, a Lender rated 1 would be more likely to have well below average historical purchase rates, as well as well below average current problem loan rates that would predict lower than average future purchase rates. Overall, loans in the portfolio of a Lender rated 1 would demonstrate highly acceptable credit quality and/or credit trends as measured by credit scores and portfolio performance. A Lender rated 1 would typically also have a well managed SBA loan program as demonstrated through on-site or off-site reviews and assessments (of mid-size and larger Lenders). Based on the strengths outlined in this composite rating, Lenders rated a 1 would present SBA with the least amount of risk, and would thus be subject to the lowest level of SBA oversight compared to other Lenders in the same peer group. Composite 2—The SBA operations of a Lender rated 2 would be considered good, and would likely be above average in all or nearly all of the rating components described in this notice. A Lender rated a 2 would have component factors and a composite rating that would typically be relatively stable from one quarter to the next. A Lender rated 2 would be more likely to have below average previous (historical) purchase rates, as well as below average current problem loan rates that would predict lower than average future purchase rates. Generally, loans in the portfolio of a Lender rated 2 would demonstrate better-than-acceptable credit quality and/or credit trends as measured by credit scores and portfolio performance. A Lender rated 2 would likely have a generally well managed (i.e., a few minor exceptions or findings) SBA loan program as demonstrated through on-site or off-site reviews and assessments (of mid-size and large Lenders). Based on the strengths outlined in this composite rating. Lenders rated a 2 would present SBA with a lower level of risk, and would thus be subject to a lower level of SBA oversight compared to other Lenders in the same peer groups. Composite 3—The SBA operations of a Lender rated 3 would be considered about average in all or nearly all of the rating components described in this notice. A Lender rated a 3 would have, on average, component factors and an overall composite rating that would generally be relatively stable from one quarter to the next. A Lender rated 3 would likely have average previous (historical) purchase rates (as compared to their peers), as well as average current problem loans rates that would predict future purchase rates in line with SBA portfolio averages. Generally, loans in the portfolio of a Lender rated 3 would demonstrate acceptable credit quality and/or credit trends as measured by credit scores and portfolio performance. A Lender rated 3 would have an adequate ( *i.e.* , some minor exceptions or findings, but few if any major exceptions or findings, which can be corrected in the normal course of business) SBA loan program as demonstrated through on-site or off-site reviews and assessments (of mid-size and large Lenders). However, Lenders rated a 3 would have room for improvement, should monitor their portfolio closely, and consider methods to improve loan performance. Based on the strengths and weaknesses outlined in this composite rating, Lenders rated a 3 would present SBA with an acceptable level of risk, and would thus be subject to standard SBA oversight compared to other Lenders in the same peer group. Oversight may include requests for corrective action plans. Composite 4—The SBA operations of Lender rated 4 would be considered below average in all or nearly all of the rating components described in this notice. A Lender rated a 4 may have several changes in any of its components factor rates; the component factors and overall composite rating may demonstrate instability or negative performance from one quarter to the next. A Lender rated 4 would be likely have above average previous (historical) purchase rates (as compared to their peers), as well as above average current problem loan rates that would predict future purchase rates above SBA portfolio averages. Generally, loans in the portfolio of a Lender rated 4 would demonstrate somewhat less-than-acceptable credit quality and/or credit trends as measured by credit scores and portfolio performance. A lender rated 4 would likely have a poorly managed (i.e., both minor exceptions or findings, and major exceptions or findings) SBA loan program as demonstrated through on-site or off-site reviews and assessments (of mid-size and large Lenders). Based on the weaknesses outlined in this composite rating, Lenders rated a 4 would present SBA with a less-than-acceptable level of risk, and would thus be subject to greater than normal SBA oversight compared to other Lenders in the same peer group. Oversight measures could include (but are not limited to) additional reviews or assessments, requests for corrective action plans, and/or removal from delegated loan programs, depending upon the level of activity and peer group. Composite 5—The SBA operations of a Lender rated 5 would be considered well below average in all or nearly all of the rating components described in this notice. A Lender rated a 5 is most likely to have changes in any of its component factor rates, and have the greatest likelihood to have their component factors and overall composite rating demonstrate instability or negative performance from one quarter to the next. A Lender rated 5 would be probably have well above average previous (historical) purchase rates, as well as well above average current problem loan rates that would predict future purchase rates above SBA portfolio averages. Generally, loans in the portfolio of a Lender rated 5 would demonstrate less-than-acceptable credit quality and/or credit trends as measured by credit scores and portfolio performance. A Lender rated 5 would likely have a record of significant SBA program compliance issues as demonstrated through on-site or off-site reviews and assessments (of mid-size and large Lenders). Based on the substantial weaknesses outlined in this composite rating, Lenders rated a 5 would present SBA with the highest level of risk, and would thus be subject to extensive SBA oversight compared to other Lenders in the same peer group. Oversight measures could include (but are not limited to) additional reviews or assessments, requests for corrective action plans, and and/or removal from delegated loan programs, depending upon the level of activity and peer group. The descriptions within each Composite rating are not meant as definitions of the ratings, but are given to provide, in general, the characteristics a Lender receiving a particular rating may exhibit. Consequently, a Lender assigned a particular composite rating may not exhibit every characteristic described for that rating, nor would SBA's action be limited to those stated in the descriptions. In some cases, SBA may have reason to believe that a Lender's calculated composite rating may not fully reflect the level of risk that individual Lender presents. In those cases, SBA may override the composite risk rating (either positively or negatively) and assign a different composite score. Should a decision be made to override the composite score, SBA will provide the Lender with an explanation of the reason(s) for the override. More information on overrides of composite ratings is provided in the overriding factors section of this notice. SBA's proposal to base composite ratings on a numeric scale is similar to rating systems used by bank regulators and other federal loan guarantors. For example, SBA's composite rating of 1 is similar to that of a bank regulator in that it is indicative of an institution with strong performance and requiring little management oversight. SBA's rating system is similar to those of other federal loan guarantors because it measures risk and portfolio performance of loan portfolios guaranteed by SBA, rather than measuring the quality of the entire institution. Rating Components *The 4 Common Components for 7(a) Lenders:* SBA's proposed quantitative risk rating system for 7(a) Lenders features four common component factors. The four common rating components are defined below.

(i)Past 12 Month Actual Purchase Rate—The Past 12 Month Actual Purchase Rate is an historical measure of SBA purchases from the Lender in the preceding 12 months. Thus, this component provides a measure of Lender performance and risk as indicated by actual SBA purchases. SBA calculates this ratio by dividing the sum of total gross dollars of the Lender's loans purchased during the past 12 months (numerator) by the sum of total gross outstanding dollars of their SBA loans outstanding at the end of the 12-month period, plus gross dollars purchased during the past 12 months (denominator).

(ii)Problem Loan Rate—The Problem Loan Rate provides an indication of current Lender risk. This problem loan indicator helps measure Lender performance and risk by showing current delinquencies and liquidations, as well as predicting potential future purchases by SBA. SBA calculates the problem loan rate by dividing total gross outstanding dollars of a Lender's loans that are 90 days or more delinquent plus gross dollars in liquidation, excluding purchases of active loans, (numerator) by the total gross dollars outstanding (denominator).

(iii)3 Month Change in Small Business Predictive Scores (SBPS)—The SBPS is a portfolio management (not origination) credit score based upon a borrower's business credit report and principal's consumer credit report. SBPS is a proprietary calculation provided by Dunn & Bradstreet, under contract with SBA, and is compatible with Fair, Isaac & Co.'s “Liquid Credit” origination score. This component signals increasing or declining purchase risk by measuring changes in borrower credit trends, and acts as a predictor of possible future loan delinquencies, liquidations, and SBA purchases. The 3 month change in SBPS is calculated by measuring the percentage change, on a dollar-weighted average basis, of the SBPS on all outstanding SBA loans held by the lender, from the previous quarter to the current quarter.

(iv)Projected Purchase Rate—The Projected Purchase Rate is a predictive measure of the probability of the amount of SBA guaranteed dollars in a Lender's portfolio that are likely to be purchased by SBA. This factor uses credit bureau data on a Lender's individual SBA loans to project the purchase rate of a Lender's SBA portfolio. It is a 12-month projection of future performance based on the most current credit data on a borrower's payment history. For each of a Lender's SBA loans outstanding, SBA multiplies the amount of guaranteed loan dollars outstanding by the probability of its purchase (as determined by the SBPS of the individual loan) and totals the sum of each individual loan outstanding. This total (numerator) is then divided by the Lender's total SBA-guaranteed dollars outstanding (denominator). *The 3 Common Components for CDCs:* SBA's proposed quantitative risk rating system for 504 Lenders features three common component factors. The three common rating components are defined below.

(i)Past 12 Month Actual Purchase Rate—The Past 12 Month Actual Purchase Rate is an historical measure of SBA purchases from the CDC in the preceding 12 months. Thus, this component provides a measure of CDC performance and risk as indicated by actual SBA purchases. SBA calculates this ratio by dividing the sum of total SBA gross dollars of the CDC's loans purchased during the past 12 months (numerator) by the sum of total SBA gross dollars of their SBA loans outstanding at the end of the 12-month period, plus total SBA gross dollars purchased during the past 12 months (denominator).

(ii)Problem Loan Rate—The Problem Loan Rate provides an indication of current CDC risk. This problem loan indicator helps measure CDC performance and risk by showing current delinquencies and liquidations, as well as predicting potential future purchases by SBA. SBA calculates the problem loan rate by dividing the total SBA gross dollars of a CDC's loans that are 90 days or more delinquent plus total SBA gross dollars of a CDC's loans in liquidation (numerator), by the total SBA gross dollars outstanding (denominator).

(iii)Average Small Business Predictive Scores (SBPS)—The SBPS is a portfolio management (not origination) credit score based upon a borrower's business credit report and principal's consumer credit report. SBPS is a proprietary calculation provided by Dunn & Bradstreet, under contract with SBA, and is compatible with Fair, Isaac & Co.'s “Liquid Credit” origination score. This component provides an indication of the relative credit quality of the loans in a CDC's SBA portfolio. The score is calculated from the average SBPS score of the loans in a CDC's portfolio, weighted by each loan's guaranteed loan dollars outstanding. Each of the common components described above would reflect a different means of measuring a Lender's risk to SBA in terms of loan purchase data. Loan purchase metrics provide a core gauge of SBA lending success and program risk. SBA believes a risk rating system emphasizing purchase indicators would be a good measure of SBA lending risk because purchases are a strong indicator of the cost to SBA, and predictive of final charge offs and loan recoveries. In addition, loan purchases are resource intensive and an administrative expense to SBA that reduces SBA's ability to provide assistance to small businesses. Finally, SBA is a “gap” lender, and purchases are a prime indicator of the failure of the financing to assist in the growth and development of small businesses. Overriding Factors In addition to the common components calculated through the use of loan performance factors, the proposed risk rating system allows for consideration of additional factors. The occurrence of these factors may lead SBA to conclude that an individual lender's composite rating is not fully reflective of its true risk. Therefore, the proposed risk rating system would provide for the consideration of overriding factors, which may only apply to a particular Lender or group of Lenders, and permit SBA to adjust a Lender's overall composite rating. The allowance of overriding factors in helping determine a Lender's risk rating would enable SBA to use key risk factors that are not necessarily applicable to all Lenders, but indicate a greater or lower level of risk from a particular Lender than that which the calculated score provides. One of the most important overriding factors would be a Lender's on-site risk-based reviews/assessments usually performed on SBA's relatively large Lenders, or that may (under extraordinary circumstances) be performed on other Lenders whose performance demonstrates a highly unusual deviation from their peer group. SBA conducts on-site reviews of large Lenders, performs safety and soundness reviews of SBA Supervised Lenders, and uses certain off-site evaluation measures for less active Lenders. Consequently, these assessments, as a factor, may only be available for a fraction of SBA's approximately 5200 Lenders. Examples of other overriding factors that may be considered are: Early loan default trends; purchase rate or projected purchase rate trends; abnormally high default, purchase or liquidation rates; denial of liability occurrences; lending concentrations; rapid growth of SBA lending; inadequate, incomplete, or untimely reporting to SBA or inaccurate submission of required fees to SBA; and enforcement actions of regulators or other authority. This list is not all inclusive; however, SBA does not expect any of the overriding factors to affect a significant number of composite scores. Request for Comments SBA is undertaking a deliberative development of the Lender risk rating system. The proposed risk rating system utilizes predictive modeling and behavioral scoring systems developed by private sector industry leaders in credit risk analysis. SBA has and will continue to perform annual validation testing on the risk rating system, and will further refine the system as necessary to improve the predictability of its risk scoring. SBA is requesting comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed risk rating system. To facilitate written comments on the proposed risk rating system, SBA will provide Lenders access to their own preliminary risk ratings, as well as average peer and portfolio performance information. SBA will provide Lenders access to this information through the use of the Lender Portal developed for SBA's Loan and Lender Monitoring System (L/LMS). Once the risk rating system is finalized, Lenders will have access to their final quarterly ratings through the portal. Additional guidance on portal access follows. Lender Portal Overview SBA intends to communicate Lender performance to Lenders through the use of SBA's Lender Portal. The portal will allow Lenders to view their own quarterly performance data, including their most current composite risk rating. Lenders can also access data on peer group and portfolio averages. Consequently, a Lender will be able to gauge its performance relative to its peer group and the portfolio norm. While Lenders can view their ratings, their performance indicators, and peer and portfolio averages, they will not be able to view the individual ratings and performance indicators of other Lenders. The quarterly performance data will be overwritten on a quarterly basis; therefore, SBA recommends that Lenders save their performance data for their own tracking and trend analysis purposes. Portal Data SBA plans to update portal data quarterly approximately six to eight weeks after a calendar quarter ends. Lenders will only be able to access the most recent quarterly data. Lenders will not be able to access previous quarters' data following an update. Correcting Portal Data Portal data includes both summary performance and credit quality data. Because summary performance data is largely derived from data that Lenders provide to SBA through 1502 and 172 Reports, Lenders bear much of the responsibility for ensuring data accuracy. If a Lender reviews its performance components and they do not comport with its own data records, the Lender should confirm the accuracy of the underlying data. If the Lender determines that the data is inaccurate, it should seek to amend any incorrect data through SBA's normal processing channels (for example—for loan performance data, Lender should contact SBA's fiscal and transfer agent). Credit quality data used to help establish certain component scores is derived from credit bureau reports of the borrower business and its principals/guarantors. To the extent that credit quality data relies on information that a Lender provides on the business, its principals, and guarantors contained in the loan application and as required to be updated by the Lender, the Lender must take responsibility for ensuring this information is correct, complete, and updated. SBA recognizes that underlying borrower credit data cannot be changed by SBA or a Lender. Therefore, any changes to data provided to credit bureaus must be reported directly to Dunn & Bradstreet or Trans Union, as appropriate, by the borrower. All corrections to portal data (both summary performance and credit quality data) will be reflected in the quarterly update following the quarter in which the correction is entered. Portal Access Lenders with at least one outstanding SBA loan will be able to apply for portal access. SBA will issue only one portal user account per Lender. Lenders must submit initial requests for a portal user account (or requests to switch or terminate a user) by regular or overnight mail to SBA at the following address: Office of Lender Oversight—Capital Access, Suite 8200; Mail Code 7011, ATTN: Lender Portal, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. Lenders must take the following steps in requesting portal access:

(1)Request must be made by a senior officer of the Lender (Senior VP or above).

(2)Request must be sent via regular or overnight mail to the address provided above.

(3)Request must be made using the Lender's stationery.

(4)Request must include the user's business card.

(4)The stationery and business card should include the Lender's name and address.

(5)The request should include the following data:

(a)SBA FIRS ID Number(s).

(b)Account user's name.

(c)Account user's title.

(d)Account user's mailing address at the Lender.

(e)Account user's telephone number at the Lender.

(f)Account user's e-mail address at the Lender.

(g)Requesting officer's name.

(h)Requesting officer's title.

(i)Requesting officer's mailing address at the Lender.

(j)Requesting officer's telephone number at the Lender.

(k)Requesting officer's e-mail address at the Lender. Once SBA receives and approves the user request, the Agency will forward the approval to SBA's portal contractor for issuance of a user account name and password. The portal contractor will e-mail the user his or her user name and password within approximately two weeks of account approval. The user can then access its data by logging into the Lender portal Web page at *https://pdp.dnb.com/pdpsba/pdplogin.asp. * Lender Portal Responsibilities Lenders are responsible for complying with SBA's requirements in obtaining and maintaining the portal user accounts and passwords as set forth below and as published from time to time. Lenders are also responsible for timely informing SBA to terminate or switch an account if the person to whom it was issued no longer holds that responsibility for the Lender. Upon accessing the lender portal, Lenders must take full responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of the user password and lender risk rating information and for ensuring the security of the data. Confidentiality Agreement By clicking on the Portal log-in button to access the SBA Lender Information Portal (“Portal”), Lender will agree to use the Confidential Information (defined in the Portal) contained in the Portal only for confidential use within its own immediate corporate organization, and to hold and maintain the Confidential Information in confidence in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Lender will agree to restrict access to the Confidential Information to those of its officers and employees who have a legitimate need to know such information for the purpose of assisting the Lender in improving the Lender's 7(a) or 504 program operations in conjunction with SBA's Lender Oversight Program and SBA's portfolio management (each referred to as a “permitted party”), and to those for whom SBA has approved access by prior written consent and for whom access is required by applicable law or legal process. If such law or process requires Lender to disclose the Confidential Information to any person other than a permitted party, Lender will agree to promptly notify SBA and SBA's Information Provider (defined below) in writing so that SBA and the Information Provider have, within their sole discretion, the opportunity to seek appropriate relief such as an injunction or protective order prior to Lender's disclosure. In addition, Lender will agree to ensure that each permitted party is aware of the requirements of the Agreement and to ensure that each such permitted party agrees to the terms and conditions. Lender will agree not to disclose, and will agree to protect from disclosure, Lender's password to enter the Portal. Further, any disclosure of Confidential Information other than as permitted by the Agreement may result in appropriate action as authorized by law. Lender also will agree to indemnify and hold harmless each of SBA and any provider of the Confidential Information from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, and liabilities to any degree based upon or resulting from the unauthorized use or disclosure of the Confidential Information. “Information Provider” means Dun & Bradstreet. (Mail Provider Information notice to Dun & Bradstreet, Legal Department, 103 JFK Parkway, Short Hills, NJ 07078.) No information contained in the Portal shall be relied upon for any purpose other than SBA's lender oversight and SBA's portfolio management purposes. In addition, Lender will acknowledge and agree that the Confidentiality Agreement is for the benefit not only of the SBA but also of any party providing the Confidential Information. Any such party shall have the right and standing to pursue all legal and equitable remedies against the Lender in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. Portal Inquiries For general inquiries, a Lender may submit its e-mail to * lender.portal@sba.gov.* If a Lender needs to speak to an individual on a non-technical matter, it may contact Paul Bishop at 202-205-7516. SBA advises a Lender to state upfront its Lender name, address, FIRS number, and user name to expedite processing of all inquiries. Dated: April 26, 2006. Michael W. Hager, Associate Deputy Administrator, Office of Capital Access. [FR Doc. E6-6506 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Port Columbus International Airport, Columbus, OH AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation ACTION: Notice of Intent; notice of scoping meetings. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)is issuing this Notice of Intent to announce publicly that an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)will be prepared and considered for the proposed construction of a replacement runway, proposed terminal development, ancillary development, and air traffic procedures developed in the Part 150 Study for the replacement runway. Associated improvements involved with the proposed project are described below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katherine S. Jones, Federal Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan 48174,

(734)229-2958. Project Web site: *http://www.airportsites.net/CMH-EIS* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA, in cooperation with the Columbus Regional Airport Authority (CRAA), will prepare an EIS for a proposed project to replace Runway 10R/28L at the Port Columbus International Airport, approximately 700 feet south of the existing Runway 10R/28L; new terminal facilities in the midfield area; ancillary in support of the replacement runway and midfield terminal; and noise abatement air traffic procedures developed for the replacement runway. The replacement runway would be 10,113 feet long. This length would maintain the airport's ability to accommodate current and projected airport operations. Existing Runway 10R/28L would be decommissioned as a runway and converted into a taxiway upon commissioning of the replacement runway. In addition, a south taxiway and north parallel taxiways to proposed Runway 10R/28L would be constructed. To meet future aircraft parking and passenger processing requirements, new midfield terminal facilities are needed. The EIS will assess a development envelope that is defined as an area large enough to encompass Phase I and II of the CRAA terminal development program. The number of gates, approximate square footage, approximate curb frontage, and the number of passengers that the terminal would accommodate will be discussed throughout the process. Ancillary facilities in support of the replacement runway and midfield terminal would be constructed . The facilities include roadway relocations and construction; parking improvements; property acquisition; and relocation of residences, businesses, and farms, as necessary. The CRAA is in the process of preparing a 14 CFR part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update (Part 150 Update) to address the current and future noise conditions. The Part 150 Update will include an analysis of the potential noise and land use impacts resulting from the proposed development of relocating Runway 10R/28L to the south, as well as possible mitigation options. Any noise abatement air traffic options recommended through the Part 150 Update will be included in the EIS as part of the part of the proposed project. In addition, any land use mitigation that is recommended in the Part 150 Update for the proposed project will be included in the EIS. The EIS will include the evaluation of a no action alternative and other reasonable alternatives that may be identified during the agency and public scoping meetings. The EIS will determine all environmental impacts, such as and not limited to, noise impacts, impacts on air and water quality, wetlands, ecological resources, floodplains, historic resources, hazardous wastes, socioeconomics, and economic factors. Scoping: To resure that the full range of issues related to the proposed project is addressed and that all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Public and agency scoping meetings will be conducted to identify any significant issues associated with the proposed project. An agency scoping meeting for all Federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agencies will be held on May 31, 2006. This meeting will take place at 10 a.m. in the Emergency Operations Center at the Port Columbus International Airport, 4600 International Gateway, Columbus, Ohio 43219. Two public scoping meetings for the general public will be held on the evenings of May 31, 2006 and June 1, 2006. The meetings will be conducted at two locations, one at the Holiday Inn, 750 Stelzer Road, Columbus, OH 43219 and the other at the Ramda Inn, 4801 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43213. Both meetings will be held between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. Written comments may be mailed to the Informational contact listed above within 30 days following the scoping meetings. Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Issued in Romulus, Michigan, April 21, 2006. Irene R. Porter, Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region. [FR Doc. 06-4037 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

2 references not yet in our index