Notices. Notice

10,985 words·~50 min read·/register/2007/04/17/07-1877

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. 34-55606; File No. SR-BSE-2006-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2 Relating to the Boston Options Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan April 10, 2007. On March 6, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend Chapter X of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) Rules, BOX's minor rule violation plan (“BOX MRVP”).

The Exchange filed Amendments No. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change on June 28, 2006, and July 14, 2006, respectively. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 7, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55373 (February 28, 2007), 72 FR 10276.

The Exchange proposed to make the following actions subject to the BOX MRVP: • contrary exercise advice infractions (in violation of BOX Rule Chapter VII, Section 1(c), (d), (f), and (g)); • locked and crossed market infringements (in violation of BOX Rule Chapter XII, Section 4); • Market Maker assigned activity violations (in violation of BOX Rule Chapter VI, Section 4(e)); • Market Maker's failure to respond to a request for a quote within the designated time limit (in violation of BOX Rule Chapter VI, Section 6(b)(ii)-(iii)); and • trade-through violations (in violation of BOX Rule Chapter XII, Section 3(a)).

The sanctions imposed would include the application of a fine for each violation and an increased fine amount for repeat violations. In the instance of a trade-through violation, the rule proposal would also allow BOX Regulation to require the Options Participant 4 to disgorge any gains from transactions in violation of the trade-through rules. 4 *See* BOX Rule Chapter I, Section 1(a)(40) for definition of “Options Participants.” 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. 5 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 6 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act, 7 which require that the rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of Commission and Exchange rules. In addition, because BSE Rule Chapter XVIII provides procedural rights to contest the fine imposed pursuant to the BOX MRVP and permits disciplinary proceedings on the matter, the Commission believes that BOX Rule Chapter X, as amended by this proposal, provides a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d)(1) of the Act. 8 5 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d)(1).

Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act 9 which governs minor rule violation plans. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change would strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases where full disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor nature of the particular violation. 9 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

In approving this proposed rule change the Commission in no way minimizes the importance of compliance with BOX rules and all other rules subject to the imposition of fines under the BOX MRVP. The Commission believes that the violation of any self-regulatory organization's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the BOX MRVP provides a reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations.

The Commission expects that BSE would continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make a determination based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, whether a fine of more or less than the recommended amount is appropriate for a violation under the BOX MRVP or whether a violation requires formal disciplinary action under BSE Rule Chapter XXX. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 10 and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act, 11 that the proposed rule change (SR-BSE-2006-11), as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved and declared effective. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 11 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7225 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55613; File No. SR-CHX-2007-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Participant Fees and Credits April 10, 2007.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 22, 2007, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the CHX. On April 10, 2007, the CHX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.

The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and Credits (the “Fee Schedule”) to remove provisions that are no longer in effect due to the roll-out of the Exchange's new trading model. The text of this proposed rule change is available at the CHX, on the Exchange's Web site at *http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm,* and in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On January 26, 2007, the CHX completed the transition to its new trading model. 3 The Exchange now proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to delete several provisions that are no longer in effect as a result of that transition. The provisions of the Fee Schedule that would be deleted through this filing include:

(1)Section E(8) (Transaction and Order Processing Fees Associated with Securities Not Yet Traded in the Matching System);

(2)Parts of Section F(2) (Institutional Broker Credits);

(3)Section F(4) (Two-Sided Quote Providers);

(4)Section L (Space Charges); and

(5)Section M (Equipment, Information Services and Technology Charges). Each of these provisions currently contains an introductory note confirming that it is only in effect until the transition to the new trading model or contains an effective date that has been exceeded. 4 Because of the transition to the new trading model, these fees are no longer in effect for the Exchange's participants. 5 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54550 (September 29, 2006); 71 FR 59563 (October 10, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-05) (approving rules for the new trading model). 4 *See, e.g.* , Section E(8) of the Fee Schedule (confirming that “these fees will continue to be charged as the Exchange transitions to its new trading model, but will be eliminated as each issue transitions to the new trading model”); *see also* Section F(4) of the Fee Schedule (noting that it is in effect through October 31, 2006). 5 For example, an additional network/connectivity fee credit was available to institutional brokers until the completion of the new trading model rollout. *See* Section F(2) of the Fee Schedule. Similarly, with the transition to the new trading model, the CHX no longer operates a physical trading floor; as a result, the space and equipment charges are no longer charged to participants pursuant to the Fee Schedule, but are instead part of separate agreements between the Exchange and any firms that sublease space on the Exchange's former trading floor. *See* Sections L and M of the Fee Schedule. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 6 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a member due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 7 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 8 At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 9 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 9 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on April 10, 2007, the date on which the CHX filed Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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 Number SR-CHX-2007-11 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-CHX-2007-11. 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 CHX. 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-CHX-2007-11 and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7223 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55617; File No. SR-NASD-2007-022] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Technical Amendments to the Code of Mediation Procedure April 11, 2007. 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 March 16, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. (“NASD Dispute Resolution”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD Dispute Resolution. NASD has designated the proposed rule change as concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory organization under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD Dispute Resolution is proposing to amend the Code of Mediation Procedure to re-number Rules 10401 through 10410 and update cross references within the re-numbered rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available on NASD's Web site ( *http://www.nasd.com* ), at NASD's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In 1998, the SEC launched an initiative to encourage issuers and self-regulatory organizations to use “plain English” in disclosure documents and other materials used by investors. In response, NASD undertook to rewrite the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure (“old Code”) in “plain English.” This undertaking became the Code Revision Project (“Project”). NASD began to implement the Project in 2003 when it filed with the SEC a proposed rule change to the old Code to reorganize the rules, simplify the language, codify current practices, and implement several substantive changes. 5 The proposal reorganized NASD's old dispute resolution rules (Rules 10000 *et seq.* ) into three separate procedural codes: the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code”); the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”); and the NASD Code of Mediation Procedure (“Mediation Code”). 6 The three new Codes would replace the old Code in its entirety. 5 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 51856 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36442 (June 23, 2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2003-158) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Thereto to Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Customer Disputes). 6 In 2004, NASD filed separately with the SEC the Industry and Mediation Codes. *See* Exchange Act Release No. 51857 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36430 (June 23, 2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2004-011) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Thereto to Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Industry Disputes); and Exchange Act Release No. 51855 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36440 (June 23, 2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2004-013) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto to Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Mediation Proceedings). On October 31, 2005, the SEC approved the Mediation Code. 7 It became effective on January 30, 2006. 8 On January 24, 2007, the SEC approved the Customer Code and Industry Code. 9 The Customer and Industry Codes will become effective on April 16, 2007. 10 7 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 52705 (Oct. 31, 2005), 70 FR 67525 (Nov. 7, 2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2004-013) (Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change and Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 3, to Amend NASD Rules for Mediation Proceedings). 8 The changes were announced in Notice to Members 05-85 (Dec. 2005). 9 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 55158 (Jan. 24, 2007), 72 FR 4574 (Jan. 31, 2007) (File Nos. SR-NASD-2003-158 and SR-NASD-2004-011) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4 to Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Customer Disputes and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendments 5, 6, and 7 Thereto; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4 to Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Industry Disputes and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendments 5, 6, and 7 Thereto). 10 The changes were announced in Notice to Members 07-07 (Feb. 2007). Because the Mediation Code became effective before the Customer and Industry Codes were approved, NASD implemented the Mediation Code by replacing the old rules governing mediation (Rules 10400 *et seq.* ) in the old Code with the rules of the Mediation Code. To minimize confusion and to assist the users of the dispute resolution forum, NASD re-numbered the rules of the Mediation Code so that they would be consistent with the numbering in the old Code, which was still in effect at the time the Mediation Code became effective. In replacing the old rules with those of the Mediation Code, NASD changed cross-references to proposed rules of the Customer and Industry Codes to applicable rules of the old Code, and removed rule language that was based on the proposed codes. Under this proposed rule change, NASD is proposing to remove Rules 10401 through 10410 of the Mediation Code from the old Code and re-number them so that the Mediation Code becomes a separate procedural code, as proposed and approved by the SEC. 11 NASD also is proposing to change cross-references to applicable rules of the Customer and Industry Codes, and re-insert definitions of “NASD Customer Code” and “NASD Industry Code” in Rules 14100(g) and Rules 14100(h) respectively, which had been reserved until the new Codes were approved. 11 *See Id.* at nn. 7 & 9. The Customer Code will use the Rule 12000 series, the Industry Code will use the Rule 13000 series, and the Mediation Code will use the Rule 14000 series, all of which are currently unused under the NASD numbering system. *Id.* 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 12 which requires, among other things, that NASD's rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provision of the Act noted above because it will provide useful guidance to parties, mediators and staff, and will help standardize the administration of NASD mediations. 12 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received by NASD. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder because it is concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory organization. 13 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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 Number SR-NASD-2007-022 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-022. 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 at the principal office of NASD. 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 the File Number SR-NASD-2007-022 and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7222 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55615; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-34] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Rule 80A.40(b) To Update the Definition of “Program Trading,” To Substitute Simplified Audit Trail Requirements, and To Make Conforming Amendments to NYSE Rule 410B April 11, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 22, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by NYSE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE proposes to amend NYSE Rule 80A.40(b) to update the definition of “program trading” by eliminating the pre-determined minimum dollar value requirement for trading strategies that involve the related purchase or sale of a “basket” or group of 15 or more stocks, to substitute simplified audit trail requirements, and to make conforming amendments to Rule 410B. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE, *http://www.nyse.com* , and the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In order to improve the reporting and monitoring of program trading by the Exchange, NYSE proposes to clarify what constitutes program trading and to streamline the process for entering and identifying program trades. To accomplish this, the Exchange is proposes

(i)to amend NYSE Rule 80A.40 to eliminate the minimum dollar value from the definition of program trading, and

(ii)to substitute simplified audit trail requirements in place of the more cumbersome reporting requirements that currently apply to program trading. The proposed amendments also include certain conforming amendments to NYSE Rule 410B. In connection with these changes, the Exchange also intends to issue guidance regarding the definition of a “coordinated strategy,” as that term is used in Rule 80A.40. *Background.* The Exchange adopted Rule 80A in the wake of the 1987 market break to address various coordinated professional trading strategies, in particular, program trading that was using the cash market to take advantage of trading in the derivatives market. To ensure that the rule would encompass the various permutations that such trading strategies might take, the Exchange defined program trading as either index arbitrage or “any trading strategy involving the related purchase or sale of a 'basket' or group of 15 or more stocks having a total market value of $1 million or more.” The monetary value was believed at the time to capture program trading strategies that would be significant in the context of the market. Despite a significant increase in the size and value of trading in the market since 1987, however, this monetary component of the definition has not been updated since it was adopted. *Proposed Redefinition of Program Trading.* Given the technical and automated nature of the trading environment that exists today, the Exchange believes that the current definition of “program trading” is no longer workable, since, among other things, it captures certain computer-driven or algorithmic trading strategies that are not intended to be program trades. At the same time, certain strategies that could fairly be classified as programs—that is, strategies involving 15 or more stocks that are intended to be coordinated, but which do not meet the monetary threshold—are not being captured. In contrast to 1987, most firms today employ algorithmic trading to manage and carry out both plain-vanilla execution strategies that are not intended to be programs, including public-customer driven parameter-based trading (that is, trading in which the customer specifies certain desired execution conditions such as timing, pricing, quantity, or marketplace selection, and the algorithm evaluates market information and generates orders that best match the specified conditions without further human intervention), and more complex trading strategies that are intended to be programs. The Exchange therefore recognizes that not all computer-driven trading strategies constitute Program Trading. For example, if they otherwise lack the other definitional characteristics of program trading, algorithmic trading, volume-weighted average price (“VWAP”) trading, statistical arbitrage, and similar computer-driven trading strategies may not need to be classified or reported as a program simply because the strategy is executed through a computer model or “black box.” This has led to regulatory confusion; indeed, member firms have informed the Exchange that in order to ensure full compliance with the rule, they feel compelled to report computer-driven trading strategies that meet the technical definition of a program even though they are not, in fact, intended as program trading. To address the issue of the overbroad definition of program trading and to improve the precision of program trade reporting, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of program trading under NYSE Rule 80A.40 to eliminate the requirement that program trades must have a combined value of $1 million or more. The Exchange believes that the minimum dollar value currently contained in Rule 80A.40 establishes an arbitrary and artificial bar for determining whether a coordinated strategy constitutes program trading. In the absence of the dollar threshold, the Exchange proposes assessing whether a trading program constitutes a coordinated strategy examining its attributes rather than relying on such an arbitrary limitation. To assist firms in determining whether a particular set of trades constitutes a “program,” the Exchange intends to issue guidance to member organizations regarding factors to consider in determining whether a trading strategy is “coordinated.” This guidance will focus on how the primary investment objective of the trading, as well as the linkage or dependency between and among simultaneous (or substantially simultaneous) trades in different securities, relate to the investment objective. As described more fully below, under the revised rule, the Exchange would consider any execution of 15 or more stocks that is entered as part of a single investment strategy (including liquidation, rebalancing, or realignment of a basket/portfolio) with the intention to execute all or most of the stocks to be a “coordinated strategy.” “Coordinated strategies” would include any purchase or sale of 15 or more stocks that is

(i)coordinated pursuant to a broader investment strategy such as economic, financial, or fundamental characteristics (such as a particular industry, sector, or industry) or market activity, and

(ii)where the execution of the securities within the portfolio is linked, as opposed to being merely coincidental single stock definitions. A coordinated strategy would include a portfolio or basket strategy of 15 or more stocks wherein each stock execution is dependent upon the execution of all or most of the securities within the portfolio or basket. And, as before, program trading would also include all index arbitrage trading. Accordingly, any strategy that attempts to capture identified mispricings between an S&P 500 component security and its related future as the filters for buying or selling such stock, regardless of the number of stocks involved, is a program. As noted above, not all computer-driven trading strategies would be defined as program trading. For example, portfolio VWAP transactions that attempt to provide a customer with an average price for the purchase or sale of stocks would not necessarily be a program. For VWAP trading to constitute a program, the trading would have to involve a portfolio or basket of 15 or more stocks as part of a coordinated strategy. In addition, pairs trading, in which stocks are put into pairs by fundamental or market-based similarities and traded versus each other, would not necessarily be program trading. For pairs trading to fall within the program trading definition, the engine or algorithm used for execution of the selected pairs would have to consist of a group of related stocks that would be defined as a program, *e.g.* , an automative “pairs” algorithm that typically trades more than 15 different automotive stocks. *Streamlining Reporting of Program Trades.* The Exchange is also proposing to streamline the reporting process that member organizations must follow when reporting program trading. Since 1988, the Exchange has required that member firms report program trading activities by the close of business on the second business day following the trade date on a Daily Program Trading Report (“DPTR”). Member firms currently file their DPTRs via an electronic filing platform operated by the Exchange. Because the DPTR is created after the trades have been executed, rather than in connection with the entry of orders at issue, the DPTR is potentially less accurate than determining program trading information based on audit trail information, which captures trading information at the time of execution. Moreover, because all information reported on the DPTR is already available to the Exchange via audit trail information, the DPTR has become redundant. Accordingly, to streamline the reporting process, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the DPTR requirement, and to rely instead on audit trail information to determine whether firms are engaging in program trading. To assist in identifying program trading, the Exchange is redefining two of the eight existing program trading related audit trail account types so that member firms can mark the specific program trading strategy at the time of order entry and execution, rather than waiting to report via the DPTR. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes to Rules 80A and 410B would in any way compromise its existing surveillances, or impair the ability to conduct additional surveillances, as necessary. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the definition of program trading and the revised audit trail information will lead to more focused surveillances for assessing whether member organizations engage in program trading. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 3 that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. 3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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-NYSE-2007-34 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-NYSE-2007-34. 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 NYSE. 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-NYSE-2007-34 and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 4 4 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-7224 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5777] Determination and Waiver of Section 517(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act

(2006)(Pub. L. 109-102), as Carried Forward Under the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-5), Relating to Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of State, including by Section 517(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act

(2006)(Pub. L. 109-102), as Carried Forward Under the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-5), Executive Order 13118 of March 31, 1999, and State Department Delegation of Authority No. 245 of April 23, 2001, I hereby determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to make available funds appropriated under the heading “Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union” in Title II of the FOAA, as carried forward under the CR, without regard to the restriction in that section. This determination shall be reported to the Congress promptly and published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: April 4, 2007. John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-7273 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-23-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5758] Defense Trade Advisory Group; Notice of Open Meeting AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Defense Trade Advisory Group

(DTAG)will meet in open session from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on Thursday, September 20, 2007, in the East Auditorium at the U.S. Department of State, Harry S. Truman Building, Washington, DC. Entry and registration will begin at 8:15 a.m. Please use the building entrance located at 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC between C&D Streets. The membership of this advisory committee consists of private sector defense trade specialists, appointed by the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, who advise the Department on policies, regulations, and technical issues affecting defense trade. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss current defense trade issues and topics for further study. Members of the public may attend this open session and will be permitted to participate in the discussion in accordance with the Chairman's instructions. They may also, if they wish, submit a brief statement to the committee in writing. As access to the Department of State facilities is controlled, persons wishing to attend the meeting must notify the DTAG Executive Secretariat by COB Thursday, September 13, 2007. If notified after this date, the DTAG Secretariat cannot guarantee that State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security can complete the necessary processing required to attend the September 20th plenary. Each non-member observer or DTAG member that wishes to attend this plenary session should provide: His/her name; company or organizational affiliation; phone number; date of birth; and identifying data such as driver's license number, U.S. Government ID, or U.S. Military ID, to the DTAG Secretariat contact person, Nicholas Memos, via e-mail at *MemosNI@state.gov.* A RSVP list will be provided to Diplomatic Security. One of the following forms of valid photo identification will be required for admission: U.S. driver's license, passport, U.S. Government ID, or other valid photo ID. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Nicholas Memos, PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-0112; telephone

(202)663-2804; fax

(202)663-261-8199; or e-mail *MemosNI@state.gov.* Dated: April 10, 2007. Robert W. Maggi, Executive Secretary, Defense Trade Advisory Group, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-7274 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending April 6, 2007 The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. *Docket Number:* OST-2007-27825. *Date Filed:* April 5, 2007. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* Mail Vote 532—Resolution 010n, TC3 Special Passenger Amending Resolution Between Japan and China (excluding Hong SAR and Macao SAR) (Memo 1076). *Intended effective date:* 15 April 2007. Barbara J. Hairston, Supervisory Docket Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E7-7246 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending April 6, 2007 The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et seq.* ). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* OST-2007-27815. *Date Filed:* April 4, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* April 25, 2007. *Description:* Application of Exec Air Inc. of Naples Dba. ExecAir requesting authority to conduct scheduled passenger operations as a commuter air carrier. Barbara J. Hairston, Supervisory Docket Officer, Docket Operations, Altenate Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E7-7248 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Indiana AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), DOI. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and the USFWS that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. § 139( *l* )(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, I-69, Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana, in the Counties of Vanderburgh, Warrick, Gibson, Pike, Daviess, Greene, Monroe, Morgan, Johnson and Marion, State of Indiana. The Federal actions, taken as a result of a tiered environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4351 (NEPA), and implementing regulations on tiering, 40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28, and 23 CFR Part 771, determined certain issues relating to the proposed project. Those decisions will be used by Federal agencies in subsequent proceedings, including decisions whether to grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the highway project. The decisions also may be relied upon by State and local agencies in proceedings on the proposed project. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public that the FHWA and the USFWS have made decisions that are subject to 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1) and are final within the meaning of that law. A claim seeking judicial review of those Federal agency decisions on the proposed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before October 15, 2007. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then the shorter time period applies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the FHWA: Mr. Anthony DeSimone, P.E., Federal Highway Administration, Indiana Division, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 254, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1576; telephone:

(317)226-5307; e-mail: *Anthony.DeSimone@fhwa.dot.gov.* The FHWA Indiana Division Office's normal business hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t. For the USFWS: Mr. Scott Pruitt, Field Supervisor, Bloomington Field Office, USFWS, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, IN 47403-2121; telephone: 812-334-4261; e-mail: S *cott_Pruitt@fws.gov.* Normal business hours for the USFWS Bloomington Field Office are: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t. You may also contact Mr. Thomas Seeman, Project Manager, Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204; telephone:

(317)232-5336; e-mail: *TSeeman@indot.IN.gov.* Normal business hours for the Indiana Department of Transportation are: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has approved a Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)and issued a Record of Decision

(ROD)in connection with a proposed highway project in the State of Indiana: I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis, in Vanderburgh, Warrick, Gibson, Pike, Daviess, Greene, Monroe, Morgan, Johnson and Marion Counties. The project will be an approximately 142 mile long Interstate highway. It will begin at the I-64/I-164 interchange just north of Evansville, Indiana and end at I-465 in Indianapolis, to the west of the I-465/SR 37 interchange. The proposed freeway will be on both new and existing alignment. Decisions in the FHWA Tier 1 ROD that have final approval include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Purpose and need for the project (see section 3.1). 2. Range of alternatives for analysis (see sections 3.3 and 3.4). 3. Selection of the Interstate highway build alternative and highway corridor for the project. The selected alternative, referred to in the FEIS as Alternative 3C, involves completing I-69 as an Interstate highway from Evansville to Indianapolis via Oakland City, Washington, Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center, Bloomington, and Martinsville (see section 2.1). This alternative includes the use of parts of the existing alignment of SR 37 to reach I-465 and the route variation known as WE2 in the area of Washington, Indiana. The ultimate alignment of the highway within the corridor, and the location and number of interchanges and rest areas will be evaluated in the Tier 2 National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)proceedings. 4. Elimination of other alternatives from consideration in Tier 2 NEPA proceedings. The alternatives that will not be considered any further include, but are not limited to, those identified in the Tier 1 FEIS as the “no build” alternative, and alternatives 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B. Also eliminated were a number of hybrids and variations on these alternatives, including the “Mann Road Variation” for reaching I-465 and variations WW1, WW2, and WE1 in the area of Washington, Indiana. Detailed information about the alternatives considered in Tier 1, and about the Federal decisions that eliminate alternatives other than Alternative 3C from further consideration, is available in section 3 of the Tier 1 ROD and the Tier 1 FEIS sections cited therein. 5. Process for completing the Tier 2 alternatives analysis and studies for the project, including the designation of six Tier 2 sections and a decision to prepare a separate environmental impact statement for each Tier 2 section (see section 2.3). Interested parties may consult the Tier 1 ROD and Tier 1 FEIS for details about each of the decisions described above and for information on other issues decided. The documents are available as described below. Following the completion of the Tier 1 ROD, interested parties submitted comments suggesting that new information existed that might affect the Tier 1 FEIS analyses and the Federal decisions based on those analyses. In response, the FHWA reevaluated the project and decided that the changes that occurred following the ROD did not individually or collectively require supplementation of the Tier 1 FEIS. The Tier 1 FEIS (issued on December 5, 2003), the Tier 1 ROD (issued on March 24, 2004), the FHWA decision that supplementation of the Tier 1 FEIS is not required (issued on February 12, 2007), and other documents in the project records are available by contacting the FHWA or the INDOT at the addresses provided above. Interested parties also may view or download the FHWA Tier 1 FEIS, Tier 1 ROD, the decision not to prepare a Tier 1 supplemental EIS, the related reevaluation report, and INDOT responses to comments on the reevaluation report at the project Web site, *http://deis.i69indyevn.org/,* or by contacting FHWA or INDOT at the addresses listed above. Actions taken by the USFWS, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, include its concurrence with the FHWA's determination that the I-69 project is not likely to adversely affect the eastern fanshell mussel ( *Cyprogenia stegaria* ) and that the project is still likely to adversely affect, but not jeopardize, the bald eagle. The USFWS concluded that the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat and is not likely to adversely modify the bat's designated Critical Habitat. The USFWS decisions are described in the Programmatic Biological Opinion issued on December 3, 2003, the Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion issued on August 24, 2006, and other documents in the project records. These opinions, and other project records relating to the USFWS actions, are available by contacting the FHWA, INDOT, or USFWS at the addresses provided above. The Programmatic Biological Opinion can be viewed in the Appendices Section and downloaded from the project Web site at *http://deis.i69indyevn.org/FEIS/index.html* and the Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at *http://i69indyevn.org/Corridor_Reports/corridor_reports.html.* This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139( *1* )(1) as of the issuance date of this notice, and to all laws under which such actions were taken. The laws include, but are not limited to: 1. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]. 2. Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 3. Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544]. 4. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470 *et seq.* ]. 5. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138]. 6. Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)]. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1). Robert F. Tally Jr., Division Administrator, Indianapolis, Indiana. [FR Doc. E7-7231 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-534 (Sub-No. 3X)] Lake State Railway Company—Abandonment Exemption—Rail Line in Otsego County, MI On March 28, 2007, the Lake State Railway Company (Lake State) filed with the Surface Transportation Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to permit the abandonment of 4.15 miles of rail line in Otsego County, MI. The line includes the northernmost portion of the carrier's main line Mackinaw Subdivision extending from milepost MP 116.8 (where the line crosses East McCoy Road) to the end of the line at milepost MP 120.95 The line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Code 49735. The line does not contain Federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in Lake State's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in *Oregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen,* 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by July 16, 2007. Any offer of financial assistance

(OFA)under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,300 filing fee. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than May 7, 2007. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $200 filing fee. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27). All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-534 (Sub-No. 3X), and must be sent to:

(1)Surface Transportation Board, 395 E. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and

(2)Andrew B. Kolestar, 1224 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. Replies to the petition are due on or before May 7, 2007. Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at

(202)245-0230 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA)at

(202)245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] An environmental assessment

(EA)(or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: April 6, 2007. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-6934 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request—Interagency Guidance on Asset Securitization Activities AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507. The Office of Thrift Supervision within the Department of the Treasury will submit the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Today, OTS is soliciting public comments on its proposal to extend this information collection. DATES: Submit written comments on or before June 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referring to the collection by title of the proposal or by OMB approval number, to Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552; send a facsimile transmission to

(202)906-6518; or send an e-mail to *infocollection.comments@ots.treas.gov* . OTS will post comments and the related index on the OTS Internet Site at *http://www.ots.treas.gov* . In addition, interested persons may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment, call

(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov* , or send a facsimile transmission to

(202)906-7755. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You can request additional information about this proposed information collection from William J. Magrini, Senior Project Manager, Examinations and Supervision Policy,

(202)906-5744, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OTS may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and respondents are not required to respond to an information collection, unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. As part of the approval process, we invite comments on the following information collection. Comments should address one or more of the following points: a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of OTS; b. The accuracy of OTS's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology. We will summarize the comments that we receive and include them in the OTS request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, OTS is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection. *Title of Proposal:* Interagency Guidance on Asset Securitization Activities. *OMB Number:* 1550-0104. *Form Number:* N/A. *Description:* The collection applies to institutions engaged in asset securitization and consists of a written asset securitization policy, the documentation of fair value of retained interests, and a management information system to monitor securitization activities. Institutions use the collection as the basis for the safe and sound operation of their asset securitization activities. The agencies use the information to evaluate the quality of an institution's risk management practices. *Type of Review:* Renewal. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit; individuals. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 19. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 19. *Estimated Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Burden:* 190 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Marilyn K. Burton,

(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov* , or send a facsimile transmission to

(202)906-7755. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You can request additional information about this proposed information collection from Judi McCormick, Director, Consumer Protection & Specialty Programs,

(202)906-5636, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OTS may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and respondents are not required to respond to an information collection, unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. As part of the approval process, we invite comments on the following information collection. Comments should address one or more of the following points: a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of OTS; b. The accuracy of OTS's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology. We will summarize the comments that we receive and include them in the OTS request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, OTS is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection. *Title of Proposal:* Consumer Protections for Depository Sales of Insurance. *OMB Number:* 1550-0106. *Form Number:* N/A. *Regulation requirement:* 12 CFR part 536. *Description:* This submission covers an extension of OTS's currently approved information collection in its regulation found at 12 CFR part 536. This submission involves no change to the regulations or to the information collections embodied in the regulations. The information collections contained in the regulations are as follows: *12 CFR 536.40(a)* . Savings associations must make insurance disclosures in connection with the initial purchase of an insurance product. The disclosure must be made orally and in writing to the consumer that:

(1)The insurance product or annuity is not a deposit or other obligation of, or guaranteed by, a savings association or an affiliate of a savings association;

(2)the insurance product or annuity is not insured by the FDIC or any other agency of the United States, a savings association, or (if applicable) an affiliate of a savings association; and

(3)in the case of an insurance product or annuity that involves an investment risk, there is investment risk associated with the product, including the possible loss of value. *12 CFR 536.40(b)* . Savings associations must make a disclosure at the time a consumer applies for an extension of credit in connection with which an insurance product or annuity is solicited, offered, or sold. The disclosure must be made orally and in writing that a savings association may not condition an extension of credit on either:

(1)the consumer's purchase of an insurance product or annuity from a savings association or any of its affiliates; or

(2)the consumer's agreement not to obtain, or a prohibition on the consumer from obtaining, an insurance product or annuity from an unaffiliated entity. *Type of Review:* Renewal. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit; individuals. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 845. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 841,826. *Estimated Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Burden:* 21,046 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Marilyn K. Burton,

(202)906-6467, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. Dated: April 12, 2007. Deborah Dakin, Senior Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division. [FR Doc. E7-7260 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6720-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board, Notice of Meetings The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the subcommittees of the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. as indicated below: Subcommittee for Date(s) Location Mental Hlth & Behav Sciences-A May 7, 2007 St. Gregory Hotel. Infectious Diseases-A May 10, 2007 Radisson Hotel. Endocrinology-B May 14, 2007 Beacon Hotel. Nephrology May 14, 2007 Wyndham Washington, DC. Immunology-A May 17, 2007 L'Enfant Plaza Hotel. Hematology May 18, 2007 *VA Central Office. Cardiovascular Studies May 21, 2007 Woodfin Suites. Endocrinology-A May 21-22, 2007 Radisson Hotel. Epidemiology May 23, 2007 *VA Central Office. Cellular & Molecular Medicine May 24, 2007 Radisson Hotel. Infectious Diseases-B May 31, 2007 Double Tree Hotel. Oncology-A May 31, 2007 L'Enfant Plaza Hotel. Mental Hlth & Bahav Sciences-B May 31, 2007 L'Enfant Plaza Hotel. Respiration June 1, 2007 Double Tree Hotel. Neurobiology-E June 4, 2007 Beacon Hotel. Surgery June 4, 2007 St. Gregory Hotel. Immunology-B June 5, 2007 Radisson Hotel. Clinical Research Program June 6, 2007 *VA Central Office. Neurobiology-A June 11, 2007 St. Gregory Hotel. Neurobiology-D June 11, 2007 Beacon Hotel. Oncology-B June 14, 2007 L'Enfant Plaza Hotel. Neurobiology-C June 14-15, 2007 Radisson Hotel. Gastroenterology June 15, 2007 L'Enfant Plaza Hotel. The addresses of the hotels and VA Central Office are: Beacon Hotel & Corporate Quarters, 1615 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; Double Tree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC; Radisson Hotel Reagan National Airport, 2020 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA; St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, NW., Washington, DC; VA Central Office, 1722 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC; Woodfin Suites Hotel Rockville, 1380 Piccard Drive, Rockville, MD; Wyndham Hotel, 1400 M Street, Washington, DC. *Teleconference. The purpose of the Merit Review Board is to provide advice on the scientific quality, budget, safety and mission relevance of investigator-initiated research proposals submitted for VA merit review consideration. Proposals submitted for review by the Board involve a wide range of medical specialities within the general areas of biomedical, behavioral and clinical science research. The subcommittee meetings will be open to the public for approximately one hour at the start of each meeting to discuss the general status of the program. The remaining portion of each subcommittee meeting will be closed to the public for the review, discussion, and evaluation of initial and renewal projects. The closed portion of each meeting involves discussion, examination, reference to staff and consultant critiques of research protocols. During this portion of each subcommittee meeting, discussion and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as research information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects. As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing portions of these subcommittee meetings is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B). Those who plan to attend or would like to obtain a copy of minutes of the subcommittee meetings and rosters of the members of the subcommittees should contact LeRoy G. Frey, PhD, Chief, Program Review (121F), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Dr. Frey can be contacted by phone at

(202)254-0288. Dated: April 6, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 07-1877 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents

U.S. Code