Notices. Notice

14,263 words·~65 min read·/register/2007/05/02/07-2181·

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

BILLING CODE 4510-43-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before June 1, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5167. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694 or fax number 301-713-7409.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7088 and 7089). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval. In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points:

(a)Whether the proposed collection information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA;

(b)the accuracy of NARA'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; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology; and

(e)whether small businesses are affected by this collection. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Microfilm Publication Order Form. *OMB number:* 3095-0046. *Agency form number:* NATF Form 36. *Type of review:* Regular. *Affected public:* Business or for-profit, nonprofit organizations and institutions, federal, state and local government agencies, and individuals or households. *Estimated number of respondents:* 600. *Estimated time per response:* 10 minutes. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 100 hours. *Abstract:* The information collection is prescribed by 36 CFR 1254.72. The collection is prepared by researchers who cannot visit the appropriate NARA research room or who request copies of records as a result of visiting a research room. NARA offers limited provisions to obtain copies of records by mail and requires requests to be made on prescribed forms for certain bodies of records. The National Archives Trust Fund

(NATF)Form 36 (9/05), Microfilm Publication Order Form, is used by customers/researchers for ordering a roll, rolls, or a microfiche of a microfilm publication. Dated: April 26, 2007. Martha Morphy, Assistant Archivist for Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-8349 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting on May 15-16, 2007, Commissioners' Conference Room O-1G16, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: *Tuesday, May 15, 2007—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business* . *Wednesday, May 16, 2007—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business* . The Subcommittee will hear from the NRR staff and the Nuclear Energy Institute regarding the progress in resolving GSI-191, “PWR Sump Performance.” The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Zena Abdullahi (Telephone: 301-415-2808) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: April 25, 2007. Cayetano Santos, Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E7-8298 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Public Availability of Fiscal Year 2006 Agency Inventories Under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Notice of Public Availability of Agency Inventory of Activities That Are Not Inherently Governmental and of Activities That Are Inherently Governmental. SUMMARY: The Federal Activities Inventory Reform

(FAIR)Act, Public Law 105-270, requires agencies to develop inventories each year of activities performed by their employees that are not inherently governmental—i.e., inventories of commercial activities. The FAIR Act further requires OMB to review the inventories in consultation with the agencies and publish a notice of public availability in the **Federal Register** after the consultation process is completed. In accordance with the FAIR Act, OMB is publishing this notice to announce the availability of inventories from the agencies listed below. These inventories identify both commercial activities and activities that are inherently governmental. This is the first release of the FAIR Act inventories for FY 2006. Interested parties who disagree with the agency's initial judgment may challenge the inclusion or the omission of an activity on the list of activities that are not inherently governmental within 30 working days and, if not satisfied with this review, may appeal to a higher level within the agency. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has made available a FAIR Act User's Guide through its Internet site: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/fair-index.html* . This User's Guide will help interested parties review FY 2006 FAIR Act inventories. Rob Portman, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Attachment First Fair Act Release FY 2006 American Battle Monuments Commission Mr. Guy Giancarlo,

(703)696-6898, *http://www.abmc.gov/other/fair.htm* Broadcasting Board of Governors Ms. Cathy Brown,

(202)203-4608, *http://www.bbg.gov* Consumer Product Safety Commission Mr. Edward Quist,

(301)504-7655, *http://www.cpsc.gov* Department of Commerce Mrs. Maile Arthur,

(202)482-1574, *http://www.doc.gov* Department of Defense Ms. Monica Kelliher-Hamby,

(703)602-3666, *http://web.lmi.org/fairnet* Department of Defense

(IG)Mr. Stephen D. Wilson,

(703)604-8306, *http://www.dodig.mil* Department of Education Mr. Gary Weaver,

(202)245-6138, *http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/2006fair.html* Department of Energy Mr. Dennis O'Brien,

(202)586-1690, *http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me2-1/a76/csa76.htm* Department of Health and Human Services Ms. Tracey Mock,

(202)205-4430, *http://www.hhs.gov/ogam/oam/fair* Department of Housing and Urban Development Mr. Frank Murphy,

(202)708-0614 ext 3466, *http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo* Department of the Interior Ms. Donna Kalvels,

(202)219-0727, *http://www.doi.gov/perfmgt/competitivesourcing* Department of the Interior

(IG)Mr. Roy Kime,

(202)208-6232, *http://www.oig.doi.gov* Department of Justice Mr. Larry Silvis,

(202)616-3754, *http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/pe/preface.htm* Department of Labor Mr. Larry Clark,

(202)693-4020, *http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/boc/welcome2boc.htm* Department of Labor

(IG)Mr. David LeDoux,

(202)693-5138, *http://www.oig.dol.gov/2006fair_act.htm* Department of Transportation Mr. David Litman,

(202)366-4263, *http://www.dot.gov* Department of Transportation

(IG)Ms. Jacquelyn Weber,

(202)366-1495, *http://www.oig.dot.gov* Department of Treasury Mr. Jim Sullivan,

(202)622-9395, *http://www.treas.gov/fair* Environmental Protection Agency Mrs. Barbara Stearrett

(202)566-1970, *http://www.epa.gov* Environmental Protection Agency

(IG)Mr. Michael J. Binder

(202)566-2617, *http://www.epa.gov/oig* Farm Credit Administration Mr. Philip Shebest,

(703)883-4246, *http://www.fca.gov* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Ms. Kimberly Fernandez,

(202)502-8302, *http://www.ferc.gov* Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Mr. Dan Ellerman,

(202)606-5460, *http://www.fmcs.gov/internet* Federal Trade Commission Ms. Darlene Cossette,

(202)326-3255, *http://www.ftc.gov/fairact* Inter-American Foundation Ms. Linda Kolko,

(703)306-4308, *http://www.iaf.gov* National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ms. Diane Frazier,

(202)358-0419, competitivesourcing.nasa.gov National Archives and Records Administration Ms. Susan Ashtianie,

(301)837-1490, *http://www.archives.gov/ about/plans-reports/fair-act/index.html* National Endowment for the Arts Mr. Laurence Baden,

(202)682-5534, *http://www.arts.gov* National Labor Relations Board Ms. Demetria Gregory,

(202)273-0054, *http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/public_notices/federal_activities_inventory_reform_act.aspx* National Labor Relations Board

(IG)Mr. Emil George,

(202)273-1966, *http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/public_notices/ federal_activities_inventory_reform_act.aspx* National Science Foundation Mr. Joseph Burt,

(703)292-8108, *http://www.nsf.gov/publications* Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Mr. Richard Loeb,

(202)606-5376, *http://www.oshrc.gov* Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Ms. Jill Weide,

(202)414-3813, *http://www.ofheo.gov* Peace Corps Mr. Alfred Miller Jr.,

(202)692-1126, *http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=pchq.policies.docs* Railroad Retirement Board Mr. Henry Valiulis,

(312)751-4990, *http://www.rrb.gov* Securities and Exchange Commission Mr. Jeffrey Risinger,

(202)551-7446, *http://www.sec.gov* Selective Service System Mr. Calvin Montgomery,

(703)605-4038, *http://www.sss.gov* Small Business Administration Mr. Richard Brechbiel,

(202)205-6784, *http://www.sba.gov/A76* Social Security Administration Mr. Dennis Wilhite,

(410)965-7401, *http://www.socialsecurity.gov/fair/FAIRact.htm* U.S. Agency for International Development Ms. Deborah Lewis,

(202)712-0936, *http://www.usaid.gov/business/regulations/fair/* U.S. Agency for International Development

(IG)Mr. Robert Ross,

(202)712-1331, *http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/public1.htm* [FR Doc. E7-8329 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 27804; 812-13255] Hill Physicians Medical Group, Inc.; Notice of Application April 26, 2007. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTIONS: Notice of application for an order under section 3(b)(2), or, alternatively, under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”). Applicant: Hill Physicians Medical Group, Inc. (“Hill Physicians”). Summary of Application: Applicant seeks an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act declaring it to be primarily engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities or, alternatively, under section 6(c) of the Act granting it an exemption from all provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. Applicant is in the business of providing or arranging to provide physician services in Northern California to individual enrollee members of various health plans, including health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”) and other third party payors (collectively, “Health Plans”). DATES: *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on January 18, 2006, and amended on January 29, 2007. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 21, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant, c/o Paul A. Stewart, Esq., Foley and Lardner LLP, One Maritime Plaza, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at

(202)551-6811, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at

(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC, 20549-0102 (tel. 202-551-5850). Applicant's Representations 1. Formed in 1983, Hill Physicians is a physician's independent practice association organized as a California for-profit private professional medical corporation. Applicant represents that its shares can only be held by medical Providers (as defined below) and that the shares confer procedural rights to the Providers that hold them, not economic rights. 1 There is no trading market for Hill Physicians' stock. The non-transferable shares may only be sold to and redeemed by Hill Physicians at a price not to exceed the original issuance price of the share. Applicant further states that no dividends have ever been paid on its shares and none are expected to be paid. 1 Hill Physicians only has one class of stock. Each shareholder Provider may hold only one share of Hill Physicians' stock. 2. Hill Physicians provides or arranges to provide physician services through California licensed practicing physicians (“Providers”) to members of Health Plans in northern California. Applicant states that these services are provided pursuant to a written contract with each Health Plan. Under each contract, Hill Physicians is obligated to provide the covered physician services that individual enrollee members of a Health Plan may later need. Hill Physicians is paid by the Health Plans on a fixed fee or “capitated” basis, meaning that Hill Physicians is paid monthly in advance a flat per member fee for each Health Plan member assigned to Hill Physicians. The capitation rates are set in advance, typically for two-year periods, and the payment covers all physician and certain ancillary services that any or all of the Health Plan members may need. The Providers, each of whom has signed substantially identical independent contractor agreements with Hill Physicians, provide the services at their individual offices. The Providers then send bills for payment to Hill Physicians, rather than the Health Plans. Hill Physicians pays the Providers mostly on a fee for service, not capitated, basis, as and when Provider bills are submitted to it. 3. This payment structure means that Hill Physicians bears the economic risk that its payments to Providers for medical services will exceed the fixed amounts it receives from the Health Plans. Applicant states that it maintains a substantial amount of invested reserves, including investment securities, to manage this risk. Applicant further states that the accumulation of cash and investments is an inherent part of its business structure because of the regularity of the capitation payments it receives and the delayed and uncertain amount of the payments it makes to Providers. Applicant also represents that it maintains its investment portfolio to meet California regulatory requirements. 4. Applicant states that it is registered with, and subject to regulatory oversight by, the Medical Board of California. Applicant states that it is a “risk bearing organization” within the meaning of the California Health and Safety Code and it is subject to regulation of its solvency by California's Department of Managed Healthcare. Applicant also states that it is required by law, regulation and governmental policy to maintain positive levels of working capital and tangible net equity. Applicant's Legal Analysis 1. Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Act defines the term “investment company” to include an issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act further defines an investment company as an issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value in excess of 40 percent of the value of the issuer's total assets (exclusive of Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Applicant states that it has not held itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities within the meaning of section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Applicant states that it would fall within the definition of investment company under section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act because more than 40 percent of its total assets consist of investment securities as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act. 2. Rule 3a-1 under the Act provides an exemption from the definition of investment company if no more than 45 percent of a company's total assets consist of, and not more than 45 percent of its net income over the last four quarters is derived from, securities other than Government securities and securities of majority-owned subsidiaries and companies primarily controlled by it. Applicant states that it has not been able to rely on rule 3a-1 because its securities comprise a large percentage of its total assets. 3. Section 3(b)(2) of the Act provides that, notwithstanding section 3(a)(1)(C), the Commission may issue an order declaring an issuer to be primarily engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities directly, through majority-owned subsidiaries, or controlled companies conducting similar types of businesses. Applicant requests an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act declaring that it is primarily engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and therefore is not an investment company as defined in the Act. In determining whether an issuer is “primarily engaged” in a non-investment company business under section 3(b)(2), the Commission considers the following factors:

(a)The company's historical development,

(b)its public representations of policy,

(c)the activities of its officers and directors,

(d)the nature of its present assets (the “Asset Factor”), and

(e)the sources of its present income (the “Income Factor”). 2 2 Tonopah Mining Company of Nevada, 26 SEC 426, 427 (1947). 4. Recently, the Commission set forth its belief that it is appropriate for HMOs to determine whether they are primarily engaged in a non-investment business for purposes of section 3(b)(2) without considering the Asset Factor provided that they met certain conditions. 3 Generally, the Commission indicated that the Asset Factor need not be considered by an HMO that

(a)provides or arranges for the provision of health care services to subscribers or enrollees of the HMO;

(b)is licensed under the laws of a state as a health care service plan, a health care service contractor, a health maintenance organization or a similar health plan company, and is subject to supervision by the insurance commissioner or a similar official;

(c)allocates, manages and uses its investment securities in a manner consistent with its business as an HMO and in accordance with an investment policy adopted by its board of directors; and

(d)bears a substantial amount of the risk that covered health care costs of the subscribers or enrollees of its health care products will differ from the prepaid or periodic charges paid by or on behalf of such persons (“underwriting risk”). In connection with the Income Factor, the Commission also clarified that an HMO may consider the sources of its present revenues so long as it derives substantially all of its total revenues from health care operations. 3 PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc. et al., Investment Company Act Rel. Nos. 26643 (Oct. 25, 2004) (notice) and 26679 (Nov. 22, 2004) (order). 5. Applicant submits that it satisfies the criteria for the issuance of an order under section 3(b)(2) because the facts show that Hill Physicians is primarily engaged in providing physician and related health care services, and not in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities. a. Historical Development Applicant states that it was formed in 1983 as an independent practice association for the express purpose of providing or arranging to provide physician services and that all of its activities since formation have been devoted to this purpose. Applicant also states that it intends to continue to be primarily engaged in the business of providing physician and related health care services. b. Public Representations of Policy Applicant states that all of the annual reports, internet postings, press releases and written communications it has issued have related to its business of providing physician services. Applicant also states that it has never held itself out as an investment company within the meaning of the Act and has never made any public representations that would indicate that it is in any business other than providing or arranging to provide physician services. Applicant represents that it has not issued any press release, advertising, promotional piece or other communication concerning its holdings of investment securities or its capital investment policies, or concerning any potential for profit or appreciation in value relating to its own shares. c. Activities of Officers and Directors Applicant represents that neither the directors nor the officers of Hill Physicians devote any significant part of their time to Hill Physicians' investment process. Applicant states that the members of its board of directors (“Board”) are all practicing physicians and were part of its physician network prior to serving on the Board. Applicant states that all of its directors and officers devote substantially all of their time spent on Hill Physicians matters on its business of providing or arranging to provide physician services. Applicant estimates that the Board and its executive committee spends approximately 20% of its time on each of strategy, operations, membership and quality improvement, 15% of its time on education, technology and all other topics and 5% of its time on finance, including less than 1% on investment matters. The Board's involvement with respect to the investment portfolio consists of adopting an investment policy and reviewing periodic reports from its unaffiliated investment adviser and broker. Only three out of approximately 420 employees devote a *de minimis* amount of time to supporting Hill Physicians' investment process. 4 4 Hill Physicians itself has no employees. Its management team and substantially all management services it requires are provided by a management company, PriMed Management Consulting Services, Inc. (“PriMed”). PriMed is compensated on the basis of cost plus incentives related to revenue growth, operating results and administrative efficiency and its compensation is not affected by the performance or value of Hill Physicians' investment securities. PriMed is owned by Hill Physicians, Catholic Healthcare West and the individuals who serve as Hill Physicians' chief executive officer and chief operating officer. d. Nature of Assets Applicant states that it owns no fixed assets and has a relatively small asset base because it is a service organization whose workforce consists solely of independent contractor physicians working out of their own offices. Further, Applicant maintains a substantial amount of liquid assets, including investment securities, to:

(a)Manage the risk that the aggregate capitated payments it receives from Health Plans will not adequately cover the actual amounts paid to Providers for services rendered;

(b)ensure its ability to make timely payments during months when Hill Physicians' payment obligations to Providers for their services significantly exceed its month capitation revenue;

(c)meet the statutory or regulatory requirements with respect to its cash-to-claims ratio, working capital and tangible net equity; and

(d)cover its payment obligations to Providers and its operating expenses. Accordingly, Hill Physicians' cash, investment securities and accounts receivable comprised 83.2% of its total assets as of September 30, 2006, and it owned investment securities on that date representing approximately 65.9% of its total assets excluding Government securities and cash items. Applicant does not invest or trade in securities for speculative purposes. e. Sources of Income Applicant states that 49% of its total income for the four fiscal quarters ended September 30, 2006 combined was derived from investment securities. Applicant states that this percentage is much higher than historical levels because of a non-recurring investment gain transaction and the realization of accumulated gains when a new investment advisor adjusted the portfolio, selling most of the marketable securities. Hill Physicians anticipates that approximately 35% of its net income after taxes will be derived from investment securities in the future as it retains earnings for the purpose of providing operating capital and accumulates resources to strengthen infrastructure, *e.g.* , implementing electronic medical records and practice management systems in Providers' offices. Applicant believes, however, that its sources of revenue are more representative of its activity as an operating company than its sources of income. Applicant states that income generation is not integral to its business because it, as an independent medical practice association, essentially acts as a “cooperative” for the benefit of the Providers. Applicant asserts that independent practice associations try to maximize the revenues they receive and fairly distribute them to the participating medical service providers. If Hill Physicians chooses not to retain earnings (and in years when it sustained operating losses), earnings from investment securities could represent all of its total income. Applicant states that revenues from the provision of physicians' services have always represented over 99 percent of its gross revenue, while revenues from investments constituted the remaining less than one percent. Applicant does not expect that the percentage of its total revenue derived from investment securities would ever represent other than an insignificant part of its total revenues. 6. As discussed more fully in the application, Applicant believes that it shares with HMOs the characteristics necessary to permit a determination of its primary business without regard to the nature of its assets. Hill Physicians provides or arranges to provide health care services to enrollees of Health Plans in return for capitation payments. While not licensed under state law as a health care service plan, health care service contractor, HMO or similar health plan company, Hill Physicians is subject to similar regulation by the California agency that regulates Health Plans and by the Medical Board of California. Hill Physicians allocates, manages and uses its investment securities in a manner consistent with its business of providing or arranging to provide physician services to members of Health Plans, and its Board has approved its investment policies. Applicant further argues that it meets the last condition because it bears the entire underwriting risk for payments to Providers, none of which is transferred to, or shared with, a third party under any contracts or other arrangements. Accordingly, Applicant submits that its primary business for purposes of section 3(b)(2) of the Act should be determined without considering the nature of its assets. 7. Applicant asserts that its sources of revenues, its historical development, its public representations of policy and the activities of its officers and directors, as discussed in the application, demonstrate that it is engaged primarily in a health care, and not in an investment, business, and thus satisfies the criteria for issuing an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act. 8. In the alternative to exemptive relief under section 3(b)(2), Hill Physicians requests an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting it from all provisions of the Act. 5 Applicant states that it has no public shareholders since it is privately held by its shareholder physicians and there is no trading market in its nontransferable shares. Applicant further states that there is no financial gain incentive associated with ownership of its shares. Furthermore, applicant believes that it is not the type of company the Act was designed to regulate and that compliance with the Act would be unnecessary, expensive and incompatible with its primary business of delivering health care. Consequently, Hill Physicians submits that the requested exemption is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, is consistent with the protection of investors, and is consistent with the purposes of the Act. 5 Section 6(c) provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may issue a conditional or unconditional exemption from any provisions of the Act or rule thereunder if the exemption is “necessary or appropriate in the public interest” and is “consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of [the Act].” For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8353 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-27805; 812-13186] HSBC Securities

(USA)Inc.; Notice of Application April 26, 2007. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 18(f)(1) of the Act. Applicant: HSBC Securities

(USA)Inc. (“HSBC Securities”). Summary of Application: Applicant requests an order permitting registered open-end management investment companies to enter into secured loan transactions with commercial paper and medium-term note conduits administered by HSBC Securities. DATES: *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on May 2, 2005 and amended on April 26, 2007. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 21, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant, c/o Timothy P. Mohan, Esq., Chapman and Cutler LLP, 111 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, at

(202)551-6915, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at

(a)The type and nature of a Borrowing Fund's Pledged Assets to determine whether they meet the Conduit's standards for collateral;

(b)the operations and history of the Borrowing Fund; and

(c)the financial position and operations of the Borrowing Fund's investment adviser. 5. Applicant states that a Conduit would make loans to a Borrowing Fund on an uncommitted basis and the related Liquidity Providers would, subject to the terms of the Loan Facility, be obligated to make loans to the Borrowing Fund in the event the Conduit was unable or unwilling to make such loans. The Conduit at any time and for any reason may

(a)sell an outstanding loan to a Liquidity Provider, or

(b)require a Liquidity Provider to provide financing to a Borrowing Fund instead of the Conduit. HSBC Securities states that these arrangements provide additional assurances to the holders of Promissory Notes that the Promissory Notes will be paid at maturity. 6. A Conduit purchases receivables and other assets from, and makes secured loans to, a broad range of sellers and borrowers in a variety of industries. Aggregate loans made by a Conduit to Borrowing Funds are not expected to be more than 20%, and usually would be considerably less than 20%, of the Conduit's outstanding loans and other assets. 7. HSBC Securities represents that the revolving credit and security agreement of a Loan Facility, which will be negotiated by the parties, will contain representations, warranties, covenants and events of default that are customary for secured loan transactions involving open-end investment companies as well as such other terms that are specific to a particular Borrowing Fund and the conduct of its business. A Borrowing Fund will have the right to prepay its loans and terminate its participation in a Loan Facility upon prior notice at any time. The Pledged Assets of a Borrowing Fund will be available solely to secure repayment of the loans and other outstanding obligations of that Borrowing Fund under a Loan Facility. HSBC Securities further states that a Borrowing Fund would have the same rights and remedies under state and federal law with respect to a loan from a Conduit that it would have with respect to a comparable loan from a bank. HSBC Securities also states that the arrangements with the Liquidity Providers protect Borrowing Funds by providing an alternative source of financing in the event a Conduit is unable to continue lending funds. 8. No Borrowing Fund will participate in a Loan Facility unless it has represented, in writing, to HSBC Securities, the Conduit and the Liquidity Providers that:

(a)Its policies permit borrowing and, if applicable, the use of leverage;

(b)all borrowing transactions pursuant to the Loan Facility will be subject to the requirements of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and any other applicable interpretations or guidance from the Commission or its staff; and

(c)each borrowing transaction will be conducted in accordance with all applicable representations and conditions of the application. Before a Borrowing Fund may participate in a Loan Facility, the Borrowing Fund's board of directors or trustees (“Board”), including a majority of the directors or trustees that are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Disinterested Directors”), will determine that such participation is consistent with the Borrowing Fund's investment objectives and policies and in the best interests of the Borrowing Fund and its shareholders. Each Borrowing Fund's Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors, will also adopt procedures for evaluating and making certain determinations concerning the terms of each loan transaction between the Borrowing Fund and a Conduit. 9. HSBC Securities states that the proposed Loan Facilities would enable Borrowing Funds to borrow money from the Conduits at lower cost than obtaining comparable loans from a bank. HSBC Securities states that a Conduit's cost of funds is lower than that of banks, and this advantage will be passed on to the Borrowing Funds. 1 1 The rate at which a Liquidity Provider would make a loan to a Borrowing Fund would not be as favorable as that of the Conduit, but would be comparable to the rates on secured lines of credit from banks. HSBC Securities anticipates that a Conduit, rather than a Liquidity Provider, will be the lender to the Borrowing Funds under a Loan Facility, absent extenuating circumstances. Applicant's Legal Analysis 1. Section 18(f)(1) of the Act prohibits an open-end investment company from issuing any senior security except that a company is permitted to borrow from any bank, if immediately after the borrowing, there is an asset coverage of at least 300% for all borrowings of the company. 2 Section 2(a)(5) defines “bank” as a depository institution, a branch or agency of a foreign bank, a member bank of the Federal Reserve System, a banking institution or other trust company that, as a substantial portion of its business, receives deposits or exercises fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks, or a receiver, conservator or liquidating agent of any of the foregoing. Applicant states that while a Conduit engages in many of the same business activities as banks, it is not a “bank” under this definition. 2 Under section 18(g) of the Act, the term “senior security” includes any bond, debenture, note, or similar obligation or instrument constituting a security and evidencing indebtedness. 2. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any person or transaction or any class or classes of persons or transactions from any provision or provisions of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. HSBC Securities requests exemptive relief from section 18(f)(1) solely to the extent necessary to allow a Borrowing Fund to borrow from a Conduit that is not a bank. HSBC Securities believes that permitting the Borrowing Funds to borrow from a Conduit is fully consistent with the purposes and policies of section 18(f)(1) and would not implicate the concerns underlying that provision. 3. HSBC Securities states that section 18(f) of the Act reflects Congressional concern about excessive borrowing and the issuance of senior securities by open-end investment companies because these practices could unduly increase the speculative character and investment risk of junior securities. HSBC Securities notes that Borrowing Funds would remain subject to the 300% asset coverage requirement in section 18(f)(1) of the Act for all borrowings, including those from a Conduit. HSBC Securities further represents that Conduit loans will not impose any restrictions on a Borrowing Fund's shareholders that are different from those imposed by a collateralized bank loan. Finally, HSBC Securities argues that permitting a Borrowing Fund to borrow from a Conduit rather than a bank is expected to reduce its costs of borrowing, which should decrease the risk that a Borrowing Fund's borrowing costs will exceed the return from securities purchased with borrowed money and lessen any related incentive to purchase more speculative portfolio securities to cover those costs. 4. HSBC Securities states that section 18(f) of the Act also limited open-end investment companies to borrowing from traditional institutional lending sources out of a Congressional concern that public holders of senior securities might be unaware that they were much riskier instruments than senior securities issued by operating companies. Senior securities of investment companies typically were secured by assets that were subject to wide fluctuations in value. Further, common shareholders could redeem at any time, which also might affect an open-end investment company's ability to repay its outstanding debt. 5. HSBC Securities argues that the Loan Facilities do not involve the type of senior security holder that section 18(f)(1) of the Act was designed to protect and that the structure of the Loan Facilities and related Conduits provide sufficient protection to the parties that face any risk of loss by lending to an open-end investment company. A Conduit is or will be administered by HSBC Securities, which has extensive expertise in administering loans collateralized by financial instruments that equals or exceeds the expertise of most banks. The Liquidity Providers are banks as defined by the Act and thus not the type of senior security holder that Congress believed needed protection. HSBC Securities states that the Promissory Notes are general obligations of a Conduit and loans to Borrowing Funds are not expected to exceed 20% of a Conduit's assets and loans to any individual Borrowing Fund are not expected to exceed 10% of a Conduit's assets. Any risk of loss on the Promissory Notes posed by loans to open-end investment companies is further reduced by HSBC Securities' expertise, a Conduit's ability to sell the loans to the Liquidity Providers, and the Conduit-wide liquidity sources. 6. Applicant states that section 18(f) also reflects a concern that complex capital structures may permit insiders to manipulate the allocation of expenses and profits; facilitate control of the investment company by junior security shareholders with little investment; and make it difficult for investors in the investment company to understand what their stock is worth. HSBC Securities states that borrowing from Conduits would not facilitate pyramiding of control or manipulative reallocation of expenses and profits. Further, HSBC Securities believes that borrowings from a conduit would not be any more difficult for shareholders of a Borrowing Fund to understand than bank borrowings. 7. Applicant also states that section 18(f) reflects a concern that existed when the Act was adopted that borrowings by open-end investment companies could be used to invest in securities without being subject to limitations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”) on the amount of credit that could be used for these purposes (“margin requirements”). Under Regulations U and T under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in effect prior to enactment of the Act, only borrowings for such purposes made by a domestic bank or broker-dealer were subject to margin requirements. HSBC Securities states that a Conduit would be subject to the same credit restrictions as a bank under Regulation U as currently in effect. 8. Finally, Applicant believes the requested relief will benefit Borrowing Funds by providing them with an alternative, lower-cost source of financing. For all of these reasons and in light of the protections afforded by the conditions set forth below, HSBC Securities believes that permitting Borrowing Funds to borrow from the Conduits would be in the best interests of the Borrowing Funds and their shareholders, appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicant's Conditions The Applicant agrees that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: 1. All Borrowing Funds will comply with the asset coverage requirements in section 18(f)(1) of the Act, including with respect to all borrowings from a Conduit. 2. A loan by a Conduit to a Borrowing Fund will be at an interest rate equal to the Conduit's cost of funds ( *i.e.* , the weighted average Promissory Note rate plus dealer commissions). 3. Before a Borrowing Fund may participate in a Loan Facility, the Borrowing Fund's Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors, will determine that participation in the Loan Facility is consistent with the Borrowing Fund's investment objectives and policies and is in the best interests of the Borrowing Fund and its shareholders. In addition, a Borrowing Fund will disclose in its statement of additional information all material facts about its participation in the Loan Facility. 4. Before a Borrowing Fund may participate in a Loan Facility, its Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors, will adopt procedures governing the Borrowing Fund's participation in the Loan Facility (“Procedures”). In addition to any other provisions the Board may find necessary or appropriate to be included in the Procedures, the Procedures will require that, before a Borrowing Fund may enter into loan transactions with a Conduit, the Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors, will determine that: a. The borrowing is in the best interests of the Borrowing Fund and its shareholders; b. the borrowing and pledge of assets are consistent with the Borrowing Fund's investment objectives and policies; c. the total anticipated cost of the Loan Facility (including fees and interest) does not exceed the total anticipated costs of comparable financing alternatives that are available to the Borrowing Fund; d. the Borrowing Fund's asset eligibility criteria are consistent with its investment objectives and policies; and e. each Borrowing Fund's investments, consistent with the eligibility criteria and any other requirements of participating in the Loan Facility, will be in the best interests of the Borrowing Fund and its shareholders. 5. If a Conduit determines

(a)to require the Liquidity Providers to acquire from the Conduit outstanding loans made to a Borrowing Fund, or

(b)not to extend additional loans to a Borrowing Fund, the Board of the Borrowing Fund, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors, will be notified promptly. As soon as practicable, the Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors, must determine whether it is in the best interests of the Borrowing Fund and its shareholders to continue to participate in the Loan Facility or to terminate the Borrowing Fund's participation in the Loan Facility in accordance with its terms. 6. At each regular quarterly meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors, will

(a)review a Borrowing Fund's loan transactions under a Loan Facility during the preceding quarter, including the terms of each transaction; and

(b)determine whether the transactions were effected in compliance with the Procedures and the terms and conditions of the order. At least annually, the Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Directors, will

(a)with respect to a Borrowing Fund's continued participation in a Loan Facility, make the determinations required in condition 3 above and

(b)approve such changes to the Procedures as it deems necessary or appropriate. 7. A Borrowing Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the Procedures and any modifications to the Procedures. The Borrowing Fund will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction with a Loan Facility occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each transaction setting forth a description of the terms of the transaction, including the amount, the maturity, and the rate of interest on the loan and all information upon which the determinations required by these conditions were made. 8. The Applicant will not enter into a Loan Facility with any Borrowing Fund if, at the time of such transaction, the Applicant, the Conduit or any Liquidity Provider is an affiliated person of a Borrowing Fund, within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person of a Borrowing Fund. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8364 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55671; File No. SR-Amex-2007-22] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend Its Minor Rule Violation Fine Systems April 26, 2007. On February 21, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” 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 incorporate violations of Amex Rule 131A—AEMI and Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 958—ANTE into Part 1 of its Minor Rule Violation Fine Systems (“Plan”). 3 On March 20, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 27, 2007. 4 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. The Commission is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Amex Rule 590. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55500 (March 21, 2007), 72 FR 14314. 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 because a rule that is reasonably designed to encourage members to comply with Exchange rules should help the Exchange carry out its supervisory responsibilities and thereby help protect investors and the public interest. 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). 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 the Plan provides procedural rights to a person fined for any violation of an Exchange rule that is determined to be minor in nature to contest the fine and permits disciplinary proceedings on the matter, the Commission believes that the Plan, 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 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 change to the Plan will 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 Amex rules and all other rules subject to the imposition of fines under the Exchange's Plan. The Commission believes that the violation of any self-regulatory organization's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the Plan 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 Amex will 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 Plan or whether a violation requires formal disciplinary action. *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-Amex-2007-22), as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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 *See* 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8312 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55668; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-030] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of a Fee Pilot for National Quotation Data Service April 25, 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 29, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis. 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 Nasdaq proposes to re-establish retroactively from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, a pilot program under Nasdaq Rule 7017(b), which reduced from $50 to $10 the monthly fee that non-professional users pay to receive National Quotation Data Service (“NQDS”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at *http://nasdaq.complinet.com* , Nasdaq's principal office, 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, Nasdaq 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 III below. Nasdaq 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 Nasdaq proposes to re-establish retroactively from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, the fee reduction pilot program under Nasdaq Rule 7017(b) that reduced from $50 to $10 the monthly fee that non-professional users pay to receive NQDS. NQDS delivers market maker quotations, Nasdaq Level 1 3 service (including calculation and display of the inside market), and last sale information that is dynamically updated on a real-time basis. NQDS data is used not only by firms, associated persons, and other market professionals, but also by non-professionals who receive the service through authorized vendors, including, for example, on-line brokerage firms. Prior to August 31, 2000, NQDS data was available through authorized vendors at a monthly rate of $50 for professionals and non-professionals users alike. In August 2000, the NASD, through Nasdaq, filed a rule change to reduce from $50 to $10 the monthly fee that non-professional users pay to receive NQDS data. The Commission approved the pilot on August 22, 2000, and the fee reduction commenced on August 31, 2000 on a one-year pilot basis. 4 On September 5, 2001, August 29, 2002, August 15, 2003, August 20, 2004, and January 24, 2006, the NASD, through Nasdaq, filed proposed rule changes to extend the pilot for additional one-year periods. 5 Nasdaq adopted the existing pilot program when it began operating as a national securities exchange in 2006, and is now proposing to extend the pilot of its own accord. 3 Pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 7011(b), Nasdaq separately distributes Level 1 data to non-professionals for a monthly fee of $1.00. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43190 (August 22, 2000), 65 FR 52460 (August 29, 2000). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44788 (September 13, 2001), 66 FR 48303 (September 19, 2001); 46446 (August 30, 2002), 67 FR 57260 (September 9, 2002); 48386 (August 21, 2003), 68 FR 51618 (August 27, 2003); 50318 (September 3, 2004), 69 FR 54821 (September 10, 2004); and 53531 (March 21, 2006); 71 FR 15506 (March 28, 2006). Nasdaq has consistently supported broad, effective dissemination of market information to public investors. Thus, Nasdaq is proposing to re-establish the fee-reduction pilot retroactively from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. Nasdaq notes that the existing pilot reduced by 80% the fees that non-professionals paid for NQDS data prior to August 31, 2000. Continuing the reduction of NQDS for non-professional users demonstrates Nasdaq's continued commitment to individual investors and responds to the dramatic increase in the demand for real-time market data by non-professional market participants. In addition, Nasdaq member firms often supply real-time market data to their customers through automated means. Thus, Nasdaq member firms' customers would benefit from the continued fee reduction. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section of the Act, 6 in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the Nasdaq operates or controls. Nasdaq also believes that the fee reduction enhances the public's access to market data that is relevant to investors when they make financial decisions and encourages increased public participation in the securities markets. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq 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. III. 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-NASDAQ-2007-030 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-NASDAQ-2007-030. 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 Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2007-030 and should be submitted on or before May 23, 2007. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change 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. 8 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 9 which requires that the rules of an exchange provide an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 8 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). The pilot lowers the monthly fee for non-professionals to receive NQDS from $50 to $10 a month. The Commission notes that the NQDS feature provides a mechanism to allow access to market data that is relevant to investors when they make financial decisions and that it does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving this proposed rule change before the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. 10 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2007-030), be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis, as a pilot, scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007. 11 *See id.* For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8310 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55672; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-029] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Require That Companies Submit Material News to Nasdaq Using Nasdaq's Electronic Disclosure System, Except in Emergency Situations April 26, 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 27, 2007, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) 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 Nasdaq. Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on April 25, 2007. 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 Nasdaq proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 4120, “Trading Halts,” and IM-4120-1, “Disclosure of Material Information,” to require Nasdaq-listed companies to submit material news to Nasdaq using Nasdaq's electronic disclosure submission system, except in emergency situations. To allow Nasdaq sufficient time to communicate with listed companies about the new requirement, Nasdaq will not implement the proposed rule change until approximately 90 days after the proposal is approved. Nasdaq's communication with companies regarding this proposed change will provide notice of the implementation date. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq, in the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at *http://www.nasdaq.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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 Pursuant to Nasdaq Rules 4310(c)(16) and 4320(e)(14), a Nasdaq-listed company is required, except in unusual circumstances, to make prompt disclosure to the public through any Regulation FD compliant method (or combination of methods) of disclosure of any material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of its securities or influence investors' decisions. These rules also require that the company provide prior notice of certain disclosures to Nasdaq's MarketWatch Department (“MarketWatch”). Current methods to provide prior notification to MarketWatch include electronic submission using Nasdaq's Electronic Disclosure submission service, fax, and phone. While the Electronic Disclosure submission service was introduced to companies in 2004, the majority of companies still rely primarily on fax submission to MarketWatch. 3 The material information from fax-delivered documents and telephonic notifications must be manually retyped into MarketWatch's database systems. Nasdaq notes that this uses staff time with no added regulatory benefit, introduces error risk, and results in a less robust audit trail. To reduce this administrative burden, Nasdaq has recently taken steps to make the Electronic Disclosure submission system more accessible to listed companies 4 and is now proposing to require that companies submit material news to Nasdaq using the Electronic Disclosure submission system, except in emergency situations. 3 Nasdaq notes, for example, that of approximately 4,200 material news notifications submitted to MarketWatch in January 2007, over 70% were submitted by fax. 4 According to Nasdaq, although the system was previously on a portion of the Nasdaq Online issuer Web site that offered limited access, it now resides on an area of Nasdaq Online that can be more easily and directly accessed by companies and their representatives. Using the Electronic Disclosure submission system, company employees and representatives can transmit disclosures to Nasdaq using a secure, encrypted connection. Upon receipt, Nasdaq reviews these disclosures to determine if a trading halt is appropriate. If Nasdaq believes that a halt may be appropriate, Nasdaq will confirm all disclosures with a company source before taking any action. Nasdaq does not disseminate any information received over the Electronic Disclosure submission system. Companies would still be required to notify Nasdaq before disseminating material news, even if an emergency situation prevented them from accessing the Electronic Disclosure submission system. Nasdaq would accept notification by phone or fax in these situations. Examples of the types of situations where Nasdaq believes this could occur include: Lack of computer or internet access; a technical problem on either the issuer or Nasdaq system, or an incompatibility between those systems; and a material development such that no draft disclosure document exists, but immediate notification to MarketWatch is important based on the event. Nasdaq believes that companies should be familiar with electronic submission of documents, given that most reports to the Commission must be submitted electronically over the Commission's EDGAR system. Furthermore, the Electronic Disclosure submission system has been designed to be simple to operate. As such, Nasdaq does not believe that the required use of the Electronic Disclosure submission system will be a burden on companies. If a company repeatedly fails to either notify Nasdaq prior to the distribution of material news, or to use the electronic disclosure submission system when Nasdaq finds no emergency situation existed, Nasdaq may issue a Staff Determination, pursuant to the Nasdaq Rule 4800 Series, 5 that is a public reprimand letter or, in extreme situations, a Staff Determination to delist the company's securities. In determining whether to issue a public reprimand letter, Nasdaq will consider whether the issuer has demonstrated a pattern of failures, whether the issuer has been contacted concerning previous violations, and whether the issuer has taken steps to assure that future violations will not occur. 5 *See* Amendment No. 1. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in particular. Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change would enhance its ability to timely review issuer disclosures, thereby facilitating the operation of a free and open market and protecting investors and the public interest. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq 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 Written comments were neither solicited nor received. 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 Nasdaq 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, as amended, 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-NASDAQ-2007-029 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-029. 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 at *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 the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-029 and should be submitted on or before May 23, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8313 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55670; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-41) Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate the Securities Manager Examination (“Series 12”) April 25, 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 April 19, 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 substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) 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)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is filing this proposal to eliminate the Securities Manager qualification examination (“Series 12”). 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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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 The purpose of this filing is to rescind the Series 12 examination. The Series 12 is owned and maintained by the NYSE and administered through the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. *Background.* NYSE Rule 342 (“Offices—Approval, Supervision and Control”) requires that member organizations be appropriately supervised. NYSE Rule 342.13 prescribes specific qualification standards for supervisors. 5 It requires that a Branch Office Manager (“BOM”) pass the General Securities Sales Supervisor examination (“Series 9/10”) or another examination acceptable to the Exchange. The Exchange currently accepts two alternatives to the Series 9/10 examination: The Series 12 examination and the General Securities Principal (“Series 24”) examination. 6 5 *See* also NYSE Rule 345 (“Employees—Registration, Approval, Records”), which requires supervisors of registered representatives to be registered. In addition, NYSE Rule 345.15 requires candidates for registration to meet training requirements and pass a qualification examination. 6 The Series 24 examination is only recognized by the Exchange if taken and passed on or after July 2, 2001. Further, unlike the Series 9/10 examination, which qualifies a person to supervise options and municipal business as well as equities business, the Series 24 examination only qualifies a person to supervise equities business. A BOM may qualify to supervise options and municipal securities business by passing the Registered Options Principal examination (“Series 4”) and the Municipal Securities Principal examination (“Series 53”), respectively. *See also* NYSE Information Memo 02-51 (November 12, 2002). Since the Series 12 examination qualifies a candidate as a Securities Manager, it has generally been utilized by individuals employed by a broker/dealer whose business is limited solely to equity and non-municipal fixed income securities. *Proposed Amendment.* The Exchange is seeking to rescind the Series 12 examination 7 primarily because its content is now covered by the Series 10 examination, which is the general securities portion of the Series 9/10 examination. The Series 12 consists of 100 multiple-choice questions covering the following four general areas of knowledge, which are also addressed in the Series 10: Sales Supervision; Account Supervision; Compliance, Recordkeeping and Financial Responsibility; and Regulations Affecting the Operation of Securities Markets. The primary difference between the Series 12 and the Series 10 is that the Series 12 does not cover municipal securities. Thus, candidates seeking a BOM and/or Securities Manager designation may qualify via the Series 10 examination (or the Series 24 examination) in lieu of the Series 12. 7 When originally introduced in 1964, the Series 12 was the standard BOM examination. The BOM examination was administered in this form until April 1984 when it was changed to the General Securities Sales Supervisor examination (“Series 8”), which was created from the Series 12, Series 24, Series 4 and Series 53 examinations. The two-part Series 8 examination later split into the Series 9/10 with the Web CRD conversion in August 1999. *See also* NYSE Information Memo 81-57 (December 1, 1981), which announced the approval of the Series 8 examination. Further, few candidates take the Series 12, and the number of candidates taking the exam annually has declined steadily over the past several years. For example, in 2000, 70 candidates took the Series 12. By 2003, only 20 candidates took the Series 12, and only 15 candidates took the exam in 2006. Maintenance of an examination program is a labor-intensive process because an exam must be reviewed and updated regardless of the number of candidates taking the exam. Rescission of the Series 12 will enable the Exchange to better allocate its resources to updating and administering the Series 10 examination. In order to notify candidates who are currently registering or preparing for the Series 12 examination, the Exchange published an Information Memo announcing the Exchange's intention to file this proposed rescission with the Commission. 8 In brief, it informed candidates who requested to take the Series 12 prior to April 23, 2007 that they will be registered to do so. 9 If, however, a candidate requests registration for the Series 12 on or after that date, the candidate will automatically be registered to take the Series 10 examination. 8 *See* NYSE Information Memo 07-32 (April 11, 2007). 9 Individuals wishing to take the Series 12 examination were instructed to make the appropriate request through the Central Registration Depository on or before Friday, April 20, 2007. Individuals who made an appropriate request by April 20, 2007 have 120 days to take the Series 12 examination. NYSE will also continue to grant Securities Manager qualification to individuals who have passed the Series 24 on or after July 2, 2001, except for those individuals who supervise options or municipal securities sales activity. *See* NYSE Information Memo 02-51 (November 12, 2002). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rescission is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(c)(3)(B) 10 of the Act. The Exchange believes, pursuant to that section, it has a responsibility to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons associated with Exchange member organizations. The Exchange notes that proposed rescission of the Series 12 will not result in any diminution of Exchange competency standards because the content of the Series 12 is covered by the Series 10 examination, and the Exchange prospectively will require all candidates who would have otherwise taken the Series 12 to take the Series 10. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3)(B). 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 The proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) 11 of the Act and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 12 in that it constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the Exchange. 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. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). 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-NYSE-2007-41 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-2007-41. 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 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-2007-41 and should be submitted on or before May 23, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-8311 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Disaster Declaration #10852 and #10853; New York Disaster #NY-00045 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-1692-DR), dated 04/24/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal Flooding. *Incident Period:* 04/14/2007 through 04/18/2007. *Effective Date:* 04/24/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/25/2007. *Economic Injury

(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 01/24/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 04/24/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Orange, Rockland, Westchester. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): New York: Bronx, Dutchess, Putnam, Sullivan, Ulster. Connecticut: Fairfield. New Jersey: Bergen, Passaic, Sussex. Pennsylvania: Pike. The Interest Rates are: Percent For Physical Damage: Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere: 5.750 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere: 2.875 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere: 8.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere: 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000 For Economic Injury: Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 108526 and for economic injury is 108530. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Jane M. Pease, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-8348 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: San Diego, CA AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared to identify a corridor for a future proposed highway and port of entry in San Diego County, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Healow, Project Development Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100, Sacramento, California 95814. Telephone:

(916)498-5849 or Susanne Glasgow, Deputy District Director, Environmental Division, California Department of Transportation, District 11, 4050 Taylor Street, MS-242, San Diego, CA 92110. Telephone:

(619)688-0100. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the General Services Administration (GSA), will prepare a phased environmental impact statement

(PEIS)on a proposal to identify and preserve a corridor for future State Route

(SR)11, identify an area for the future Otay Mesa East Port of Entry (POE), and study the functionality of the existing Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility

(CVEF)on eastern Otay Mesa in San Diego County. Identification and preservation of the highway corridor and port of entry will facilitate the application process for presidential permit for the POE, land use planning by local jurisdictions, and right-of-way acquisition for the future projects. Future SR11 would begin at approximately the SR905/SR125 interchange and proceed easterly approximately 2.7 miles to a new POE. The completed PEIS will facilitate Caltrans, FHWA, and GSA proceeding independently with right-of-way acquisition, designation, and project level environmental processing of their respective projects. Within the limits of and adjacent to the study area, there are biological resources, cultural resources, agricultural lands, cross-border concerns, and potential growth issues. In addition to the no action alternative, there are alternatives for two proposed corridors to two POE locations under consideration. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. A public scoping meeting will be held at an appropriate location in or near Otay Mesa in June 2007. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meeting and hearing. The draft PEIS will be available for public and agency review prior to the public hearing. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the PEIS should be directed to FHWA and/or Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The views of the agencies having knowledge about the historic resources potentially affected by the proposal or interested in the effects of the project on historic properties are solicited. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: April 23, 2007. Steve Healow, Project Development Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California. [FR Doc. E7-8444 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. Time and Date: May 21, 2007, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. Place: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at

(505)827-4565 to receive the toll free number and pass code needed to participate in this meeting by telephone. Status: Open to the public. Matters to be Considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at

(505)827-4565. Dated: April 25, 2007. William A. Quade, Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery. [FR Doc. 07-2181 Filed 4-30-07; 12:49 pm]

Connectionstraces to 7

Traces to 7 documents

CFR

U.S. Code